A Step Closer To The Alcubierre Drive!

[Omicron314]

NASA physicist Harold White has announced that the space agency has gotten a step closer to creating Alcubierre's "warp drive".

In a lab, he and his team managed to create a device that, when activated, shortens the optical path length of a photon. However, White was quick to say that this may or may not be the warp effect needed for faster-than-light travel.

Another step forward in this field has been the study of quantum-thrusters, which are likened to the propulsion system of a submarine, except they are for the "cosmic soup". In theory, these quantum-thrusters could produce negative vacuum energy, a vital component in the Alcubierre drive.

White and his team also managed to whittle down the amount of energy needed from that of the mass of Jupiter to the amount of exotic mass the size of the Voyager 1 space probe by changing the shape of the rings and having them "oscillate over time".

Best of luck to NASA in this intrepid endeavor.

Source article here: http://www.space.com/22430-star-trek-warp-drive-quantum-thrusters.html

[EvilotionCR2]

My dream is to be first astronaut to try it ,but it's a dream lol

[Scotius]

Well, as i'm nearing a forty i start thinking that i want to live long enough to see first working prototype of the warp drive. Then i'd die a happy man.

[Apature rocket science]

It is probably a massive magnification glass that speeds up light

[Diche Bach]

A functioning warp drive would be so fantastically awesome that words cannot convey. It literally would be the biggest thing to happen in all of human natural history. Hopefully it really is a substantive step in the right direction!

[LaydeeDem]

A functioning warp drive would be so fantastically awesome that words cannot convey. It literally would be the biggest thing to happen in all of human natural history. Hopefully it really is a substantive step in the right direction!

It could also be the worst thing that could happen to humanity.

Here's a nice little excerpt from The Killing Star:

The great silence (i.e. absence of SETI signals from alien civilizations) is perhaps the strongest indicator of all that high relativistic velocities are attainable and that everybody out there knows it.

The sobering truth is that relativistic civilizations are a potential nightmare to anyone living within range of them. The problem is that objects traveling at an appreciable fraction of light speed are never where you see them when you see them (i.e., light-speed lag). Relativistic rockets, if their owners turn out to be less than benevolent, are both totally unstoppable and totally destructive. A starship weighing in at 1,500 tons (approximately the weight of a fully fueled space shuttle sitting on the launchpad) impacting an earthlike planet at "only" 30 percent of lightspeed will release 1.5 million megatons of energy -- an explosive force equivalent to 150 times today's global nuclear arsenal... (ed note: this means the freaking thing has about nine hundred mega-Ricks of damage!)

I'm not going to talk about ideas. I'm going to talk about reality. It will probably not be good for us ever to build and fire up an antimatter engine. According to Powell, given the proper detecting devices, a Valkyrie engine burn could be seen out to a radius of several light-years and may draw us into a game we'd rather not play, a game in which, if we appear to be even the vaguest threat to another civilization and if the resources are available to eliminate us, then it is logical to do so.

The game plan is, in its simplest terms, the relativistic inverse to the golden rule: "Do unto the other fellow as he would do unto you and do it first."...

When we put our heads together and tried to list everything we could say with certainty about other civilizations, without having actually met them, all that we knew boiled down to three simple laws of alien behavior:

1. THEIR SURVIVAL WILL BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN OUR SURVIVAL.

If an alien species has to choose between them and us, they won't choose us. It is difficult to imagine a contrary case; species don't survive by being self-sacrificing.

2. WIMPS DON'T BECOME TOP DOGS.

No species makes it to the top by being passive. The species in charge of any given planet will be highly intelligent, alert, aggressive, and ruthless when necessary.

3. THEY WILL ASSUME THAT THE FIRST TWO LAWS APPLY TO US.

...

Your thinking still seems a bit narrow. Consider several broadening ideas:

1. Sure, relativistic bombs are powerful because the antagonist has already invested huge energies in them that can be released quickly, and they're hard to hit. But they are costly investments and necessarily reduce other activities the species could explore. For example:

2. Dispersal of the species into many small, hard-to-see targets, such as asteroids, buried civilizations, cometary nuclei, various space habitats. These are hard to wipe out.

