Is warp travel possible? Or having transporter beams? or tractor beams? Phasers, disruptors, photon torpedos, shields, those very awesome holodecks, are they all possible too?
I once heard Professor Hawking saying he was working on seeing if warp propulsion was possible.
Are things from Star Trek possible?
-
Topic authorWildMoon
- Posts: 217
- Joined: 07.09.2005
- With us: 18 years 10 months
- Location: Everywhere, anywhere & nowhere, always and never.
- Contact:
Are things from Star Trek possible?
Pi does not equal 3.14159265, it equals "yum!"
A world without Monty Python, gnomes, news crews that make a big deal out of a celebrity breathing, Star Trek, & Coca-Cola? That is impossible! IMPOSSIBLE!
A world without Monty Python, gnomes, news crews that make a big deal out of a celebrity breathing, Star Trek, & Coca-Cola? That is impossible! IMPOSSIBLE!
There's a book out called 'The Science of Star Trek" or something, I think that explains the real theories behind the fictional stuff in Star Trek. That'd probably give you a better and more informative answer.
While some aspects may be possible (I mean, look at the handheld communicator - hello, cellphone?), a lot of it isn't possible with any technology we're going to come up with for millennia at best...
This is a bit of a Purgatoryish topic isn't it? Well, it's OK to stay here as long as it focuses on actual fact and physics and not on how people think the universe should work...
While some aspects may be possible (I mean, look at the handheld communicator - hello, cellphone?), a lot of it isn't possible with any technology we're going to come up with for millennia at best...
This is a bit of a Purgatoryish topic isn't it? Well, it's OK to stay here as long as it focuses on actual fact and physics and not on how people think the universe should work...
My Celestia page: Spica system, planetary magnitudes script, updated demo.cel, Quad system
When Hawking guest-starred on an episode of Star Trek TNG (so the story goes), he was being given a tour of the various different sets, having been a fan of the series since its beginning. When they reached the engineering deck set, he rolled on up to the warp drive reactor, looked at it for a bt, then apparently said, "I'll be working on that next", or words to that effect.
I think there is always a hope, even a secret one hidden down deep in astrophysicists' secret places, that a warp drive would somehow, someday become possible. But they way we currently understand the universe and how it is constructed, the odds are, of course, pretty poor that this will ever happen.
Directed energy weapons might have a possibility, someday, but the biggest hurdle to overcome would be a power source. Sure, let's make a phaser, just big enough to fit in the palm of your hand! But, I hope you don't mind lugging about a power pack the size of a small house....
There are various other trains of thought on the many pieces of classic Star Trek machinery. For my part, I just don't see them happening at all, no matter the technological level that we might develop. But some of the more minor items have already been realized to one extent or another. As Malefant stated, the old-style communicators have been realized and expanded upon by cell phones. PADD's have come on the scene in the various incarnations of hand held computers. Biobeds are realized in some form, I'm told.
I suppose, with time, we'll just have to wait and see what else comes along. But the really big stuff? I wouldn't hold my breath.
...John...
I think there is always a hope, even a secret one hidden down deep in astrophysicists' secret places, that a warp drive would somehow, someday become possible. But they way we currently understand the universe and how it is constructed, the odds are, of course, pretty poor that this will ever happen.
Directed energy weapons might have a possibility, someday, but the biggest hurdle to overcome would be a power source. Sure, let's make a phaser, just big enough to fit in the palm of your hand! But, I hope you don't mind lugging about a power pack the size of a small house....
There are various other trains of thought on the many pieces of classic Star Trek machinery. For my part, I just don't see them happening at all, no matter the technological level that we might develop. But some of the more minor items have already been realized to one extent or another. As Malefant stated, the old-style communicators have been realized and expanded upon by cell phones. PADD's have come on the scene in the various incarnations of hand held computers. Biobeds are realized in some form, I'm told.
I suppose, with time, we'll just have to wait and see what else comes along. But the really big stuff? I wouldn't hold my breath.
...John...
"To make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe..."
--Carl Sagan
--Carl Sagan
-
BlindedByTheLight
- Posts: 485
- Joined: 19.03.2005
- With us: 19 years 3 months
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
-
Captain Nephilim
- Posts: 23
- Joined: 22.10.2005
- With us: 18 years 8 months
- Location: Missouri
Dollan wrote:...
