Someone eager to shoot this full of holes?
The real trick is taking ice, hydrocarbons and ore and growing potatoes quorn.
See page 8 of this .PDF from Roundup http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/roundup/online/2012/0712.pdf
Looks like there might be some reputable scientists behind this.
Laser interferometers are not so sensitive that they can measure the deflection due to gravity of ordinary matter, why would they be for exotic matter?I hear these "new" techniques are about some theory of space-time warping that doesn't involve exotic matter at all, nor the enormous amounts of energy that E=mc2 would suggest. Not that I understand them at all.
They're looking for plain space/time distortion. If a cockroach scuttled near one of these things, it would pick it up its gravity well.
But actually, if recalculating with a rounded donut ring gives superior results over a flat ring, when what about if you recalculate with a spheromak type of shape?
How is the Casimir effect relevant or applicable here? You mean just for experimental measurement purposes?Since Casimir geometries are associated with regions of elevated or reduced quantum vacuum "pressure", then would such an altered region of space tend to bring out these warp effects more, thus making them more observable/detectable?
Quote from: sanman on 09/19/2012 11:16 amHow is the Casimir effect relevant or applicable here? You mean just for experimental measurement purposes?Since Casimir geometries are associated with regions of elevated or reduced quantum vacuum "pressure", then would such an altered region of space tend to bring out these warp effects more, thus making them more observable/detectable?The Casimir effect is very applicable here. According to quantum mechanics, wavelets of light are constantly appearing and disappearing everywhere, even in a vacuum. If you have 2 flat metal plates close together in a vacuum, then some of those wavelets can't appear between them because the distance between the plates is smaller than than the wavelet's wavelength. Hence there is less energy than the vacuum between the plates. Hence there is a region of negative energy (also negative mass, because mass is energy) between the plates.
http://news.yahoo.com/warp-drive-may-more-feasible-thought-scientists-161301109.htmlLooks like there might be some reputable scientists behind this. Thoughts? Someone eager to shoot this full of holes?
Also, speed is still somewhat limited. The article talks about 10c (which is Warp what, 2?). So it will still require years to journey even to the nearest star system, especially if the vessel has to drop out of warp every once in a while to get its bearings back...
Quote from: aquanaut99 on 09/19/2012 08:35 pmAlso, speed is still somewhat limited. The article talks about 10c (which is Warp what, 2?). So it will still require years to journey even to the nearest star system, especially if the vessel has to drop out of warp every once in a while to get its bearings back...Uh? The nearest star is 4.3 lightyears away. So at 10x the speed of light, wouldn't you be able to travel 43 ligthyears in 1 year? Therefore, wouldn't you be able to get to the Alpha Centauri system in less than a month and a half?
Quote from: Chandonn on 09/19/2012 10:21 pmQuote from: aquanaut99 on 09/19/2012 08:35 pmAlso, speed is still somewhat limited. The article talks about 10c (which is Warp what, 2?). So it will still require years to journey even to the nearest star system, especially if the vessel has to drop out of warp every once in a while to get its bearings back...Uh? The nearest star is 4.3 lightyears away. So at 10x the speed of light, wouldn't you be able to travel 43 ligthyears in 1 year? Therefore, wouldn't you be able to get to the Alpha Centauri system in less than a month and a half?Check your math. At 10c it takes 4.3/10 = 0.43 years = 5 months and a week.
Okay, but I just want to be clear on what a "space warp" is, conceptually.We can already visualize what a gravitational field/distortion is, with geodesics.So what is a "warp"? A dip and peak, like an electron-hole pair? So the peak is behind you (expanding space) and the dip is in front of you (contracting space)? So it's like a "kink" in space?With gravity, of course you don't have a dip-and-peak, like an electron-hole pair. Gravity is all dip (unless you're talking about the special exotic matter with "negative mass", which gives you all peak.)And unlike the tiny fluctuations constantly occurring naturally in the dynamic quantum vacuum, it sounds like we are talking about a much larger macroscopic dip-and-peak, where your spaceship will somehow fit in between it. So how do you keep space "flat" in the middle, where your spaceship is?
Would you need to be outside the atmosphere before engaging this, or could you start from earth? What about on the other end? Would you still need a lander?BTW I appreciate all the great responses to my initial post!
Quote from: Lampyridae on 09/19/2012 08:25 amThey're looking for plain space/time distortion. If a cockroach scuttled near one of these things, it would pick it up its gravity well.Yes, but no laser interferometer is that sensitive.
Quote from: TrueBlueWitt on 09/19/2012 11:53 pmWould you need to be outside the atmosphere before engaging this, or could you start from earth? What about on the other end? Would you still need a lander?BTW I appreciate all the great responses to my initial post!I am pretty sure you would have to be far, far away from any massive body before engaging warp drive. I especially can't imagine doing so anywhere near Earth. The tremendous space-time-curvature (read: tidal forces) generated at the bubble interface would tear everything to shreds (actually, all the way down to nuclear particles, and maybe even quarks). No way is this going to be healthy to Earth and her inhabitants.On that note: a vessel inside the bubble would have to stay well away from the edges or also risk being shredded by the tidal forces. To make matters worse, it appears that the Hawking radiation generated at the interface could heat up the inside of the bubble to several million K. Pretty unhealthy way to travel, IMO.
The inside of the bubble would be fine until it decelerated to sublight. Then the radiation bath reaches the bubble interior. Also, it unleashes a hellish torrent *ahead* of the bubble. Flying an expendable drone ahead of the ship would soak up must of the oncoming radiation. The manned section would decelerate first, followed by the drone, which would take the energy with it in a sacrificial explosion.
The solution for all that already exists: ionized gas contained by a magnetic field, as used in fusion reactors.
I'm surprised. The highest definition non-interferometric gravity sensors I know of work to within a hundredth of a nm/s^2 (which would probably pick up a rat in the same room).
Quote from: IRobot on 09/20/2012 01:24 pmThe solution for all that already exists: ionized gas contained by a magnetic field, as used in fusion reactors.I'm not entirely up to date here. Which fusion reactors are you referring to?
That would still be tremendous. And remember, this would be for the initial entry level device. There is little doubt that these things would be improved upon once they were better understood, after all we have jet airplanes now we started with propeller planes.
Tokamak reactors.
A spiral downramp lead visitors to a large well at the center of the pavilion where they watched "the creation of a miniature sun." A big Lexan dome surrounded the apparatus. Inside were two three-foot-long quartz tubes filled with deuterium plasma, Inside them, after a three minute countdown, a million amperes of current created a magnetic field 200,000 times stronger than the earth's. And inside this invisible bottle, millions of deuterium nuclei fused at a temperature of 100 million degrees for six millionths of a second. Those watching saw a tremendous flash accompanied by a loud bang that signified the birth of a new age. The experiment implied that in less than two decades man would have an almost cheap limitless source of electrical energy, enough to last for billions of years.
This apparatus is called a theta-pinch fusion device, so-called because the current in the plasma flows in the azimuthal, or theta direction, with respect to the compressing magnetic field. Other experimental devices of this type are also being studied in this country at Los Alamos and at the Naval Research Laboratory and in laboratories in several other countries.
the Hawking radiation generated at the edge of the bubble itself
Good question. How the hell do you go about creating a "warp" bubble?
(something as simple as a very high voltage capacitor ring)
It seems to me that Alcubierre's warp drive is based on Unobtainium - exotic matter. How White plans to achieve any warp effect without the exotic matter is unclear to me. Anybody have any answers to this?
Quote from: krytek on 09/21/2012 05:01 amGood question. How the hell do you go about creating a "warp" bubble? Well, warp coils of course. -Alex
Speaking of Tokamaks, just noticed that Elon Musk's twitter background is a tokamak! Hummmmm... HUMMMM!!!!! Am I getting hot, Mr. Musk?? Any fusion rocket on your Mars reusable vehicle plan?? hehehhttp://twitter.com/elonmusk
Quote from: krytek on 09/21/2012 05:01 amGood question. How the hell do you go about creating a "warp" bubble? I thoght I read that he might use a capacitor. Here -http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110015936_2011016932.pdfSee page 8 of the pdf. Quote(something as simple as a very high voltage capacitor ring)
Look how long it took NASA to use ion propulsion (50 years?).
Woodward's mass fluctuation equation has a term that's always negative. If this term can be driven so that it becomes large, there's your exotic matter. And you can modulate how much of it you have.
Quote from: Lampyridae on 09/20/2012 11:34 amI'm surprised. The highest definition non-interferometric gravity sensors I know of work to within a hundredth of a nm/s^2 (which would probably pick up a rat in the same room).Slightly OT, but could you provide a reference to those sensors, please? Ultra-sensitive gravimeters are an interest I have (albeit a mild one).
