Are things from Star Trek possible?

The only place for all Non Celestia Discussion/Stuff
Scytale
Posts: 51
Joined: 17.02.2005
With us: 19 years 9 months
Location: Romania

Post #21by Scytale » 06.01.2006, 14:23

From what I understand, Heim's GUT has not been disproven (although further work has found some of his math to be a little off, ideas incomplete, etc), and has some merit. It would probably join the in one form or another mainstream if more then a handful of people would work on that.

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.
Einstein's first papers on SR were not even noticed, before they entered mainstream. I mean, many 2nd-hand writers in 1903 may have unanimously ridiculed the assertion that relativity would work without aether. From what I understand the man's graviphotons appear to belong to a consistent theory, and using EM to obtain gravity makes as much sense as the Casimir effect.

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.
Actually, mainstream physics struggles to unify all four observed interactions as aspects of spacetime. More so, mainstream physics has its own weight of speculation and unproven theories, such as supersimmetry, string theory, etc.

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".
If you would please ellaborate on how you reached this conclusion, starting from the paper, that would be grand. The man with "ape-like awe of magnets" is a reputed professor, worked at ESA on propulsion and chewed on more physics and math than most slashdotters taken together.

Some more background information would be that the Z Machine actually exists, at SNL, and it could carry on preliminary tests of the theory. The paper which proposed this propulsion system won an award in 2004 (i think) by the AIAA, and encouraged Heim's ideeas to go under peer review. Even though "paralel space" really stretches the theory, it's just a hypothesis, and the authors claim just that. Furthermore, even though it may not lead to FTL, the theory may yield a non-reactive way to propell a spacecraft, and will probably find its place in the NASA BPP program.

LE: here's a good sample of the slashdotters' criticism:
This one doesn't even pass the laugh test on the second law of Newtonian mechanics.

Not to mention thermodynamics. Accelerating an "engine" with substantial mass to faster than light and then slowing it down again would take a phenomenal amount of energy, regardless of the "route"...otherwise what is stopping anything from simply popping into or out of these extra "dimensions"?

...which proves they haven't read one iota of the paper.
Last edited by Scytale on 06.01.2006, 14:39, edited 1 time in total.
Einstein would roll over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, but the dice are loaded. (Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang)

Avatar
t00fri
Developer
Posts: 8772
Joined: 29.03.2002
Age: 22
With us: 22 years 7 months
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post #22by t00fri » 06.01.2006, 14:36

Scytale wrote:From what I understand, Heim's GUT has not been
disproven (although further work has found some of his math to be a
little off, ideas incomplete, etc), and has some merit.
...


First, that sort of stuff is almost impossible to disprove in an
experimental physics sense. New ideas about physics in extra
dimensions can only become of mainstream interest, if they have at
least the /potential/ of fitting into the large amount of general
knowledge we do have in this area. Physics of extra dimensions has
been a leading activity among particle theorists for the last several
years. Lots of lessons have been learned about constraints that
successful theories in higher dimensions have to fulfil. Heim's discrete
six dimensional space does NOT at all fit in there!


So it's not a matter of some math being slightly wrong or even right
...

Bye Fridger
Last edited by t00fri on 06.01.2006, 15:40, edited 1 time in total.

Scytale
Posts: 51
Joined: 17.02.2005
With us: 19 years 9 months
Location: Romania

Post #23by Scytale » 06.01.2006, 14:44

Probably... I only have access to popular knowledge about this new theory. But the authors claim they're "refurbishing" Heim's original theory, aiming to elliminate inconsistencies. They would probably take into consideration that there's been a great deal of physics research done between the seventies and now.

LE: I can't say how much of the theory is right, how much of whishful thinking or groupthink. I'm just eager to have these theories enter reasonable peer review, and to mine more information about them.
Einstein would roll over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, but the dice are loaded. (Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang)

Avatar
t00fri
Developer
Posts: 8772
Joined: 29.03.2002
Age: 22
With us: 22 years 7 months
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post #24by t00fri » 06.01.2006, 15:39

Scytale wrote:
...
LE: I can't say how much of the theory is right, how much of whishful
thinking or groupthink.
I'm just eager to have these theories enter
reasonable peer review, and to mine more information about
them.


I can. That's in the center of my professional competence.