I think there is always a hope, even a secret one hidden down deep in astrophysicists' secret places, that a warp drive would somehow, someday become possible. But they way we currently understand the universe and how it is constructed, the odds are, of course, pretty poor that this will ever happen. ...
That's probably true (about the secret hope), but I actually hope to goodness that the speed of light is the limit, and Warp Drive is a silly fiction. I'd prefer human civilization on many worlds with vast oceans of time and space between them. No empires here--just islands of culture, watching each others' news on a time delay that gets worse with distance. Humanity will be safer from self-destruction if we can't easily reach out and wring each others' necks.
-
-------------------------
---------------------------------
-----Cpt----------------------------------
---------Nephilim--------------------------------------
--------------------------------
--------------------
----------
---------------------------------
-----Cpt----------------------------------
---------Nephilim--------------------------------------
--------------------------------
--------------------
----------
Well in my humble opinion...Something like matter transportation they way they describe it to be in Trek probably wouldnt work on living tissue...However something like folding space could...due to the fact that dissassembling living matter has a tendency to kill...where as something like a 'gate' or form of transportation altering the fabric of space and not the individual would I suppose be 'safer'....
Folding space would take massive amounts of energy...More than we currently are capable of....
As for a holodeck...This I can see being possible fairly soon...since we have had hologram technology for quite some time...but for the ability for those projections to retain substance....That is another subject entirely....
Check this out:
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/whatsnew/5 ... drcrd.html
With each step further with an idea such as this we will draw closer to the possibility of a holodeck or virtual reality....
Folding space would take massive amounts of energy...More than we currently are capable of....
As for a holodeck...This I can see being possible fairly soon...since we have had hologram technology for quite some time...but for the ability for those projections to retain substance....That is another subject entirely....
Check this out:
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/whatsnew/5 ... drcrd.html
With each step further with an idea such as this we will draw closer to the possibility of a holodeck or virtual reality....
I'm trying to teach the cavemen how to play scrabble, its uphill work. The only word they know is Uhh and they dont know how to spell it!
-
BlindedByTheLight
- Posts: 485
- Joined: 19.03.2005
- With us: 19 years 3 months
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
Rassilon wrote:Well in my humble opinion...Something like matter transportation they way they describe it to be in Trek probably wouldnt work on living tissue...due to the fact that dissassembling living matter has a tendency to kill
Well, I would think that the "killing" tendency of disassociating living tissue is merely a biological issue - and a practical one at that (meaning that nothing theoretically would prevent a body from being taken apart atom by atom and put back together again). We do something similar now with restoring amputated limbs and and during heart transplants.
If memory serves, the two biggest limitations I can remember from the book with" converting atoms to energy and flinging them across space" (as McCoy would often call it) were:
1) The Obvious - we are talking about HUGE amounts of energy that would be released. Like multiples of atomic bomb-huge.
2) The Interesting But Less Obvious - that the amount of "information" encoded in a human body (i.e. this atom goes here... that atom goes there... this orbital has this energy.... they are connected like such) would overwhelm any conceivable computer buss. I believe the book said something like, "If we took the fastest supercomputer today, multiplied its speed by 10,000 - and gave it the entire age of the universe to process the information... it still wouldn't have time to transmit all the information encoded into a human body."
Will "folding space" help that? Or a quantum computer? Beats me. Don't know crap about those.
Steven Binder, Mac OS X 10.4.10
-
Topic authorWildMoon
- Posts: 217
- Joined: 07.09.2005
- With us: 18 years 10 months
- Location: Everywhere, anywhere & nowhere, always and never.
- Contact:
What about transporting rats or cats?
Or transporting plants and ants?
Hey, I made a rhyme!
Man, it's bedtime...
Or transporting plants and ants?
Hey, I made a rhyme!
Man, it's bedtime...
Pi does not equal 3.14159265, it equals "yum!"
A world without Monty Python, gnomes, news crews that make a big deal out of a celebrity breathing, Star Trek, & Coca-Cola? That is impossible! IMPOSSIBLE!
A world without Monty Python, gnomes, news crews that make a big deal out of a celebrity breathing, Star Trek, & Coca-Cola? That is impossible! IMPOSSIBLE!
Matter transporters in Star Trek were a plot device from the original series to speed up the shows. It's impossible for the reasons that BlindedByTheLight pointed out.
