AAS 98-138

CHALLENGES POSED BY HYPER-LIGHT TRAJECTORIES

Paul A. Murad
A candidate hyper-light drive is postulated that benefits from increasing electromagnetic effects when a spaceship moves at or faster than light speed. Details of the propulsor are briefly described as well as where the supporting electromagnetic fields are applicable. The trajectory from such a spacecraft is analytically derived for these conditions using a potential concept based upon pseudo-analytical functions, which converts these equations from a time-spatial sense to a stronger spatial-time canonical form or to a purely spatial scheme. Moreover, there is a need for an embedded switch that mathematical alters the canonical form of the vehicle's trajectory partial differential equations to account for transitions near and above the speed of light. This is examined from both the General and Special Relativity framework that directly impacts the form of these equations. Although the trajectory potential may not be observable if an observer is outside the cone of light, an auxiliary surface defined by using pseudo-analytical or pseudowave functions, may be observable at hyper-light speeds and this finding requires further investigations.

INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS
Several efforts in Murad1-2 examined altering the trajectory for the three-body problem by introducing potentials to create a second-order partial differential equation. The resulting equation was independent of time and only depended upon spatial coordinates. Time was, however, folded into the problem through the specification of the initial potential slopes representative of the initial velocity that satisfied this equation. Similarly, this was extended and applied to the problem where a satellite or planetary explorer used thrust to alter the trajectory to the point that gravitational anomalies were effectively cancelled. These results, although established analytically, were not surprising or unexpected. What was of interest in this approach was that thrust became a particular threshold that could easily alter the canonical form where the trajectory would convert from an elliptical to a hyperbolic canonical form. Moreover, as expected, the transit time for interplanetary flight by using large thrust to weight ratios was greatly decreased. The question was how to realistically define a propulsive concept capable of generating large thrust to weight ratios. Such a concept was outlined in Murad3-5, which, unfortunately lead to many contentious issues regarding if flight speeds greater than the speed of light were feasible. Are there limitations due to the Theory of Relativity? We need to look at these possibilities. Obviously, if mankind is to harness the wealth of other worlds, travelling at speeds that are a small fraction of light speed would be uneconomical as well as represent a tremendous human sacrifice placed upon the crew to withstand long duration conditions possibly lasting lifetimes. This effort will examine some of these issues with the focus to attempt to predict the mathematical form of trajectories created by a vehicle capable of hyper-light speeds. _______________________________________________________________________
"The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the U.S.

Government." "Copyright 1998 by P. Murad. Published by the American Astronautical Society with permission."

DISCUSSION
Murad3-5 made claims and presented a candidate propulsor for a spaceship travelling near or above light speeds. Some of these results suggest that magnetic effects will dominate electric effects at the speed of light and near light speed travel tends to favor an accelerating or decelerating spacecraft. These were derived based upon the special theory of relativity in that two coordinate frames, that of the spaceship and a reference observer were moving apart at constant velocity. If the spaceship's accelerations is assumed 'relatively' small, these analyses and results would be valid as the vehicle asymptotically approaches the speed of light. One would, however, desire to purposefully pass through the light speed singularity as fast as possible. Thus, these results are assumed valid only as a special case and one should resort to the general theory of relativity where the coordinate frames are accelerating relative to one another. To look at this problem, we need to briefly discuss Einstein's special and general theory of relativity6. What can really be said about travelling at or near the speed of light? Since we reside at the lower end of the spectrum trapped by our own physical limitations, how can we make any purposeful claims regarding what happens while travelling at light speed? After more than fifty years of curiosity, only a handful of suitable experiments exist to prove relativistic concepts are correct at the lower end of the spectrum. One wonders why? Moreover, none of these experiments can examine what occurs at faster than the speed of light which implies that there may be an obvious limitation. One particular idea developed within relativity theory is the addition of velocity vectors. This clearly shows that regardless of the initial speeds, nothing exceeds light speed. What is unusual is that when one vector is initially assumed greater than light speed, the final results are always sub-light. This defies logic if not common sense. When Einstein derived these theories, he was extremely careful to document the assumptions used in his analysis. He went on to suggest that based upon these assumptions, one could not exceed the speed of light. Moreover, when the general and special theory were derived, there is an unspoken assumption; that is: all coordinate systems are either at rest or sub-light speeds. One should expect that if such a limitation really exists in the theory, then these initial assumptions and derivations should be reexamined. How can sub-light assumptions hypothesize results supposedly valid at hyper-light speeds? Such rationalizations are absurd and one must accept the basic notion that behavior of the governing equation (i.e.: their canonical form) will change depending on which side of the light speed singularity is under investigation. Unfortunately this subject is in a realm filled with many uncertainties and we can only discuss possible concepts before actually delving into the details. As an example, the term hyper-light used here strictly infers velocities at many times the speed of light. We are really looking at this from the prospect of going slightly faster than the speed of light. Once the light speed barrier is conquered, however, achieving true hyperlight capability should only be a question of time. The following sections discuss several issues that bear upon this problem.

In Search of Fusion Explosions and Worm Holes...