Bye Fridger

Scytale
Posts: 51
Joined: 17.02.2005
With us: 19 years 9 months
Location: Romania

Post #25by Scytale » 06.01.2006, 15:46

Excellent... if you publish a review of prof. Hauser's work I'd be very interested to (humbly) read it.
Einstein would roll over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, but the dice are loaded. (Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang)

Avatar
t00fri
Developer
Posts: 8772
Joined: 29.03.2002
Age: 22
With us: 22 years 7 months
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post #26by t00fri » 06.01.2006, 16:08

Scytale wrote:Excellent... if you publish a review of prof. Hauser's
work I'd be very interested to (humbly) read it.


I certainly would not vaste my time with that. He and his institute are
quite unknown within the international community in this area of research...

Bye Fridger
Last edited by t00fri on 06.01.2006, 16:15, edited 2 times in total.

ajtribick
Developer
Posts: 1855
Joined: 11.08.2003
With us: 21 years 3 months

Post #27by ajtribick » 06.01.2006, 16:10

Sanity test: if this magnetic fields gibberish is true, why aren't magnetars going superluminal?

GlobeMaker
Posts: 216
Joined: 30.10.2005
With us: 19 years

Post #28by GlobeMaker » 06.01.2006, 16:32

Scytale has laid down the challenge : "If you would please ellaborate on
how you reached this conclusion, starting from the paper, that would be grand."

What paper? Please, I want to read a paper on magnetism, other dimensions,
and how gravity is produced by magnetism and how other dimensions are named.
Please tell me the name of one dimension in some un-named paper. Are you
referring to The Scotsman?

Your backwards strategy is not compelling :"Heim's GUT has not been disproven".
It is up to the advocates to prove something, anything. It is not up to th rest of the
world to spend weeks disproving a guess at a Grand Unified Theory. Extraordinary
claims require extraordinary proof. Extraordinary claims do not compel me to
struggle to dis-unify all four observed interactions.

Just because Heim's theories have "some merit", does not mean magnets create
gravity. I accept, without reading Heim, that his "theories have some merit", but
the vagueness of this wording is exactly the style of the misleading jounalists of
The Scotsman. "Some" merit includes adding numbers correctly. But just because
Heim is absolutely right in adding numbers with "merit" does not provide merit to
all the gravity-magnet assertions of that guesser.

Let me quote Scytale,
"From what I understand"... What?
"work has found some of his math to be a little off, ideas incomplete, etc"... Incomplete?
"It would probably join the ... mainstream"... Probably?
"writers in 1903 may have..." May have?
"graviphotons appear to belong to a consistent theory"... Appear?
"using EM to obtain gravity makes as much sense as the Casimir effect."... Sense?
"mainstream physics struggles to unify all four"... Struggles and has failed to...
"mainstream physics has its own weight of speculation"... Yes, and many wrong ideas.
"background information would be"... Would be, or you wish it existed.
"it could carry on preliminary tests "... Could, or will never?
"this propulsion system won an award in 2004 (i think)"... You think?
"encouraged Heim's ideas to go under peer review"... Polite way to trash it.
" the theory may yield a non-reactive way"... May not yield anything but laughs.
"will probably find its place in the NASA BPP program"...Probably in what? BPP? What is that?
"...which proves they haven't read one iota of the paper"... What paper, The Scotsman?

Conclusion
Scytale, your lack of confidence is evident in your wording. ("Probably, would, may, appear,
I think, could, struggles, a little off, understand). I also hope for wonderful inventions to
come from modern geniuses. It would be fun to fly to Saturn on a magnet that creates
gravity. I hope for a breakthrough. But let's face facts : some scientific research fails.
The Grand Unified Theory (GUT) is a worthy goal for research, but in a thousand years
the GUT may be aether, and the four basic forces may become eleven. The eleven
basic forces theory has not been disproven. Please struggle to disprove it.
Your wish is my command line.

Avatar
t00fri
Developer
Posts: 8772
Joined: 29.03.2002
Age: 22
With us: 22 years 7 months
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post #29by t00fri » 06.01.2006, 17:34

GM,

I understand your interest to find out more about Heim,
H?¤user & friends. Unfortunately given the limited available
time, explaining the background of these advanced
theoretical speculations, is an amost hopeless task at the
level of laymen in theoretical particle physics.

I would for sure get trapped in an almost infinite
"recursion": using an argument, will invoke a piece of
theoretical physics that first needs to be explained in terms
of some further notion that first needs to be explained ...
and so on. ;-)

To be able to appreciate the central issue of their work and
to understand why it is very questionable, you MUST know
/general/ relativity in some (mathematical) detail as well as
have detailed knowledge both about the theoretical
construction principles /and/ the inherent freedom when
embedding gravity and the other basic interactions in a
higher dimensional space-time.

