Hyperdrive and Space Propulsion

Interested reader writes "MSNBC has an article covering the recent Space Technology and Applications Forum in New Mexico, which included a frontier physics session on hyperdrive, wormholes, and other blue sky ideas. The idea is a revival of NASA's long-dead (and heavily criticized) Advanced Propulsion Project."

Comments

Only one basket?

[interactive_civilian]

Spy der Mann said:

I find it somewhat disturbing...that they're planning to conquest other worlds instead of fixing the one they live in :-/

So do you think it is a good idea to keep all of our eggs in one basket? There's not much we can do as a species if something from the outside, like an asteroid, comes along and makes the planet unhabitable for humans. However, if we can get off this planet and colonize other worlds, humanity will survive regardless of what happens to the Earth.

I agree that we should be taking care of this planet as best as we can, but that should not stop us for pursuing the means to find and reach others.

Do you doubt a breakthrough will happen?

[LordZardoz]

I would say that I would be very surprised if any propulsion of the sort noted here will be put into production in my life time. But I also have no doubt that we will at some point, discover a way to permit us to distant stars.

We wont find this breakthrough if we dont look for it. As long as the false and impossible ideas are shot down, whats the harm in listening to these wild ideas?

Afterall, some day, someone my actually be on to something. It would be a shame to disregard the idea just because it sounds impossible on the face of it.

END COMMUNICATION

Re:Do you doubt a breakthrough will happen?

[WindBourne]

As long as the false and impossible ideas are shot down, whats the harm in listening to these wild ideas?

Careful with that. Sometimes even the false and impossible ideas are what work. Consider that nearly all of society at one time knew that the universe rotated around Earth. In fact, to preach otherwise was a death sentence.

After that came mezmorize (hypnosis), which all solid psychologists said could not happen, but 100 years later accepted it as occuring.

Now adays, we have cold Fusion. When Pons/Stanley? first announced it, Physicists stated that it could not happen (as well as unable to duplicate it). The 2 were basically ruined professionally. Now, a number of groups are doing it, including the navy, and it is being thought of as not being impossible.

The point is, just because something is considered impossible, does not make it so.

Re:Do you doubt a breakthrough will happen?

[ardor]

There is a big difference between condemning free thought through religious mania and debunking a hare-brained idea that a college freshman can easily prove to be false (the pursuit of which wastes tax dollars that can be used to feed hungry people).

FTL is not bunk because gawd/allah/odin/yahweh/ram said so. FTL is bunk because it ameaningless state in a classical timelike metric. I won't burn you at the stake for trying to work on FTL. However, I will write a sternly worded letter to the NSF recommending that they don't give you any money for it.

The problem is: with this thinking you kill off many breakthroughs.
Remember that theories are just models. Now if by any chance one model is false, and a guy thinks he can prove it AND fix it, he won't get any support because the established model doesn't predict his claims. To prove his claims, he might need some pretty expensive equipment, with the NSF has, for example. But, if YOU prevent this from being tested, you may be killing off one breakthrough. You NEVER know if something works or not in advance for sure. Thats why scientists perform experiments. Of course there are many crackpots, but if science remains in its established, comfortable theories, then nothing will advance.

Re:Do you doubt a breakthrough will happen?

[ardor]

Well yes, I know that such homemade paradigm shifts are extremely unlikely. But I don't like the tendency towards exaggerated conservative thinking. People are effectively banned because of doing research in "unserious" fields. I don't even mean stuff like perpetuum mobiles - take electrogravity as an example. Anyone theorizing with electricity/gravity connections and usage of this connection is viewed as a crackpot and "ruined his reputation". Mind you, this is JUST for toying with such theories, not even remotely considering attempts at getting money for experiment.

This is something I really dont like; scientists with ruined reputation equal banned heretics. Of course there are tons of crackpots, but IMO no one should be punished for theorizing in "unserious" areas (even the definition of "unserious" and "serious" is dangerous IMO). One should be banned when the great free-energy device X will be ready in two years and you can preorder it now, or because the entire work was a hoax (like that Hwang guy did), not because one said that "it might be possible that ABC is possible, I'm quite skeptical though, I'm looking into this". Of course, once somebody can successfully demonstrate working electrogravity that can be replicated in at least one independent lab, reputation is back. But what if by banning everyone in this field no one has the chance of reaching this stage?