Before addressing the issue of trajectories, let us discuss some of the cursory details of our propulsor. Obviously, there are many intriguing propulsion techniques proposed for reaching light speed. Amongst these ideas are hydrogen or tritium burners7 where a gas mixture is expelled and ignited by high power lasers to produce a nuclear fusion reaction. The resultant blast pushes against a thick pressure plate to convert some useful fraction of the detonation energy to thrust literally propelling the vehicle through space. Thus one could theoretically accelerate to light speed using energy derived from a series of pushes from fusion explosions. If relative mass becomes infinite, then infinite thrust using a sequence of thermonuclear explosions would be required to propel such a starship. Another similar concept that is capable of reaching light speed is that of a metallic sail driven by E-M impulses generated by a sequence of nuclear explosions detonated hundreds of kilometers away. One may accept the premise that more advanced cultures beyond our capabilities may exist. If these ideas were indeed viable, than we should have detected such a series of explosions several light years away as these alien cosmonauts travel through the galaxy. If this was not the case, there are several reasons. Foremost

of these reasons is that there may be no more advanced culture than the human race and we are indeed the very intellectual center of the cosmos. Another reason is that the signature of such explosions at, say, several light years away may not be detectable or it is seen only as visual noise such as atmospheric glint and are not adequately registered. Finally, if there are more advanced civilizations, then they may have discovered a more feasible and simpler technological approach comparable to an electromagnetic drive which is the concept of interest here. There is another approach which takes advantage of a wormhole, a time warp, or a fold in the spatial geometry of space8. Unfortunately, we can only postulate about these approaches and evidence concerning their existence is currently nonexistent. Are they real or the fancy of one's imagination? The proposed vehicle in this paper has such intense field effects, its wake may resemble and generate the elusive wormhole. In other words, a hyper-light vehicle must create its own time warp and, if anything, the propulsor drive of interest acts like a black hole but electromagnetic effects are used in lieu of gravity.

Black Holes and The Feasibility of Hyper-Light Phenomenon

Is there evidence of natural hyper-light phenomena and what insights can be gained from black holes? Black holes are remnants of a collapsed star where mass is so condensed by the gravitational attraction which is so large that even light cannot leave the star. There may be problems with this model. For example, black holes may rotate about a principle axis and are unstable according to Hawking9.. If black holes are the remnants of a collapsed star, it is plausible that if the star initially rotated about a principal axis, the resultant black hole should also have similar rotation determined by angular momentum considerations. Since gravity acts only in the radial direction, the rotation should have no impact on its gravitational attraction and the rotation should only enter the problem by looking at the approaching and the regressing event horizon assuming that the event horizon also rotates. The question about light not escaping a black hole does deserve more attention. Some individuals claim that black holes may have charges. If the initial star prior to collapse did not have a charge, then where did the black hole obtain its charge? Is there such a thing as an electron or proton star? Moreover, how does one measure the charge on a black hole? By Maxwells equations, the characteristic speed of a field created by a charge is the speed of light. If light cannot leave the black hole, one must ask how can an electromagnetic emission moving at the same characteristic speed leave the black hole? Thus if a black hole does have a charge, either electric or magnetic, one should not be able to detect it because of the awesome gravitational attraction which is a first-order effect and the effect from a charge would clearly be of far lesser order. The Russians10 suggested that black holes would be discovered by looking for a binary star system where one of the stars was not visible. Moreover, due to the large gravitational attraction, stellar gases should be drawn into the black hole and increase temperatures near the event horizon. The change in temperature would be an indicator and useful in ensuring that one was viewing a black hole in lieu of, say, a dead star. Black holes must expend energy. To do this, mass may directly be converted into energy to meet this need. In every process there is a level of inefficiency and the process is not achieved at 100 percent. If this is true, then some mass in some form may be ejected and this is what is of concern here. Another issue concerns what can be said about gravity or gravity waves? If we assume that the gravity of a planet can be represented by a basic field equation, then the following equation may describe the gravity field: 1 2 V & 2V - 2 = - . c s t2 Here, the speed of propagation is in the denominator of the transient term and a gravitational rate term is included in our simple conservation scheme. If gravity moves at the speed of light, then no gravity waves should leave the black hole. In fact, it should not exert any gravitational pull on any nearby gases. If this is the case, then it could not rotate in a stable configuration resulting in a binary star per the Russian prerequisite. Furthermore, one must keep in mind that intense gravity caused the black hole in the first place and we must be mindful of this effect in any discussion regarding what we can deduce about gravity. If gravitational waves move at an infinite velocity, the transient term in this equation disappears which states that

