Radical space propulsion: warp drive for real?

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Just thought I'd coin the phrase so I can be the first to patent it:

The Heim-Quick Maneuver?





posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Wow, I ignored this thread thread because, although I’m a sci-fi fan, I like to think (at least a little) realistic.....It surprised me, I assumed this thread was about some crackpot anti-grav garbage.

This would be amazing if it all holds up, this makes the space elevator sound like a crappy rope and pulley, it makes a solar sail seem like crappy space kite, it basically puts all other concepts to shame. Its very outta the box.


But I just dont really understand it. It sounds like theres just to many "If's". Today, there is only 3 dimensions, theres (as of yet) no proof of a fourth...although black holes make you assume there are. As far as I know, we wont know if other dimensions exist until 2007...thats when Brown University will begin tests with there black hole maker machine...it basically creates a itty bitty black hole, and will last only a fraction of a second, but long enough to determine whether or not there is more dimensions.

It seems like magnets have an enormously bright future.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Proving the theory as the potential for a high relitive thrust engine is a lot diferant then an actaul fully functional engine.

In fact, according to Einstien's equivalence of mass and energy formula there is PLENTY of energy to supply our needs yet the best we can do with a nuke is no better then 1% total conversion. We know it is there, it is jsut we don't know how to easily covert it on a large scale.

The same with this, we might know the theroy, but the energy requirments to create the magnetic feild neccesary .. not to metion the matrials that can withstand the stress invovled... might be far beyond what we can do.

Just liek the Space elevator, the theory might be sound, but applying it is a whole differant matter



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 11:00 PM
link   
From the wording of it, it sounds as though the practicality of it is easy, but the theory is difficult - kind of an opposite situation. It could be like alchemy - discovering through experimentation rather than theorizing and then proving.

In today's world, we tend to theorize, since most of the known, viewable, and practical things we deal with have already been worked out. After we theorize it, we use the theory to try to find a way to detect it. Then we consider it proven.

But this invention is something more akin to what used to happen. Take fluid A and mix it with fluid B to find out what fluid C is. If it works, then it shows that the theory is at least partially correct, and can give us direction for the rest.

So, to sum up, we need at least a little of the theory in order to attempt to use it - but before we know everything we should test it out. It may give hints to get better accuracies and power. Who knows, if this turns out to work, then further study could reduce the time from 80 days per 11 light years to just 2 days.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 12:48 AM
link   
Some comments. (Yes, I am a physicist, no I am not a gravity theorist or cosmologist or string theory person who would have active expertise in the area).

1) Apparently in the description of the theory by Droescher and Hauser, the existence of the "fifth force" (what this really is) is not the same as the existence of the "parallel space" which is far far more speculative, in my opinon.

2) The structure of the theory is very much unlike that of the string theories, and given that it was originated in the 50's and 60's it very likely does not include the experimentally observed particle interactions since then, e.g. QCD.
From what I can read, D&H describe a *classical* field theory, "general relativity on steroids and crystal meth", and then assign the all the new geometric cross terms between the normal metric tensor as "forces". It's very unclear that they actually reproduce the real thing as we know. But where is the quantization??? That was always the hard part, getting GR to play nice---and this is just making GR all that more complicated.

Perhaps the Heim theory is a classical approximation to the true underlying quantized Theory of Everything (strings or whatever). If it's real, then it would be extremely useful---the weak gravity (Newtonian limit) of the theory would be more on the level of Maxwell's equations than QM; something fabulous. If if if it's real.

3) According to D&H it predicts a direct effectively new electromagnetic interaction: photons have the usual scalar potential, vector potential (classic Maxwell-Einstein electromagnetism) plus a new tensor potential.



In Dröscher and Hauser (2004) an experiment was suggested to measure the gravitophoton force. Above a stationary
superconducting magnetic coil there is a rotating torus like a flywheel of some 100 kg. Due to the Heim-Lorentz
formula, Eq. (15), there should be a gravitophoton force generated in the rotating torus. From the Lorentz
force, F=q Eq vT×B , in our experiment vT denotes the velocity of the rotating torus), there follows the existence
of a scalar electric potential ϕ and a vector potential A with components Ai=0Qvi /R where Qvi denotes
the total current in the magnetic coil and i=1,2,3. However, as can be seen from Eq. (7), the metric tensor for the
photon comprises an electric potential, a vector potential, and a tensor potential, representing a new force applying
the geometrization principle of Einstein to Heim space H8. The complete electromagnetic interaction is therefore
given by a 4-dimensional tensor potential (ϕ, Ai, Aik) with i,k =1,2,3. The tensor potential plays a crucial role in
providing the acceleration concept by converting photons into gravitophoton pairs as will be outlined in the following
section.