To provide only a very basic understanding of each of the
two crucial ingredients, typically requires a one semester
course each, at the level of well-trained advanced physics
students...


That's life and "mother Nature", I cannot make them
simpler ;-)


Bye Fridger

GlobeMaker
Posts: 216
Joined: 30.10.2005
With us: 19 years

Post #30by GlobeMaker » 06.01.2006, 18:04

I am recanting some of the comments I made to Scytale. I was wrong to
make the "ape-like awe" statement. I humbly request forgivenness
for my glib and rash denunciations of the sincere statements you made.
I apologize for my arrogant and haughty style. I am retracting everything
I said against Scytale and Heim. I am sorry.

As a way of making amends for my foolish statements, please accept this
link to a brief description of the brilliant work by Heim and his supporters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory

If there is any way I can make up for my recent mistakes, please do not
hesitate to send me the bill.
Last edited by GlobeMaker on 06.01.2006, 18:14, edited 1 time in total.
Your wish is my command line.

Scytale
Posts: 51
Joined: 17.02.2005
With us: 19 years 9 months
Location: Romania

Post #31by Scytale » 06.01.2006, 18:14

t00fri wrote:To provide only a very basic understanding of each of the
two crucial ingredients, typically requires a one semester
course each, at the level of well-trained advanced physics
students...

...and that is why, sir, my phrases are bound by "may", "probably" or "could". Physics is not my background, so the only solid ground I can have when evaluating the strength of a theory are the credentials of the team behind it, a very superficial understanding, and the test of time and peer review.

The said paper is here and noone in the angry mob which suddently condensed on slashdot seems to have read it. The paper is more descriptive then rigorous, and claims to be backed up by more serious research and analysis; it stands on the level of "presentation of hypothesis".

Since advanced modern physics is at the very border of human knowledge, and since it's an applied science, it is very hard for the theorists to consistently prove their work. It is usually easier to find proof of contradiction, so that one could say that the first test of a theory is that it hasn't been disproven. The fact that the guy's theory cannot easily be discarded should provoke the mainstream community into investing more attention. Also, if the theory does have weak points, or is poorly formulated, it may just mean that it hasn't matured enough (which - as history shows, becase the guy wasn't exactly a well published researcher and a close member of the academia - may be the case).

I cannot describe the merit of the Heim theories, because that would imply that I understand them, and their effect on modern physics. All I know is that they could provide a valid framework, which today's researchers can take forward, and that they have several interesting features, like accurately predicting the mass of several particles.

LE: concurrent post with GlobeMaker
Einstein would roll over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, but the dice are loaded. (Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang)

Avatar
t00fri
Developer
Posts: 8772
Joined: 29.03.2002
Age: 22
With us: 22 years 7 months
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post #32by t00fri » 06.01.2006, 18:31

Let me just add, that I was approached by German television back in 2004 (I believe) to make some public statements about that H?¤user et al work in a respective TV science show.

...Given my familiar disliking of TV science shows together with my disliking of that H?¤user et al graviphoton theory, I declined ;-)


Bye Fridger

BlindedByTheLight
Posts: 485
Joined: 19.03.2005
With us: 19 years 8 months
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Post #33by BlindedByTheLight » 06.01.2006, 20:06

Wow... was I surprised when I woke up to find the thread explosion. But thank you all... that pretty much answered my question.

selden wrote:Also, saying that NASA or the Air Force did a study is almost meaningless.

Au contraire, mon fraire... :) It is not meaningless at all! It is, in fact, very entertaining to know where some of my tax dollars are going. Plus you have now freed me to speculate on many of the other possible "studies" going on in the bowels of NASA et al. For example, now I have circumstantial proof that my claim of a secret Air Force study on the Propulsive Power of Exploding Tomato may actually be taking place... :)

t00fri wrote:I would for sure get trapped in an almost infinite
"recursion": using an argument, will invoke a piece of
theoretical physics that first needs to be explained in terms
of some further notion that first needs to be explained ...
and so on. ;-)


Yikes. I get a headache just thinking about the headache that would cause...
Steven Binder, Mac OS X 10.4.10

Avatar
selden
Developer
Posts: 10192
Joined: 04.09.2002
With us: 22 years 2 months
Location: NY, USA

Post #34by selden » 06.01.2006, 20:58

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/index.htm

Further deponent sayeth not. ;)
Selden

Avatar
t00fri
Developer
Posts: 8772
Joined: 29.03.2002
Age: 22
With us: 22 years 7 months
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post #35by t00fri » 06.01.2006, 21:37

NASA wrote:
WHAT'S NEXT

The BPP Project has been "deferred" since January 2003. It is unknown if or when funding will resume.


