/sci/ - Science & Math

Engaaaaaaaaaage

>>5929953
>is it possible
Almost certainly not.

>can we contain anti-matter
Yes; look up Penning Traps. We can contain small numbers of anti-protons in a fridge-sized device. Miniaturisation is still possible in the future.

>can we produce it faster
A dedicated production facility could be a thousand times more efficient than our particle accelerators. Also, build more facilities.

>would it work
The antimatter? Yes..?

>how long
No idea

>>5929958
The anti- matter and matter collision could create enough force to warp space thus propelling the ship

>>5929960
Not that guy, but no. You also need either a large mass or a large negative mass.

But you could use the antimatter to heat up some propellant and thus attain high relativistic velocities.

Alcubierre requires exotic matter with negative gravity or negative mass. Anti-matter will not work.

>>5929965
Is there any way to go faster than speed of light like they do in TV shows such as Star Trek. By travelling at the speed of light it still takes around five years to get to Alpha Centurai. Is there any way to go faster?

>>5929965
>>5929968
Even with negative mass the ship will only move until it is outside the gravitational field of the object with negative mass. You can't attach it to the ship in anyway. It's like using a fan on a sail boat.

Can you create wormholes? A guided wormhole that can take you to wherever you want to go?

>>5929975
Even theoretical wormholes are impossible to transverse because they're spherical.

Having an antimatter rocket alone won't let you go FTL. It would (provided there's an economical source) let you get close to c but not exceed it.

Is there any model of quantum entanglement that says this witchcraft may somehow be utilized for FTL information transfer?

>>5929989
Yes, but it's important to remember that science doesn't hold a monopoly on truth and it is hampered by its devotion to existing falsehoods. Just look at how long it took for them to acknowledge that smoking is dangerous when anyone just relying on common sense would realise this instantly.

>>5929974
Actually, if you attach a mass and a negative mass to your ship, the negative mass will fall towards the mass, which will be repelled by the negative mass, providing acceleration.

Now, whether negative mass is possible, and even more whether it's possible in a compact form, that's the question. And the answer is probably 'no'.

>>5929989
No.

>>5929953
http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/01/reviewing-woodward-book-making.html

maybe

Einstein believed travel at the speed of light was impossible because the mass of an object (or an object with any mass) cant possibly travel that fast..

Now i know this isn't warp drive, but as far as im concerned if we can master anti matter and engineer a field composed of it, it might also be recognized as anti mass, if we can put an anti mass field around a vehicle it might be feasible to go light speed.

>>5929973
mathfag here, take this with a grain of salt

from what i understand, you can't propel yourself faster than c, you'll get closer and closer to it, and the closer you get to it, the more energy you need to go faster, until you need infinite energy to actually reach c
to move faster than light does in a vacuum would require you to do some fuckery with spacetime, like the theoretical warp drive that expands spacetime behind you and contracts it infront of you, creating the spaceship version of a steep hill

>>5930111
antimatter reacts identically to matter gravitationally wise, antimatter only has opposite charge and quantum number to matter

If you get close enough to the speed of light, doesn't time dilate by a significant amount that you would essentially have not aged at all by the time you got to your destination?

>>5929989
Quantum entanglement doesn't transfer information any more than the following scenario:

You have two socks, one with the letter L on and one with the letter R. One is in your house in Wisconsin and the other is in Auckland, but you don't know which. You open up the drawer in Wisconsin and find the L sock, therefore you know the other sock is R.

>>5930117
Matters mass is what creates gravity and weight, if it can destroy matter cant it also counter act an objects mass without destroying it...?

>>5930117
Mass is what creates gravity, if antimatter can destroy matter cant it also counter act an objects mass without destroying it...? Well if utilized correctly?

>>5930123
Energy gravitates too.

>>5930125
Light is energy itself, it seems to have no problems.

>>5930123
i'm not really sure of the point you're making
what do you mean by "counteract an objects mass"?
it can't "oppose" matter-generated gravitational field because gravity treats antimatter and matter identically
as i've said, this isn't my field of expertise - i'll explain to the best of my ability but you'll probably need someone better qualified in this field to explain throroughly

>>5930127
E=mc^2; you need a lot of energy for significant gravitation.