Quote from: Moe Grills on 09/21/2012 08:17 pmLook how long it took NASA to use ion propulsion (50 years?). NASA had a flight tested ion engine in 1964. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/history/sert.htmlBut then, it was based on well understood physical principles. What is being discussed here is based on, shall we say, more speculative principles. Your 200 year estimate could be optimistic.
You need to move huge masses to produce gravity waves because gravity is so astonishingly weak. Running some liquid through a coil won't do it. Rotating two neutron stars (or black holes) around each other will produce a respectable amount of gravitational radiation. But that's not exactly a starship, is it?Once produced, I don't think there's any known way of focusing gravitational waves. They are a different kind of beast to electromagnetic waves. Matter is transparent to them. I don't know how they could be harnessed to produce any form of propulsion. Maybe someone out there with a much better understanding of physics might care to comment.I also believe that FTL is impossible for causality violation reasons as mentioned earlier in the thread.Unfortunately we don't live in the Star Trek universe. The real universe is not required to conform to our desires.
Just because we don't know how to produce gravity waves or space-time distortions without the use of high mass objects does not mean it's impossible.
Quote from: douglas100 on 09/26/2012 08:27 amI also believe that FTL is impossible for causality violation reasons as mentioned earlier in the thread.Unfortunately we don't live in the Star Trek universe. The real universe is not required to conform to our desires.The Alcubierre drive does not cause a casualty violation as it does not travel back in time.
I also believe that FTL is impossible for causality violation reasons as mentioned earlier in the thread.Unfortunately we don't live in the Star Trek universe. The real universe is not required to conform to our desires.
Quote from: douglas100 on 09/26/2012 08:27 amYou need to move huge masses to produce gravity waves because gravity is so astonishingly weak. Running some liquid through a coil won't do it. Rotating two neutron stars (or black holes) around each other will produce a respectable amount of gravitational radiation. But that's not exactly a starship, is it?Once produced, I don't think there's any known way of focusing gravitational waves. They are a different kind of beast to electromagnetic waves. Matter is transparent to them. I don't know how they could be harnessed to produce any form of propulsion. Maybe someone out there with a much better understanding of physics might care to comment.You're right. Let's tell the real Physicists they have no idea what they're talking about and us armchair rocket scientists know everything!
You need to move huge masses to produce gravity waves because gravity is so astonishingly weak. Running some liquid through a coil won't do it. Rotating two neutron stars (or black holes) around each other will produce a respectable amount of gravitational radiation. But that's not exactly a starship, is it?Once produced, I don't think there's any known way of focusing gravitational waves. They are a different kind of beast to electromagnetic waves. Matter is transparent to them. I don't know how they could be harnessed to produce any form of propulsion. Maybe someone out there with a much better understanding of physics might care to comment.
Im pretty sure anything travelling faster than light is travelling back in time from a certain frame of reference. I know how to demonstrate a shoot-your-grandfather type paradox with an 'instantaneous communicator', and the example makes it obvious that it also works with values below 'instantaneous'. However you can google for better examples than I could come up with.
You're right. Let's tell the real Physicists they have no idea what they're talking about and us armchair rocket scientists know everything!
Im pretty sure anything travelling faster than light is travelling back in time from a certain frame of reference.
Nice find.
JASON was asked by staff at the National MASINT Committee of ODNI to evaluate the scientific, technological, and national security significance of high frequency gravitational waves (HFGW). Our main conclusions are that the proposed applications of the science of HFGW are fundamentally wrong; that there can be no security threat; and that independent scientific and technical vetting of such hypothetical threats is generally necessary. We conclude that previous analysis of the Li-Baker detector concept is incorrect by many orders of magnitude; and that the following are infeasible in the foreseeable future: detection of the natural "relic" HFGW, which are reliably predicted to exist; or detection of artificial sources of HFGW. No foreign threat in HFGW is credible, including: Communication by means of HFGW; Object detection or imaging (by HFGW radar or tomography); Vehicle propulsion by HFGW; or any other practical use of HFGW. For the relatively weak fields in the lab, on the Earth, or indeed in the solar system (far from the cutting-edge science of black holes of the Big Bang), the general theory of relativity and its existing experimental basis are complete, accurate and reliable.
Harold White has put out a presentation on his proposed Warp Field Interferometer experiment:http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/09/harold-white-presentation-on-making.htmlFocusing on slides 6-8 and slides 11-14, what is this thing he calls Boost?And further on slide 14, he mentions a usable Casimir force for thrust, generated by a magnetic field. Can anyone elaborate on that?
As I understand it, the prohibition on transmitting information faster than the speed ensures that all observers always see cause preceding effect.<snip>Notice that this argument says nothing about the nature of the FTL propulsion system. It only assumes that the starship is effectively transmitting information between two points faster than the speed of light.
The space-time geometry implied by the special theory of relativity says that any sort of FTL whatsoever wipes out the distinction between future and past and provides a means of backwards time travel, with attendant causality problems.
...Doesn't matter if it's ... or Transcendental Meditation. It's the effect (FTL), not the means, that matters.
Quote from: ChileVerde on 10/08/2012 01:56 amThe space-time geometry implied by the special theory of relativity says that any sort of FTL whatsoever wipes out the distinction between future and past and provides a means of backwards time travel, with attendant causality problems. Explain to me, like I'm five, how FTL can result in backwards time travel.
QuoteExplain to me, like I'm five, how FTL can result in backwards time travel.Oh, that's easy: You can get there before you left.Try this: http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/archives/000089.htmlThe essence of the situation from the above URL is "The constancy of the speed of light in all frames means that different observers must slice spacetime into space and time in different ways."
Explain to me, like I'm five, how FTL can result in backwards time travel.
You could put in some effort yourself:
I don't agree with the idea that the Alcubierre Warp Drive implies time travel.Information naturally propagates at lightspeed, so that if the Sun explodes, it will be witnessed on Earth about 8 minutes later.Suppose you could travel FTL - so then you could travel from the Sun to the Earth in less than 8 minutes. So that would only be "time travel" in the vague sense that you can more quickly carry information ahead of its natural time of arrival. But you wouldn't be able to go back to the moment before the Sun actually exploded. You would only be able to travel out to where the image of a still intact Sun continues to exist. It's only in that sense that you've traveled backwards in time.
Quote from: simonbp on 10/08/2012 06:21 amYou could put in some effort yourself: I have.I've yet to read anyone explain how FTL = time travel, in layman terms.Those two links are great. Thanks for them, but there is no hope that my grandmother (or even my brother) would understand them.
This time travel FTL stuff is counter-intuitive, but it all boils down to the fact that under special relativity, whether events A and B happen at the same time, A precedes B or B precedes A depends on the observer reference frame. *) Not only "are observed" preceding or concurring. Actually happen. Unless you manage to find a universally preferred reference frame, each situation is just as real.Basically, if event A means sending information and B receiving it, light speed is the maximum speed at which you can send information in your own reference frame, so that in no other reference frame B precedes A. If you do it faster, there will be a reference frame in which you are sending information back in time. If that happens, by cleverly passing the information between observers in different reference frames, you can end up with sending it back in time in your own reference frame. A bit like throwing a ball forward, but onto a backward-moving conveyor belt, and picking it up behind you (well actually you need at least two belts but this is where it gets tricky. Still, it does work like that).*) Which means instantaneous communication is a fishy concept by itself (instantaneous to whom?).
Ooo I just realized how this would work with a warp drive, also. It's comparable. Note that for this to work, you need to travel at fast sub light speeds as well as faster than light. Please refer to diagram. These diagrams also explain why, if you make a time machine, you can't travel back in time past the point where the time machine was invented.
Quote from: scienceguy on 10/08/2012 04:51 pmOoo I just realized how this would work with a warp drive, also. It's comparable. Note that for this to work, you need to travel at fast sub light speeds as well as faster than light. Please refer to diagram. These diagrams also explain why, if you make a time machine, you can't travel back in time past the point where the time machine was invented.I like your diagram and the explanation would be fine for my grandmother.. The problem is, step 3 is wrong. Traveling away from Earth at significant fractions of light speed doesn't get you to a different time in the future compared to Earthly observers..To an Earthly observer you still take about 8 years to get to Alpha Centauri, traveling at half the speed of light. To you the journey has taken less time (about 7 years) but even if you were to zoom back instantaneously you wouldn't get to keep that extra year.If it did, you wouldn't even need FTL to produce a paradox. Radio transmissions from the crew would arrive before they were sent.