The same goes for matter replicators. Creating matter out of energy requires a LOT of energy. How much? Work it out yourself using E=mc2. But I'll give an approximation. To create two cups of hot Earl Grey tea (mass 600 grams) would require roughly the same energy that the Sun emits in one microsecond. To look at it another way, the Sun only emits enough energy every second to create two million cups of Earl Grey tea from energy. At least the tea would be hot.
Artificial gravity in nonrotating ships may be possible, but I believe it's very unlikely.
Force fields are not really possible in the way they are portrayed on Star Trek. There are only four fundamental forces of nature, and none of them are particularly likely to be confined in sheets that permit the passage of light but not matter.
Ship-based energy weapons are possible, but would be more limited than they appear on Star Trek. It is currently possible to create laser pulses powerful enough to punch a hole through solid steel. Many laser facilities have signs that warn about the danger of looking into the laser beam with your remaining eye.
Hand-held energy weapons are another matter as Dollan pointed out.
Warp drive is probably impossible. Warp drive is a common plot device in works of SF, so common that SF fans know what it is without any explanation required. The stars are very far apart, and without a convenient plot device to get there quickly it is difficult to formulate plots involving conflict with humanoid aliens. A likely scenario for quick travel to the stars would be if a means was found to utilise wormholes. At present wormholes are not known to exist, but have not yet been proven to be impossible.
The last unlikely bit of Star Trek is the subatomic particle-of-the-week that has just the right properties to solve the problem of the week. This plot mechanism is too much like deus ex machina for my taste.
The same goes for matter replicators. Creating matter out of energy requires a LOT of energy. How much? Work it out yourself using E=mc2. But I'll give an approximation. To create two cups of hot Earl Grey tea (mass 600 grams) would require roughly the same energy that the Sun emits in one microsecond. To look at it another way, the Sun only emits enough energy every second to create two million cups of Earl Grey tea from energy. At least the tea would be hot.
Artificial gravity in nonrotating ships may be possible, but I believe it's very unlikely.
Force fields are not really possible in the way they are portrayed on Star Trek. There are only four fundamental forces of nature, and none of them are particularly likely to be confined in sheets that permit the passage of light but not matter.
Ship-based energy weapons are possible, but would be more limited than they appear on Star Trek. It is currently possible to create laser pulses powerful enough to punch a hole through solid steel. Many laser facilities have signs that warn about the danger of looking into the laser beam with your remaining eye.
Hand-held energy weapons are another matter as Dollan pointed out.
Warp drive is probably impossible. Warp drive is a common plot device in works of SF, so common that SF fans know what it is without any explanation required. The stars are very far apart, and without a convenient plot device to get there quickly it is difficult to formulate plots involving conflict with humanoid aliens. A likely scenario for quick travel to the stars would be if a means was found to utilise wormholes. At present wormholes are not known to exist, but have not yet been proven to be impossible.
The last unlikely bit of Star Trek is the subatomic particle-of-the-week that has just the right properties to solve the problem of the week. This plot mechanism is too much like deus ex machina for my taste.
Nobody says you have to digitize the information. I don't even think that's possible, because of the uncertainty principle. But if you find a way to do an analog transform of matter into a conglomerate of particles which is coherent and travels at very high speeds, and which can then be recombined into matter through a reverse analogic process, you have teleportation.BlindedByTheLight wrote:2) The Interesting But Less Obvious - that the amount of "information" encoded in a human body (i.e. this atom goes here... that atom goes there... this orbital has this energy.... they are connected like such) would overwhelm any conceivable computer buss. I believe the book said something like, "If we took the fastest supercomputer today, multiplied its speed by 10,000 - and gave it the entire age of the universe to process the information... it still wouldn't have time to transmit all the information encoded into a human body."
Nobody says that the particles have to be photons either. The point is to transport really fast, not necessarily at light speed, so the vectors can be particles with mass moving at relativistic speed. Using an exotic species of WIMP as transport vector would mean that your transporter beam can easily pass through matter without losing coherence, and without significant energy discharge, because it would preserve mass. Of course, you still have to spend a horrific amount of energy to accelerate that mass to relativistic speed, and then to decelerate it to the receiver's frame of reference, but hey, this is the 25th century, energy is lying around.
So I guess the basic problem is: how do you take a proton, turn it into a bunch of neutrinos, beam them to the Moon, and then find a way to collapse the neutrinos back into a proton with the same quantum numbers.
