Slashdot Mirror


Warp Engines In Development?

Toloran writes "Although a staple of Sci-Fi space travel, it is often deemed to be just that: Fiction. However, it seems that one is currently in development. "The theoretical engine works by creating an intense magnetic field that, according to ideas first developed by the late scientist Burkhard Heim in the 1950s, would produce a gravitational field and result in thrust for a spacecraft. Also, if a large enough magnetic field was created, the craft would slip into a different dimension, where the speed of light is faster, allowing incredible speeds to be reached. Switching off the magnetic field would result in the engine reappearing in our current dimension.""

49 of 1,016 comments (clear)

  1. Original article by rfinnvik · · Score: 4, Informative

    Original article from New Scientist - (also) stolen from digg.com :)

    1. Re:Original article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      All I want to know is why no one on Slashdot has pointed out yet that the link about warp drives comes from scotsman.com.

    2. Re:Original article by grimJester · · Score: 5, Informative

      I did some googling. Apparently the guy did exist and was a real scientist. Burkhard Heim and Heim theory. The theory article seems to explain the stuff behind TFA.

    3. Re:Original article by jayhawk88 · · Score: 5, Funny

      We dinnna think ye could handle it, laddie.

  2. Slower Dimension by biocute · · Score: 5, Funny

    What if my Apocalypse battleship slipped into a different dimension where the speed of light is slower, and it would take me another 200 years to move my finger to the 'OFF' switch 2cm away just to come back again.

    1. Re:Slower Dimension by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 5, Funny

      You rock. Someone who GETS the law of unintended consequences, and sees its incredible potential for humor.

      --
      "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
    2. Re:Slower Dimension by murphyslawyer · · Score: 5, Funny
      What if my Apocalypse battleship slipped into a different dimension where the speed of light is slower, and it would take me another 200 years to move my finger to the 'OFF' switch 2cm away just to come back again.

      Or worse yet, due to a great miscalculation in size, the entire battlefleet could be swallowed by a small dog.

      --
      I ain't evil, I'm just good looking.
    3. Re:Slower Dimension by kfg · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Classic short story published in Analog, lo, these many years ago.

      FTL

      It describes the meeting between a young hotshot applying for money to develop his surefire warp drive and the institute director who has to break the news to him that they've secretly had a functional warp drive for ages . . .

      But c is slower in hyperspace.

      Reading it as a youth woke me up to the fact that you have to be careful what you wish for, because you might not get it.

      KFG

    4. Re:Slower Dimension by aussie_a · · Score: 4, Funny

      I can just imagine it:

      Welcome to Speedy Recoveries, where if you have a fatal illness, we'll send you forward 5 years in the future continuously for just $5 million until a cure for your disease has been discovered. Goodbye Mr Jenson, I hope we've found a cure to your disease in 5 years time.

      5 years later.

      According to your RFID tag you got AIDS from your homosexual lover. I'm sorry, but we haven't found a cure for AIDS yet, better luck next time.

      20 years later.

      I'm sorry, but we've currently become owned but the Christian Right for Purity has taken over what was once known as America. I'm sorry, but you'll have to come with us to be tried and executed.

      Hello Mr Jenson. Don't worry, we killed those christian nut-bags 5 years ago, but I'm afraid a cure still hasn't been found.

      20 years later.

      This is an automated message. I'm afraid the company you were using has gone bankrupt and they will no longer be able to provide you with time-travelling services. But would you like to try out one of our many friendly competitors in the time travel business?

      100 years later.

      Chio daf dfo asd meri....

      50 years later.

      Ooog! OOh! Aaak!

      Mr Jenson: Oh fuck!

    5. Re:Slower Dimension by Thuktun · · Score: 4, Funny

      I didn't know Macross was a ripoff of Gilligan's Island...

      Like when Gilligan broke the Professor's new coconut-and-bamboo mecha prototype?

