Warp Engines In Development? 1016
Toloran writes "Although a staple of Sci-Fi space travel, it is often deemed to be just that: Fiction. However, it seems that one is currently in development. "The theoretical engine works by creating an intense magnetic field that, according to ideas first developed by the late scientist Burkhard Heim in the 1950s, would produce a gravitational field and result in thrust for a spacecraft. Also, if a large enough magnetic field was created, the craft would slip into a different dimension, where the speed of light is faster, allowing incredible speeds to be reached. Switching off the magnetic field would result in the engine reappearing in our current dimension.""
This is SO neat! (Score:3, Interesting)
It reminds me of the experiments with the first atomic bombs: they didn't know that the chain reaction wouldn't ignite the atmosphere. Who knows what considerations they've given it. Will it jerk the earth out of it's orbit? Will it open a wormhole that sucks out the earth's atmosphere? Will it end life as we know it? I was under the impression that extreme magnetic fields were fatal to humans, to say nothing of throwing birds off of their migration patterns.
I wonder who they will bestow the honor of first flight on...
Like the WB Gophers:
Latest news: Chief Engineer Montgomery Scott still dead.wwgd: what would google do?
Re:This is SO neat! (Score:5, Informative)
This is mostly a myth. Virtually every physicist associated with the Manhattan Project came independently to the conclusion that a nuclear bomb would not ignite the atmosphere, based on what was known about the nuclear cross-sections of atmospheric atoms (which was a lot).
I guess it's possible that some unknown physics could have resulted in ignition of the atmosphere anyway, but we are always at risk from that, so it's somewhat silly to worry about it. For instance, if current physics is wrong, a passing strangelet [wisegeek.com] could destroy the Earth at any moment.
Re:This is SO neat! (Score:5, Interesting)
This is mostly a myth. Virtually every physicist associated with the Manhattan Project came independently to the conclusion that a nuclear bomb would not ignite the atmosphere, based on what was known about the nuclear cross-sections of atmospheric atoms (which was a lot).
Having had one of said people as mathematics instructor; he said it was about 1/3 of the team members who thought it would probably kill us all via igniting the atmosphere, or jettisoning a significant amount of it into space.
How could smart people be so obviously wrong? (Score:3, Informative)
Igniting the atmosphere was also not realistic. Scientists knew of far more energetic events in recent history (e.g. Tunguska) and even a chemical reaction of the atmosphere was not plausible.
Re:How could smart people be so obviously wrong? (Score:3, Insightful)
People are smart in various ways. The gentleman I was early referring to, for example, had memorized all the trig tables and could instantly tell you any of them, but often had trouble remembering where his car was parked. I've heard even better stories from people who knew Einstein. People make mistakes, and when you're talking about something with that many variables, energy output, gravity's affect on the atmosphere, inertia, etc., etc. I can see how people would disagree. I know I've been involved in p
Re:How could smart people be so obviously wrong? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Even monkeys fall from trees."
Re:My attempt at explanation (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is SO neat! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This is SO neat! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is SO neat! (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe eventually, but only after several came to the scary conclusion that it might. Whereupon they re-ran the numbers until pretty sure it wouldn't. Then they crossed their fingers. I think Feynman talks about this in his book.
And it does make sense to worry about it in those cases where someone has their finger on the button of the possible atmosphere-i
Re:This is SO neat! (Score:5, Funny)
Remind me to someday tell you about how I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb ...
Re:This is SO neat! (Score:3, Informative)
When talking about nuclear weapons, the convention seems to be that "atomic" discusses fission devices, and "thermonuclear" discusses fusion devices.
The risk of atmospheric ignition was really only discussed seriously for thermonuclear devices, i thought?
