Crossfire Fusor

[cosmos]

In my opinion, the Relativism seems to be so focused on Photons and forgot that Light is an Electromagnetic Wave (EM).

How to prove that is possible be faster than an EM?
EM has an absence of acceleration.
The EM is slowed down by capacitances in a wave guide, also in a metallic wire.
In fact, an EM propagates in a wave guide by motions of electric charges.
Technically is possible to increase the capacitances until a physical object can travel faster than the EM in a wave guide.
Relatively faster than the EM.

The wave guide may be similar to the outer space, both in electrostatic equilibrium like a Faraday Cage in where the resulting electric field is null.

Light is an EM.
Then the light can be slowed down by capacitances between celestial bodies, and a physical object may be not.
In particles accelerators the charged particles cause motion of electric charges, then I believe that the physical object must be neutral.

It is only a theory.
Also, the 300000000 m/s may be not the limit for the speed of light.

[alexjrgreen]

How to prove that is possible be faster than an EM?

There's a rather pretty debate about whether Gravity travels faster than light...

Light is a transverse wave. If some kind of aether existed and was compressible, faster longitudinal waves might be possible.

[Billy Catringer]

Gravity does not travel faster than light because it is already there. It is a shape in space-time--at least I think that is what Einstein said.

Now, if you want to argue that the current body of theory is a mess, I'll agree with you. The two main theories don't agree on the crucial matter of time, that is to say, they do not agree on how time and the universe relate to one another. So far though, no one has found a hole in either theory by experiment.

[MSimon]

Gravity does not travel faster than light because it is already there. It is a shape in space-time--at least I think that is what Einstein said.

Now, if you want to argue that the current body of theory is a mess, I'll agree with you. The two main theories don't agree on the crucial matter of time, that is to say, they do not agree on how time and the universe relate to one another. So far though, no one has found a hole in either theory by experiment.

So how stiff is space-time when it comes to movement of the space-time benders? When one of the benders moves how does space-time adjust and at what speed?

[Billy Catringer]

So how stiff is space-time when it comes to movement of the space-time benders? When one of the benders moves how does space-time adjust and at what speed?

Assuming that I am understanding Unka Al correctly, gravity changes at the rate of exactly one C. Beyond that, I run out of answers, because gravitational "fields" are actually distortions in space-time. If space-time is distorted and everything is relative, how do you say anything about where-when? According to Einstein's GTR, time is not everywhere the same and neither is space. This is in great contrast to the theories of quantum madness. QM insists that time is everywhere the same and that space is virtually nonexistent. I suspect, have not read or heard, that the our menagerie of quantum critters think of space as little more than an energy barrier or some kind of numeric plaything belonging to the Great Cosmic Bookie.

Right now I am voting that both of them have got something vitally important wrong, but cannot tell you what that vital something or other might be. The big hairy but of it is, QM and QTR is all we have to go on. Any proposed action based on the idea that either or both theories are wrong, must have a replacement theory or theories or at least a reasonable working hypothesis attached thereto prior to me getting involved in said action. What life I have left ain't much, but I cling to it because I strongly dislike the alternative.

[MSimon]

So how stiff is space-time when it comes to movement of the space-time benders? When one of the benders moves how does space-time adjust and at what speed?

Assuming that I am understanding Unka Al correctly, gravity changes at the rate of exactly one C. Beyond that, I run out of answers, because gravitational "fields" are actually distortions in space-time. If space-time is distorted and everything is relative, how do you say anything about where-when? According to Einstein's GTR, time is not everywhere the same and neither is space. This is in great contrast to the theories of quantum madness. QM insists that time is everywhere the same and that space is virtually nonexistent. I suspect, have not read or heard, that the our menagerie of quantum critters think of space as little more than an energy barrier or some kind of numeric plaything belonging to the Great Cosmic Bookie.

Right now I am voting that both of them have got something vitally important wrong, but cannot tell you what that vital something or other might be. The big hairy but of it is, QM and QTR is all we have to go on. Any proposed action based on the idea that either or both theories are wrong, must have a replacement theory or theories or at least a reasonable working hypothesis attached thereto prior to me getting involved in said action. What life I have left ain't much, but I cling to it because I strongly dislike the alternative.

