Hyperdrive Propulsion Could Be Tested At the LHC 322
KentuckyFC writes "In 1924, the influential German mathematician David Hilbert calculated that a stationary mass should repel a particle moving towards or away from it at more than half the speed of light (as seen by a distant inertial observer). Now an American physicist has pointed out that the equal and opposite effect should also hold true: that a relativistic particle should repel a stationary mass. This, he says, could form the basis of a 'hypervelocity propulsion drive' for accelerating spacecraft to a good fraction of the speed of light. The idea is that the repulsion allows the relativistic particle to deliver a specific impulse that is greater than its specific momentum, an effect that is analogous to the elastic collision of a heavy mass with a much lighter, stationary mass, from which the lighter mass rebounds with about twice the speed of the heavy mass. Unlike other exotic hyperdrive proposals, this one can be tested using the world's largest particle accelerator, the LHC, which will generate beams of particles with the required energy (abstract). Placing a test mass next to the beam line and measuring the forces on it as the particles pass by should confirm the theory — or scupper it entirely."
! hyperdrive (Score:5, Informative)
I think most/all of us take the term "hyperdrive" to imply FTL speeds.
This technology doesn't claim to achieve that.
Re:! hyperdrive (Score:5, Funny)
I agree, it should be downgraded to the less impressive and more hierarchically correct megadrive or perhaps superdrive.
Re:! hyperdrive (Score:5, Funny)
Can they still go plaid at those speeds?
Re:! hyperdrive (Score:5, Funny)
No, hyperdrive isn't sufficient to go to plaid. For that you need a system capable of ludicrous speed. </pendantic>
Re:! hyperdrive (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I agree, it should be downgraded to the less impressive and more hierarchically correct megadrive or perhaps superdrive.
What do the Sega Genesis [wikipedia.org] and Apple DVD recorder [wikipedia.org] have to do with relativistic spacecraft engines?
Re: (Score:2)
Then it would have a perfect name, considering the techno-babble in Star Trek.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that hyper or super don't belong to the SI.
I propose that we should use kilodrive for it, so we can upgrade it to megadrive or gigadrive when the technology becomes more refined, or downgrade it to just drive if it is proven useless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:! hyperdrive (Score:4, Funny)
Naw, the MegaDrive was a dog; even when they called it the "Genesis". I'd rather have an SNES.
The SuperDrive is pretty cool, though. Makes a nice add-on to your Mac.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:! hyperdrive (Score:4, Funny)
Re:! hyperdrive (Score:4, Funny)
If you name it Hyperdrive now, what will you name a FTL drive? Full-speed Hyperdrive? Hi-Speed?
Hi-Definition Hyperdrive -- or HDHD.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, Warp drive? Duh.
Re:! hyperdrive (Score:5, Funny)
Hyperdrive with SpeedBoost(tm) technology.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
True. This is more of a Relativisitc Drive.
Re:! hyperdrive (Score:5, Funny)
No, you've missed the point Re:! hyperdrive (Score:5, Interesting)
The point of the drive is not that it enables light speed, or that it saves energy, because it doesn't do either.
The point of the drive is that it would accelerate you and you *don't* feel it!
The drive would accelerate you by gravity. Just like the International Space Station astronauts are still falling towards the Earth, but they can't feel it- you can't feel relativistic gravity either.
So you could accelerate at 1000 times the Earth's surface gravity if you wanted, and not even spill your coffee (potentially, if it works, and it should do).
Of course scaling up an effect that is only faintly sensed on an accelerator the size of the LHC is left as an exercise to the reader ;-), but it's fundamental research and you never know where it could lead.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The occupants would experience freefall.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
How could parent be redundant? It's 1) stamped two minutes after the article's post time, and 2) currently the only comment based on the common SF use of 'hyperdrive' as a synonym for 'superluminal.'
(Normally I would correct such clueless moderation, but I posted in this thread already.)
Re:! hyperdrive (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How about Impulse Drive?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I think most/all of us take the term "hyperdrive" to imply FTL speeds.
Yeah. Actually, it makes me think we're going to form the Galaxy Rangers and take on the Queen of the Crown and her Slaver Lords.
(Too obscure?)
Re: (Score:2)
I think most/all of us take the term "hyperdrive" to imply FTL speeds.
Yeah. Actually, it makes me think we're going to form the Galaxy Rangers and take on the Queen of the Crown and her Slaver Lords.
(Too obscure?)
Sadly, no.
