HOME | DD
Eagle1Division — Twilight is Space
Published: 2014-04-05 08:12:22 +0000 UTC; Views: 2922; Favourites: 48; Downloads: 43
Redirect to original
Description
I'm a freshman in college.I plan to write my Ph.D paper on stuff.
Maybe invent a warp drive.
(Cookies if it doesn't invoke closed time-like curves / aka / time travel due to special relativistic effects of FTL travel)
This is me. I am totally Twilight Sparkle.
Vector of Twi without background: eagle1division.deviantart.com/…
Related content
Comments: 29
A Warp Drive eh? I'm totally down with helping you with that, especially since I too love theoretical science, though I'm actually studying engineering and music! XD
And if you love Twily just as much as me, we'll get along great! :3
I also wanna make a Portal gun, but I'm gonna need to learn more stuff first lol. I really wanna add Calc 3, physics 3 and quantum mechanics to my degree plan someday, but for now it's hard enough double majoring in Music performance and engineering! >.<
Regardless this is awesome art! And nice to meet a fellow pony scientist! Brohoof! /)
P.S. if you ever need any fan made music for a project, feel free to ask, I'm also quite the music composer!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
For letting this comment go this long without a reply, I have committed a major crime against myself
It's friggin' awesome to meet ya! /)
You think QM is going to play a major part in a Portal gun? I've always thought more along the lines of GR as being our key to the future. It's neat to meet someone ambitious, though. Just remember if your ambition makes you slip up to keep holding on to it, regardless. I've been having a little bit of issue with that, myself.
I tried taking a grad-level course. As Twilight sang, I wasn't prepared for this! >.<
Anyways, "My own clone!"
I need to get around to uploading that presentation I did on pony physics I gave at CMPC sometime...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh yes, YES YES!! PLEASE UPLOAD THAT PRESENTATION! XD I'd so watch that right now!
And yes, GR and QM are probably going to be very closely involved in the making of a Portal gun. As is that new Gravitational Wave discovery. I'm eager to actually apply it with my engineering, but for now, I need to concentrate on graduation lol. As well as writing the music to my Dad's new musical he wrote.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Heh, well, unfortunately, if you want to do anything with QM and GR, Physics is more the degree for that. Engineering doesn't really go there much at all, aside from some intramolecular stuff for material properties, afaik.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well that's the thing. I wanted to do a physics major too, but couldn't fit it in. But you know, in order to make something practical and apply to the real world, Engineering is the way to go. So while I may not always have the scientific know how (though I do intend to keep researching and testing it), I can work together with people like you to figure out the way to make it a reality and more practical than theoretical. Thus, forwarding the progress of science and bettering everyone's lives! (And hopefully not destroying them through some freak mistake or accident as a result lol, no pressure for us! 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
lol, well, fortunately, the probability of ending Earth in some freak accident is pretty darn low. You're far more likely to cause a huge deal of mayhem for the world on accident if you decide to become a politician :q
True, physics tends to push esoteric-seeming frontiers of knowledge while engineering finds ways to apply it, though physicists also do do some real-world stuff when it comes to designing and building their experimental setups sometimes. But physicists learn about the universe, while engineers learn as much as they need to know to apply that knowledge in building technology.
I'm really fascinated, myself, by the things that have a possibility of being radical breakthroughs, though, and that's more along the lines of a physics degree than an engineering one, so...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Fair enough. Though regardless, I'm sure we'd be able to do it together.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I have a pony science theory: Unicorn magic is actually the formation of plasma.
Looking at Matpat's investigation of the Kamehameha wave, it seems that the kamahameha blasts shot by the DBZ characters are very similar to the magic blasts commonly employed by unicorns/alicorns. Since Mat seems to prove that the kamahameha attacks are plasma beams. He also explains how the blasts can be blocked by plasma. This explains both the magic blasts and the magic shields.
Also, in the lightsaber vs. energy sword episode, Mat recites from the Halo lore that the energy sword's blade is plasma held together by magnetism. Levitation spells, then, can be cast by creating a plasma field around an object. This field can then be manipulated by magnetism, and the object can be moved.
