Friday, November 26

FTL:Faster than Logic - Reinterpreting Einstein

And now for something completely different.

Years ago I began developing a theory. It began in highschool when I read the formula for calculating thrust, which is Mass of the object times it's velocity ratioed to the mass of the propulsion times it's velocity.

m1*v1:m2*v2

At the time I read this I wss struck with a thought. Under Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, the mass of an object is said to increase (or "dilate") as a result of acceleration and thus as that object grows closer to the speed of light (also known as "C" as Eintsein assumes that this speed is constant throughout the universe) the mass of the object becomes so great that it becomes near infinite and since there is no power source or propulusion which is greater than infinity, the object can not continue to be accelerated and can not exceed "C".

My thought then and now was that this assumption was wrong.

The core of Einstein's relativity theory is based on the fact that all measurements of speed, time and mass are dependant on the relative relationship of the objects, and in the case of an object being pushed forward by a form of thrust which is self-contained - their relative relationship does not change. My theory is this: If the mass of the object is increasing as it accelerates, so too does the inertial mass of the thrust increase at exactly the same proportion, ergo - it is possible to have a "greater than infinite" power source if that power source itself is travelling at or near the speed of light in conjuction with the object.

Now this is quite contrary to modern thinking in physics but I believe that I can prove it, in fact it's already been shown to be true, like many other ideas which are hard to accept - the apparently lack of WMD's in Iraq, the idea that our President would blatantly lie to the American people - some very smart people have come up with some very clever ways to deny the obvious.

So as I said, I think Einstein was wrong.

Not entirely wrong, just a little - but it's enough.

Largely people have relied on several proven factors to support Einstein. The fastest objects that have been accelerated by man to date have been sub-atomic particles within a particle accelerator or "atom smasher". Using giant magnets in facilities up to a mile or more in length (or radius for circularly designed accelerators), we've been able to accelerate protons, neutrons and electrons to nearly the speed of light - but not beyond. In additional to "mass dilation", Einstein theorized that time would also become elongated for the high velocity objects, and that it's dimensions would shrink along our prespective. In short, it would "slow down and flatten". This has been shown to be consistent within an atom smasher as many particles which only exist for fractions of a second have shown to survive for considerably longer when travelling at speeds close to C. Additionally highly accurate atomic clocks when placed aboard space craft have shown to slow down and track time at a different rate than perfectly synchronized clocks which remained "stationary" on earth.

Scientist have looked at these factors and said - well, Einstein was right after all. And clearly when you have a propulsion system which is stationary (such as within an atom-smasher which can't move) and a target object which is moving, it does appear that the relative difference between their velocities does display the types of dilation affects upon mass, time and dimensions that Einstein predicted.

However, none of this involved an object where the propulsion system is self-contained, with a nearly unlimited power source that accelerated along with the object and was therefore not subjected to the relativistic forces of Einstein.

And then we invented Tachyons. (A term which has grown quite common since the advent of Star Trek -- "Mr. Worf, I believe we can break free of this tractor been if we fire a tachyon stream at them")

Originating in 1962, Tachyons are theoritical particles which can travel faster than the speed of light. Now, since we know Einstein in correct (sic) in his view that no normal object can be accelerated beyond C, tachyons must be made of some type of matter we have not yet seen - some matter which is somehow different from every other form of matter in the universe in order to accomplish such extrodinary speeds.

Yeah, right.

In my view, this too is incorrect. Travelling at FTL speeds does not require some special form of matter or energy, it's simply a matter of having a sufficiently powerful and self-contained propulsion source.

A bold claim I know, but can it be proven?

Yes, because it's already been proven.


Artist Concept of Pulsar
In 1981, I read a volume of Science Year Edition of World Book Encyclopedia. In that volume it described the discovery of two pulsars (neutron stars so old that they have burned out most of their energy and collapsed upon themselves). Pulsars which were not so strange in and of themselves, other than the fact that relative to each other, but not to earth - they were travelling at greater than the speed of light. Tachyon theory supposes that FTL particles are always travelling faster than C and can not decellerate to speeds less than light - however these Pulsars were travelling a speeds both exceeding C (relative to each other) and not exceeding C (relative to us here on Earth).

Imagine that, will ya?