Re:! hyperdrive (Score:4, Insightful)
50K MPH equals roughly 22352.0 meters per second
The Speed of light = 299792458 meters per second
50KMPH * (1 hundred orders of magnitude = 1e+100) = 2.2352e+104 meters per second
In terms of Speed of light:
7.45582465586909e+95 * C
That's quite an impressive jump in speed.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, all of this depends on your frame of reference.
From the traveler's frame of reference, you can travel any distance in any amount of time. I can get from here to Andromeda in 5 seconds, and if I measured my speed relative to light I'd clearly see that I'm travelling at 0% of C the whole time (although I'd see my surroundings flying past me at 99.999% of C or whatever). My measurement of the distance I travelled would also clearly show that I had only travelled a relatively short distance (maybe
Re:! hyperdrive (Score:4, Informative)
But I'm already going that fast.
I posted this message 61,282 years ago.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
My office chair travel is at sublight speed
is grammatically correct
Sounds great, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
It could be tested at the LHC if it ever manages to stay working for more than a month at a time, that is. :(
Re:Sounds great, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It hasn't "worked" fully at all, yet. But it is one of the more complex science instruments on the planet, not a Toyota Pickup truck at the garage. Give them time and it'll do its job... unless some twelve-year old Chinese prodigy figures out a way to do the same stuff in his lunch box.
Who would be immediately lynched by the scientific community because no one likes a smart ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Still, as is traditional, I - for one - would welcome our slightly limping, lunch-box particle-accelerator wielding, junior overlords.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
*sigh*... Please turn in your geek membership card as you exit slashdot. You may also want to Google "Infinite Improbability Drive".
Re: (Score:2)
But it is one of the more complex science instruments on the planet, not a Delorean at the garage.
Hey, Doc managed it with just 1.21 GW.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
One thing... (Score:3, Interesting)
"calculated that a stationary mass should repel a particle moving towards or away from it at more than half the speed of light"
So, how do I slow down while going half he speed of light?
I see the advent of a new industry: space crash landings
One More Thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
While testing this on the ground, just make sure you're not actually moving the Earth...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
According to what you have in quotes, approaching a stationary mass ought to do the job.
First Contact.. (Score:2, Funny)
With something so simple as to elastic collision, who would have thunk it?
Theoretically it makes sense, and what's cool about it is that it can be done with today's technology.
Pretty cool.
Next thing you know we'll have Romulans visiting. I'm liking all of this already..
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe in the movies...
You're welcome to determine this experimentally, btw. I think mythbusters did something on this, too.
Re: (Score:2)
So what happens when... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There's a hyperdriven black hole careering all around Northern Europe? That's a hot mess waiting to happen.
It's like that childrens' book, "If you give a black hold a continent..."
Great test of General Relativity (Score:5, Insightful)
Apart from being a potential nifty space drive, it would also provide a new test of General Relativity. This is far more likely to get it done as a real experiment at the LHC, than a new space drive.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a test of Special Relativity, not General Relativity.
Oct 8th, Warp Drive Day. (Score:3, Insightful)
And now they're getting the theory down for building it.
Its only a matter of time (pun intended) till this plays out and turns into the world's first hyperdrive.
Re:Oct 8th, Warp Drive Day. (Score:4, Informative)
Its only a matter of time (pun intended) till this plays out and turns into the world's first hyperdrive.
It's only a matter of time until we're all consumed in a fiery death
Re: (Score:2)
It's only a matter of time until we're all consumed in a fiery death
You'd rather we never research long-distance travel methods, but instead sit here and wait for the sun to explode? :-P
power (Score:2, Funny)
Has that thing got a Hemi in it?
Reminds me of Elite (Score:3, Interesting)
Where hyperspeed was possible unless there were ships or asteroids nearby. In that case you became "mass locked" So it turns out that more than just a gimmick to skip the boring bits of the game, mass does indeed interfere with fast moving objects.
Sounds more like an... (Score:2)
Dibs on Andromeda. (Score:3, Funny)
"Now an American physicist..." (Score:3, Funny)
Zephram Cochrane?
Re: (Score:2)
Passive propulsion (Score:2)
So hey, physics dudes... would this work? A space ship that's black on one side and white on the other. The white side reflects light, the black side absorbs it... besides being warmer than the white side would it slowly begin to move? Maybe a millimeter a century or so? :) Long range probes I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
Another wonderful physics article (Score:2)
"thereby achieving speeds greater than the driving particle's speed"
I'm pretty sure Hilbert didn't include that statement.
