Warp Drive is Real! (Or is it?)

[Jester David]

Warp drives are just not impossible; Alcubierre (or Warp) drives are theoretically possible in that the math works.
The rest is just a PR stunt, likely for grant money.

The drives have the problem that they require "exotic matter", which is matter that doesn't conform to normal physical laws. Which is a little like saying human flight is not mathematically impossible provided you have pixie dust.

The other big problem is that when you go faster than light, the movement will produce radiation cooking everyone inside the ship alive. And since you're outside of normal space you won't be able to see anything, steer, or stop.

 

[Umbran]

The other big problem is that when you go faster than light, the movement will produce radiation cooking everyone inside the ship alive. And since you're outside of normal space you won't be able to see anything, steer, or stop.

The more likely issue is that whatever connection quantum mechanics has with gravity (if any) may disallow the thing altogether, making those bits moot.

But geeze, you folks are all such naysayers. Such cynics. Really, hugely big on finding ways that something won't work, fast to say we shouldn't be bothering.

I have a question. There's a saying, "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Feel there's some truth to it, some wisdom there?

Well, that's Clarke's Law. Actually, it is Clarke's Third Law.

Clarke's First Law states: "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

Let the dude research. Let him fire up some imaginations. If it turns out to be nothing, all that's lost is a little of his time, and a little money. If he turns out to be right, we get the stars!

 

[freyar]

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. "

OK, I wasn't able to get that PDF to download and display properly this morning. Thanks.

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.

There's a claim about new analysis of the math to show that less negative energy may be needed for a new metric configuration. That is certainly finished enough to be published. Experiments regularly publish regarding their plans in advance. As far as I can tell, his two published papers (in 2003 and this year) don't talk about either of these things seriously (I have skimmed the 2003 article but only read the abstract of the new one, as I'm not willing to pay for it). The brief NASA whitepaper you've linked doesn't either; most specifically, the warp field interferometer design is quite vague and contains elements that appear contrary to the usual understanding of the Casimir effect. Now, is there some NDA reason that this information can't be shared? Perhaps, but what information is out there isn't encouraging, and keeping information behind a wall isn't a good way to do science.

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

The problem is that "odd" in this case probably means "impossible according to the laws of physics."

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?

I'm on record above as saying that some money should be spent on Alcubierre-type warp drives. But I have two issues with this line of research. (1) Speaking as someone who has refereed a substantial number of physics journal articles in general relativity and related subjects (and actually been recognized for my refereeing work), what I've read does not leave me confident in the correctness of the science. It is far too vague, and the few equations include irrelevant ones. There are also hints that the author feels his work is much more important than it almost certainly is. (2) We as a society absolutely do "tell folks they are looking at the wrong thing" when it comes to scientific research all the time by deciding what science to fund. As a still-somewhat-junior scientist, I've only reviewed two grant proposals personally, but I can say that the documents I've read on this research would not stand up to the usual review process in the US, EU, or Canada. I don't know the process used to obtain funding for this project, but it seems to have short-cut the usual funding system. And $50k may not be a ton of cash, but it is significant as these things go. I might add also that recent years have seen North American research budgets slashed, and I bet there are scientists who could have used that money for a much better expected pay-off.

Sorry for the minor rant. Funding is a MASSIVELY important (and unfortunately also very time-consuming) part of science these days, and it's therefore important to make judgements about the worthiness of research. Here's something fun in compensation for the screed: Fund me, maybe

 

[Umbran]

Now, is there some NDA reason that this information can't be shared?

One of the articles I've linked at least partially addresses this - some of the things White and his team are working on/with is considered Sensitive But Unclassified. Interested folks in the industry, government, or academia can get far more information, but they must sign an NDA.

And $50k may not be a ton of cash, but it is significant as these things go. I might add also that recent years have seen North American research budgets slashed, and I bet there are scientists who could have used that money for a much better expected pay-off.

As we both know - the funding pot is not just one big fund such that money can easily be swapped from one area to another, and that to a large degree this is a good thing.

I am sure you recognize that allowing science to be largely driven by expectations of short term pay-off puts science into an extremely myopic mode. We already have a huge column of society (business) driven by short term profits. We probably would not be well served by putting yet more of academia and government research into the same mold.

Think for a moment about how much current pure research would get shut down if short-term payoff was really the driver - like, say, all high-energy physics research? In the short term, finding the Higgs means *squat-all*. It has no practical application at this time. But, in the future, it may mean something. And the spin-off technologies may be considerable.

And, you cannot predict in detail which research will produce effective spin-offs. However, we can note that historically NASA spin-offs have paid for its programs many times over. Until we see that overall trend reversed, I'm not going to armchair-quarterback their funding choices all that much.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

One of the articles I've linked at least partially addresses this - some of the things White and his team are working on/with is considered Sensitive But Unclassified. Interested folks in the industry, government, or academia can get far more information, but they must sign an NDA.



As we both know - the funding pot is not just one big fund such that money can easily be swapped from one area to another, and that to a large degree this is a good thing.

I am sure you recognize that allowing science to be largely driven by expectations of short term pay-off puts science into an extremely myopic mode. We already have a huge column of society (business) driven by short term profits. We probably would not be well served by putting yet more of academia and government research into the same mold.

Think for a moment about how much current pure research would get shut down if short-term payoff was really the driver - like, say, all high-energy physics research? In the short term, finding the Higgs means *squat-all*. It has no practical application at this time. But, in the future, it may mean something. And the spin-off technologies may be considerable.

And, you cannot predict in detail which research will produce effective spin-offs. However, we can note that historically NASA spin-offs have paid for its programs many times over. Until we see that overall trend reversed, I'm not going to armchair-quarterback their funding choices all that much.