To understand this, I believe you have to understand what a Pulsar is. It's called a pulsar because it emits periodic pulses of electromagnetic radiation. As we're grown to better understand them, we've realized that each of the "poles" of this former sun are actually spewing heat, light and radiation like a two sided sparkler, and just as such a firecracker would the pulsar is spinning, largely I think because the energy coming from it's two poles is not evenly balanced. It appears to us as a "pulse" only when one of it's two poles is facing toward the earth - like the light of a lighthouse. In my view, this off-balanced energy output acts as a propulsion system forcing the pulsar along a particular vector - constantly accelerating with a near unlimited amount of self-contained energy.

Hm, just what the Doctor ordered.

Einstein's relativistic "C" barrier has no affect on this object, it's not made of some wacky-matter called Tachyons, it simply continues to accelerate endlessly along a particular vector based on its unbalanced stream of gas jets it creates.

Superluminal Motion in 3C 279Further proof of this is the more recent discovery that the gases emitted by quasars (which are quite similar to pulsars) have been found to be moving away from the source object at speeds greater than "C". This was discovered in 1991 involving gases emitted by various quasars. Apparently, like pulsars, these objects emit gas jets as they spin on their way through space. Over the course of years of observations these gas jets have been shown to be travelling, when viewed in one particular direction as at several times 'c' - and in some cases as great as 4 times the speed of light.

    "There have been observations of jets of gas associated with distant quasars which appear to move faster than light. This is known as superluminal motion and is a well-understood phenomenon"

At this point in time it seems that the assumption is that this phenomenon is an optical illusion. It's believed in short, that because SRT (Special Relativity Theory) prohibits the possibility of objects moving at FTL speeds, that what astronomers are seeing isn't really what they are seeing.

What, are you kidding me?

In my view, this is just as wacky as Tachyon Theory, which has no basis in actual reality. It's just an attempt to deny what is obvious and apparently true. FTL is possible. No one has seen a tachyon, most scientist don't believe that they exist - but by god those quasar gas jets certainly must be made of tachyons and/or they can't really be moving at 4 times the speed of light as they appear to be can they - either that or they just aren't doing what they seem to be doing?

Well, yes, they can.

The issue in my view is that the gas jets have been emitted from a body which is in a constant state of self-generated acceleration. These jets of gas were emited years, even centuries ago and during the intervening time the body has continued to accelerate along a single vector until in has crossed the "C Horizon" between it and previously emitted gases which lie behind it along that particular vector. Thus far we have been unable to find similar gases emitted on the opposite side of these quasars - which raise a connundrum that has several possible solutions. One) The body has actually accelerated past those gases on it's far side as it's out-of-balance accerlation as pushed it passed them - therefore we do not see a corresponding set of gases on the opposite side of the quasar as we might expect to appear and Two) The gases may exist beyond the C Horizon in relation to the Earth's position and velocity leaving them undetectable to us - just as a plane flying toward you faster than the speed of sound can not be heard, an object flying toward or away from you faster than the speed of light can't be seen - this would account for why we can only detect these gases along certain vectors vectors which leave both it and the quasar within Earth's C Horizon and therefore simultaneously visible to us.

Once we accept the possibility of FTL travel under certain non-relativistic circmstances, there are several other questions and issues which clearly come to mind.

What if an object traveling at superluminal speeds strikes you? Clearly you wouldn't see it coming and wouldn't be able to avoid it, but what would be the result of an object with near infinite inertial mass coming into contact with a "relatively" stationary object?

Is such an impact even possible as part of Einsteinian theory supposes that an object travelling at near 'c' speeds would become effectively two-dimensional (or "flat") in perpendicular relationship to the vector of it's motion. Would that object even continue to exist within our dimensional plane if it were to become less then flat and essentially inverted within our dimensional plane?

Another factor is time dilation. Einstein supposes that objects moving at high velocity experience time at a slower rate than non-moving objects (although the rules of what is moving and is not moving is entirely up to the perspective of the viewer within "relativity" - therefore the passage of time itself is "relative") so would an object at superluminal speeds experience stopped time or even reversed time?

My current thinking on these question is considerably less dramatic than there were when I originally began devision my view that FTL was possible over 20 years ago. My feeling today is that the various Einsteinian dilations effects of time, inertial mass and dimension are not neccesaarily tied to the velocity of the object, they are tied to the acceleration of that object from one velocity and vector to another.

If the time dilation effects of high velocity travel where consistent regardless of any continued acceleration - then the internal clocks of satellites and spacecraft which remain in earth orbit travelling at 10-20,000 miles per hour would continue to slow and grow further and further out of sync with earth based timing devices. From what I can tell, although as I stated earlier that hyper-accurate atomic clocks have verfied the dilation effect, I have not heard of any evidence that this effect is cumulative or else our communication with our astronauts who have been on extended stays aboard SkyLab or the Russian Space Station would gradually begin to breakdown as their reality slowed further and further compared to our reality.

