/sci/ - Science & Math

Flash forward to 2011 with Mae Jennings and DARPA’s 100 Year Star Ship, and NASA Scientists Dr. Harold ‘Sonny” White. White formulates an alternate calculation of the Alcubierre Metric that would allow a craft to travel through space in excess to 100 times lightspeed, with a negative mass no more than that of a negative voyager probe (-700 kg or less). Released in the Advanced Propulsion Physics Laboratory: Eagleworks (APPL:E) paper entitled ‘Warp Field Mechanics 101” (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110015936.pdf ) APPL:E (who also make the red velvet enigma that is the Quantum vacuum plasma thruster) noted that if the shell is shifted from as sphere to an American football shaped toroid; the required negative mass density is exponentially lowered. The APPL:E paper thus proposed the White–Juday warp-field interferometer; an apparatus that would use a He-Ne laser to detect warping as caused by this York Time.

By 2013, White had released an update at the The Icarus Interstellar Starship Congress. “Warp Field Mechanics 102” went into further conceptual detail and gave an update on the test. Noting it had given non-zero results, but that further test would be required due to possible interference. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucyBMB_PWr8)) Since then APPL:E has moved to a larger and more seismegraphically stable location in an old Apollo facility.

Apollo facility.
“102” Also stated that White would be working with longtime Star Trek designers and NAS collaborators Mark Rademaker and Micheal Okuda on an update of the classic Star Trek concept art of Matthew Jeffries , that would premier in the 2013 Starship pinup calendar “Ships of the Line.” (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20130011213.pdf )

Teal Deer:
FTL has gone from “batshit retarded;” to “mathematically plausible” and is inching towards “ experimentally viable” Not saying we’ll be banging Gammoran just yet, but feasible FTL is, as of now, a plausible technology in development.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M8yht_ofHc#t=2508

What bothers me about this is that we seem to be jumping a few steps when it comes to propulsion.

How do you go from rocket to warp drive? Shouldn't there be some in-betweeners somewhere?

we went from rowing boats, to sail boats, to steam boats, to diesel boats, to nuclear steam boats.

we didn't jump from rowing logs to radioactive floating cities.

Shouldn't we be working on flying cars and breaking Earth's orbit without a stupid rocket first?

>>6594067
Why not? There's no rule that says all technological progress needs to be slow and incremental

>>6594067
>breaking Earth's orbit without a stupid rocket first?

Pretty much all the other non-rocket choices are millions of times more expensive. You'd have to convince your politicians you want it, then you would have to convince them to build it.

You'd need to convince them to be honest, first.

Get started, Mr. Know-it-all.

>>6594045
what in the White / Juday interferometer produces the negative energy density?

answer = the ring shaped barium titanate capacitor

what characteristic of that ring shaped capacitor would produce negative energy density???

>>6594099
the fact that if there are extra dimensions a ring of matter/energy bends space time the same as negative energy.

>>6594099
The Casimir Effect?

>>6594099
It doesn't have to be negative, just exotic. As long as it's exotic, it'll appear negative in some reference frame.

>>6594109
this is what I do not know.

I've been very curious about the "warp drive" tech since it's announcement. I'm not sure I understand exactly what <span class="math">\frac {d\phi} {dt} [/spoiler] means

>>6594114
Read White's papers. They'll sort of explain things.

>>6594111
>It doesn't have to be negative, just exotic.

hand wavy magic

>>6594116
I've read a bit of them, I don't follow the abstract math well enough to know what's what.

But it seems they are saying that large electrical field density can alter the "stiffness" of spacetime?

or is it the rapid changing of large field densities that is important?

the mechanism that creates the warp escapes me and they do not explain it at all anywhere I've seen. they explain the shit out of how they expect to detect it, but not what will create it

>>6594116
Specifically, you're looking for "Warp Field Mechanics 101" and "The Alcubierre Metric in Higher Dimensional Spacetimes."

>>6594111
>As long as it's exotic
what the fuck does this even mean?

>>6594117
They're both well-defined words. "Exotic" means stress-energy is greater than mass-energy; "negative" is the most obvious case where that's true (negative mass-energy)

>>6594122
That the stress-energy is greater than the mass-energy.

>>6594123
>>6594125
Note that this is forbidden by several "energy conditions" in relativity, but these are all hypothetical and they all have known counterexamples. (Cosmological inflation violates the strong energy condition, the Casmir effect violates the weak energy condition)

>>6594120
>But it seems they are saying that large electrical field density can alter the "stiffness" of spacetime?
Yes, and that is true. Electric field density can do that.

>>6594125
>stress-energy
aside from a mathematical term, just how does that translate to the real world?

I find this
>The stress–energy tensor is the source of the gravitational field in the Einstein field equations of general relativity, just as mass density is the source of such a field in Newtonian gravity.

so this is just mathematical hand waving

I think I understand the <span class="math">\frac {d\phi} {dt} [/math} thing

if you had a bed of sand, you can walk on it because it has stiffness.
if the bed of sand were to be vibrated such that it had a <span class="math"> \frac {dv} {dt} [/math} great enough you would simply sink into it instead of being able to walk across it.

