So with all those sexy IXS photos floating around, I thought I’d condense all that wild data into one place of relevant links and information for discussion. Let’s see how that goes.
In 1994, Miguel Alcubierre of the National Autonomous University of Mexico proposed a metric that would reconcile faster than light travel with Einstein’s relativity equations. This “Alcubierre Drive” was based on the idea that a sphere of matter with a negative energy density would cause space-time to warp around a given craft and thus propel it at relative superluminal speeds without actually having any matter or energy go past the speed of light. The idea was that, just as Dark Energy inflates the Universe as what is clearly a superluminal rate, that even though matter and energy can’t go faster than lightspeed; space itself could CURVE superluminally and therefore warping space in this manner would allow an FTL craft to exist without breaking relativity.
The issue arose when in the course of calculations, the negative mass needed would have exceeded the mass of negative Jupiter.
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.
“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 )
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.
Speaking absolutely pragmatically.
If the inteferometer works, we'd be intersteller by mid decade at the most conservative.
Especially becasue the tech by its nature is cheap.
And science and governments LOVE cheap.
We have known about the possibility of FTL almost as long as we have known about light being the limiting velocity; the Einstein-Rosen bridge solution was discovered in 1935. I would say that as soon as geometric models of spacetime were put forward, FTL was a possibility, and as such was never considered retarded. Also, the phrase is "batshit crazy".
Also, the problem with this whole shebang: where do you get matter with negative energy density? In what theoretical framework could it exist? I'm not asking what evidence you have for its existence, just if you even have a model - no matter how unlikely - that contains this exotic matter. I think this is a step forward, but still means very little. It's like saying "if we can find a massless electrically charge particle something something magic", despite there being no evidence for such a thing.
Also, I'm not seeing anything in their slides about their experiments, only a hypothetical set-up. What exactly have they measured? I take it they have shown that the interferometer works, but that they still have no way of generating negative mass, correct?
And even more also, it seems this requires more than just changing the shape of the bubble for this to work; this is an extradimensional spacetime. Their works relies not only on string theory, but a very particular situation that could possibly occur in M-theory (which itself is without experimental evidence) called "brane cosmology".
This is great work, but there is no indication it is in any way feasible,
>Also, the problem with this whole shebang: where do you get matter with negative energy density? In what theoretical framework could it exist? I'm not asking what evidence you have for its existence, just if you even have a model - no matter how unlikely - that contains this exotic matter.
Negative Energy and the Cashimir Effect.
Not saying we would use those, but Negative Energy Density is definitely a Real World Thing.
The Casimir effect is analogous to negative mass, but obviously exists in only very specific circumstances. I did, in my post only mention matter of negative energy density, because all such devices, as currently proposed, rely on such. We would need a revolution in the understanding and manipulation of the Casimir effect before it could be used for these purposes. Is it even possible to use this effect to produce the required negative energy densities? Surely it, at best, does no more than cancel the vacuum energy.
>Negative Energy and the Cashimir Effect.
sort of... the equipment White is using is
>a ring of capacitors to produce a spherical field in the center of the ring
>dielectric used is barium titanate a material with piezo / ferromagnetic properties
what I'm trying to figure is how H. White intends to produce the needed negative mass
My point was that the current physical universe is one in which Negative mass Densisity exists.
If the intefmeter works; it will showcase that this FTL craft is possible in or universe.
>My point was that the current physical universe is one in which Negative mass Densisity exists.
I never said otherwise.
I said that there is no known matter with negative mass, which is an essential part of the engineering of these spacecraft.
I need to find his name again, but I'm pretty sure some researcher at Yale University spent 15 years on an experiment to detect the existence of Negative Energy and was able to get data that suggests its existence is real and acts on objects in a vacuum. Something about two plates being attracted to each other due to a small amount of negative energy, akin to the size of a blood cell.
I dont know how they plan to generate larger amounts of it. But keep in mind once we figured out nuclear reactions were possible in the lab, it only took us a couple years to make reactors and bombs.
If you have proof of concept and the right motivation, you can get really fast results.
I heard there was a possible problem with the build up of matter or energy at the front of the ship. When the ship turned off the bubble, it would launch all that built up energy at whatever the ship is pointing at. Sounds like a possible use for a weapon.
And we all know what humans can do in a short amount of time if you can weaponize technology.
I was talking to a NASA employee today and they said that the team working on the warp drive plans to have a proof of concept for the interferometer experiment by the end of this summer.
If the interferometer experiment works (ie they create a micro warp bubble), we can DEFINITELY expect to have a FTL drive by 2050.
Get hyped, faggots.
If they could, they would need to find a solution to all the tiny bits of dust and gas you are guaranteed to go through on the way there. I imagine ploughing into a rarefied gas in space at even relativistic speeds would be extremely hazardous
Is there somewhere I can donate to this project or something? I suddenly feel bad for not paying taxes for the past 3 years...
>I suddenly feel bad for not paying taxes for the past 3 years
If even 1% of the taxes I paid went to performing cutting edge scientific research I would not resent them nearly as much.
Yeah, and hoe do you think making space travel 20,000,000 times more efficient will effect that.
The moment they they get the right results, every nation on the planet with the budget will be racing to male a warpship.
And so far they HAVE gotten right results, but they need to be sure its not earth vibrations.
NASA is full of trekies.
This entire physical metric was made when a Mexican grad student watches an episode of Star Trek.
He actually sent it to Shatner .
This ship was designed by the CBS Star Trek crew, who have worked with NASA for years.
The odds of it not being the Enterprise are super slim.
The ship never actually moves. The warp makes it the center of a kind of artificial cosmic expansion.The universe passes AROUND it, not through it.
It'd just trawl anything in front of it like a galleon and a wave.
He is using interferometry to determine a change in the path length of light, which is a standard technique in spectroscopy. In a typical interferometer, the change in the path length is known and caused by a moving mirror which creates an interference pattern of known wavelengths hitting a sample where absorption is measured.
