### Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application  (Read 666373 times)

#### scienceguy

• Regular
• Full Member
• Posts: 731
• Lethbridge, Alberta
• Liked: 61
• Likes Given: 98
##### Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #60 on: 07/12/2008 10:05 PM »
Here's something I posted before about wornholes: the papers mentioned are worth looking into.

Note the Visser paper mentions that wormholes are possible with arbitrarily small energy condition violations. The Casimir Effect is an energy condition violation, bigger than arbitrarily small.

Wormholes and the Casimir Effect

Both Visser et. al. (2003) and Morris et. al. (1988) have done calculations about wormholes. Apparently they are possible only using the Casimir Effect, which is a small energy condition violation.

The amount of negative energy generated by the Casimir Effect depends on the distance between the metal plates and a value for the vacuum energy density. Vacuum energy density values range from 0 to 10^92 kg/m^3 (Weinberg, 1989). More recent estimates place the value between 10^19 kg/m^3 to 10^53 kg/m^3 (NASA). I will be assuming that the vacuum energy density is 10^19 kg/m^3. This is a conservative yet reasonable estimate.

If one has 2 perfectly flat metal plates each say 1 m x 1 m x 10nm, and these are placed so they are some small distance apart, say 1nm from surface to surface, these plates will produce the Casimir Effect. The Casimir Effect is a phenomenon where wavelengths of light produced by the vacuum energy are excluded from existing between the two plates because their wavelengths are longer than the distance between the plates. Since longer wavelengths of light have less energy than shorter wavelengths, most of the vacuum energy remains between the plates.

However, even if the Casimir Effect only excludes 1% of the energy in a vacuum from between the plates, that 1% would still amount to 10^17 kg/m^3. This 10^17 kg/m^3 is now the difference in energy from the normal vacuum energy density and that which is allowed between the plates. This is a negative energy density. Because there is only 1 m x 1 m x 1 nm of volume between the plates, this amounts to 10^-9 m^3 between the plates. Thus, per m^2, we have:

10^17 kg/m^3 x 10^-9 m^3 = 10^8 kg/m^2.

Conservation of Energy

I will base the following calculations on the law of conservation of energy and assume a 100% efficient wormhole. Note that the energy for these traverses of distance comes from the vacuum energy density.

To send 10^3 kg to Mars in sqrt(2) seconds, the energy required would be:

x = ½ at^2

a = 2x/t^2 = 2 * (10^10 m)/ (sqrt(2) s)^2 = 10^10 m/s^2

m = 10^3 kg

F = ma = (10^3 kg)(10^10 m/s^2) = 10^13 N

W = Fx = (10^13 N)(10^10 m) = 10^23 J

Converting the energy required into kg of negative mass, we have

E = mc^2   m = E/c^2 = 10^23 J/10^17 m^2/s^2 = 10^6 kg

Thus 10^6 kg of negative mass is required.

Thus, using Casimir Effect metal plates separated by 1 nm to generate that negative mass, the area of metal plates would need to be:

10^6 kg/ 10^8 kg/m^2 = 10^-2 m^2 or 10^2 cm^2

This can be achieved with a 1 cm wide Casimir Effect metal ring with a circumference of 100 cm, or a radius of 16 cm.

Even Further

If we were to use this same method to travel to the nearby star epsilon Eridani (10.5 ly or 10^17 m away), we can figure out how much area of metal plates we would need. We will again base the calculation on the assumption that it takes sqrt(2) seconds to traverse the wormhole.

a = 2x/t^2 = 2 * (10^17m)/(sqrt(2) s)^2 = 10^17 m/s^2

F = ma = (10^3 kg)(10^17 m) = 10^20 N

W = Fx = (10^20 N)(10^17 m) = 10^37 J

E = mc^2   m = E/c^2 = 10^37 J/10^17 m^2/s^2 = 10^20 kg

Thus 10^20 kg of negative mass is required.

10^20 kg/10^8 kg/m^2 = 10^12 m^2 or 10^6 km^2

Thus, in order to travel almost instantaneously via a wormhole to epsilon Eridani, we would need 10^6 km^2 of Casimir Effect metal, or an open metal cylinder with height 100 km long and a circumference of 10^4 km or a radius of 1600 km.