Holy cripes Batman. Classical electromagnetism is so extremely well tested it would appear to be beyond reasonable that there was something missed there all along, unless one can make an argument why the new force would be extremely small in all normal circumstances---which would make it exceptionally difficult to use for any useful engineering purposes.

What are the problems? Well, if there is a new potential field then all sorts statistical mechanics relating to electromagnetism, e.g. photon gases, woudl be wrong since energy would surely be leaking into the new degrees of freedom. We would have noticed---it would be as if photons had additional degrees of polarization (this time in a higher order space than the conventional one). It would seem that you couldn't add up (E^2+B^2)/2pi and say "there's the electromagnetic energy". Capacitors might have more capacitance. Would classical E&M have a nonlinear interaction? Then photons would scatter off themselves and radio waves would self interfere. All sorts of things would be wrong, and yet our experiments work extremely well. The real killer: QED. QED has been verified stupendously precisely now, and it adds up just simple interactions of point spin 1/2 electrons and photons. If photons had all sorts of new effective polarizations the computations wouldn't be right as there would be many more Feynman diagrams to include. There would have to be a good reason why these other interactions are usually so small---and that makes it insanely difficult to engineer.


On the upside: maybe these degrees of freedom relate to the the "dark energy field" seen cosmologically which is presently utterly inexplicable, as is the tiny Pioneer 10/11 orbital anomaly.

The D&H paper skips enormous steps between assertions which are just as well explained as "and then another miracle occurs so that..."

4) Just because you somehow are in "parallel space" doens't mean that the stuff in interstellar medium goes away---presumably particles of matter have instantiations in all the spaces and so you will be running into them at titanic speeds causing massive radiation damage to any crew.

It may be possible to make Luke Skywalker's floating landspeeder, but not interstellar warp travel.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 07:14 AM
link   
Here's some more infomation from a while ago on American Anti-gravity


Abstract: This paper describes a novel space propulsion technique, based on an extension of a unified field theory in a quantized, higher-dimensional space, developed by the late B. Heim (1977) in the 50s and 60s of the last century,termed Heim Quantum Theory (HQT). As a consequence of the unification, HQT predicts six fundamental interactions. The two additional interactions should enable a completely different type of propulsion, denoted gravitophoton field propulsion. The fifth interaction, termed gravitophoton force, would accelerate a material body without the need of propellant. Gravitophoton interaction is a gravitational like force, mediated by gravitophoton particles that come in both types, attractive and repulsive. Gravitophoton particles are generated in pairs from the vacuum itself by the effect of vacuum polarization (virtual electrons), under the presence of a very strong magnetic field (photons). Due to gravitophoton pair production, the total energy extracted from the vacuum is zero. Attractive gravitophotons interact with matter, and thus can become real particles, exacting a force on a material body. Repulsive gravitophotons have a much smaller cross section and do not interact with matter. Consequently, the kinetic energy of the accelerated material body would come from the vacuum, satisfying the second condition, i.e., a low energy budget for space propulsion. The name gravitophoton has been chosen because a transformation of photons into gravitational energy should take place.

The third condition for advanced spaceflight, superluminal speed, may be realized by transition into a parallel space, in which covariant laws of physics are valid, with a limiting speed of light nc, where n is an integer and c is the vacuum speed of light. In order to achieve such a transition, the sixth fundamental interaction would be needed, termed vacuum field (or quintessence), which is a weakly repulsive gravitational like force, mediated by the vacuum particle, being formed by the interaction of repulsive gravitophotons with the gravitons of the spacecraft. The paper discusses the source of the two predicted interactions, the concept of parallel space, and presents the physical model along with an experimental setup to measure and estimate the gravitophoton force. Estimates for the magnitude of magnetic fields are presented, and trip times for lunar and Mars missions are given.

Link:www.americanantigravity.com...

P.S.A. Use "ex" instead of "quote" for quoting external sources.

[edit on 6-1-2006 by dbates]



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 08:24 AM
link   


It may be possible to make Luke Skywalker's floating landspeeder, but not interstellar warp travel.