The manhattan project dealt with the construction of atomic devices. I would imagine that the h-bomb work (led by Edward Teller,
Watch out for the transparent aluminum! (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds good, (Score:4, Funny)
***ducks***
Re:This is SO neat! (Score:5, Informative)
Edward Teller also raised the speculative possibility that an atomic bomb might "ignite" the atmosphere, due to a hypothetical fusion reaction of nitrogen nuclei. Hans Bethe calculated, according to Robert Serber, that it could not happen. In his book The Road from Los Alamos, Bethe says a refutation was written by Konopinski, C. Marvin, and Teller as report LA-602 (declassified Feb. 1973, PDF), showing that ignition of the atmosphere was impossible, not just unlikely.
Re:This is SO neat! (Score:5, Funny)
Smoke me a kipper... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is SO neat! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is SO neat! (Score:3, Funny)
Thanks, W!
Re:Star Drek... (Score:4)
Kirk: Mr. Shlock?
Mr. Shlock: No mustard Capt'n.
Kirk: Analysis Shlock?
Mr. Shlock: It would appear that Mr. Snot is about to eat a weiner without mustard captain.
Kirk: As usual, you logic is impeccible, however I was referring to the problem with the warp drive..
(slightly paraphrased from memory)
Re:This is SO neat! (Score:3, Interesting)
A story was related to me by a friend:
His father was working a classified site back in the 40's where several technicians, engineers and so on, were working on things in a lab. At a desk was an engineer, poking at a small pil
Re:This is SO neat! (Score:4, Informative)
Sounds like someone was trying to tell you about Louis Slotin's demise, caused by "tickling the dragon's tail":
Re:This is SO neat! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:This is SO neat! (Score:3, Interesting)
An atomic bomb is just a device fo
Re:This is SO neat! (Score:5, Funny)
And the primary buffer panel just fell off my ship!
My ship don't crash! If it crashes, you crashed her!
Re:This is SO neat! (Score:3, Informative)
Just because the air force expressed interest doesn't mean that it's even remotely plausible. The US army, and later the CIA, had a two decade long program to use psychics to spy on the Soviets.
Re:This is SO neat! (Score:3, Funny)
1.21 GigaWatts?
Re:This is SO neat! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:This is SO neat! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is SO neat! (Score:3, Informative)
I've looked back at the parent and grandparent post, and your comment makes no sense to me.
Pierre Curie was killed by a horse and cart because he didn't look before crossing the road. (Probably lost in thought - a true geek way to die.)
Marie Curie lived to a ripe old age, and died of cancer or leukemia - I forget which. It could have been caused by radiation exposure, but was probably just been old age.
Are there some fictional Curies to which you refer?
Original article (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Original article (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Original article (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Original article (Score:5, Informative)
Missing Information (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Original article (Score:3, Insightful)
Slower Dimension (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Slower Dimension (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Slower Dimension (Score:5, Interesting)
FTL
It describes the meeting between a young hotshot applying for money to develop his surefire warp drive and the institute director who has to break the news to him that they've secretly had a functional warp drive for ages . . .
But c is slower in hyperspace.
Reading it as a youth woke me up to the fact that you have to be careful what you wish for, because you might not get it.
KFG
Re:Slower Dimension (Score:3, Funny)
Everyone else was thinking it was a Macross reference.
Re:Slower Dimension (Score:5, Funny)
Like when Gilligan broke the Professor's new coconut-and-bamboo mecha prototype?
Re:Slower Dimension (Score:5, Funny)
Or worse yet, due to a great miscalculation in size, the entire battlefleet could be swallowed by a small dog.
Re:Slower Dimension (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Slower Dimension (Score:3, Funny)
Me, brain size of a planet, and stuck here calculating improbabilities for /. jokes.
Re:Slower Dimension (Score:3, Informative)
Then for 200 years it would be presumed your dead and by the time you re-emerge they'll have fixed the flaw in the design and we'll have several colonies on different planets.
Re:Slower Dimension (Score:5, Funny)
Welcome to Speedy Recoveries, where if you have a fatal illness, we'll send you forward 5 years in the future continuously for just $5 million until a cure for your disease has been discovered. Goodbye Mr Jenson, I hope we've found a cure to your disease in 5 years time.