gravity is not a transient phenomenon but reacts more like a steady state response. Thus gravity will change only based upon boundary conditions and the rate of creation or annihilation term. Moreover, without the transient term, the governing equation is elliptical and does not support any wavelike events suggesting that we essentially do not have gravity waves for an infinite characteristic velocity. For example, if gravity waves obey an equation with the characteristic velocity of the speed of light, then it is feasible that the core of the black hole will not even let gravity escape! If gravity is the mechanism for causing the black hole in the first place, gravity from a black hole must be measurable. Gravity must have some causality that impacts the surrounding environs. Thus gravity waves must escape a black hole and the characteristic velocity is indeed not the speed of light but some larger undetermined value. This suggests that manipulating the gravity field could, in a qualitative fashion, allow speeds near this characteristic velocity, which has interesting implications. For a space-ship that operates using a gravity gradient as a propulsor drive concept, the infinite characteristic speed is very attractive in terms of being an achievable goal. However, the conventional wisdom is not ready to reject the notion that gravity waves do not exist. Thus, the characteristic speed must therefore be higher that the speed of light, possibly by magnitudes, but lower than infinity. In this manner, we can argue that gravity could retain its wave-like nature in this simple model. Hawking concludes that due to evaporation, the larger the black hole and the less evaporation, the less the instability. We need to make a distinction about what is meant by evaporation? Mass, in the form of relativistic particles or even anti-matter, ejected from a black hole will have an initial radial velocity. If this velocity is insufficient to overcome gravity, it should fall back into the black hole. Since even light does not leave the black hole, we would never expect to see the returning ejecta. Everything moving at less than light speed falls back into the black hole. To observe ejecta, it must leave the collapsed star at an escape velocity greater than light speed. If we see any traces of particles or electromagnetic waves emitted from the region of a black hole, they could come from one of three plausible sources. Either they come directly from the surrounding region heavily influenced by the black hole, the black hole itself, or a combination of both. If from the black hole itself, this mass must initially move at hyper-light speed in a delayed field sense and that this mass under such conditions, will decelerate to asymptotically approach light speed due to the black hole's gravity gradient. Thus the ejecta must initially out race light waves to demonstrate that hyper-light speed is feasible. It is difficult to say if currently detected waves emitted near a black hole are from either the event horizon or the black hole itself. We need to remember that the equation has a condition of light speed similar to a natural frequency and that motion either above or below this speed can be obtained. It is also interesting that when particles were first detected to leave a black hole, the community quickly decided that they must have been from the event horizon. Considering the large distances of hundreds of light years involved, how could we make the determination that the particles came from the event horizon and not the black hole itself? This should fall well within the tolerance of experimental error. Despite this, this linear logic raises several thoughtprovoking questions regarding a rational model of a black hole.

Questions Regarding the Conventional Wisdom

In any explanation about the theory of relativity, a stream of consciousness is used to grasp these complex notions. Maxwell's equations unified magnetism and electricity that were later expanded by Lorentz to include optics. Einstein provided the requisite concepts for the general and special theory of relativity. The problem remains for a theory to extend this to include gravity within the 'unification' milieu. The general theory is a possible path toward unification under the assumption that only gravity acts on the accelerating coordinate system. A consequence of the special theory is that the speed of light is the same in a stationary and moving coordinate system. The constancy of the speed of light is a basic premise of the theory of relativity. Basically, if two systems start at the same point and one moves away from a system at rest that emits a pulse of light, the light wave moves at the same speed within both coordinate systems. If the second coordinate system moves at trans-light speeds, it rides on the light wave surface. The light pulse does not move at light speed within the second moving coordinate system but does not move at all. Furthermore, if the second coordinate system moves at hyper-light speed, the wave front never reaches it so how can we deduce that light moves at light speed in this moving coordinate system? It is not our intention to be an iconoclast regarding relativity theory but rather to understand its limitations. The problem as stated by Einstein is that based upon the assumptions made in the analysis, you could not travel faster than the speed of light. We are not suggesting that Einstein was wrong; on the contrary his results are more than correct and adequate based upon his initial assumptions. The latter two situations,

however, suggest that the theory does not consider all relevant possibilities and that the analysis needs to be expanded. Thus we have a predicament of how can one predict anything about hyper-light phenomenon based upon analyses using sub-light assumptions? This cannot be done very easily if at all! Even if such an analysis is performed where the moving coordinate system does move at equal to or greater than the speed of light, the constancy of light speed may still be a valid determination. For example, if a fast moving coordinate system emits a light pulse, the results seen by the other coordinate system at rest may not be the same as the conventional wisdom suggests. Thus any new extension of the theory should have less dependency upon the constancy of the speed of light but use some other relevant metric.

Feasibility of Achieving Light Speeds

If power to accelerate mass to light speed becomes infinite, is this problem tractable? We already discussed the possibility of using nuclear fusion explosions to propel our spacecraft where infinite thrust is needed for a vehicle that attains infinite weight. Are other options available? Is there any know scientific phenomenon that includes the effects of relativity? Consider some ideas outlined by Ingarden and Jamiolkowski11 and others. Ingarden shows that for a body in a Minkowski space where the first dimension is time, the body's position using a Lorentz transformation going from one inertial coordinate system to another is:
0 1 ~0 = x - x , x 2 1 - 1 0 ~1 = x - x , x 2 1 - 2

~ 2 = x2 , x

~ 3 = x3 ; x d xi . dt

where: =

( v1 )

+ (v2 ) c

+ (v3 )

& v i = xi =

E-M fields change value going from one inertial system to another. Only horizontal components remain constant with respect to the line of motion of the two systems. In vector notation this is: ~ ~ E _ = E _ , E = (E + v B ) ;
v E ~ ) . B = (B c2 Components shown are field segments perpendicular and parallel to the coordinate system's relative velocity. Perpendicular components increase as the relative mass increases. Electric surface currents and charge density likewise change and the covariant form of Ohm's law becomes: c0 J - c0 v ; ~c1 = c1 , ~c2 = Jc2 , ~c3 = Jc3 . c = J J J 2 2 1- 1- ~ B_ = B_ ,

In these investigations, the concern was not only for electrical effects but also for magnetic effects. One may very easily derive changes to Maxwell's equations where the electric and magnetic field are redefined by introducing an additional magnetic vector and scalar potential. It is interesting that these potentials, which treat magnetic current and magnetic charge respectively, can exist whether charge or current is observed. They are related to each other in a similar Lorentz condition comparable to that used in the conventional wisdom resulting in: 2 2 A C 2 A - = - Jc , = Jm 2 C- 2 2 t t
2 c -
2

c
2

= -

2 m -

m
2

= m .