Fortunately for engineering as long as we have equations that work in the domains required it doesn't matter which theory is right. For instance most engineering is done with Newtonian mechanics, because in 99.99% of the cases it works well enough and we have ways of discerning when we have to tackle motion problems in the .01% of the cases where relativity is the better way. i.e. pay no attention to relativity unless your speeds exceed .1 C. (in most cases).

[Billy Catringer]

So how stiff is space-time when it comes to movement of the space-time benders? When one of the benders moves how does space-time adjust and at what speed?

Assuming that I am understanding Unka Al correctly, gravity changes at the rate of exactly one C. Beyond that, I run out of answers, because gravitational "fields" are actually distortions in space-time. If space-time is distorted and everything is relative, how do you say anything about where-when? According to Einstein's GTR, time is not everywhere the same and neither is space. This is in great contrast to the theories of quantum madness. QM insists that time is everywhere the same and that space is virtually nonexistent. I suspect, have not read or heard, that the our menagerie of quantum critters think of space as little more than an energy barrier or some kind of numeric plaything belonging to the Great Cosmic Bookie.

Right now I am voting that both of them have got something vitally important wrong, but cannot tell you what that vital something or other might be. The big hairy but of it is, QM and QTR is all we have to go on. Any proposed action based on the idea that either or both theories are wrong, must have a replacement theory or theories or at least a reasonable working hypothesis attached thereto prior to me getting involved in said action. What life I have left ain't much, but I cling to it because I strongly dislike the alternative.

Fortunately for engineering as long as we have equations that work in the domains required it doesn't matter which theory is right. For instance most engineering is done with Newtonian mechanics, because in 99.99% of the cases it works well enough and we have ways of discerning when we have to tackle motion problems in the .01% of the cases where relativity is the better way. i.e. pay no attention to relativity unless your speeds exceed .1 C. (in most cases).

Praise be to Athena, the gods shew us a little mercy.

[cosmos]

I am not an expert in particles accelerator,
but I believe that the charged particles cause motion of electric charges producing a
deceleration force that could affect the measurements at high velocities.

It is known that a neutral object, like a neutron, have low probability of be stopped by magnetic and electric fields.

Some experiments states that the neutrinos can exceed the speed of light:
"A few of the neutrinos that pass through the detector interact to produce electrons that travel faster than the speed of light in the heavy water."
http://hitoshi.berkeley.edu/neutrino/neutrino3.html
"The Solar Neutrino Problem" do some inferences that neutrinos can be faster than Light in the outer space.

Taking this into account, I actually believe that is possible to a neutral object be faster than Light.

[Art Carlson]

"A few of the neutrinos that pass through the detector interact to produce electrons that travel faster than the speed of light in the heavy water."

They don't travel faster then c, the speed of light in vacuum. The speed of light in water is lower than c and can be exceeded.

[imaginatium]

Before debating, whether or not, the crossfire fusor, can exceed the speed of light; shouldn't we establish that it is a viable power source? It makes more sense, to prove it as a means of generating electricity. After that, we can decide, if we can to use it to visit Alpha Centauri.

[Billy Catringer]

"A few of the neutrinos that pass through the detector interact to produce electrons that travel faster than the speed of light in the heavy water."

They don't travel faster then c, the speed of light in vacuum. The speed of light in water is lower than c and can be exceeded.

And, as far as neutrinos are concerned, water is just about the same thing as a vacuum. Light is obliged to slow down in water, but not the neutrinos.

[D Tibbets]

You don't need to use nutrinos as an example of exceeding the speed of light in a medium other than a vacuum. Cherenkov radiation is a good example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation

In fact, I believe some researchers have managed to slow the speed of light down so much in special materials, that a car can exceed its speed in that system. What is important is the speed limit of light in a VACUUM.
Indeed, I'm not certain that calling the speed of the light signal through matter is really, 'the speed of light'. The photons can be absorbed by electrons (or other atomic structures), or bounce around like billiard balls. If absorbed, the electrons think about it, then spit out a new photon of exactly the same energy*.It is not really the speed of a single photon through a substance, but the eventual production of a new escaping photon that cannot be differentiated from the original- so for practicle purposes it can be considered as the "original" photon.

