Warp Drives Feasible in our life-time
-
Mark Wallace wrote:
But it's Not Real.
Like the theory of the relativity, which wasn't confirmated several years after postulated, like the metamaterials that were predicted by "bending" the physics but wasn't produced until recently, like making things invisible which was theorized first and executed until not so long ago.
CEO at: - Rafaga Systems - Para Facturas - Modern Components for the moment...
Don't forget imaginary numbers, which now have very real applications in engineering.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
NASA starts development of real life star trek warp drive[^] Actually I Do have the power captain </ScottishAccent>
Quote:
The Eagleworks team has discovered that the energy requirements are much lower than previously thought. If they optimize the warp bubble thickness and "oscillate its intensity to reduce the stiffness of space time," they would be able to reduce the amount of fuel to manageable amount: instead of a Jupiter-sized ball of exotic matter, you will only need 500 kilograms to "send a 10-meter bubble (32.8 feet) at an effective velocity of 10c."
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
"oscillate its intensity to reduce the stiffness of space time...." Holy cow, it's an oscillation overthurster! Isn't that exactly how it was explained in the movie? Could this theoretically go through solid matter in addition to "moving" through space? Not that I would recommend it, dealing with the Red Lectroids was bad enough the first time.
-
Mark Wallace wrote:
But it's Not Real.
Like the theory of the relativity, which wasn't confirmated several years after postulated, like the metamaterials that were predicted by "bending" the physics but wasn't produced until recently, like making things invisible which was theorized first and executed until not so long ago.
CEO at: - Rafaga Systems - Para Facturas - Modern Components for the moment...
Not at all. Basing theories on observations, calculations, and intelligent reasoning, as did Einstein and the rest, is a far cry from saying "I wish there were a magic material that we could use to create a construct that we can't even postulate mathematically unless we factor in the properties of the magic material whose properties we can just make up as we go along!" BS is not restricted to marketers, managers, and bad developers; bad physicists are full of it, too.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Mark Wallace wrote:
They can postulate any damned thing they like about such a magical substance.
Right, and what is postulated is the point. They use those positions to create useful research and in many cases technology.
Mark Wallace wrote:
My theory is that exotic matter doesn't possess the properties needed to form a warp field, but it does possess properties that randomly and sporadically make pieces of coffee machines and single socks disappear.
Well if you have some studies on this happening and you see this being useful to the world by all means why not propose something. I will be honest on this one though.... Not seeing the usefulness. While I have had single socks disappear my theory on that is quite solid. They get stock on the out of season (or fashion) clothes and boxed up. :)
Mark Wallace wrote:
Physics is not "Oh, maybe one day we'll find a magical substance that will let us do miraculous things", it's "This is what we've got; what can we do with it?"
While it is not about magical substances it is about gaining an understanding of substances we do not understand. To quote Galileo: Measure what is measurable and make measurable what is not so. What we call magic one day is known to be truth the next.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
While it is not about magical substances it is about gaining an understanding of substances we do not understand.
Not understand in what way? - If it's atomic, where does it fit in the periodic table? - If it's molecular, what atoms is it composed of, and where do these miraculous "powers" come from, that allow it to be used to build warp fields? And if they're talking about matter composed of only one type of as-yet-undiscovered sub-atomic particle, then they're out of their tiny minds. And what "energy"/"powers" are they that this substance provides/generates? Electromagnetic fields? Gravitational forces? Hulk-inducing gamma rays? Chemical something-or-other? They're magic rocks. It's f***ing shameful that such utter cr@p should get so much attention, when there are genuine physicists out there doing incredible work and being completely ignored. Here's some real Physics: Empty vessels make most noise.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
While it is not about magical substances it is about gaining an understanding of substances we do not understand.
Not understand in what way? - If it's atomic, where does it fit in the periodic table? - If it's molecular, what atoms is it composed of, and where do these miraculous "powers" come from, that allow it to be used to build warp fields? And if they're talking about matter composed of only one type of as-yet-undiscovered sub-atomic particle, then they're out of their tiny minds. And what "energy"/"powers" are they that this substance provides/generates? Electromagnetic fields? Gravitational forces? Hulk-inducing gamma rays? Chemical something-or-other? They're magic rocks. It's f***ing shameful that such utter cr@p should get so much attention, when there are genuine physicists out there doing incredible work and being completely ignored. Here's some real Physics: Empty vessels make most noise.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Good questions. You should really read up on them as I am not the one to explain it. Nor is this the proper forum. But I doubt in your reading you will ever see anything refer to it as magical :)
Mark Wallace wrote:
It's f***ing shameful that such utter cr@p should get so much attention
Whats a shame is someone has such hostility towards theoretical physics. Usually such hostility is reserved for the zealots pushing an idea, not discouraging one. :rolleyes: Me thinkith you protestith too much....