The Lorentz conditions relating all of these potentials are: c m A = - , C = . t t A similar type of relation should also exist if one considers relativistic motion of magnetic charges and currents due to a stellar drive: m0 J m1 mo v ~ ~ ~ ; J m1 = , m = Jm2 = Jm2 , Jm3 = Jm3 . 2 2 1 1 -

The propulsor of interest uses these perpendicular field components as well as currents parallel to the velocity vector and charges to generate thrust. Again, as a spaceship velocity reaches light speed, these magnetic and electric sources increase by the same value as mass and both magnetic and electric current in the flight direction increase, currents perpendicular to the velocity vector remain unchanged. If the propulsor can expel electric or magnetic currents along the same direction as the velocity vector, thrust would also be created from particles entrained by these currents. Similarly if the vertical field components are used to alter or create a gravity-well, they will produce infinite thrust during the transition to light speed. As weight becomes infinite, thrust using these relativistic effects in certain directions likewise becomes infinite. This spaceship approaching light speed using these E-M effects is comparable to getting on a 'magic' railroad. There is also a historical point worth mentioning. This derivation for the change in electric field strength is available in many textbooks and papers. The genealogy of the analysis goes back to a paper first written by Einstein when he examined what occurs to a field moving at relativistic speeds. On one hand, Einstein develops the conventional wisdom to suggest we cannot travel faster than the speed of light while on the other hand, he provides us with the prerequisite capabilities to achieve such a venture! It is humorous that almost fifty years have lapsed before understanding this moot point and that Einstein may have been intellectually playing with us! No wonder he was always smiling!

ANALYSIS
Several comments based upon the conventional wisdom are necessary concerning the limits of travel where one would expect to find the necessary fields that would sustain an electromagnetic drive. The drive operates by extracting momentum and energy from the ambient fields. If one scalar potential vanishes and the other scalar is a steady-state spatial function, the vector potential could also conceivably vanish. Thus for steady-state conditions, either a magnetic or electric fields may exist as a separate entity. The inverse is also true. How far can one go regarding the conventional wisdom about steady state or transient electric and magnetic fields? Can these thoughts be used to create a pseudo-ether or the Aharov-Bohm effect and, evenso if they exist, what is the extent of such a region where our spacecraft may travel?

A Pseudo-Ether
Kopylov and Yanitsky12 looked at the earth as an MHD generator coupled with a unipolar electric or MHD motor sharing the same common magnetic field. The motor's stator consists of a solid iron core and a hard mantle; the rotor is moving jets of molten magna flowing along complex spiral-shaped trajectories between the core and the mantle. This MHD generator uses an inexhaustible source of energy available from space inducing forces to keep the planet spinning. Crosswise currents cross the equator at two places with energy-active zones of the planet 180 degrees apart; it is here where Kopylov claims typhoons originate. Weather may result from the electromagnetic interactions between the earth's core and Van Allen radiation belts. This phenomenon resembles effects described elsewhere for the candidate propulsor of interest and the process of extracting energy from an ambient field. Several hypotheses13 exist concerning the creation of the moon. The orbit of the moon is at a 17 degree inclination from the solar system orbital plane. The moon is one of the few bodies with the exception of some large asteroids, the first and last planets in our solar system whose orbit is also out of plane. There is sufficient mass in the asteroid belt beyond Mars comparable to the weight of a planet which may have selfdestructed by carelessness of a once indigenous culture or collided with a hyper-velocity body such as a meteor or a comet. The moon may be a large portion of this body or revolved about this planet prior to its destruction. A second possibility is that the planetary orbits of the Earth and Mars may have crossed at one time and near collisions may induce forces to circularize the orbits of both planets. The moon may have been 'stolen' from Mars during such an encounter. Interestingly, the elliptical orbits of Neptune and Pluto currently cross so this model really is not all that outrageous. Hence, concentric orbits within the same orbital plane may represent a minimal energy solution as the stable evolution of a planetary system. Evenso, with the exception of a free body, there is no ready explanation for how the inclination angle was achieved leaving a question without closure. The moon may have been a cosmic body captured while passing near the Earth or was part of the Earth removed either through the interaction of a third body or due to violent volcanic eruptions. If part of the