That would still be uberly cool though you gotta admit. I really hope this points the way towards interstellar travel but wouldn't be too surprised or disappointed if it didn't.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yarium

In 40k, once warp-drive technology was invented, mankind spread out into space at remarkable speeds. Setting up colonies throughout the galaxy, mankind entered the Dark Age of Technology. Despite what you may think, the Dark Age of Technology was actually a utopian time, and man's technology and thinking made him master of the heavens. But only for a time...



You know, as soon as someone above mentioned the fact that we'll need some sort of landmark to reckon our position in this alternate dimension, my thoughts turned to 40k and the Emperor's Light in the Warp.

This whole theory is nothing short of astounding, but I can't help but approach it with some trepidation based on my vast and rather useless knowledge of science-fiction. Between the dystopian post-FTL future envisioned in Warhammer 40,000 and the more immediate concerns of what will happen to the ship (much less its hapless crew) upon having the laws of physics completely dismantled around them (Event Horizon, anybody?), I have a lot of questions about this technology.

Somebody else made a good point concerning our present lack of terraforming technology, and the fact that this will lessen the number of applications for this 'hyperspace drive'... I agree with this, as well. Although I have nothing but the highest of hopes for this device, and I would like nothing more than to see it operational as soon as possible, I feel we're almost getting ahead of ourselves with this. Humans simply aren't ready for the ramifications of faster-than-light travel... we're still little more than trumped-up monkeys with personality disorders, and we've all seen what happens when you give a human technology beyond what it has come to accept as normal. Case in point, the atom bomb... we're too eager to use our pretty new toys, and not nearly cautious enough to fully consider the lasting effects of these decisions prior to putting them into action.

One more thing... thanks a lot to Sardion for the U2U that led me to this thread; I'll be keeping close tabs on it. This subject has captured my imagination like none other I have seen on ATS.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
However, the problem with theorizing a spacecraft can enter these spatial dimensions defined by string theory is that the dimensions are extremely small. We're not talking about anything as large as an angstrom unit, but the plank length.


No. You're not misperceiving me at all. Your points are excellent, but I think that our understanding of the nature of the strings is evolving and does not conflict with the concept as I understand it. I see that the strings represent individual particles that create the fabric of space. While small, there's no reason that the space itself (just as our own familiar space) is necessary comprised of a single string, but the fabric of that "space" is simply made of such strings. But that's just one theory.

What if the strings weren't necessarily limited to plank-sized units?



From this article,
"The "hidden" dimensions of string theory may be much larger than was previously thought and may soon come within experimental reach, together with the strings themselves. Ignatios Antoniadis gives an introduction to string physics and describes how it may soon be testable at particle colliders."


If strings could exist on a larger scale than just plank-sized units, are we ready at this point to place an upper-limit on their size? Given a few thousand years of additional research (quite literally) is it, at least, conceivable that one could create a "space" (i.e. magnetically created pocket of altered space having a vacuum with refractive index different from that of unaltered space) that exists on a macro level, capable of encompassing a craft large enough to transport humans?

I think it's too early to tell, but isn't the science and theory pointing in that direction?

Centrist



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   
I wonder what kind of power plant this thing would need, fission, fusion, or antimatter.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWguy83
I wonder what kind of power plant this thing would need, fission, fusion, or antimatter.


It would require a Z-Machine.

www.sandia.gov...



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 02:25 PM
link   
New Scientist article is now available. Provides a bit of history on this theory and on Heim.

www.newscientist.com...



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
It would require a Z-Machine.


The Z-Machine isn't a power plant. It stores up power over a slightly long time then releases it in a fraction of a second. This would only be used to test some of the theories surrounding this new propulsion.

[edit on 6-1-2006 by NWguy83]



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWguy83
I wonder what kind of power plant this thing would need, fission, fusion, or antimatter.


The fifth interaction, termed gravitophoton force, would accelerate a material body without the need of propellant.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWguy83

Originally posted by sardion2000
It would require a Z-Machine.


The Z-Machine isn't a power plant. It stores up power over a slightly long time then releases it in a fraction of a second. This would only be used to test some of the theories surrounding this new propulsion.

[edit on 6-1-2006 by NWguy83]


It can be used as a power plant as well, they are currently trying to create the conditions necessary for fusion as we speak.

From the article...


www.sandia.gov...
Other experiments in a still smaller volume target suggest temperatures may eventually be achieved on Z in the range of 2.0 to 2.2 million degrees. The now-realistic goal of reaching 2.0 million degrees is so significant because radiation temperatures in the range of two million to three million degrees are generally considered an essential condition for nuclear fusion.