Quote from: scienceguy on 10/08/2012 04:51 pmOoo I just realized how this would work with a warp drive, also. It's comparable. Note that for this to work, you need to travel at fast sub light speeds as well as faster than light. Please refer to diagram. These diagrams also explain why, if you make a time machine, you can't travel back in time past the point where the time machine was invented.I like your diagram and the explanation would be fine for my grandmother.. The problem is, step 3 is wrong. Traveling away from Earth at significant fractions of light speed doesn't get you to a different time in the future compared to Earthly observers..To an Earthly observer you still take about 8 years to get to Alpha Centauri, traveling at half the speed of light. To you the journey has taken less time (about 7 years) but even if you were to zoom back instantaneously you wouldn't get to keep that extra year.
(5) Here is the paradox: Suppose B sends an instantaneous message to A as the lightwave arrives: "Put your hand out now". A must get the message at the same time the lightwave arrives because that is how we defined simultaneous between two observers with the same velocity. However, a traveller is zipping past A at exactly this moment. A puts out their hand and wacks them in the face as they pass. All these events (the message from B, the light pulse, the whack) all happen at the same instant in the same position in space so there is no confusion there.The traveller however has a mate moving at the same velocity who, from his perspective and from our definition of simultaneous, is passing B at the exact same time.. but.. from their point of view the lightwave has not yet reached B.The traveller, now informed of the juvenile nature of the experiment, instantly sends a message to their mate, who grabs B's communicator as he whips past, before the light pulse arrives, before B sends the message telling A to hit the traveller.
Quote from: KelvinZero on 10/09/2012 03:51 am(5) Here is the paradox: Suppose B sends an instantaneous message to A as the lightwave arrives: "Put your hand out now". A must get the message at the same time the lightwave arrives because that is how we defined simultaneous between two observers with the same velocity. However, a traveller is zipping past A at exactly this moment. A puts out their hand and wacks them in the face as they pass. All these events (the message from B, the light pulse, the whack) all happen at the same instant in the same position in space so there is no confusion there.The traveller however has a mate moving at the same velocity who, from his perspective and from our definition of simultaneous, is passing B at the exact same time.. but.. from their point of view the lightwave has not yet reached B.The traveller, now informed of the juvenile nature of the experiment, instantly sends a message to their mate, who grabs B's communicator as he whips past, before the light pulse arrives, before B sends the message telling A to hit the traveller.Okay, now rephrase that with the Warp Drive, because I don't think all the assumptions will work. If they're not in the same space (ie. some kind of separate subspace) then I don't think the assumptions on reference frame apply.
If I understand you right, you are saying warp drive gets around this paradox?No it doesn't, because it makes absolutely no difference how the data arrives. We do not care about the perspective of the person travelling at warp speed, all my observers are sub-light. It comes down to "What do you even mean by simultaneous". Its not really a clue to a way to build a time machine, it is pointing out that it doesn't really make sense...or it makes exactly as much sense as building a time machine in a non-relativistic universe simply by going faster than infinite speed and therefore taking negative time to arrive at your destination.To attack this paradox, you just have to look at my definition of simultaneous. Can you come up with one that all the observers (and you only need to consider sub-light observers) agree on?If you google ftl paradox you will see it is a genuine problem, but people are playing around with ways of avoiding paradox with additional constraints. You really have to take that perspective rather than assume the paradox is just some internet forum myth.
What I see is that those who claim that FTL means allowing backwards travel in time are assuming that lightspeed is instantaneous.
Google "Alcubierre" and "causal disconnect", and you'll see that there's a conventional wisdom out there that the Alcubierre drive does not create paradoxes.This is because the Alcubierre drive creates a "causally disconnected" space when doing FTL.
Quote from: sanman on 10/11/2012 12:07 pmGoogle "Alcubierre" and "causal disconnect", and you'll see that there's a conventional wisdom out there that the Alcubierre drive does not create paradoxes.This is because the Alcubierre drive creates a "causally disconnected" space when doing FTL.If it's causally disconnected then how does one board and alight? You might be able to one or the other, but if you can do both, its not causally disconnected, right?
What about faster than light expansion of universe? Same effect, no time travel.
If it's causally disconnected then how does one board and alight? You might be able to one or the other, but if you can do both, its not causally disconnected, right?
Nothing stops space from expanding superluminally. Which reminds me of a way to travel ftl: send a probe on a path that gets arbitrarily close to the event horizon of a spinning black hole. There is a region where free fall is ftl, as measured from far away.I guess an observer at infinity would see the probe leave before it arrives?