5 years later.
According to your RFID tag you got AIDS from your homosexual lover. I'm sorry, but we haven't found a cure for AIDS yet, better luck next time.
20 years later.
I'm sorry, but we've currently become owned but the Christian Right for Purity has taken over what was once known as America. I'm sorry, but you'll have to come with us to be tried and executed.
Hello Mr Jenson. Don't worry, we killed those christian nut-bags 5 years ago, but I'm afraid a cure still hasn't been found.
20 years later.
This is an automated message. I'm afraid the company you were using has gone bankrupt and they will no longer be able to provide you with time-travelling services. But would you like to try out one of our many friendly competitors in the time travel business?
100 years later.
Chio daf dfo asd meri....
50 years later.
Ooog! OOh! Aaak!
Mr Jenson: Oh fuck!
Whacky science.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Whacky science.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I do think the way technology has followed the sci-fi writing is cool and all, but that doesn't mean that every idea in a sci-fi novel is worth spending tax money on.
Re:Whacky science.... (Score:5, Informative)
Anyway, its the press.
The drive is no warp drive. And the idea is NOT to slip it into a different dimension, at least not as far as I understood the stuff about Heim I read so far.
Heim has a somewhat unified theory about forces. Like Lorenz force, that is a force affecting charged particles, the Heim-Lorenz force affects any particle that has mass. (But the force still needs to be shown to exist in experiments)
According to that unified theory you only need compareable weak magnetic fields (compareable like on the surface of our sun, don't remember the exact numbers, but I googled once for references and I think I remember the strength of the field was a bit below the magnetic field of the sun) I think the field needs to be somewhat in the order of 10 times as strong as in the current fusion experiiments.
Such a field would basically work like an "anti grav" drive, not like a warp dirve, and no, you would not be faster than light, you only could speed up pretty easy. In fact I have no clue how you just would use a field as drive anyway
angel'o'sphere
Re:Whacky science.... (Score:3, Insightful)
The proper term is blue sky research projects. Only 1 out of 1,00 pays off, but when it does it is usually worth it.
Re:Electrogravitics (Score:5, Insightful)
Depends on the physics. There was a bomber designed back in WWII that looked a lot like the B-2. However, it was very hard to control due to no vertical stabilizers. 50 years later and computer controls, we have one of the most impressive bombers ever built. The SCRAM Jet was SciFi until we got new materials, so were forward swept wings on a super sonic jet. Sometimes it's just a matter of letting practical science catch up with the theory. After all, if all it takes is more power, wait until you have a denser working power plant.
Re:Electrogravitics (Score:3, Informative)
Actually I didn't list the problems. But one for instance the use of diamagnetism for levitation works for lifting something like a frog but wont work for something as big as a human.
Use of electrostatic fields to lift very light small frames works but wont work for large scale objects because for example the breakdown voltage in air. These issues are more than engineering.
Come again, please? (Score:5, Interesting)
OK - so far, so good.
Err, what? I hope this is a joke...
Re:Come again, please? (Score:3, Insightful)
OK - so far, so good.
Um, what?! Granted I'm not a physicist or even a wanna-be, but if they had discovered (in the 50s!) the GUT/TOE that combines the gravitational force with the already unified electric, magnetic, and weak nuclear forces, I think I would have heard about it!
Re:Come again, please? (Score:3, Funny)
I can see it now...
One of the engineers mistakenly wears a belt with a ferrous buckle during a test. The belt destroys the engine, flying at it at near C speed, but the scientists realize that the engineer was sliced so
Re:Come again, please? (Score:3, Funny)
Read more about General Relativity (Score:5, Informative)
There's no evidence. There's no theory. It's just something somebody made up.