3. But wait -- while relativistic bombs are readily visible to us in foresight, they hardly represent the end point in foreseeable technology. What will humans of, say, two centuries hence think of as the "obvious" lethal effect? Five centuries? A hundred? Personally I'd pick some rampaging self-reproducing thingy (mechanical or organic), then sneak it into all the biospheres I wanted to destroy. My point here is that no particular physical effect -- with its pluses, minuses, and trade-offs -- is likely to dominate the thinking of the galaxy.

4. So what might really aged civilizations do? Disperse, of course, and also not attack new arrivals in the galaxy, for fear that they might not get them all. Why? Because revenge is probably selected for in surviving species, and anybody truly looking out for long-term interests will not want to leave a youthful species with a grudge, sneaking around behind its back...

I agree with most parts of points 2, 3, and 4. As for point 1, it is cheaper than you think. You mention self-replicating machines in point 3, and while it is true that relativistic rockets require planetary power supplies, it is also true that we can power the whole Earth with a field of solar cells adding up to barely more than 200-by-200 kilometers, drawn out into a narrow band around the Moon's equator. Self-replicating robots could accomplish this task with only the cost of developing the first twenty or thirty machines. And once we're powering the Earth practically free of charge, why not let the robots keep building panels on the Lunar far side? Add a few self-replicating linear accelerator-building factories, and plug the accelerators into the panels, and you could produce enough anti-hydrogen to launch a starship every year. But why stop at the Moon? Have you looked at Mercury lately? ...

Dr. Wells has obviously bought into the view of a friendly galaxy. This view is based upon the argument that unless we humans conquer our self-destructive warlike tendencies, we will wipe out our species and no longer be a threat to extrasolar civilizations. All well and good up to this point.

But then these optimists make the jump: If we are wise enough to survive and not wipe ourselves out, we will be peaceful -- so peaceful that we will not wipe anybody else out, and as we are below on Earth, so other people will be above.

This is a non sequitur, because there is no guarantee that one follows the other, and for a very important reason: "They" are not part of our species.

Before we proceed any further, try the following thought experiment: watch the films Platoon and Aliens together and ask yourself if the plot lines don't quickly blur and become indistinguishable. You'll recall that in Vietnam, American troops were taught to regard the enemy as "Charlie" or "Gook," dehumanizing words that made "them" easier to kill. In like manner, the British, Spanish, and French conquests of the discovery period were made easier by declaring dark- or red- or yellow-skinned people as something less than human, as a godless, faceless "them," as literally another species.

Presumably there is some sort of inhibition against killing another member of our own species, because we have to work to overcome it...

But the rules do not apply to other species. Both humans and wolves lack inhibitions against killing chickens.

Humans kill other species all the time, even those with which we share the common bond of high intelligence. As you read this, hundreds of dolphins are being killed by tuna fishermen and drift netters. The killing goes on and on, and dolphins are not even a threat to us.

As near as we can tell, there is no inhibition against killing another species simply because it displays a high intelligence. So, as much as we love him, Carl Sagan's theory that if a species makes it to the top and does not blow itself apart, then it will be nice to other intelligent species is probably wrong. Once you admit interstellar species will not necessarily be nice to one another simply by virtue of having survived, then you open up this whole nightmare of relativistic civilizations exterminating one another.

It's an entirely new situation, emerging from the physical possibilities that will face any species that can overcome the natural interstellar quarantine of its solar system. The choices seem unforgiving, and the mind struggles to imagine circumstances under which an interstellar species might make contact without triggering the realization that it can't afford to be proven wrong in its fears.

Got that? We can't afford to wait to be proven wrong.

They won't come to get our resources or our knowledge or our women or even because they're just mean and want power over us. They'll come to destroy us to insure their survival, even if we're no apparent threat, because species death is just too much to risk, however remote the risk...

The most humbling feature of the relativistic bomb is that even if you happen to see it coming, its exact motion and position can never be determined; and given a technology even a hundred orders of magnitude above our own, you cannot hope to intercept one of these weapons. It often happens, in these discussions, that an expression from the old west arises: "God made some men bigger and stronger than others, but Mr. Colt made all men equal." Variations on Mr. Colt's weapon are still popular today, even in a society that possesses hydrogen bombs. Similarly, no matter how advanced civilizations grow, the relativistic bomb is not likely to go away...

