FTL

[Seten]

If you have a craft capable of relativistic speeds, and whilst travelling close to the speed of light; if an extremely compact carbon nanotube drill were to extend as it unfolds out from the front of the craft, proceeding to spin one section at a time from its tip to its base, it would eventually collapse into a series of black holes from front to back in sequence. This will reduce the length of the drill thereby pulling the craft behind it as the drill continues to extend at an exponential velocity thereby pulling the craft behind it an exponential velocity as well. This superluminal acceleration can continue to increase exponentially until the craft runs out of carbon nanotubes. 

The issue is that the craft is likely to become a black hole first due to the low density of carbon nanotubes, nothing else would hold together as it extends under this type of relativistic mass. The rate of the extension of the drill itself adds relativistic mass to the tube, but each section of the drill would still have to be capable of spinning incredibly fast in order for it to become a black hole before the craft behind and this would require an appropriately powerful EM field. Whatever mechanism is generating it could only be housed in one section of the tube at a time in the proper sequence for the mechanism to work in a way so as to jump into FTL mode, which means the mechanism for spinning the CNT section would have to be either extremely small or foldable itself. 

Edited yesterday at 05:44 AM by Seten

[Seten]

Once the entire drill has collapsed into condensate space there's also an instantaneous return to normal speeds no matter how fast its accelerating up until that point, removing the need for some arduous way to undo the monstrous velocities achieved. As for the drill itself electroactive polymers can unfold in such a way as described. Like the relativistic propulsion method itself, it uses powerful surges in a controlled EM field to strip a plasma of its electrons and drag massive amounts of electrical charge to the front of the spacecraft redistributing its mass from rear to stern thereby creating a constant acceleration of 1 G conducive to the crew's bone density given a long trip. This is known as the Mach effect, which is the fastest mainstream propulsion method proposed yet if it can be maintained for a long enough period of time with higher acceleration than chemical rockets yet less energy lost than if it expelled the plasma for higher acceleration allowing an overall greater top speed perhaps in the range where the relativistic mass accumulates greatly enough for the FTL mechanism to kick in. This is also how the drill is spun. For the actual impulse drive specs please PM me. 

Edited yesterday at 06:12 AM by Seten

[Markus Hanke]

1 hour ago, Seten said:

if an extremely compact carbon nanotube drill were to extend as it unfolds out from the front of the craft, proceeding to spin one section at a time from its tip to its base, it would eventually collapse into a series of black holes from front to back in sequence.

No it wouldn’t. “Relativistic mass” isn’t a source of gravity; this outdated concept isn’t used any longer precisely because it lends itself to this type of misconception.

[Seten]

23 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

No it wouldn’t. “Relativistic mass” isn’t a source of gravity; this outdated concept isn’t used any longer precisely because it lends itself to this type of misconception.

It is believed that length contraction doesn't necessarily work the same as increasing mass-density but there is a lack of ability to achieve the velocities required to confirm or deny this "thought experiment". I can experimentally think of another way in which acceleration would create a drag upon a vessel that is equivalent to mass-density:

If a relativistic collision generates more energy than a mere high-speed collision, and there exists a correlation of mass and energy as Einstein and co. proved, then does a fast-moving object not contain greater amounts of mass in proportion to a greater amount of potential energy? Likely so. 

Time dilation has its own paradox as well, if a propulsion system is burning fuel in order to accelerate for months on end; relative to the engine itself, its only burning fuel for a few seconds at close to the speed of light. Would there be some sort of relativistic conservation of energy? Unlikely. 

I come from the school of existential thought; we study a thing such as a fundamental interaction, or the light-energy in and of itself, without understanding what and why that thing is. I like to begin my knowledge base with a working concept of a thing, e.g. gravitational mass and the light-energy, before concluding on whatever effect it has in the natural world. 