Other Potential Outcome (Score:2)
Placing a test mass next to the beam line and measuring the forces on it as the particles pass by should confirm the theory â" or scupper it entirely.
...or launch the test mass into the wall of the LHC at half the speed of light.
Classic SciFi Answer (Score:3, Insightful)
The Scientist's name is Felber, therefore the small fraction of light speed drive would likely be known as the Felber Drive.
If that doesn't sound sexy enough for you try the Hilbert-Felber Drive.
If you really want it to be metal, stick an umlaut in there somewhere.
Evaluating the claimed effect (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:But (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless we use a Bussard Ramjet [wikipedia.org] to collect interstellar dust...
Re: (Score:2)
Or combine the two. Use a solar sail to get initial speed, then start collecting fuel with the ramjet. As you near your destination, deploy the sail again to start slowing your craft.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, you beat me to it. I posted nearly the same point, but apparently you were posting at the same time. Your write up is better, anyhow. Great wiki link, thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, also consider that even deep space isn't completely empty. There are always at least a few hydrogen atoms floating around in even the most remote corners of the universe, as well as lots of photons, background radiation, possibly dark matter and dark energy, and frankly, stuff that we might not even know of yet.
Just like the significant possibility that there's water and other resources on the moon that we once thought was a vast, barren wasteland of nothing useful, with enough research, we may yet f
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Somebody hasn't read much Larry Niven. Why take starlight as-is when you can use solar collectors to gather it up and power a laser to drive your sail?
I'm not sure that the maximum velocity is as much a limit as you think, either. Given the time and proper course, so long as you can get above the local escape velocity (which is easier done by stealing momentum from other celestial bodies than by carrying around fuel) you can go somewhere else.
Re: (Score:2)
But a pulley helps.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Despite the snarky reply, he's absolutely correct.
You get some momentum from the photons hitting your solar collector. With that done, you can fire up a laser and either aim it at your solar sail, which will reflect the photons in the opposite direction, from which you get some more momentum. Or you can just fire the laser out the back and not take the loss from imperfect reflection. Oh, and you don't need the sail.
I think he means leaving the solar collectors behind and using them to power a laser that
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, your example just shows you don't know what he's talking about. You build the solar collectors in orbit around Mercury, and then aim the laser at the solar sail in deep space.
Robert Forward even showed how you can use one of them to decelerate when you get where you're going -
Re: (Score:2)
In the solar sail case, you've got a star at the beginning of the journey to provide acceleration and theoretically you're going to venture to another star which should provide the "fuel" for deceleration. In between, I am assuming that you don't lose any speed since you're traveling in a vacuum.
Re: (Score:2)
There a any number of viable methods to not carry fuel with them. Ramjets have been mentioned. Electromagnetic sails (or any kind of repulsor of an externally emitted wave/particle). The time-honored method of stealing velocity from other objects (gravity sling-shot).
And, in this case, if we are using a hypervelocity particle to repell a mass, then the particle could, presumably, be fired from a fixed point (Earth) to repel a ship.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If you want another "spacecraft carries its fuel" exception, check out magsails [wikipedia.org].
Backing up, though, I'll see your KE = 1/2 m v^2, and raise you E = mc^2. Consider that 1 kg matter + 1 kg antimatter yields 1.7975 * 10^17 J of energy. A mere 20 kg of reactants would yield enough energy to accelerate 90 metric tons -- somewhat more massive than the Space Shuttle orbiter -- to 0.01c. 2 metric tons of reactants vs 90 metric tons of total mass gives 0.1c. Chemical propulsion doesn't seem to be a viable mechanism
Re:But (Score:5, Interesting)
The ONLY exception to this is the "solar sail" concept, which relies on an external source of propulsion.
I believe the idea here is to have a particle accelerator in orbit that will be fired past the spacecraft it is accelerating, so it is analogous to a laser-pumped solar sail. It's also best to think of this as a potential tool for accelerating really low-mass instrument packages intended to do fly-bys of nearby stars, which could be scientifically useful.
The rest of your post sounds remarkably like statements by people back in the '70's that we'd never be able to image the disk of even nearby stars, much less discover or image planets around them.