References

Morris, M., Thorne, K. and Yurtsever, U. (1988) Wormholes Time Machines and the Weak Energy Condition. Physical Review 61 (13):1446-1449

Visser, M., Kar, S., and Dadhich, N. (2003) Traversable Wormholes with Arbitrarily Small Energy Condition Violations. Physical Review Letters 90 (20): 201102

Weinberg, S. (1989) The Cosmological Constant Problem. Reviews of Modern Physics 61 (1): 1-23

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/research/warp/possible.html
e^(pi)i = -1

#### scienceguy

• Regular
• Full Member
• Posts: 731
• Lethbridge, Alberta
• Liked: 61
• Likes Given: 98
##### Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #61 on: 07/12/2008 10:24 PM »
I don't know the math for this, but it seems that the Casimir Effect can be increased by Landau Damping of the light waves popping in and out of existence. Landau Damping is a phenomenon whereby particles can be slowed down by giving energy to light waves or sped up by taking energy from light waves. Electrons in an element are moving around at near the speed of light, so they should be able to take energy from light waves popping in and out of existence, increasing the wavelength of those light waves, so they will be excluded from existing between the plates because their wavelengths are longer, increasing the Casimir Effect. The Landau Damping I'm guessing might work best if a metal with lots of electrons in its outer shells were used, like Platinum or Iridium. Does anyone here know whether electrons move faster in a metal if the metal is heated?
e^(pi)i = -1

#### gospacex

• Senior Member
• Posts: 3030
• Liked: 532
• Likes Given: 604
##### Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #62 on: 07/12/2008 11:27 PM »
Here's something I posted before about wornholes: the papers mentioned are worth looking into.

Note the Visser paper mentions that wormholes are possible with arbitrarily small energy condition violations. The Casimir Effect is an energy condition violation, bigger than arbitrarily small.

Wormholes and the Casimir Effect

Both Visser et. al. (2003) and Morris et. al. (1988) have done calculations about wormholes. Apparently they are possible only using the Casimir Effect, which is a small energy condition violation.

The amount of negative energy generated by the Casimir Effect depends on the distance between the metal plates and a value for the vacuum energy density. Vacuum energy density values range from 0 to 10^92 kg/m^3 (Weinberg, 1989). More recent estimates place the value between 10^19 kg/m^3 to 10^53 kg/m^3 (NASA). I will be assuming that the vacuum energy density is 10^19 kg/m^3. This is a conservative yet reasonable estimate.

If one has 2 perfectly flat metal plates each say 1 m x 1 m x 10nm, and these are placed so they are some small distance apart, say 1nm from surface to surface, these plates will produce the Casimir Effect.
...
However, even if the Casimir Effect only excludes 1% of the energy in a vacuum from between the plates, that 1% would still amount to 10^17 kg/m^3.

10^17 kg/m^3 is almost unimaginably large amount of energy.

I replied to your earlier post that many people moved metal plates to these distances, do I have to believe they all somehow missed several quadrazillion megatons of TNT released in the process?

#### scienceguy

• Regular
• Full Member
• Posts: 731
• Lethbridge, Alberta
• Liked: 61
• Likes Given: 98
##### Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #63 on: 07/12/2008 11:51 PM »
Here's something I posted before about wornholes: the papers mentioned are worth looking into.

Note the Visser paper mentions that wormholes are possible with arbitrarily small energy condition violations. The Casimir Effect is an energy condition violation, bigger than arbitrarily small.

Wormholes and the Casimir Effect

Both Visser et. al. (2003) and Morris et. al. (1988) have done calculations about wormholes. Apparently they are possible only using the Casimir Effect, which is a small energy condition violation.

The amount of negative energy generated by the Casimir Effect depends on the distance between the metal plates and a value for the vacuum energy density. Vacuum energy density values range from 0 to 10^92 kg/m^3 (Weinberg, 1989). More recent estimates place the value between 10^19 kg/m^3 to 10^53 kg/m^3 (NASA). I will be assuming that the vacuum energy density is 10^19 kg/m^3. This is a conservative yet reasonable estimate.

If one has 2 perfectly flat metal plates each say 1 m x 1 m x 10nm, and these are placed so they are some small distance apart, say 1nm from surface to surface, these plates will produce the Casimir Effect.
...
However, even if the Casimir Effect only excludes 1% of the energy in a vacuum from between the plates, that 1% would still amount to 10^17 kg/m^3.

10^17 kg/m^3 is almost unimaginably large amount of energy.

I replied to your earlier post that many people moved metal plates to these distances, do I have to believe they all somehow missed several quadrazillion megatons of TNT released in the process?

Indeed. It depends on what the vacuum energy density is. However, as far as I know, no one has made metal plates exhibiting the Casimir Effect in a circle...
e^(pi)i = -1

#### gospacex

• Senior Member
• Posts: 3030
• Liked: 532
• Likes Given: 604
##### Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #64 on: 07/13/2008 12:53 AM »
I replied to your earlier post that many people moved metal plates to these distances, do I have to believe they all somehow missed several quadrazillion megatons of TNT released in the process?

Indeed. It depends on what the vacuum energy density is. However, as far as I know, no one has made metal plates exhibiting the Casimir Effect in a circle...

The problem here, as I ses it, that we don't know yet quantum physics well enough. Without that, making an assumplions like "However, even if the Casimir Effect only excludes 1% of the energy..." is far too unreliable. What if Casimir Effect excludes only 10^-17 % ? Or, a more useful question: at the distance of N nm, how many % are excluded?

Theory cannot answer that, partly because we intrude into this small dark corner where today's quantum physics hides its inability to calculate the "naked" electron charge and the like. QED formulae give nonsensical answer which is a diverging series. This can be ignored (cheated) if we want to calculate measurable effects _relative_ to_ vacuum_ energy_, but if we want to calculate that energy itself, we need to fix QED to stop giving us nonsense. String theory tries to do it, as do others, but so far no conclusive results...

#### khallow

• Extreme Veteran
• Full Member
• Posts: 1956
• Liked: 6
• Likes Given: 4
##### Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #65 on: 07/13/2008 10:54 PM »
Karl:

No evidence of FTL, if you would bother to look, there is plenty of credible experimental data that says differently.  Oh well, I guess there's not much point in discussing this topic with you since you have already made up your mind and tossed it in the trash can.  Have fun with your rockets and electric motors...

I disagree. There simply isn't plenty of credible evidence. There's a lot of weird quantum effects which routinely get misinterpreted as evidence of particles moving faster than light. But the only thing that counts as evidence here of FTL is moving information from one place to another faster than the speed of light. That hasn't happened yet.

As for changing minds, it's irrational and unscientific to just change one's mind for the sake of changing one's mind. New relevant information has to be revealed first. I'm sorry, but you haven't delivered new information (with respect to FTL) on which to base a change of mind.

My take is that any FTL effect is going to be rather hard to find else we would have seen it already. The low lying fruit has been picked.
Karl Hallowell

#### Lampyridae

• Veteran
• Full Member
• Posts: 1645
• Liked: 64
• Likes Given: 121
##### Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #66 on: 07/14/2008 01:54 AM »

My take is that any FTL effect is going to be rather hard to find else we would have seen it already. The low lying fruit has been picked.

Low lying fruit such as travelling faster than light with our current technology and theory? Chemical rockets, which have been around for a thousand years? All of our high-energy efforts have been around accelerating ions and smashing them into things. Quantum physics has evolved because we have been doing that in labs. Maxwell's therorems have been expanded upon because they've been experimented with (such as varying particle acceleration). Relativity, on the other hand, hasn't changed since a certain postal worker wondered about it. It's only been confirmed... but now there are lots unanswered questions starting to pop up - like inflation and slingshot effect. And inertia is still just "becuase it's there."
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

#### khallow

• Extreme Veteran
• Full Member
• Posts: 1956
• Liked: 6
• Likes Given: 4
##### Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #67 on: 07/14/2008 06:43 AM »

My take is that any FTL effect is going to be rather hard to find else we would have seen it already. The low lying fruit has been picked.