Edited yesterday at 06:25 AM by Seten

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Seten said:

If a relativistic collision generates more energy than a mere high-speed collision, and there exists a correlation of mass and energy as Einstein and co. proved, then does a fast-moving object not contain greater amounts of mass in proportion to a greater amount of potential energy? Likely so. 

If it has more energy it has more energy. “Relativistic mass” is just a proxy for total energy. 

Quote

Time dilation has its own paradox as well, if a propulsion system is burning fuel in order to accelerate for months on end; relative to the engine itself, its only burning fuel for a few seconds at close to the speed of light. Would there be some sort of relativistic conservation of energy? Unlikely. 

“Relative to the engine itself” is the same frame as the rocket. There’s no time dilation between them. 

“months on end” in the rest frame might be seconds in the rocket frame, but in the rocket frame, the trip isn’t as far, by the same proportion. There is conservation of energy, but that only applies within a frame. Quantities that are the same in all frames are invariant, and energy is not invariant - it’s relative.

[Seten]

7 hours ago, swansont said:

If it has more energy it has more energy. “Relativistic mass” is just a proxy for total energy. 

“Relative to the engine itself” is the same frame as the rocket. There’s no time dilation between them. 

“months on end” in the rest frame might be seconds in the rocket frame, but in the rocket frame, the trip isn’t as far, by the same proportion. There is conservation of energy, but that only applies within a frame. Quantities that are the same in all frames are invariant, and energy is not invariant - it’s relative.

The travel distance is not shortened though, merely the time it takes to cover it relative to the crew. Relative to the crew the entire universe is in a state of accelerated evolution. The length contraction only effects the volume of the spacecraft in the instance of special relativity, it's still covering the same distance. It seems like the next part is trying to turn my own argument (ex. an energy-potential-to-mass equivalence) around, with the whole energy variance. However, these are two very different concepts. A release in energy correlates to a consumption of matter in terms of the engine, the idea that this is happening more slowly in one frame and more quickly in another contradicts special relativity as explained within the first few sentences of this post. The definition of time dilation doesn't seem to be able satisfy any other conclusion, so we're left with a dubious conversion rate of matter to energy which is a paradox. I have zero issues with general relativity, its special relativity to that to me is paradoxical. Anything regarding time travel, forward or backward, has issues in my mind because I don't like paradoxes. If stuck between having to understand the grandfather paradox and just removing the notion of time travel altogether then my school of thought automatically removes the latter for practical efficiency. The same goes for special relativity. 

Special relativity was concluded in order to explain why we see an object moving toward us at the same time we see a stationary object despite there being an addition of velocities by light reflected off the former object as Carl Sagan explained Einstein's thought experiment. In my first topic I gave a completely different definition for the apparent the Doppler shift in light as an object moves away from us or toward us in (ex. distant galaxies). Again, we could just be wrong about what light-energy actually is and therefore how it behaves (is that universal velocity of 299 million m/s that light always clocks in at a constant or is this velocity an average overall distance over time due to the inverse square law implying that light experiences spikes in velocity that always occur at certain points along its journey). Any of my own thought experiments that are contrary to some parts of Einstein's theory; special relativity, are conceptually more in line with Occam's razor. Shortcuts are the key to being good at math, perhaps the same applies to logic. Yes, I am aware of the experiments regarding time dilation using clocks on earth versus clocks on a space station or a plane. These experiments don't involve variations in velocity great enough to be considered scientifically satisfactory. We'd need a very very fast spacecraft, not a chemical rocket or a slingshot satellite. 

Edited 18 hours ago by Seten

[Seten]

1 hour ago, Seten said:

A release in energy correlates to a consumption of matter in terms of the engine, the idea that this is happening more slowly in one frame and more quickly in another contradicts special relativity as explained within the first few sentences of this post.

I didn't word that as "Occam's razor" as I should have. The simplest way to explain this particular paradox is that relative to the outside universe the spacecraft should run out of fuel after x distance is covered, yet relative to the crew it does not run out of fuel at that point due to time dilation. This occurrence would be physically impossible, time dilation doesn't help with that. Length contraction would help with it if the entire universe were shrunk, however only the spacecraft gets shrunk under the notion of special relativity, the entire universe does quite the opposite relative to the crew. 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Seten said:

The travel distance is not shortened though, merely the time it takes to cover it relative to the crew.

