link here
AJ
funny.
I just started writing a first manned 'warp' drive spaceship story.
I had to do all of that reasearch myself.
Maybe one day i'll learn.
Thanks.
Shad.
Even ignoring Remus2's qualifications on NASA's data, the information they provide is utterly bogus. There is no conceivable way to implement a 'black hole' warp-engine drive, as the black hole would instantly consume anything within. While a few stray atoms might escape if they miss the event horizon, the entire ship would still be nothing more than a few stray atoms floating through space.
There are many much better sources of information about constructing legitimate justifications for FTL speed than them nonsense suggestions.
As for Remus2's argument, keep in mind that, despite everyone and their moral brother using the term, "quantum" simply refers to how the laws of physics operate different on the sub-atomic level. When you get down into individual quarks, all the standard rules of physics break down completely.
That doesn't change what happens to individuals in your story, as the 'quantum' universe is completely different than that which humans operate in.
In fact, the one use of Quantum which continually annoys me is the currently hot-trending "Quantum Computer". There is nothing 'quantum' about a machine that dissipates heat a little better than other computers. Some marketing 'genius' decided the insane expensive computers would be easier to sell if they added "Quantum" to the name.
Essentially, "Quantum" only applies to entities the size of a light particle (i.e. those elements that we will NEVER have any way of photographing)! Anything the size of a standard electron is WAY to massive to be effected by Quantum physics!
There is no conceivable way to implement a 'black hole' warp-engine drive, as the black hole would instantly consume anything within. While a few stray atoms might escape if they miss the event horizon, the entire ship would still be nothing more than a few stray atoms floating through space.
While I agree that this one seems unlikely/implausible, with tech capable of artificial gravity to the point of creating an artificial singularity it would not be impossible.
As I understand the idea, it involves an artificial singularity created as a projection from the ship, with a very low radius event horizon, perhaps only a few meters. The ship gets pulled towards the singularity, but since the singularity is a projection created by the ship's engine, as the ship moves forward, so does the singularity, thus the ship never actually touches the event horizon.
Of course even outside the radius of the event horizon, with a gravity field that strong, tidal effects can be large enough to be very destructive even over short distances. But again with the ability to create artificial gravity fields at that level, it should be possible to shield the ship from such effects.
The idea is implausible for different reasons. Even assuming tech capable of generating an artificial gravity well, the energy needed for a singularity grade gravity well would be inconceivable.
The idea is implausible for different reasons. Even assuming tech capable of generating an artificial gravity well, the energy needed for a singularity grade gravity well would be inconceivable.
Actually, my Not-Quite Human series address this particular issue, as it reared it's ugly head a few times. Rather than using conventional engines, my heroes were using one which created self-continuing fission reactions in the ship's core. That way, by 'feeding' the engine simple elements like carbon or hydrogen, which are easily accessible and generated, you've had virtually unlimited energy. The only restriction is the they'd need to vent the 'fuel' once it reaches a certain density, lest it increase the ship's own gravity signature, thereby affecting its travel.
The obvious downside, just like with the black holes, is the a fission engine would automatically consume any container that it was housed in. However, recent mathematical model-based discovers show that by applying magnetic charges to the container walls, you can keep the reactions contained within a specific region (i.e. away from the artificial magnetic fields)—something you couldn't easily do with an artificial black hole, where any stray atoms or interstellar gas would like generate fluctuations in the artificial gravity generated by your engines.
Still, I'd used the same technique as NASA is advocating, but I left out relying on black holes to generate it, simply highlighting how generating space ahead of a spaceship would easily allow it to accelerate many time faster than the speed of light (as the ship technically isn't moving, the space ahead of the ship is, and is merely 'dragging' the ship along. Getting into the questionable techniques which might generate doesn't really help the idea, as it only raises obvious red flags. :(
Helping readers understand complex ideas makes for sensible storytelling, but getting bogged down in complicated details just drags the story into the weeds, where it quickly sinks under its own weight.
Actually, my Not-Quite Human series address this particular issue, as it reared it's ugly head a few times. Rather than using conventional engines, my heroes were using one which created self-continuing fission reactions in the ship's core. That way, by 'feeding' the engine simple elements like carbon or hydrogen, which are easily accessible and generated, you've had virtually unlimited energy.
1) did you mean fusion rather than fission? You can't fission hydrogen, and fission is not that hard to contain, we do it all the time.
2) To me, while all postulated methods of FTL travel would require staggering amounts of energy vs what we can conceivably generate today, they aren't all equal in terms of energy requirements and an artificial singularity based drive would be among the worst in terms of energy requirements. I'm skeptical that even a large fusion reactor would be sufficient.
1) did you mean fusion rather than fission? You can't fission hydrogen, and fission is not that hard to contain, we do it all the time.
Duh! Year, I meant duplicating the fusion reactions that power our sun, and every other star in the universe (whichever one you want to consider).