It may be that what the author is proposing is impossible. There are a number of things in the paper that look highly sketchy to me, but GR ain't my field. Even so, while this method of acceleration for interstellar exploration may not work, the one method that is certain not to work is never bothering to try.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's no limit to how much energy you can put into your propellent though. If you had Sufficiently Advanced Technology you could put a huge particle accellerator on your spaceship and send your exhuast out behind you at 99.999999999% the speed of light which, in fact, gives you a KE > 1/2m*V^2 due to relativistic effects. In fact, you could accelerate a million ton spacecraft up to .5 c with half a kilogram of propellent if you could put enough energy into it.
Re:But (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, you could accelerate a million ton spacecraft up to .5 c with half a kilogram of propellent if you could put enough energy into it.
The question then becomes, how much does that amount of energy weigh?
Re: (Score:2)
According to special relativity, mass is nothing more or less than a measure of the energy in a system. (If you don't believe me, look up mass-energy equivalence.)
Mass increases with velocity by a factor of (1-v^2/c^2)^-.5.
The mass of a million ton spacecraft moving at .5 c is therefore a million tons times (1-(.5)^2)^-.5 = million tons * 1.1547.
So, at 100% efficiency both in the concentration of energy in the fuel (i.e. total mass conversion) and in propulsion, the fuel must weigh 1.1547 * million tons -
Your limit... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody said they're getting around anything. In general relativity, such equations balance out only within the context of one inertial frame of reference. The relativistic particle and the stationary mass are in two separate frames of reference. I haven't read the 1924 Hilbert paper, but it sounds like the change in the frame of reference between the relativistic particle and the stationary mass transfers additional KE to the latter.
Plus there's the whole relativistic mass thing [M=m(1-v^2/c^2)^-2 ], wh
Re:But (Score:5, Informative)
um... no?
kinetic energy doesn't follow that formula at relativistic speeds, which the article is explicitly about.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed mathematically. I see two problems with near-light speeds of travel:
1) You need to get around the mass vs acceleration issue -- I recommend a good warping of space: bring your destination to you.
2) Inertial dampening. To accelerate to near c is either going to take a very long time, or it's going to give someone a pretty severe case of whiplash (as in "Get that unrecognizable pulp out of the captain's chair!"). Braking has the same issue.
Perhaps a simple fix is to drive a micro black hole in front
Re: (Score:2)
Despite what the article says, it's not a magical drive. It just gives you an unexpected boost in the specific impulse, which means you can carry less fuel because you get more bang for your kilogram.
The effect must be awfully small though, because the Tevatron hasn't decided to lift off.
Re:But (Score:4, Informative)
That's the classical formula, which is asymptotically accurate at speeds much below the speed of light.
The real formula is messier, as you'll see at the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org]. There's currently no way around that one, but we might find a more precise formula later.
If the classical formula was completely correct, then the kinetic energy of a particle at lightspeed would be half the relativistic energy of its rest mass, and therefore modern particle accelerators (which can be seen as adding kinetic energy to particles) would achieve speeds far faster than light. This doesn't happen.
There's no inherent limit to the amount of kinetic energy we can put into a particle of any mass. The issue for interstellar travel is getting the energy, not applying it. Energy on that scale has an awful lot of mass.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's Niven's early Known Space universe (I think the hydrogen scoop was abandoned after ships switched to hyperspace travel.)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, if the guy gets the thing to work then he can call it whatever he wants.
Up to this point a 'hyperdrive' is a product of science fiction, so the only way you can stop him is to present your hyperdrive.
Fuck it, if he wanted to he could call it an 'Infinite Improbability Drive'.
Re: (Score:2)
CALL ME WHEN YOU REACH A RELATIVISTIC SPEED... oh wait, you can't.
until then, KE = 1/2mv^2 stands.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm a practical guy. When you reach (I'll be generous) 1% c (3,000 kms-1) with your spaceship, I'll think about revising the laws of Newtonian physics.
s/practical guy/guy that refuses to believe 100 years worth of scientific experiments by people far smarter than anyone here/
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no method of propulsion that is not some manner of standard Newtonian momentum transfer (including the theory in TFA). Even a gravitational assist is a momentum transfer from a planet to a spacecraft--the spacecraft gets a nice speed boost, and the planet is now orbiting a few meters-per-trillion-years more slowly.
That doesn't mean rockets are the end-all-be-all. Solar sails, photonic propulsion, ion drives, and maybe this particle accelerator drive might all be far better engines for certain app
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm sure someone posting Anonymously on /. has the courage to stand up to thugs.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, bio-passenger turns to jelly... sounds like a plausible plot line from Fringe.