NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Wow! This theory should be tested, even if it's dubious. Imagine the potential payback if it works!


Real-Life Hyperspace Drive? (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002065.html)

Are you ready to make the jump to hyperspace? A controversial paper, outling a "motor [that] would propel a craft through another dimension at enormous speeds" is making waves in military and scientific circles, New Scientist reports. "It could leave Earth at lunchtime and get to the moon in time for dinner. There's just one catch: the idea relies on an obscure and largely unrecognised kind of physics."

The Scotsman notes that...

The theoretical engine works by creating an intense magnetic field that, according to ideas first developed by the late scientist Burkhard Heim in the 1950s, would produce a gravitational field and result in thrust for a spacecraft."

Also, if a large enough magnetic field was created, the craft would slip into a different dimension, where the speed of light is faster, allowing incredible speeds to be reached. Switching off the magnetic field would result in the engine reappearing in our current dimension.

Professor Jochem Hauser, one of the scientists who put forward the idea, told The Scotsman that... "NASA have contacted me and next week I'm going to see someone from the [US] air force to talk about it further, but it is at a very early stage. I think the best-case scenario would be within the next five years [to build a test device] if the technology works."

Sandia National Laboratories, in New Mexico, "runs an X-ray generator known as the Z machine" which might be able to test some of the basic science behind Hauser's theories, New Scientist observes.

For now, though, [Sandia space scientist Roger] Lenard considers the theory too shaky to justify the use of the Z machine. "I would be very interested in getting Sandia interested if we could get a more perspicacious introduction to the mathematics behind the proposed experiment," he says. "Even if the results are negative, that, in my mind, is a successful experiment."

seen it but still awesome! :)

the question i have is what happens to the persons inside the craft with all that inertia/acceleration? i don't want to end up a splat against the wall, thanks...

There was a thread on this around the New Year. It sadly looks like it's untrue. New Scientist has reported nothing of the sort.

Leaving Earth by lunchtime and heading to the moon in time for dinner isn't exactly faster than light travel. It takes eight minutes for light from the Sun to travel to Earth and the Sun's 93 million miles away as opposed to roughly 250,000 miles from the Earth to the Moon at apogee (farthest distance between the Earth and the Moon).

There was a thread on this around the New Year. It sadly looks like it's untrue. New Scientist has reported nothing of the sort.
i could have sworn i saw a new scientist article on their website. someone linked to it on one of the (many) other threads on this... i think.

There was a thread on this around the New Year. It sadly looks like it's untrue. New Scientist has reported nothing of the sort.
Sigh. I knew it sounded too good to be true. Oh well, back to the drawing boards. :(

Leaving Earth by lunchtime and heading to the moon in time for dinner isn't exactly faster than light travel. It takes eight minutes for light from the Sun to travel to Earth and the Sun's 93 million miles away as opposed to roughly 250,000 miles from the Earth to the Moon at apogee (farthest distance between the Earth and the Moon).
Still a damned sight better than what we have to go through now! :p

I read it on Newscientist.com.. can't say I know if it actually works or not with me not knowing fuck all about science..

Third thread I've seen on this. I'm all commented out. the New Scientist article (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18925331.200). Provides a more realistic view of the theory and why people are excited and leary.

There was a thread on this around the New Year. It sadly looks like it's untrue. New Scientist has reported nothing of the sort.
Yes they did (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18925331.200)

I read it on Newscientist.com.. can't say I know if it actually works or not with me not knowing fuck all about science..
Really? I visit that site almost everyday and haven't seen it. And I looked for it when the first thread came out.

EDIT: Thanks to those who provided the link. No wonder I didn't see it since it was posted after I was looking for it and later I just didn't look for it anymore. Reading it now.

As soon as they perfect it, let me know. I'll be leaving this stupid rock as soon as they have a working model.

Leaving Earth by lunchtime and heading to the moon in time for dinner isn't exactly faster than light travel. It takes eight minutes for light from the Sun to travel to Earth and the Sun's 93 million miles away as opposed to roughly 250,000 miles from the Earth to the Moon at apogee (farthest distance between the Earth and the Moon).

So? They're not saying they'll go faster than light just yet. The idea is that in this alternate dimmension (as they call it) the maximum speed one can obtain will be increased, and thus the limitations toward reaching higher speeds in general would be decreased.
What I'd like to know is how this magnetic field will affect the people inside's organs.

Third thread I've seen on this. I'm all commented out. the New Scientist article (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18925331.200). Provides a more realistic view of the theory and why people are excited and leary.
Fascinating article. Thanks. :)

COMMENTARY: ... "It could leave Earth at lunchtime and get to the moon in time for dinner. There's just one catch: the idea relies on an obscure and largely unrecognised kind of physics."

