Mach Effect progress

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

GeeGee
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:00 pm

Post by GeeGee »

Quick question about Sonny's warp drive proposal: Is it contingent on string theory being correct?

paulmarch
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 7:06 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX USA

Post by paulmarch »

GIThruster wrote:For a prototype warp drive experiment, you want to have the smallest, cheapest robotic spacecraft possible. For better data back, you want to retrieve the spacecraft so it needs to make a round trip. A Falcon could put enough delta V on a Dragon to put it in lunar orbit given 2+ seconds jump at Warp 1. The Dragon trunk could give it the Delta V for the return jump again, in 2+ seconds. Dragon has a proven RCS and GN&C and is designed to make translunar reentries.

Whole project less than 100 million if Elon Musk does it and follow ons with astronauts and Mars missions all enabled. If NASA does it. . .say 5-10 billion and an extra ten years.
Guys, interesting thought on using the Dragon for the first warp-drive testbed, but let’s verify that the M-E and/or Q-thrusters can scale their thrust levels up into the milli-Newton to tens of milli-Newton’s levels first, for that is the proof of existence needed to push the warp-drive work forward as well. And I agree that this topic is fun to think about, just like the following group has done:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.3706

BTW, it now appears that Woodward's current M-E based 2012 PZT stack can be pushed up into the milli-Newton thrust range just by increasing the input voltage to the stack from its current 200Vp if Jim's current JPC-2012 thrust output equation, which inlcudes the newly derived bulk acceleration squared relationship in its derivation, holds up under further scrutiny.

Interesting times we live in... :)
Paul March
Friendswood, TX

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

IIUC, Sonny isn't proposing a theory here. He's doing some calculations based upon other models about what is necessary for what he is distinguishing as "warp theory" from Alcubierre, and "hyper theory" from Chung-Freese. For Chung-Freese to be correct, that portion of string that is included in M-Brane theory would seem to be required to be correct. I'm not sure though, that you have a test of any portion of string theory here, because I don't see a way to distinguish between the Alcubierre metric and the Chung-Freese metric through empirical investigation. If either were correct, and you had a way to generate sufficient negative mass, seems you could build a warp drive and have it work without knowing whether it were really a warp drive, or a hyper drive--the distinction being that the hyper drive operates in extra dimensions.

There are more questions than answers here, but the math Sonny has done is still extremely useful and practical because we can begin to see how to design warp experiments.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

DeltaV
Posts: 2245
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:05 am

Post by DeltaV »

Just posted an item about a "Matterwave Transistor Oscillator".

Don't know if there is any relevance to M-E. Could be.
Last edited by DeltaV on Tue Aug 21, 2012 9:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

paulmarch wrote: BTW, it now appears that Woodward's current M-E based 2012 PZT stack can be pushed up into the milli-Newton thrust range just by increasing the input voltage to the stack from its current 200Vp if Jim's current JPC-2012 thrust output equation, which inlcudes the newly derived bulk acceleration squared relationship in its derivation, holds up under further scrutiny.
Unfortunately, Jim has smoked 2 of the Carvins recently while pursing this.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

paulmarch
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 7:06 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX USA

Post by paulmarch »

GeeGee wrote:Quick question about Sonny's warp drive proposal: Is it contingent on string theory being correct?
No. What it does require is a higher dimensional manifold of at least 5D, or a modified version of the 4-D GRT like the one I just pointed to in my previous post.

Best,
Paul March
Friendswood, TX

paulmarch
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 7:06 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX USA

Post by paulmarch »

GIThruster wrote:IIUC, Sonny isn't proposing a theory here. He's doing some calculations based upon other models about what is necessary for what he is distinguishing as "warp theory" from Alcubierre, and "hyper theory" from Chung-Freese. For Chung-Freese to be correct, that portion of string that is included in M-Brane theory would seem to be required to be correct. I'm not sure though, that you have a test of any portion of string theory here, because I don't see a way to distinguish between the Alcubierre metric and the Chung-Freese metric through empirical investigation. If either were correct, and you had a way to generate sufficient negative mass, seems you could build a warp drive and have it work without knowing whether it were really a warp drive, or a hyper drive--the distinction being that the hyper drive operates in extra dimensions.

There are more questions than answers here, but the math Sonny has done is still extremely useful and practical because we can begin to see how to design warp experiments.
And those warp bubble experiments commence here at the Eagleworks Lab as soon as we get our replacement laser delivered and installed. That should happen by end of next week if the vendor meets their current delivery schedule.

