Mr. Dennis;
Thank you for your kind response. No, this is not metaphysics!
I am quite serious. I am talking about a power source that can theoretically move a
physical object at a speed faster than the speed of light (Faster Than Light; FTL). By
current theory, this is "impossible" and easy to scoff at. The essential "paradox" of
Relativity is this: two events which are ordered one way in one frame can be ordered
opposite in another.
Permit me if I may;
The relativistic equations for translation between two frames (which are moving at
velocity v in the direction of their z-axes relative to each other) are as follows:
x' = x
y' = y
z' = (gamma)*z - v*(gamma)*t
t' = (gamma)*t - ( v/(c^2) )*(gamma)*z
1
where (gamma) = -----------------------
{ 1 - (v^2)/(c^2) }^0.5
Note this last term. What is just a matter of distance in the unprimed frame can become
a change of time in the primed frame. You can check this in any appropriate
college-level text.
Example 1
Imagine that a fast-moving spaceship goes through a short tunnel as it passes by Earth.
The tunnel is 60 meters long, while the ship is 40 meters long and moving at 0.87c
(gamma ~= 2). Some "relativity basher" on Earth decides to close the spaceship inside
that tunnel.
Now, the observer on Earth sees the spaceship as being length contracted. So it is just
20 meters long, and can easily fit inside the 60m tunnel. He observes the spaceship's
approach vector, then times the front and rear doors to both close simultaneously as
soon as the spaceship fully enters the tunnel, trapping the spaceship inside.
Earth POV: /------------ =SS> R F
\------------/
Spaceship Tunnel
...........................(time passes)...
/------------ R =SS> F
\------------/
However, from the ship's point of view - things are quite different. It is standing still,
and the tunnel is moving "at" it.
Further, due to length contraction, the tunnel is only 30 meters long, so there's no way
that the ship is going to fit inside. What the ship sees is that the front doors close first,
then as the ship crashes through them, the rear doors are closed behind it.
Spaceship POV: /------ ===SS==> R F
\------/
...........................(time passes)...
/------ R ===SS==>
\------/
Now actually, there is no violation of causality in this example. In either frame there is
no event which precedes the cause. You have to look at it in practical terms.
Say, for example, that instead of being timed, the front doors were wired to close only
once the rear doors have closed behind the rear of the spaceship as it enters the tunnel.
Thus the closing of the front doors is now caused by the closing of the rear doors.
The trick here is this: the signal that the rear doors have closed must traverse the length
of the tunnel at light speed. On the time scale of events here, that takes considerable
time. In both cases, then, the spaceship has passed through the front of the tunnel
before the signal can reach the front doors. When the signal does reach them, the
doors close on the same point on the ship: just behind the midpoint. As long as the
signal does not go FTL, causality is safe.
Example 2
Now having given you a non-FTL example, I can give a typical FTL paradox.
Say that a hyperspace-capable spaceship X is sitting still beside Star A. It activates its
"jump drive", disappears, and one day later, it appears beside Star B, 1 light-year
away.
Spaceship POV:
=X=
\|/ \|/
-A- -----------1 light year------------------------ -B-
/|\ /| .......................(one day passes)....
=X=
\|/ \|/
-A- -----------1 light year------------------------ -B-
/|\ /|
But now imagine that another spaceship Y is flying past Star B going at 0.9c away
from Star B, so there is a considerable dilation effect between its view of things and
spaceship X.
From spaceship Y's point of view, everything is dilated according to the formulas. In its
reference frame, ship X appeared by Star B before it disappeared from Star A. About
five months after it appeared by Star B, it disappeared from A.
=X=
\|/ \|/
-A- -----------1 light year------------------------ -B-
/|\ /| *Y*
.......................(five months pass)....
pop!
\|/ \|/
-A- -----------1 light year------------------------ -B-
/|\ /|
Thus, spaceship Y activates its "hyperspace drive", and catches spaceship X by
surprise - before it left Star A.
Relativity is based on two assumptions:
1) All observers see light moving at the same speed.
2) All Galilean frames of reference are valid. You will see the same laws of physics in
every frame.
The experimental success of Relativity has been extremely successful - from detailed
measurements of kinematics at relativistic speeds, to the well-known E=m*c^2, to
prediction of the bending of light as it passes by the Sun due to gravitational effects.
Here is my point: if a device exists that appears to "violate" these known laws of
physics, it could be that one of these assumption is wrong - either a very small error on
the observed speed of light; or a "preferred frame" scheme. If so, then Relativity (as we
understand it) is invalid.
However, whatever theory replaces it must also explain everything which Relativity
predicted so accurately. The current assumption is that this new theory would be
extremely complex.
My belief is that there is, in fact, a "different" explanation, and it is very simple, not very
complex. This search for a simple explanation is the basis for my research. I have seen
the devices that operate on the different explanation, but am forced to back-engineer
the math to explain how they actually operate. It was, as you can imagine, quite
frustrating. The metaphor I like to use is the "mood ring" from some years ago. If you
showed a mood ring to a "primitive" race (primitive technologically) you can imagine
that it would not take long for all sorts of crazy things to happen; new religions, etc.
The truth of the mood ring is basic and simple, but imagine trying to figure out how it
works just by looking at it!
This is my quest; solving the riddle of the power source and propulsion system of the
future. I have more data than I am sharing here in public, as you can well imagine.
Very Best Regards,
Robert N. Lazar |