2) To me, while all postulated methods of FTL travel would require staggering amounts of energy vs what we can conceivably generate today, they aren't all equal in terms of energy requirements and an artificial singularity based drive would be among the worst in terms of energy requirements. I'm skeptical that even a large fusion reactor would be sufficient.
That's valid. But the only other possible solutions for FTL travel are either artificially generated wormholes (which are equally as problematic), or jumping between alternative universes (Star Wars styles FTL drives), which depends on String Theory, which everyone who's ever watched The Big Bang Theory TV show knows, has been largely discredited (as there's not a single piece or corroborating evidence to support the purely mathematical models).
Which is why I prefer establishing the basic premise of FTL travel (expanding space ahead of you, so you'll simply be carried along by it), rather than arguing obscure details about how it's implemented, which NO ONE will ever agree with.
Expanding Space is a general concept which most people will understand, and relatively quickly grasp. Whether ANY container can survive a black hole or wormhole just isn't worth diving into voluntarily.
That said, I've also written several stories which do play with the alternate universe theory (to explain FTL travel), and I've been planning another that deals with using alternate timelines to achieve time travel, but the physics is much less clear.
Which is why I prefer establishing the basic premise of FTL travel (expanding space ahead of you, so you'll simply be carried along by it),
1) Which is the cardinal opposite of a singularity which compresses space/time.
And given a relatively recent theory that observed expansion of the universe is space/time itself expanding like an inflated balloon rather than objects moving apart within space/time, I can imagine a much lower energy requirement than an artificial singularity.
2) Or behind you where the expansion pushes you forward the way an ocean wave pushes a surfer.
ETA. Here is how I would envision this sort of drive, a gravity well curves space time "down", causing objects to move towards the center of the curvature. The localized expansion of space time, causes space time to buckle "up" creating a sort of anti-gravity that pushes objects away from the center of the expansion.
Whether ANY container can survive a black hole or wormhole just isn't worth diving into voluntarily.
The stories I can recall using a singularity as motive power (as opposed to using it as an energy source) had the artificial singularity generated/projected external to the ship itself, it wasn't in any sort of container.
The same goes for ships using artificial wormholes, the wormhole is generated external to the ship, it's not inside some sort of structure.
1) Which is the cardinal opposite of a singularity which compresses space/time.
Except, the primary theory for how space expands is due to the gravitational pull of dark matter (i.e. it's essentially the same force as a black hole's singularity). However, that inherently means that gravity both draws large bodies together, while simultaneously driving them apart.
Personally, I tend to favor the view that the expansion of space is due to another, separate force which limits the amount of matter in any given region (aka. a sort of 'anti-gravity' force).
2) To me, while all postulated methods of FTL travel would require staggering amounts of energy vs what we can conceivably generate today, they aren't all equal in terms of energy requirements and an artificial singularity based drive would be among the worst in terms of energy requirements. I'm skeptical that even a large fusion reactor would be sufficient.
Energy on that scale will likely come down to figuring out how to harness zero-point energy. As of this moment, it's not possible, but experiments with liquid hydrogen and in vacuums has shown ZPE does in fact exist. There is no leading theory as it's relatively a new branch of quantum physics, but the energy output has the possibility of meeting the needs you speak of.
In fact, the one use of Quantum which continually annoys me is the currently hot-trending "Quantum Computer". There is nothing 'quantum' about a machine that dissipates heat a little better than other computers.
In context of a specific machine, you may be right. In the broader context, the folks over at Yale and others would argue with you.
https://scitechdaily.com/physicists-complete-first-end-to-end-quantum-data-transmission-done-on-demand/
In context of a specific machine, you may be right. In the broader context, the folks over at Yale and others would argue with you.
Ah, but that's not the same Quantum functionality which Quantum Computers are supposedly using. In that case, by using qubits (essentially, 'pieces' of a light wave), they are operating on a Quantum, rather than an ordinary physical scale. But, even though quantum data transmission is nearly instantaneous (another detail I included in my Not-Quite Human series, the data transmission is still limited to the speed of light, which makes it implausible when dealing with ships traveling faster than the speed of light (a fact I simply avoiding raising in my story).
In general, you can't apply quantum physics to electrical wires and transistors, which are easily fashioned by human engineering. It only applies to those elements which exist on a quantum scale.
In general, you can't apply quantum physics to electrical wires and transistors, which are easily fashioned by human engineering. It only applies to those elements which exist on a quantum scale.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonant-tunneling_diode
http://www.pbs.org/transistor/science/info/qmsemi.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-emitting_diode_physics
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_dot
Geez, I hate Forum homework!