Bye Fridger

Eelco
Posts: 12
Joined: 20.12.2005
With us: 18 years 11 months
Location: Groningen

Post #36by Eelco » 07.01.2006, 22:39

Hello all,

Here is a link to the New Scientist article:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fun ... 1.200.html

"At the moment, the main reason for taking the proposal seriously must be Heim theory's uncannily successful prediction of particle masses. Maybe, just maybe, Heim theory really does have something to contribute to modern physics. "As far as I understand it, Heim theory is ingenious," says Hans Theodor Auerbach, a theoretical physicist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich who worked with Heim. "I think that physics will take this direction in the future."

I am not at all a physicist, but I think much hinges on if these predictions by Heim theory for particle masses turn out to be able to make predictions for newfound particles? In my opinion that could be an incredible breakthrough in physical theory, if it has predictive powers. But it seems much of the theory is difficult to follow even for the experts. I had never heard of Mr. Burkhard Heim before. Why is he so unknown if his theory ould do this kind of thing? Or is it a theory made to fit the facts? Opinions?

Eelco

Avatar
t00fri
Developer
Posts: 8772
Joined: 29.03.2002
Age: 22
With us: 22 years 7 months
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post #37by t00fri » 07.01.2006, 23:00

Here is a few lines from the New Scientist, about which I could expand quite bit... but I won't ;-)

New Scientist wrote:Gravity reduction

But in 1982, when researchers at the German Electron Synchrotron (DESY) in Hamburg implemented Heim's mass theorem in a computer program, it predicted masses of fundamental particles that matched the measured values to within the accuracy of experimental error.


http://www.desy.de/desy-th/members.html

Bye Fridger

GlobeMaker
Posts: 216
Joined: 30.10.2005
With us: 19 years

Engineering the Heim-Dr?¶scher-H?¤user Drive

Post #38by GlobeMaker » 07.01.2006, 23:22

Engineering the Heim-Dr?¶scher-H?¤user Drive
written by Alan Folmsbee, MSEE

The paper by Dr?¶scher and H?¤user gives some details for building the drive, but
they leave out some sizes. Those missing details will now be calculated. Also,
practical engineering considerations will be explained.

The inventors describe the following:
The electromagnet uses wires with 1 square mm cross section carrying 100 amperes
of current. The coil has a million turns of the wire. This produces a magnetic flux
density (B) of 20 Tesla. The propulsion is then 10 million pounds of thrust.
______________________________________________

Find the size of the electromagnet :

1 million wires x 1 sq mm per wire = 1 square meter of wires

Total current = 100 amp per wire x 1 million wires = 10^8 amps

B = 20 Tesla = uni/(2r) = 20 T (magnetic flux density)
u = 4 pi x (10 ^ -7) henry/meter
n = 10^6 turns of wire in the electromagnet
i = 100 amps
r = radius of electromagnet so 2r is length

Find r the radius of the toroid shaped electromagnet.

r = uni/(2 pi x 20 T)

r = 4 pi x 10^-7 x 10^6 x 10^2 / ( 2 x 20)

r = pi meters = 3.14 meters

width of electromagnet = 1 + 3.14 + 1 = 5.14 meters across the apparatus

_________________________________________________

Estimate how much the magnet weighs, if made of copper wires.
The torus has a donut shape 5.14 meters across. In the next
cross-sectional diagram
C is Copper
A is Air

CCCCAAAAAAAAAAAACCCC
CCCCAAAAAAAAAAAACCCC
CCCCAAAAAAAAAAAACCCC

The diameter from the left center to right center is 4.14 meters

The central circumference is (pi x 4.14) = 13 meters
The volume is 13 cubic meters.
Copper's density is 9 grams per cubic centimeter or 9000 kg per cubic meter
mass = m = 13 x 9000 = 117,000 kg (128 English tons on Earth)

_________________________________________________________

Estimate the electrical resistance of the copper wire carring 100 amps.