Einstein thought that they did. The ultimate goal of general relativity for Einstein was a Grand Unified Theory of Everything. In Einstein's conception, all forces (not just gravity) were the effect of curvatures in space-time. Since all energy was curvatures of space-time, so was all matter. Heim just expounded on Einstein's theories and he did so in a way that actually predicts the masses of fundamental particles. Thinking hard on relativity was what he did to distract himself from the pain of from where his hands used to be after they were blown off in an explosives lab accident. The same incident made him deaf-blind, so he preferred isolation rather than colaboration and pretty much spent all his time on the subject. This same isolation made his theories relatively unknown for a very long time.
The editorial blurb is hideously sensational, though. Even if we do prove that EM fields can alter space and produce gravitational effects, you're a long way from creating a practical form of propulsion. On the other hand, we'd at least have hope of a reactionless drive.
I wonder what kind of mileage it gets. (Score:3, Funny)
The engines cannae takit captain! (Score:3, Funny)
*Staple*. *Staple*. *Staple.* (Score:5, Informative)
Staple. A *staple* of Sci-Fi space travel. A stable would be... well, I don't know what it would be, but it would be something else besides a staple.
People: spelling phonetically doesn't always work. This is getting "rediculous" [sic].
Re:*Staple*. *Staple*. *Staple.* (Score:5, Funny)
Re:*Staple*. *Staple*. *Staple.* (Score:3, Funny)
hey!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, I just logged onto their "theoretical" website and bought me some "hypothetical" tickets. I'll be staying in the VaporWare Resorts located on the crater-rific Southern Highlands, where I'll play Duke Nukem Forever on my Cold-Fusion powered Phantom Game Console....
Sigh.
OMGWTFBBQ! (Score:3, Funny)
On top of this, it works exactly as specified on startrek, with the "Warping" entering another dimension,
If they figure out that they can creat some new crystal that will power such a monster, I'm going to quit my job and start designing a world that can wrap all the way around a star.
Warp drive? (Score:5, Informative)
At last (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, *come* on, now... (Score:5, Insightful)
And really, they might as well replace "magnetic" with "pork chop," for all the real science that's discussed here.
FTA: But this thing is not around the corner; we first have to prove the basic science is correct and there are quite a few physicists who have a different opinion.
Yeah. Like almost all of them. This, however, is the most reasonable statement made in the whole article.
I'm not normally on the "bash slashdot" bandwagon, but...come on. Since when are completely unsubstantiated claims that it might be possible someday to violate fundamental physical laws news? If they are, here's more news:
A method to cheaply and easily turn any given substance into gold has long been the goal of alchemy, and widely regarded as fantasy. However, it seems that one is currently in development. According to slashdot user Control Group: "the theoretical process works by imbuing heavy metals - such as lead - with the essence of the sun's emanatory spirit, resulting in the lead taking on a yellowish hue. Also, if enough essence is crammed into any given substance, the very nature of it is changed, allowing incredible transformations to be performed.
*eyeroll*
Re:Oh, *come* on, now... (Score:4, Funny)
Mmmmm... pork chops...
Re:Oh, *come* on, now... (Score:4, Interesting)
the theoretical process works by imbuing heavy metals - such as lead - with the essence of the sun's emanatory spirit, resulting in the lead taking on a yellowish hue.
I remember reading once about how every now and again someone finds a pile of platinum hidden somewhere. It was believed by some gold prospectors that platinum was gold that had not yet turned yellow, thus they hid it so they could come back later and see if it had become valuable gold yet. That has nothing to do with anything, but I find it amusing.
Paper this is based on (Score:5, Insightful)
Nutjob or not? (Score:5, Interesting)
translation (Score:5, Funny)
Was Burkhard Heim a crackpot? (Score:3, Interesting)
Read some of the entries. Or simply look at the domain names of the pages found.
Then take the following test [ucr.edu] to see if he's actually a revolutionary physicist of Gallileo's, Newton's, Einstein's or Feynmann's stature, or merely just another 2-bit crackpot.