I understand how this could reduce the "stiffness" of spacetime, but I still do not see the source of negative energy.

regardless if you call it mass-energy or stress-energy where is it comming from in the White - Juday interferometer?[/spoiler][/spoiler]

>>6594133
>Electric field density can do that.
is it just the density or is it rapid changes in the density?

>>6594133
>Yes, and that is true. Electric field density can do that.

ok, so you can reduce the "stiffness" of space-time. how is the negative energy density produced in the White - Juday interferometer?

>>6594146
I don't know, maybe there is none? What if they're using the electric field to warp spacetime?

>>6594146
Hey check this out

http://www.earthtech.org/publications/davis_STAIF_conference_1.pdf

>Examples of Exotic or “Negative” Energy

> The exotic (energy condition-violating) mass-energy fields that are known to occur in nature are:

And here was one of them
>Radial electric or magnetic fields. These are borderline exotic, if their tension were infinitesimally larger,
for a given energy density (Herrmann, 1989; Hawking and Ellis, 1973).

and

>Squeezed quantum states of the electromagnetic field and other squeezed quantum fields; see the following
sections for a discussion on squeezed quantum states (Morris and Thorne, 1988; Drummond and Ficek,
2004).

>>6594148
wow, wouldn't that give the Tesla fan-boy club a boost

>>6594153
thanks.

radial? electric field

I guess that might explain it

the "ring shaped" capacitor creates a "radial" field that converges on the center

>>6594160
also found this http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9709007

>Negative-energy perturbations in cylindrical equilibria with a radial electric field

>>6594165
adding on to this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White%E2%80%93Juday_warp-field_interferometer

>they described how a toroidal positive energy density may result in a spherical negative-pressure region, possibly eliminating the need for actual exotic matter.[2]

>>6594173
So in other words they're creating negative energy using toroidal positive energy?

http://jalopnik.com/the-painful-truth-about-nasas-warp-drive-spaceship-from-1590330763

;_;

>>6594210
Lol this article is such bullshit. Anyone who actually researched the fucking subject already knows everything talked about in there.

>note that the current cost of producing 1 gram of antimatter is about $100 trillion.

What a fucking retard. You don't need antimatter to create it, you need negative matter. Antimatter is still positive. This "noted physicist" is a flaming faggot full of horse shit.

>>6594218
And I just read the rest of the article, holy shit this guy is so full of garbage it's not even funny. Jesus fucking christ. Whoever posted that article is a fucking moron.

>>6594108
Layman here, can you guys explain me this?
I've always heard that extra dimensions theories (string theory, M-theory etc.) have never been proved, and that a lot of physicists don't even consider them really valuable. So, are these guys basing their work on unproved theories? If so, how do they expect it to work...?

captcha: intogoi set

>>6594045
what I don't get is why people seem to think that you need a gigantic fucking warp bubble, when all you would have to do to get to light speed is make your inertia 0 (via a level gravitational "plane") and then have any amount of thrust applied to you. also, instead of trying to bulldoze through the rectum of the electromagnetic field to achieve faster than light speeds, why not also make a level plane in the EMF that neutralizes the force ripple that limits things to the speed of light?

>>6594241
lel it already worked

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M8yht_ofHc&feature=youtu.be&t=19m22s

Skip to 19 minutes and 22 seconds

They already created a micro warp bubble and proved it in 4 different ways but they keep doing different methods to be sure

There will be a proof of concept released by the end of this summer

>>6594245
literal retard

>>6594253
>its interesting but not definitive
riiight. yes obviously it already works

>>6594259
When it works using 4 different techniques there's a 90% chance it's definitive.

>>6594258
interesting rebuttle

>>6594261
>rebuttle

Stop talking.

>>6594260
when each technique only shows 'something', that they arnt even sure is what they are looking for it shows nothing.

>>6594263
Regardless we know it does SOMETHING spooky.

It's an interesting research point no matter what.

>>6594263
lol are you stupid it showed exactly what they wanted it to show (a change in path length)

great, another thread full of people who dont know anything about GR...

>>6594270
>you again
Fuck off you autismal sack of dog shit

>>6594267
o, i guess thats why the presenter said they arnt sure if its related to what they are looking for.

>>6594266
interesting research point =! well have warp drives by end of summer

>>6594273
>well have warp drives by end of summer
Holy fuck you IDIOT I said a proof of concept not an actual warp drive just fucking kill yourself you insufferable pile of fucking shit

>>6594261
no fuk u

>>6594270
Can you please wreck us with your knowledge instead of pointing out our ignorance?

>>6594270
>GR thread
>great, another thread full of people who dont know anything about Newtonian physics...
etc.

>>6594275
so the proof of concept wont actually be able to warp space?

sound like a pretty shit proof then.

>>6594281
lol you're so fucking dumb kid

the first nuclear reactor wasnt built until YEARS after a proof of concept of nuclear power

please, just kill yourself you disgusting waste of atoms

>>6594284
I don't normally browse /sci/ but can someone explain to me why you guys respond to shitposting over here? Of all boards, I figured this would be one of the few that doesn't tolerate childish behavior.

>>6594285
>implying implications

>>6594285
>Of all boards, I figured this would be one of the few that doesn't tolerate childish behavior.
Ha, that's hilarious.

