Slashdot Mirror


Hyperdrive Propulsion Could Be Tested At the LHC

KentuckyFC writes "In 1924, the influential German mathematician David Hilbert calculated that a stationary mass should repel a particle moving towards or away from it at more than half the speed of light (as seen by a distant inertial observer). Now an American physicist has pointed out that the equal and opposite effect should also hold true: that a relativistic particle should repel a stationary mass. This, he says, could form the basis of a 'hypervelocity propulsion drive' for accelerating spacecraft to a good fraction of the speed of light. The idea is that the repulsion allows the relativistic particle to deliver a specific impulse that is greater than its specific momentum, an effect that is analogous to the elastic collision of a heavy mass with a much lighter, stationary mass, from which the lighter mass rebounds with about twice the speed of the heavy mass. Unlike other exotic hyperdrive proposals, this one can be tested using the world's largest particle accelerator, the LHC, which will generate beams of particles with the required energy (abstract). Placing a test mass next to the beam line and measuring the forces on it as the particles pass by should confirm the theory — or scupper it entirely."

322 comments

  1. ! hyperdrive by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think most/all of us take the term "hyperdrive" to imply FTL speeds.

    This technology doesn't claim to achieve that.

    1. Re:! hyperdrive by Tobor+the+Eighth+Man · · Score: 5, Funny

      I agree, it should be downgraded to the less impressive and more hierarchically correct megadrive or perhaps superdrive.

    2. Re:! hyperdrive by Canazza · · Score: 1

      True. This is more of a Relativisitc Drive.

      --
      It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
    3. Re:! hyperdrive by Random2 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Can they still go plaid at those speeds?

      --
      "Our goal each year should be to increase the number of goals we set for ourselves!"
    4. Re:! hyperdrive by bughunter · · Score: 5, Funny

      Agreed. The only 'hyper' in this story is hyperbole.

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    5. Re:! hyperdrive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're like the guy driving a pinto who scoffs at a lottery of a mere million bucks cause its not big enough.

      a jump from speeds of a mere 50k mph to fractions of the speed of light whole hundreds of orders magnitude higher isnt good enough for you? you gotta start somewhere genius.

    6. Re:! hyperdrive by thedrx · · Score: 1

      Hundreds of orders magnitude higher? Are you sure you're not high?

    7. Re:! hyperdrive by bughunter · · Score: 1, Informative

      How could parent be redundant? It's 1) stamped two minutes after the article's post time, and 2) currently the only comment based on the common SF use of 'hyperdrive' as a synonym for 'superluminal.'

      (Normally I would correct such clueless moderation, but I posted in this thread already.)

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    8. Re:! hyperdrive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you name it Hyperdrive now, what will you name a FTL drive? Full-speed Hyperdrive? Hi-Speed?

    9. Re:! hyperdrive by kalirion · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How about Impulse Drive?

    10. Re:! hyperdrive by FlyingBishop · · Score: 1

      I believe this is what's generally referred to as "sublight," which is generally understood to mean a significant fraction of the speed of light.

    11. Re:! hyperdrive by dBLiSS · · Score: 1

      I don't think naming conventions really matter at this point.

      --

      The Good Life
    12. Re:! hyperdrive by dBLiSS · · Score: 1

      My car travels at sublight speed.

      --

      The Good Life
    13. Re:! hyperdrive by HateBreeder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      50K MPH equals roughly 22352.0 meters per second
      The Speed of light = 299792458 meters per second

      50KMPH * (1 hundred orders of magnitude = 1e+100) = 2.2352e+104 meters per second

      In terms of Speed of light:
      7.45582465586909e+95 * C

      That's quite an impressive jump in speed.

      --
      Sigs are for the weak.
    14. Re:! hyperdrive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We already have the technology to do impulse drives. This has nothing to do with them.

    15. Re:! hyperdrive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what will you name a FTL drive?

      How about naming it "FTL Drive".

    16. Re:! hyperdrive by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Funny

      AwesomeDrive64.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    17. Re:! hyperdrive by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When we get a "-1, Statement of the Bloody Obvious that Every 3rd Nerd Will Be Compelled to Make", we can use that.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    18. Re:! hyperdrive by kehren77 · · Score: 1

      Ludicrous Speed?

    19. Re:! hyperdrive by tepples · · Score: 2, Informative

      I agree, it should be downgraded to the less impressive and more hierarchically correct megadrive or perhaps superdrive.

      What do the Sega Genesis and Apple DVD recorder have to do with relativistic spacecraft engines?

    20. Re:! hyperdrive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How could you possibly say such a thing? Meaningless speculation is a key component of our culture I'll have you know.

    21. Re:! hyperdrive by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 2, Informative

      It was an Impulse drive that launched Sputnik and every other object we have sent into space.

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    22. Re:! hyperdrive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you name it Hyperdrive now, what will you name a FTL drive? Full-speed Hyperdrive? Hi-Speed?

      Hi-Definition Hyperdrive -- or HDHD.

    23. Re:! hyperdrive by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Uh, Warp drive? Duh.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    24. Re:! hyperdrive by iris-n · · Score: 1

      The problem is that hyper or super don't belong to the SI.

      I propose that we should use kilodrive for it, so we can upgrade it to megadrive or gigadrive when the technology becomes more refined, or downgrade it to just drive if it is proven useless.

      --
      entropy happens
    25. Re:! hyperdrive by Zencyde · · Score: 1

      Truthfully, hyperdrive is less about propulsion and more about warping time and space.

      --
      What day is it? Could you please tell me?
    26. Re:! hyperdrive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to improve the readability of your post (and fix the prefixes, as I have no idea what 50 Kelvin Mega (Watt/second) Hydrogen is)

      50k mph equals roughly 22,352 meters per second
      The Speed of light = 299,792,458 meters per second

      50k mph * (1 hundred orders of magnitude = 1e+100) = 2.2352e+104 meters per second

      In terms of Speed of light:
      7.4558 2465 5869 09e+95 * C

      That's quite an impressive jump in speed.

    27. Re:! hyperdrive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Can they still go plaid at those speeds?"

      Come on people, I think that post deserves a +1 funny.

    28. Re:! hyperdrive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congrats - you missed the joke, and proceeded to restate it in a rather impressively clumsy fashion.