Earth, one would expect the moon to have similar properties and behavior as the earth. The moon like the Earth has its own gravitational field; the moon unlike the Earth, is older and does not possess a magnetic field. If like the earth and having a magnetic field at one time, what would be so different about it now than in its cosmic past? The moon's core may be cold and solid unlike that of the earth. In contrast, the earth has active volcanoes whereas the moon does not. Tectonic plate motion on the earth's surface about a molten core shifting ferric ore deposits may be the reason our planet has a magnetic field. Despite the lack of active volcanic activity, the moon may still act like a source term for an ether field and this behavior may provide a means for detecting such vector and scalar potentials as previously mentioned. Thus, one may conclude that all planetary bodies have a weak magnetic and/or electric field. Using similar reasoning, the scalar potentials would disappear if there were no electric or magnetic field gradients. If we examine a planets fields and potentials, vector potentials can cancel each other and minimize both scalar potential effects. These potentials may exist but have no subsequent E-M fields. This is a paradox confusing the conventional wisdom. The potentials may exist but, yet, they do not create a field. Thus we may have discovered a mechanism for an 'ether' that has plagued mankind to explain unknown phenomena before the nineteenth century. The propulsion problem is to use the pseudo-ether to create fields that accelerate a space traveler. Such potentials may have large magnitudes and require sources and sinks due to singularities and boundary conditions. It would be difficult to find the above fields because detection of magnetic or electric currents cannot be used. Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff14 examine the zero-point field or ZPF, using stochastic electrodynamics, which accepts fluctuations in a vacuum. ZPF ideas were originally motivated by the Russian Sakharov, who claimed that Newtonian gravity was simply a van der Waals type force induced by electromagnetic or zeropoint fluctuations of the ZPF. Ordinary matter is a collection of electro-magnetically interacting polarized particles consisting of charged point-mass subparticles and ZPF exists everywhere. By examining these unexplored fluctuations that create a sea of thermal radiation, they found that the resistance to passage of an accelerating body by the ZPF could be caused by inertia, as a consequence of a Lorentz force on a slow moving charged particles. This field in the ether, may or may not generate an E-M field, and may be the ingredient to create inertia. The claim is that ZPF is everywhere and created by the Big Bang; it represents the background radiation field. The analysis by Puthoff, et al is elegant although it considers only an electric charge at sub-light conditions and one would speculate about differences that would arise as you approach light and hyper-light speeds. Implications about ZPF effects means a space traveler will always experience inertia independent of his closeness to a planet and this Lorentz force is independent of gravitational attraction. Two points need to be mentioned. Again we are dealing with our own limitations of unknowing. From UFO mythology, there is a claim that these electromagnetic craft can travel only within a galaxy and not from one galaxy to another. This suggests that the spacecrafts induced E-M field needs another field, most likely the ZPF, to push against. Without sources and sinks to sustain fields, field intensity may vary like the inverse of the distance squared and that the distances between galaxies are far too large to sustain such a field as hypothesized for ZPF. Finally, there is a research proposal and papers15 from the Yerevan Physics Institute in Armenia that suggests the background radiation field is not uniform but behaves as if it possesses a dipole or even a quadrapole. The significance of this finding suggests that the field is non-uniform and may rotate about an axis where its intensity will vary from one point to another. Using these bits of information, one could speculate that ZPF is an artifact that may not have been created by the Big Bang but is a consequence of intergravitational interactions within our own and each separate galaxy. Moreover, ZPF may have its highest intensity at the galaxy's center and decays as you travel radially outward. If anything, it extends to the limits of our galaxy which would be the limiting constraint for an E-M spaceship drive. Thus the Puthoff et al theory should be extended to examine radial gravity effects as well at the relativistic conditions of interest here. The reason for this diversion is to understand limits of such an electromagnetic drive and, at least at this juncture, mankind will have to satisfy himself to limit his pursuits by only exploring his own galaxy. This should be considered, depending upon the strength of our stellar drive, to be a limit analogous to the zeroenergy region for the restricted three-body problem; our craft cannot exceed these limits. This is sufficient motivation to explore these effects even in a macro sense by examining another planetary body where no magnetic field is present. For this and other reasons, we are compelled to go back to the moon to experiment and understand zero-point fields. This is crucial to satisfy an insatiable imagination as well as fulfill our

destiny.....

Adjunct Variables or an Inverse Lorentz Condition

In several of the author's publications, pseudo-analytical functions are used to identify additional governing equations to resolve problems in astrodynamics1-2 and fluid dynamics16. The formalism also postulates a counterpart that uses pseudo-wave functions to treat wave equations. Using ideas from pseudoanalytical/-wave functions, an inverse Lorentz condition is defined as follows: A C = - c + c , = - m + m . t t These new vectors satisfy:
c = Jc ; t m = Jm . m = + m , t Eliminating these new vector potentials produce the same results as the original equations for the vector and scalar potentials as dictated by the conventional wisdom. Spatial gradients of these new potentials equate to electric and magnetic source densities while the time derivative is a function of the vector current terms. If we eliminate the conventional scalar and vector potentials, these delta potentials satisfy a similar differential equation as shown for Maxwell's equations: 2 2 1 [ J c] + c , c - c = 2 t t c = c ,
2 - 2 m = [ J m ] - m . 2 m t t These vectors and scalars are also pseudo-wave functions of each other; they are not only related to each other by the original Lorentz condition but by these new conditions. Considering either of the Lorentz or these new inverse conditions, if one vector or scalar potential has transient behavior, one quickly surmises that other potentials would have a similar transient response. These different potentials may exist without generating an E-M field. If these potentials also vanish, the remainder consists of electric and magnetic charges as well as currents that satisfy: [ J c] = - 1 c , [ J m] = m . c t t Finally, there is one more situation of interest where these potentials exist in a steady-state environment: c = - c , m = m .