In the case of White, however, he is trying to use an unknown test article to change the path length of the light, and work his way backwards. White thinks this test article may induce a (relative)negative energy density in the vacuum of space which would make it appear as if the path length had changed (his calculations suggest that it would cause the photon to travel faster than c).
the image posted are the papers that he has published on the topic including theoretical models that suggest how a negative energy density may be achieved, how the alcuibierre warp drive would work if these new models are true, and the nature of the test that the OP is asking about
tl;dr, he is attempting to modify the dielectric of space to be negative with some instrument, which would allow the Alcubierre warp drive to work
>One day, Earth will be a pale shadow of its former self and humanity will number in the trillions; most of which will live in confined, utilitarian space habitats. That will be the state of humanity from that point on. We will live on the foreign shores of alien worlds longer than we were hunter gatherers in Africa. And all the while humans will search the sky for a blue dot and wonder what it must have been like living on the world you evolved on, the world you were born for; to be able to walk through fields of grass that share your genetic code, grass that you are related to; to live on a world that doesn't require constant supervision to maintain habitability, a world that takes care of you…
>Don’t get me wrong, I’d love nothing more than to walk across the surface of Mars. I’d jump at the chance to take a one way trip to the red planet if it was offered to me. I love space! However, just because space is amazing and just because humans are not exploring it doesn't mean the age we live in isn't just as amazing.
Would radiation even be relevant?
The drive would basically cause a micro big bang with the craft at the center; effective making the ship the center of a "localized universe" and then Big Banging its way through space.
Think of it like... Infra-Brahmanism
Mars a shit.
The Universe is so goddamn full of Planets that with anything nearing feasible interstellar travel; habitable worlds will be found like chocolate.
No one is going to spend trillions on making insanely complicated and high maintenance superstructure societies when we can just strap some people to a warp rocket and have them plop down in dirt and breathable air like we've been doing since we evolved.
Jesus, it's like that one guy back in Africa who wanted to go to Antartica; no Kralak; I think we'll head to the place WITH actual arable qualities.
a. Negative Energy densities are confirmed to exist, given the cosmic inflation
b. The drive is accelerating bartonic matter to negative baryon densities anyway. Did you read the article posted a few posts ago?
hahahahaha... dude, cosmic inflation is NOT proven. not by a long shot.
its taken to be likely true, but even the most diehard proponents in cosmology admit there exist other explanations for the redshift and none of them, including cosmic inflation, are readily testable as of yet.
There is absolutely no experimental support for the concept of negative energy densities, the proposal of which undermines all of the reasoning behind general relativity.
What we have here are simply space cadets taking the arguments in relativity that things are impossible, and turning them backward by injecting absurdities into them.
This is wilder than claiming that cold fusion will be ready for mass deployment over the summer so Europe doesn't need to worry about buying Russian natural gas.
NASA loves this shit because they never get called onto the carpet for not delivering on technology, as long as they deliver on jobs in key electoral districts and on dumptrucks of money for poltically-connected contractors. They fund crackpots, who they know are crackpots, so they can say they're "working on a warp drive" to get public support from the more scientifically-illiterate sort of space cadet for increasing NASA's budget.
Undermining relativity is not a bad thing.
Relativity relies on observations made in the electromagnetic spectrum. It is shit for the things that have little or no interaction with EM-band physics.
Well, no. It's the current working theory, for good reasons, but all we're actually sure of is that light from more distant galaxies tends to be more red-shifted compared to light from closer galaxies.
We don't know of another mechanism for them to be red-shifted except that they're moving away from us, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.
What we do know is that we don't know all of the physics yet, because with our current understanding it looks like there's dark matter and dark energy, but we don't know what those are or how they behave other than in the ways required to make our model work without changing the laws of gravity or the theory of the big bang and cosmic inflation.
>There is absolutely no experimental support for the concept of negative energy densities
Hey you know that big thing that's expanding at a superluninal rate?
That watchacallit, the ...Yoo-niverse?
Yeah, please tell me how the hell that happens without a Negative Energy Density.
You may as well try to say Gravity doesn't exist,
>The data implies the Universe is literally field with Negative Energy desnity
>Guys, Negative Energy Densities dont exist, muh crackpot muh relativity!
I mean come on, just because you cant into ?CDM doesnt mean something that's been measured in effect since the 1960s is fairy dust.
>Undermining relativity is not a bad thing.
It is when your predictions also depend on relativity. Then you're sawing off the branch you're standing on.
I'll tell you the actual standing of this research: a guy had an idea that it would be neat if warp drives could work, and now they're doing something to see if an effect exists what would make them work, without any prior evidence to suggest that the effect should exist.
Let me compare: I have an idea that it would be neat if I had a million dollars. Now I'm going to look under a rock and see if there's a million dollars under there. It's possible assuming that there are rich people who ascribe a negative value to money, and therefore put large amounts of money under rocks to get rid of it.
Even if Dark Energy doesnt exist, the fact that the Universe is expanding at all means that Negative Energy Densities are not just possible, but REQUIRED by the laws of physics.
>But the Universe isnt Expanding
Oh my fucking god, /sci/
>over two thirds of the known universe has a negative energy density
>please tell me how the hell that happens without a Negative Energy Density.
>The data implies the Universe is literally field with Negative Energy desnity
The mainstream cosmological models don't require negative energy density to explain the data available. Stop implying that they do, unless you're going to back it up with references.
MAINSTREAM references. Not references to your favorite kook working on warp drives, reactionless propulsion, and free energy machines.
>prior evidence to suggest that the effect should exist.
So to get this "evidence" perhaps we should perform some type of series of events which would give us data we could observe and then form a conclusion after making a hypothesis.
Some kind of... "experiment" perhaps?
No, that'd be silly.
Are you seriously saying that the godamn "Big bang" isnt "mainstream?'
Is the Lambda-CDM Model suddenly the Pabst Blue ribbon of physics?
I mean if you were pointing out the nature of the Brane metric comparison I could see if you had a point; but who the hell is going to deny basic shit we've had since the 60s?
Are Tomatoes poison now too?
>we should fund every experiment because you never know what could happen
That's not how science works.
I point again to my analogy of looking under a rock in case there's a million dollars under it. "You can't know there isn't a million dollars under that rock until you look." isn't sufficient reason to look under the rock.
Following reasoning that simpleminded is a way to waste all of your time / research budget for no results.
You do realize that this goes back to the Field Equations Right.
>Einstein's Field Equations on general relativity are wrong... because of Eintein's Field Equations on general relativity
This is literally 100 years old of slowpoke anon
I'm not interested in hearing your interpretation of the model, since I'm pretty thoroughly convinced at this point that you're a stupid, ignorant person.
I want you to produce references of mainstream physicists confirming (in so many words) that the Lambda-CDM model necessarily involves negative energy densities.