The same goes for matter replicators. Creating matter out of energy requires a LOT of energy. How much? Work it out yourself using E=mc2. But I'll give an approximation. To create two cups of hot Earl Grey tea (mass 600 grams) would require roughly the same energy that the Sun emits in one microsecond. To look at it another way, the Sun only emits enough energy every second to create two million cups of Earl Grey tea from energy. At least the tea would be hot.
Again, only if you're replicating matter from energy, like trekkies do. But if you're just re-arranging matter, you don't need all those petajoules. It would probably be cheaper to have a huge quantity of condensed grey goo (nanopaste) aboard and morph that into food. You don't need the processing power of the Universe to store the structure of vanilla ice-cream down to the atom level.
Warp drive is probably impossible. Warp drive is a common plot device in works of SF, so common that SF fans know what it is without any explanation required. The stars are very far apart, and without a convenient plot device to get there quickly it is difficult to formulate plots involving conflict with humanoid aliens. A likely scenario for quick travel to the stars would be if a means was found to utilise wormholes. At present wormholes are not known to exist, but have not yet been proven to be impossible.
afaik warp drive, artificial gravity and wormholes stand (in theory) on roughly the same level of technological savy, which involves exotic matter, quantum gravity, etc. I agree they are theoretically possible but improbable, but from a philosophical perspective it would suck to have such a big Universe and no way to travel faster than light. You'd think God would have the decency to stop dangling the apple in front of us at some point.
Einstein would roll over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, but the dice are loaded. (Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang)
-
Chuft-Captain
- Posts: 1779
- Joined: 18.12.2005
- With us: 18 years 6 months
bdm wrote:...Warp drive is probably impossible. Warp drive is a common plot device in works of SF, so common that SF fans know what it is without any explanation required....
You might be interested in this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
and the associated serious science paper: http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0009013
bdm wrote:Matter transporters ... It's impossible for the reasons that BlindedByTheLight pointed out....
...The same goes for matter replicators....
re: teleportation... isn't there an intrisic paradox associated with the copying and transport of any human being... in order to exactly copy a person, then it follows that at some point in time, just before transmit, the analog and the original must both exist at the same time...(even if only for an instant) question is... at that point in time, which one is "you"?
Ok then you say, to get around this problem, we have to "delete" the original the instant the copy is complete, but then what happens if the transmission fails or is corrupted?
Anyway, why bother with simple transport. It'll be safer to keep the original (YOU-1) here as a "backup" and send the copy (YOU-2) to Alpha Centauri, after all YOU-2 is by definition, also "you" so will do whatever YOU-1 intended to do, while YOU-1 stays at home.
I'd not stop at one, why not make a million, billion, trillion copies and send "ME" out to take over the world, solar-system, universe...!!!!
"Is a planetary surface the right place for an expanding technological civilization?"
-- Gerard K. O'Neill (1969)
CATALOG SYNTAX HIGHLIGHTING TOOLS LAGRANGE POINTS
-- Gerard K. O'Neill (1969)
CATALOG SYNTAX HIGHLIGHTING TOOLS LAGRANGE POINTS
The Alcubierre guy only described the mathematics behind warping space in such a way so that FTL travel becomes available. Unfortunately, he didn't specify how to do that.Chuft-Captain wrote:You might be interested in this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
and the associated serious science paper: http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0009013
Chuft-Captain wrote:re: teleportation... isn't there an intrisic paradox associated with the copying and transport of any human being... in order to exactly copy a person, then it follows that at some point in time, just before transmit, the analog and the original must both exist at the same time...(even if only for an instant) question is... at that point in time, which one is "you"?
The point is to transport the original you, not a charbon copy.
Einstein would roll over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, but the dice are loaded. (Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang)
-
Chuft-Captain
- Posts: 1779
- Joined: 18.12.2005
- With us: 18 years 6 months
Scytale wrote:The Alcubierre guy only described the mathematics behind warping space in such a way so that FTL travel becomes available. Unfortunately, he didn't specify how to do that.
Yes, and the general consensus seems to be that his mathematical theory is just that. Most seem to think that in practice it wouldn't work.
Scytale wrote:The point is to transport the original you, not a charbon copy.
Don't take me too seriously. Just playing a few philosophical mind-games.
If you want to be serious, the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics says that you couldn't make the copy without disrupting the original, (the process of measurement destroys the state of the thing being measured), yet now there is this: http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/
and an even more technical treatment: http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:52O ... adox&hl=en
However, I don't think I'll be first in line to try it out!