Best,
Paul March
Friendswood, TX

Ric Capucho
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 7:05 am

Post by Ric Capucho »

Warp Drive by the end of the week, Mr March?

Then we should have our star ship by Christmas. That fits in nicely with my holiday plans.

:-)

Ric

AcesHigh
Posts: 655
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:59 am

Post by AcesHigh »

Ric Capucho wrote:Warp Drive by the end of the week, Mr March?

Then we should have our star ship by Christmas. That fits in nicely with my holiday plans.
which are to travel back in time and create a paradox? :)

although I think I remember something, dont know if it was Paul March who said long ago (and maybe it was here or NSF) about Woodward saying these warp drives or wormholes not necessarily meaning travel back in time...



I remember once someone proving FTL (even through wormholes or warp bubbles) being impossible, by using an example of a wormhole having its two portals one stationary on Earth and the other on a near C travelling craft.

the wormhole on the craft is accelerated to near C and 10 years later (on Earth time) the craft arrives back on Earth. The clock on the ship reads 2015 (3 years elapsed ship time), but the clock on Earth reads 2022 (10 years elapsed on Earth).

If you enter the wormhole at the ship, you wont exist the wormhole on Earth 2022, but the wormhole on Earth 2015. Effectively, travelling back in time.

At least thats what Wikipedia and many physicists say. I guess maybe someone here has different thoughts on this.


from Wikipedia
"Some observers with sub-light relative motion will disagree about which occurs first of any two events that are separated by a space-like interval.[33] In other words, any travel that is faster-than-light will be seen as traveling backwards in time in some other, equally valid, frames of reference, or need to assume the speculative hypothesis of possible Lorentz violations at a presently unobserved scale (for instance the Planck scale). Therefore any theory which permits "true" FTL also has to cope with time travel and all its associated paradoxes,[34] or else to assume the Lorentz invariance to be a symmetry of thermodynamical statistical nature (hence a symmetry broken at some presently unobserved scale)."
Last edited by AcesHigh on Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ric Capucho
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 7:05 am

Post by Ric Capucho »

Ahh, I forgot about that: so we must have time travel already, which explains last Christmas's holiday plans.

Erm.

Ric

AcesHigh
Posts: 655
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:59 am

Post by AcesHigh »

I suppose wormhole equations explain that, but from simple shallow thought, the time at the two wormhole mouths could very well be disconnected. That is, people from Earth seeing everything moving VERY SLOWLY inside the craft and people inside the craft would see everything moving VERY FAST on Earth. So when the ship arrives back, the two wormhole mouths would still be synchronized.

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

AcesHigh wrote:I suppose wormhole equations explain that, but from simple shallow thought, the time at the two wormhole mouths could very well be disconnected. That is, people from Earth seeing everything moving VERY SLOWLY inside the craft and people inside the craft would see everything moving VERY FAST on Earth. So when the ship arrives back, the two wormhole mouths would still be synchronized.
The physics on this have been worked out for going on two decades now.

Assuming GR does not have a subtle flaw somewhere, the result is straight-up time travel.
Vae Victis

AcesHigh
Posts: 655
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:59 am

Post by AcesHigh »

djolds1 wrote:The physics on this have been worked out for going on two decades now.

Assuming GR does not have a subtle flaw somewhere, the result is straight-up time travel.
is it possible to explain why?

that would happen in any case of FTL, be it wormholes, warp bubbles or even an hypothetical hyperspace?

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

AcesHigh wrote:
djolds1 wrote:The physics on this have been worked out for going on two decades now.

Assuming GR does not have a subtle flaw somewhere, the result is straight-up time travel.
Is it possible to explain why?

that would happen in any case of FTL, be it wormholes, warp bubbles or even an hypothetical hyperspace?
WRT wormhole time travel? Attempts to invoke "cosmic censorship" to rule it out have not been persuasive - the time travel interpretations hold up. Move one mouth at relativistic speeds, and time dilation applies to that mouth, creating a time machine when you reposition the two mouths in proximity some time later.

I am unaware of any time travel interpretations that issue from Alcubierre warp drives or derivatives thereof. OTOH, with a warp drive, it is spacetime itself that is moving, not an object in spacetime, so the usual "FTL = time travel" interpretation does not apply.

No idea how things work wrt notional hyperdrives or tachyonic matter.
Vae Victis

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

I'm assuming ME applies to the traditional though of wormholes, from A to B, folded paper exercise. If this is the case, traversing a wormhole has nothing to do with time travel. You aren't going any faster or slower, just bending/warping space. Furthermore, why would you create a near or at C ship if you have wormholes that will always be "faster?"

Post Reply