For gods sake, the White model for it to be physically viable requires the idea that the Universe can expand.
It clearly can and does. The issue with the experiment is generating the required NED.
Even in the 90s the issue was never with if NED causes superluminal expansion of spacetime; that's a basic fact. The theoretical aspect is if the proper NED can be induced with baryonic matter.
Which, while unknown, isnt some fringe theory given NED induction has been postulated and worked on for decades by the wider scientific community.
Oh my God, how are you not understanding this?
I'm taking the position that the Lambda-CDM model does not involve negative energy densities. You're claiming that it does.
If I'm right, there's not really any reason for physicists or cosmologists to come out and say explicitly that it does not involve negative energy densities, and more than they should be expected to say it doesn't involve phlogiston, or that it doesn't involve time travelling aliens. I'm not the one who should be able to produce confirmation of my position.
On the other hand, if it does involve negative energy densities, there's every reason for physicists and cosmologists to say so explicitly. You should have no trouble coming up with references in which they do so.
Since pretty much every time you get physicists talking about warp drives, they mention, "Of course, we don't even know that negative energy densities are possible." it seems far more likely that you don't understand the Lambda-CDM model, than that negative energy densities are a necessary part of the model.
Please then, explain your reasoning on how the Cosmological Constants negative pressure inflation of the universe doesnt imply NED.
I'm not even beeing argumetttaive now, I seriously want to see how you dont see that.
I mean, I could get namedroppy, but I'd think it be a healthier discussion ifr you broke down how cosmic inflation isnt an example of an NED
>negative energy pressure
So basically, you twerps have heard about "dark energy" and its connection to "negative pressure" and assumed, without any comprehension, that this meant "negative energy density".
No, I'm not going to play the game of trying to explain to people who have demonstrated an inability to comprehend this stuff properly, and an unreasonable readiness to jump to unjustified conclusions.
Go ahead and "get namedroppy". Produce some references of mainstream cosmologists or physicists saying in so many words that the negative pressure of the cosmological constant implies negative energy density.
If the quote you manage to come up with doesn't include the specific phrase, "negative energy density", don't bring it, because that'll just be you misunderstanding something.
Like Kaku, Stephen Hawking isn't exactly mainstream when he's in his pop-sci mode.
Note that he doesn't link negative energy density to the Lambda-CDM model, but to the Casimir Effect.
Actual negative energy density, in a general relativistic sense, is only one interpretation of the Casimir Effect, and it's a highly controversial one. Essentially, this is exploiting the fundamental compatibility problems between GR and QM to justify an absurdity and imply the possibility of things like time travel, which would otherwise be ruled out.
This is how Hawking tends to depart from the mainstream in his pop-sci stuff: he takes theories that are way out on a speculative branch, and he explains them as if they're fact.
I don't want to pop the bubble of joy and hype. But wouldn't these "ships" cost be in the billions? I mean, making the stuff is already a challenge but I don't think our global economy would even allow such advanced craft to be made in the first place. Unless we shift all the governments military spending to one space program.
> arising from Casimir effect
Not what I asked for, and addressed here: >>6587138
Negative energy density in the GR sense is a highly controversial interpretation of the Casimir effect.
>a faster-than-light 'warp drive' could be created
Not even going to read the rest. This isn't support for physics leading to warp drives, independent of the warp-drive kooks. This is just warp-drive kooks rationalizing their kookery.
Your claim was that negative energy density was completely accepted as a necessary part of the Lambda-CDM model. In fact, you mocked me as if I were ignorant for suggesting otherwise. You should not have difficulty finding direct statements that Lambda-CDM is based on negative energy density, from mainstream sources which don't mention the Casimir Effect or warp drives.
Personally I'm not hopeful for these things, no matter how much I want them. I just don't think there's going to be an easy way to catapult ourselves across billions and billions of miles of space in any reasonable time frame with hardly any energy usage
Again, this is not a paper about Lambda-CDM or the cosmological constant. Despite being called a "proof", this is just a volley in the argument about negative energy density in QM.
There are fundamental compatibility problems between GR and QM. Even if assumptions of negative energy density can be put to good predictive use in QM, this doesn't mean that they apply to situations in GR.
The position you took was that negative energy density was a basic aspect of Lambda-CDM and cosmological inflation.
You shouldn't have to be digging into irrelevant papers about Quantum Field Theory to try and support that position.
. The canonical form of the mertic suggests boost is the driving phenomenon behind the Alcubierre drive, and not the contraction/expansion of space. White proposes using negative pressure as an alternative to negative mass-energy for producing high boost. i.e. Something inherent to Lamda CDM
The original "goalposts" were to find referenceS (plural), to mainstream (not pop-sci) physicists or cosmologists stating plainly that Lambda-CDM (not the Casimir Effect) requires or necessarily involves "negative energy density", using those specific words.
Explaining how you kicked the ball offside is not moving goalposts.
Interstellar travel would require humans to have large scale infrastructure beyond Earth's surface and all but require such infrastructure to stretch well beyond Earth's orbit. Mars at very least be a proving ground for humanity's ability to survive on other worlds. Mars is a necessary step in human space exploration, exploitation, and colonization and is therefore worth my interest.
>Interstellar travel would require humans to have large scale infrastructure beyond Earth's surface and all but require such infrastructure to stretch well beyond Earth's orbit.
If your taking interstellar travel as a given the distance between mars and say. Alpha Centauri or any of the Kepler worlds is negligible.
If you have an FTL craft you have no reason to stick around on Mars when you can easily probe planets with much higher probabilities for habitats.
Mars is only valuable BECAUSE we dont have interstellar capabilities, and even then it's "value" is pretty low.
Any era of humanity that has intersteller capabilities and is wasting them on mars would be like the Portuguese trying to colonize Green Land.
Mars is a "best we can do right now" not an inherent valuable asset.
Calling mars a "a proving ground for humanity's ability to survive on other worlds" is like calling drinking cycanide "a proving ground for humanity's ability to consume food."
If you have to make the land habitable just to habitat it, that means it wasnt habitable in the first place.
Any scneario where you're going to inhabit Mars in which you arent outright forced to is foolishness.
If you're going interstellar any required extrasolar infrastructure is relatively negligible to the point where you'd only need conventional stl craft anyway. In which case we can do that now.