Quote from: Celebrimbor on 10/11/2012 12:14 pmIf it's causally disconnected then how does one board and alight? You might be able to one or the other, but if you can do both, its not causally disconnected, right?Gee, if my car can travel 120mph, then how will I get inside or leave? If an airplane can travel 300pmh, then how does one board or alight? Heck, when people are able to board 300mph planes everyday, then it must be quite a sight to see!
Quote from: Celebrimbor on 10/12/2012 06:52 amNothing stops space from expanding superluminally. Which reminds me of a way to travel ftl: send a probe on a path that gets arbitrarily close to the event horizon of a spinning black hole. There is a region where free fall is ftl, as measured from far away.I guess an observer at infinity would see the probe leave before it arrives?Only variable "c" theories, like the one from Joao Mageuijo, allow superluminal expansion speed. In fact, the whole theory was thought to resolve the horizon problem.
The Alcubierre drive is itself so far from "conventional wisdom" that you would need an Alcubierre drive to reach it from conventional wisdom.
Nothing stops space from expanding superluminally.
Quote from: sanman on 10/12/2012 09:05 amQuote from: Celebrimbor on 10/11/2012 12:14 pmIf it's causally disconnected then how does one board and alight? You might be able to one or the other, but if you can do both, its not causally disconnected, right?Gee, if my car can travel 120mph, then how will I get inside or leave? If an airplane can travel 300pmh, then how does one board or alight? Heck, when people are able to board 300mph planes everyday, then it must be quite a sight to see!I don't see what you are getting at...
So is Paul March around? I'd read about some recent new comments about being able to increase the boost factor to extremely high levels by manipulating certain parameters.
sorry if this is off topic but something i saw in the 80s continues to nag at me and i kinda wondered if this warp drive idea might be related somehow.basically i saw what i thought was a satellite make a 90 degree instant angle.
is this something the warp drive concept would allow? is the ship within the warp experiencing inertia?
I think somebody said you as a passenger would see a blue-shifted haze towards the front and a red-shifted haze towards the back.
And other light, such as the pervasive glow of the universe called the cosmic microwave background radiation, which is left over from the Big Bang, would be shifted out of the microwave range and into the visible spectrum, the students found.
Did not Tajmar come to definitely rule it out as instrument noise?
Sonny's QVF model would predict that a DC field can perturb spacetime. He's trying to sell the notion that a DC field will under certain conditions promote what is necessary and sufficient for a warp field....What we know from Jim Woodward's work is that we aren't after producing large negative energies, such as in all the Incorrect ZPF stuff, but rather, we need to be looking at producing large negative masses, as in M-E theory.So Sonny's work only impinges upon Woodward's work. Woodward is making huge claims about how to produce very large negative masses, albeit for very short periods of time.Long story short, Sonny's QVF model and Jim's M-E theory are not in accord. They make very different predictions and it is completely wrong to say that they are "opposite sides of the issue" as many ZPF adherents have said over the years.Simple but weird: ZPF physics and M-E physics CANNOT both be correct. INERTIA comes from EITHER Mach's Principle: from gravity, OR the ZPF continuum.All data to date says inertia is the consequence of gravity and thus that M-E theory is correct. ZPF theory and Sonny's QVF model are both incorrect.Hope that helps.
What they need to do is find a way to make exotic matter.
Looks like it doesn't work.
...Albercrombie Wrap Drive...
and "let he who is without typo cast the first keyboard!"
well hopefully we can create gravity with out having the troublesome bother of moving massive objects around to do it though. and "let he who is without typo cast the first keyboard!"