Unnecessary (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Unnecessary (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Unnecessary (Score:4, Interesting)
Point A: All motion is relative. If I walk down the asile of a plane, I'm not suddenly walking at 202 mph; I'm walking 2mph in a 200 mph plane, so long as that plane is around me and at a steady flight.
Point B: The speed of light is NOT relative. It's always c. Always, always, always.
Point C: When you move relative to an object, the speed of light stays constant both for you and that object.
Point D: The only way to have a constant c with different relative speeds is to change the other side of a speed equation -- that is, time.
Conclusion: As you go faster, you travel through time faster.
(Bad) Example: Imagine you have ten identically sized strings ("time"), and you have to stretch them from one line on the ground to another line in the ground. The space between the two lines is the speed of light -- a constant. Normally, exactly ten strings reach from one line to the other. But if the line became further apart (as if you were moving faster through space), you'd still have to stretch those ten strings between the lines, but you'd have gaps -- time would be dilated, or slowed.
Re:Unnecessary (Score:5, Informative)
"Point A: All motion is relative. If I walk down the asile of a plane, I'm not suddenly walking at 202 mph; I'm walking 2mph in a 200 mph plane, so long as that plane is around me and at a steady flight."
-this proves nothing. you are still MOVING at 200mph in relation to the observer who is on the ground. and if you take 3 steps in a plane moving 200 mph, you've just traversed the same distance as the plane did...in 3 steps.
"Point B: The speed of light is NOT relative. It's always c. Always, always, always."
-nope. c = the speed of light in a vaccum. c can be much much slower when in a medium...such as water. scientists have recently been able to slow the speed of light down to walking speed.
The very word, RELATIVITY, indicates the complexity and the depth that must be considered when working with the laws of physics. The laws can change and DO change relative to where you are and how fast you are moving and any number of other factors.
You're Early (Score:3, Funny)
Finally (Score:3, Funny)
I see no problem here (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone comes up with a theory that may permit FTL space travel. There isn't any known way to test the theory with the current techniques.
Sometime later someone comes up with a way to test the theory to see if it works or not (we are here).
If the theory works, the nature of human society changes forever as we become a true spacefaring race.
If the theory fails to hold up then we've disproven it and learned something new about the nature of the universe in the process (or possibly just confirmed a different conflicting theory).
By all means - bring on the experiments/tests!
Psuedoscience (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Psuedoscience (Score:3, Interesting)
See: http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/matter/smallest/ index.html
Also, I don't know if antimatter is the ultimate energy source. They use way more energy to produce the antiprotons than they get out of them smashing them with regular protons. It's the same problem that we see with hydrogen fuel cells. You still h
Re:Psuedoscience (Score:5, Informative)
Antimatter may be the ultimate in energy density, but it is not the ultimate in energy storage. It takes a tremendous amount of energy to create that antimatter, much more than you will get from its annihilation with matter.
On to the "trivial" rockets, you may be able to produce lots of thrust with a matter/antimatter engine, but you also produce enormous amounts of radiation. How will you shield the crew compartment, or even the electronics? Lots of heavy metals? More mass = less acceleration.
Finally, the net world production of antimatter is what, femtograms per year? We're nowhere near ready to fuel even one bottle rocket, let alone a spaceship.
Re:Psuedoscience (Score:3, Informative)
Re:oh is _that_ all ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's have a thought experiment first (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Let's have a thought experiment first (Score:4, Informative)
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_Theory [wikipedia.org]
[2] http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/A
Re:Warp FP (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Would it be fit for human travel? (Score:4, Informative)
Frog Levitation Movies (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Would it be fit for human travel? (Score:3)
Anyhow, it turns out that we are able to withstand pretty stunningly high magnetic fields. For instance, research magnets for MRI, fMRI and MRS are pushing 5-7 Tesla, but there are some absolutely stunningly high magnetic fields (starting at about 10 Tesla) that are contained in small areas that actually c
Re:Would it be fit for human travel? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I call shenanigans! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I call shenanigans! (Score:3, Funny)
As Scotty said, "I canna break the laws of physics!" I'll believe this when I see an actual FTL ship.