Low lying fruit such as travelling faster than light with our current technology and theory? Chemical rockets, which have been around for a thousand years? All of our high-energy efforts have been around accelerating ions and smashing them into things. Quantum physics has evolved because we have been doing that in labs. Maxwell's therorems have been expanded upon because they've been experimented with (such as varying particle acceleration). Relativity, on the other hand, hasn't changed since a certain postal worker wondered about it. It's only been confirmed... but now there are lots unanswered questions starting to pop up - like inflation and slingshot effect. And inertia is still just "becuase it's there."

The thing to keep in mind is that slamming particles together at high energies explores a lot of the space of particle interactions and propagation. For example, it was enough to find all but one particle (the Higg's Boson) in the "Standard Model" which is the 70's era theory that unified the EM, strong, and weak forces. There are large zones of ignorance at high energies and with the interaction with gravity (and even the large scale curvature of the universe). Sure it is possible some FTL effect operates in this region, but is somehow hidden to us now, but my opinion is that it would manifest in the fundamental theory somehow.

Second,  speaking of a thousand years of rockets ignores, that until the early 20th century, rockets hadn't changed much except for improvements in solid fuel composition. The last 70 years was vastly different from the first 900+ years. Now, many rockets (for example, the SSMEs) operate near their theoretical best performance.

There's no reason to be so disrespectful of relativity. Relativity has been worked on quite a bit in the last century. For example, General Relativity came out in the mid 1910's along with the first exact solution due to Schwarzschild). Nuclear weapons were a consequence of the mass-energy relationship (E=mc^2) revealed by special relativity. Black holes were hypothesized in 1950 and continue to be refined. We've since discovered a number of black holes (well objects of the necessary density) including several at the center of our galaxy (the big one at the center and several much smaller ones orbiting it).

Antimatter is the consequence of a quantum mechanics equation for the electron derived from the energy equation in special relativity (E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2). Dirac solved it for the electron, but it required a positive charged counterpart to the electron (now called the positron). This is also the first instance of a new category of quantum theory called "quantum field theory". String theory, the Standard Model, and a number of other relatively well-known theories (for example, quantum electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics) come out of this as well.

In addition to the theoretical consequences of the theory, there has been repeated testing of general relativity over many years. It's surprisingly successful.

Finally, I don't see any reason inertia will be explained better than it currently is. "Because it's there" is an undescriptive truism for phenomena, but that's fundamentally what reality gives you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
In particular the single photon or electron experiments show nonlocality in BOTH space and time.

The experiment above is one of several quantum tunneling experiments falsely interpreted as demonstrating faster than light transfer of information. Nonlocality isn't sufficient for FTL. Even if part of the wave packet sometimes arrives early (in the context of the experiment), it doesn't happen in a way that can transfer information faster than the speed of light.
Karl Hallowell

#### Lampyridae

• Veteran
• Full Member
• Posts: 1645
• Liked: 64
• Likes Given: 121
##### Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #68 on: 07/14/2008 07:07 AM »
I don't know about virtual photons violating relativity. They are more the product of quantum mechanics and the figleafs used to sort out problems with it. Until a signal is actually sent faster than light, then I don't think quantum tunneling would be of any use. I have however seen some crackpot theories that talk about getting a craft to behave as a single electron (involving use of a Bose-Einstein Condensate) and get the whole thing to quantum tunnel all the way to Alpha Centauri.

As far as I know only the Germans are actively involved in FTL quantum tunneling research, or take it remotely seriously. However, it might actually provide a usable means of interstellar travel that could be done with 21st century technology so I won't discount it. I might give that Nimtz guy's papers a closer look.
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

#### Lampyridae

• Veteran
• Full Member
• Posts: 1645
• Liked: 64
• Likes Given: 121
##### Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #69 on: 07/14/2008 07:19 AM »

In addition to the theoretical consequences of the theory, there has been repeated testing of general relativity over many years. It's surprisingly successful.

Finally, I don't see any reason inertia will be explained better than it currently is. "Because it's there" is an undescriptive truism for phenomena, but that's fundamentally what reality gives you.