  3. Whacky science.... by BWJones · · Score: 5, Informative

    This should be a fun post. At any rate, the interest of the Air Force does not provide any more credibility to this story. I've seen some *really* whacky ideas based on science fiction rather than science fact move through the DOD that says more to me about the state of science education in the US than anything else.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Whacky science.... by Gen-GNU · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think it says more about the science education of the high ranking military officers. Of course they have assistants, but who needs to listen to them? It's much more fun to say we're developing a warp drive than to ask someone who knows whether the theory behind it is crap.

      I do think the way technology has followed the sci-fi writing is cool and all, but that doesn't mean that every idea in a sci-fi novel is worth spending tax money on.

    2. Re:Whacky science.... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, I think the problem is not the education of the Air Force people, or hm ... probably it is ...
      Anyway, its the press.

      The drive is no warp drive. And the idea is NOT to slip it into a different dimension, at least not as far as I understood the stuff about Heim I read so far.

      Heim has a somewhat unified theory about forces. Like Lorenz force, that is a force affecting charged particles, the Heim-Lorenz force affects any particle that has mass. (But the force still needs to be shown to exist in experiments)

      According to that unified theory you only need compareable weak magnetic fields (compareable like on the surface of our sun, don't remember the exact numbers, but I googled once for references and I think I remember the strength of the field was a bit below the magnetic field of the sun) I think the field needs to be somewhat in the order of 10 times as strong as in the current fusion experiiments.

      Such a field would basically work like an "anti grav" drive, not like a warp dirve, and no, you would not be faster than light, you only could speed up pretty easy. In fact I have no clue how you just would use a field as drive anyway ...

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  4. Come again, please? by slavemowgli · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The theoretical engine works by creating an intense magnetic field that, according to ideas first developed by the late scientist Burkhard Heim in the 1950s, would produce a gravitational field and result in thrust for a spacecraft.

    OK - so far, so good.

    Also, if a large enough magnetic field was created, the craft would slip into a different dimension, where the speed of light is faster, allowing incredible speeds to be reached. Switching off the magnetic field would result in the engine reappearing in our current dimension.""

    Err, what? I hope this is a joke...

    --
    quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
  5. Re:Warp FP by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 5, Funny

    In another dimension, this would already be a dupe...

    --
    I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
  6. Re:This is SO neat! by s20451 · · Score: 5, Informative

    It reminds me of the experiments with the first atomic bombs: they didn't know that the chain reaction wouldn't ignite the atmosphere.

    This is mostly a myth. Virtually every physicist associated with the Manhattan Project came independently to the conclusion that a nuclear bomb would not ignite the atmosphere, based on what was known about the nuclear cross-sections of atmospheric atoms (which was a lot).

    I guess it's possible that some unknown physics could have resulted in ignition of the atmosphere anyway, but we are always at risk from that, so it's somewhat silly to worry about it. For instance, if current physics is wrong, a passing strangelet could destroy the Earth at any moment.

    --
    Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
  7. *Staple*. *Staple*. *Staple.* by namespan · · Score: 5, Informative

    Although a stable of Sci-Fi space travel

    Staple. A *staple* of Sci-Fi space travel. A stable would be... well, I don't know what it would be, but it would be something else besides a staple.

    People: spelling phonetically doesn't always work. This is getting "rediculous" [sic].

    --
    Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
    1. Re:*Staple*. *Staple*. *Staple.* by whitehatlurker · · Score: 5, Funny

      A stable of science fiction travel is the barn where you keep your faster than light-speed horses.

      --
      .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
  8. Warp drive? by AC-x · · Score: 4, Informative

    Forget that! We could've had interplanetary ships by the 70s if Kennedy hadn't killed Orion.

  9. Oh, *come* on, now... by Control+Group · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The theoretical engine works by creating an intense dark energy field that, according to ideas first developed by the late scientist Burkhard Heim in the 1950s, would produce a gravitational field and result in thrust for a spacecraft. Also, if a large enough dark energy field was created, the craft would slip into a different dimension, where the speed of light is faster, allowing incredible speeds to be reached. Switching off the magnetic field would result in the engine reappearing in our current dimension.