Mathematical Preliminaries
This section introduces the basic approach. The restricted three-body problem with thrust in the spatial directions to be specified: && - 2 y - x = - V x + F x & x && + 2 x - y = - V y + F y & y && z = - Vz + Fz where the gravitational potential is defined by: (1 - ) 2 V(x, y, z) = ; where: r12 = (x - x1 ) 2 + y + z 2 , r1 r2
r22 = (x - x 2 ) 2 + y
2

+ z2 .

and the energy integral is defined as: 2 &2 E = 1 ( x 2 + y + z 2 ) - 1 ( x 2 + y ) + V(x, y, z) . & & 2 2 The approach is to introduce a potential17 such that the cross-differential conditions remain equal and satisfies energy considerations. For the three-dimensional case, such a potential is defined and the subsequent

equation becomes:
& x = x , & y = - y , & z = z;

then: xx + yy = - V xy , xz = - V yz , yz = 0 .

The first PDE has a canonical form that is elliptical for this specific case. The second and third equations account for out of plane effects. If pseudo-analytical or wave functions are introduced, additional equations can be formulated. Here, we can treat the problem where: x = y - 1 Vy , 2

y = - x -

1 2

Vx .

Cross-differentiation leads to the following PDEs: xx + yy = - V xy ,

xx + yy = -

1 2

( V xx - V yy ) .

To a degree, one can clearly see why these partial differential equations can demonstrate an elliptical and hyperbolic canonical nature. There is a point worth pursuing regarding these equations. Based upon earlier efforts17 for the three-body problem, several solution approaches were discussed. If complex variables are introduced for a purely elliptical problem, there is a constraint on the upper limit of an interplanetary probes velocity, the equations of motion in two-dimensions are reduced to: V && + 2iz z = 2 & z z && 2i z z = 2 V . & z z These equations define the behavior of the complex variable and its conjugate: 1 z = x+ iy , z = x iy ; where: V(z, z) = . 2 2 (z z + x1 2x1 (z + z)) (z z + x2 2x2 (z + z)) and the solution to this set of equations is: t V z( t ) = 2 i [ cos ( t ) + i sin ( t ) ] d + z o e it . z 0 The reason a closed-form solution is unattainable is because of the characterization of the gravity gradient term as a function of a complex variable and its conjugate within the integral equation. If the problem was at, say, hyperbolic speeds, complex variables would be unsuitable and the integration would have to consider regions of influence to properly characterize this problem.

Mathematical Solution Behavior

Let us expand this point further to consider changes in the solution where we operate on either side of the light speed singularity. There are major differences, for example, in the solutions for our subsonic and supersonic gas flow analogies respectively; these are: f( , ) d d (x, y) = - + ..... 2 2 [x - ] + (1 - M ) [y - ] 2 f( , ) d d (x, y) = - + ..... 2 [x - ] 2 - (1 - M ) [y - ] 2 Solutions are a function of placing a fluid source or sink at a specific location in the coordinate system. A sign difference in the denominator is due to the partial differential equation canonical form as well as differences on how boundary conditions are used to specify the solution. In the former, the entire domain boundary is used while in the latter, only upstream portions of the boundary that influence the solution are used. It is not nature's fault a singularity occurs at the speed of light, the fault is our inability to correctly

model nature's behavior. Moreover, what type of singularity should be expected? Will this help explain the pseudo-transition that occurs with changes in the canonical form? We do not want to gradually approach the singularity and reside there before passing through but wish to pursue passing through the singularity as rapidly as possible to minimize residing at the speed of light as a segment of a light wave. The problem posed by the light speed singularity was previously discussed3-5. Recall our earlier statement about punching through the singularity as being comparable to the problem of an airplane passing through the singularity at transonic speed from a physical context; it should be no different here. You have similar singular behavior. In Asaro18 the problem was reduced to complex variables with the definition of a complex velocity. The singularity is treated in a similar fashion as passing through a singularity in the complex plane. Although having mathematical significance, there is no physical significance unless there is a finite meaning to the term complex velocity. Thus there is no magical tree but only a mathematical artifact. Moreover, the singularity could be removed by multiplying by a factor moving the term from the denominator to the numerator. With these thoughts, one wonders what a crew would see inside of a hyper-light spaceship. This is one reason to be concerned with the speed of light in a coordinate system moving faster than light speed. Either he sees no change if light moves at velocity c within the ship or it will look as if water was poured over an object where the water flows down distorting visible features. Light emitted from an object in the spacecraft will appear as sheets formed by the object and the angle they form with the body depends upon the vehicle's velocity. If you look forward, you will only see objects within the light cone that includes the observer. Likewise, if you look rearward, you only see those objects within your own light cone. Detectability of a hyper-light trajectory is of prime interest. Let us return to the fluid dynamic analogy that was previously mentioned. The author recalls a high-speed camera motion picture of a reentry vehicle test in the Kwajellien lagoon. Individual photos surprisingly revealed the bow shock on the spherecone configuration. Thus the high-speed camera acted somewhat in a similar fashion as a Schlieren camera. Although we were not in the cone of influence for this phenomenon, we could visually see the interaction because of the greater speed of light over that of the fluid dynamic phenomenon based upon the sound speed in the atmosphere. For the hyper-light situation, could we see the vehicle at all? We should definitely see the object if the observer was in either the cone of influence in front of or behind the object. We should also see the object as the directrix identifying the extremes of these cones passes over the observer. Are there other ways to see the vehicle due to a second potential that allows us to see the object whereas we are physically outside of the cone of influence? The conventional wisdom regarding the mathematics suggests that this should not happen.