    29. Re:! hyperdrive by durrr · · Score: 1

      Because we apparently consider hyperdrives to be hyperlightdrives, we should call it a hypodrive. A simple drive would be a equal to lightspeed propulsion system.

    30. Re:! hyperdrive by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, hyperdrive isn't sufficient to go to plaid. For that you need a system capable of ludicrous speed. </pendantic>

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    31. Re:! hyperdrive by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      This is /. Naming conventions, Goatse Trolls and Memes is all we have.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    32. Re:! hyperdrive by shadowknot · · Score: 0

      My office chair travel's at sublught speed.

    33. Re:! hyperdrive by shadowknot · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Travel's? what a retard.

      My office chair travels at sublught speed.

      FTFY, moron.

    34. Re:! hyperdrive by shadowknot · · Score: 1, Funny

      Holy fetch, sublught? I give up, need sleep.

    35. Re:! hyperdrive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      congratulations, you thought someone missed the joke, and were wrong.

    36. Re:! hyperdrive by BirdDoggy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hyperdrive with SpeedBoost(tm) technology.

    37. Re:! hyperdrive by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      I think most/all of us take the term "hyperdrive" to imply FTL speeds.

      Yeah. Actually, it makes me think we're going to form the Galaxy Rangers and take on the Queen of the Crown and her Slaver Lords.

      (Too obscure?)

    38. Re:! hyperdrive by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Funny

      Naw, the MegaDrive was a dog; even when they called it the "Genesis". I'd rather have an SNES.

      The SuperDrive is pretty cool, though. Makes a nice add-on to your Mac.

    39. Re:! hyperdrive by The+Wooden+Badger · · Score: 1

      Then it would have a perfect name, considering the techno-babble in Star Trek.

      --
      Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
    40. Re:! hyperdrive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no idea why one would use 50 thousand miles per hour. Just to improve the readability of your post:

      80 Mm/h equals roughly 22,352 m/s
      The Speed of Light = 299,792,458 m/s

      80 Mm/h * (1 hundred orders of magnitude = 1e+100) = 2.2352e+104 m/s

      In terms of Speed of light:
      7.5e+95 c

      That's quite an impressive jump in speed.

    41. Re:! hyperdrive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've heard Ballmer's chair travels at relativistic speeds...

    42. Re:! hyperdrive by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      I think most/all of us take the term "hyperdrive" to imply FTL speeds.

      Yeah. Actually, it makes me think we're going to form the Galaxy Rangers and take on the Queen of the Crown and her Slaver Lords.

      (Too obscure?)

      Sadly, no.

    43. Re:! hyperdrive by FineWolf · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Helm, full impulse." Ah, Impulse engines..

    44. Re:! hyperdrive by tmlwoodson · · Score: 1

      If you fill it hard drives and travel to...

    45. Re:! hyperdrive by interploy · · Score: 1

      Maybe they're reserving the term "warp drive" for that.

    46. Re:! hyperdrive by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Of course, all of this depends on your frame of reference.

      From the traveler's frame of reference, you can travel any distance in any amount of time. I can get from here to Andromeda in 5 seconds, and if I measured my speed relative to light I'd clearly see that I'm travelling at 0% of C the whole time (although I'd see my surroundings flying past me at 99.999% of C or whatever). My measurement of the distance I travelled would also clearly show that I had only travelled a relatively short distance (maybe a few hundred thousand miles) in those 5 seconds, but I'd get to the destination just the same (well, minus the fact that the cosmic background would incinerate what is left of my body after sustaining that kind of acceleration).

      Now, from the Earth's frame of reference, an outside observer would see me take off and accelerate to nearly the speed of light and get to M31 in a few hundred thousand years or however long it takes.

      From an external frame of reference an object can accelerate to any speed arbitrarily close to C. From an internal frame of reference you don't move at all, but you can make your surroundings fly past as close to C as you'd like, and you can also make the distance between you and any other point in the universe as arbitrarily short as you'd like. Once you finally get where you're going the clocks will sort everything out...

    47. Re:! hyperdrive by ravenshrike · · Score: 1
      No no, his sentence works.

      My office chair travel is at sublight speed

      is grammatically correct

    48. Re:! hyperdrive by bluie- · · Score: 1

      I personally think the more that drive names and speeds resemble fast food sizing options, the easier it will be for the general public to understand. Normal car engines would smalldrives, jets and large ships would be mediumdrives, nonFTL would be largedrives, and FTL would be superdrives. Whether or not you wanted "fries with that" would be the only matter of contention.

      --
      life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think
    49. Re:! hyperdrive by Entrope · · Score: 1

      If you name it Hyperdrive now, what will you name a FTL drive? Full-speed Hyperdrive? Hi-Speed?

      Obviously, hyper-er-drive!

    50. Re:! hyperdrive by postbigbang · · Score: 3, Informative

      But I'm already going that fast.

      I posted this message 61,282 years ago.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    51. Re:! hyperdrive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When we get a "-1, Statement of the Bloody Obvious that Every 3rd Nerd Will Be Compelled to Make", we can use that./quote

      So, would your post be moderated "-1, self-referential"?

    52. Re:! hyperdrive by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      If you name it Hyperdrive now, what will you name a FTL drive? Full-speed Hyperdrive? Hi-Speed?

      You name it "Butt Pucker Drive" because the guy that has to flip the switch to test it the first time will have a round hole in his shorts for sure.

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    53. Re:! hyperdrive by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      Hi-Definition Hyperdrive -- or HDHD.

      And then there is the Sony Blu-Ray Drive. It gets your starship moving at FTL speeds. Then, it performs an automatic update, bricking your ship. Finally, your ship bursts into flames before slamming into a passing asteroid.

    54. Re:! hyperdrive by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      It was an Impulse drive that launched Sputnik and every other object we have sent into space.

      Not to be pedantic, but there was IIRC a distinction made between the Impulse Engines on the Enterprise and the rockets. The rockets were sort of a last resort OMG! We're Going To Die! kind of propulsion. I think the impulse engines used the matter-antimatter reaction, but not the dilithium crystals.

      Can someone who is even geekier than I give better details?

    55. Re:! hyperdrive by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      I'm amused that someone mod'd you "Flamebait" for calling yourself a moron.

    56. Re:! hyperdrive by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1
      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    57. Re:! hyperdrive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can they settle for ludicrous speed?