Re:I call shenanigans! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I call shenanigans! (Score:5, Informative)
Admittedly Heim's work is not proven, but so far it's not disproven either. That's an important point. Heim (who was blind, mostly deaf, and was born without hands) has advanced a sort of Grand Unification Theory. It covers all the particles we know about, predicts the masses of those particles plus a few more that we haven't *proven* to exist yet, and doesn't suffer from the necessity of the Higgs Boson, which QM and ST predict, but which has yet to be seen (even though we really should have by now.)
It includes predictions of source of Dark Energy ("quintessence particles") and Dark Matter.
In all these respects, it is similar to any number of current Unification Theories. However, it has one set of properties that predict it should be possible to cause a gradient to form in the fabric of space-time, namely that by passing a set of particles through a massive magnetic field in a rotating torus, that it should be possible to cause the creation of a virtual particle pair known as the "gravitophoton" to form. This particle would then cause a compression of space time to form, giving a bias to space so that the generator would be moved in a particular direction.
The theory goes on to predict that if enough of a gradient was formed, then c' > c within the gradient (along with a bunch of other effects) that can't happen in real space. The only option that preserves GR is that the object must move out of "real" space into a parallel dimension/alternate reality where c'>c is allowed. Thus, faster than light travel.
The whole article is about the U.S. being interested in *testing* the theory. To do this, you build a big-ass torroid (6M) and get it spinning fast (> 700m/s) and then energize a big-ass magnetic field (>37 T) and measure to see if the effect occurs. The effect in this case measuring something like 3 newtons.
If it's there, then HURRAY AND HUZZAH, Heim was a genius who goes down in the history books with Einstein and we have warp drive within 100 years.
If it doesn't work, then the theory is proven wrong, and Heim wasted 19 years of his life doing some really obnoxiously hard math.
The thing is, this is just a physics experiment, no different than when Michelson and Morley set up their twin mirror experiment. And although it's a deceptively simple experiment, it could have just as big of repercussions as M&M's.
Calling it warp drive is premature. Saying it could have massive repercussions if sucessful is a huge understatement.
Re:I call shenanigans! (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, a footnote to the article says he had his forearm blown off in the same accident that cost him his hearing and most of his sight -- fiddling with high explosives. It also mentions he developed a photographic memory. Absolutely amazing stuff.
Re:I call shenanigans! (Score:5, Informative)
yes, Heim worked as you describe and his theroy is neither proven nor disproven, how ever its funny how "myths" starts to grow:
That's an important point. Heim (who was blind, mostly deaf, and was born without hands)
No, he was an ordinary physician. With hands, ears and eyes. But he played to much with explosives in his lab and was crippled in an accident, whre he lost his hands, and most of his sight and lots of his hearing.
Most of his theories he worked out AFTER that accident. His wife was writing it down for him and reading him older paragraphs. So most of his therory he made up in his mind and he enver could see the formulars his wife wrote for him on dictat.
Because he was such ill he did not want to travel, and he did not publish in that period. His late students revived his theories over the last 10 -20 years, and now as I mentioned in a diffeent post, they try to rewrite his theory and correct errors in his formulas and try to work out experiments to proof/disproof it.
Unfortunately most researchers find Heims idea contradicting to their picture of the world and reject it without even trying to udnerstand it. But well, its like with a difficult mathematical proof: the one who found the proof likely worked 5 or more years on that. If you like to understand his proof you have to spend at least one year in recalculations. In our time Heims theory is not popular and money to spend for experiements is going elsewhere.
However the basics of his theroy is pretty simple. And I assume its compareable easy to set up an exsperiemnt, or lets say: cheap. Far chaper than the fusion reactors we have built so far
angel'o'sphere
Re:Word Usage (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Informative)