/sci/ is /b/ 5.0, didn't you know?

>>6594288
On a few excursions, I've noticed that it doesn't seem /too/ different from other boards but I had hope...

>>6594262
no, suck my dick.

warp drive is totally do-able if people pull their heads out of their asses and think of ways to make it more efficient. like settling for warp fields that are much less powerful, but still do a good job at making it easier to accelerate a heavy space craft, or using the warp field itself to produce negative energy instead of in a lab for a gorillion dollars

I don't personally think that the experiment will yield results, but the only thing we can do is wait for them to finish. Until then, arguing won't solve anything.

>>6594293
But it's fun. And it helps to mitigate the hype.

>>6594293
what I don't understand is how they can warp space time with a toroidal electromagnet. isn't the experiment just looking at the experiment just looking at the disturbance of the interference pattern as the light passes through? wouldn't that imply that its changing the pattern because of a disturbance in the electromagnetic field, and not space time?

>>6594292
Stop talking. Please.

>>6594296
I don't think it's very fun. It's pretty pointless, really.

>>6594298
And I actually don't know about how the experiment is set up. I always err on the side of caution when it comes to things that break relativity like "warp fields" or "faster than light neutrinos." Things like that tend not to pan out.

>>6594304
This doesn't really break relativity, though.

No more than our universe already does on its own.

Still skeptical, but it's not like the whole CERN tachyon thing from a few years ago.

>>6594309
Well, could someone direct me to the paper regarding the use of "warp fields?" I'd hate to go into something without much knowledge about it.

>>6594299
how about noOoOooo

I really just want to join starfleet and skullfuck warfs vagina head. I really think you guys can do it, michio kaku said we can, and he belives in biocentrism, and so god will love us enough to make it real because quantum theory and schodigers cat; he'll observe it as real and that will make it real because thats how electrons work if you shoot a lazer beam at them.

I just want to see how bad I can trigger your autism lol

>>6594309
>This doesn't really break relativity, though.
it does
>No more than our universe already does on its own.
the universe doesnt

>>6594313
Fucking Einstein was aware of the possibility.

Also, what is Dark Energy?

I'm saying neither this nor Dark Energy break relativity the same way as actual superluminal travel would.

>>6594325
the reason it dosnt break relativity is because the warp bubble, which is just distorted space/ force vector fields is what is moving, not the actual ship. if you turned off warpdrive at superluminus speeds, then the ship would be forced to slow back down to less than light speed.

>>6594332
Would someone feel the acceleration?

Also, still waiting on the paper.

>>6594332
I get that.
That's my entire point.

It's not like matter itself is exceeding the speed of light here like those guys at CERN were reporting. This doesn't break relativity.

>>6594335
lol the stopping, or the starting?

you wouldn't feel any acceleration when starting, because the neutral gravity/force zone keeps your ship being effected by outside forces and possibly internal ones.

you would defiantly feel some acceleration if your warp bubble collapsed, because your ship would collide with the undistorted space and gain its inertial properties again

sorry, i dont know of any good papers =\

>>6594341
Well now, that wouldn't make sense. You're violating at least one conservation law by that logic, and probably more.

>>6594345
thats the thing, the energy is being conserved in the ripple in space time surrounding the ship, and then the warp field cancels out that energy, allowing for the ship to move without any forces applied to it. the cost of this, is that the ship would have to provide enough energy to cancel out the ripple with its warp field, and also enough energy to make its space time bubble around the ship neutral.

so the energy is conserved, its just being diverted to places which are controlled by the ships power source.

>>6594345
You fucking idiot go bury yourself alive and stop posting

>>6594353
I wasn't thinking about conservation of energy, though I'm not completely sure I follow your reasoning on that front. I was thinking about conservation of momentum. If you receive no acceleration at the beginning, but then some at the end, you're basically getting momentum out of nowhere.

How does the "warp field" work again? How does it generate a "ripple in spacetime?"

>>6594357
the ripple in space time is caused by anything moving through it, like a wake in front of a boat. that wake in space time pushes back strong enough to limit the velocity of an object moving through it. What the warp field does (in this model) is cancel it out, so the ripple dosn't push back on you; leaving the ship unrestricted in velocity.

as for inertia, the ~neutral force/space zone that the ship rests in causes everything in it to have ~zero mass and therefore ~zero inertia.

when the field is off, the inertia comes back. that energy needed to zero out the inertia, has to be provided by the ship.

>>6594355
lol u mad

>desgins the ship before actually designing the warp drive

That is a bit like designing a car before designing the engine. O well, as long as you dumb as faggots eat this shit up

>>6594067
There was an inbetween - it was called ORION. But it was scrapped

>>6594383
It isn't a design. its a concept

>>6594383
lol i like how it is aerodynamic, wouldn't it be smarter to use the entire internal space with a cylinder or somthing ( maybe produce some artificial gravity?)

>>6594363
Okay, you're not very helpful at explaining things (don't worry, this is a very difficult thing to explain to someone), so I started reading a bit about it, and it looks much better than I thought it would. You would not feel acceleration, or deceleration for that matter, because it's basically a modified Alcubierre drive. However, that being said, it still runs into the same problems that the Alcubierre drive did, meaning a fuck-ton of energy. The modifications White proposes might theoretically lower energy requirements, but they also have just as likely a chance of proving it impossible.