That's not what Einstein’s relativity says

 

1 hour ago, Seten said:

Relative to the crew the entire universe is in a state of accelerated evolution. The length contraction only effects the volume of the spacecraft in the instance of special relativity, it's still covering the same distance.

Nope. Relativistic effects happen to other things (time for a moving observer, distances you measure), not you - your own ship stays the same (length and clock)

1 hour ago, Seten said:

It seems like the next part is trying to turn my own argument (ex. an energy-potential-to-mass equivalence) around, with the whole energy variance. However, these are two very different concepts. A release in energy correlates to a consumption of matter in terms of the engine, the idea that this is happening more slowly in one frame and more quickly in another contradicts special relativity as explained within the first few sentences of this post.

No, it only contradicts your misunderstanding of relativity. The stationary observer and rocket observer will disagree on the rate of energy being used and the time, since these are relative quantities, and quite clearly labeled as such in the theory (seeing as the equations for them are speed-dependent)

Any paradox here is of your own fabrication, by mis-applying the theory and then discovering a contradiction. SR is just some algebra, and that math is self-consistent. Contradictions must lie elsewhere.

 

[Seten]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Nope. Relativistic effects happen to other things (time for a moving observer, distances you measure), not you - your own ship stays the same (length and clock)

Relative to the crew yes everything stays the within the proximity of their ship but the universe outside appears to get larger (redshift) in front of the spacecraft. I realize that the universe behind the ship appears to shrink (blueshifts), however with the redshift in front this just simply equates to the outside universe staying the same size so there is no reduction in the distance in which the spacecraft must cover. You're thinking of a warp drive, not the FTL of this topic which essentially an accelerating series of folded space (wormhole literally bored by a drill), a warp drive expands space at the rear and shrinks space at the stern to negate the effects mentioned in the first couple sentences of this post. 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

The stationary observer and rocket observer will disagree on the rate of energy being used and the time

That's the paradox. Let's say x=distance at which all the fuel is consumed for acceleration. Relative to the crew point x is reached in seconds, relative to a normal reference frame point x is reached in months. The crew should run out of fuel in seconds, but time dilation says they don't run out of fuel for months (same amount of time as the outside observer). Logic is broken here, as is the case with the grandfather paradox. Nothing about special relativity says the crew experiences their engines to consume less fuel or release less energy nor any change in local time. The engine appears to run as it is supposed to appear to run, yet a greater distance is covered in the same amount of time somehow. While it takes more and more energy to push the spacecraft it would have to run out faster, but the outside universe would also have to observe this as simply an antimatter thruster or something. That's just a different propulsion design it doesn't fix the paradox. 

If I'm misunderstanding something about special relativity it hasn't been pointed it out yet as far as I'm aware. Yes, in the front of the spaceship the crew is supposed to observe a peripheral blueshift, and behind they would observe a peripheral redshift, but in the center of their forward or backward view it is the opposite. This is the reason everything appears to have less radius; however, I can't see how these centers versus peripheral distortions shrinks anything. Everything appears to be both shrinking and expanding, so as to stay the same size overall. There is tunnel, the outside universe goes from a sphere into a strip of spaghetti relative to the crew. The length increases as the volume of the universe appears to tunnel forward and backward in order to compensate for the length contraction that an observer from a normal reference frame experiences happening to the ship. 