We ask that you try just one more thought experiment. Imagine yourself taking a stroll through Manhattan, somewhere north of 68th street, deep inside Central Park, late at night. It would be nice to meet someone friendly, but you know that the park is dangerous at night. That's when the monsters come out. There's always a strong undercurrent of drug dealings, muggings, and occasional homicides.

It is not easy to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys. They dress alike, and the weapons are concealed. The only difference is intent, and you can't read minds.

Stay in the dark long enough and you may hear an occasional distance shriek or blunder across a body.

How do you survive the night? The last thing you want to do is shout, "I'm here!" The next to last thing you want to do is reply to someone who shouts, "I'm a friend!"

What you would like to do is find a policeman, or get out of the park. But you don't want to make noise or move towards a light where you might be spotted, and it is difficult to find either a policeman or your way out without making yourself known. Your safest option is to hunker down and wait for daylight, then safely walk out.

There are, of course, a few obvious differences between Central Park and the universe.

There is no policeman.

There is no way out.

And the night never ends.

Edited August 23, 2013 by Nutt007

[Stargate525]

I never agreed with The Killing Star proposal of a hostile universe. It's also assuming that no other species has been stupid, no one has yelled out 'I'm here' or 'I'm a friend.' It assumes that every species evolves sapience alone on its planet, assumes that they didn't evolve in tandem with another easily-reachable planet with life (Say, if Venus were earthlike, had Venutians). It assumes, most damning, that not a single species is willing to trust.

[Diche Bach]

There is also the Rare Earth Hypothesis, in which the absence of any obvious signs of any other intelligent life in the galaxy is taken to be just that: a sign of a lack of any other intelligent life in the galaxy.

I realize that with acceptance of evolutionary theory, it has become a widely regarded idea that, all you need for "life to evolve" is a planet in the habitable zone and with the proper mix of organic chemistry. There are a number of reasons it might not be so simple. In contrast, some theorists believe that, even if a planet has essentially ideal conditions for the evolution of life, certain essentially random events which may be necessary to get life going and/or to promote the multiple hierarchical steps of adaptive radiation to lead to intelligent life might be so infrequent as to effectively be close to 0% chance of happening even over billions of years.

According to this line of theory, the evolution of life at all, much less the evolution of the sorts incredibly complex ecosystems and mind-boggling diverse phylogenetic 'trees' we see on Earth may essentially be so rare as to be unique.

From what I know about the evolution of life and the evolution of diversity, I have to say that these ideas have some appeal to me, though I'm not enough of an expert to say I think they are correct.

In sum, there are some who argue that we just might be truly alone in the cosmos, even if there are hundreds of millions of "habitable planets" in the galaxy.

Even if the evolution of life in general is not so rare as some have argued, the evolution of complex intelligent life like a chicken or a lizard (much less a monkey or a dog) may nonetheless be an exceedingly rare thing.

To put it quite simply: it may well be that there are no other intelligent aliens out there to worry about. Only real way to know is to go see for ourselves.

[Scotius]

Nah, i don't think it's as bad Diche Bach. Do you remember discussions about prevalence of planets in Universe back in XX century? Before Mr. Wolszczan found those first exoplanets around a pulsar of all things, many astronomers created fantastic theories about uniqueness of our Solar System. Some calculated that there might be only several planetary systems in our entire Galaxy. Finally our scientific methods and instruments evolved past a certain point, we learned where to look and fo what. And now we know about hundreds of planets only in immediate neighbourhood of the Sun. I believe the same about extraterestial life - we will find it in due time.

[jwenting]

I never agreed with The Killing Star proposal of a hostile universe. It's also assuming that no other species has been stupid, no one has yelled out 'I'm here' or 'I'm a friend.' It assumes that every species evolves sapience alone on its planet, assumes that they didn't evolve in tandem with another easily-reachable planet with life (Say, if Venus were earthlike, had Venutians). It assumes, most damning, that not a single species is willing to trust.

well and true, but can you risk it?

