Aitch-Bar

Writing About (Mostly) Not Astrophysics


Leave a comment

Cosmic Comic Warp Wrapup

Edited from a Crosspost to Adventures in Poor Taste

The AiPT crew asked if I could explain the weird physics in Fantastic Four #10, where an alien spaceship seems to struggle with its spacetime warping engines. I may not be a Fantastic Four expert, but I know the basics. All classic groups are foursomes, and the FF are no different. Ninja Turtles, A-Team, Beatles, Sex and the City, the four fundamental forces of nature, etc. The quadriad heroes tend to compliment each others’ skills, getting into lots of situations that are aided by a combination of invisible lady, stretchy guy, strong big guy, and fiery guy. Is one such situation a spacetime anomaly? We’re about to find out.

Ryan North and Leandro Fernández’s Fantastic Four #10 features a story told in five 100 year chunks, as the caretakers of an alien starship full of passengers in suspended animation ponder their vessel’s frozen state. The ship awakens them one by one to maintain the engines, but instead, they find that the starship is motionless in space. What’s more, they individually observe the Fantastic Four members (though they have no idea that’s what they are) moving within and outside the ship in extremely slow motion.

Someone familiar with special relativity might suspect this involves relativistic time dilation: the phenomena whereby something traveling near the speed of light experiences the passage of time more slowly than objects at rest. In fact, the ship is genuinely motionless. Or more specifically, frozen in a warped region of spacetime.

Fantastic Four #10–now with 50% more spacetime manifolds!

Of course–that explains the strange readings! This space-time manifold is artificial!

In its present configuration, it’s a collapsed isolated invariant hyperbola, true, but under the right circumstances…such a field could be propulsive.

Exactly. And while I’m gratified these belts I jury-rigged are keeping us outside this collapsed area of space-time, I can’t predict how anyone within it will perceive us. Strange things happen when you mix disparate time frames.

Fascinating. Their instantaneous appearance implies time is moving much faster for them than it is for us.

So to anyone on board, we look like–what, statues?

Given the temporal frame conflict, it’s likely we’re appearing at multiple and disparate times, locations and relative speeds. It would be quite challenging to predict.

It is interesting that the crew of a ship that operates through warping spacetime would be unfamiliar with the notion of different relativistic frames of reference. (It is implied that the shipbuilders were “ancient.” I guess their wisdom didn’t extend to the notion that they should make sure to pass down the basics of spaceflight.)

The description in the issue implies that the ship is designed to move by warping spacetime itself, without specifying how exactly. If that sounds like utter and complete gobbledegook, it may surprise you to learn that physicists merely consider it far-fetched-but-remotely-plausible gobbledegook. General relativity theorists have proposed spacetime geometries that would allow objects to circumvent light speed — the universe’s speed limit.

The best known of these is the Alcubierre drive, a hypothetical geometry first proposed in 1994 by Miguel Alcubierre, whereby space is contracted in front of an object, and expanded behind it. Superluminal travel is accomplished by moving space around the ship, which remains below light speed itself.

Easy enough, right? Wrong.

While dense matter or energy can contract spacetime, like a heavy object creating an indentation on a trampoline, there’s no known substance which can produce the opposite effect. Without a means of expanding space, like a source of negative energy, creating the spacetime geometry of a “warp bubble” is impossible.

Even if there were such a means, the amount of energy needed to distort space this way is implausibly enormous. Various proposals to operate an Alcubierre warp drive more efficiently have focused on methods that would reduce the amount of energy needed from that of the entire observable universe, to only that of several solar masses, or half a planet the size of Jupiter.

Other complications involve the fact that the warp bubble would violate relativistic causality – arriving at its destination before it would have seemed to have left. Light from the ship at its point of departure could reach the ship at its eventual end point, making it appear to exist in two places at once. The universe tends to have a problem with that sort of thing, as it implies a form of backwards time travel has occurred. Stephen Hawking’s chronology protection conjecture theorized that unspecified (maybe quantum) effects would intervene to prohibit the creation of time paradoxes. How or whether this would actually work, though, remains an open question.

Now if only we could get off this weird grid thing

Even if an Acubierre warp drive could work, it’s been calculated that a build-up of energetic particles caught up in the warp bubble over the trip would be released as the ship decelerated from superluminal velocity, and if a planet or object were along that direction of motion, this burst could destroy the destination itself.