Being able to go past c makes the relative value of every other Planet in Sol plummet
If we can go intersteller, why not do whatever the hell we were doing on Mars on Kepler, or Gliese or any of the other thousands of planets that intersteller flight would put within our range that arent confirmed inhospitably barren hellish wastelands.
I mean for scientific purposes the Solar System is a wealth of value.
and mining? Well sure
But habitation? Forget about it,
Even if you want to argue that Hawking is a completely mainstream physicist, that still wasn't a statement that the Lambda-CDM involves negative energy density.
So your complaint is... what? That I'm moving the goalposts after you missed them?
FTL is magic, simple as that. I don't believe we should rely on magic when planning the course of humanity. Getting to other stars will require a lot of infrastructure in orbit and beyond.
Then why not do those here in the desert or underwater?
Once you open up other planets, Mars looses a lot of its unique value
Even without intersteller Mars is no where near feasible for habitataion
>Then why not do those here in the desert or underwater?
Because being on another planet is different has different challenges.
>Once you open up other planets, Mars looses a lot of its unique value
Why go to the trouble of interstellar travel for such a mission. We're not talking about creating a colony on Mars, just to test things out. People need to see that it can work.
Intersteller without FTL is totally pointless.
At that point, your resigning yourself to to relative shithole that is the Sol System, and if your at that, you'd be a tom fool to try to habitat other worlds.
I mean, if your even getting close to to talking about terraforming you may as well just engineer humans to live on non-earth environments.
Without FTL, any non Earth planetary habitation becomes outright pointless.
You either research FTL capabilities, or go full Gundam ; which is even more pointless given Earth's carrying capacity evens out at 10 billion (and population growth is flatlining anyway)
Outside of FTL the whole concept of Extraterrestial habitation becomes a huge Cui Bono.
If the greatest benefits of your Space Habitat Program are things that ARENT actual space habitat; you're basically just using it as an excuse to do science.
You'd get just as much and for much less by just doing all that stuff anyway, but NOT trying to live on the horrible hellholes that every other planet in STL range of Earth is.
As it stands, waiting on White to see if his laserbeam works is more viable than trying to any of that above nonsense, because the "if" of the interfermtere is still greater than the "is" of STL flights total in-feasibility.
Oh well duh, yeah I agree shitting around on Mars for research purposes makes sense, same way why we have bases in antartica.
I thought you were talking like a full on Columbus tier thing.
I always figured the main purpose of getting a significant, self-sustaining presence is space is so that we aren't screwed as a species if a very long period comet comes hurtling into Earth before we have a chance to intercept it.
>Intersteller without FTL is totally pointless.
The profit of going to another star system is that you get another star system. The colonists get free of the crowding and oppression found in the current star system, they get out of the range of the Mutually Assured Destruction wars that we've lived in fear of since Hiroshima.
Different people who don't get along can go in different directions, for a lasting peace and freedom. Humanity profits as a whole by becoming more widely distributed and harder to wipe out.
Anon, space is insanely huge.
The distance involved to properly find, scout, develop and then build a habitation on an interstellar world would be in terms of milineum
Unless your just going to freeze people shoot them in space and hope for the best, you're going to be trying to coordinate logistics across hundreds of generations.
and not many people are down with because literal human shots in the dark.
Yes all of those benefits you stated are actually benfits of Interstller Travel.
benefits that become totally unmanageable without FTL.
It's like trying to cure hunger by manually counting up and rationing all the food on Earth.
yes you COULD do it; but it'd take so much time effort and management it'd be relatively impossible.
To put this in perspective, the CLOSEST star to us is 4.37 ly from Earth.
Our fastest ship as of now is Voyager
A trip to Alpha C that was 100 time faster than that would still take 800 years.
So tell me exactly how one would manage an interstellar colonization effort, when every single time you would make the trip would take up ten lifetimes?
After devloping the proper subluminal craft.
You would have to probe the various worlds.
Get the information back
And then send out your entire development crew.
If you wanted to get it done in the space of an England and not an Egypt, you'd still be dropping trillions of dollars to send the colonists somewhere you have a bare minimum amount of habitable data on.
>Our fastest ship as of now is Voyager
>A trip to Alpha C that was 100 time faster than that would still take 800 years.
Why, exactly, are you assuming that we can only go 100 times faster than Voyager?
There's a big difference between assuming that we're limited to sublight propulsion (i.e. that we live in the real universe), and assuming that we're limited to slow, primitive sublight propulsion (i.e. that we don't learn to do things anywhere near as well as the universe allows).
I mean, this is like if you said, "If we had an FTL drive, we could explore the galaxy!" and I countered with, "How so? Our current best FTL spacecraft is 0 kg. Even if you make it 100 times bigger, it would be 0 kg. It's hard to explore the galaxy with missions that only take 0 kg of payload." There's just no sense to such reasoning.
I doubt we will ever go FTL.
I think cryopreservation/genetic engineering/"muh singularity" are our best (or only) bet for interstellar travel.
I seriously don't know how we would overcome nihilism if "muh singularity" would actually come true one day.
Lightspeed is a hard limit though. Of you can't go to FTL you the vest you can do is aprox 1 c (and that's ignoring all the insane physically side effects)
So you're working off an ideal where you'd still need decades to travel back and forth from your colonies.
STL interstellar is fundamentally infeasible.
Yes, pretty much.
I hope(?) that one day we will be able to accurately scan the entire brain of someone and emulate it in software. (I know how hard this is, but I don't think it's entirely impossible)
This brings up the problem of what a person really is though. People want to feel special and not just like puppet completely defined by its previous experiences.
What tangiable value does an interstellar colony yield, under our current dynamics?
Population is stabalizizing under carrying capacity so its not like we need the space and yes while the resources would be nice, the fact that it would take such insane periods of time means unless we develop vampirism or the like the whole endavoe holds no abilty to profit.
Though like >>6587434
says if human lifespan is up by several orders of magnitude than it becomes feasible, FTL is effectively a maybe vs a STL's no.
I hope NASA / ESA / JAXA and the Commi faggots will work together in this case.
Also what will happen if there is a Planet between the starting point of the warp ship and it's target place in space?
>So you're working off an ideal where you'd still need decades to travel back and forth from your colonies.
There is no "back". Interstellar colonization can be a one-way trip.