Nah. The real catch is, by the time you deal with traffic jams airport security, you'll be so late for the dinner on the moon, you may as well have stayed home and saved both the money and the agita.


...Also, if a large enough magnetic field was created, the craft would slip into a different dimension, where the speed of light is faster, allowing incredible speeds to be reached. Switching off the magnetic field would result in the engine reappearing in our current dimension....

I think I see why the physics are "obscure and largely unrecognised". let's start from the little problems. First, I'm inclined to think the person who wrote the Scotsman article didn't understand the original material. "Dimensions" in this context is being used in specialized ways that don't conform to the 1950s sci-fi idea of "somewhere else you slip in and out of when you want to do cool things". I suspect the writer meant "universe" or perhaps even "hyperspace" but was under the influnce of too much "Journalist's special" at lunch plus that 2nd-hand Flash Gordon novel. The New Scientist article (http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/mg18925331.200) at least is more careful in what it says, and it also avoids credulous enthusiasm by noting the speculative nature of the ideas.

Second, regardless of the "speed limit" you have to have the power or it's irrelevant. If we can't manage to propel anything in this universe at near-light speed, why should we suppose our engines will suddenly become powerful enough to overcome physical laws sufficiently to allow multi-c speeds? That's like saying, if they'd raise the limit on I-80 to 250 mph, my 40 year old Beetle could go faster.

Third, there is a likelihood that a universe in which the speed of light is multiples of its speed in ours would have a different physics, since the behaviour of light is so fundamental to observable physical laws (in our universe, at least). We have no idea what this might do. It could mean that such a craft would barely get its passengers "there" before it broke down irreparably, stranding its passengers. It's even conceivable that the physics of such a place would disrupt things like molecular and cellular behaviour in the passengers, killing them altogether. And who would know the difference? We could keep sending people to their deaths on the premise that since they didn't come back, they never got there at all, when all the time they did get there but were stranded or else died.

Sorry, but I want to see better science behind this one before I get excited. I'm with the conservative scientists on this one.

Are you ready to make the jump to hyperspace? A controversial paper, outling a "motor [that] would propel a craft through another dimension at enormous speeds" is making waves in military and scientific circles, New Scientist reports.
Sounds like something right out of 'Buckaroo Banzai: Across the Eighth Dimension'.

As soon as they perfect it, let me know. I'll be leaving this stupid rock as soon as they have a working model.
Tsk! Having a bad day, are we? :D

Sounds like something right out of 'Buckaroo Banzai: Across the Eighth Dimension'.
I know! But just a few years ago, they were astounded at something called a "cathode ray tube." There are people still alive today who were young when Wilbur and Orville Wright flew the same distance as the wing-span of a 747.

Now if we could only develop the "human sciences" to the same degree. Sigh.

This sounds a bit dodgy to me...."another dimension where c is faster"? A "Z machine"? Classic hallmarks of pseudoscience and bad science fiction....can I have a link to a credible source, and even better a more solid, thorough, less obfuscation-and-fakery-seeming explanation of the math and physics behind the idea?

"Real" ideas for a superluminal drive do exist: Believe it or not, Star Trek is one of them. The concept of inducing the formation of a compression wave in space-time that would be unrestriced by the speed of light and carry an ensconced ship to its destination is not pure imagination, though navigating the resulting temporospatial manifold would be incredibly difficult, and a stray dust mote could blow you apart...

Now if we could only develop the "human sciences" to the same degree. Sigh.

Human sciences meaning? Biotech sector or something else?

If you mean sociological sciences, no money in it. At least not enough for a startup.

EDIT: Thanks to those who provided the link. No wonder I didn't see it since it was posted after I was looking for it and later I just didn't look for it anymore. Reading it now.
Read. It's very early stages and not totally explainable. However, there's an experiment designed and it might work. Wouldn't be the first time that a working machine is built without knowing what physical principles make it tick.

Read. It's very early stages and not totally explainable. However, there's an experiment designed and it might work. Wouldn't be the first time that a working machine is built without knowing what physical principles make it tick.

But there still has to be an observed effect or mathematical conclusion which gave rise to the idea itself. Is there any source that has something besides vague references to magnetic fields, alternate dimensions, and "Z machines"?

But there still has to be an observed effect or mathematical conclusion which gave rise to the idea itself. Is there any source that has something besides vague references to magnetic fields, alternate dimensions, and "Z machines"?
Of course. I didn't mean to say that the machine could work out right. But if the experiment that's proposed works (and there's no telling whether it will, if it's carried out) that could be a good enough demonstration on which to base the machine without necessarily understanding everything else behind it.