I doubt inertia is "just there." I "feel" it has to be governed by rules, whatever they are. It was thought that the speed of light was "just there" and yet recently it's being found that it has varied. Space itself is expanding, as well (according to the relativistic view of expansion).

Now, have you any explanation for the MLT's exerted thrust in a vacuum?
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

#### khallow

• Extreme Veteran
• Full Member
• Posts: 1956
• Liked: 6
• Likes Given: 4
##### Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #70 on: 07/14/2008 09:06 AM »

In addition to the theoretical consequences of the theory, there has been repeated testing of general relativity over many years. It's surprisingly successful.

Finally, I don't see any reason inertia will be explained better than it currently is. "Because it's there" is an undescriptive truism for phenomena, but that's fundamentally what reality gives you.

I doubt inertia is "just there." I "feel" it has to be governed by rules, whatever they are. It was thought that the speed of light was "just there" and yet recently it's being found that it has varied. Space itself is expanding, as well (according to the relativistic view of expansion).

Now, have you any explanation for the MLT's exerted thrust in a vacuum?

What was allegedly found to vary was the fine structure constant which is dependent on several things including the speed of light, charge of an electron, and Planck's constant and all which are traditionally considered constant throughout space. I don't know what is the current state of this work. The expansion of space, if it is occuring, is consistent with a general relativity explanation via the "cosmological constant".

Second, it's very easy to break a vacuum especially if you have high voltages in your system. Any charge leakage or arcing would release some charged particles that you could use as propellant. That would be my first guess for an MLT having thrust in vacuum.
« Last Edit: 07/14/2008 09:07 AM by khallow »
Karl Hallowell

#### Lampyridae

• Veteran
• Full Member
• Posts: 1645
• Liked: 64
• Likes Given: 121
##### Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #71 on: 07/15/2008 12:34 AM »
What was allegedly found to vary was the fine structure constant which is dependent on several things including the speed of light, charge of an electron, and Planck's constant and all which are traditionally considered constant throughout space. I don't know what is the current state of this work. The expansion of space, if it is occuring, is consistent with a general relativity explanation via the "cosmological constant".

Second, it's very easy to break a vacuum especially if you have high voltages in your system. Any charge leakage or arcing would release some charged particles that you could use as propellant. That would be my first guess for an MLT having thrust in vacuum.

As I understand it, the "cosmological constant" was derived by asking astronomers about universal expansion, which they assumed to be stationary. Einstein chucked it out when galaxies were discovered to be redshifted. It's a finicky problem and is not at all compatible with QM computations of vacuum energy (a huge positive sign is required to cancel it because of supersymmetry, etc.)

The charged particle argument has many holes. The voltages are not high enough to cause vacuum arcing. There would be a significant difference in thrust levels between in-air testing and vacuum testing. Arcing would be visible, and produce burn marks. Likewise coronal discharges would be visible. Mass loss would be in evidence. Thrust levels are comparable to dedicated ion thrusters without being specifically designed for it. The capacitors are mounted at right angles; electrostatic acceleration is sideways and would produce rotational force; the B-field would cause the charged particles to spiral outwards in all directions, nullifying thrust. Finally, thrust would be in evidence without the action of the piezolectrics (which by the way has been tested and found not to occur). I could go on, but I think that's enough.

I'm not convinced by the Mach effect; I really would like to see an apparatus levitating into the conference hall. Even then there would be many ruffled academics crying "fraud!" and "heresy!" Who cares whether it's Mach effect or Unruh effect, if it makes thrust and ejects no propellant at a rate better than a photon thruster it certainly gets my vote.
« Last Edit: 07/15/2008 12:44 AM by Lampyridae »
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

#### Danderman

• Extreme Veteran
• Senior Member
• Posts: 9565
• Liked: 345
• Likes Given: 453
##### Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #72 on: 07/16/2008 02:16 AM »
Quote
Jim - 11/5/2008  4:00 PM

\$\$\$\$\$
How much?

My understanding is that the Lightcraft system would require the entire energy output of the USA to put a Mercury spacecraft mass into orbit. That would cost some \$\$\$\$.