And there is no fundamental limit on how long it takes to get there, from the travellers perspective, or how much it costs. Time dilation can make perceived trip times arbitrarily short, and in principle, the energy used to accelerate you can be reclaimed on your arrival, and recycled to send more traffic. Space travel involves very little friction, so it's possible to set up a system that can transfer practically unlimited amounts of traffic between star systems for a fixed initial investment of material and energy, with a relatively small maintenance cost to keep it running.
We need some pretty advanced technology to make sublight interstellar colonization appealing, but we don't need to change the laws of physics as we know them.
If its a one way trip.
How do we know where the planet is? or if its even habitable?
What you would describe would effectly chronally disassociate the colonists, which again brings the question up of what the point is.
And also that whole "not exploding when hitting debris relevistsically" thing
>How do we know where the planet is? or if its even habitable?
We're talking about a society advanced enough to do interstellar colonization. Why would we need "habitable" planets?
Mostly, we're going to where there's a star. That will, itself, provide energy and matter in the form of hydrogen and helium from its solar wind. In the worst case, we could use fusion and other transmutation technology to make hydrogen and helium into the full range of elements.
More commonly, there will be asteroids, comets, and various sorts of planets and moons to provide materials sufficient to build spinning can colonies providing the equivalent living space of many Earths.
Science and technology aren't going to keep advancing as quickly as they are now forever.
There will come a point where getting the latest news a few years faster is less valuable than having a star system.
To quote the phrase
"For what purpose/'
we dont do thing just to do them, there has to a tangible goal.
What would be the point of literally destroying human civilization (relative to the travelers) to get way more energy than there colony would even be able to process
No, no it is not.
Outside of philosphy 'Final Frontier" type stuff, human progression has always had tangible solid benefits attached.
A space mission that will outlive the civilization that founded it, isnt only by defintion pointless, it is a literally waste of time, money and resoruces.
You're throwing trillions of dollars and who knows how many people into space without getting them back ever.
Why would you do that, what possible gain does it have that would offset the massive need it would put on.
Even for the tinfoil "world end insurance" mindset there are FAR more efficient ways to backup the human race than funding and training hundreds of people with doctorate level experience who tally dont mind never seeing human civilization ever again and the shooting them out to suckle a star for all eternity.
Not necessarily. It's been in use since even before the show first aired. Hell, Shatner was only 5 years old at the time when it first became operational.
>A space mission that will outlive the civilization that founded it, isnt only by defintion pointless, it is a literally waste of time, money and resoruces.
I didn't say civilization. I said our species.
You may not be aware of it but extinction is a very real possibility, nay, an inevitability if we stay here.
Extinction is a concept so far into the future ans so abstract that you may as well be asking for a trillion dollar rapture budget.
And even then, you'd do much MUCH better actually investing that insane about of resources into actual prevention of the nebulous threat of looming extinction than casting ships in a bottle.
And even then, you cant actually stop that in the first place; you'll just push it down at best if your solution is SHOOT IT INTO SPACE.
Of the very few things that pose an actual threat to the human species as a species, space colonization to other planets solves none of them, and dicking around in space forver solves next to nil.
No amount of funding would create it at this point. The very idea of warp drive requires negative mass/energy which we have never observed nor any reason to suspect it exists or that we could create it.
>they get out of the range of the Mutually Assured Destruction wars that we've lived in fear of since Hiroshima.
Oh you mean the thing that kept the rest of the 20 century from being put into a massive indiusyazed meat grinder like the first half was?
Or do you think the complete and total collapse of viable large scale conventional warfare was a coincidence?
Perhaps fairydust was what keep two superpowers who hated each other from going to war? or maybe the massive drop in deathtools from war was because of karma?
come off the self important fart sniffing. "profession" isnt a byword so hollywood liberals can fap themselves off to being so much smarter than the rest of us. its pragmatic goal orientated developments with tangible results. We think we split the atom or harnesses electricity or made the airplane for fun?
Real life doesnt have upvotes anon, if something doesnt get shit done, you dont do it. and maybe warding off abstact boogeyman milinea down the line doesnt "get something done."
Earth's resources are finite. It makes sense to seek resources elsewhere within our solar system. Once space infrastructure is extensive enough to continue creating more space infrastructure without aid from Earth it will grow exponentially. Only at that point will the will missions as grand as a mission to another star system no longer be cost prohibitive.
So now White and some artist made a pretty picture and still doesn't have very good results.
>>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)
IF quantum inequalities don't exist. If they do, then the field configuration that White has proposed is impossible.
Quantum inequalities basically put limits on negative energy production.
This prevents one from making a perpetual motion machine by directing a beam of negative energy to one end of the universe to create usable positive energy, which technically doesn't violate the 1st law of thermodynamics because net zero energy was created.
Doing so would be bad, because it allows for infinite negative and positive energy densities which are bad.
Here's a layman's explanation of quantum inequalities:
They are not finite to a scale in which we can observe.
The sun is finite, but I wouldnt start planning multimillion year Neosun programs that cost quintillions.
Anything on Earth than can run out has a replacement or structure exponentially more viable than anything stl can provide
Any plan that is very likely to outlast the species that made it is a very bad plan
The cost isnt an issue. (Well okay but it isnt the biggest issue)
Even if we somehow got the trillions to quintillions of dollars in funds and resources, it would still take milinea to carry out the colonization process; something that is chrononilogically impossible unless we all become relatively immortal.
Its like proposing to Spain that they should walk around the Bering bridge by foot as opposed to just building a boat.
Times one million.
Ignoring the catch-22 of that
(to make something cost-prohibitive, we must do something cost prohibitive)
You still have an action that is by it's definition, impossible to profit from.
Any stl intersteller action would be a net negative from both ends
Earth would loose and never see again the whole of its investment in the ship
And the colony would loose any acess to Human civilization.
The very action of colonization ceases all functionality when you shut down interactivity between the host culture and the colony. You're pissing in the wind.
Performing an action that it is impossible to benefit from is fundamentally illogical. It's a trillion dollar wishing well.
True; which is why stable mineral resource use at the subluminal level is quite viable.
Long term habitation however looses all viability at the stl level.
Its a no vs maybe. FTL no matter how speculative ( and as it stands now we're effectively at the mega low-rent Manhattan Project stage) still has an outcome that yields viable gains.
Any STL system by definition, is incapable of yielding profit.
The odds are, quite literally
slim to none.
>Long term habitation however looses all viability at the stl level.