We've already sent out decades of "I am here" signals, a lot of them plainly showing we can't be trusted, are extremely aggressive, and not very intelligent to boot.

Video of the Vietnam war and WW2, Mr. Ed, I Love Lucy, and dozens of 1950s SciFi films about how we're killing aliens are now well past the nearest stars.

If those contain listening stations monitoring that new upstart species that's becoming technological, as the operator of those stations I'd already be preparing the campaign to sanitise that blue/green planet and blast its inhabitants into their subatomic particles the moment they develop the ability to leave their solar system even on sub-light ships.

[Diche Bach]

Nah, i don't think it's as bad Diche Bach. Do you remember discussions about prevalence of planets in Universe back in XX century? Before Mr. Wolszczan found those first exoplanets around a pulsar of all things, many astronomers created fantastic theories about uniqueness of our Solar System. Some calculated that there might be only several planetary systems in our entire Galaxy. Finally our scientific methods and instruments evolved past a certain point, we learned where to look and fo what. And now we know about hundreds of planets only in immediate neighbourhood of the Sun. I believe the same about extraterestial life - we will find it in due time.

Have a read of that Wikipedia page on the Rare Earth hypothesis. I find it very difficult to dispel or refute many of their points.

[NovaSilisko]

I've never really seen the point in looking for radio signals / sending radio signals for communications with other civilizations. The timespan that we'll be using radio before moving on to something better is so hilariously small compared to the lifetime of our own civilization and on a general cosmic time scale.

The chances of 1. a civilization being near enough to receive these signals and 2. a civilization being at the precise stage of technology to have radio equipment capable of receiving our signals are infinitesimal. And who's to say they ever developed radio in the first place? Maybe they use light beams transmitted between distant towers because the gravity of their planet allows very tall structures to be constructed with ease.

I'm a proponent of what I'd call the "kinda rare earth hypothesis", where microbial life is effectively everywhere, multicelled life is occasional, moderate intelligence comes around at about the rate it does on earth (we have quite intelligent species here besides human, most apes, dolphins, etc), actual civilization is one of the rarest phenomena in the universe.

So, on the topic of "would going interstellar get us killed", I'd answer with a pretty certain "nope".

[shand]

well and true, but can you risk it?

We've already sent out decades of "I am here" signals, a lot of them plainly showing we can't be trusted, are extremely aggressive, and not very intelligent to boot.

Video of the Vietnam war and WW2, Mr. Ed, I Love Lucy, and dozens of 1950s SciFi films about how we're killing aliens are now well past the nearest stars.

If those contain listening stations monitoring that new upstart species that's becoming technological, as the operator of those stations I'd already be preparing the campaign to sanitise that blue/green planet and blast its inhabitants into their subatomic particles the moment they develop the ability to leave their solar system even on sub-light ships.

Doubtful - wave attenuation, especially of analogue signals, would make detection difficult beyond 1-2 LY even if you are specifically looking for it

digital data would be easier to detect, but they'd have to decode it, which depends on them being bothered enough to decode it and have the technology to do so.

BTW, this is referring to terrestrial broadcast/omnidirectional. beamed signals are orders of magnitude stronger but highly directional - we use these to communicate with probes ect.

[Nibb31]

There is also the Rare Earth Hypothesis, in which the absence of any obvious signs of any other intelligent life in the galaxy is taken to be just that: a sign of a lack of any other intelligent life in the galaxy.

Imagine that there is one single hostile species (as in the Killing Star hypothesis) with relativistic FTL technology. FTL weapons typically have the ability to break causality: you can kill before the threat even exists. Any emerging civilization that emits a signal would be pre-emptively destroyed by the hostile species BEFORE they got the chance to emit that signal. The hostile species would then return into blackout mode and passively listen for the next signal.

The result for an external observer (like us) would be the absence of any obvious signs of any other intelligent life in the galaxy.