As things are right now, I won't hold my breath.

Ah, I see quack science is still alive and well, then.

The people having something against Z machines.
It is only one Z machine and Scandia national labs is the owner. All it does is generate a strong pulse of X-rays.

There was a thread on this around the New Year. It sadly looks like it's untrue. New Scientist has reported nothing of the sort.
http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/mg18925331.200

If we can't manage to propel anything in this universe at near-light speed,

Yes we can. Admittedly, nothing bigger than a molecule at the moment, but we can.

Admittedly, I am not getting exited about it either.

The people having something against Z machines.
It is only one Z machine and Scandia national labs is the owner. All it does is generate a strong pulse of X-rays.

...sort of like a jumped-up X-ray machine? Lol.

Hein theory the shit eh?

This sounds a bit dodgy to me...."another dimension where c is faster"? A "Z machine"? Classic hallmarks of pseudoscience and bad science fiction....can I have a link to a credible source, and even better a more solid, thorough, less obfuscation-and-fakery-seeming explanation of the math and physics behind the idea?

"Real" ideas for a superluminal drive do exist: Believe it or not, Star Trek is one of them. The concept of inducing the formation of a compression wave in space-time that would be unrestriced by the speed of light and carry an ensconced ship to its destination is not pure imagination, though navigating the resulting temporospatial manifold would be incredibly difficult, and a stray dust mote could blow you apart...
There are like four links to the New Scientest article in this thread.

This sounds a bit dodgy to me...."another dimension where c is faster"? A "Z machine"? Classic hallmarks of pseudoscience and bad science fiction
Um, no. Other dimensions are indeed a reality. In fact, there exists a dimension where all angles are 90 degree angles. If that is the case, than it is quite possible there is the math to back up the assumption that c is faster, although that may be an oversimplification for the journos writing the article. There have been dimensions hypothesized that the equivilent points in that dimension were closer together, but the speed of light was the same relative to our own, which would effectively give you a higher top speed.

Here I was all excited about some huge breakthrough allowing for a negative mass density (which is necessary for Alcubierre's theory) :(

Um, no. Other dimensions are indeed a reality. In fact, there exists a dimension where all angles are 90 degree angles. If that is the case, than it is quite possible there is the math to back up the assumption that c is faster, although that may be an oversimplification for the journos writing the article. There have been dimensions hypothesized that the equivilent points in that dimension were closer together, but the speed of light was the same relative to our own, which would effectively give you a higher top speed.

What exactly are you talking about? Another dimension where all angles are 90 degrees? Have you been there in your dreams, or something?

People tend to confuse 'dimension' and 'universe'. Length, height, depth, time, and the components of the Calabi-Yau spaces are dimensions. Weird places where alien monsters who can violate the laws of physics come from are called universes, pop-culture references to 'Dimension X' notwithstanding.

While string theory requires the existence of several extra of the former, and implies the existence of an undefined, possibly unlimited amount of the latter, it's far from proven, and there's no field of science which has discovered some sort of factual "other dimension" where all angles are right, or anything like that. You're just showing your ignorance of physics by making wild claims about bad-scifi-y "other dimensions", especially when you aren't even using the relevant words correctly.

The major problems with the article: it uses terminology like 'going into another dimension' and mix-and-matches various explanatory aspects. Lacking greater explanation or evidence, it looks like wild conjecture to me.

What exactly are you talking about? Another dimension where all angles are 90 degrees? Have you been there in your dreams, or something?

People tend to confuse 'dimension' and 'universe'. Length, height, depth, time, and the components of the Calabi-Yau spaces are dimensions. Weird places where alien monsters who can violate the laws of physics come from are called universes, pop-culture references to 'Dimension X' notwithstanding.

While string theory requires the existence of several extra of the former, and implies the existence of an undefined, possibly unlimited amount of the latter, it's far from proven, and there's no field of science which has discovered some sort of factual "other dimension" where all angles are right, or anything like that. You're just showing your ignorance of physics by making wild claims about bad-scifi-y "other dimensions", especially when you aren't even using the relevant words correctly.

The major problems with the article: it uses terminology like 'going into another dimension' and mix-and-matches various explanatory aspects. Lacking greater explanation or evidence, it looks like wild conjecture to me.
All right, wise guy, here's the link to the actual paper. Read it and Weep.
http://uibk.ac.at/c/cb/cb26/heim/theorie_raumfahrt/hqtforspacepropphysicsaip2005.pdf

Thanks, CTOAN, for the link to the New Scientist article. What they're talking about makes much more sense now that it's less oversimplified.
All right, wise guy, here's the link to the actual paper. Read it and Weep.
http://uibk.ac.at/c/cb/cb26/heim/theorie_raumfahrt/hqtforspacepropphysicsaip2005.pdf
I don't think that's going to help much. While the original article was oversimplified, this is way too complex for me, and probably for a bunch of other people.
Is there anything that has some simpler, accurate info about the theory?