>>6594385
And ORION was a rocket. Really, there's nowhere to go but from rocket to warp drive, if you think about it. We can only make rockets better until there is a need for something else.

>>6594383
Its a concept you dumb bag of trash.

>>6594398
yeah, sorry about that.

but thats the thing, instead of putting all the energy into the warp field, it would be more efficient to make an almost zero g field around the ship (making the inertia ~0 )and apply a small amount of thrust, so that you can go almost the speed of light, and then apply force to the field to exceed it.

>>6594399
oh, yeah. janitor deletes my post but lets this autist run around with his dick in his hand

>>6594419
That's not what the proposed propulsion system is like. You don't nudge it along it's "bubble" like that, you contract space in front of it and expand it behind, kind of "scrunching" yourself through space. The new system still requires ridiculous amounts of energy even if it's now more efficient.

Your system doesn't sound possible. You'd have to make mass of something zero, which you can't really do without violating yet another conservation law.

>>6594421
>That's not what the proposed propulsion system is like

i am aware, im simply proposing a new one

>Your system doesn't sound possible. You'd have to make mass of something zero, which you can't really do without violating yet another conservation law.

you dont have to change the mass of the ship, you just have to changes its interactions with space-time (ie mass distortion of space-time) to make the inertia of the bubble zero. The ship still has inertia, its container is the one without inertia.

its like a ship in a bottle; the bubble is what is having its effective mass changed, and being accelerated, not the ship itself.

>>6594419
>oh, yeah. janitor deletes my post but lets this autist run around with his dick in his hand
Because my posts actually make sense you useless dick fart.

>>6594429
How would you create that kind of field?

>>6594429
But that would limit you to "only" lightspeed travel.

The idea is to arrive at the destination faster than light could reach it by normal means.

>>6594429
lol you fucking dumbass, we're talking FTL, FASTER than light, not equal to light you dumb shit stain excuse of a human being

>>6594433
>literal retard

>Stop talking.

>Fuck off you autismal sack of dog shit

>Holy fuck you IDIOT I said a proof of concept not an actual warp drive just fucking kill yourself you insufferable pile of fucking shit

>Stop talking. Please.

>You fucking idiot go bury yourself alive and stop posting

>Its a concept you dumb bag of trash.

>Because my posts actually make sense you useless dick fart.

yep they sure do!

>>6594434
fuck, i dont know. i would imagine something similar to the field they propose constructing. their model includes one too.

>>6594435
you could get to light speed, and then apply the actual warping field, for additional acceleration.

>>6594045
>>6594046
>>6594048
That's cool and all bro.. But we don't even know if matter with negative mass exists, and even if it exists, it would be impossible for us to mass produce it.

>>6594450
Well the janitor clearly agrees with me, so go fuck yourself you sack of shit.

>>6594450
>you could get to light speed, and then apply the actual warping field, for additional acceleration.
Can you do that?

Like, is that a thing that can happen?

It's hard enough trying to wrap my head around the one bubble, but a bubble within a bubble is pretty confusing.

>>6594451
It *has* to exist to explain Dark Energy.

We know it's out there, we just can't figure out how to go about manufacturing it.

>>6594456
assuming that there isnt any interference between the separate field generators, or whatever is needed to do that. yes the current model of warp drive already includes a neutral warp zone, mine just plays on it a little more for more efficiency.

>>6594455
> lol i got away with saying cuss words on the internet! im so cool and edgy. don't tell mom. i go on /sci/ and tell everyone else there dumber than me, that makes me smart right?

>>6594450
Then it runs into the same problems at that model. Namely: it probably won't work. Even if it does work, then it'll be too cost-prohibitive to use. You'd need planet-sized amounts of mass-energy; that is, half a planet of matter and another half of antimatter.

>>6594464
>> lol i got away with saying cuss words on the internet! im so cool and edgy. don't tell mom. i go on /sci/ and tell everyone else there dumber than me, that makes me smart right?
Nah, more like the fact that, unlike you, I'm not such a colossal faggot that the janitor starts removing my posts :^)

>>6594457
>It *has* to exist to explain Dark Energy.
How so?

>>6594465
yeah, but i can settle for getting to alpha-centauri in 6 month, rather than 8 seconds by using the entire worlds economy for 40 years lol

>>6594465
The entire point of this is that you DON'T need that much negative mass energy anymore, assuming the toroid shape actually does what they say it does.

And what the fuck does antimatter have to do with anything?
Do you mean the energy produced by annihilation of that much mass, or are you trying to imply that antimatter has different properties from regular matter?

>>6594471
No, it'll take just as much energy, if not more, to use your negative bubble rather than the negative-positive bubble of a regular Alcubierre drive.

Honestly, it's probably better to just take the slow route. I know rockets don't get a lot of love, but they work.

>>6594470
>universe is expanding at a constant (see: accelerating) rate, which means it will be faster than the speed light can travel
>implying this can happen without negative mass energy

>>6594473
I am talking about the energy produced by the annihilation of matter-antimatter. White said that he could take down the requirements to approximately 700kg worth of energy, which I find a dubious claim. It would probably take more than that to accelerate any-sized ship to superluminal speeds.

Again, we'll just have to wait and see if his experiments give us any hints.

>>6594477
>universe is expanding at a constant (see: accelerating) rate
A constant rate and an accelerating rate are two different things.

>>6594477
I fail to see a connection between those two statements.

>>6594490
Then kill yourself.

>>6594486
No, they aren't. It's tricky wording, but "constant" means it's expanding at a fixed rate, which means the actual growth is accelerating.

This is because the expansion is proportional to the distance of objects, so there's an exponential increase in the distance of objects away from us despite a "constant" expansion.

This is basic stuff, you should know this already.

>>6594486
That's the only reason that can be used, unfortunately.
If you have a better one, please go win a nobel prize and redefine everything we know about the universe.

>>6594505
meant to quote >>6594490
Here, this might help you out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations

>>6594505
No, if you had said "the rate of the expansion of the universe is increasing at a constant rate," then you'd be correct. If something is expanding at a fixed rate, it is just increasing linearly.
It's like saying that grass grows at a constant rate of two centimeters every week.

You should know this already.
You also linked me twice.

>>6594516
I put it there to help out idiots who think constant expansion means the universe expands linearly.

It confuses a lot of people if you don't.
They see the word constant and assume it means "every week it grows exactly 300,000 cubic miles" rather than "every week it doubles in size from the previous week."

>>6594517
Constant expansion does mean that something is expanding at a fixed rate. Accelerating expansion means something different.

It's not quite as dramatic as you say, but it's something similar to that.

>>6594529
I should have put the "(see: it's accelerating)" after the "at a constant rate" part, in hindsight.

Also, I misinterpreted your first post to mean you didn't think "constant rate" meant "accelerating expansion", but it turns out I'm bad at reading.

>>6594540
It's all good. I just wanted to point out where you might have made a mistake.

For those of you wondering, the universe is "expanding at an accelerating pace; currently, it's expanding at a rate of 74.3 plus or minus 2.1 kilometers (46.2 plus or minus 1.3 miles) per second per megaparsec (a megaparsec is roughly 3 million light-years)." -space.com

>>6594045
So what is "Negative energy density" anyway? How can such a thing be possible?

>>6594398
>>And ORION was a rocket. Really, there's nowhere to go but from rocket to warp drive, if you think about it. We can only make rockets better until there is a need for something else.

Naw, there has to be certain levels between rockets and the possibility of a warp field. Adding to the fact that we aren't really ready as a civilization for that kind of ability.

At the very least, the next form of propulsion should be an engine designed for atmosphere and space time travel with the addition of some form of levitation that such devices shouldn't directly rely on the dynamics of Earth itself. IE, airflow, lift, drag, etc.

Hell, i'd settle for a micro-nuclear core powered spacecraft that solely relies on levitation and engines for movement through the atmosphere. Once in space, you have thrusters in addition to all that.

But, this straight to warp-drive thing, is just a bit ahead of us right now.

>>6594627
You're a retarded pile of shit, you know this right?

>>6594592
> Energy density
>-Energy density
Do note the minus sign.

>>6594627
Well, levitation is ridiculous. You can't have a inertia-less engine. Everyone in this thread keeps wanting to break my conservation laws!

The best we can hope for is, like someone had said, ORION-like rockets. A rocket with high thrust AND high Isp would be the next theoretical step, in addition to a bunch of minor improvements. Also, a new launch system would be up there. Space elevators, single-stage to orbit rockets, etc, though very crazy, are closer to reality than magic.

>>6594627
>A nuclear bomb? Nah, I don't think we're ready to just jump straight into something like that.
>Maybe we could develop bombs that rely more on the natural forces of the Earth first. You know, like a bomb based entirely around floatation and buoyancy. I'd settle for that.

This is how you sound right now.

>>6594555
So is universe expanding at a FTL velocity?

>>6594644
No shit. Did you not already know this? lel.

>>6594644
http://scienceline.org/2007/07/ask-romero-speedoflight/
This has a nice explanation of the reasoning behind it.

>>6594641
erm, I said such vessels and propulsion systems shouldn't, as in should not, rely on the dynamics of Earth directly.

And when I say levitation, I mean something that "tricks" the area around the ship into thinking it in zero-gravity. This lessens the strain on which the ship should need to move itself out of the atmosphere and into space. And I know it wouldn't work...now.

And a nuclear bomb, or rather a micro-nuclear power core is probably the most practice approach to fuel supply for any space-related vessel we may create.

Even if you lot insist on a warp-field, it still has to be powered by something and any other form of fuel would put a strain on Earth's resources which are already a problem.

>>6594627
>between rockets and the possibility of a warp field

actually this anon isn't that far off

check out the Q thruster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_vacuum_plasma_thruster

NASA is currently testing one that gives 0.4N of thrust per KW of electrical input and the next version gives 4N per KW

>>6594666
It's the same guy that's doing the "warp fields" experiments. I have some reservations.

>>6594661
>I didn't say that, I said this equally ridiculous thing!

My point still stands.

>>6594669
lol fuck off with your baseless skepticism you autistic bag of literal shit

>>6594674
Yes, baseless skepticism about a principle that violates heretofore unbroken laws of conservation based on a few inconclusive experiments.

>>6594658
Thank you.
>>6594655
You're so underage.

>>6594692
>You're so underage.
If you didn't already know that the universe expands FTL then you should probably kill yourself you useless shit.

>>6594689
LOL you fucking moron for the last time the Alcubierre Drive concept DOES_NOT violate the laws of conservation

Please die

>>6594699
I wasn't talking about Alcubierre, I was talking about the quantum thrusters. Those violate conservation of momentum; they're basically reactionless drives.

The Alcubierre drive just relies on theoretical matter and enormous amounts of energy.

>>6594711
>2014
>Being autistic
ISHYGDDT

>>6594634
-Thanks

>>6594478
>accelerate
>to superluminal speeds
I think you're missing the entire point

>>6594711
>Those violate conservation of momentum; they're basically reactionless drives.

they just push against something you don't believe in

>>6594478
You have no fucking idea what you're talking about, dipshit. You're not accelerating to those speeds, you're taking advantage of a warp bubble which will ALREADY be moving at that speed because of the nature of spacetime.

Just stop talking :^)

>>6594859
It would take that much time to produce a macroscopic "warp bubble" to achieve superluminal speeds. If the thread is about "warp drives" you can assume I'm talking about "warp drives."

>>6594887
It doesn't change the fact that the energy required is still unattainable. The 700kg seems like a very optimistic estimate.

Again, we just need to wait for the results. I don't think that things will pan out, however.

>>6594923
It would take that much energy.*

>>6594923
>>6594926
Well, that energy isn't going into moving the vehicle - because it isn't moving - but sustaining the bubble.

>>6594935
Exactly, but the energy requirements are so large for even the smallest object, that I have doubts. Even WITH the reduced estimate, that's 350kg of matter and 350kg antimatter, which is a lot of antimatter for a "macroscopic ship." That tells me that anything that can carry a person or even a camera would take too much energy to be feasible.

Although, the ship is KINDA moving, because it's sort of "falling forward."

>>6594940
It doesn't need antimatter, m/am reaction is just the most efficient way of converting mass to energy. It could use some other energy source. As far as I can tell, the energy requirements are unrelated to the payload inside the bubble, just the size & intensity.

>>6594955
It doesn't have to be matter/antimatter, but where else will you get such enormous amounts of energy for the system? You couldn't get a fission or fusion system to produce that much.

And it matters for the volume of the spacecraft, like you said. That means that it's that much for a "macroscopic craft." That means "larger than microscopic." Kinda vague there.

>>6594960
White uses a 90-ton spacecraft (50/40 cargo/propulsion split) in his quantum propulsion examples, so maybe it's something like that? I agree though, the Jupiter- and Voyager-masses continually get cited without explanation.

>>6594940
What the fuck are you on about, dipshit? This has literally NOTHING to do with antimatter. Antimatter is still positive in mass. What you need is negative matter. Get an education you useless fuck stick. You've been polluting this entire thread with your ignorance. Kill yourself.

>>6595087
To produce the "warp field," the idea is to generate a huge electric field to warp spacetime. The size of the "bubble" will depend on the shape and intensity of the field, according the current experiments. The use of matter and antimatter is a convenient yardstick to judge how much energy is needed for traditional and reworked Alcubierre drives.

Of course, we could also use exotic matter, but we don't have any of that.

>>6595093
lol no, there is no god damn antimatter involved in judging how much energy is needed, just regular matter

i said it before and i'll say it again, that article that you posted is complete fucking bullshit and so is that so called "noted physicist" sean whateverthefuck his name is

>>6595096
The mass-energy of matter and antimatter are the same, so I basically take that to mean you're converting matter to energy at nearly one hundred percent efficiency. The only way to do that is by annihilation with antimatter, as far as I know.

I haven't posted any articles in this thread. Could you post a link to it? And to White's papers?

>>6595100
Oh my god dude I don't think you're understanding properly. The amount of energy required is the mass-energy of 700 kg, yes, but they're not going to get that energy by literally converting 700 kg of matter into energy, herp derp

>>6595093
Wait a minute, I thought the system used the Casimir Effect to get the negative mass energy.

Why would you need the energy from annihilation to do that? Obviously it would take a lot, and we'd need an actual method of utilizing such an effect, but I don't think it's necessarily impossible with conventional energy sources.

>>6595104
It's not using the casimir effect though.
http://earthtech.org/publications/davis_STAIF_conference_2.pdf

This paper was written by H white and a colleague

>a toroidal positive energy density could yield a spherical negative pressure region

they're using this

>>6595103
How will they get the energy, then?

>>6595104
They're approximating the effect. I'm not sure how they're doing it with an electric field, but apparently the maths work out that way. It takes a lot of energy, though, and, before White's supposed innovation, it took basically more energy than there was in this and neighboring solar systems for small ships.

>>6595108
Thanks, I was wondering why nothing mentioned the Casimir effect outside of that video.

>>6595111
>How will they get the energy, then?
We don't know yet, right now they're just trying to prove that warp travel is possible in theory with their experiment.

the 700 kg thing is just an estimate of how much energy is needed, but that doesnt mean that we have to get the energy directly from 700 kg of mass

>>6595118
No, you don't have to use antimatter, but it gives you a good idea of how much energy is needed. Pretty much the only way for a spacecraft to generate that kind of energy is with antimatter annihilations.

>>6595121
Not true, if we have fusion power by then we could use that to generate that amount of energy.

>>6595122
If we have fusion, antimatter would be easy to make anyway.

Really any sufficiently advanced but currently unreachable energy source would do.

>>6595126
Yeah, fusion power seems like the most realistic way that we'll be able to create that amount of energy.

By the time we're actually ready to deploy a warp ship (assuming that the proof of concept works), I'm 90% sure we'll have fusion power so I'm not too worried about that

>>6595128
>>6595126
why are people so hung up on ships. the only reason for ships to exist is to move material and people.

if you are moving material, then planets are too far apart for any money gained from trading to matter. this isnt colonial times anything we can move we can build on a different planet

if you are moving people, why do you need a big ass ship with empty spaces inside the hull

literally all you need is an engine, a kitchen, a bed and a small cargo hold. in this ship the engine is probably 90% of the ship mass.

and now we are moving less mass requiring a smaller field, energy requirement probably goes down in square proportions.

>>6595134
lol it's just a concept no need to get so worked up

not like you can't easily change the design

>>6595122
>>6595126
>>6595128
So it boils down to making antimatter anyway. You can't build a ship with fusion power to produce a warp bubble big enough, because fusion is only about 1% as efficient as a fuel source.

>>6595137
the point is a ship in the sense that ships has been makes no sense.

>>6595134
You say that planets are too far apart to trade, but one asteroid can have more metal than humanity has ever mined in the entirety of civilization. It could also hold rarer metals because they haven't settled down in the core of a planet like much of the denser metals did here.

>>6595138
>because fusion is only about 1% as efficient as a fuel source.
What the hell are you talking about?

>>6595141
you dont need a warp drive to go after an asteroid
there are no asteroid out in empty space by itself

every asteroid revolves around a sun just like every habitable planet

there is 0 reason to move material around with a warp drive

>>6595138
Antimatter is also hard to harness as fuel.

Annihilation doesn't just transfer the energy out of matter into a neat little funnel.

>>6595142
Energy density. Fusion converts about 1% of the mass of the reactants into energy, so it's about 1% as efficient, weight wise. You'd need 70000kg of hydrogen to make the 700kg mass-energy required for the "warp bubble."

>>6595146
You said ships. I wasn't sure if you were talking about warp drives or no. Space colonization is a lofty goal, but one worth going after.

>>6595153
>You'd need 70000kg of hydrogen to make the 700kg mass-energy required for the "warp bubble."
That's not even unfeasible though.

>>6595159
When you think about how this is only for something a few centimeters large, it becomes slightly more unfeasible.

We'll have to wait for the experiments to finish to see if it's even possible to generate warp effects in this manner.

>>6594627
>Adding to the fact that we aren't really ready as a civilization for that kind of ability.

I've heard this one before. We're really never ready until it's in our face, be it technological advancement or impending catastrophe - which there are quite many on the horizon. We know leaving earth is inevitable for mankind's survival in the future, and technologically advanced civilization is required to make it possible. And as it so happens, civilization as you know it may not have the time to wait and stall until some delusional pipe dreams of universal peace and harmony, or massive infrastructure for something in progress of being made obsolete - which wide scale intra-solar system settlement will be if interstellar travel becomes a real possibility - are achieved.

>>6594666
>>6594711

It seems clear that quantum vacuum plasma thruster is rocket/thruster/reaction engine/etc. in it's most traditional sense. Except it carries no reaction mass, since it's supposed to 'scoop' that out in form of 'particles popping out of quantum vacuum'.
Kinda Like, if you were a cow roaming on a field and ate your grass right there instead of carrying it, so you can leave a wake of magnificent amount of shit and piss behind you.

>>6595169
>something a few centimeters large
What are you talking about?

>>6595208
I have such a problem with quantum vacuum thrusters, though. Traditionally, any quantum particle that appears by fluctuations and has an electric charge also creates its pair, so won't the thrusters get an equal number of positive and negatively charged particles in the cross section, thus negating any possible thrust?

>>6595237
My impression is that it doesn't matter, it just uses a field to push against any charged particles. You end up with close to 100% efficiency, but not higher.

>>6595241
But wouldn't the field be charged one way or the other, so it doesn't matter. A field pushes against one charged particle and pulls against another, so it has to be one or the other.

>>6595234
Harold White doesn't give any definite size of the ship, so it's hard to gauge how big the ship to energy ratio is. The guy up there said that he usually talks about a 90 ship, but wherever I read about his electric toroid effect, they go from talking about groups of atoms and then dropping "macroscopic" on you. Macroscopic could be anything from the size of a pinhead to the size of a planet.

>>6594067
The computer industry has ruined you.

>>6595254
That guy was me, I just switched OSes.

>>6595254
So you think that the ship is going to be a few centimeters? LMFAO dude you're really not the sharpest knife in the drawer if you couldn't piece together by now that the conceptual ship is far larger than that

>>6595266
That's cool. I don't know how to respond because I can't find any of White's work.