Therefore, something else is afoot.

I think that something is that the relativistic effects that Einstein predicted are in fact tied to the process of acceleration. Under Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, it is presumed that gravity is not the result of the attraction of large bodies to each other (as was supposed by Newton), but instead that gravity is the result of the impact of mass upon the fabric of space and the resulting tension created by that impact. If one were to imagine space as a large rubber sheet and the earth as a lead ball placed on the sheet - you can imagine that the ball would cause a dent in the sheet. When placing a second ball on the sheet, the process of the two moving together isn't neccearily the result of an attraction between them - rather it is the result of space's fabric releasing the tension between the two objects.

We generally think of gravity as being something different from acceleration, but I think that they are in fact one and the same. The "gravity" we feel coming from large heavenly bodies is the result of space springing back against the tension created by that body. Space creates the energy of acceleration, as Einstein explained in E=MC^2 (Energy is equal to the Mass of an Object times the Speed of Light Squared). Therefore it's clear that Mass - thru the fabric of space - creates Energy. Conversely energy when applied against mass, also causes a springing back of space against this intrusion upon it's texture and fabric. When you slam on the gas in your car - you're thrown against the back of your seat. As energy is applied to accelerate the car - space resists and springs back causing "G-Forces". In addition to these G-Forces, are all the other forces of Einsteinian relativism, time dilation, mass dilation and dimensional dilation all in proprotion to the level of energy applied to accerlate the object, and when this acceleration ends - so too do all these effects. As under the laws of inertia, the object will tend to continue in steady motion along it's current vector (pending forces of friction and drag) until another force of acceleration is applied. In short, inertia is space at "rest" with a non-accelerating object.

Again, current understanding of inertial theory assumes that an object moving at .99c, or just shy of the speed of light, would carry with it such great inertial mass that it could not possibly be accelerated further, but if we accept that the inertial mass is actually in connection that the attempted rate of acceleration - and not purely the current rate of velocity - then further accerlation does become possible.

So too would time dilation affects and dimensional distortion affects recede when an object is no longer in the process of acceler ation - so you probably could be hit by an object moving faster than 'c', you just couldn't see it coming and duck in time.

As a matter of fact, particles of light - usually called photons - happen to be moving at the speed of light and apparently have not acquired "near infinite mass" or else they would bore through stationary every object they come into contact with like some form of super laser.

"Watch out - he's pointing that flashlight at your head -- oh, no too late....sob"

We all know this doesn't happen. Particles of light bounce when they impact stationary objects and bend as they pass through high gravity fields.

With a better understanding of the nature of space will come a better understanding it's relationship with gravity and accerleration forces. From this understanding could we find a new way to generate energy using gravity waves? Could we find a way to generate sustain and direct anti-gravity (deccerlation) waves?

I don't know.

I fully admit that I am not an astro-physicist. I am essentially a layman, but then when Einstein developed the core of his theories, he was a 20-odd year old patent clerk. In fact, not being indoctrinated into all of the traditional modes of thought of modern astro-physics may be a major advantage in examining these issues. None of this would have occured to me if I had simply accepted every doctrine of Einstein's without question.

I have attempted at various times to discuss this theory with friends and aquaintences who are physics majors, and the only response I've received is that my basic premise uses the Newtonian formula for thrust and that Newtonian formulas don't apply within an Einsteinian context. Maybe not, but I would assume then that there is an Einsteinian equivalent formula for thrust which takes the constancy of c into account and essentially zeros itself out at speeds approaching light. I don't know if the existence of such a formula neccesarily invalidates what I've stated here or not, because the real test is always to find real life examples which validate the assumptions of any formula. Einstein's formulas on gravity were based on his assumptions of how space and mass affect one another and were also confirmed when they were used to accurately account for a wobble in the orbit of Mercury that Newtonian formulas failed to predict. Similarly any updated theories by Einstein on mass and thrust would also need to be validated, rather than simply assumed to superceed Newton.

I hope, that at best that by articulating these ideas I might inspire some debate and reflection among the experienced physicists who have the resources to better test and verify the validity or lack-of-validity of what I present.

Thank you.

F. Vyan Walton
Copyright 2004 and All Rights Reserved (Please request permission before reposting or quoting).