Quote from: Stormbringer on 10/15/2013 09:00 pmwell hopefully we can create gravity with out having the troublesome bother of moving massive objects around to do it though. and "let he who is without typo cast the first keyboard!" Actually, I wasn't thinking so much as INITIALLY huge masses, but as basic relativistic theory states, as an object, (in this case a plasma) is accelerated to a significant fraction of the velocity of light, its' effective mass increases exponentially, so, if one were to be able to create a looped magnetic field, intense enough with a pulsed wavefront traveling at near the velocity of light, it should cause significant frame draging in the manner that I have stated. (Mind you the magnetic field would be spherical with the north and south poles being on opposite sides of the sphere, acting as inlet and exhaust of the plasma flow).Jason
Actually, I wasn't thinking so much as INITIALLY huge masses, but as basic relativistic theory states, as an object, (in this case a plasma) is accelerated to a significant fraction of the velocity of light, its' effective mass increases exponentially, so, if one were to be able to create a looped magnetic field, intense enough with a pulsed wavefront traveling at near the velocity of light, it should cause significant frame draging in the manner that I have stated. (Mind you the magnetic field would be spherical with the north and south poles being on opposite sides of the sphere, acting as inlet and exhaust of the plasma flow).Jason
Pitch and biasOne proposed method of achieving a diametric drive, or possibly a disjunction drive, which was studied in the BPP was called the pitch drive. This has been described as involving a hypothetical disjoint field which would eliminate the need for the field to be generated on the spacecraft itself.One specific proposal for such a pitch drive was called the bias drive. According to this proposal, if it were possible to locally alter the value of the gravitational constant G in front of and behind the craft, one could create a bias drive. While the gravitational constant is a fundamental physical constant in general relativity, the Brans–Dicke theory of gravitation does in a sense allow for a locally varying gravitational constant, so the notion of a locally varying gravitational constant has been seriously discussed in mainstream physics[citation needed]. It has been claimed[by whom?] that one problem with the concept of a bias drive was that it might create a singularity in the field's gradient located inside the vehicle.The bias drive and pitch drive is expressed qualitatively in mathematics [4] as :V = ( xBe ^{..r^2} + 1) [ - G(m/r)]andV = [( - Gm)/r] + ( - xAe ^{..r^2})respectively.where : e^{..r^2} is the Gaussian distribution over r\! dimensionless A\! is the magnitude of hypothetical pitch drive effect B\! is the magnitude of hypothetical bias drive effect
Cool idea to just accelerate enough particles to relativistic speeds until you get enough mass for your "warp bubble". Probably would require a large amount of energy and a large amount of relativistic mass to make it practical. Of course anything in front of that accelerated mass would get vaporized and release cosmic rays in all directions. I would tend to think a warp bubble would be invisible and unable to react with the "normal universe", light and matter would just go through it like a ghost. Except at the "event horizon" of the "naked singularity" in front of the bubble. Of course you could make that event horizon extremely small. I would think that causal disconnection would not effect boarding as that would occur before the effect occurs, problem is how do you turn the bubble off once you reach your destination. You have to make your bubble a tunnel and turn it off somehow at the destination. In other words the ship doesn't turn off the bubble your "stargate" stationed in another star system turns it on and off. Your warp bubble might have a very contracted tunnel connecting to the stargate that can be widened to swallow a ship then generated around the ship like a tapered cone, allowing for a very small connection to "normal space". If such a connection is quantum sized then I imagine any effects from normal space would be minimal like being in a "stasis field", time would appear to move very slowly. Since you could only use the tunnel in one direction you wouldn't run into the causal violation of arriving before you left, you would just arrive faster than light. You couldn't bend the tunnel to send something into the past because that would mean building your event horizon at the same or nearly the same location as the object you are transporting, either destroying the object or making it very difficult to get your field to taper to the correct proportions (the edges of the field would ten to intersect if your tunnel bends too much) thus destroying the tunnel. Problem would be the walls of the bubble might eventually push up against your ship as they contract, Big Boom! Your ship would have to probably create it's own warp-bubble or some kind of reactive shielding(ionizing gas gets vaporized by warp bubble and pushes against reaction plates on the hull thus pushing the vehicle closer to the central safe zone of the bubble) to keep it from being crushed. Also opening the tunnel to allow your ship into the tunnel would be fraught with the same problem as turning the tunnel off, big wash of radiation. Might be useful for FTL communication though, your transmitter would only have to survive long enough to transmit a message to a receiver located near your star gate. Build the receiver to be exactly centered in the "eye of the storm" of your tunnel. For another SG1 reference you could build a really tough armored "iris-like" shield to protect your receiver from radiation wash. Probably want locate your receiver some distance away and have some type of reactive armor and maybe electromagnetic deflection as well. Again doesn't technically violate causality in Einsteinian terms because either endpoint of the tunnel must be in different locals and would therefor have slightly different frames of reference. Technically any FTL technology does violate causality on quantum level when you start talking about "global causality" or a constant frame of reference. Thing is that there are a number of quantum phenomena that are observable that do violate such musings. Also, it is possible in theory to design FTL devices that don't violate causality from a Einsteinian special relativity point of view, otherwise as noted before super-inflation would be a violation of causality.