As I understand it, the Higgs boson was pretty important to confirm (or, well, not disprove) current theories on forces and elemental particles.
"Profitable" or "Efficient" from a scientific perspective may not be (only) about how much money you make or how much lives you can save (or improve), but how important an experiment can be to improve our understanding of the laws of physics. One could argue that something like exotic matter with negative energy density is not as important to our current understanding of laws of physics as to have a solid model of what mass is. Of course... we don't always know how important something is gonna be before we try it.

Just saying. But then, it still doesn't mean that it's wrong to fund something like White's project. 50,000 is neat money, but I am pretty sure a lot more money was spend on the LHC and other particle accelerators.

 

[freyar]

One of the articles I've linked at least partially addresses this - some of the things White and his team are working on/with is considered Sensitive But Unclassified. Interested folks in the industry, government, or academia can get far more information, but they must sign an NDA.

Yes, though it's not clear from that article that Harold White himself is prevented from publishing, etc. And this sort of NDA wall makes it a poor way to do science.

As we both know - the funding pot is not just one big fund such that money can easily be swapped from one area to another, and that to a large degree this is a good thing.

I am sure you recognize that allowing science to be largely driven by expectations of short term pay-off puts science into an extremely myopic mode. We already have a huge column of society (business) driven by short term profits. We probably would not be well served by putting yet more of academia and government research into the same mold.

Think for a moment about how much current pure research would get shut down if short-term payoff was really the driver - like, say, all high-energy physics research? In the short term, finding the Higgs means *squat-all*. It has no practical application at this time. But, in the future, it may mean something. And the spin-off technologies may be considerable.

And, you cannot predict in detail which research will produce effective spin-offs. However, we can note that historically NASA spin-offs have paid for its programs many times over. Until we see that overall trend reversed, I'm not going to armchair-quarterback their funding choices all that much.

I'm the last person to talk about short-term pay-off (given my research, that would be really hypocritical). But I can make a judgement about the expected long-term pay-off. In this case, my judgement is that some funding should go toward "warp drives" but that this particular line of research led by this particular person is not the way I would designate my "warp drive funding."

And, no, funding doesn't all need to go through the same system, but there does need to be a reasonable check on quality of research and capability of researchers.

So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

 

[freyar]

As I understand it, the Higgs boson was pretty important to confirm (or, well, not disprove) current theories on forces and elemental particles.
"Profitable" or "Efficient" from a scientific perspective may not be (only) about how much money you make or how much lives you can save (or improve), but how important an experiment can be to improve our understanding of the laws of physics. One could argue that something like exotic matter with negative energy density is not as important to our current understanding of laws of physics as to have a solid model of what mass is. Of course... we don't always know how important something is gonna be before we try it.

On the Higgs boson, absolutely. And, going in, we had a very good idea that learning the details about the Higgs boson (which we still haven't nailed down yet) would tell us even more about physics we don't quite understand.

As for negative energy density: nothing said in the research here is "new" in terms of understanding negative energy densities, so this research won't help us understand the importance of it. This research is about trying to use negative energy densities to manipulate space-time; however, as best as I can tell from the little technical information that's available, the experiment proposed won't do that properly either.

Just saying. But then, it still doesn't mean that it's wrong to fund something like White's project. 50,000 is neat money, but I am pretty sure a lot more money was spend on the LHC and other particle accelerators.

The LHC cost something like 300,000 times as much as this experiment, if we're putting things in perspective. Many experiments cost a lot more than that. But for some more perspective, many physicists (myself included) have to put in many hours of work writing grant proposals to get less than $50k per year. And we only get that if we are judged to have been productive enough and have sound plans for spending the money both by independent referees and evaluation panels at the appropriate funding agency. As I've said several times before, putting some funding toward warp drive research is fine, but this particular line of research looks unproductive, more and more so the more I look at it. That's all.

 

[Umbran]

Yes, though it's not clear from that article that Harold White himself is prevented from publishing, etc. And this sort of NDA wall makes it a poor way to do science.

I'm not in a position to critique how, when, and why NASA employs this status, so I cannot really judge whether it is appropriate.

I'm the last person to talk about short-term pay-off (given my research, that would be really hypocritical). But I can make a judgement about the expected long-term pay-off.

I think the Golden Rule applies. Which leads to: critique of funding for individual small projects should not be done at a distance. How many folks do you know might lose funding if put under scrutiny of a third party who wasn't involved or informed on the project, based upon their personal subjective expectation and standards of pay-off? Should science be conducted on the basis of what otherwise disinterested parties think is likely to succeed? How many important discoveries would have been squashed or delayed if similar standards were applied in the past? How many things would we not have found yet if we first had to have a high expectation of finding them before we started?

I know you've said that you know folks who have scrabbled for grant proposals for smaller amounts. But, the big picture should not be abandoned. NASA's got a budget of upwards of $18 billion. By analogy, its expenditure on the project seems to be about the same order as a middle-class American buying a can or two of soda. Maybe as much as going to Starbucks once. Do you ever tell your friends, "Hey, you shouldn't have gone to Starbucks that one time, because there are hungry people in the world who could use that money better!"?

At a distance, it is difficult to judge individual funding decisions. If we must engage in such, we can better discuss overall funding patterns. Does NASA, in general, not return good value from its projects? NASA returns *excellent* value, both historically and recently, no? So, should we criticize on a detailed level, or let the goose continue to lay golden eggs largely undisturbed?

None of this says I feel they're likely to find out anything useful in this research. It is a long-shot, at best. But science, in general, operates on a "shotgun" approach, because we humans are not prescient, and have shown very poor ability to predict which things will give the best returns in the long haul. Science is all about the "unknown unknowns" is it not?