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
While you have valid points it seems you missed the point of the "article". First off generating 500Kg is actually realistic... Generating the amount of the size of Jupiter not so much. While my neighbor Bob will not be able to fly to Alpha Centari in the near future I think Bob is OK with that. I think Bob would rather NASA go there first. Second, the analogy does fail to mention those details but it is an analogy in an "article". Why do I keep quoting "article". Cause it is not intended to talk about the details. Its not a white paper or journal entry. If something like this you do not find exciting as you need solid experiment descriptions etc. I get that. But I think more a long the lines of what was said here:
Quote:
It may sound like a small thing now, but the implications of the research huge. In his own words: Although this is just a tiny instance of the phenomena, it will be existence proof for the idea of perturbing space time-a "Chicago pile" moment, as it were. Recall that December of 1942 saw the first demonstration of a controlled nuclear reaction that generated a whopping half watt. This existence proof was followed by the activation of a ~ four megawatt reactor in November of 1943. Existence proof for the practical application of a scientific idea can be a tipping point for technology development.
While we are not leaving for the stars tomorrow such research opens the door for the possibility. I personally find that quite intriguing enough to look more into it.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
First off generating 500Kg is actually realistic
I don't think it is. Far as I can tell current production is at the molecule level. Thus I expect that the cost of creating that much is astronomical. And setting up the system to do so would cost even more. And keep in mind that that a lot more than that is needed for the 2 year trip. But I would like to see a reference that does predict the cost of creating say a milligram or kilogram. Even better if it discussed time lines and storage.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Second, the analogy does fail to mention those details but it is an analogy
The analogy is an attempt to justify how simplistic the journey is while completely ignoring the specific points that make the journey difficult in the first place.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
If something like this you do not find exciting as you need solid experiment descriptions etc
I get excited about realistic possibilities. Ones that completely ignore economics and engineering don't.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
But I think more a long the lines of what was said here:
People that hold forth that all problems are solvable by technology often bring up historical successes but completely ignore the vast number of failures.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
While we are not leaving for the stars tomorrow such research opens the door for the possibility
This is far from the first possible way to that has been proposed to go to the stars. However before anyone does make a trip it will need to be economically feasible and possible from the engineering standpoint as well. I wouldn't hold my breadth that this specific avenue will lead to that.
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
First off generating 500Kg is actually realistic
I don't think it is. Far as I can tell current production is at the molecule level. Thus I expect that the cost of creating that much is astronomical. And setting up the system to do so would cost even more. And keep in mind that that a lot more than that is needed for the 2 year trip. But I would like to see a reference that does predict the cost of creating say a milligram or kilogram. Even better if it discussed time lines and storage.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Second, the analogy does fail to mention those details but it is an analogy
The analogy is an attempt to justify how simplistic the journey is while completely ignoring the specific points that make the journey difficult in the first place.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
If something like this you do not find exciting as you need solid experiment descriptions etc
I get excited about realistic possibilities. Ones that completely ignore economics and engineering don't.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
But I think more a long the lines of what was said here:
People that hold forth that all problems are solvable by technology often bring up historical successes but completely ignore the vast number of failures.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
While we are not leaving for the stars tomorrow such research opens the door for the possibility
This is far from the first possible way to that has been proposed to go to the stars. However before anyone does make a trip it will need to be economically feasible and possible from the engineering standpoint as well. I wouldn't hold my breadth that this specific avenue will lead to that.
jschell wrote:
I wouldn't hold my breadth that this specific avenue will lead to that.
Considering the article said "In our life-time" I would agree... Don't hold your breath. Jeesh.. You sure are a half empty dude. Lets just agree it is good you are not on or in charge of any such program. Yee have little faith in grand ideas or progression it seems.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
jschell wrote:
Not to mention that the analogy to Magellan demonstrates a complete lack of information in the comparison. For example it ignores that Magellan wasn't hauling his own atmosphere along and he made quite a few stops along the way.