>>5930123
No, antimatter gravitates normally.

What you would need is negative mass, which is a different kind of thing altogether.

>>5930133
If you had a negative mass strong enough to counteract any gravitational force on an object then you would only need to reach light speed for a fraction of a second to maintain the momentum..

But i guess thats just full circle, can't reach light speed, cant figure out anything to counteract gravity.

>>5930135
No, you can't reach speed of light even with a negative mass. You can approach it asymptotically, but you're still in the inertial reference frame of the universe and bound by the speed limit.

>>5930152
I think you're wrong there... negative mass would actually allow travel at or above the speed of light. That's why it's a candidate for this "warp drive" idea. But it's all still science fiction, really, it just hasn't been ruled out as impossible (although it probably will be).

>>5930208
No. The c problem is not one of mass but of inertia. And negative mass still has normal inertia.

And the c problem is not even that simple, there are other fundamental laws which prevent it.

>>5930223
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
> It is impossible for objects to actually accelerate to the speed of light within normal spacetime; instead, the space around an object would shift so that the object would arrive at its destination faster than light would in normal space.

I know Wikipedia isn't the authority on all things, but it's a good enough reference for a discussion on /sci/. If you think Wikipedia is wrong, take it up on the talk page of the article.

>>5930152
>>5930208
>>5930238

Yes this is what Einstein would argue, and while with our current state of understanding i wouldn't disagree the possibility is still out there.

I've never thought there was a "speed limit" its merely what we've observed as the fastest measurable source

While virtually all physicists agree that antimatter should have positive mass, it hasn't been verified experimentally yet.

We don't necessarily need negative mass, negative energy is sufficient. And it has been verified that it exists; check Casimir effect.

Of course it's difficult to imagine using it to realize an Alcubierre spaceship; but propelling an electron between two parallel plates at above c is not so unthinkable to me.

>>5930238
Yes, but the alcubierre drive is a different things as the one discussed above. The alcubierre drive effectively removes the craft from the inertial reference frame of the universe. But then there are other reasons why that won't be able to exceed the speed of light.

>>5930245
No, it's not just the observed top speed. The speed of light (in vacuum) is a physical constant and kind of like one of the building blocks of spacetime if you will. It's not that we haven't seen anything going faster, it's that everything we know about the universe and the underlying mechanisms at work tells us that there is no way to exceed it.

>>5930263
>“Based on our data, we can exclude the possibility that the gravitiational mass of antihydrogen is more than 110 times its inertial mass, or that it falls upwards with a gravitational mass more than 65 times its inertial mass" - CERN

So unless it does something reeeally weird, it must have a positive mass.

Is their any reason why the speed of light exists, or any reason why it is what it is?

>>5930117
all this is correct, as far as I know

>>5930208
>I think you're wrong there... negative mass would actually allow travel at or above the speed of light. That's why it's a candidate for this "warp drive" idea.
Please stop talking.

>>5930452
Please start reading.

>>5930281
>Yes, but the alcubierre drive is a different things as the one discussed above.
No, it isn't. Wait, no, fuck this thread. It's not even coherent any more.

>>5930460
3/4th of the people giving their uninformed opinon had no idea what he was asking.

>>5930443
if by "it is what it is" you mean the speed limit of information transfer, it's because you can't move faster than a massless particle unless your mass is imaginary
if you mean why it moves at that speed, there might be a reason, but current theories can't explain it

>>5929998
Oh, the autism.

why would you people actually want to have a negative mass infront of the ship. THAT IS REALLY STUPID AND DANGEROUS

If i had some magic device that could produce anti-gravity i would use it to
>> Cancel out my own mass/weight<<
That way i would have a mass of 0 and would be able to reach the speed of light by just poping some photons into the other direction

>retards posting "what if we just do this" thinking they're smart
>implying it wouldn't already be done if it was easy
>"how about them warp engines that we're getting, huh" they say
>mfw it keeps happening
Sage for not science