Also, notice that horned ponies with cosmic cutie marks are the most powerful. The reason is that since 99% of the universe seems to be plasma, these ponies’ marks represent the ability of said ponies to access all of this plasma.
So, a unicorn’s horn superheats the air around it, and the hotter the horn can get, the more air that can be heated. This range of heatable air is the ‘magic aura’ of each unicorn. Their power comes from the ability to control the plasma they generate, either with magnetism or some other force.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I have a question. Considering Kepler's first and third laws, plus the Lorentz time dilation equation, wouldn't time slightly decelerate as we reach the parahelion? If so, have clocks accounted for this?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Kepler's laws do not account for relativistic effects, but unless you get near a neutron star or black hole, the relativistic effects are so tiny that you'd have difficulty constructing an instrument precise enough to even detect them. In fact, Kepler's, and by extension, Newton's gravitational equations assume an infinite speed of light, so no relativistic effects at all - however, they are precise enough for deep space missions, even to Mercury (nearest the enormous mass of the sun, and fastest orbiting planet), Jupiter (most massive planet), and Pluto (longest flight).
Not to say they're useless - special relativity is vital to any particle accelerators and describing countless quantum phenomenon, and GPS satellites wouldn't work without general relativistic corrections (owing to how precisely GPS satellites need to time their signals to triangulate a source) - these are just two examples off the top of my head.
Mmm, also it depends on from who's frame.
The metric for Minkowski (flat, or special relativistic) spacetime is
c^2 dτ^2 = c^2 dt^2 - ( ds^2 )
dτ is an interval of time as recorded on a "proper" clock - a wristwatch that the moving object has on it. dt is an interval of "coordinate time," or the time as recorded by clocks which are stationary in this frame of reference.
ds^2 is a shorthand for dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2, where x, y, and z are the familiar 3 dimensions of space.
Divide both sides by dt^2, take the square root, and divide both sides by c to get;
dτ / dt = (1/c) Sqrt ( c ^ 2 - ds ^2 / dt ^2 )
dτ / dt = (1/c) Sqrt ( c ^ 2 - (ds/dt)^2 )
Now, let's say at its closest approach, this orbiting object goes all the way up to, say, 300 km/s - way faster than any planets in our solar system (Earth orbits at about 1/10th that, iirc), but let's use that number just for illustration purposes.
The speed of light is ~ 300,000 km/s. So c = 300,000,000 m/s, and ds/dt = 300,000 m/s. So we get
dτ / dt = 0.9999995
Plug in 1 second for dt, and thus
dτ = 0.9999995 seconds pass for the clock which is moving at 300 km/s in this frame of reference.
For reference, if that were kilometers, then 0.9999995 would be 0.5 mm short of a km. 0.9999995 miles would be 1/32nd an inch short of a mile. 0.9999995 months is about 1 second short of a month.
So, if you were sitting on a planet and some moon swung by at that phenomenal speed, it would be nigh unto impossible to even detect the time dilation at that rate, but, you would see a clock tick that much slower on the moon's surface. When it's at perihelion, and its speed is less, then the clock would tick closer to the rate of your own clock.
The faster you see something go (that is, the faster it's going compared to you), the more slowly its clock will appear to tick to you. Another shorthand to remember it by is, "the faster it goes through space, the slower it appears to go through time." The key to that is to remember that you always hold still in your own frame of reference, though, so when you see something move, only then does its clock tick at a different rate.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So, being a 14 year-old, yes, but the difference is so minuscule that there's no use in compensating?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's weird, I could've sworn I replied to this, but there's no reply here...
Anyways, you're half right: No, Kepler's laws do not take time dilation into account, but yes: time dilation makes such a small difference in our solar system, that it's not really worthwhile to account for it (unless you're doing something ridiculously precise - but not even landing a probe anywhere in the system would require that level of precision).
But I think that's what you meant to say, because of the second part of your reply
So Kepler's laws don't account for time dilation but it's such a small effect it doesn't really matter.