Normally, an utter inability to accomplish something tends to dissuade people’s interest in it, but warp drive is a pretty tantalizing idea. As a result, nearly every article a theorist publishes relating to these models gets written up by pop-science sites. A sample of recent headlines include:

A warp drive is theoretically possible without breaking known physics

Alien ‘warp drives’ may leave telltale signals in the fabric of space-time, new paper claims

Warp Drives Might Be Real, and We’ll Find Them With Lasers: Study

Scientists Just Made a Breakthrough For Interstellar Travel

Faster-than-light ‘warp speed’ interstellar travel now thought to be possible

Scientists Get Serious in the Search for a Working Warp Drive

First-of-its-kind model makes warp drives feasible for space travel

Government-Funded Study Explores Warp Drives as Means of Faster-Than-Light Communication through “Hyperwaves”

If Warp Drives are Impossible, Maybe Faster Than Light Communication is Still on the Table?

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but very little to increase the likelihood of warp travel within our lifetimes has actually transpired here. Rather, clickbait science sites are seizing on fairly hypothetical and insubstantial developments (like journal articles touching on minor refinements of theoretical work). Until humanity starts making big strides in folding spacetime around itself, we won’t be seeing anything like warp travel.

And it’s a shame! The universe is huge, and it would be exciting to be able to see more of it at close range. But without discovering some new physics, missions of interstellar exploration will require decades, if not centuries. We still have a lot to learn about gravity, so maybe 500 years stuck in one place would do it.


Leave a comment

Max Planck & Having Only Bad Choices Under Fascism

If you were looking for a 32-minute video about the dilemmas that faced celebrated physicist Max Planck as the German science academe fell under the control of the Nazi party in the 1930’s, this is the one for you. Science historian Kathy Joseph expounds, rivetingly, on how Planck, a major leader in the development of quantum physics and beloved national figure, wrestled with how much public opposition he could wisely muster to the regime. Initially convinced that the buffoonish right-wingers who came to power in 1933 were a temporary blip, he did his best to preserve the continuity of the German physics community and protect Jewish scientists under his responsibility as president of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society (predecessor to the institution bearing his name). It is striking that while he miscalculated the course of the fascist movement in some ways, it seems unlikely that there is much he could have done differently to oppose their oppressive policies.


Leave a comment

It’s Only A Paper Moonfall

Screw the moon

You dumb moon! Don’t you know it’s day!?

Crossposted from Adventures in Poor Taste

Emmerich’s new spectacle involves a dubious premise that hits the planet in the face, but what do unlikely scientific theories look like when they end up being true?

Roland Emmerich’s newest disaster film Moonfall came out in theaters last week, and while I’m curious to see it, I’m also on paternity leave. My daughter’s as much explosive entertainment as I can take at the moment, so while I can’t evaluate the scientific reality of the movie, I’m not sure I’d even want to at this stage of the Emmerich oeuvre (especially not for a film that seems to involve the idea that the Moon is some kind of alien megastructure).

What I can do instead is pontificate a number of half-formed thoughts based on how the trailer looks! No longer content to merely destroy the surface of the Earth, Emmerich posits a baffling scenario in which Earth’s Moon gradually gets closer and closer to us, wreaking havoc, demolishing cities, and somehow culminating in shuttles scrawled with “Screw The Moon” flying up to fight … what seem to be robots? As custom dictates in such a film, one of the main characters appears to be a scrappy outsider whose hacking/amateur astronomy/conspiracy-theorizing skills bring them to the center of the elite governmental apparatus on a mission to confront the unfolding disaster.

Moonfall conspiracy theorist

John Bradley’s “Moonfall” character (probably) expounding on an imprecise array of questions, which, by sheer luck, happen to have merit in the universe of Roland Emmerich.

John Bradley (best known from his Game of Thrones role as Jon Snow’s guileless friend from the Night’s Watch, who exists to make Jon seem cooler by comparison) mugs his way through the trailer, implying that though he doesn’t work for the government, he knows more about the unfolding calamity than everyone else. This is a hacky archetype at this point, and one that’s gone some way toward convincing society that geniuses working in isolation, shunned by the establishment, are likely to be brave truth-tellers. (With vaccine hesitancy promoted by hucksters under that mantle having led to hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths in the past year, we can see what that notion has done for us.)

But what’s it actually like to be a scientific loner? What do you do when you think you’ve discovered something no one else accepts yet? Imagine you’re an amateur astronomer, unaffiliated with any institution, and you think you’ve discovered that the Moon’s orbit is decaying. How would you get anyone to listen to you?