#### Lampyridae

• Veteran
• Full Member
• Posts: 1645
• Liked: 64
• Likes Given: 121
##### Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #73 on: 07/16/2008 06:08 AM »
Quote
Jim - 11/5/2008  4:00 PM

\$\$\$\$\$
How much?

My understanding is that the Lightcraft system would require the entire energy output of the USA to put a Mercury spacecraft mass into orbit. That would cost some \$\$\$\$.

Not quite... using onboard LH2 a 3 tonne spacecraft (Mercury sized) could be orbited with ~3GW of laser power. Depending on conversion efficiencies that would use about 15GW; or as little as 5GW for some modern diode lasers. Assuming 30c per KWh (nuclear power) that is a maximum of \$7.5M worth of electricity, going down to as little \$600 000 with cheap juice and efficient lasers.

As for the lightcraft that uses lasers to superheat air as reaction mass; I really don't know how much electricity it uses. I know a smallish laser was used to propel ~100gm test articles.
« Last Edit: 07/16/2008 06:11 AM by Lampyridae »
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

#### Big Al

• Member
• Posts: 95
• Liked: 4
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #74 on: 07/19/2008 07:11 PM »

How about trying an Inertial Dive Unit? Since these things are mechanical in nature, they should be easy to engineer and test. There are many patents for this type of machine, but nothing in the way of operating machinery that I know of.

#### ChevalierGuard

• Member
• Posts: 10
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #75 on: 07/26/2008 04:29 AM »
The primary focus of these endeavors should be the creation of a star drive.  If not superluminal at least 80% the speed of light, which when taking consideration of the human lifespan, would allow exploration of nearby star systems.

Interesting physics, such as, zero point energy, negative energy, action at a distance, quantum entanglement and quantum teleportation exist and is a fact. It is applying what we know, and developing engineering technology to access and control these physical phenomena.  Zero point energy can theoretically be accessed but the technology doesn't exist to harness it.  Negative energy has been created in the laboratory, but no viable use is present.

A Manhattan type of endeavor is required to create and develop the technologies at a mature level in order to produce the star drive.  This means Mega funding and choosing the right people.  People who have vision, young and old, and are dedicated to the problem. Not nine to five types or Academic stars.  Also, this project will require help from American companies with specialized engineering skills when new technology is created or maturing.

Considering some computer models of drive systems, a presence on the moon may be required to test these novel technologies.

To create a star drive requires teamwork, dedication, vision, and risk taking.

CG

#### khallow

• Extreme Veteran
• Full Member
• Posts: 1956
• Liked: 6
• Likes Given: 4
##### Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #76 on: 07/27/2008 05:52 AM »
We need to have a usable effect first. No one has extracted energy from zero point energy (and according to many theories, you can't). Energy (at least according to what we know) can't be created or destroyed. And the various manifestations of quantum correlation like entanglement, action at a distance, quantum teleportation, etc don't give us either a way to go faster or an energy source aside from what we know.

Here's how I see it. While a design for a usable star drive would be interesting, it doesn't solve any of the big problems with current space development. Namely, it doesn't make Earth to orbit cheaper, it doesn't greatly expand business opportunities in space, or help people live in space. It certainly doesn't justify spending tens of billions of dollars (the equivalent of a Manhattan Project).

Second, it seems to me far easier to focus on increasng human lifespan rather than working on traveling 80% of the speed of light. The latter requires considerable energy. Currently, we don't have a way to store or use that energy. I take into account  zero point energy, antimatter, and black holes (none of which we can harness in any serious way). Nothing else, that I currently know of, would have the necessary energy density).
« Last Edit: 07/27/2008 06:05 PM by khallow »
Karl Hallowell

#### gospacex

• Senior Member
• Posts: 3030
• Liked: 532
• Likes Given: 604
##### Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #77 on: 07/27/2008 12:37 PM »
The primary focus of these endeavors should be the creation of a star drive.  If not superluminal at least 80% the speed of light, which when taking consideration of the human lifespan, would allow exploration of nearby star systems.

Setting unrealistic goals like this is a perfect way to spend heaps of money with no result at all.

Quote
Interesting physics, such as, zero point energy, negative energy, action at a distance, quantum entanglement and quantum teleportation exist and is a fact.