Also from the new science article.



www.newscientist.com...
This will require a huge rotating ring placed above a superconducting coil to create an intense magnetic field. With a large enough current in the coil, and a large enough magnetic field, Dröscher claims the electromagnetic force can reduce the gravitational pull on the ring to the point where it floats free. Dröscher and Häuser say that to completely counter Earth's pull on a 150-tonne spacecraft a magnetic field of around 25 tesla would be needed. While that's 500,000 times the strength of Earth's magnetic field, pulsed magnets briefly reach field strengths up to 80 tesla. And Dröscher and Häuser go further. With a faster-spinning ring and an even stronger magnetic field, gravitophotons would interact with conventional gravity to produce a repulsive anti-gravity force, they suggest.


How much power does it take to create a field of 25 teslas? This link says we can only create one at 20 teslas atm.

www.unc.edu...



tesla (T)
the SI unit of flux density (or field intensity) for magnetic fields (also called the magnetic induction). The intensity of a magnetic field can be measured by placing a current-carrying conductor in the field. The magnetic field exerts a force on the conductor, a force which depends on the amount of the current and on the length of the conductor. One tesla is defined as the field intensity generating one newton of force per ampere of current per meter of conductor. Equivalently, one tesla represents a magnetic flux density of one weber per square meter of area. A field of one tesla is quite strong: the strongest fields available in laboratories are about 20 teslas, and the Earth's magnetic flux density, at its surface, is about 50 microteslas (µT). One tesla equals 10 000 gauss. The tesla, defined in 1958, honors the Serbian-American electrical engineer Nikola Tesla (1856-1943), whose work in electromagnetic induction led to the first practical generators and motors using alternating current.


[edit on 6-1-2006 by sardion2000]

[edit on 6-1-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by MarkLuitzen
The fifth interaction, termed gravitophoton force, would accelerate a material body without the need of propellant.


So are you telling me that this wouldn't need any power at all...?



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 05:58 PM
link   
The "theory" --- and in this it appears that Droescher has as much to do with it as Heim now --- appears to indicate that the craft could be propelled without a need for reaction mass, and the usual inertial response.

The question about energy is very very unclear. Even in standard Einsteinian General Relativity the issue of conservation of energy is not precise and well defined---and the Heim-Droescher theory is a significant complexification of Einsteinian GR.

If this theory or general approach were to be proven to be on the right track (and QCD/string theory not) then it would vindicate Albert Einstein's intuitions as he worked on roughly similar theories (Kalzua Klein-type appear to be a predecessor) with GR as the base, and he was dismissed as being so far outside the mainstream of physics development since 1925 or so, quantum field theory starting with Dirac etc.

I think Einstein is beginning to be somewhat right in quantum mechanics: the "Copenhagen interpretation" is now more and more recognized as conceptual mumbo-jumbo, otherwise known as "wrong". If he turns out to be also right in finding a classical or semiclassical Unified Field Theory based on extensions of GR, it would be astonishing.

His particular proposals to solve those problems were not correct ("decoherence" is now what is closest to being correct microdescription of quantum mechanics + observability)---not his fault because experimental evidence wasn't available---but his intuition about the problems isn't.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 06:19 PM
link   
msnbc has a story about this as wel look here there are some links in the story www.msnbc.msn.com...



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Even if this theory fails, who cares. Give them a chance to prove it. Even if they fail, I'm sure something will be learned. Isn't it true that you have only failed, if you refuse to learn something from your intial failure. Well this whole idea may not work, by trying...maybe we can learn something we didn't know before.

Am I advocating, spending tax-payer money on this? NO! But if private individuals are willing to fund it,, go ahead. If they suceed, then maybe the Govt. and tax payer money should get involved. If this doesn't blow up in their face, why not.

To think we are alone in the universe is crazy. If we can travel out there...to stars with planets around them, safely...Then I saw go for it. We have nothing to lose. Either we will find intelligent life, or we won't. But in the process, we just might find a suitable world to colonize. Here we ould start the search anew...or at the very least find a world that will ease the over-population of the earth.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 08:42 PM
link   
The proposed experiment with the spinning ring atop a superconductor seems uncannily like Eugene Podkletnov's experiment in which he created a beam of gravity reduction. Which could have been a beam of gravitophotons? But now there is a possible theory to back up the experiment.





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join