Checking out each article (I skipped the final one), the first two do not describe conventional wire, computers or transistors, but special instances where the theoretical 'walls' are so thin, that they're as small as a single electron (try building that from Radio Shack spare parts). - These uses typically rely on the newly discovered 'graphite sheets', which are composed of a sheet (wall) consisting on only single connected atoms—which, by the way, was discovered completely by accident, rather than by design. Even then, the graphite sheet isn't what's effecting the behavior, it's that the electrons and waves change their behavior when striking the 'larger' single-atom structures, thus it's an interaction between quantum mechanics and 'near-quantum' substances.
In the case of LEDs, you're once again talking about non-quantum, traditional physics, as you're discussing standard electronics used to create an alternate light source. You're not even close to a quantum level. Instead, you're generating heat, which generates the light, which is a 'traditional' as traditional physics gets (think of something as massive as the sun, rather than something too small to comprehend what's actually happening inside).
Trust me, even though it's been decades since I've walked into a science class, I consume these news stories every day in preparing for future stories, so I'm familiar with the principles.
I'm familiar with the principals.
The headmaster or the leader of other teachers? Perhaps you are familiar with principles.
Hear my ple(a), its a matter of principle, your principal can not be your pal.
From online:
"What is difference between principal and principle?
Principal is a noun and adjective with specialized meanings in finance and law but most commonly used to refer to someone in a position of authority or high prominence. Principle is only a noun and refers to a natural, moral, legal rule or standard. ... PrinciPLEs are rules or standards and they cannot be your pal."
Let me be blunt since you are apparently being obtuse. The last link ties it together for the LED. Quantum dots are part of that. Quantum tunneling is part of that. Bottom line is, quantum physics is involved in a multitude of every day electronics. Solar cells, LED, transistors, etc.
I don't know what your hang up is, other than maybe being too invested in your story, but you are simply wrong to dismiss all out of hand in the manner you are attempting.
Einstein, Bohr, Bell, and many other of the greatest minds in Science the world has ever seen, ever claimed to know for certain what you claim to know for certain. I suggest you check your assumptions.
In the case of LEDs, you're once again talking about non-quantum, traditional physics, as you're discussing standard electronics used to create an alternate light source. You're not even close to a quantum level. Instead, you're generating heat, which generates the light, which is a 'traditional' as traditional physics gets (think of something as massive as the sun, rather than something too small to comprehend what's actually happening inside).
That isn't at all how LEDs work. That's how old-fashioned incandescent light bulbs work: They use resistive heating to cause a nichrome filament to glow white-hot — emitting blackbody radiation across the spectrum — which wastes a lot of power and produces a lot of waste heat generating light in parts of the spectrum that we can't see. (Though useful in an E-Z Bake Oven.)
The reason LED bulbs are so much cooler-operating and lower-power than equivalent-brightness incandescents is that they don't do that. LEDs generate light when an electron crossing the diode's P-N junction drops from a higher-energy quantum state to a lower-energy one, and in the process releases a photon carrying the excess energy. They're monochromatic because the frequency of the photon is determined by the size of the "band gap" — the energy difference between the P side and the N side — rather than by the temperature of the emitter.
There isn't actually any such thing as a white LED, for basically the same reason there's no such thing as a white laser. LEDs that produce white light are faked up by combining multiple different-colored LEDs or by coating them in phosphors that fill in the missing part of the visible spectrum when stimulated by the LED — usually a blue LED with yellow or orange phosphorescent coating.
Trust me, even though it's been decades since I've walked into a science class, I consume these news stories every day in preparing for future stories, so I'm familiar with the principles.
No, you're not.
Agreed in full. But apparently you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink when the horse is convinced it's not water.
wait, why was i even tagged here??
You're a career criminal, guilty of writing criminally good stories.
AJ
Taking advice from NASA on that subject is sketchy at best.
The operative word is "fiction." Everything you'll find out of NASA will be tainted with known 'laws of physics' which has little to do with fiction. Remember, the earth was once considered flat by susposed learned individuals.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/improbable-thruster-seems-work-violating-known-laws-physics/
NASA has tried to kill the EmDrive/Cannae drive for years. Their own test have shown it worked. China has a test cubsat using it in orbit now, and Cannae themselves will have one up soon.
https://www.space.com/17628-warp-drive-possible-interstellar-spaceflight.html
Then there is the warp drive. What do those two stories have in common? That's right, NASA has tried to kill it with disinformation as well.
Another thing they have in common is both of them get into the quantum world.
For clarification, quantum physics is considered to be a major branch of science, and quantum mechanics is considered to be a branch of quantum physics. Many people use the terms interchangeably, but there is a difference.
Einstein considered the quantum world as "spooky action at a distance."
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/427174/einsteins-spooky-action-at-a-distance-paradox-older-than-thought/
The pissing match between Bohr and Einstein wasn't resolved until the 60s with Bell's entanglement theory. Which btw, left more questions than answers.