Good point a "donut" shaped field would probably not create the radiation issues that a closed or single opening field would create. Both a donut field and Krasniak tube like the one I described would not necessarily have as much of an issue with incoming matter impinging on the walls of the field, and thermal heating of the inside of the bubble might occur very slowly due to the fact that radiation would be entering through a direct route from normal space along with possible temporal effects of the inside of the bubble being mostly disconnected from normal space. We can't really know what the effects of or conditions that a warp bubble might create any better than we could have guessed at the effects of breaking the sound barrier. That being said an open tube or rotating donut field would still end up with some incoming matter reacting with the field in some way, which could lead to creation of dangerous radiation or even "kinetic" effects. It is highly unlikely to have a zero effect as White would claim, "hot spots" along the bubbles walls would develop over time.
The solution, as I see it, should be fairly simple. Move the ship forward in the pocket of space while the pocket is itself is also moving. This SHOULD allow any buildup of any debris and radiation to saftely dissipate along the sides of the field effect as both the space pocket an craft move in Space.
I'm a confused site visitor. This is a discussion under "Advanced concepts", so should be serious, yet it is discussing once proposed physics that as far as we know is impossible. So I'll just leave this here for the record:An Alcubierre field solution does not include the means to put matter traveling faster than the universal speed limit within itself. The solution has the constraint that you somehow create a spacetime region already traveling above the limit.And if it did include an acceleration means, it would run up against the same exclusion as all other time travel solutions of physics. (See Scott Aaaronsson's publications why those are forbidden, a physics realisation of the old quip "so where are all the time travelers then", with successful tests and all.)Disregarding the unspecified and impossible bootstrap procedure to break the relativity it builds on, its realizations are constrained to include exotic physics. That by itself is an extraordinary claim, and would need extraordinary evidence. This isn't rocket science.
I'm a confused site visitor. This is a discussion under "Advanced concepts", so should be serious, yet it is discussing once proposed physics that as far as we know is impossible.
Sorry Torbjorn Larsson : but to bend space time, it is more efficient than move in this space and time. The authority of the doctor White leaves us no other choice - it is better to move the asphalt under the truck than the truck.
..."Advanced concepts" means anything in the range from unlikely to impossible. If you don't want to read about things that are impossible as far as we know, you should avoid reading "Advanced concepts"...
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 12/21/2014 09:28 pm..."Advanced concepts" means anything in the range from unlikely to impossible. If you don't want to read about things that are impossible as far as we know, you should avoid reading "Advanced concepts"...So, if you've done six impossible things before breakfast, why not top it off with a quick read-through of the "Advanced concepts" section...?
(See Scott Aaaronsson's publications why those are forbidden, a physics realisation of the old quip "so where are all the time travelers then", with successful tests and all.)
Get the defibrolater paddles out. Call the medics. Put away the breakables. I'm about to cause several myocardio-infarctions and aneurisms...http://www.omaha.com/living/working-toward-a-warp-drive-in-his-garage-lab-omahan/article_b6489acf-5622-5419-ac18-0c44474da9c9.htmlI guess Dr White had better hurry up some. He's got competition :
QuoteGet the defibrolater paddles out. Call the medics. Put away the breakables. I'm about to cause several myocardio-infarctions and aneurisms...http://www.omaha.com/living/working-toward-a-warp-drive-in-his-garage-lab-omahan/article_b6489acf-5622-5419-ac18-0c44474da9c9.htmlI guess Dr White had better hurry up some. He's got competition : I wonder if Rodal or Mulletron could be summoned to this thread? Assuming, of course, that an actual paper with reasonably sane equations can be found somewhere.I do find it interesting he began by investigating known aeronautical anomalies/incidents.
Quote from: JasonAW3 on 12/15/2014 03:58 pmThe solution, as I see it, should be fairly simple. Move the ship forward in the pocket of space while the pocket is itself is also moving. This SHOULD allow any buildup of any debris and radiation to saftely dissipate along the sides of the field effect as both the space pocket an craft move in Space.Whether the ship is moving within the pocket or not, or even if there is a ship in the pocket or not, is irrelevant. The buildup of debris and radiation is due to the pocket, not the ship inside it.
This article says there is no such thing as inflation. Inflation is important to warp drive. What do we make of this study?http://phys.org/news/2014-12-alternative-explanation-dark-energy.html