The length of wire for 1 turn = 13 meters = L
resisitivity (p) of copper
p = 1.7 x 10^-8 ohm meter

R = p L/A
A = 10^-6 sq meters
R = 0.017 * 13 = 0.22 ohms

voltage drop in one wire V=iR = 22.00 volts
power = Vi = 22.00 x 100 = 2200.00 watts per wire turn
power = 0.0022 megawatts

power for a million copper wires = 2.20 Gigawatts
power for superconductor wire substitute : 0 watts
______________________________________________

Heating due to 2.20 Gigawatts in 128 tons of copper

H = heat capacity = .385 J / (gram x degree C)

dT = temperature change

m = mass

H = E/(m x dT)

E = energy = Joules = watt seconds

mass m = grams = 117,000 kg x 1000 g/kg = 1.2 x 10^8 grams

in one second 2.20 Gigajoules of energy are used

temperature change = dT = E/mH

dT = 2.2 x 10^9 Joules / (1.2 x 10^8 grams x .385J / (gram x degree C))

dT = (2.2/(.385 x 1.2)) x 10 ^(9-8) = 47.60 degrees

The temperature increases by 47.60 degrees per second using copper.

Using superconductors, the temperature remains as it started. However,
the cryogenic cooling of the superconductors would require extra
spaces between the wires. That would make the magnet bigger than
planned.

___________________________________________________________________________

Book Report, written by Alan Folmsbee, MSEE

"GUIDELINES FOR A SPACE PROPULSION DEVICE BASED ON HEIM'S QUANTUM THEORY"
by Walter Dr?¶scher, Jochem H?¤user


Summary

HEIM QUANTUM THEORY (HQT) is an extension of Einstein's
General Relativity, using Einstein's 4 dimensional non-quantized
field equations as a template in a quantized 12 dimensional space.

The 12 Dimensional Heim space comprises five semantic units, namely,
3 subspace dimensions (x, y, z)
1 time dimension
2 organizational dimensions
2 informational dimensions
4 steering dimensions

The authors are the successors to the late Burkhard Heim. They quantize
everything with a geometric basis that constructs elementary particles, like electrons,
using about 10^41 pieces called metrons. Instead of the
4 basic forces, HQT uses 6 forces. The fifth force is a new "gravity-like" force. It is not
gravity that the magnets of the propulsion system create, but it is the gravity-like force
that propels the spacecraft.
About the sixth force, the authors say, "The acceleration of the cosmic expansion is explained
qualitatively, since it turns out that the postulated sixth fundamental force
(interpreted as quintessence) and represented by the postulated vacuum particle,
is of repulsive nature."


Details of the Apparatus for the Propulsion Device

The experimental apparatus is drawn in Figure 1 of the paper.
http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/d ... letter.pdf
Figure 1 shows two rings. The bottom ring is an electromagnet. The top
ring is an insulating material that contains hydrogen to generate
a gravity-like force. To go into "parallel space" a different material
would replace hydrogen. The authors do not say what that material is.
The top ring is rotating counter-clockwise so the speed of points on
the ring are going 1 km per second. That is about mach 3. The
acceleration due to the spinning is v^2/r = 390,000 meters/sec^2.
That is about 39,000 g acceleration for the insulating ring holding the
hydrogen. The force, due to spinning, on every 1 pound section of the
ring is 39,000 pounds. The mass of this torus was
estimated by the authors to be from 100 kg to 2000 kg. Its thickness
is 5 cm.

The best candidate for the insulating ring may be a tubular, single
crystal diamond torus, 15 feet across. Some calculations were done,
and it is estimated that diamond will not break due to its tensile strength.
Also, quartz is estimated to break due to its lower tensile strength.

How do they get something for nothing? They get vast propulsion with tiny fuel.
They say the energy created is zero because a positive and a negative gravitophoton
are both created, cancelling out each other's cost. But only one of those
particles interacts with matter, so propulsion occurs in one direction without
being counteracted by the other particle. This is reactionless thrust.

"Photons are converted into negative and positive gravitophotons.
Negative gravitophotons are absorbed by protons and neutrons, while
positive gravitophotons do not interact, thus resulting in a measurable force."


"A spacecraft of 100,000 kg with
a rotating ring of 10^3 kg needs to have a constant
acceleration of 1g, a magnetic induction
of some 13 T is needed together with a current
density of 100 A/mm2 and a coil of 4?—10^5 turns
for a value N wgpe=4.4?—10??’5 . The resulting
force would be 10^6 N. Thus a launch of such a
spacecraft from the surface of the earth seems to
be technically feasible."