[Diche Bach]

Imagine that there is one single hostile species (as in the Killing Star hypothesis) with relativistic FTL technology. FTL weapons typically have the ability to break causality: you can kill before the threat even exists. Any emerging civilization that emits a signal would be pre-emptively destroyed by the hostile species BEFORE they got the chance to emit that signal. The hostile species would then return into blackout mode and passively listen for the next signal.

The result for an external observer (like us) would be the absence of any obvious signs of any other intelligent life in the galaxy.

Only two things I can say to this!

1. I personally doubt it.

2. We all gotta die sometime!

Sure, there is a chance that us going interstellar will get us all killed. Seems irrelevant though, cause you know if anyone makes a breakthrough that shows clearly that a warp drive is definitely possible in 10 or 15 years that every government, every corporation, every Tom, Dick and Harry is gonna want in on the action.

For one thing, the capacity to safely and rapidly send vehicles to the remote parts of our solar system could revolutionize industry and science too.

And then of course there is the irresistible lure of other stars.

If there is one thing that you can say for absolute certain about humanity: we are intrepid. There could be fleets of intergalactic aliens threatening to invade if we fire up our first FTL drive and there will still be groups/govts who will not be able to resist the temptation.

I still say warp drive would be the single best thing humanity ever accomplished; but I see the point of the killing star scenario. It is true that it is a possibility, perhaps even a strong possibility!

Edited August 23, 2013 by Diche Bach

[Scotius]

Possibility - yes. Strong possibility - no. We do not have enough data to calculate the odds. And we will not have it, until we finally find intelligent alien life. Until then we can generally do two things: either keep looking, or huddle in our little corner of the Universe and fear monsters that might be lurking in the dark. Since we are who we are, i'm pretty sure we will chose the first option.

[magnemoe]

Imagine that there is one single hostile species (as in the Killing Star hypothesis) with relativistic FTL technology. FTL weapons typically have the ability to break causality: you can kill before the threat even exists. Any emerging civilization that emits a signal would be pre-emptively destroyed by the hostile species BEFORE they got the chance to emit that signal. The hostile species would then return into blackout mode and passively listen for the next signal.

The result for an external observer (like us) would be the absence of any obvious signs of any other intelligent life in the galaxy.

Far higher chance of them going back in time to fix something in their history first and do some fatal mistake wiping them self out.

Newer understand how travel faster than light would bring you back in time. Say you send an message from Alpha centauri to earth 4.4 years later it reach me. I has the ability to jump instantly to you and will arrive 4.4 year after you sent the message not at the time you sent it and obviously not before.

have read someone who tried to explain the faster than light equal time travel but it made no sense. To me it looked like they took relativity a bit to far but is no expert in the area.

[Omicron314]

Far higher chance of them going back in time to fix something in their history first and do some fatal mistake wiping them self out.

Newer understand how travel faster than light would bring you back in time. Say you send an message from Alpha centauri to earth 4.4 years later it reach me. I has the ability to jump instantly to you and will arrive 4.4 year after you sent the message not at the time you sent it and obviously not before.

have read someone who tried to explain the faster than light equal time travel but it made no sense. To me it looked like they took relativity a bit to far but is no expert in the area.

That's not necessarily true. As far as special relativity is concerned, it is impossible to travel backwards through time. Going past the speed of light creates a time dilation effect of imaginary numbers. Just look at the equation. If you traveled at twice the speed of light for a year:

t' = t/sqrt(1 - 2c^2/c^2) = y/sqrt(-1) = -(y)i

Where t' is perceived time, t is actual time, and y is just shorthand for a year. So in the end, you would travel a year through an imaginary time flow. But even if that were possible, the Alcubierre Drive is not actually going faster than light. It's just moving the space around it faster than light. Therefore, relativistic effects such as time dilation do not occur.

[m4v]

Yeah yeah, we know what White is doing, make a new thread once Harold has found his negative mass matter for make his Alcubierre drive work.

[magnemoe]

I've never really seen the point in looking for radio signals / sending radio signals for communications with other civilizations. The timespan that we'll be using radio before moving on to something better is so hilariously small compared to the lifetime of our own civilization and on a general cosmic time scale.

