FTL travel using a warp bubble
I've had this link for a while and would like to submit it for an analysis by some of the more scientifically minded people here: <a href="http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw81.html"; target="_blank">http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw81.html</a>;
It talks about a method of faster than light (FTL) propulsion and how to attain it. Most interesting about this method is there are no relativistic mass increase or time dilation effects.
It talks about a method of faster than light (FTL) propulsion and how to attain it. Most interesting about this method is there are no relativistic mass increase or time dilation effects.
Comments
But for the average, boggled reader, go rent "Event Horizon" (1998) Same theory, and with better graphics.
<strong>I am not in a position to credit or discredit any of the man's work.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay--I'll do it for you.
It's bunk I say! Unless, of course, it works, and then it's good.
Signed,
Splinemodel
At one point in my life I used to know a mathematician who worked on the optimal form for a craft intending to do FTL travel. NASA used to have a whole group dedicated to it.
There are a few major theories around on methods that could be used but all come down to a couple of stumbling blocks. Just to grab it direct from NASA.
[quote] These are the breakthroughs required to revolutionize space travel and enable interstellar voyages:
(1) MASS: Discover new propulsion methods that eliminate or dramatically reduce the need for propellant. This implies discovering fundamentally new ways to create motion, presumably by manipulating inertia, gravity, or by any other interactions between matter, fields, and spacetime.
(2) SPEED: Discover how to attain the ultimate achievable transit speeds to dramatically reduce travel times. This implies discovering a means to move a vehicle at or near the actual maximum speed limit for motion through space or through the motion of spacetime itself (if possible, this means circumventing the light speed limit).
(3) ENERGY: Discover fundamentally new modes of onboard energy generation to power these propulsion devices. This third goal is included since the first two breakthroughs could require breakthroughs in energy generation, and since the physics underlying the propulsion goals is closely linked to energy physics. <hr></blockquote>
Energy and mass are the real big ones that are stopping a lot of really neat things moving forward. Basically if you solve the first you very likely solve the 3rd anyway though.
Speed is only necessary if you want to travel to other solar systems and I never much cared whether that happened or not
[ 12-04-2002: Message edited by: Telomar ]</p>
I have done quite a bit of special relativity but no general relativity yet. But I think I can assume that the metric means the same thing in both theory. And the metric in SR is in simple words a matrix used to relate the change the time-coordinate and space-coordinates of positions in space-time. It doesn't imply causality or whatever. Causality is a universal principle and does not depend on the choice of a metric.
I could say more but I don't have all the background and more importantly time to do it.
Oh and his own articles are not available anymore, and if you check he's no longer part of the Relativity Group at his university. Hmmmm strange...
<strong>I heard about this guy before, and he's one of the funniest hack ever. He was doing an interview on TV about something related to these warp drives. He was talking about vacuum energy, which doest exist, but in such an incohrent way. He was using dumb examples and arguments to prove that vacuum contained a quasi-infinite amount of energy and that it was the holy grail of science. None of it made sense, but still he used this "discovery" to power his future warp drive. Vacuum energy would be channeled to create those worm holes with and "hyperbolic tangents functions" (this was probably the funniest part of the article. What the hell are hyperbolic tangents doing? It's a very common function... nothing extraordinary.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually I read about this energy that lives in the vacuum in a special Space issue of Scientific American (December 2002, has no ads, and all articles about the Universe; I highly recommend it). I'll have to look over the article to elaborate.
<strong>My astro physics prof used to tell us that your mass does not increase when you go faster. Something about it being a mathematical convenience and not a physical effect.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think there are 2 way to see it: either your inertial mass does increase, but not the gravitational one, or you simply need more energy to accelerate of the same amount when you already go fast or not. It depends on how you use the "gamma" factor: mass=(gamma)*rest mass, or momentum=gamma*(rest mass*velocity). Does the gamma change the mass or the momentum? It doesn't really matter...
<strong>
Actually I read about this energy that lives in the vacuum in a special Space issue of Scientific American (December 2002, has no ads, and all articles about the Universe; I highly recommend it). I'll have to look over the article to elaborate.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Speaking of SciAm:
<a href="http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=00045486-6600-1C71-9EB7809EC588F2D7&pageNumber=1&catID=3"; target="_blank">They're better than me at explaining vacuum and zero-point energy</a>
This guy IS a hack
<strong>
Okay--I'll do it for you.
It's bunk I say! Unless, of course, it works, and then it's good.
Signed,
Splinemodel</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well hey, I am an engineer, and that IS our general view of the universe.
Cool stuff though... <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />