Warp drive?

[Person012345]

Are there any FTL data transmission methods based on this?

Also, if it's made of or contains tachyons doesn't that mean it can't stop?

There could be. There will be computers on the ship containing information. The thing is that it shouldn't cause any "weird" effects (if indeed ftl data would cause any at all), because the ship itself never moves locally faster than the speed of light.

And it's only the ring around the ship that's made of tachyons. The reason for this, as I understand it (which may be badly) is that the exotic matter is what causes the space-time warp when it's manipulated. It's in a ring around the ship on the boundary of the warping and "rides" the spacetime "wave" right at it's edge. Therefore, that matter would have to move locally faster than light, which requires it to be tachyonic. There are other methods that avoid this, but they create a naked singularity. I guess the ring would disband or something when you wanted to stop, not sure about the specifics of that.

Edit: Looking it up again there are problems with stopping, to do with exiting the space-time bubble.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Person012345

[nhnifong]

I think the only way humans will ever travel to the stars is as digital signals. Of course, we need to send a machine capable of receiving the signals and simulating our senses/bodies with the greatest possible fidelity.

[Person012345]

If we manage to get anti-matter production down sometime, there's a good chance we'd be able to visit close stars. A variant of the nuclear pulse propulsion system explored in project orion, which itself would make a plausible way of doing it - if fuel is saved for slowing down we could potentially, right now, get to alpha centauri within a human lifetime (88 years, at 0.05c), using antimatter could get us (theoretically) up to about 0.4c, saving fuel for slowdown (double it if you aren't bothered about slowing down >.>).

Not that there's likely to be anything interesting at alpha centauri, just sayin'.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Person012345

[AHO]

It currently takes more energy to produce antimatter than antimatter creates so it will probably be some time before any thing like that happens. I remember reading somewhere that there is a nuclear pulse design that could get us to proxima centauri in 50 years but I forget where.

[Accelerando]

Yes, that's true. I doubt they're going to settle for even the highest-efficiency nuclear reactor, though. Once we crack fusion technology (which will likely be VERY soon) then the universe is our oyster.

Exotic matter may not be what you think it is - a century ago, nylon was exotic matter E-M is just the term scientists use when they don't want to bog uninformed folks down in details when they've got something big and ground-breaking to say they've discovered.

Fusion technology was 50 years in the future 50 years ago, and it's still 50 years away now. 50 years from now, I think it'll still be 50 years away. I don't see fusion coming for a long time.

Exotic matter means negative mass, which at this point is completely hypothetical. The scientists/reports on their work aren't so much lightening the intellectual load on uninformed folks as unfortunately making the situation sound less complicated than it is. Even when nylon and the synthetic petrochemical polymers industry were still new, the analogy between nylon and the exotic mass required for warp drive does not hold because infrastructure already existed, to a large extent, to make more nylon: All one really needed was a decent chemistry laboratory, of which there were no shortages. By contrast, (to my knowledge) modern science has only the faintest ideas of what would be needed to make, contain, and employ negative mass.

Actually, according to this article, you'd only need 500 Kg of fuel. That's like nothing!!!! The space shuttle uses more fuel mass than that!!! (albeit it probably needs anti-matter fuel)

http://gizmodo.com/5942634/nasa-starts-development-of-real-life-star-trek-warp-drive

The problem with any measure of required antimatter in the hundreds to hundredths of kilograms is that maximum possible energy is a linear function of the mass involved, so that cutting down the energy requirements by roughly a third still means you have to generate on the same order of magnitude. World energy consumption  a rough measure of the total usable power of humankind's systems  was 5.2*10^20 J or 520 exajoules in 2008. The energy of 500kg of mass is 4.5*10^19 J, 45 exajoules. Assuming a 100% efficient and foolproof matter-to-antimatter conversion system and a very robust power delivery network, we could have a warp probe by completely diverting all power plants in the world for about a month.

You know what's coming, though. Modern matter to antimatter conversion is not even .1% efficient. Conceivable upgrades to current proton smashers (based on figures from a related report in the Journal of Propulsion and Power, on page 924, paragraphs 6-8 on that page) would allow 1 gram of antiprotons to be generated for an energy cost of 2.3*10^18 J, somewhat less than 5 orders of magnitude greater than the energy contained in 1 gram: ~8.99*10^13 J. This drives the energy cost of 500kg to 1.15*10^24 J, which is the entire modern world supply for 2 millenia.

Edited September 29, 2012 by Accelerando

[Person012345]

Also:

The biggest limiting factor in the large-scale production of antimatter is the availability of antiprotons. Recent data released by CERN states that, when fully operational, their facilities are capable of producing ten million antiprotons per minute.[33] Assuming a 100% conversion of antiprotons to antihydrogen, it would take 100 billion years to produce 1 gram or 1 mole of antihydrogen (approximately 6.02×10^23 atoms of antihydrogen).

That's not even to mention the cost.

Edited September 30, 2012 by Person012345

[phoenix_ca]

Meh. We'll figure something out. If we don't kill ourselves and our civilization, we're going to space. That much is practically a given. Just how we get there is still up for debate, but we'll go there eventually. We must if we wish to survive.

[Deek of Rocketry]

This thread is sounding more and more like Mass Effect. Think about it....BIOWARE!!! WHAT ARE YOU NOT TELLING US???

[Warshawski]

Fusion technology was 50 years in the future 50 years ago, and it's still 50 years away now. 50 years from now, I think it'll still be 50 years away. I don't see fusion coming for a long time.

The French, of all people, are building a reactor as we speak. As are the South Koreans.

Fusion technology exists, we just haven't gotten a sustained reaction - yet. Earlier this year, the National Ignition Laboratory here in the States finally managed to get a net gain of energy from a fusion reaction.

No, I think within the next 5-10 years is when we'll start seeing fusion technology roll out, particularly given that it's the greenest energy source known to mankind, barring massive orbital solar arrays.

[Person012345]

The French, of all people, are building a reactor as we speak. As are the South Koreans.

Fusion technology exists, we just haven't gotten a sustained reaction - yet. Earlier this year, the National Ignition Laboratory here in the States finally managed to get a net gain of energy from a fusion reaction.

No, I think within the next 5-10 years is when we'll start seeing fusion technology roll out, particularly given that it's the greenest energy source known to mankind, barring massive orbital solar arrays.

Japan already has a reactor theoretically capable of producing more energy than it consumes. Also, the "french" one is an international effort.

Edit: The JT-60 is the Japanese one, to quote:

During deuterium (D–D fuel) plasma experiments in 1998 plasma conditions were achieved which would, if the D–D fuel were replaced with a 1:1 mix of deuterium and tritium (D–T fuel), have exceeded break-evenâ€â€the point where the power produced by the fusion reactions equals the power supplied to operate the machine. JT-60 does not have the facilities to handle tritium; currently only the JET tokamak in the United Kingdom has such facilities. In fusion terminology JT-60 achieved conditions which in D–T would have provided Q = 1.25, where Q is the ratio of fusion power to input power. A self-sustaining nuclear fusion reaction would need a value of Q that is greater than 5.[2][3][4]

And ITER is the French one, it's "funded and run by seven member entities  the European Union (EU), India, Japan, China, Russia, South Korea and the United States".

Edited October 1, 2012 by Person012345

[Person012345]

If ITER is successful, they plan to build DEMO, which will be a demonstration commercial fusion plant.

[Aescwulf]

Reactors ARE popping up all over the world but most of them are for research to see if they could get a decent output for commercial use. And I know there's at least one here in England ( there's possibly others )

But at the moment I think there's still a stigma about nuclear technology due to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

At the moment we need to do research while still making it safe because there's no point of cranking up the power ( this research style only works in KSP )

[Awaras]

It currently takes more energy to produce antimatter than antimatter creates so it will probably be some time before any thing like that happens.

Producing antimatter will always take more energy than it creates... It would always be a way of storing and transporting energy, but never a net producer of energy. Kinda like present day hydrogen and electric cars - the energy still needs to come from somewhere else, the hydrogen/power cell is just a means of storing energy.

The point of antimatter is to concentrate as much energy into as little mass as possible.

[Person012345]

Reactors ARE popping up all over the world but most of them are for research to see if they could get a decent output for commercial use. And I know there's at least one here in England ( there's possibly others )

But at the moment I think there's still a stigma about nuclear technology due to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

At the moment we need to do research while still making it safe because there's no point of cranking up the power ( this research style only works in KSP )

Fusion power is completely safe. There's no radioactive things involved, the only dangers are the standard dangers of any power plant (of which we have plenty).

[Awaras]

Fusion power is completely safe. There's no radioactive things involved, the only dangers are the standard dangers of any power plant (of which we have plenty).