Continue reading


Leave a comment

Eponymity in Physics

This is a re-post of a piece I wrote on my old blog, Topography of Ignorance, back in 2007. It’s a list I compiled of the types of things you could get named after you that come in the form [Name][Type of thing], as in the word “Law” from “Moore’s Law.” There are the obvious ones like “equation” but the unusual terms are more interesting because there might be only a single example. The title is itself an adaptation of an obscure word, eponym, which I loosely interpreted to mean “anything named after someone.” I don’t think it’s a real word, and using it probably confused readers (it also could have confused them that it’s basically just a massive list with very little prose). To preserve the classic 2007 “feel” of the original post, I’m keeping the poorly-chosen title and format.  Plus, lists are now back in a big way! (What with your Buzzfeeds et al.) So it seemed like an appropriate time to bring it back. Will animate with Jennifer Lawrence GIFs as soon as I’m able…

~~~~~

A physicist wanting to make an impact on the field most often imagines his or her name attached to an Equation, or a Theory. Or even, if they really want to move mountains, a Law. I have no idea what mathematicians think about, but I would assume that they are hoping to come up with Theorems and Conjectures. Of course, not everyone is an Einstein or a Kepler, able to remake a subject and declare a Law. But if you carve out a niche for yourself, or invent a novel way of dealing with a certain topic, you’re virtually assured of getting something. For an elegant discovery, you could have an Angle named after you, or a Number. Or in a more bizarre direction, a Sea or Paradox. de Sitter has an entire Universe! Me? If I could become the first person since Isaac Newton with an eponymous Bucket I would consider myself a success. There are so many strange things you could find named in your honor that I have compiled an extensive list of them with some examples namesakes on the right-hand side.

First, some of the most common:

Equation  
Formula
 
Law
 
Theorem
 
Theory
 
Hypothesis
 
[A Unit] Newton, Gauss, Joule
[A Constant] Planck, Boltzmann
Function Riemann-Zeta, Bessel
Effect Mössbauer, Stark, Bohr,
Gunn-Peterson, etc.

And then of course, there are rarer terms. These trend very roughly from less to more obscure.

Field Fermionic, Bosonic, Higgs
Matrix Kobayashi, Cabibbo
Relation Heisenberg, Tully-Fisher
Principle Copernican, Pauli Exclusion
Model Schwinger, Bohr
Method Schrödinger
Postulate Planck, Weyl
Approximation Born
Space
Minkowski, Fock, Hilbert
Metric Friedmann-Robertson-Walker,
Minkowski
Distribution Wigner, Bose-Einstein, Fermi-Dirac
___-on Fermi, Bose
___-ian Laplace, Hamilton, Riemann
Notation Dirac
Potential Coulomb, Yukawa
Action Stueckelberg, Proca
Inequality Minkowski, Bell
Limit Chandrasekhar
Tensor Riemann
Scalar Ricci
Gauge Newtonian
Diagram Feynman
Radiation Cherenkov, Hawking
Cycle Carnot, Born
Interpretation Bohm, Copenhagen
Paradox Einstein-Podolski-Rosen,
Olber, Fermi
Problem Rabi, Fermi
Experiment Milikan Oil Drop
Spectrum Mössbauer
Conjecture Witten
Interaction Yakawa
Amplitude Feynman
Operator d’Alembert
Particle Higgs, Planck
Neutrino Majorana, Dirac
Motion Brownian
Length Jeans
Number Avogadro, Chandrasekhar, Euler
Surface Fermi
Condensate Bose-Einstein
Radius Schwartzschild, Bohr
Convention Einstein Summation
Transform Forier, Laplace
Series Balmer, Lyman
Line Lyman, Balmer
Rules Slater
Scattering Compton, Rayleigh, Thompson
Variable Cepheid, RR Lyrae
Diffusion Bohm
Diffraction
Bragg
Junction Josephson
Expansion Taylor
Manifold Riemann
Topology Picard
Mechanism Higgs
Peak Wein
Test Tolman surface brightness
Repulsion Coulomb
Epoch Planck
Parameter Hubble
[An Element]
Einstein, Fermi, Curie, Mendeleev, Lawrence, Nobel
Time/Mass/Energy/Temperature
/Density
/Power/Current/Length
Planck
Energy/Level/Hole/Velocity
/Temperature
Fermi
Wavelength de Broglie
Boson Higgs
Profile Hernquist
Criterion Landau
Rigidity Born
Cross-section Thompson
Zone Brillouin, (also see, List of Zones)
State Hartle-Hawking
Angle Weinberg
Universe de Sitter, Lemaître
Sea Dirac, Fermi
Magneton
Bohr
Splitting Zeeman
Forest Lyman-alpha
Blob Lyman-alpha
Swindle Jeans
Trough Gunn-Peterson
Window Gamow
Cage Faraday
Engine Carnot
Bucket Newton
Tuning Fork
Hubble
Golden Rule Fermi
Pancake Zel’dovich
Brain Boltzmann
Demon Maxwell
Cat
Schrödinger


If anyone else is able to repeat that last one, I will be highly impressed. I would also like to point out that the Higgs boson may be the only phenomenon or concept that has two namesakes, since the term boson originally comes from Satyendra Bose! If you can think of anything else let me know and I’ll add it.

 

Update:

Pairs       . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Cooper

Focus      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Cassegrain, Nasmyth