Speed of Light Trajectories

If we look at the equations of motion, we need a reference condition. In the atmosphere, such a reference would be the speed of sound within the air media. In the vastness of space, however, there is no such reference except possibly the fluid needed by the propulsor. Thus, another condition is needed to identify singular behavior. The only meaningful reference in space would be the speed of light. The challenge is to identify conservation equations to see if such a singularity has any meaning and provide insights to identifying a possible solution. This also requires questioning assumptions about the constancy of factors where light speed may be treated as a variable. We will, however, for the sake of this analysis assume that the speed of light is a constant. Let us examine momentum for a transient process driven by E-M forces: p dp dx p = + = qe [E + v B] . t dt dt x If one looks at the momentum in terms of the relativity factor and behavior, the following holds:
p = m o v ; where: =
1 1 - (v / c ) 2

1 1- 2

A difference in the special and general theory is the inclusion of the relativity factor as a variable

10

function of time. This is not required for the special theory where the moving coordinate system is at constant velocity.

The Case for Special Relativity

This assumes velocity is almost a constant and is invariant or a weak function of time. How the vehicle actually achieved these specific conditions or will leave this state of grace is not of concern here. The point is to simply see if a discernable difference exist between the general and special theory of relativity. The first step will be to take the time derivative of momentum and examine each of the terms. The first partial derivative term, assuming a constant flowrate is expelled at high speed, becomes: m o p v . = + v + mo t t t The first partial derivative term becomes: The first term is the rate of change of mass, which accounts for mass leaving the vehicle as part of the function of the propulsor. The second term is the rate of change of velocity with time that based upon the earlier comments is also of a very low magnitude. When combined with other terms results in: p & mo = [ ]p. ln ( ) + t t mo This equation is unexpected, the logarithmic term has an unusual but desirable behavior. Values below unity or sub-light speeds are negative whereas it vanishes at light speed and becomes positive at hyper-light conditions. This term is the desired trigger. If we assume a constant flowrate and, with some manipulations, this equation becomes: & mo [[ ] p = Fe + Fm . ln ( ) + c ln ( ) ] + t x mo This is the point of departure. If the E-M fields grow by the relativity factor, they will compensate for the relativity factor inherent in the definition of momentum. If anything, they would essentially cancel each other and the problem remains tractable. Moreover, there would be no phenomenal distortion as the speed of light singularity may have no real interaction with this equation.

The Case for General Relativity

Here the velocity hence the relativity factor, are treated as strong functions of time. With this condition, the first partial derivative term becomes: p mo v = mo v + v + mo . t t t t 3 v where: = . c t t When combined with other terms results in: p = [ t

& mo ln ( ) + ]p, t mo

Combining these terms and manipulating yields: dp dx p & mo 2 = [ ]p + , ln ( ) + dt dt x t mo The appearance of the squared relativity factor term dominates and removes the problem of dealing with imaginary terms. It will offset similar singular terms introduced due to dilation effects in the magnetic or electric field momentum terms. With some manipulations, this equation becomes: & mo 2 ln ( ) + c ln ( )] + [ [ ] p = Fe + Fm . t x mo

11

The basic difference between the general and special theory of relativity is that the relativistic factor multiplier is now part of the equation. If the forces include electric and magnetic effects that will grow to large amounts due to singular behavior, the probability of our vehicle remaining at or near constant velocity will remain very low. Here, the singular behavior and its benefits remain embedded within the problem and this equation. This is a desirable outcome. There is a second desire here to convert the equation of motion to a form that requires finding a potential similar to ideas previously mentioned, that is close to: 2 [ tt - ln (v / c) xx] = f(x, t) where the RHS includes electromagnetic forces. This equation has the desired switching behavior responding to when the vehicle moves from sub-light, light, and then hyper-light conditions. Rudakov19 et al implies several Russian researchers identified relativistic currents with a similar built-in velocity switch when the relativity factor is changed as velocity approaches and exceeds light speed. Unfortunately, this is not suitable here. A way around this problem involves rearranging momentum terms such that: & mo 2 ln ( ) + c [ ln ( ) - ln ( ) ]] + [ [ ] p = Fe + Fm . t x x mo and using the substitutions: t = ln ( ) , x = - c ; where: = v / c . where is an integration factor satisfying: 1 + ln ( ) = ln ( ) . c x t t The first two terms have the desired form: ln () 1 1 [tt ] x - c xx + [ x ln () - ] p = 12 [ Fe + Fm] . x x t Based upon its initial definition, the potential may change sign as velocity changes with respect to light speed. Because of the integration factor's dependency upon the velocity switching function, the coefficient of the second term may be neutralized preventing switching of the equation's canonical form. As before, a pseudo-potential equation exists that satisfies: If : t = x + ,
x = t + ; then : tt - xx = x - t + t x , tt - xx = t - x + x x .

The first equation is the original momentum equation and the second is an adjoint equation for a complimentary potential. Additional terms are: t = - c t - 1 [F e + F m ] - t x , 2p x ln - ln1 ln ] x . x = - [ x x Note that acceleration drives all of these equations, the potentials, pseudo-potentials, and integration factor as a function of time and spatial dependency. The integration factor becomes constant for no acceleration and the PDE canonical form, for positive , is greatly simplified. There is no implicit assumption that the speed of light varied either in a temporal or spatial sense. If indeed this speed depends upon a background field effect, these variations could also be considered in these derivations.