"Is a planetary surface the right place for an expanding technological civilization?"
-- Gerard K. O'Neill (1969)
CATALOG SYNTAX HIGHLIGHTING TOOLS LAGRANGE POINTS
-- Gerard K. O'Neill (1969)
CATALOG SYNTAX HIGHLIGHTING TOOLS LAGRANGE POINTS
-
Chuft-Captain
- Posts: 1779
- Joined: 18.12.2005
- With us: 18 years 6 months
Re: Are things from Star Trek possible?
WildMoon wrote:I once heard Professor Hawking saying he was working on seeing if warp propulsion was possible.
FYI:
Here is the reference Dollan referred to:
"Star Trek: The Next Generation (Season 6: Episode 26: "Descent, Part 1".) ".... Hawking portrayed his own hologram for this episode. When taking a tour of the set, he paused at the Warp Core, smiled, and said "I'm working on that."
this is from the Wiki Page on Stephen Hawkings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Ha ... ar_culture
"Is a planetary surface the right place for an expanding technological civilization?"
-- Gerard K. O'Neill (1969)
CATALOG SYNTAX HIGHLIGHTING TOOLS LAGRANGE POINTS
-- Gerard K. O'Neill (1969)
CATALOG SYNTAX HIGHLIGHTING TOOLS LAGRANGE POINTS
-
BlindedByTheLight
- Posts: 485
- Joined: 19.03.2005
- With us: 19 years 3 months
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
bdm wrote:The same goes for matter replicators. Creating matter out of energy requires a LOT of energy.
Despite what you may gotten from our beloved Captain Kirk's description of the replicators, they actually do function as described above. Somewhere in the bowels of the Enterprise are large vats of CHON (carbon, hydrogen, etc.) and it's those components that are mostly used to "replicate" materials. Such info has been noted briefly in a few of the Star Trek works. Of course, that's make believe (for those of you who don't believe the world of Star Trek really exists....)
Chuft-Captain wrote:re: teleportation... isn't there an intrisic paradox associated with the copying and transport of any human being... in order to exactly copy a person, then it follows that at some point in time, just before transmit, the analog and the original must both exist at the same time...(even if only for an instant) question is... at that point in time, which one is "you"?
That is a spatial philosophical question (if I exist in two different spaces in the same time, which one is me?). But it has a temporal version as well that I've always wondered about. For example, I exist at 4:00 pm but I also exist at 9:00 am the next day. Temporally, there is two of me (well, more... but let's leave it at two for now).
So which one is REALLY me? The 4:00 pm or the 9:00 am? One is more recent... but that doesn't really answer the question. Certainly they are two different people since sometimes the 9:00 am "me" really resents things the 4:00 pm me did the day before - like eat a box of cookies or pound a case of beer.
And we don't even have the same memories! The Next Day me has memories the Previous Day me doesn't have... and vice versa (since surely the Next Day has forgotten some things the Previous Day me hasn't).
Suffice it to say, there is only one thing I have more respect more than the fundamental limitations of physics. And that is the fundamental cleverness of man and his unending desire to understand and explore. So then... clearly the sky is the limit!
(Factoring out our fundamental ability to destroy, that is...
Steven Binder, Mac OS X 10.4.10
-
BlindedByTheLight
- Posts: 485
- Joined: 19.03.2005
- With us: 19 years 3 months
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
Warp travel?
Slashdot linked an article...
http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=16902006
...about a new theory of FTL travel (well, not really FLT because, in the dimension one would be travelling in, light is "faster").
The article begins with:
I'm not familiar with news.scotsman.com... but slashdot usually is pretty reputable. But what I'm really curious about is:
A) Is there something there?
B) Is the U.S. really spending money on it?
Anyone heard of this? Fridger, you familiar with the theory the article is based on (assuming it's not total B.S.)? If so, could you shoot out some keywords (for me to Google) if you're still following this thread? I'm having trouble finding anything on it...
Chow
Slashdot linked an article...
http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=16902006
...about a new theory of FTL travel (well, not really FLT because, in the dimension one would be travelling in, light is "faster").
The article begins with:
AN EXTRAORDINARY "hyperspace" engine that could make interstellar space travel a reality by flying into other dimensions is being investigated by the United States government.
The hypothetical device, which has been outlined in principle but is based on a controversial theory about the fabric of the universe, could potentially allow a spacecraft to travel to Mars in three hours and journey to a star 11 light years away in just 80 days, according to a report in today's New Scientist magazine.