You can build a small version of the apparatus for a cost of about $20.
Your small version would be non-functional, even though it would have
all the right pieces. Your model would not have enough magnetic
flux density and it would not spin at 1 km per second. Here is
another reason why a small version will not work: "The value for
the onset of conversion of photons into gravitophotons is called A."
Read the paper about A.

"The variable A denotes the strength of the shielding potential
caused by virtual electrons"

"HQT enables the conversion of electromagnetic radiation into a
gravitational like field, represented by the two
hypothetical gravitophoton (negative and positive
energies) particles. The gravitophoton interaction
is discussed in Chaps. [2, 3.1]. Quintessence
(dark energy) is briefly discussed in Chap. [4].
The interpretation of the physical equations for
the gravitophoton field leads to the conclusion
that this field could be used to both accelerate a
material body and to cause a transition of a material
body into some kind of parallel space, possibly allowing superluminal speed."


"The third condition is, according to Eq. (33), to
make the photon potential vanish, i.e., to trigger
the conversion of a photon into negative and
positive gravitophotons, which requires that A
takes on a value ?? that is...where the value of ?? depends on the velocities
of the charges in the coil and the rotating torus.

The r distance from nucleus to virtual electron in
torus, see Fig.(1). ...sets a condition
for the photon potential to disappear and the
gravitophoton potential to appear that is, for the
onset of the conversion of photons into gravitophotons.
Once this happened, the value of A can
be increased further, giving rise to an efficient
and effective gravitophoton potential for field
propulsion."

In other words, r is the radius of the magnetic ring

"It is important that the material of the rotating ring is an insulator to
avoid eddy currents. For the acceleration phase, the torus should
contain hydrogen atoms. For transition into parallel space another
material should be used."

Conclusion

The magnet does not create gravity. It creates a different force
which is like gravity in its ability to accelerate masses made
from protons and neutrons.
Your wish is my command line.

Malenfant
Posts: 1412
Joined: 24.08.2005
With us: 19 years 3 months

Post #39by Malenfant » 08.01.2006, 15:40

I have to admit, New Scientist isn't exactly what one would call a serious science magazine nowadays - it seems to spend most of its time making a big deal about weird fringe theories that haven't been proven (and usually have no way to be proven either). It's not quite descended into pure pseudoscience yet, but it's still not what I'd consider a good source for science information at all. Certainly I'd say that seeing an article printed in New Scientist (and usually these things ONLY appear in NS) shouldn't be taken as the science being fully validated in the scientific community.

If you want a more accurate, reliable, less sensationalist source for science articles then I'd suggest referring to Scientific American, Science, or Nature.
My Celestia page: Spica system, planetary magnitudes script, updated demo.cel, Quad system

ArtificialDeity
Posts: 11
Joined: 09.01.2006
With us: 18 years 10 months
Location: na

Post #40by ArtificialDeity » 09.01.2006, 14:15

Case in point 1: WE ALREADY HAVE DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS!
Plasma lasers have been in use for well over thirty years to cut industrial and commercial parts. The military has been testing experimental particle beam technology since before the Reagan administration, and the defense department are testing both microwave non-lethal crowd control devices - and laser rifles that non-lethally "stun and dis-orient" enemy elements in the battlefield.

Case in point two: Several years ago researchers caused a particle to exceed the speed of light in a test device by an incredibly infitesimal yet significant measure - enough to shove the "light speed upper limit" principle of Special Relativity into the flat earth obsolete theory files.
Warp drive I believe is possible (or something LIKE warp) - but a bigger question might be "HOW ARE YOU GOING TO ARRANGE IT SO THAT A HUMAN PILOT OR PASSENGER CAN SURVIVE THE MASSIVE G FORCES THAT HYPERSPACIAL ACCELERATION MIGHT CAUSE?"

Case in point 3 - They are already experimenting with teleportation on a sub-atomic level - moving tiny subatomic particles, and have had measured success, but are a long way from moving complex structures (let alone organic life forms).

Star Trek stuff has already been made reality; .. Home computers, CD RWs and FLOPPY drives, Cell Phones, Video Phones, Video Confrencing,
Wide Screen High Def TVs, Multi-functional scientific field data recorders,
digital thermometers, Magnetic Resonance Imagery Machines for medical applications, Multiple life function monitors in hospitals, laser scalpels,
Motion Detection Security Devices, CCD Cameras, HANDLESS Cell Phone Headsets, Robotic artificial limbs, SPACE SHUTTLES, ALL began as concepts that were on some prehistoric Star Trek script. A lot of those things were actually directly inspired by Star Trek.
na


Return to “Petit Bistro Entropy”