CONCLUSIONS
Several questions were raised about the initial premise of travel at faster than the speed of light. Foremost of these was to understand reasons why the conventional wisdom was contrary to this concept and if any physical evidence exists to suggest that this may be feasible. It is suggested that black holes may provide the needed evidence and, if anything, additional observations are required to validate that evaporation does

12

occur and particles or energy are released at hyper-light speeds. Along the way, trajectories were examined for a hypothetical E-M vehicle assuming that certain conditions regarding E-M fields were valid. Without quantitative examination, the possibility of using these derivations to examine such signatures through the cosmos remains an open issue requiring further investigations.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author wishes to thank Mr. Ron Kita and Ed Speiden for the considerable encouragement they have provided. Both were always available to provide either new data or help germinate ideas that are included within this and, possibly, future efforts. Thanks also go to Dr. Brice Cassenti for his support during the early phases of this series of publications on hyper-light space travel.

NOTATION
A Vector potential B Magnetic flux field vector C Magnetic source flux vector potential cSpeed of light E Electric field vector F Force J Surface current m Instantaneous mass p Momentum q Electric or magnetic charge t Time V Velocity or gravity gradient , Potential x, y, z Cartesian coordinates

Subscripts or Superscripts
cElectric m Magnetic o Reference

Greek Symbols
Relativity velocity factor Permitivity Permeability Volume charge density or fluid mass density Conductivity

REFERENCES
1. P.A. Murad: "Tsien's Method for Generating Non-Keplerian Trajectories", AIAA Paper No. 91-0678 presented at the AIAA 29th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, Nevada, January 1991. 2. P.A. Murad: "Tsien's Method for Generating Non-Keplerian Trajectories; Part II- The Question of Thrust to Orbit a Sphere and the Restricted Three-Body Problem", AAS Paper 93-112 presented at the AAS/AIAA Spaceflight Mechanics Meeting, Pasadena, Cal., Feb. 22-24, 1993. Paper was also given at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center 1992 Flight Mechanics/Estimation Theory Symposium, Greenbelt, Md., 5-7 May 1992. 3 P.A. Murad: "An Electro-magnetic Rocket Stellar Drive...Myth or Reality? Part I -Electro-magnetic and Relativistic Phenomenon", AIAA Paper No. 95-2602 presented at the 31st AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference in San Diego, 10-12 July 1995. 4. P.A. Murad: "An Electro-magnetic Rocket Stellar Drive...Myth or Reality? Part II -Fluid Dynamic Interactions and an Engine Concept", AIAA Paper No. 95-2894 presented at the 31st AIAA/ASME/

13

SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference in San Diego, 10-12 July 1995. 5. P. Murad: "An Electromagnetic Rocket Hyper-Light Stellar Drive", IAF Paper No. IAA-96-IAA.4.1.07 in the Proceedings of the 47th IAF Congress in Beijing, China 7-11 Oct. 1996. 6. H. A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, H. Minkowski and H. Weyl: The Principle of Relativity... a collection of original memoirs on the special and general theory of relativity, Dover Publications, Inc. 1952. 7. B. S. Chwieroth, R. A. Lewis, et al: "Anti Proton-Catalyzed Microfission/fusion Propulsion", AIAA Paper No. 95-2900, 31st AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, July 10-12, 1995. 8. M. S. Morris and K. S. Thorne: Wormholes in Spacetime and Their Use for Interstellar Travel: A Tool to Teaching General Relativity, Am. J. Phys. 56(5), May 1988, pp 395-412. 9. Stephen Hawking: Stephan Hawking's Universe, Quill/William Morrow Publishers, New York, 1985. 10.Igor Novikov: Black Holes and the Universe, Cambridge University Press, 1990. 11. R.S. Ingarden and A. Jamiolkowski: Classical Electrodynamics, Studies in Electrical and Electronic Engineering 12, 1985, Elsevier, Polish Scientific Publishers, Warszawa. 12 I. Kopylov and I. Yanitsky: "This Electromagnetic Earth", Science in Russia, No. 3, May-June 1995, ISSN 0869-7078. 13 D.H. Childress: Extraterrestrial Archaeology, Adventures Unlimited Press, 1994, ISBN 0-932813-21-6. 14. B. Haisch, A. Rueda, H. E. Puthoff: "Inertia as a Zero-Point-Field Lorentz Force", The American Physical Society, Physical Review A, Vol. 49, Number 2, February 1994, pp 678-694. 15. V. G. Gurzadyan and A. T. Margarian: Inverse Compton Testing of Fundamental Physics and the Cosmic Background Radiation, Physica Scripta. Vol. 53, 513-515, 1996. 16. P.A. Murad: "A Framework for Developing Navier-Stokes Closed-Form Solutions", AIAA Paper No. 950479 presented at the 33rd Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, January 9-12, 1995. 17. P.A. Murad: "A Mathematical Treatise on the Restricted Three-Body Problem of Celestial Mechanics", AIAA Paper No. 75-8, presented at the AIAA 13th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, January 1975. 18. Catherine Asaro: "Complex Speeds and Special Relativity", pp 421-429, Am. J. Phys. 64(4), April 1996. 19. L. I. Rudakov, M. V. Babykin, A. V. Gordeyev, et al.: Generation and Focusing of High-Current Relativistic Electron Beams, Energoatomizdat.

14