    And really, they might as well replace "magnetic" with "pork chop," for all the real science that's discussed here.

    FTA: But this thing is not around the corner; we first have to prove the basic science is correct and there are quite a few physicists who have a different opinion.

    Yeah. Like almost all of them. This, however, is the most reasonable statement made in the whole article.

    I'm not normally on the "bash slashdot" bandwagon, but...come on. Since when are completely unsubstantiated claims that it might be possible someday to violate fundamental physical laws news? If they are, here's more news:

    A method to cheaply and easily turn any given substance into gold has long been the goal of alchemy, and widely regarded as fantasy. However, it seems that one is currently in development. According to slashdot user Control Group: "the theoretical process works by imbuing heavy metals - such as lead - with the essence of the sun's emanatory spirit, resulting in the lead taking on a yellowish hue. Also, if enough essence is crammed into any given substance, the very nature of it is changed, allowing incredible transformations to be performed.

    *eyeroll*

    --

    Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
  10. Re:This is SO neat! by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is mostly a myth. Virtually every physicist associated with the Manhattan Project came independently to the conclusion that a nuclear bomb would not ignite the atmosphere, based on what was known about the nuclear cross-sections of atmospheric atoms (which was a lot).

    Having had one of said people as mathematics instructor; he said it was about 1/3 of the team members who thought it would probably kill us all via igniting the atmosphere, or jettisoning a significant amount of it into space.

  11. Paper this is based on by rufusdufus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is a paper on the subject. The only thing that differentiates this from crackpot science is that it is testable. The authors won an award from AIAA for suggesting a method for testing the theory. There is no reason to believe that the theory won't be falsified.

  12. Nutjob or not? by clem · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Here's how to determine if you're dealing with complete scientific quackery or not. Let's examine a quote from the linked article:
    "But this thing is not around the corner; we first have to prove the basic science is correct and there are quite a few physicists who have a different opinion.
    "It's our job to prove we are right and we are working on that."
    Now let's take the typical nutjob quote:
    "Naysayers! My contemporaries conspire against me in refusing to acknowledge my genius!"
    This doesn't mean that the physicist is right, but merely an indicator that this is a controversial theory rather than the workings of a complete and utter looney. For more information on loonies, see http://www.timecube.com/
    --
    Your courageous and selfless spelling corrections have made me a better person.
  13. translation by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Funny

    "The bullshit press release works by creating an intense bullshit field that, according to ideas first developed by the late scientist Rube Goldberg in the 1950s, would produce a suspended disbelief field and result in trust for the bullshit. Also, if a large enough bullshit field was created, the press release would slip into a different dimension, where the trust in bullshit press releases is automatic, allowing incredible levels of naivete to be reached. Switching off the bullshit field would result in the press release reappearing in our current dimension, where none of this bullshit makes any sense."

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  14. Watch out for the transparent aluminum! by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Funny

    When you start going faster than the speed of light some joker with a faster warp engine in another dimension, the locals there are going to get pissed and start putting in transparent aluminum speedbumps and jersey barriers. They rip the tranny right out of your spaceship and knock your head on the ceiling faster than light. Your own grandpa will be shaking his rocket cane at you. Then we'll see who's boss, "mr what's-my-hurry".

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  15. Re:This is SO neat! by monopole · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Supposedly, when Fermi ran an office pool allowing the staff to guess the yield of the Trinity device, "ignite the atmosphere" was a side bet.

  16. Re:This is SO neat! by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 4, Funny


    And the primary buffer panel just fell off my ship!

    My ship don't crash! If it crashes, you crashed her!

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  17. Re:I call shenanigans! by drownie · · Score: 5, Funny

    ah ... but how will you see an actual "faster than light" ship...

