Warp Drive is Real! (Or is it?)

[GMMichael]

Well, this is probably less a waste of money than when the DoD had psychics hunting for bin Laden. But maybe not by much.

I think Mustrum's unicorn analogy is pretty good.

The first analogy is a good one: both are a story put out by government sources.

The second one not so much: a roleplaying forum is a good place to find unicorn believers.

 

[Umbran]

The alcubierre drive seems theoretically possible

Thanks for the name. Now I recall it - it did float by while I was in grad school, and I can give myself the refresher....

I found a neat analogy for it:
The original theory required A million unicorns to propel a sled to FTL, the new one only requires one. That sounds a bit more feasible. Problem of courseis getting that unicorn.
The difference would be that unicorns very likely do not exist, for negative mass, we really don't know yet and it could go either way.
The current efforts seem to revolve around the Casimir effect that basically creates something that could be considered negative mass/energy.

The Casimir effect doesn't create "something that could be considered" negative energy density. It does create it. It is a real, measurable, physical effect. It "can be considered" negative energy density much in the way your body "can be considered" positive energy density.

So, for your analogy - we already know how to make unicorns. But, we can only make really, really tiny unicorns.

I also remember that negative energy/mass was also a "thing" to do to create wormholes that could be stable. (Beware I am just a layman with an interest, Umbran probably knows more about this than me. I rely on lies for children, students and readers-of-popular-science-books.)

Yep. The amount of negative energy required, however, is prohibitive. And "stable" is a relative term

But overall, considering how much this story floated on the web this week, I think this is basically advertisement for NASA and its research projects.

Yep. Folks have recently been pointing out how the science community doesn't communicate well to the rest of the populace, and I expect this publicity is part of correcting that. Giving folks things they can dream and wonder about is kind of important.

As to whether it is a good expenditure of money - you can never tell where a good discovery will come from. The Breakthrough Propulsion Project (which ended in 2008), which was led by Millis, the guy behind this concept ship, could have been seen as NASA's version of DARPA. I am not surprised they continue to give some small funding to continued projects on the fringe - because that's how you advance the fringe!

 

[tomBitonti]

Yep. Folks have recently been pointing out how the science community doesn't communicate well to the rest of the populace, and I expect this publicity is part of correcting that. Giving folks things they can dream and wonder about is kind of important.

I dunno. The article seemed rather misleading. Not much "science" and lot of CGI and fantasy.

The Hubble program seemed to do pretty well, and the same for the Mars rovers programs. (IMO) science news should keep a strong tie to real science.

I think this article goes wrong when it displays the image as a "NASA design", when it is really a CGI fantasy (albeit a very nicely looking one).

Thx!

TomB

 

[Umbran]

I think this article goes wrong when it displays the image as a "NASA design", when it is really a CGI fantasy (albeit a very nicely looking one).

Harold White works for NASA, leading this research.

http://spaceref.com/nasa-hack-space/propulsion/clarifying-nasas-warp-drive-program.html

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110023492.pdf

White collaborated with Mark Rademaker to produce the artwork that's been circulating.

So, in that sense, it is a NASA design, but only in the same sense as all the other "design products" you see on various blogs - an image displaying concepts that may never really be put into production.

Now, the real research is stuff with an interferometer. You don't put a picture of an interferometer in the news to get people engaged. A picture of a starship gets the eyeballs.

 

[tomBitonti]

Harold White works for NASA, leading this research.

http://spaceref.com/nasa-hack-space/propulsion/clarifying-nasas-warp-drive-program.html

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110023492.pdf

White collaborated with Mark Rademaker to produce the artwork that's been circulating.

So, in that sense, it is a NASA design, but only in the same sense as all the other "design products" you see on various blogs - an image displaying concepts that may never really be put into production.

Now, the real research is stuff with an interferometer. You don't put a picture of an interferometer in the news to get people engaged. A picture of a starship gets the eyeballs.

That's what's confusing about the article. The ties to NASA are strange. While there does seem to be real research into fundamental physics, the leap from there to a star ship is fantastical. Creating a CGI design image for such a star ship is even more fantastical. Then, presenting the CGI image as any way representative of the underlying science is rather unreal, and very very misleading.

(And, if blogs typically present such images with the same types of association, that is showing that the blogs are rather in the realm of fantasy, further demonstrating a real problem of the current infosphere.)

Also, there is a huge difference between an artists depiction, for example, of hypersonic plans, and the artists depiction as presented in the article. (See:
https://www.google.com/search?q=hyp...RJsKoyASDloKQCA&ved=0CB4QsAQ&biw=1294&bih=596). We can conceivably build a hypersonic plane perhaps in the next several decades. The CGI star ship is entirely speculative at this time.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Umbran]

That's what's confusing about the article. The ties to NASA are strange. While there does seem to be real research into fundamental physics, the leap from there to a star ship is fantastical.