I don't think that's going to help much. While the original article was oversimplified, this is way too complex for me, and probably for a bunch of other people.
Is there anything that has some simpler, accurate info about the theory?

Exactly. I can only understand tiny bits - only the basic Physics 30 stuff (and I aced Physics 30, so anyone without any understanding of Physics would be lost.)
I'll look up something dumbed-down a bit, and throw it in an edit.
EDIT1: http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1775452
EDIT2: here's the Z machine for people (kinda funny - the picture here was in my physics textbook - so that's what that was :eek:).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z_machine
EDIT3: here's a forum discussing the topic. http://forum.darwinawards.com/index.php?showtopic=7186&st=0

All right, wise guy, here's the link to the actual paper. Read it and Weep.
http://uibk.ac.at/c/cb/cb26/heim/theorie_raumfahrt/hqtforspacepropphysicsaip2005.pdf

:fluffle: That's precisely what I was looking for. Thanks!

:fluffle: That's precisely what I was looking for. Thanks!
No problem. U in/taken uni physics or something?

Not a class, no. Not yet. I follow it and learn on my own time, for now.

EDIT: I'd really like to see an experiment relating to this. Either it's quack conjecture, or it's a major revolution in physics.

Not a class, no. Not yet. I follow it and learn on my own time, for now.
But you've taken high school physics, obviously, yes?
How's the paper going? I don't understand why positive and negative gravitophotons (of course) are produced, but the positive ones have more repulsive force due to a 'reduced cross-section' or something to that effect.

But you've taken high school physics, obviously, yes?
How's the paper going? I don't understand why positive and negative gravitophotons (of course) are produced, but the positive ones have more repulsive force due to a 'reduced cross-section' or something to that effect.

Apparently, the extension of the geometric series into higher-order dimensions - these Heim spaces - allows for six interactions, rather than the usual four, meaning that a sufficient application of the EM force could polarize the vacuum and cause the production of these gravitophotonic particles - basically a perfectly non-lossy conversion from electromagnetic to gravitational energy. If the math behind this actually has any connection to the real world, which the ultra-accurate particle mass calculations mentioned in the NewScientist article suggest it might, this is major.

As far as the part where this translates to a shift into a parallel space - I don't have that math. The first two or three pages of the paper where they explain in language the concept of the 8 dimensions and the gravitophotonic conversion are within my scope, basically, but once you get into that really deep math I fall out very quick. I can just barely get the idea of the parallel shift, but not in the language it was written in - math.

Apparently, the extension of the geometric series into higher-order dimensions - these Heim spaces - allows for six interactions, rather than the usual four, meaning that a sufficient application of the EM force could polarize the vacuum and cause the production of these gravitophotonic particles - basically a perfectly non-lossy conversion from electromagnetic to gravitational energy. If the math behind this actually has any connection to the real world, which the ultra-accurate particle mass calculations mentioned in the NewScientist article suggest it might, this is major.

As far as the part where this translates to a shift into a parallel space - I don't have that math. The first two or three pages of the paper where they explain in language the concept of the 8 dimensions and the gravitophotonic conversion are within my scope, basically, but once you get into that really deep math I fall out very quick.
Well, time for me to leave (what happened to everyone else in this thread, anyway?), but I'll come back to this thread as soon as I have internet access again (not sure when that'll be, maybe later tonight).
Cheers.

And this is what happens when you let a Star Wars fan get a degree. :)

And this is what happens when you let a Star Wars fan get a degree. :)

As compared to honorary engineering degrees, one of which of course was bestowed upon James Doohan.

-
Seriously though, i'm along FreeMercantileStates' line of thinking. Also I appreciate Dakini's post. I'm happy that this topic can come up and last as long as it has

Mostly i had to post for props to Smunkeeville, as i'd said, she got here first.

*bows*

There is already a thread about this
Warp Drive.......... (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=462668)

This particular attempt won't work, but that doesn't mean that we will be prisoners of our system forever.

Furthermore, the spontaneous order that has been
observed in the universe is opposite to the laws of thermodynamics, predicting the increase of disorder or greater
entropy (Strogatz 2003). Everywhere highly evolved structures can be seen, which is an enigma for the science of
today.

You can really stop reading after that.