Point of all that is, NASA has always hung their hat on Einstein's interpretations and systematically taking apart any dispute as garbage. An odd way to be given that they regularly make use of quantum physics even if they don't claim it or acknowledge it.
The only thing current science fiction writers should avoid, is anything to date that has been demonstrated/proven to be wrong.
Short of that demonstration, it should be considered viable fodder for the story.
My .02
The only thing current science fiction writers should avoid, is anything to date that has been demonstrated/proven to be wrong.
We'll have to disagree on that. Our knowledge of science is still in its infancy, and so much of what was once considered 'proven' has now been shown to be incorrect.
AJ
I have no sf story yet but it will use a Subquantum drive based on the huge break through in physics by Mary Jackson. Science thought the quark was the smallest thing to be found, but Mary proved them wrong by stuffing her purse beyond the know laws of physics. Why let those small minds hold you down?
Science thought the quark was the smallest thing to be found, but Mary proved them wrong by stuffing her purse beyond the know laws of physics. Why let those small minds hold you down?
The proverbial 'little black-hole purse'.
By the way, black holes are SUPER massive, so they're well beyond the scale of quantum mechanics. However, since they're also super dense, compacting everything to a single singularity, everything within them operates on a quantum level, no matter how friggin' massive it is.
No one truly knows if dark matter actually exist. Gravitational interactions among the stars and galaxies do not add up to explain all known/observable matter, therefore the astronomical community conjured the term/hypothesis "dark matter" to make their model fit.
They may or may not be right. Assuming they are right, they still don't know what exactly it is. Assuming they are wrong, then there is something else at play being ignored.
The only true constant in science is change. A good example of that is the understanding regarding the states of matter.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_of_matter
At one point in history, matter wasn't even recognized as such. Then it became solid, liquid, and gas. Later still plasma was added. Now several other states are recognized.
It's probably a good idea to keep an open mind, and not assume any science is settled until physically proven. Models are all well and good, but models are not infallible.
No one truly knows if dark matter actually exist. Gravitational interactions among the stars and galaxies do not add up to explain all known/observable matter, therefore the astronomical community conjured the term/hypothesis "dark matter" to make their model fit.
Um. I think you're confusing a few of the "dark" stuff there. Dark matter is rather well observed nowadays through effects of gravitational lenses it creates. It is weird as fuck, and it's true no one understands what the stuff is or even could be (except probably neutrinos, but that doesn't compute either), but the gravitational effects of dark matter are being observed, discussions about different dark matter content of different galaxies are held, etc. It apparently interacts with normal matter so weakly that other interactions than gravity can be ignored, but stuff like dark matter clouds lagging behind galaxies, slipping thru ghost-like or even drifting semi-independently are supposedly registered. (Sorry, no links, I'm lazy.)
Now, the "dark energy" supposedly responsible for accelerating expansion of spacetime is as likely a clever mathematical trick as anything else.
Dark matter is rather well observed nowadays through effects of gravitational lenses it creates.
The observation of gravitational lenses doesn't prove that dark matter is the cause.
I think you're confusing a few of the "dark" stuff there. Dark matter is rather well observed nowadays through effects of gravitational lenses it creates.
As I said;
the astronomical community conjured the term/hypothesis "dark matter" to make their model fit.
No lab has reproduced its effects as they have ZPE or other things like time slowing for the special relativity theory, or quantum physics. There are no direct observations, only indirect observations (your gravitational lenses) of something they can't readily name or understand.
As a result, they 'conjure' something up to make their models work.
What they refuse to look at, is that there is a more mundane explanation for those "gravitational lenses."
Though predicted, the existence of gravitational waves was not directly observed until Feb. 2016.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO
Subsequently, gravitational waves have been directly detected several more times, which effectively changed a hypothesis into a theory well on its way to a physics law.
Wave mechanics has long since been proven both in mechanical form, and energy. Phased array radar would not exist otherwise. As of 2016, there is a new/old form of energy to investigate under the principles of wave mechanics. In fact, elements of that have already created the first electromagnetic lens.
https://www.photonicsonline.com/doc/optical-phased-array-technology-could-make-lens-based-cameras-obsolete-0001
With that, wave mechanics once again extends itself to another form of energy (again), that being light. In fact, there isn't a form of energy that it hasn't been proven applicable to in the relativistic universe.
So why then does the scientific community insist of dark matter being the cause when wave mechanics (interference patterns, super-positioning, etc) can readily explain the results? Especially now that gravitational waves are no longer just a hypothesis?
Application of KISS to the problem would trash a lot of assumptions along with heavily invested opinions. That in my opinion is why they will continue to chase that ghost.
That's my .02 on it.
So in other words, you can't invent a warp drive but 6 breasted aliens with 4 eyes are totally believable.
You don't get paid much per word.
True, but if I can get even one person to apply critical thinking skills to the status quo, it is payment enough.