From what I know, it's much worse than that. Only zero point energy and quantum entanglement are known to exist, the rest is at the bleeding edge (i.e. it may turn out to not exist/not work at all).

Quote
A Manhattan type of endeavor is required to create and develop the technologies at a mature level in order to produce the star drive.

Manhattan project was based on a relatively well known (by that time) physics and was solving mostly technological problems (which were very difficult). For "star drive" project to be even possible, we need to research physics first.

#### ChevalierGuard

• Member
• Posts: 10
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #78 on: 07/28/2008 01:01 AM »
Good Evening Gentlemen... Interesting answers to say the least...

Let's clarify the physics,

Real Physics not SCIFI.

a) negative energy has been created in the lab (Fact);
b) Teleportation at the atomic level has been achieved (Bell Labs)
c)Laser Wakefield beams have been created (accelerators the size of table tops) Naval Research Lab TeraWatt level..
Virtual particles created based on Quantum Electrodynamics confirmed.
d)Quantum entanglement at a huge distance (Experiment verified and confirmed Los Alamos)
e)Antimatter confinement possible though hugely expensive at the moment.  Antihydrogen has been made..
f) Zero point energy confirmed; huge technological barrier due to thermodynamic leakage.
g)matter beam amplification thru bose einstein condensate experimentally confirmed..
h) theta pinch plasma drive under development (NASA)...

Some computer models show that metric can be manipulated.  However, tremendous energy is required.

Profitability:
a) Every dollar spent would have a return similar to the Apollo program.
b)The materials, engineering services, support infrastructure, etc would drive the economy.
c) If star drive built, and habitable planets found  with Terrestial Planet Finder, economic stimulus would be huge.  Remember history, ships sent out to Americas, China, Japan, for spices, gold and goods? Unimaginable wealth.
d) Unforseen benefits..

The Breakthrough Propulsion Physics program has somewhat separated the crackpots from the real investigators.

Gentleman, our govt has spent billions on reduntant equipment, causes, and wars.
A five pound grey piece of flesh named Von Braun took us to the moon, another lump open the way we look at the universe Mr Einstein, and two lumps gave us airplanes.

By the way, not all scientists were convinced that the first Atomic Bomb wouldn't cause a chain reaction to destroy the world.  Leap of Faith?

CG

#### gospacex

• Senior Member
• Posts: 3030
• Liked: 532
• Likes Given: 604
##### Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #79 on: 07/28/2008 07:28 AM »
a) negative energy has been created in the lab (Fact);

Quote
b) Teleportation at the atomic level has been achieved (Bell Labs)

IIRC it basically transferred quantum state from one atom to another, with speed of less than c - so what does it give us? I don't doubt usefulness of this research, but it does not show something extraordinary (FTL travel or similar). Again, link?

Quote
c)Laser Wakefield beams have been created (accelerators the size of table tops) Naval Research Lab TeraWatt level..
Virtual particles created based on Quantum Electrodynamics confirmed.
d)Quantum entanglement at a huge distance (Experiment verified and confirmed Los Alamos)
e)Antimatter confinement possible though hugely expensive at the moment.  Antihydrogen has been made..
g)matter beam amplification thru bose einstein condensate experimentally confirmed..

None of the above looks like "star drive enabler" to me (although it may be a part of it).

Quote
f) Zero point energy confirmed; huge technological barrier due to thermodynamic leakage.
h) theta pinch plasma drive under development (NASA)...

Quote
Some computer models show that metric can be manipulated.  However, tremendous energy is required.

Yep, one patent office worker actually discovered it like 85 years ago... just make massive object of precalculated shape and metric around/inside it will change accordingly...

Quote
Profitability:
a) Every dollar spent would have a return similar to the Apollo program.
b)The materials, engineering services, support infrastructure, etc would drive the economy.

We don't have enough theoretical knowledge. Some of things you cited are interesting and are a stepping stones to better knowledge of physics, but they are nowhere close to actual "star drive" technology. Manhattan project people, on the contrary, already had quite good theoretical grasp on what they are trying to do, and it still costed astronomical money to actually make it work.

Tags: