Alcubierre Warp Drive starship IXS Enterprise

Justo Miranda said:
Well, what I think about Alcubierre's idea is that scientific theories can only be seriously considered by the community if they can be confirmed experimentally on several occasions and by different research teams, or falsified by the same scientific procedure, which is the only thing that separates science from religion. And despite all these precautions, most of what we know as science is naively proven wrong every fifty years.

Everything else is science fiction.
Click to expand...
Behold the power of the almighty TRL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_readiness_level
 
Dilandu said:
Still a MAJOR improvement over low STL drives. Could reach Centauri system & return within 10 years.
Click to expand...


To know what is in the centauri system it is not necessary to send a manned mission and wait twenty-five years for them to return with the photographs, we can send an intelligent robot at 200 g and 1/10 of the speed of light and send us an e-mail with what it finds there.

But I think it would be a futile effort because during the time that the mission lasted, we would have developed quite powerful instruments that would answer our answers.
 
topspeed3 said:
Einstein was often shown to be wrong. It is only that no one understands his theory that everyone is like....yea...I quess so.
Click to expand...
The only time I know of Einstein being utterly wrong was QM, "God does not play dice with the universe".

There are a couple ways to get FTL while Relativity is absolutely true. Wormholes and Alcubierre. Both of which require absolutely immense amounts of energy and exotic matter.

Because if Relativity is not absolutely true, then one of the experiments that were designed to disprove it would have succeeded by now. Therefore, if Relativity is not true in some weird fringe case, it will otherwise still be true for all those experimental situations that have failed to disprove it in general terms.
 
The explanation I have heard most often is that "Physics and relativity" in their current 'as we know it form' are only relelvant 'here' and, We do not know enough about what we think we know to understand our reality is a 'local' event - yet.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The only time I know of Einstein being utterly wrong was QM, "God does not play dice with the universe".

There are a couple ways to get FTL while Relativity is absolutely true. Wormholes and Alcubierre. Both of which require absolutely immense amounts of energy and exotic matter.

Because if Relativity is not absolutely true, then one of the experiments that were designed to disprove it would have succeeded by now. Therefore, if Relativity is not true in some weird fringe case, it will otherwise still be true for all those experimental situations that have failed to disprove it in general terms.
Click to expand...
He was also an "aerodynamicist".
 
Foo Fighter said:
The explanation I have heard most often is that "Physics and relativity" in their current 'as we know it form' are only relelvant 'here' and, We do not know enough about what we think we know to understand our reality is a 'local' event - yet.
Click to expand...
Fair point.
 
You have the Einstein 'Joker' that he 'toyed' with 'TeleParallel Gravity', the 'Twistor' thing, as it simplified (!!!) to Relativity. But he could not figure the additional math, stuck with 'Relativity'.

IIRC, TG hypothesizes that EM radiation is space/time twisted along one dimension, gravity space/time twisted along an orthogonal.

Like hitting 'i = SqRoot (-1) in college, my head hurts...

Given there are currently several incompatible 'flavours' of TG, reportedly one per mathematician, and there's currently no way to confirm or falsify any of them, all bets are off...

Against that, just needs a 'Faraday' to join the first EM dots.
Something that could have been done any time since the ruddy Babylonians ??

Cross-grafting tech promptly gives us the entire solar system.
Getting further lies beyond plausible extrapolation...
( Per: What could you do with a 'Gravity Laser' ?? )
 
A focused gravity field replacing the output lens of the laser.

Theoretically allows aiming of the laser off-bore, changing lens shape while firing to alter the beam characteristics, and so on.
 
BlackBat242 said:
A focused gravity field replacing the output lens of the laser.

Theoretically allows aiming of the laser off-bore, changing lens shape while firing to alter the beam characteristics, and so on.
Click to expand...
Considering how weak gravity is, I kinda suspect that creating a meaningful optical distortion field would require far too many efforts and energy.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Billiard_Ball

The problem of making an object weightless is not only to suppress the Earth's gravity, but the earth is also subjected to the gravity of the sun, the sun to the gravity of the galactic center, the galaxy interacts with other galaxies of the local group.

The first successful experiment could be equivalent to opening the mad gorilla's cage.:oops:
 

Attachments

  • istockphoto-474415768-612x612.jpg
    istockphoto-474415768-612x612.jpg
    59.4 KB · Views: 15
on Artificial Gravity
Most Theories goes that is relation between electron magnetism and Gravitation field.
Einstein not follow this in Detail

Burkard Heim beliefe that Gravity is deeper-rooted in Space-Time, even smaller than quantum realm !
He postulated that fast rotating mass in powerful magnetic field would create field analog to Gravity.

Robert L Forward study in begin 1960s this also, However his machine is beyond our technology.
The Mass from ultra dense matter (like Neutron star or white dwarf) rotate at speed of light.
Inside spiral Tube made from Material harder as Diamond.

it could produce artificial gravity field if we could build it.
Heim was more optimistic he believed that Mass need only rotate at 3 km/s inside 14 Tesla strong magnetic field...
 
Michel Van said:
on Artificial Gravity
Most Theories goes that is relation between electron magnetism and Gravitation field.
Einstein not follow this in Detail

Burkard Heim beliefe that Gravity is deeper-rooted in Space-Time, even smaller than quantum realm !
He postulated that fast rotating mass in powerful magnetic field would create field analog to Gravity.

Robert L Forward study in begin 1960s this also, However his machine is beyond our technology.
The Mass from ultra dense matter (like Neutron star or white dwarf) rotate at speed of light.
Inside spiral Tube made from Material harder as Diamond.

it could produce artificial gravity field if we could build it.
Heim was more optimistic he believed that Mass need only rotate at 3 km/s inside 14 Tesla strong magnetic field...
Click to expand...
I recall gravity was recently explained in scientific paper.
 
topspeed3 said:
I recall gravity was recently explained in scientific paper.
Click to expand...
Please cite this paper, and responses to it.

A scientific paper proposes something that may or may not be possible and which must therefore be tested. The most useless thing in the world is one telephone. Likewise, hypotheses do not stand on their own and must be tested, and results of experiments must be reproduced.

This is as good a start as any:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
It is itself rooted in positivism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism
TLDR: There might be fairies at the bottom of the garden who are very good at hiding, but by hiding so effectively, they may be considered not to exist as they have no observable effect. Any description of the world that excludes fairies and is still thoroughly consistent with observed phenomena is adequate. Like fairies, FTL can be imagined but there is no proven or even proposed practical method for applying it at a 'classical' scale - that is, spaceships rather than quanta (the minimal unit) of information or particles. Thus it remains a gendanken - useful to generate philosophical discussions, but useless in the most practical sense.
 
Last edited:
Rhinocrates said:
Please cite this paper, and responses to it.

A scientific paper proposes something that may or may not be possible and which must therefore be tested. The most useless thing in the world is one telephone. Likewise, hypotheses do not stand on their own and must be tested, and results of experiments must be reproduced.

This is as good a start as any:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
It is itself rooted in positivism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism
TLDR: There might be fairies at the bottom of the garden who are very good at hiding, but by hiding so effectively, they may be considered not to exist as they have no observable effect. Any description of the world that excludes fairies and is still thoroughly consistent with observed phenomena is adequate. Like fairies, FTL can be imagined but there is no proven or even proposed practical method for applying it at a 'classical' scale - that is, spaceships rather than quanta (the minimal unit) of information or particles. Thus it remains a gendanken - useful to generate philosophical discussions, but useless in the most practical sense.
Click to expand...
AI is your friend:

A new quantum theory of gravity developed by researchers at Aalto University in Finland may be a significant step towards a "Theory of Everything." This theory, published in Reports on Progress in Physics, describes gravity using the same mathematical framework as the other fundamental forces (electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces). The researchers, Mikko Partanen and Jukka Tulkki, propose a gauge theory of gravity, similar to those used in the Standard Model, which could potentially resolve the long-standing conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics.
 
Last edited:
dannydale said:
I skimmed it but I didn't get a whole lot out of it because I suck at math.
Click to expand...
me too...
...so far i understand Gravity here works on Quantum level
while in Heim Theory Gravity works on Planck length, as geometric force on Space Time.
 
Is Heim Theory the one that predicts black hole singularities bouncing before they form because gravity becomes strongly repulsive at Planck length?
 
Rhinocrates said:
FTL can be imagined but there is no proven or even proposed practical method for applying it at a 'classical' scale - that is, spaceships rather than quanta (the minimal unit) of information or particles. Thus it remains a gendanken - useful to generate philosophical discussions, but useless in the most practical sense.
Click to expand...
No, we have 2 known proposed methods for FTL travel that do not violate Relativity-as-known.