>>6595267
And I am uncertain as to the size of the warp bubble. Do you have any good sources? I can't find any of any particular reliability, especially on recent experiments.

>>6595254

Back in 2012 when warp field interferometer experiment made it to the news, the example used was a warp bubble going 10c with a diameter of 10 meters requiring approximately voyager probe's mass equivalent of exotic matter. This was only an example, and an early one at that too.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/01/general-parameters-of-alcubierre-warp.html

And stuff gets quite crazy...

>by decreasing the resonant cavity dielectric density down to a lunar like vacuum level of 5x10^-12 Torr and increasing the warp-core torodial resonant cavity size up to 20 meter OD by 15 meter ID by 20 meter long while still using green light laser frequency for the RF source and using "just" 1.0 gigawatt of electrical input power, that one might be able to obtain a c boost factor of 88,000 times the speed of light. If one pulled back to using an infrared 1x10^12 Hz (THz) RF source using the same 1.0 GWe of input power, then the c boost factor lowers down to ~3,600c.

The implications are something along lines of warp drives that would piss Star Trek in the face would be possible now, if R&D were done 10 years ago. Too good to be true?

>>6594067
flying cars are fucking retarded

Would you say that clocks measure time?

please stop making fucking generals, keep this cancer off the only unaffected board left on 4chan

>>6595896
Fuck off GR guy, your shill-tier samefaggotry isn't fooling anyone you cancerous pile of horse shit

>>6595896
We have had two threads over the course of almost a week, this could hardly be called a true general.

People would post threads about this anyway, so it's better to have it all in one place rather than flooding six pages.

If OP hadn't used the word "general," you wouldn't think this is a general.

Also,
>the only unaffected board left on 4chan
Ha, that's a good one.

Will the Human Mankind get the Chance to get a Warp Drive like in Star Trek in 100 Years?

>>6596074
My estimate is 2050

>>6596074
It's unknown as of right now. That's why these experiments are basically going to determine if the idea is feasible or not.

ITT: Made up bullshit

Prove me wrong.

>>6595928
He has a point, I've never seen a general on /sci/

>>6596138
I hope a Warp Engine is feasible... or the Humans on Earth will get a Problem with the Sun

>>6596165
"The great thing about science is it's true whether you believe in it or not"

>>6596172
Another great thing about science is that you can show something to be true and then use that fact to dream up wild physically impractical fantasies.

>>6594045
So in this video, White explains that he was able to radically decrease the power required to generate a warp bubble by simply by "guessing" with different field topologies and then examining the results.

http://youtu.be/9M8yht_ofHc [Embed]

So, if everyone so far has just been guessing, who's to sat that we already have found the best topology? I propose we create a genetic algorithm to find an even more energy efficient topology. There's a chance that we may be able to reduced the energy to something can currently or will soon be able to generate.

>>6596194
All im saying is no one is going to prove you wrong because no one gives a fuck what you think.

>>6596194
And another great thing about science is that if you can convincingly prentend your wild impratical fantasies are actual science, /sci/ will come and give you a blowjob.

>>6596196
I'm down with that, since AI's an interest of mine. Unfortunately, I don't know much about the physics involved, so I'm not sure what & how to evolve it.

>>6596208
>>6596165
see
>>6595923

Just end your life already you miserable autistic shit stain to the human race

>>6596251

All my keks.

>>6596208 was my first contribution in this thread. Happy slurpin'

>>6596259
Yeah, I'm sure it is you shit licking mongrel. Go slit your wrists you fucking parasite.

>>6594490
>I fail to see a connection between those two statements.
There is none.

The expansion of the universe is normally explained without appealing to the existence of negative energy densities.

There's just a crackpot who hangs out in these threads and insists that "everyone knows" that you can't have one without the other, but can't produce any support for the claim.

>>6596167
Yeah, but this isn't really a general.

/sci/ doesn't move fast enough for generals to really make sense.

OP should have waited until the other one 404d to make this one, because popular threads here usually last for days past the bump limit.

But if he didn't say "general" in the subject, you wouldn't be calling it that right now.

Two consecutive threads on the same news story happens a lot.

>>6596306
What would you call the creation of space if not the absence of matter?

When space expands, the net mass energy decreases accordingly. This is the only reason relativity and conservation of energy don't get fucked when it expands.

>>6594067
Arthur C. Clarke felt the next step from rocketry was space elevators, though that would be a mindbogglingly expensive long-term engineering project for any one nation to undertake. The pros and cons of space elevators are:

The Pros:
-reduce the cost of a trip into space to around the same as that of an airline flight, since a spacecraft can just be either carried up into orbit by the elevator or assembled piece by piece in orbit with parts sent up the elevator, saving money on fuel costs (most of the fuel carried on space craft before launch gets burned up trying to lift off and achieve orbit).
-Solar collectors could be placed on the satellite attached to the end of the cable to catch radiation unhindered by Earth's atmosphere to provide a steady and clean source of energy.

The Cons:
-Elevator cable needs to possess an extremely high tensile strength so it won't snap due to the centripetal force generated by the rotation of the Earth. A composite material made from carbon nanotubes is a popular candidate for that.
-Stray space debris could tear the cable apart and would need constant monitoring and maintenance to keep the cable from coming apart.