Speaking of gravity, I beleive most believe that it travels at the speed of light- at least the gravity waves from star explosions, black hole mergers, etc, that experments like LIGO are trying to detect.

* The photoelectric effect. I'm uncertain of how acurate this intrepretation is, ie - how all the different light wavelegths fits into this quantum model, especially the wavelengths longer than the excitation energy of the electrons. Black body radiation concepts may work better.
Atoms are heated by the light (absorbed photon)- vibrate faster, reemit an identicle photon to return to it's (atom) starting state.

Dan Tibbets

[krenshala]

Speaking of gravity, I beleive most believe that it travels at the speed of light- at least the gravity waves from star explosions, black hole mergers, etc, that experments like LIGO are trying to detect.

The problem with that is aberration which shows, for example, that the direction of the force of gravity from the sun always points directly* at the sun's calculated position in the sky and not its light-lagged visible position. The information I read indicated that if gravity is not instantaneous then it would have to be at least a thousand times faster than the speed of light in vacuum to match observations.

* or as directly as we are able to calculate, anyway.

[cosmos]

As far as I can understand, the Relativism invented the Photon concept for explaining how the Light propagate in the outer
space (aether) as a particle and Not as an electromagnetic wave,
and again seems to forget that the other electromagnetic waves propagate in metallic wires, waveguides, heavy water and also in the outer space.
In my opinion, the Photon sounds like a workaround.

[D Tibbets]

Actually, I beleive the particle nature of light is convienient for certain observations- like the photoelectric effect, and light propagation through a Vacuum without an Aether. The wave nature of light is more convient for things like refraction and interference. Neither can describe light in all situations (at least I don't think so). If anyone can ever come up with a single all inclusive description of light that is not based on philosophy ( ie- it is testable) they will surely get a free trip to Sweden.

Several points- based on generalizations since I'm to lazy to look up the details:

Special relativity with it's light speed limit is extreamly well tested. Your space ship will not go faster than light. But, for those on board the spaceship, they may think they are going faster due to time dialation. There is a formula that calculates this effect. I don't think the effect is equivalent to measuring your apparent speed on a one to one basis .

Acellerating to near the speed of light at one G takes almost one year. So, if you were acellerating at one G to '3 times the speed of light' and then decellerating, it would take over 5 years, and that would only give an average speed of 1.5X light. So, to acellerate to ~ 3X light and then cruse for perhaps 1/3 the duration of the flight, then decellerate, would give you an average speed of ~ 2X light or ~ 2 year flight time to alpha Centari. this would require acelleration of 3.5 to 4 G during the 16 months of acelleration and decelleration. Not a confortable ride for any passengers.

Finally, concerning fuel efficiency.
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3c.html
Pure energy drives- photonic or antimatter rockets can theoretically provide an ISP of several hundred million sec. - perhaps up to 10 times the speed of light if you start with twice as much fuel mass compared to the spaceship/ payload mass. If the spaceship / payload = 1 million pounds, you need 2 million pounds of antimatter- matter mixture (for fusion propulsion you might greatly reduce your fuel load if you could harvest interstellar hydrogen with Bussard's RamScoop concept (still limited to a small fraction of light speed due to limitations of the RamScoop)). This would get you up to 5 X light speed (acelleration and decelleration). Even if your fusion reactor is very efficient (and very powerful to provide the nessisary thrust for high G) it is only ~ 1 % as efficiet as the antimatter rocket (<1% of the mass is converted into energy in fusion vs 100 % conversion in antimater reactions). So a reasonable ISP ( ~ exaust velocity / 10) would be a few million sec. Even being very generous, reaching speeds of 1/10th the speed of light would be phenominal!

We need to look for cheats like Warp drives or worm holes.


Dan Tibbets