For interstellar mission I would say you were right, though only because generation ships would be prone to possible mutiny and hardships, cryo might not work and purely startup colonies (AI lands on colony world, terraforms, builds habitats, then grows the colonists from stored DNA) might be prone to AI worship and dissolve themselves. Not for colonies WITHIN Solsys though, those should work fine for now while we gewt the tech ready for interstellar travel, AKA FTL.
>generation ships would be prone to possible mutiny and hardships
It's already been covered in this thread that STL is one thing, and slow, shitty STL is something else entirely: >>6587351
Why are you fucking trekkies assuming that FTL, if possible, will be cheap, easy, and safe with no major downside, but assuming that we'll never develop STL to anything near what's already known to be permitted by physics?
We'll only need "generation ships" if we're limited not by Slower Than Light, but Much Slower Than Light because our technology or industrial development is shit.
If you want to argue that we probably won't ever get technology better than Much Slower Than Light, then for God's sake, don't put FTL out there as if it were some kind of plausible counterpoint. FTL is still fantasy space magic, so don't get all optimistic about it while pretending to be hard-nosed realists with your extreme pessimism about how far we'll take STL technology if it's our only option.
I mean, jesus, you guys talk about FTL as if it's something we're going to launch with chemical rockets and power with a nuclear steam engine around next Tuesday, so any STL colonization effort would have to be on about the same technology level, minus the magic warp drive.
If we don't come up with any space magic, then we've got all the time in the world to develop technology and industry that is actually known to be physically possible, like fusion, antimatter storage, strong AI, medical immortality, atomically-precise construction, rearrangement of arbitrary amounts of material up to everything orbiting our sun to whatever configuration suits our convenience, harvesting of arbitrary amounts of energy up to everything the sun produces, siphoning material out of the sun, long-range energy transmission, catch-throw propulsion, etc. in preparation for whatever it takes to start spreading to other star systems so we can continue to expand our resources beyond what this system offers.
Oh yeah, intersolar colinzation is totally possible.
Just not neccesrily that viable.
Given how SUPER low habitability teh rest of our system is, the smart money is on just Gundaming the fuck out of our orbitals.
And even then from a Human geography standpoint; the population to investment ratio isnt going to be that high.
Contrary to Malthus, earth is pretty big habitawise. it can hold between 10 and 16 billion and our population dynamics probs wont go past 12.
The real "resource" issues are things like gas were its basically become an economic dependcy, not something inherent to our culture.
Really 'Spaceship Earth" is such a viable system that 9 out out of ten the better move is to just deal with whatever issue is on here, than starting from scratch on a station.
Human space habitats should be ISS style research labs; outright space cities are a cool idea; but ultimately a luxury.
STL is by its nature slow and shitty.
No matter how much science you throw at it; you're going to exepoentially wall your travel time to the point where any colonization's viablty margins shrink to zero.
Especially since, unlike viable STL; FTL's viabailty margins are an inherent.
Its the "no" vs "maybe" argument.
No matter how slim the chance of getting FTL is; actually getting FTL yields benefits ; unlike STL; which even with all the many, MANY MANY sociological and economic developments needed for it to work its still fundamnetally ineffective.
The fact that this project could even get this far means that the development gradient is far less. Its comparing playing the lottery vs using a wishing well.
Likewise, the SOL systems reasoruces are so unbelievabble vast that to apply any sort of expansion pressure to humanity that isnt on the order of milinea is insane.
If the entire onus of your operation only works on the scale of civilzations; it is by defintion pointless.
It's only value is to an outside abstract observation point. This isnt a game of CIV, no actualy entity that would ever exist at a time would achieve anything by any of the actions you speak of.
Unless the individuals involved (and this would take millions if not billions) all have a vested interest in getting something out of it, iut has no value.
'the Human race' doesn't pay taxes, or have child support bills or fanfiction blogs or any actual motivation or dreams or desire.
Its a totally non sentient entity. If there is no possible way to yield individual results, or hell even national scale results, no one is ever going to give up literally everything for something they'll never get to see. You are asking people to throw there lives away for the promise of an abstract concept they will never gain from.
Its like the opposite of heaven.
How? you can see the math that whitles it down.
The mass requirements were an obvious issue from the start. Its why Miguel didnt instantly become full Cohcrane back in the 90s.
The fact it got this far means theyve cleared that conceptual hurdle
Ok so does anyone here have any actually relevant background here/
A Masters at least/
Because this may as well be /co/ or /tv/ for all the nerds bitching about shit they only know from wikipedia and blogs
Do you know how teh fucknan Albecurei Metric is?
Do you know what a metric is?
I sure as hell dont.
Every paper here may as well be Greek for all we have to take for granted here>
Is there any argument in any of this thread that doesn't boil down to "Well THIS guy who actually knows whats he's doing says..."
We're monkeys trying to figure out what the magic food box is.
>Given how SUPER low habitability teh rest of our system is
We can live anywhere that provides us with the materials to build habitats. Your "Gundam" space colonies aren't in any less of a hostile environment, they just lack the immediate availability of large amounts of materials to support life and industry.
>our population dynamics probs wont go past 12.
What, in the next century? Maybe, but the population isn't going to stabilize for longer than that without war, starvation, or oppression.
Some people are going to have traits that lead them to have as many children as they can feed, no matter what. And some of those are going to be able to consistently pass those traits on to their offspring.
However small a proportion of the population they are to start with, they're going to grow exponentially as long as they're not stopped by war, starvation, or oppression.
What's happening now with people not having children because they have birth control, modern entertainment, face a serious loss of disposable income and status by having many children, are kept busy with education and repaying debt through their most fertile years, etc. is a selection event. Future generations will be dominated in number by the offspring of those who were resistant to those pressures, or who managed to avoid being subjected to them. It's not going to last.
We can expand our living space, or we can have our population constrained by unpleasantness of some kind. I think we're going to choose the former.
I remember the thing your talking about, but he didn't find evidence for it, on the contrary, he found nothing.
He nicknamed the machine a time machine because he spent so much time doing it.
I'm on my phone, but when I get home, I'll post a link to the video.
>Some people are going to have traits that lead them to have as many children as they can feed, no matter what. And some of those are going to be able to consistently pass those traits on to their offspring.
A-are you serious? I hope not.
Anyway, what about inquiring a bit, it's not that hard...
Pic related, taken straight from wikipedia
>extrapolate a trend
>assume it will continue forever
>ignore reasons it won't
You understand that this does not actually constitute rational thought, right?
I'm talking about the basics of natural selection. There will be some families that just keep having unlimited numbers of kids, fast as they can pop them out, and pass on the traits that cause them to do so to those kids. They'll outbreed and come to outnumber the people who voluntarily limit their reproduction.
In a fixed habitat that can't be expanded (such as Earth, without space colonization), unless you go around weeding them out (war) or forcibly stopping them from reproducing (oppression), those families will grow exponentially until they require more than the available resources and population is trimmed back and kept limited by food availability (starvation).
It's possible that we can have a stable population without war or famine... as long as we have a worldwide oppressive government. I hardly think that's a desirable future, or one that can remain in place forever.
That all of our overpopulation woes are over forever as soon as everyone's rich like Americans is one of those pseudorational memes that gets passed around as an easy out to an awkward issue, like "people given democracy will always vote for freedom and fairness".
So if creating a warp drive is even possible, and/or possible for a civilization as primitive as ours (lel they still use dead plants for fuel and can't into moon colonies), wouldn't that just crank Fermi's Paradox up to 11 then pump it full of steroids?
>And calling human civilization primitive is fucking stupid you braindead sack of shit.
For the most part we still struggle to look past short-term goals, even if it fucks us over in the long term. We're still dependent on unsustainable energy sources and economic models, we don't even fully understand gravity, and large swathes of our own planet is still unexplored.
>assumes he is right because of "muh natural selection"
>thinks humans breed like rats
>SERIOUSLY thinks that there is such a thing like "traits that cause them to do so"
>blame graphs based on future economic and societal predictions
I don't know why, but I'd rather believe the author of that graph instead of you.
>Maybe it means that Fermi was right.
>humans are the most advanced species in the galaxy, possibly universe
Just kill me now
Like >>6589062 pointed out, the possibilities regarding the existence extraterrestrial life become significantly less.
1) We are effectively alone in our galaxy (I'd not say in the entire universe cause it's too fucking big for such an assumption, but if FTL travel turns out to be viable then every species who achieves it shouldn't employ too long to explore at least its own galaxy)
2) We could find traces of precedent civilizations, destroyed for some reason
3) Aliens could have already found us, and maybe they were waiting for us to become an interstellar civilization before wasting time contacting us (muh sci-fi but who knows...obviously not UFO aliens and that /x/ tier shit)
BUT first we have to find out if FTL is really feasible.
Why sad frog? I find the (obviously remote) possibility of being completely alone in the entire universe possibly even more interesting than discovering alien life.
I mean, it'b be glorious, think about it.
I just wanted hyperadvanced aliens to learn about and contemporary civilizations to buddy up or war with
Think about it like this, a radio transmitter and a radio receiver both have an antenna, tuner, amplifier and control electronics.
There might be some way to detect feedback or resonance in a device similar to the FTL itself which might provide some information.
Sorry if this is a fun question but suppose this works and we can travel at 100 times the speed of light.
Due to the way the Alcubierre-White drive doors this ( lengthening the space behind the ship and shortening the space in front of it) wouldn't that mean that if the ship started from earth's orbit, it's after image would stick around for 100 years? And would space at that point be "damaged" as well?
>Are they actually going to call it the IXS Enterprise or did the artist just make up that name?
The images have been produced for a Star Trek calendar. It's an updated version of a design by Matt Jeffries for the show
Ok, let me rephrase (and change the thought, as I realise an after image makes no sense)
The ship is in orbit, not moving. We see it through Hubble's telescope.
The ship goes to warp - to a speed of 100 times the speed of light (for the outside observer).
The space in front of the ship gets contracted to a lot smaller, the space behind it gets a lot lot bigger to account for the front contraction.
The ship then starts moving to its destination far away. Due to the space behind it becoming larger, the light from the ship needs to travel X years (for arguments' sake, lets say 100) longer to reach Earth/Hubble.
Basically: The ship makes its' warp jump, Hubble and Earth cannot see it anymore (but we can also not see it leaving, it just vanishes from our point of view) and 100 years later we suddenly see the ship again and also see it leaving!
Am I completely off with this? If not: Would that not destroy the space-time behind the ship? Or would space normalise and move with the ship?
Mate, its even better; we can be The First Ones. We can be the species that goes through The Singularity, and go around seeding worlds. We will be Gods, and stride throughout the Universe, making our will manifest
Mate, I am not sure you understand just how BIG the Galaxy is. Even if you could travel 100 times c, your still looking at an exploration time measured in the millennia, and thats if you have alot of exploration craft
What gets me is how close this tech is from concept to reality.
White basically already BUILT a wapdrive, we just needs to see if it works.
Its fucking weird how there's a box somewhere that if it lights up one way, everything is the same, but if it dies another, we have a fucking ftl drive.
Thats the amazing thing about the world anon; there are people today testing things that could rewrite the way we exist as a species, in ways that would make the industrial revolution look petty
>hurr, natural selection doesn't apply to the human race
It's the worst kind of wishful thinking to assume that the human population is going to stabilize spontaneously, with no downside and nothing to kill people off or interfere with their freedom to breed.
People who breed under replacement under conditions of prosperity and access to birth control are simply being weeded out of the population by that fact. This will provide a temporary lull in population expansion at best.
Mate, I'm not gonna say that you're wrong, I'm just gonna say that if you can prove all the huge bullshit you're saying, you're going to be remembered as the new Darwin and they'll throw some Nobel prize at you.
Not /sci/entist here. I've read a large part of the thread and I still don't have a fucking answer to this question:
are there effective theoretical problems to the experiment being made by White, or is the creation of a "warp drive" a purely technical problem? Shouldn't everyone agree about this?
That's kind of what I figure too, but until we get the technology to a testable phase, we don't really know how the "waves" will interact with matter. I'm thinking we can adapt radar/radiolike tech from it though.
>ignoring the work of hundreds of people
>not reading the thread
>being this edgy
>not having hope in a better future for humanity, even if hundreds of years ahead of us
>Your grandparents in 1960
>Get a job fucking neckbeards. You all know the internet is sci fi BS
Kill yourself you fucking retarded sack of shit. I've actually done extensive research on the subject and I'd be willing to bet someone with actual money that NASA will have developed a FTL warp ship by 2050. Fuck off with your baseless skepticism you autismal shitwit.
Dat feel when White's work is nothing more than the rambling of a madman...
>Contact address is gmail
>Hosted on Google Docs
>Expects anyone to take it seriously
Just end yourself
>pointless tech snobbery
Epic trolling! XD
>White publishes paper on peer reviewed nasa.gov
>You try to refute it with some google docs non-peer reviewed bullshit
tip top KEK
That's kind of sad that the work is being judged based on where it is hosted rather than its actual content. Not that I read it, mainly because google docs and my mobile browser don't play well, but it's a sad state when people care more about something so petty.
Careful anon, they may answer with le reaction image.
That's fucking hilarious coming from some faggot who uses one in all of his replies.
Slit your throat please.
Are you the same guy that thought everyone was the guy with the weird google docs article that no one read?
Because a pattern seems to be emerging here.
For all its quietness compared to other boards on 4chan, there is more than one other anon in here besides you.
Aside from the fact that this Jan fella doesn't give any credentials, it seems quite reasonably put together. While I don't really know much about the math behind it all, it seems he's not disagreeing with White's goal, just his method. I'd like to hear what someone more knowledgeable has to say.
It's simple: if ...
1. it's cool and
2. it has equations you don't understand and
3. it's ignored and/or ridiculed by the scientific community.
then it must definitely be correct. That's the core of the scientific method.
>No you idiot because you're not locally moving FTL
Not that anon, but seems like it still would, unless it's unable to stop. Otherwise, you're still arriving before you depart in some reference frame.
>Alcubierre argued (following an argument developed by physicists analyzing traversable wormholes) that the Casimir vacuum between parallel plates could fulfill the negative-energy requirement for the Alcubierre drive.
So is this correct? Could we use the Casimir effect to generate negative energy?
I'm just saying that it's scientifically possible. Not that it's necessarily plausible.
BTW the scientists at NASA are using a different method in order to create a micro warp bubble
>people who educated themselves with the wiki article: 100%
>people who actually attended a general relativity course: 0%
>jerking it to stuff that - setting aside the question of wether it works - they do not understand in the slightest
>complaining because humanity has not yet developed a practical technology based on such (speculative) theoretical considerations whose conceptual bases are strongly challenged and that, I insist, they evidently don't understand
>taking out of their asses arbitrary and ridiculous predictions about the availability of such technology, still being completely ignorant on the math
>alcubierre drive has not even been proven to be possible under general positivity conditions (mostly because such conditions are not completely known) and people (however well-paid) have already designed a spaceship with a fucking CG artist
>falling for a pretty CG picture
> math/physics aren't important, I understand the concept
> b-but muh internet
people in the 60s thought we would have teleporting, household androids, and flying cars. This is not an argument.
that's possible to make you fucking retard but nobody wants one or needs one or would bother with the infrastructure to integrate them
no, nobody thought that you dumb pile of dog shit
i think that you're the one who should commit suicide for getting so butt pained over a bunch of pixels on an anime image board you fucking waste of human anatomy
Shame the guy's only getting non-statistically-significant (e.g. no) results.
Also, I've actually read White's paper, and his version of the drive working requires extra spatial dimensions, so this isn't really a surprise.
No evidence for them has ever been found, and theories which include them are all either unfalsifiable or keep being proven wrong every time we build a collider big enough to test them.
So what does this mean exactly? Would everything from the location in front of the ship when it has stopped moving FTL to the edge of the universe be 'destroyed'? Apologies if this is a horrendously ignorant question. I merely wish to learn.
If we developed 100 times FTL travel, could we theoretically explore the entire universe (including unobservable?)
Slightly (un)related but how much percentage is the observable universe specifically in relation to the entire universe? If that makes sense.
If we went 100 times the speed of light that means we would take 1 year to get to a star 100 light years away. The milky way is like 100,000 light years across, so it'd take over a thousand years just to traverse this one galaxy one way, let alone explore it. It's a similar distance to nearby galaxies and that Andromeda galaxy people like to talk about is like 2 and a half million light years away. (so like 25,000 years)
I've got no clue. I just remember reading an article about this a while back that mentioned that charged particles would get trapped in the bubble with the ship, and be released when FTL stopped, resulting in a huge shotgun blast capable of destroying planets.
No clue whether people still think that's possible.
>BTW the scientists at NASA are using a different method in order to create a micro warp bubble
I've read the article and much more besides... how is what they are doing at NASA different?
from what I've read its a ring shaped capacitor with barium titanate dielectric. barium titanate has piezoelectric qualities. It seems to me that having a capacitor whose plates are separated by a piezoelectric dielectric might cause some interesting physical effects.
since the Casimir effect is modulated by the distance between two plates...
They already fucking got the results that they wanted in 4 different ways. They just are trying to test it further to make sure before they release the proof of concept.
I agree there is no mention of the Casimir effect. but 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???
I used to think so too until I learned what that actually was. Basically it means that once you observe the state of your half of the pair, you know the state of the other half no matter how far away it is. But that doesn't mean the other person knows, so no information has actually been transmitted.
It was mentioned earlier ITT how they don't think it would be quite that catastrophic anymore.
Hes getting correct results but not within a margin of error that couldnt be accounted for by outside sources.
The machine hasnt said "no" isnt basically been giving off "maybes" like the teasing whore he is.
So right now
Not only could we have had an actual warp engine
But it worked FOUR times?
But they cant do anything yet because it could just be
is that correct?
>they moved to a tectoniclly stable lab
Holy shit we could have a fucking warp drive proven next year.
Like that is an actual thing that coudl fucking happen
I understand your skepticism but...
I live outside DC. Half the city are feds and the other half are federal contractors.
It's several million people who talk to somebody from NASA/DOD/USDA etc. every day. I'm one of them.
I work at a building where Lockheed Martin, Array technologies and Orbital Technologies all have office space. I'm just a [DATA REDACTED] but scientists are usually happy to go on about their work if you ask with sincere interest.
Google Maryland Trade Center (Greenway center drive, Greenbelt Maryland) and you will see where many ordinary folk rub elbows with the guys who maintain the Hubble telescope.
I also used to work at NASA Langley Research center in Hampton VA but that's another unbelievable post.
I disagree wholeheartedly. Many have thrown away their lives chasing the possibility of fulfilment from achieving their goal, regardless of whether or not that goal gives them any actual advantage. Life is inherently pointless, might as well waste it working towards something grand instead of living small.