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.
I'm not familiar with news.scotsman.com... but slashdot usually is pretty reputable. But what I'm really curious about is:
A) Is there something there?
B) Is the U.S. really spending money on it?
Anyone heard of this? Fridger, you familiar with the theory the article is based on (assuming it's not total B.S.)? If so, could you shoot out some keywords (for me to Google) if you're still following this thread? I'm having trouble finding anything on it...
Chow
Steven Binder, Mac OS X 10.4.10
-
Chuft-Captain
- Posts: 1779
- Joined: 18.12.2005
- With us: 18 years 6 months
I'm not quite sure why you had trouble finding it. I just googled the name of the paper from the last paragraph of the article.
http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&sa ... arch&meta=
The US authorities' attention was attracted after Prof Hauser and an Austrian colleague, Walter Droscher, wrote a paper called "Guidelines for a space propulsion device based on Heim's quantum theory".
http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&sa ... arch&meta=
"Is a planetary surface the right place for an expanding technological civilization?"
-- Gerard K. O'Neill (1969)
CATALOG SYNTAX HIGHLIGHTING TOOLS LAGRANGE POINTS
-- Gerard K. O'Neill (1969)
CATALOG SYNTAX HIGHLIGHTING TOOLS LAGRANGE POINTS
-
GlobeMaker
- Posts: 216
- Joined: 30.10.2005
- With us: 18 years 8 months
"slashdot usually is pretty reputable....
A) Is there something there?
B) Is the U.S. really spending money on it?
Anyone heard of this?"
I read about this on slashdot yesterday. This proposal is a laughingstock
on slashdot. Writers to slashdot unanimously ridiculed the assertion that
an intense magnetic field will produce gravity. The ideas for fast travel in
the Scotsman article using this theory are the worst kind of pseudo-science.
That is only science fiction and it contradicts the most basic physics which
completely separates gravity from the other basic forces, especially
electricity and magnetism.
It is laughable that the proponents of this propulsion system are waiting
for magnets to make gravity before their system will work. They have an
ape-like awe of magnets and the amazing displays of force at a distance,
which they use to propose other magic, like creating other "dimensions".
The slashdot article is still there at this time , Jan. 6 2006
http://science.slashdot.org/
The responses by slashdotters is very entertaining. This would make a
good movie in the comedy category with science lies as the basic
premise.
Heim's theory "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 article in The Scotsman mentions NASA and the Air Force, as if the
mere expectation of a returned phone call from them will
impart credibility. If a government spends one penny on this,
then that is a penny wasted. But it provides a vast laughingstock
for discussions.
I can also say that "NASA has contacted me" and that "I am going to
see someone from the Air Force", but that does not mean that those
government agencies care about my dreams, goals, and wildest
speculations.
A) Is there something there?
B) Is the U.S. really spending money on it?
Anyone heard of this?"
I read about this on slashdot yesterday. This proposal is a laughingstock
on slashdot. Writers to slashdot unanimously ridiculed the assertion that
an intense magnetic field will produce gravity. The ideas for fast travel in
the Scotsman article using this theory are the worst kind of pseudo-science.
That is only science fiction and it contradicts the most basic physics which
completely separates gravity from the other basic forces, especially
electricity and magnetism.
It is laughable that the proponents of this propulsion system are waiting
for magnets to make gravity before their system will work. They have an
ape-like awe of magnets and the amazing displays of force at a distance,
which they use to propose other magic, like creating other "dimensions".
The slashdot article is still there at this time , Jan. 6 2006
http://science.slashdot.org/
The responses by slashdotters is very entertaining. This would make a
good movie in the comedy category with science lies as the basic
premise.
Heim's theory "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 article in The Scotsman mentions NASA and the Air Force, as if the
mere expectation of a returned phone call from them will
impart credibility. If a government spends one penny on this,
then that is a penny wasted. But it provides a vast laughingstock
for discussions.
I can also say that "NASA has contacted me" and that "I am going to
see someone from the Air Force", but that does not mean that those
government agencies care about my dreams, goals, and wildest
speculations.
Your wish is my command line.
Also, saying that NASA or the Air Force did a study is almost meaningless. The agencies don't do them, people employed by the agencies do them. You have to know *who* at an agency did a study. There are too many crackpots\\\\\\\ people making claims outside their areas of expertise or responsibility employed by both of them.
Selden