On that point, the atmosphere isn't a big deal, we've done that (like in a space station). And we've become quite good at preserving food, not to mention the possibility of growing some food on the way (also helps with the limited oxygen issue), so I don't think not being able to resupply is a big issue either. Might have to deal with some psychological issues from being stuck in a relatively small space for so long though (I do believe NASA has been investigating this already in aims of a manned mission to Mars), and if we're only talking a 10-meter bubble you can't really send a large group of people, making colonization of other planets difficult. At the very least we could send probes and rovers to investigate the planet, which would still be very interesting (especially if we found life of any kind).
lewax00 wrote:
On that point, the atmosphere isn't a big deal, we've done that (like in a space station).
What exactly do you think that they do on the space station to provide atmosphere?
lewax00 wrote:
And we've become quite good at preserving food
Ok. So how many pounds of preserved food and water do you need for a single person for a 4 year trip? Presumably you do plan for them to come back?
lewax00 wrote:
and if we're only talking a 10-meter bubble you can't really send a large group of people, making colonization of other planets difficult.
How much volume does it take to store enough food/water for one person for 40 years? Why 40 you ask? Because even though on earth the voyage takes 2 years the time in the vehicle, per the article, still takes 20 years. One way. What about a bed? And entertainment? And backups to the engineering systems? And scientific equipment? Now once you have all of the computed how much more fuel does it take to move all of that?
lewax00 wrote:
At the very least we could send probes and rovers to investigate the planet
Yes that fantasy is wonderful. But in the real world it costs real money. Do you know how expensive exotic matter is? Check out this link http://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Edit.aspx?fid=1159&select=4369404&floc=/Lounge.aspx&action=r[^] So are you willing to give up 90% of your income for the rest of your life to allow one probe to go to a star? Are you willing to make your family, friends and your children give up 90% of their income for the rest of their lives to to that?
-
There was a time when people thought that it was impossible to cross the Atlantic ocean because a ship would need more coal than it could carry.
RyanEK wrote:
There was a time when people thought that it was impossible
There was a time when people were certain that it was possible to convert lead into gold also. But, the fact that history has successes doesn't alter the fact that history is full of far more failures. And it certainly doesn't alter the fact that exotic matter in the quantities referred to in the article is not even close to being feasible now and there is no current evidence that suggests it will ever be feasible.
-
NASA starts development of real life star trek warp drive[^] Actually I Do have the power captain </ScottishAccent>
Quote:
The Eagleworks team has discovered that the energy requirements are much lower than previously thought. If they optimize the warp bubble thickness and "oscillate its intensity to reduce the stiffness of space time," they would be able to reduce the amount of fuel to manageable amount: instead of a Jupiter-sized ball of exotic matter, you will only need 500 kilograms to "send a 10-meter bubble (32.8 feet) at an effective velocity of 10c."
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
This is even more a fantasy than I originally supposed. Per the article time on the vessel remains relativistic. Thus the 2 years one way mentioned in the article repesents 20 years on board the ship. Or 40 years for a round trip voyage. So 40 years of food, 40 years of water, 40 years of very efficient waste disposal, 40 years of mechanical maintenance. And enough exotic fuel to push it there and back - and I suggest you might want to check the cost of that. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-most-expensive-substance-in-the-world.htm[^] ... and 40 years of dealing with various human psychology. There are probably people who are willing to volunteer for such a journey but there are far fewer capable of doing it with a small group. Note that the same applies to a unmanned probe except that the chance for self repairs are less. And what about rocks along the way? Might seem trivial but for a vessel traveling at 10c the occupants will NOT be able to use any known detection methodologies. So either they must shield or absorb all collisions - all VERY high kinetic collisions. What technology is going to do that?
-
Don't forget imaginary numbers, which now have very real applications in engineering.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
But they are not real! :laugh:
CEO at: - Rafaga Systems - Para Facturas - Modern Components for the moment...