    58. Re:! hyperdrive by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

      Did anyone else immediately wonder the same thing that crossed my mind? I'm keep imagining a pool table in my head although I know it's not an accurate representation. Can you imagine the acceleration that someone would experience under such a drive? I did see a blurb in TFA about that which isn't all that encouraging:

      "What's more, Felber predicts that this speed can be achieved without generating the sever stresses that could damage a space vehicle or its occupants. That's because the spacecraft follows a geodetic trajectory in which the only stresses arise from tidal forces (although it's not clear why those forces wouldn't be substantial) ."

      'SEVER'? I think a Chicago cabbie is probably a safer ride...

    59. Re:! hyperdrive by shadowknot · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      How can me calling myself a retard be flamebait? Seriously people, come on.

    60. Re:! hyperdrive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The true test of this "hyperdrive" is, how many parsecs can you do the Kessel run in?

    61. Re:! hyperdrive by Thing+1 · · Score: 3, Funny

      You have stopped swinging from a chain?

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    62. Re:! hyperdrive by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Gigadrive might be the best name for a FTL propulsion system, since the speed of light is a bit over 1 billion kph. By "a bit" I mean around 80 million kph, but my point stands.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    63. Re:! hyperdrive by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Warp drive should be reserved for propulsion systems that can achieve at least twice the speed of light.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    64. Re:! hyperdrive by kehren77 · · Score: 1

      Uh, yeah. That's what I was referencing. I merely used the form the OP was using. "If you name it Hyperdrive now, what will you name a FTL drive? Full-speed Hyperdrive? Hi-Speed?" Hence my suggestion of "Ludicrous Speed?"

    65. Re:! hyperdrive by ghyspran · · Score: 2, Informative

      Warp drive should be reserved for a system that warps spacetime to circumvent the problems near-light and FTL travel. A warp drive does not necessarily mean FTL travel, although it usually does. Actually effective velocity has little to do with it.

    66. Re:! hyperdrive by Dudeman_Jones · · Score: 1

      Lightdrive Engine? Sounds better for marketing at least.

    67. Re:! hyperdrive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the guys that named the USB protocols had a hand in naming this.

    68. Re:! hyperdrive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      congrats - you've had to post as AC in an attempt to support your original clumsy post.

      We know it's you, front up and admit it sailed over your head.

    69. Re:! hyperdrive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't you read the summary?

        "
        The idea is that the repulsion allows the relativistic particle
        to deliver a specific impulse that is greater than its specific
        momentum, an effect that is analogous to the elastic collision
        of a heavy mass with a much lighter, stationary mass, from which
        the lighter mass rebounds with about twice the speed of the
        heavy mass.
        "

      It's obviously impulse power

    70. Re:! hyperdrive by cenc · · Score: 1

      They should use Star Treck correct vocabulary. Sub-light or impulse drive (there is a pulse right).

    71. Re:! hyperdrive by smitty97 · · Score: 1

      Then why isn't your text red-shifted?

      --
      mod me funny
    72. Re:! hyperdrive by Samah · · Score: 1

      But I'm already going that fast.
      I posted this message 61,282 years ago.

      So, quite recent for Slashdot? ;)

      --
      Homonyms are fun!
      You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
    73. Re:! hyperdrive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      But I'm already going that fast.

      I posted this message 61,282 years ago.

      All that advance warning and you still can't get the first post.

    74. Re:! hyperdrive by xarak · · Score: 2, Funny

      Whenever my brother wants to go really fast, he calls it "I'lldrive"

      --
      Atheism is a non-prophet organisation
    75. Re:! hyperdrive by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Actually your car could be described as an impulse engine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impulse

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    76. Re:! hyperdrive by DarenN · · Score: 1

      iSpeed, obviously, or Hyperdrive 2.0

      --
      Rational thought is the only true freedom
    77. Re:! hyperdrive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should not the correct term be Impulse Drive?

    78. Re:! hyperdrive by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Can we just call it sublight? It's already in common usage in scifi.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    79. Re:! hyperdrive by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      If you name it Hyperdrive now, what will you name a FTL drive? Full-speed Hyperdrive? Hi-Speed?

      Uberdrive FTL FTW!

      Although I'd quite happily settle for a Ferrari 450.

      On the gripping hand, we might want to outsource this FTL drive naming business to the auto manufacturers. They have people working on this sort of thing full time.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    80. Re:! hyperdrive by rdnetto · · Score: 1

      If you name it Hyperdrive now, what will you name a FTL drive? Full-speed Hyperdrive? Hi-Speed?

      I don't know, maybe a FTL drive? kind of like the ring of 'c-speed drive', or even just 'c drive'...

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
  2. Sounds great, but... by Tobor+the+Eighth+Man · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It could be tested at the LHC if it ever manages to stay working for more than a month at a time, that is. :(

    1. Re:Sounds great, but... by Goffee71 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It hasn't "worked" fully at all, yet. But it is one of the more complex science instruments on the planet, not a Toyota Pickup truck at the garage. Give them time and it'll do its job... unless some twelve-year old Chinese prodigy figures out a way to do the same stuff in his lunch box.

      --
      If he's the Walrus then can I be a penguin please?
    2. Re:Sounds great, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very true, however it may not just be a Chinese prodigy. Could also be Indian, Russian, Japanese or 'GASP!' American!

    3. Re:Sounds great, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait... the LHC is working???? I thought the wold was going to end when we finally got that thing working.

    4. Re:Sounds great, but... by jbezorg · · Score: 1

      It hasn't "worked" fully at all, yet. But it is one of the more complex science instruments on the planet, not a Toyota Pickup truck at the garage. Give them time and it'll do its job... unless some twelve-year old Chinese prodigy figures out a way to do the same stuff in his lunch box.

      Who would be immediately lynched by the scientific community because no one likes a smart ass.

      --
      I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
    5. Re:Sounds great, but... by Goffee71 · · Score: 1

      Or at least seriously wedgied.

      Still, as is traditional, I - for one - would welcome our slightly limping, lunch-box particle-accelerator wielding, junior overlords.

      --
      If he's the Walrus then can I be a penguin please?
    6. Re:Sounds great, but... by lymond01 · · Score: 1

      But it is one of the more complex science instruments on the planet, not a Delorean at the garage.