At least not in our solar system.
But around a black hole of course, or even a neutron star, you'd have to take it into account. And around a White Dwarf, you'd probably want to check.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You're an astrophysicist, I'm a mathematician, and we both love ponies: nice to meet you! 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The fact that I've neglected such a great comment for so long is criminal! I'm so sorry I seem to have missed this one! I suppose I was just wrapped up in Christmas at the time and all that.
Likewise! I'm always happy to meet people who love to learn about science and math!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Would this just be an application of the Alcubierre drive model, or an improvment on various practical FTL theories like the Alcubierre metric?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Some of both.
I'm not nearly to the point where I can improve - or even understand - that level of mathematics, but this includes some equations from Dr. White's work, which are some really impressive recent advances/upgrades to the Alcubierre metric.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
With all due respect, you better get hopping and go to the right people, because NASA already conducted the White-Juday experiment and there are other people out there who might end up beating you to it, as odd as it sounds: www.rawstory.com/2014/12/make-…
Oh yeah, and Jacob Barnett is still at large, although I'm not sure to say if Barnett is "better" or "faster" than you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm somewhat dubious of that claim. His explanations really didn't make any sense. I mean, it's possible he might be onto something, but I wouldn't consider it very likely. I'd like to see some peer-reviewed papers and at least a few more sources before I put any confidence into that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Barnett, or...?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So, do you think Barnett will beat you in the end?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No. He lacks enough depth of explanation to convince me at all that he's doing anything that could actually do something. He just talks about airplane warps and the alcubierre metric but says nothing of how they work or how the device would reproduce that in any way that makes sense with the underlying physics.
And he's a guy tinkering in a messy garage.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're confused, I'm talking about a different person than I talked about previously.
This is Jacob Barnett: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_…
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thanks for reminding me to get back to work on my dissertation...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hah, that's awesome! What's it on?
Also, I've been somewhat looking for other scientists to have a little fun with in analyzing show science for an "asksciencepony" tumblr, if you're interested. asksciencepony.tumblr.com/
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Whats the solution? O.o (layman's terms, I beg you.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The amusing thing is, what you're seeing IS the solution
To be quite honest, I understand what the functions describe, but I'd really have to sit down and study them to really understand them enough to use them, which I intend to get around to doing sometime soon
They were derived using differential geometry, though, which is a type of math that is generally a graduate-level thing.
What they describe is several aspects of a theoretical warp drive that NASA is experimenting with right now called the "Alcubierre Drive" io9.com/5963263/how-nasa-will-… (equations from here: ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/cas… Page 17 goes over the involved equations in layman's terms)
So, the equation at top (the one with all the "tanh"s, note, it's a function called rs) gives the shape of the field that creates the warp effect. The next one down is an equation describing general relativity (general relativity describes the curves of spacetime that create gravity. The warp drive uses these curves to work, by allowing the space in front of the craft to compress, and the space behind to expand).
Next equation down, that's largely cut off, describes the entire warp field (you have to plug in the rs to make it work. Think of it like, the equation got so big that he decided to call that part of it "rs" and write it somewhere else).
The next one that starts on the left side of her head with "ds^2=" is basically another, more complete way of writing the same thing.
Then the next one that's kind of thin an pixelated is another equation that describes general relativity.
Finally, the one that starts with Phi, is the "boost" effect of the warp field. The drive works by you start going, then once you're moving at a good speed, you turn the thing on and it multiplies what speed you have, ignoring the speed of light "barrier". So the Phi tells you how much it boosts your speed. In this equation, you describe your speed as a decimal fraction of c (c is the speed of light).
The next equation (-e^(2*Phi/c^2) = ...) is the same thing, except in this one you use speeds in meters/second instead of fractions of the speed of light.
And finally, the bottom-most one describes "York Time." It's essentially a measure of the compression or expansion of space.
Any questions?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This is such an amazingly incredible concept, I often find it hard to believe it could be real. But I've seen the equations. I know the science. It's going to be real one day.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0