Not really. The guy who came up with the basic math (Miguel Alcubierre) presented it in a paper titled "The Warp Drive: Hyper-fast travel within general relativity". Not much of a leap when the originator points it out.

 

[tomBitonti]

Not really. The guy who came up with the basic math (Miguel Alcubierre) presented it in a paper titled "The Warp Drive: Hyper-fast travel within general relativity". Not much of a leap when the originator points it out.

The maths do not an actual physical theory make. They suggest a line of experimentation. But, since they rely on exotic matter or improbably quantities and distribution of matter, they really are quite speculative, and ought to be considered fanciful until an experiment provides some hint of a practical application.

That is, while the maths are undoubtedly correct, I very much doubt the physics, and don't think we should put much stock in it.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Umbran]

The maths do not an actual physical theory make.

No, the maths make a theory. What they don't make is workable engineering.

That is, while the maths are undoubtedly correct, I very much doubt the physics, and don't think we should put much stock in it.

Well, it's based on Einstein - just one more solution of his equations, to be honest. There's not that much reason to doubt the physics. Plenty of reason to doubt that we'll ever make the physical device, however. I mean, I don't doubt the physics of black holes, but that doesn't mean humans will ever be able to deliberately make one.

 

[freyar]

The Casimir effect doesn't create "something that could be considered" negative energy density. It does create it. It is a real, measurable, physical effect. It "can be considered" negative energy density much in the way your body "can be considered" positive energy density.

So, for your analogy - we already know how to make unicorns. But, we can only make really, really tiny unicorns.

Kind of. The Alcubierre drive requires negative energy density everywhere (although the amounts get very tiny well inside and well outside the bubble). The Casimir effect does create some negative energy density but also involves more normal matter -- positive energy density.

Yep. Folks have recently been pointing out how the science community doesn't communicate well to the rest of the populace, and I expect this publicity is part of correcting that. Giving folks things they can dream and wonder about is kind of important.

I agree with the sentiment, but I wonder if this is the right thing for people to be dreaming about. This Harold White seems to have very few publications and doesn't seem to have presented either his calculations or any experimental results in a normal scientific forum. That makes me very suspicious that there's not much legitimate there. Meanwhile, there are many wonderful and amazing ideas in legitimate science people can dream on.

As to whether it is a good expenditure of money - you can never tell where a good discovery will come from. The Breakthrough Propulsion Project (which ended in 2008), which was led by Millis, the guy behind this concept ship, could have been seen as NASA's version of DARPA. I am not surprised they continue to give some small funding to continued projects on the fringe - because that's how you advance the fringe!

Yes, so I'm inclined to think a small amount of money pursuing Alcubierre-inspired propulsion makes some sense. Maybe there is eventually a way to make it work. I'm just very skeptical of this particular line of research.

Harold White works for NASA, leading this research.

It looks to me like White has a company called Eagleworks, which NASA contracts to do this research. I feel like that probably makes a fair bit of difference, especially on the money end.

Well, it's based on Einstein - just one more solution of his equations, to be honest. There's not that much reason to doubt the physics. Plenty of reason to doubt that we'll ever make the physical device, however. I mean, I don't doubt the physics of black holes, but that doesn't mean humans will ever be able to deliberately make one.

Well, the doubt about the physics is whether it's possible to realize the types of energy densities required for this class of warp drives. We've been focusing on the negative energy density, but (without doing some additional calculations myself) I wouldn't be surprised if there are other odd requirements too.

 

[Umbran]

It looks to me like White has a company called Eagleworks, which NASA contracts to do this research. I feel like that probably makes a fair bit of difference, especially on the money end.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110023492.pdf

"NASA/JSC is implementing an advanced propulsion physics laboratory, informally known as
"Eagleworks", to pursue propulsion technologies necessary to enable human exploration of the solar
system over the next 50 years, and enabling interstellar spaceflight by the end of the century. This work
directly supports the "Breakthrough Propulsion" objectives detailed in the NASA OCT TA02 In-space
Propulsion Roadmap, and aligns with the #10 Top Technical Challenge identified in the report. "

My understanding is that the work in question is hardly finished, so not ready for standard peer-review publication yet. But, as part of a NASA program, they are expected (and required) to give updates. We hear about those.

Well, the doubt about the physics is whether it's possible to realize the types of energy densities required for this class of warp drives. We've been focusing on the negative energy density, but (without doing some additional calculations myself) I wouldn't be surprised if there are other odd requirements too.

Of course there are other odd requirements. We do research to *discover* the requirements, don't we?

Don't get me wrong - the likelihood of this developing into something earth-shaking is slim. But since when do we sternly shake fingers at research and tell folks they are looking at the wrong thing?