1) Macro-scale wormholes that simply shorten the distance between two points, though they have a nasty failure mode when you try to make the FTL work in both directions; and

2) Alcubierre, which requires a significant quantity of exotic (ie, negative-mass) matter.



topspeed3 said:
AI is yout friend:
Click to expand...
AI is schizophrenic and makes shit up.
 
Scott Kenny said:
No, we have 2 known proposed methods for FTL travel that do not violate Relativity-as-known.

1) Macro-scale wormholes that simply shorten the distance between two points, though they have a nasty failure mode when you try to make the FTL work in both directions; and

2) Alcubierre, which requires a significant quantity of exotic (ie, negative-mass) matter.




AI is schizophrenic and makes shit up.
Click to expand...
The key word is 'practical', and considering the requirements for stuff like 'exotic matter' whose properties we don't know, I regard most of the theory as hand-waving.
 
Michel Van said:
on Artificial Gravity
Most Theories goes that is relation between electron magnetism and Gravitation field.
Einstein not follow this in Detail

Burkard Heim beliefe that Gravity is deeper-rooted in Space-Time, even smaller than quantum realm !
He postulated that fast rotating mass in powerful magnetic field would create field analog to Gravity.

Robert L Forward study in begin 1960s this also, However his machine is beyond our technology.
The Mass from ultra dense matter (like Neutron star or white dwarf) rotate at speed of light.
Inside spiral Tube made from Material harder as Diamond.

it could produce artificial gravity field if we could build it.
Heim was more optimistic he believed that Mass need only rotate at 3 km/s inside 14 Tesla strong magnetic field...
Click to expand...
That's not quite right.
My short version: It has to do with Kerr metric and mass rotation messing up (gravitational) hairs. (how to get energy from a BH is also related)
or read on:
Motivations for antigravity in General Relativity
Rotating Sources, Gravito-Magnetism and The Kerr Black Hole
 
Scott Kenny said:
AI is schizophrenic and makes shit up.
Click to expand...
Off topic. but this is because they don't care nor bother to make sure of good sources and use social media instead and also apply arbitrary censorships and filters; as well as adhering to people's demand & looking for AI to be not precise which people perceiced as boring and unimaginative. It works as designed. lol
 
Rhinocrates said:
The key word is 'practical', and considering the requirements for stuff like 'exotic matter' whose properties we don't know, I regard most of the theory as hand-waving.
Click to expand...
It's TRL-2 or so. "Technology concept and/or application formulated"
 
Arjen said:
Which seems to boil down to an unproven theory, a possible explanation.
Click to expand...
It is a strong posibility....a finnish science dude was student of Einstein....and he had his own theory of relativity back then....he was Gunnar Nordström.
 
I would advise caution regarding gravity at this point in time let alone pre-2025 stuff.
Currently, we have increasing indications of what we thought before about dark matter and gravity among others might be not the whole thruth. It's clearly due to our instruments not being fine enough before. And our newer and more precise ones are only starting to uncover the possibility of misinterpretation due to bad data. It will take probably a decade before we got something more substantial.

But for your amusement... the key questions are whether gravity is a force to begin with, hence, whether it's (a) quantum (field) or not and some. The best alternative idea so far is having gravity growing out of randomness -> quantum (~2024 Dec have to look for the paper). But it doesn't look like it checks all the necessary boxes yet.
 
Seragina said:
But for your amusement... the key questions are whether gravity is a force to begin with, hence, whether it's (a) quantum (field) or not and some. The best alternative idea so far is having gravity growing out of randomness -> quantum (~2024 Dec have to look for the paper). But it doesn't look like it checks all the necessary boxes yet.
Click to expand...
So the "postquantum theory of classical gravity" is in these papers:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.03116
and happens (to be) made to match Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND)/dark matter (which current data seems to be proven wrong)
https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.17844https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.19459but is based on linear newtonian potentional where it should have been non-linear
And we also have moved away from WIMPS to SIMPS. :D
 
For those who are more invested into the warp drive you can use this tool:

Warp Factory

to simulate and optimize a specific warp drive.
Yon can even play around with the math and try to find the optimimum math solution for minimum energy needed for warp. This is actually its main purpose.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom