A Groundbreaking Scientific Discovery Just Created the Instruction Manual for Light-Speed Travel

Canbot

Unless they can build a proof of concept it is science fiction.

hfxB0oyA

The walls of the (warp) bubble generate the necessary momentum, akin to the momentum of balls rolling

Heh heh... Balls.

HugodeCrevellier

Love that sentence:

“The theory should work,” said Sonia Bacca, a theoretical physicist at the Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz and an author of the paper describing the discrepancy, which was published in Physical Review Letters. “We’re puzzled.”

ActuallyNot

1 matter+antimatter -> light + (optional other stuff)

Yes. Specifically γ rays in the case you mention of electron + positron.

2 light has no mass, only energy.

No. All energy (famously) has a mass equal to m = E/c² for the rest frame or more generally m = E/γc² , where γ = 1/√(1 − v² /c² ). It causes a gravitational field due to that, and it is affected by gravitational fields.

Mechanics. - On the Analytical Expression that must be given to the Gravitational Tensor in Einstein's Theory.

I'll have read. But I note that in 1917, General Relativity wasn't in it's current form. There was all that "lamba" stuff to be worked through.

How far can one get with a Linear Field Theory of Gravitation in Flat Space-Time?

I'll have a read of that too. Perusing superficially this seems to be an exploration and extension of special relativity though.

zyxzevn

matter+antimatter -> light + (optional other stuff)
light has no mass, only energy.
See

. Mechanics. - On the Analytical Expression that must be given to the Gravitational Tensor in Einstein's Theory.
A very nice paper by T. Levi-Civita in 1917, one of the inventors of Tensor Calculus, proving that Einstein's pseudotensor is nonsense because it leads to a first-order, intrinsic, differential invariant, which the pure mathematicians G. Ricci-Curbastro and T. Levi-Civita proved in 1900 does not exist!

. How far can one get with a Linear Field Theory of Gravitation in Flat Space-Time? An interesting treatment by Hermann Weyl (1944) proving that the standard linearization of Einstein's equations is inadmissible.

Sadly these problems did not lead to fundamental discussions.
Most discussions around GR end with logical fallacies to falsely support Einstein.

jerryk

Since we have no idea what the code actually look like, and since it is "fusion of theoretical insights from relativity with practical engineering expertise", we actually have no idea whatsoever what's happening.

ActuallyNot

matter can be turned into light.

I don't think that's strictly correct. What's true is that energy including light, has mass.

When matter in gravity becomes light (positron+electron), all gravity potential energy is lost.

I don't think that's true either. If a positron and an electron annihilate each other the γ rays have the same mass, and the same gravitational potential energy as that positron and electron did.

The main criticism of General Relativity is that Tensor mathematics is used completely wrong.

I've never heard that criticism. How are tensors incorrectly used in GR?

ActuallyNot

Now, does that sound like it proves space and time are related?

The second phenomenon corrected, for, the time dilation due to "the gravitational field strength experienced by the satellites" proves that gravitation is a curved time-space phenomenon. Which proves the basis of general relativity.

Does that sound like it proves nothing can go faster than the speed of light, now?

The first part, the time dilation due to the relative velocities between the satellites and Earth only proves that. But with the other correction, while you don't have proof of GR, you have a striking confirmation of one of its predictions.

jerryk

Well, that depends on what you mean by space and time, exactly, and, that depends on the structure of the mathematical abstraction you choose to employ to define them.

Hematomato

The algorithms they need to use to optimize GPS do not prove that light speed is an absolute limit. That is a separate question. But they do prove that space and time are related.

jerryk

OK. I'm not disputing that. All I'm saying, is that GPS really does not prove that space and time are related, or that light speed is an absolute limit.

Hematomato

Einstein is an important scientist who laid a foundational framework. Like all such scientists, some of his work has been improved upon, and some of it has been called into question.

zyxzevn

The military opened access to the GPS. The military also have a version with more resolution.

But regarding the clock, the resolution does not matter. One can still measure the drift in the clock.

jerryk

OK. Einstein is your God. Enough said!

Hematomato

I know that it exists, and I know that it is necessary.

That is enough to prove that space and time are related.

jerryk

The GPS correction codes are classified. You have no idea whatsoever what's actually in them.

jerryk

The correction coding is classified. You have no idea whatsoever what's actually in it.

Hematomato

Needing to adjust calcuations based on velocity absolutely proves that space and time are related.

jerryk

No, it doesn't. Not unless you're totally brainwashed.

zyxzevn

The GPS position is determined by the time it takes for satellite signals to arrive.
There is a small difference in clock-speed at different heights on earth.
In General Relativity this difference is predicted.

This can only be measured with very accurate atomic clocks. Too expensive for small GPS devices. The engineering solution (as in your quote) is to use the satellites to "calibrate" the clock of a GPS on earth.

The reason for "change in clock speed" are the more basic laws:
1- energy must be conserved,
2- matter can be turned into light.
When matter in gravity becomes light (positron+electron), all gravity potential energy is lost.
So to conserve energy light must somehow be different in gravity.

The main criticism of General Relativity is that Tensor mathematics is used completely wrong.
(a.o. by the inventor of Tensors himself).

What I see as a major problem with the theory of gravity = acceleration, is that electrical charged objects do not experience acceleration on their charges.
There is some complicated maths that is used as a mainstream explanation, but that maths looks false to me.

There are also some alternatives to General Relativity.
Ron Hatch and younger Einstein think that the the speed of light is different in different gravity strengths.

Hematomato

Now, does that sound like it proves space and time are related?

It sure does.

Does that sound like it proves nothing can go faster than the speed of light, now?

No, that's not a sufficient data point on its own to prove that. But it does lend credence to the model.

larrymartins

The Copenhagen interpretations popularity lies in its ability to reconcile quantum weirdness with observable phenomena offering a framework where uncertainty does not undermine materiality but rather defines it through probabilities.

Landscape Redesign Services in Conway

Titanic

Ok. Then sever the purse strings.

You want to give college students more rights than the common man. No, fuck that. I shouldn't have to pay for my ability to say what I fucking please

jerryk

Mediaeval kings had very little power over their subjects, military technology didn't allow them to project their power, that's why feudalism became popular -- everyone was dependent and worked for their local lord, not the King. Effectively, Universities acted like local Monasteries, largely independent of any central authority.

Titanic

government was too decentralized

They had a king and everything worked for the king and nobody had any rights to free speech or choosing their own leaders. If anything it was worse.

Physics