I just realized this entire debate has been off topic as the concerns brought up Markus Hanke are entirely irrelevant to the effective practicality of this FTL mechanism:

Even if I don't agree with the possibility of travelling forward in time in close to the speed of light, the paragraph above clearly shows you how wormholes work in this type of FTL drive, regardless of whether there is a relativistic black hole or not space is still warping enough for the tip of the drill to rapidly collapse into oblivion which effectively works for this type of drive. I never claimed that the gravity of some infinitesimal black hole made from the matter of a few carbon nanotubes pulls the craft with gravity it is the collapse in volume that does this. The tip of the drill is experiencing greater length contraction than the craft that is pushing that drill forward due to the added momentum of its spin. The drill segments don't have to become black holes for this to work, I just happen believe that they would be in the real world. The only difference the tip of the drill doesn't become a black hole than your spaceship will have an extremely long antenna in front of it when the drill stops spinning, which actually allows you to fold it back and reuse it instead of having to rebuild one at your destination in order to go back to earth. Plus, time dilation will have greatly shortened the trip for the crew. Special relativity adds every advantage to this type of drive so me arguing against its merit still says something about the credibility of my argument against as it would be less convenient for this type of drive. 

Of course, with the possibility of time dilation at close to the speed of light you don't technically need an FTL to get where you're going in your lifetime, you just need it if you want an earth to go back to. 

Edited 15 hours ago by Seten

[swansont]

59 minutes ago, Seten said:

Relative to the crew yes everything stays the within the proximity of their ship but the universe outside appears to get larger (redshift) in front of the spacecraft. I realize that the universe behind the ship appears to shrink (blueshifts), however with the redshift in front this just simply equates to the outside universe staying the same size so there is no reduction in the distance in which the spacecraft must cover. You're thinking of a warp drive, not the FTL of this topic which essentially an accelerating series of folded space (wormhole literally bored by a drill), a warp drive expands space at the rear and shrinks space at the stern to negate the effects mentioned in the first couple sentences of this post. 

Redshift is an effect of velocity, not size. It doesn’t make universe look bigger.

There is a separate effect from expansion, but things don’t look far away because they’re red-shifted

Quote

That's the paradox

It’s not a paradox. Energy is not invariant. That’s true even in Newtonian physics (Galilean transformations)

[Seten]

58 minutes ago, swansont said:

Redshift is an effect of velocity, not size. It doesn’t make universe look bigger.

There is a separate effect from expansion, but things don’t look far away because they’re red-shifted

It’s not a paradox. Energy is not invariant. That’s true even in Newtonian physics (Galilean transformations)

Objects that are redshifted appear larger, it is a skewed image, i.e. gravitational lensing. Expansion is that objects which are further away appear to be accelerating faster (i.e. more redshift). Whereas a blueshift thins an image out. Yes, redshifts and blueshifts according to special relativity are the effects of velocity, the Doppler shift if light were to be reflected off an object moving away it would naturally redshift, or reflected off an object getting closer it would blueshift. However, time dilation and length contraction imply actual yet reversable changes in size at high velocities close to the speed of light which is how this space drill works. I believe it isn't just length contraction but that there is an increase in mass, partially because of the whole increase in potential energy and the mass energy equivalence, but also because light blueshifts as an object approaches whatever is creating that light. Like the opposite of the push off from a light source in a solar sail. So, you have higher and higher amounts of energy fighting back against your acceleration as you are passing through blueshifting light in concordance with the inverse square law, this is also a steady state explanation, ie. an alternative to expansion models. Similar to gravitational redshift but with slightly different mathematical concepts (meaning different values yielded by the same equations applied to different geometries which is a discussion for pm because while you may know how calculus applies to Einstein's field equations you probably don't know how to use it for certain pinpoint geometries which is where that other thread's state steady model was coming from you may be able to make your own version of a spherical field but can you tell the precise point inside a sphere where two volumes partially superimpose one another as a dot where the inverse square law of g-field can be applied? Can you produce the Mach effect with a plasma?). 

I can see a solution to the fuel paradox discussed earlier if one were to look at point x where fuel runs out as being all over the place due to changes in length (and therefore inverse changes in time) experienced by the crew. Although it is convoluted or hazy in my mind, I'm sure there is an explanation involving space time equivalence. 

Edited 13 hours ago by Seten