While it is true that the end product of a fusion reaction is not radioactive, the fusion reaction itself releases a tremendous amount of radiation. So much in fact that (at least for some fusion reactor designs I read about) prolonged exposure makes the walls of the reactor radioactive. The disposal of these components would present a lot of the same problems nuclear waste does today...

[Person012345]

While it is true that the end product of a fusion reaction is not radioactive, the fusion reaction itself releases a tremendous amount of radiation. So much in fact that (at least for some fusion reactor designs I read about) prolonged exposure makes the walls of the reactor radioactive. The disposal of these components would present a lot of the same problems nuclear waste does today...

I was referring more to the fact that if the fuel catches fire it isn't going to radiologically annihilate everything for miles around from what I understand.

That being said, it's much less likely for an accident to occur in the first place in than with a conventional one due to the conditions that fusion power needs to be generated (if something breaks it's much more likely to just stop working than kill everything).

[Person012345]

Also, the products from a fusion plant have a much shorter half-life than those of fission, so it remains dangerous for far less time (50 - 100 years).

[Whptheenah]

So basically, they could have just done:

>Decrease gravity behind

>Increase gravity in front

>Time goes faster behind and slower in front

>Faster time = universe expands faster

>Slower time =universe expands slower/gravity pulls things back together

>Take one step forward

>Return gravity to normal

>WARPED!!!

and nobody thought of that until now... *facepalm*

[Person012345]

So basically, they could have just done:

>Decrease gravity behind

>Increase gravity in front

>Time goes faster behind and slower in front

>Faster time = universe expands faster

>Slower time =universe expands slower/gravity pulls things back together

>Take one step forward

>Return gravity to normal

>WARPED!!!

and nobody thought of that until now... *facepalm*

That's a simplistic explanation, and may not be possible. I'm not even sure it makes any sense tbh. For example, the real explanation of the alcubierre metric is mathematical, using words is just putting it in a way us plebs can understand it.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Person012345

[LukeTim]

So basically, they could have just done:

>Decrease gravity behind

>Increase gravity in front

>Time goes faster behind and slower in front

>Faster time = universe expands faster

>Slower time =universe expands slower/gravity pulls things back together

>Take one step forward

>Return gravity to normal

>WARPED!!!

and nobody thought of that until now... *facepalm*

IDGI...

Is that how a Warp Drive works? That's not how I understood it...

[Person012345]

IDGI...

Is that how a Warp Drive works? That's not how I understood it...

No, I think it's his proposition. The alcubierre "rides" a "wave" of expanding and contracting spacetime, basically.

[Accelerando]

Fusion technology exists, we just haven't gotten a sustained reaction - yet.

Yes, I'm not stupid. But building a handful of research reactors every decade or so in and of itself doesn't mean anything in terms of how close we are to commercially viable fusion power.

Earlier this year, the National Ignition Laboratory here in the States finally managed to get a net gain of energy from a fusion reaction.

[citation needed], because I can't find that anywhere on Google, Yahoo, Bing, JSTOR, or Lawrence Livermore National's very own website.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Accelerando

[himynameis]

While it is true that the end product of a fusion reaction is not radioactive, the fusion reaction itself releases a tremendous amount of radiation. So much in fact that (at least for some fusion reactor designs I read about) prolonged exposure makes the walls of the reactor radioactive. The disposal of these components would present a lot of the same problems nuclear waste does today...

There appears to be a scientist out of Florida that is testing controlled intermediate nuclear fusions without radiations.

I found this movie by accident. Tell me what you think.

http://www.world-lecture-series.org/l-ying

Thought it was interesting.

[Person012345]

There appears to be a scientist out of Florida that is testing controlled intermediate nuclear fusions without radiations.

I found this movie by accident. Tell me what you think.

http://www.world-lecture-series.org/l-ying

Thought it was interesting.

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

I would be skeptical of things that come from him (not dismissive, but be aware it's probably not actually based on accepted science). And to be honest, the fact that "L Ying" is all over there is not a great sign (being somewhat facetious since "L Ying" "Lying"). >.>

[Person012345]

Ok, the dude just said that his gas bottles were "certified 99.9% pure", I'm gonna have to see more outside of santilli's own website and see any of this independently confirmed before I take it seriously. The whole thing right now is just some slightly sleazy looking dude telling us that X, Y and Z happened.