    --
    *an infinite number of monkeys wrote this sig
  18. Re:This is SO neat! by Kallahar · · Score: 4, Informative

    From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project

    Edward Teller also raised the speculative possibility that an atomic bomb might "ignite" the atmosphere, due to a hypothetical fusion reaction of nitrogen nuclei. Hans Bethe calculated, according to Robert Serber, that it could not happen. In his book The Road from Los Alamos, Bethe says a refutation was written by Konopinski, C. Marvin, and Teller as report LA-602 (declassified Feb. 1973, PDF), showing that ignition of the atmosphere was impossible, not just unlikely.

  19. Re:This is SO neat! by thrillseeker · · Score: 4, Funny
    And it does make sense to worry about it in those cases where someone has their finger on the button of the possible atmosphere-igniter in question.

    Remind me to someday tell you about how I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb ...

  20. Re:This is SO neat! by MoreNoiseThanSignal · · Score: 5, Funny

    If videogames have taught me anything it's that these types of dangerous experiments should only be conducted off-world. Like on Mars. What could possibly go wrong there?

    --
    abort, retry, fail?
  21. Smoke me a kipper... by MiKM · · Score: 5, Funny
    I wonder who they will bestow the honor of first flight on...
    Ace Rimmer?
  22. Re:Nonsense by Gil-galad55 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, there is such a theory, and it's 90 years old: Einstein's theory of general relativity. The metric of spacetime (it's curvature, and the thing responsible for what we call gravity) is determined by the energy-stress tensor, and the magnetic field DOES contribute to this tensor. In other words, a magnetic field does create a gravitational field. So does a gravitational field, for that matter. Any energy (and I'm including mass, here) creates a gravitational field.

    --

    To follow knowledge like a sinking star, / Beyond the utmost bound of human thought. ("Ulysses", Tennyson)

  23. Re:Electrogravitics by Ironsides · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Even a casual look was enough to show the ideas were about interesting electromagnetic propulsion methods, which work for small models but just wont work for anything bigger. It amazed me that these papers got anywhere in the military and irritating that they had lasted for so long without someone adding a comment that it was totally unfeasible. Eh. Physical ignorance is timeless.

    Depends on the physics. There was a bomber designed back in WWII that looked a lot like the B-2. However, it was very hard to control due to no vertical stabilizers. 50 years later and computer controls, we have one of the most impressive bombers ever built. The SCRAM Jet was SciFi until we got new materials, so were forward swept wings on a super sonic jet. Sometimes it's just a matter of letting practical science catch up with the theory. After all, if all it takes is more power, wait until you have a denser working power plant.

    --
    Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
  24. I see no problem here by rabtech · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is basic science at its finest.

    Someone comes up with a theory that may permit FTL space travel. There isn't any known way to test the theory with the current techniques.

    Sometime later someone comes up with a way to test the theory to see if it works or not (we are here).

    If the theory works, the nature of human society changes forever as we become a true spacefaring race.

    If the theory fails to hold up then we've disproven it and learned something new about the nature of the universe in the process (or possibly just confirmed a different conflicting theory).

    By all means - bring on the experiments/tests!

    --
    Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
  25. Psuedoscience by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's such a shame that crap like this gets on Slashdot but real technological breakthroughs don't. For example, how many of Slashdot's readers are aware that antimatter is currently being produced and stored in quantity at CERN and soon in facilities in the US? Antimatter is the ultimate in energy storage. Creating an antimatter rocket is trivial compared to regular chemical rockets. All you need is a sufficient supply of antimatter and a way to store it and we now have both.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Psuedoscience by jim_deane · · Score: 5, Informative
      Antimatter is the ultimate in energy storage. Creating an antimatter rocket is trivial compared to regular chemical rockets. All you need is a sufficient supply of antimatter and a way to store it and we now have both.


      Antimatter may be the ultimate in energy density, but it is not the ultimate in energy storage. It takes a tremendous amount of energy to create that antimatter, much more than you will get from its annihilation with matter.

      On to the "trivial" rockets, you may be able to produce lots of thrust with a matter/antimatter engine, but you also produce enormous amounts of radiation. How will you shield the crew compartment, or even the electronics? Lots of heavy metals? More mass = less acceleration.

      Finally, the net world production of antimatter is what, femtograms per year? We're nowhere near ready to fuel even one bottle rocket, let alone a spaceship.
  26. Let's have a thought experiment first by heroine · · Score: 5, Informative

    The problem is we have the most powerful magnet on Earth. It's in Gainesville FL and it doesn't change gravity. The most powerful magnet ever detected was a magnetar of many billions of tesla and that didn't change gravity. We've observed very powerful magnets for years they have never ever slipped into alternate dimensions or changed gravity.

  27. Re:I call shenanigans! by jnaujok · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you read the obliquely mentioned document, and then you pursue the original work by Heim (admittedly you'd have to read German to do that) then you find that what Heim did was simply to complete the work that Einstein started in the 1950's, that is, to derive the universe geometrically, starting with General Relativity and then working quantum mechanics into it, rather than vice versa (which is bloody hard to do.)

    Admittedly Heim's work is not proven, but so far it's not disproven either. That's an important point. Heim (who was blind, mostly deaf, and was born without hands) has advanced a sort of Grand Unification Theory. It covers all the particles we know about, predicts the masses of those particles plus a few more that we haven't *proven* to exist yet, and doesn't suffer from the necessity of the Higgs Boson, which QM and ST predict, but which has yet to be seen (even though we really should have by now.)

    It includes predictions of source of Dark Energy ("quintessence particles") and Dark Matter.

    In all these respects, it is similar to any number of current Unification Theories. However, it has one set of properties that predict it should be possible to cause a gradient to form in the fabric of space-time, namely that by passing a set of particles through a massive magnetic field in a rotating torus, that it should be possible to cause the creation of a virtual particle pair known as the "gravitophoton" to form. This particle would then cause a compression of space time to form, giving a bias to space so that the generator would be moved in a particular direction.

    The theory goes on to predict that if enough of a gradient was formed, then c' > c within the gradient (along with a bunch of other effects) that can't happen in real space. The only option that preserves GR is that the object must move out of "real" space into a parallel dimension/alternate reality where c'>c is allowed. Thus, faster than light travel.

    The whole article is about the U.S. being interested in *testing* the theory. To do this, you build a big-ass torroid (6M) and get it spinning fast (> 700m/s) and then energize a big-ass magnetic field (>37 T) and measure to see if the effect occurs. The effect in this case measuring something like 3 newtons.

    If it's there, then HURRAY AND HUZZAH, Heim was a genius who goes down in the history books with Einstein and we have warp drive within 100 years.

    If it doesn't work, then the theory is proven wrong, and Heim wasted 19 years of his life doing some really obnoxiously hard math.

    The thing is, this is just a physics experiment, no different than when Michelson and Morley set up their twin mirror experiment. And although it's a deceptively simple experiment, it could have just as big of repercussions as M&M's.

    Calling it warp drive is premature. Saying it could have massive repercussions if sucessful is a huge understatement.

    --
    Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
  28. Re:How could smart people be so obviously wrong? by Aelcyx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    saru mo ki kara ochiru
    "Even monkeys fall from trees."

  29. Re:This is SO neat! by Thuktun · · Score: 5, Funny

    So, an early form of the CowboyNeal option?

  30. Missing Information by raehl · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Warp Drive comes with a free copy of Duke Nukem Forever.

  31. Re:I call shenanigans! by chill · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...(who was blind, mostly deaf, and was born without hands)...

    Actually, a footnote to the article says he had his forearm blown off in the same accident that cost him his hearing and most of his sight -- fiddling with high explosives. It also mentions he developed a photographic memory. Absolutely amazing stuff.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  32. Re:My attempt at explanation by Aelcyx · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's good, but my explanation is more concise. And it has a monkey in it.