The chances of 1. a civilization being near enough to receive these signals and 2. a civilization being at the precise stage of technology to have radio equipment capable of receiving our signals are infinitesimal. And who's to say they ever developed radio in the first place? Maybe they use light beams transmitted between distant towers because the gravity of their planet allows very tall structures to be constructed with ease.

I'm a proponent of what I'd call the "kinda rare earth hypothesis", where microbial life is effectively everywhere, multicelled life is occasional, moderate intelligence comes around at about the rate it does on earth (we have quite intelligent species here besides human, most apes, dolphins, etc), actual civilization is one of the rarest phenomena in the universe.

So, on the topic of "would going interstellar get us killed", I'd answer with a pretty certain "nope".

Even if we don't find anything better it would just be an limited time. The age of high powered unidirectional transmitters are limited, now we move more and more to low power cell based signals to save bandwidth. Guess the TV broadcasting will end in 30 years or less.

As for life it started pretty fast on earth after the planet could support life. Advanced multicelled shortly after earth got enough oxygen to support it so both look easy.

Intelligence looks harder. Yes multiple mammals are pretty smart, however getting intelligence is quite an jump. It also have an plenty of requirements like an high enough metabolism, some reason to have an pretty big brain and naturally hands or something similar for the next step.

Looks like social interaction will generate an pressure for more intelligence. Other humans was the most complex factor for early humans.

Civilization is easy at least for humans, appeared many times independent. One weakness is that many of them was very static like old China and actively resisted change.

Technical civilization only happen once, it also has an long list of requirements, science worldview is one and its also very rare as in happen once however some has come close a couple of times.

After it started it accelerated fast.

On the other hand the industrial revolution might be pretty automatically, you need precise machining who is also needed making guns, the printing press was developed some centuries before and was important to spread knowledge. Once you have it some will stumble over steam engines, the thought had existed for a long time.

So where are they?

[magnemoe]

That's not necessarily true. As far as special relativity is concerned, it is impossible to travel backwards through time. Going past the speed of light creates a time dilation effect of imaginary numbers. Just look at the equation. If you traveled at twice the speed of light for a year:

t' = t/sqrt(1 - 2c^2/c^2) = y/sqrt(-1) = -(y)i

Where t' is perceived time, t is actual time, and y is just shorthand for a year. So in the end, you would travel a year through an imaginary time flow. But even if that were possible, the Alcubierre Drive is not actually going faster than light. It's just moving the space around it faster than light. Therefore, relativistic effects such as time dilation do not occur.

Yes, using relativity on faster than light does not work, its cute mathematics but in practice it worse than doing an gravity slingshot around the Mun with Pe at -100 km, worse as that give an serious trajectory change both in theory and practice

You can not cross the light speed barrier by accelerating, you have to cheat if its possible.

[Seret]

Another step forward in this field has been the study of quantum-thrusters, which are likened to the propulsion system of a submarine

I don't understand this analogy. Can you explain?

[Omicron314]

I don't understand this analogy. Can you explain?

Honestly, I have no idea. That's just what it said in the article.

Here's the wiki article, though.

[Seret]

Honestly, I have no idea. That's just what it said in the article.

Here's the wiki article, though.

I don't really see what any of that has to do with submarines. Submarines use propellors. The power plant is either diesel/electric or a nuclear reactor, and sometimes some oddball AIP stuff like Stirling engines and fuel cells.

*Edit*

Ah, wait hang on! I see the link! There were some experimental drives that worked on magnetohydrodynamic principles. That's what the Red October was supposed to have used in the book and film of the same name. They're not actually used, because they're desperately slow and inefficient.

Edited August 24, 2013 by Seret

[Scotius]

I don't really see what any of that has to do with submarines. Submarines use propellors. The power plant is either diesel/electric or a nuclear reactor, and sometimes some oddball AIP stuff like Stirling engines and fuel cells.

*Edit*

Ah, wait hang on! I see the link! There were some experimental drives that worked on magnetohydrodynamic principles. That's what the Red October was supposed to have used in the book and film of the same name. They're not actually used, because they're desperately slow and inefficient.

Kinda like Quantum thruster is now It thrust is so tiny, even ion engines look powerful in comparision. But still...that thing creates its own propellant out of void! How freaking cool it is?