-
This is even more a fantasy than I originally supposed. Per the article time on the vessel remains relativistic. Thus the 2 years one way mentioned in the article repesents 20 years on board the ship. Or 40 years for a round trip voyage. So 40 years of food, 40 years of water, 40 years of very efficient waste disposal, 40 years of mechanical maintenance. And enough exotic fuel to push it there and back - and I suggest you might want to check the cost of that. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-most-expensive-substance-in-the-world.htm[^] ... and 40 years of dealing with various human psychology. There are probably people who are willing to volunteer for such a journey but there are far fewer capable of doing it with a small group. Note that the same applies to a unmanned probe except that the chance for self repairs are less. And what about rocks along the way? Might seem trivial but for a vessel traveling at 10c the occupants will NOT be able to use any known detection methodologies. So either they must shield or absorb all collisions - all VERY high kinetic collisions. What technology is going to do that?
So now here you go down a tangent arguing against a hypothetical trip regarding a hypothetical warp drive (which the post is about... not the trip). Now thats some classy trolling :rolleyes:
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Mark Wallace wrote:
But it's Not Real.
Like the theory of the relativity, which wasn't confirmated several years after postulated, like the metamaterials that were predicted by "bending" the physics but wasn't produced until recently, like making things invisible which was theorized first and executed until not so long ago.
CEO at: - Rafaga Systems - Para Facturas - Modern Components for the moment...
RafagaX wrote:
Like the theory of the relativity, which wasn't confirmated several years after postulated, like the metamaterials that were predicted by "bending" the physics but wasn't produced until recently, like making things invisible which was theorized first and executed until not so long ago.
You do of course realize how many other theories also existed which are now not considered valid? Do you think that there are more that prove valid or more that prove invalid?
-
RafagaX wrote:
Like the theory of the relativity, which wasn't confirmated several years after postulated, like the metamaterials that were predicted by "bending" the physics but wasn't produced until recently, like making things invisible which was theorized first and executed until not so long ago.
You do of course realize how many other theories also existed which are now not considered valid? Do you think that there are more that prove valid or more that prove invalid?
I know, i know, but the only way to prove them valid or not is by experimentation or direct observation, and i believe there have been far more theories that have proven invalid over time than the ones that have proved valid.
CEO at: - Rafaga Systems - Para Facturas - Modern Components for the moment...
-
NASA starts development of real life star trek warp drive[^] Actually I Do have the power captain </ScottishAccent>
Quote:
The Eagleworks team has discovered that the energy requirements are much lower than previously thought. If they optimize the warp bubble thickness and "oscillate its intensity to reduce the stiffness of space time," they would be able to reduce the amount of fuel to manageable amount: instead of a Jupiter-sized ball of exotic matter, you will only need 500 kilograms to "send a 10-meter bubble (32.8 feet) at an effective velocity of 10c."
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Quote
Dr. White and his colleagues don't just believe a real life warp drive is theoretically possible; they've already started the work to create one.Man, that's commitment! But, if you don't have a theory on how it would work, how can you come up with a reasonable fuel estimate needed to get it to work?! Whoops, I skipped the word "just" the first time I read it. Funny how one word can completely change the meaning. Personally, I'd replace "don't just" with "totally" and ";" to "," so you don't just confuse us slower folk. (Funny how you can remove "just" from that statement and not really change its meaning.)
-
Quote
Dr. White and his colleagues don't just believe a real life warp drive is theoretically possible; they've already started the work to create one.Man, that's commitment! But, if you don't have a theory on how it would work, how can you come up with a reasonable fuel estimate needed to get it to work?! Whoops, I skipped the word "just" the first time I read it. Funny how one word can completely change the meaning. Personally, I'd replace "don't just" with "totally" and ";" to "," so you don't just confuse us slower folk. (Funny how you can remove "just" from that statement and not really change its meaning.)
-
lewax00 wrote:
On that point, the atmosphere isn't a big deal, we've done that (like in a space station).
What exactly do you think that they do on the space station to provide atmosphere?
lewax00 wrote:
And we've become quite good at preserving food
Ok. So how many pounds of preserved food and water do you need for a single person for a 4 year trip? Presumably you do plan for them to come back?
lewax00 wrote:
and if we're only talking a 10-meter bubble you can't really send a large group of people, making colonization of other planets difficult.
How much volume does it take to store enough food/water for one person for 40 years? Why 40 you ask? Because even though on earth the voyage takes 2 years the time in the vehicle, per the article, still takes 20 years. One way. What about a bed? And entertainment? And backups to the engineering systems? And scientific equipment? Now once you have all of the computed how much more fuel does it take to move all of that?
lewax00 wrote:
At the very least we could send probes and rovers to investigate the planet
Yes that fantasy is wonderful. But in the real world it costs real money. Do you know how expensive exotic matter is? Check out this link http://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Edit.aspx?fid=1159&select=4369404&floc=/Lounge.aspx&action=r[^] So are you willing to give up 90% of your income for the rest of your life to allow one probe to go to a star? Are you willing to make your family, friends and your children give up 90% of their income for the rest of their lives to to that?
jschell wrote:
What exactly do you think that they do on the space station to provide atmosphere?
They have to store it somewhere. It's not like a space station has a hose running down to a suitable level of the atmosphere to pull in air, nor do they get resupplied daily. And, according to this[^] most of the oxygen is made from water, which incidentally they will already need large amounts of.
jschell wrote:
Ok. So how many pounds of preserved food and water do you need for a single person for a 4 year trip? Presumably you do plan for them to come back?
I'm sure an organization like NASA has either already figured it out, or will before such a trip would be made made (don't forget, they have been investigating the possibility of a manned mission to Mars, the conditions wouldn't be that different in this regard). Also, most things beyond food can be recycled (including urine into water).
jschell wrote:
Why 40 you ask? Because even though on earth the voyage takes 2 years the time in the vehicle, per the article, still takes 20 years. One way.
From the article:
Quote:
The time will be the same in the spaceship and on Earth
It in fact states that it will take the same time to the people on the ship (as it should, their velocity is 0). Still only 4 years (+ time spent at destination).
jschell wrote:
Now once you have all of the computed how much more fuel does it take to move all of that?
If they stay in orbit? About 1000 kg of exotic matter for a round trip, and a small amount of fuel to maintain orbit. It may not be stated in this article, but massive amounts of energy are only needed to create the bubble, not to maintain it (energy may be necessary to break or leave the bubble though). If they land, add enough to do something like what we used on the moon. It'll need more fuel to make up for stronger gravity, but not everything has to be brought back.
jschell wrote:
But in the real world it costs real money. Do you know how expensive exotic matter is? Check out
-
Good questions. You should really read up on them as I am not the one to explain it. Nor is this the proper forum. But I doubt in your reading you will ever see anything refer to it as magical :)
Mark Wallace wrote:
It's f***ing shameful that such utter cr@p should get so much attention
Whats a shame is someone has such hostility towards theoretical physics. Usually such hostility is reserved for the zealots pushing an idea, not discouraging one. :rolleyes: Me thinkith you protestith too much....
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Whats a shame is someone has such hostility towards theoretical physics.
I majored in Physics, and I've done a shipload of science writing (for real science projects) since. This isn't science. It's "If we find a unicorn, we can ask it to make a magical bubble that will carry us to Neverland". At best, it's a masturbatory chain of "Oh, if a substance with these powers can exist, then we'll be able to to this with it -- and if we can do this with it, then we should be able to do that with it -- and if we can do that with it, we should be able to... etc.", with every step taking us further and further away from reality, and all based on a single premise that hasn't even come close to being proven. The thing is that substances that contain magical powers don't exist (I know that the word "magic" is never used -- do you think they want to give the game away?), which is why writers have to invent stuff like dilithium crystals, i.e. magic rocks, to power starships. Next, they'll be saying that you can power starships with a few grams of gold formed into a toroid.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
No it how hot the tea is that counts
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Whats a shame is someone has such hostility towards theoretical physics.
I majored in Physics, and I've done a shipload of science writing (for real science projects) since. This isn't science. It's "If we find a unicorn, we can ask it to make a magical bubble that will carry us to Neverland". At best, it's a masturbatory chain of "Oh, if a substance with these powers can exist, then we'll be able to to this with it -- and if we can do this with it, then we should be able to do that with it -- and if we can do that with it, we should be able to... etc.", with every step taking us further and further away from reality, and all based on a single premise that hasn't even come close to being proven. The thing is that substances that contain magical powers don't exist (I know that the word "magic" is never used -- do you think they want to give the game away?), which is why writers have to invent stuff like dilithium crystals, i.e. magic rocks, to power starships. Next, they'll be saying that you can power starships with a few grams of gold formed into a toroid.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Ahhh.. You do realize they used a generic term "Exotic Material" which is like saying "rare" material. Honestly how are you so certain that it does not exist? Have you read all of the references? In some cases when talking about it ("exotic material"), the scientists are referring to anti-matter... Which does exist and (by creating it).
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
