Technically it’s not really a horizon if it “opens up” allowing you to observe events from the inside afterwards. But of course in any realistic setting (including that experiment) it will open up eventually, so no horizon. But nature doesn’t know that it will open up, so maybe it should behave like a horizon until nature knows, resulting in a criteria like you said. I think the criteria is loosely equivalent to saying “the acceleration must change the speed by almost c”, so your centrifuge probably wouldn’t lead to radiation.

But I really am not sure about any of this. The right way to do this is to actually calculate the mode function. One day when I’m better with QFT and all these stuff I’ll try to do it.

So I did a bit more reading. It seems like acceleration alone is not enough for invoking equivalence principle and saying we have Unruh radiation. If it was enough, non-blackholes objects would Hawking radiate like both of us were suspecting. Apparently physicists are quite confident only blackholes can Hawking radiate.

There is another picture that may work better for us. Instead of thinking of Unruh radiation (which would require doing serious QFT in curved spcetime calculations), we can think of the radiation coming from ripples popping up near the horizon (the black hole horizon for Hawking, the Rindler horizon for Unruh).

In this picture you absolutely need a horizon to get radiation. So on the centrifuge you won’t feel any radiation 🤷‍♂️

For a finite game with no draws you are indeed able to.

good meme!

by the equivalence principle, even earth’s 1g gravitational field should already lead to some Unruh radiation for us, so you don’t even need a centrifuge!

but your centrifuge is interesting. from the PoV of someone at rest angular momentum needs to be conserved so as you get fatter the rotation must slow down as @[email protected] said. but from the troll’s PoV why should they slow down? it’s a thermal spectrum, and acceleration is radially inward, so why should there be a retrograde force? (like, what makes the retrograde direction more special then prograde?)

i think the resolution is you don’t get exactly Unruh radiation (because your acceleration isn’t actually constant (its rotating)), but how exactly that affects the mode functions i have no idea

also let’s tag @[email protected]

TIL!

How does that work? Did the .ml ban all the accounts they made on 1000 different instances? Does this mean spam doesn’t appear at all for users registered with .ml? If that’s the case I think I’m gonna switch. So sick of that spammer.

just put the water under the sun? why would anyone use solar panels to heat water. you’re losing like 90% the sun’s energy in trying to capture it as electricity.

because part of it’s unique UI which can’t be used legally by Chrome or EDGE

This is not an excuse. Make it AGPL and no corpo would touch it.

doing nothing is fine but stop pretending to be a champion of the global south if that’s what they want

as usual. all bark, no bite

I dont know why youre so set about fitting Star treks science into the framework of ours science.

It’s what OP’s meme is about 😉

They either are insanely past our limited understanding of physics, or its absolute bullshit and cant be slotted together.

Exactly. Well said.

That doesn’t fix anything. Physics doesn’t care if you’re the one moving or if you declare yourself to be still and the rest of the universe is moving.

“Held outside spacetime” also makes no sense at all in the context of relativity, but if they want that to be their sci-fi sauce then that’s fine.

The answer is you don’t. You (the person on the ship) can’t do it. That would be incompatible with relativity. Someone else has to set up the bubble for you beforehand. Alcubierre warp works more like a highway than a magical engine.

deleted by creator

Weird that they couldn’t make a turbine themself. But it’s just a turbine. A gas or coal power plant also needs a turbine. Not sure why united24media is saying it is core nuclear technology.

My point is you can’t be the one making the “fold” that you’re traveling in, no matter how much energy or whatever you have. If you do that your travel would either be slower than light or it would severely violate relativity (in ways that Alcubierre drive or wormhole or whatever don’t).

Normally you can ignore the drag from the Interplanetary or Interstellar media, but if you had a ship that could travel at high relativistic speed, pushing past 0.9c, 0.99c, 0.999c, etc., you actually would have to consider the drag from it. Ships going that fast would have to be designed with aerodynamic principles in mind, just like atmospheric craft.

This is new and surprising to me. Do you have a source? It seems to me that if it gets to a point where you need to design your ship using aerodynamic principle, you should also be able to drive your ship using aerodynamic principle (i.e., push on stuff around the ship, instead of expelling propellant from the ship as usual spacecrafts do).

There is definitely gravity in space! It just doesn’t feel that way because there’s no ground so you’re mostly in free fall which to you is indistinguishable from being in no gravity. (fun fact: this indistinguishability is actually the crux of General Relativity!)

To argue in the spirit of OP’s meme:

You can’t create warp bubble/field as you go faster than light. Under relativity (to say nothing about other physical theories) “faster than light” travel is possible only if the “warp field”/“bent spcetime”/“wormhole”/etc. is already there and you’re just using it to travel.

How do you make your eyes this good? Reading your comment I stared at it and saw nothing wrong until I put a ruler on the screen.