Blue Sky ideas?

[Israfels]

Here's what people said about other blue sky ideas:
You will fall off the edge of the world.
Man cannot fly!

I can go on, but I'll just leave this as a quote from someone else.

The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to go beyond them into the impossible. Arthur C. Clarke

Good quote

[October_30th]

"Just because you can write an equation that describes something ... doesn't mean that such an equation describes the real physics that are going on."

As an experimentalist, it's refreshing to see someone making such a comment.

Re:I find it somewhat disturbing...

[zpok]

"that they're planning to conquest other worlds instead of fixing the one they live in :-/"

Which sounds like a real argument but isn't. While it would be nice to fix this world, the one and the other have nothing to do with each other. And I'd rather the high and wild physics guys would keep their attention fixed safely somewhere outside the solar system I'm living in thank you (just joking, but a grain of real concern nevertheless ;-).

This planet is unfixable, nobody cares enough. A lot of people care, just not enough. And apart from some professional care takers' opinions and programs, the average solution put forward by your average shocked person are laughable. So if we're really messing it up too far, well, maybe we'll try and clean up a little. Let's hope we find viable alternatives for our more messy activities before we pass some critical treshold.

For the rest, just look at every humanitarian, ecological or political issue that in itself forms a sizeable threat to us or this planet. See if you like how we're "fixing" it. Not that some people aren't doing what they can and some organizations aren't great. Just, if you look at it all, you realize it isn't a bad idea to have some mad scientists look outside the solar system as well. They wouldn't be any good anyway in finding "solutions for this planet".

Most things are easily fixed anyway. It just takes investments (paid with money), sustained effort and lots of coordinated actions. Starting with good will between people with opposing viewpoints and different interests. Ahahahaha.

Simply put: take the combined budget of the US and Europe on military spending for ONE year, and you already have the money to fund half a century of all programs on acknowledged "big" problems like poverty, disease, education, clean water, most environmental issues etc etc etc. on a world scale, yes sir.

Problem is, even saying this is deemed political, liberal etc etc etc. So, while most problems are easily solved, we think it makes more sense to invest in a better club to hit our neighbor with. And well, for a talking monkey society that even makes a sort of horrible sense. After all, how can you trust that other alpha male and his friends NOT to kick your country in the bollocks and steal your mates? You can't, you just can't. Even Bush starts to make sense with his pre-emptive strike thing (the bloody uber-religious idiot fascist), which is fancy for "I saw you looking at my mate, so I'll kick you inna fork FIRST".

So, in short, without all the emotion: let's just try to do what we can on ALL fronts that aren't at least directly geared at killing us off as fast as possible, eh? Warp? Bloody good idea. Helping mankind? Sounds great.

Bet you half a dollar we'll have warp drive first.

The problem

[ardor]

The problem I see is that while it may be possible to break the light barrier without breaking causality and using up infinite amounts of energy (and getting infinite mass), we ourselves may be keeping us from discovering it. He's right; this needs non-mainstream thinking. Creativity is severely dampened by this-is-impossible cries. Some might see a challenge in it to disprove this, but even then, the fact that it is considered impossible is cemented in the mind, thereby having an impact on creativity. Also, the fact that sometimes, the scientific community behaves like the church condemning heretics (just read the part with the difficulties getting a hearing about this exotic propulsion concepts), and that consequently, there are MANY crackpots in these "forbidden zones" which create an enormous noise, do not make things really easier. This might be too complicated for an innovation made by some weird genius in his basement, but the powers that could handle it might be too narrow-minded.

Uploading and interstellar travel

[LeDopore]

Disclosure: I am a neuroscientist.

I think the most likely way we're going to get intelligence to other stars is to send AI computers, since they wouldn't mind the long wait. Even if creating AI is hard, if Moore's law holds, in 50 years we'll be able to simulate every neuron in a whole human brain on a computer in real time, so even if we don't understand intelligence, we'll be able to reproduce it. And if biological life is so important to you, send some frozen embrios (or info about their DNA on hard drives, and stock chemicals for building embrios from scratch) and artificial wombs with the computers too - let them build a colony, then defrost their kids.

Far-fetched? In my opinion, it's much more likely than being able to keep whole humans happy on a 100 lightyear trek. Yes, Moore's law might not hold up, but I predict we'll be able to upload brains before sending our fragile bodies intact to distant stars.

Patrick