  33. Re:This is SO neat! by franl · · Score: 4, Informative
    A story was related to me by a friend: ...

    Sounds like someone was trying to tell you about Louis Slotin's demise, caused by "tickling the dragon's tail":

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Slotin
  34. Re:Unnecessary by cryptocom · · Score: 5, Informative

    *buzzer sound*...WRONG.

    "Point A: All motion is relative. If I walk down the asile of a plane, I'm not suddenly walking at 202 mph; I'm walking 2mph in a 200 mph plane, so long as that plane is around me and at a steady flight."
    -this proves nothing. you are still MOVING at 200mph in relation to the observer who is on the ground. and if you take 3 steps in a plane moving 200 mph, you've just traversed the same distance as the plane did...in 3 steps.

    "Point B: The speed of light is NOT relative. It's always c. Always, always, always."
    -nope. c = the speed of light in a vaccum. c can be much much slower when in a medium...such as water. scientists have recently been able to slow the speed of light down to walking speed.

    The very word, RELATIVITY, indicates the complexity and the depth that must be considered when working with the laws of physics. The laws can change and DO change relative to where you are and how fast you are moving and any number of other factors.

    --
    It takes just a moment and an action to destroy. It takes some time and thought to create.
  35. Re:I call shenanigans! by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hehe,

    yes, Heim worked as you describe and his theroy is neither proven nor disproven, how ever its funny how "myths" starts to grow:
    That's an important point. Heim (who was blind, mostly deaf, and was born without hands)

    No, he was an ordinary physician. With hands, ears and eyes. But he played to much with explosives in his lab and was crippled in an accident, whre he lost his hands, and most of his sight and lots of his hearing.

    Most of his theories he worked out AFTER that accident. His wife was writing it down for him and reading him older paragraphs. So most of his therory he made up in his mind and he enver could see the formulars his wife wrote for him on dictat.

    Because he was such ill he did not want to travel, and he did not publish in that period. His late students revived his theories over the last 10 -20 years, and now as I mentioned in a diffeent post, they try to rewrite his theory and correct errors in his formulas and try to work out experiments to proof/disproof it.

    Unfortunately most researchers find Heims idea contradicting to their picture of the world and reject it without even trying to udnerstand it. But well, its like with a difficult mathematical proof: the one who found the proof likely worked 5 or more years on that. If you like to understand his proof you have to spend at least one year in recalculations. In our time Heims theory is not popular and money to spend for experiements is going elsewhere.

    However the basics of his theroy is pretty simple. And I assume its compareable easy to set up an exsperiemnt, or lets say: cheap. Far chaper than the fusion reactors we have built so far ;D, and IMHO far more interesting. So I'm really glad someone is testing it now!!

    angel'o'sphere

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  36. Read more about General Relativity by Valdrax · · Score: 4, Informative

    Good? Since when does a magnetic field, intense or otherwise, have anything to do with a gravitational field?

    There's no evidence. There's no theory. It's just something somebody made up.


    Einstein thought that they did. The ultimate goal of general relativity for Einstein was a Grand Unified Theory of Everything. In Einstein's conception, all forces (not just gravity) were the effect of curvatures in space-time. Since all energy was curvatures of space-time, so was all matter. Heim just expounded on Einstein's theories and he did so in a way that actually predicts the masses of fundamental particles. Thinking hard on relativity was what he did to distract himself from the pain of from where his hands used to be after they were blown off in an explosives lab accident. The same incident made him deaf-blind, so he preferred isolation rather than colaboration and pretty much spent all his time on the subject. This same isolation made his theories relatively unknown for a very long time.

    The editorial blurb is hideously sensational, though. Even if we do prove that EM fields can alter space and produce gravitational effects, you're a long way from creating a practical form of propulsion. On the other hand, we'd at least have hope of a reactionless drive.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  37. Re:This is SO neat! by Crisavec · · Score: 4, Informative

    You're probably thinking of the Louis Slotin incident. He was working with 2 half-spheres and dropped one half...when it impacted it went critical for a moment and irradiated him. He died 9 days later, and a few other people in the lab at the time died within a few years.