      Hey, Doc managed it with just 1.21 GW.

    7. Re:Sounds great, but... by Boomerang+Fish · · Score: 1

      Wait, are you saying that the chinese can make mini-blackholes with a lunchbox? No wonder we're losing the world to them!

      --
      Everyone needs a sig now and then...

    8. Re:Sounds great, but... by Minwee · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or just some guy who doesn't talk and carries a crowbar.

    9. Re:Sounds great, but... by imakemusic · · Score: 1

      No, he's saying that the LHC doesn't work because they left out the fairy cake.

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
    10. Re:Sounds great, but... by Tobor+the+Eighth+Man · · Score: 1

      I meant no disrespect to the designers and researchers working on the LHC, merely noting that at this point saying something could be tested with it is a little pie in the sky. You're right that it's much more complex than a Toyoto Pickup at the garage, but neither are going to take you anywhere if they're not working.

    11. Re:Sounds great, but... by jbezorg · · Score: 1

      So, do you think there is hot tea in that Chinese prodigy's lunch box? Great source of relativistic particles and Brownian motion.

      --
      I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
    12. Re:Sounds great, but... by jbezorg · · Score: 1

      *sigh*... Please turn in your geek membership card as you exit slashdot. You may also want to Google "Infinite Improbability Drive".

      --
      I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
    13. Re:Sounds great, but... by Missing_dc · · Score: 1

      Perhaps this effect is why LHC broke when they fired it up the first time.
      Makes more sense than the coolant tank bolts rattling loose.

      --
      How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
    14. Re:Sounds great, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, maybe not the last one given how our educational system has declined over the years and how learning and knowledge has been considered deeply uncool by our culture for decades now, but maybe we'll see people who learn how to better market a lunchbox.

    15. Re:Sounds great, but... by imakemusic · · Score: 1

      Say what you like but it doesn't work yet and they haven't put any fairy cake in it.

      COINCEDENCE?

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
    16. Re:Sounds great, but... by A+Pressbutton · · Score: 1

      ... Chinese prodigy has hyperdrive in lunchbox ... sounds like one of those films on bittorrent.

    17. Re:Sounds great, but... by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 1

      They obviously just need to realign the dilithium quantum flux matrix. What kind of boneheads do they have working on that thing??

    18. Re:Sounds great, but... by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Correlation /= causation!

    19. Re:Sounds great, but... by jbezorg · · Score: 1

      Nope, comedy.

      The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - Chapter 10

      The Infinite Improbability Drive is a wonderful new method of crossing vast interstellar distances in a mere nothingth of a second, without all that tedious mucking about in hyperspace. It was discovered by a lucky chance, and then developed into a governable form of propulsion by the Galactic Government's research team on Damogran.

      This, briefly, is the story of its discovery. The principle of generating small amounts of finite improbability by simply hooking the logic circuits of a Bambleweeny 57 Sub-Meson Brain to an atomic vector plotter suspended in a strong Brownian Motion producer (say a nice hot cup of tea) were of course well understood - and such generators were often used to break the ice at parties by making all the molecules in the hostess's undergarments leap simultaneously one foot to the left, in accordance with the Theory of Indeterminacy.

      Many respectable physicists said that they weren't going to stand for this - partly because it was a debasement of science, but mostly because they didn't get invited to those sort of parties.

      Another thing they couldn't stand was the perpetual failure they encountered in trying to construct a machine which could generate the infinite improbability field needed to flip a spaceship across the mind-paralysing distances between the furthest stars, and in the end they grumpily announced that such a machine was virtually impossible.

      Then, one day, a student who had been left to sweep up the lab after a particularly unsuccessful party found himself reasoning this way:

      If, he thought to himself, such a machine is a virtual impossibility, then it must logically be a finite improbability. So all I have to do in order to make one is to work out exactly how improbable it is, feed that figure into the finite improbability generator, give it a fresh cup of really hot tea... and turn it on!

      He did this, and was rather startled to discover that he had managed to create the long sought after golden Infinite Improbability generator out of thin air.

      It startled him even more when just after he was awarded the Galactic Institute's Prize for Extreme Cleverness he got lynched by a rampaging mob of respectable physicists who had finally realized that the one thing they really couldn't stand was a smartass.

      --
      I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
    20. Re:Sounds great, but... by imakemusic · · Score: 1

      Yes, I know, smartass.

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
    21. Re:Sounds great, but... by jbezorg · · Score: 1

      Hey, it's possible that someone may not have read the book. Hopefully they may want to now.

      --
      I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
    22. Re:Sounds great, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it run Linux?

    23. Re:Sounds great, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just don't wait for thim in the test chamber. Things could go really bad in there.

  3. One thing... by Random2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "calculated that a stationary mass should repel a particle moving towards or away from it at more than half the speed of light"

    So, how do I slow down while going half he speed of light?

    I see the advent of a new industry: space crash landings

    --
    "Our goal each year should be to increase the number of goals we set for ourselves!"
    1. Re:One thing... by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 1

      Anything you're moving towards should push you away, so you'll slow down automatically when you get close to anything.

    2. Re:One thing... by aicrules · · Score: 1

      Slow down/crash into/be bumped off course? I'm pretty sure you'd still be going fast enough to be screwed if you were heading straight at something.

    3. Re:One thing... by EatHam · · Score: 1

      "calculated that a stationary mass should repel a particle moving towards or away from it at more than half the speed of light"

      So, how do I slow down while going half he speed of light?

      According to what you have in quotes, approaching a stationary mass ought to do the job.

    4. Re:One thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You probably could accelerate fast enough to stop before hitting something, but that same acceleration would probably kill you.

    5. Re:One thing... by holmstar · · Score: 1

      Only until you drop below .5c Then you would proceed to slam into said object and become a very bright cloud of subatomic particles.

    6. Re:One thing... by holmstar · · Score: 1

      Well, The same effect that allows you to use this as a method of propulsion would allow you to slow down while approaching a massive object. Unfortunately it would only slow you down to about 0.5c at most, which would be bad since at that point you would be very close to the aforementioned massive object. So you would need to reverse thrust for half of your journey, just like any other propulsion system that we have envisioned so far.

    7. Re:One thing... by Odin's+Raven · · Score: 1

      "calculated that a stationary mass should repel a particle moving towards or away from it at more than half the speed of light"

      So, how do I slow down while going half he speed of light?

      Just have someone cut the stationary mass in half - then it'll repel you at 1/4 the speed of light. As your speed drops, have them cut the stationary mass in half again, so that the remaining portion will repel you at 1/8 the speed of light. Continue the process until you reach a full stop. I dub this amazing new concept "Zeno Braking". :-P

      --
      A marriage is always made up of two people who are prepared to swear that only the other one snores.
    8. Re:One thing... by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      Only until you drop below .5c Then you would proceed to slam into said object and become a very bright cloud of subatomic particles.

      So we need to invent a stationary mass that moves out of the way. That should be simple, all we have to do is shoot the dictionary authors.

    9. Re:One thing... by EatHam · · Score: 1

      OP did not specify the desired deceleration rate. My idea fulfills the requirements stated.

    10. Re:One thing... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      The exact same way you sped up of course! Just in the other direction!

      Did you sleep at basic mechanics in physics class? ^^

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  4. Hurrah! by Canazza · · Score: 0

    One step closer to Revelation Space

    --
    It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
  5. First Contact.. by madhatter256 · · Score: 2, Funny

    With something so simple as to elastic collision, who would have thunk it?

    Theoretically it makes sense, and what's cool about it is that it can be done with today's technology.

    Pretty cool.

    Next thing you know we'll have Romulans visiting. I'm liking all of this already..

    --
    Previewing comments are for sissies!
    1. Re:First Contact.. by SuperNumberOne · · Score: 1

      Its not really elastic collision, that is just a poor analogy. This is a result due to the gravitational force between two objects as described by General Relativity.

      --
      Super Number One, a podcast about all things geek
    2. Re:First Contact.. by quercus.aeternam · · Score: 1

      Maybe in the movies...

      You're welcome to determine this experimentally, btw. I think mythbusters did something on this, too.

    3. Re:First Contact.. by holmstar · · Score: 1

      I don't think we've ever created a gun that can fire bullets at relativistic speeds.

    4. Re:First Contact.. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      We have, it's called "a particle accelerator".

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    5. Re:First Contact.. by furby076 · · Score: 1

      Next thing you know we'll have Romulans visiting. I'm liking all of this already Don't you mean vulcans? Besides why would you want romulans? Those folks will eat our faces.

      --

      I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
    6. Re:First Contact.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I find your faces ugly.

      - Romulan.. ops, I mean human

  6. So what happens when... by bossanovalithium · · Score: 2, Funny

    There's a hyperdriven black hole careering all around Northern Europe? That's a hot mess waiting to happen.

    1. Re:So what happens when... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 2, Funny

      There's a hyperdriven black hole careering all around Northern Europe? That's a hot mess waiting to happen.

      It's like that childrens' book, "If you give a black hold a continent..."

  7. Breaking Out by gpronger · · Score: 0

    Our problem with space travel has been our propulsion systems. Our major tech advances across the board tend to hinge on a single key break-through that then opens the door for subsequent refinements till we have a viable technology. If this pans out it may no longer "locked" to shuttling around the Earth and moon, and if someone's willing to make a likely one way trip to Mars.

    1. Re:Breaking Out by camperdave · · Score: 1

      I have yet to see a reasonable space drive proposal other than the standard Newtonian momentum transfer drives (aka rockets) we have now.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    2. Re:Breaking Out by gpronger · · Score: 1

      Agreed. But my point (and maybe not clearly communicated) was that the hyperdrive may be the "break-out" technology which changes the basic premise (liquid and solid fuel rockets). So long as we're chemical based, we're likely limited to wandering (with manned space flight) fairly close to home. Even our next nearest planets are highly impractical for manned flight with current technology.

    3. Re:Breaking Out by Orange+Crush · · Score: 1

      There is no method of propulsion that is not some manner of standard Newtonian momentum transfer (including the theory in TFA). Even a gravitational assist is a momentum transfer from a planet to a spacecraft--the spacecraft gets a nice speed boost, and the planet is now orbiting a few meters-per-trillion-years more slowly.

      That doesn't mean rockets are the end-all-be-all. Solar sails, photonic propulsion, ion drives, and maybe this particle accelerator drive might all be far better engines for certain applications.

    4. Re:Breaking Out by VoidCrow · · Score: 1

      VASIMR?

    5. Re:Breaking Out by furby076 · · Score: 1

      That doesn't mean rockets are the end-all-be-all. Solar sails, photonic propulsion, ion drives, and maybe this particle accelerator drive might all be far better engines for certain applications.

      Knowing us, we will figure out how to do it and in about 50 years the new global warming will be global shifting. Democrats will want new laws to correct this before we kill ourselves, and republicans will call it pseudo-science with no real fact. I won't worry about 100 years because global warming (a buzz-word forgotten by then since it is replaced by global shifting) will have killed us.

      --

      I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
    6. Re:Breaking Out by camperdave · · Score: 1

      I guess I was being a little too vague. I meant standard action/reaction drives like rockets. ie, push some propellant in the opposite direction of the way you wish to go.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    7. Re:Breaking Out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, 1970s technology could build a nuclear rocket. We just don't because it would spray radiation all over the place.

  8. Great test of General Relativity by jabuzz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Apart from being a potential nifty space drive, it would also provide a new test of General Relativity. This is far more likely to get it done as a real experiment at the LHC, than a new space drive.

    1. Re:Great test of General Relativity by mrsquid0 · · Score: 1

      This is a test of Special Relativity, not General Relativity.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    2. Re:Great test of General Relativity by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      Care to expand that a bit? On my reading of the summary acceleration is involved, which pushes it outside the realm of special rel.

    3. Re:Great test of General Relativity by mrsquid0 · · Score: 1

      You are right, it is General Relativity. My brain transposed the two theories for some reason, probably because I posted before having my morning cup of tea.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    4. Re:Great test of General Relativity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't Einstein argue strongly in favor of the view that when you accelerate you will always feel that effect, and then he made formulas based on this logic ? This system seems to give acceleration that you do not feel.

  9. But by Dunbal · · Score: 1, Insightful

    KE = 1/2m*v^2

    There's no way around that one, and I don't care WHAT you use to accelerate your object. Rocket, ion drive, hyperdrive - you are always going to need a source of fuel, which is going to increase your mass, which is going to increase the amount of fuel you need, etc.

    It doesn't matter how efficient your engine is, your top speed (and thus your range) will ALWAYS be limited by the mass of fuel you need to drag along with you to get there (and hopefully decelerate too). Never mind the perfect ecosystem required to keep a crew alive for decades/centuries. (Cue magical "suspended animation")

    The ONLY exception to this is the "solar sail" concept, which relies on an external source of propulsion. However THAT is limited by your only being able to accelerate for a limited time until you get far enough away from a star that the particle density is essentially nil and acceleration stops.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:But by Canazza · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unless we use a Bussard Ramjet to collect interstellar dust...

      --
      It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
    2. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's in terms of classical mechanics, by the way.

    3. Re:But by KingSkippus · · Score: 1

      Well, also consider that even deep space isn't completely empty. There are always at least a few hydrogen atoms floating around in even the most remote corners of the universe, as well as lots of photons, background radiation, possibly dark matter and dark energy, and frankly, stuff that we might not even know of yet.

      Just like the significant possibility that there's water and other resources on the moon that we once thought was a vast, barren wasteland of nothing useful, with enough research, we may yet find ways of sustaining ourselves even in the almost true nothingness that is outer space.

    4. Re:But by Viper23 · · Score: 1

      Alternately, if you're not thinking of yourself, but of the potential for future generations' travels through space, you could preposition fuel at waypoints already traveling at useful speeds for their craft to catch up to...

      It might take you a couple hundred years to set up, but some projects just might be worth the time / effort / expense...

    5. Re:But by Sockatume · · Score: 1, Troll

      Somebody hasn't read much Larry Niven. Why take starlight as-is when you can use solar collectors to gather it up and power a laser to drive your sail?

      I'm not sure that the maximum velocity is as much a limit as you think, either. Given the time and proper course, so long as you can get above the local escape velocity (which is easier done by stealing momentum from other celestial bodies than by carrying around fuel) you can go somewhere else.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    6. Re:But by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Or combine the two. Use a solar sail to get initial speed, then start collecting fuel with the ramjet. As you near your destination, deploy the sail again to start slowing your craft.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    7. Re:But by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 1

      In the solar sail case, you've got a star at the beginning of the journey to provide acceleration and theoretically you're going to venture to another star which should provide the "fuel" for deceleration. In between, I am assuming that you don't lose any speed since you're traveling in a vacuum.

    8. Re:But by JerryLove · · Score: 1

      There a any number of viable methods to not carry fuel with them. Ramjets have been mentioned. Electromagnetic sails (or any kind of repulsor of an externally emitted wave/particle). The time-honored method of stealing velocity from other objects (gravity sling-shot).

      And, in this case, if we are using a hypervelocity particle to repell a mass, then the particle could, presumably, be fired from a fixed point (Earth) to repel a ship.

    9. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you want another "spacecraft carries its fuel" exception, check out magsails.

      Backing up, though, I'll see your KE = 1/2 m v^2, and raise you E = mc^2. Consider that 1 kg matter + 1 kg antimatter yields 1.7975 * 10^17 J of energy. A mere 20 kg of reactants would yield enough energy to accelerate 90 metric tons -- somewhat more massive than the Space Shuttle orbiter -- to 0.01c. 2 metric tons of reactants vs 90 metric tons of total mass gives 0.1c. Chemical propulsion doesn't seem to be a viable mechanism long-term, as you point out, but the energy-vs-mass problem overall isn't as dire as you indicate.

      Humanity has been attempting spaceflight for only 50 years now. Interstellar travel will happen. It almost certainly won't be in our lifetimes, but don't count us out yet.

    10. Re:But by radtea · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The ONLY exception to this is the "solar sail" concept, which relies on an external source of propulsion.

      I believe the idea here is to have a particle accelerator in orbit that will be fired past the spacecraft it is accelerating, so it is analogous to a laser-pumped solar sail. It's also best to think of this as a potential tool for accelerating really low-mass instrument packages intended to do fly-bys of nearby stars, which could be scientifically useful.

      The rest of your post sounds remarkably like statements by people back in the '70's that we'd never be able to image the disk of even nearby stars, much less discover or image planets around them.

      It may be that what the author is proposing is impossible. There are a number of things in the paper that look highly sketchy to me, but GR ain't my field. Even so, while this method of acceleration for interstellar exploration may not work, the one method that is certain not to work is never bothering to try.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    11. Re:But by JSBiff · · Score: 2

      Oh, you beat me to it. I posted nearly the same point, but apparently you were posting at the same time. Your write up is better, anyhow. Great wiki link, thanks.

    12. Re:But by MozeeToby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's no limit to how much energy you can put into your propellent though. If you had Sufficiently Advanced Technology you could put a huge particle accellerator on your spaceship and send your exhuast out behind you at 99.999999999% the speed of light which, in fact, gives you a KE > 1/2m*V^2 due to relativistic effects. In fact, you could accelerate a million ton spacecraft up to .5 c with half a kilogram of propellent if you could put enough energy into it.

    13. Re:But by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 0

      Why take starlight as-is when you can use solar collectors to gather it up and power a laser to drive your sail?

      Here's a handy tip: next time you fall in a hole, you can get out by lifting yourself by your own bootstraps.

    14. Re:But by bughunter · · Score: 1

      Nobody said they're getting around anything. In general relativity, such equations balance out only within the context of one inertial frame of reference. The relativistic particle and the stationary mass are in two separate frames of reference. I haven't read the 1924 Hilbert paper, but it sounds like the change in the frame of reference between the relativistic particle and the stationary mass transfers additional KE to the latter.

      Plus there's the whole relativistic mass thing [M=m(1-v^2/c^2)^-2 ], which gives additional momentum to a relativistic particle also. Or perhaps that's the basis of the Hilbert paper (but that seems way too obvious).

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    15. Re:But by Viper23 · · Score: 1

      BTW, you don't need magical suspended animation.

      1. Frozen embryos. (Already have this tech)
      2. Artificial wombs. (Getting close on this one)
      3. Automated learning systems. (Also pretty damn close)

      Thaw, birth and teach them when the ship finds them a home. (You could even test the system over a 20 year cycle in our own solar system and at the end of the test "Surprise, you're actually still here!")

      The point might not be to get YOU to a new star system... just a sample of humanity so we know that some of "us" are out there being "us".

      Send thousands of these ships out there looking for a place to land, and see if anyone ever calls back.

    16. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      um... no?
      kinetic energy doesn't follow that formula at relativistic speeds, which the article is explicitly about.

    17. Re:But by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In fact, you could accelerate a million ton spacecraft up to .5 c with half a kilogram of propellent if you could put enough energy into it.

      The question then becomes, how much does that amount of energy weigh?

    18. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is the Newtonian equation. It does not take relativistic effects into account. Ever wonder where the 1/2 went for E = MC^2?

    19. Re:But by Interoperable · · Score: 1

      Considering that the article is about accelerating a mass by flinging relativistic objects at (near) it, the energy source would likely be stationary; much like a sail reflecting light from a stationary laser.

      --
      So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
    20. Re:But by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      Here's a handy tip: next time you fall in a hole, you can get out by lifting yourself by your own bootstraps.

      But a pulley helps.

    21. Re:But by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 1

      Ok, I don't understand how solar sails are supposed to work, but if light exerts pressure on a sail, then I see how one might wonder if shooting a given candlepower of light out of a bulb might not produce the same amount of force as the light would exert upon hitting a sail. If that is the case though, then there is no need for a sail at all, as all you would be doing would be re-channeling the starlight that hits your craft out the aft end. Would this mean a glass sphere covered in lenses that focus light into fiber optics that all route out one way would move?

      --
      ...
    22. Re:But by lymond01 · · Score: 1

      Agreed mathematically. I see two problems with near-light speeds of travel:

      1) You need to get around the mass vs acceleration issue -- I recommend a good warping of space: bring your destination to you.

      2) Inertial dampening. To accelerate to near c is either going to take a very long time, or it's going to give someone a pretty severe case of whiplash (as in "Get that unrecognizable pulp out of the captain's chair!"). Braking has the same issue.

      Perhaps a simple fix is to drive a micro black hole in front of you -- this would warp spacetime, bringing everything closer, and if tweaked properly, might offset acceleration forces (as your ship accelerates, instead of going backwards, you're going towards the black hole's gravity field). For deceleration, just toss the black hole behind your ship.

      And since there's a chance the LHC is going to generate a micro black hole, we need to get a Cessna and Chuck Yeager on site, STAT!

    23. Re:But by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Despite what the article says, it's not a magical drive. It just gives you an unexpected boost in the specific impulse, which means you can carry less fuel because you get more bang for your kilogram.

      The effect must be awfully small though, because the Tevatron hasn't decided to lift off.

    24. Re:But by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Despite the snarky reply, he's absolutely correct.

      You get some momentum from the photons hitting your solar collector. With that done, you can fire up a laser and either aim it at your solar sail, which will reflect the photons in the opposite direction, from which you get some more momentum. Or you can just fire the laser out the back and not take the loss from imperfect reflection. Oh, and you don't need the sail.

      I think he means leaving the solar collectors behind and using them to power a laser that is directed at the solar sail ship though.

    25. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      KE = 1/2m*v^2

      There's no way around that one, and I don't care WHAT you use to accelerate your object. Rocket, ion drive, hyperdrive - you are always going to need a source of fuel, which is going to increase your mass, which is going to increase the amount of fuel you need, etc.

      I think this is the bit you missed, "The idea is that the repulsion allows the relativistic particle to deliver a specific impulse that is greater than its specific momentum". That throws KE = 1/2m*v^2 right out the window as a theoretical maximum.

      I'm not sure what the scheme entails specifically, but it seems that if you eject a stream of particles at relativistic velocity from your craft, you get the usual "equal and opposite" acceleration PLUS an additional repulsive force between your craft and the stream of particles. I don't know what the magnitude of this force is, but if it is significant it would have the potential to break the usual "you can't accelerate to near the speed of light since you can't eject particles at over the speed of light" deadlock.

      I'm also curious about the effect on the stream of particles, since they are of course also being accelerated by this process, could they exceed the speed of light?

      The ONLY exception to this is the "solar sail" concept, which relies on an external source of propulsion. However THAT is limited by your only being able to accelerate for a limited time until you get far enough away from a star that the particle density is essentially nil and acceleration stops.

      Right, except for the only other exceptions, a ramjet as others have noted, a particle-beam augmented solar sail (a fixed emplacement fires a beam of charged particles which further propel the solar sail craft once it leaves the area where the solar wind is significant), and all the other methods for providing external power over large distances that we haven't come up with yet.

    26. Re:But by DMiax · · Score: 1

      KE = 1/2m*v^2

      Funny how you say that when the summary contains the word "relativistic". Oh, did I say funny? I meant idiotic.

    27. Re:But by Wolvenhaven · · Score: 1

      I forgot the name of the book but one of the races in it would deplete all the resources of a solar system, built enough ships to move their entire race each with a gigantic solar sail and would then proceed to turn the star nova in order to provide an enormous amount of thrust to move on to the next solar system.

      --
      Orwell was an optimist.
    28. Re:But by rockNme2349 · · Score: 1

      Unless I'm missing some special relativity magic here, when you fire a laser at your solar sail momentum is conserved and you will be slowed by firing the laser, sped up when the laser hits your sail, resulting in zero net change in velocity.

      --
      Sewage Treatment Facilities - "Our duty is clear."
    29. Re:But by wurp · · Score: 1

      According to special relativity, mass is nothing more or less than a measure of the energy in a system. (If you don't believe me, look up mass-energy equivalence.)

      Mass increases with velocity by a factor of (1-v^2/c^2)^-.5.

      The mass of a million ton spacecraft moving at .5 c is therefore a million tons times (1-(.5)^2)^-.5 = million tons * 1.1547.

      So, at 100% efficiency both in the concentration of energy in the fuel (i.e. total mass conversion) and in propulsion, the fuel must weigh 1.1547 * million tons - million tons = ~155,000 tons.

    30. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Short answer: a lot.

      Long answer: We assume that we're at rest, and the spacecraft is moving at a constant 0.5c. First let's calculate gamma, which gives us the relativistic modification, basically.

      gamma = 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)
                  = 1/sqrt(1-0.25)
                ~= 1.15

      Now google sez "1 million short tons = 907184740 kilograms". Also, 0.5c is 1.5e8 m/s. The classical KE is 0.5*m*v^2, but the relativistic modification is

      KE = gamma*(0.5*m*v^2)
            = 1.15*0.5*9.07e8*2.25e16
            = 1.17e25 J

      I need to take a nap, someone finish this.

    31. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is using an external source of propulsion. Apparently, simply having a mass next to a relativistic particle is enough for this to work, and since we aren't going to take the whole LHC with us, the source of relativistic particles will have to be external.

    32. Re:But by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      CALL ME WHEN YOU REACH A RELATIVISTIC SPEED... oh wait, you can't.

      until then, KE = 1/2mv^2 stands.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    33. Re:But by david_thornley · · Score: 3, Informative

      KE = 1/2m*v^2

      That's the classical formula, which is asymptotically accurate at speeds much below the speed of light.

      The real formula is messier, as you'll see at the Wikipedia article. There's currently no way around that one, but we might find a more precise formula later.

      If the classical formula was completely correct, then the kinetic energy of a particle at lightspeed would be half the relativistic energy of its rest mass, and therefore modern particle accelerators (which can be seen as adding kinetic energy to particles) would achieve speeds far faster than light. This doesn't happen.

      There's no inherent limit to the amount of kinetic energy we can put into a particle of any mass. The issue for interstellar travel is getting the energy, not applying it. Energy on that scale has an awful lot of mass.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    34. Re:But by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      No I didn't miss anything - see, when someone manages to accelerate anything bigger than a subatomic particle to an appreciable fraction of the speed of light, you are all talking out of your asses. Blah blah blah theory gobbledeegook but I think it works THIS way.

      I'm a practical guy. When you reach (I'll be generous) 1% c (3,000 kms-1) with your spaceship, I'll think about revising the laws of Newtonian physics. However I would hate to think about the amount of energy you'd need just to reach 1% c, much less some greater fraction of it.

      You cannae change the laws of physics, Jim. I don't know how spending billions of dollars shooting (less than a) handful of neutrons at exoplanets at some percentage of the speed of light will have any practical application.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    35. Re:But by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      +1 misinformative.

      Reach that speed with a macroscopic object first, then we'll talk about relativistic physics for spaceships. Until then, Newton stands.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    36. Re:But by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Well, the energy the rocket would end up with would be: .5*1E6ton*(0.5c)^2 = 1E25J.

      The equivalent mass is 1E25J/c^2 = 125kT (hmm - all those c's cancel out).

      This assumes that your energy source is completely transformed into kinetic energy, and that the exhaust contains no kinetic energy. I suspect to figure that all out I'd need to get into impulse and conservation of momentum and all that, and I'm too lazy. However, the mass isn't actually unreasonable considering a typical rocket going to vastly slower speeds is 99% fuel anyway. Of course, in addition to your super-efficient engine you also need a way to extract 100% of the energy out of matter to get away with so little of it. If you carried matter/antimatter you might get in the ballpark. Of course, if you crashed your ship with 60kT of antimatter aboard I think I'll like to be on the other side of the solar system. For that matter, the same applies if you crashed your ship into anything solid once you were at speed (granted you'd probably just punch a hole in the earth and come right out the other side with a big exit crater).

    37. Re:But by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      if you could put enough energy into it.

            Exactly. And where, pray, is this energy going to magically appear from?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    38. Re:But by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      I grew up in those days. Those were the days when computers filled whole buildings, cost millions of dollars, and probably had around 64k of memory. Dad had one at the plant to do the payroll for 5000+ employees. I used to help him feed the punch-cards into the machine. It was expensive as hell, but cheaper than an accounting department dedicated to payroll.

      I have seen techniques developed and machines created that have let us push back several boundaries, from imaging actual atoms, to seeing earth-sized exoplanets around other stars, even through different techniques.

      However I do believe firmly in the law of diminishing returns. I think it's fairly easy to innovate, invest and create in fairly passive technologies - technologies that permit us to observe - by using telescopes across the planet synchronized by computer and internet into one huge telescope, or by putting small satellites in orbit, and using the diameter of the earth's orbit as a single telescope. Heck, if we got really serious we could cover the solar system in telescopes, and call it the VERY HUGE FRICKEN GYNORMOUS ARRAY, and see even more detail.

      However taking several million tons and lifting them into orbit, maintaining that orbit, and then proposing to build and accelerate something really really heavy out of the solar system at a meaningful speed - just the logistics would require every resource on the planet for a very long time. Kudos to whoever discovers a cheaper way into orbit - but for now, it's an impossible fantasy for all your arguments about it on paper.

      There have been countless counters in this thread reminding me about Newtonian physics breaking down at relativistic speeds. I'm not stupid and I am well aware of that. However we can't reach those speeds, ever. The energy required doesn't change. SOMETHING needs to be making those "relativistic" particles, and it won't be free. So it's a moot point. We're stuck with Newton forever.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    39. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      KE = 1/2m*v^2

      There's no way around that one, and I don't care WHAT you use to accelerate your object. Rocket, ion drive, hyperdrive - you are always going to need a source of fuel, which is going to increase your mass, which is going to increase the amount of fuel you need, etc.

      Only if you haven't studied physics since 1905.

    40. Re:But by JerryLove · · Score: 1

      Err. Replace "ramjets" with "Bussard Jets"

    41. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you can't get around it, but if you increase 'v' by enough (to, say, 50% of light speed) you can certainly make it quite manageable.

    42. Re:But by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm a practical guy. When you reach (I'll be generous) 1% c (3,000 kms-1) with your spaceship, I'll think about revising the laws of Newtonian physics.

      s/practical guy/guy that refuses to believe 100 years worth of scientific experiments by people far smarter than anyone here/

    43. Re:But by Binkleyz · · Score: 1
      All the math makes my head hurt, but..

      After only 2 years (from the perspective of the crew.. 3.75 years from the ground) at a constant 1g acceleration (you know, nice to have a sense of gravity for at least half of the trip..), you'll have traveled 2.9 light years.

      After 5 years (using that same perspective) you'll have traveled nearly 83 light years (and nearly 84 years on the ground) and reached .99993 of c.

      All of this is to say that from the perspective of the crew, this isn't necessarily a multi-lifetime trip.

      See http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html for more details

    44. Re:But by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Sure, but you forgot something. Your sail is reflective.

      So you fire the laser, which slows you down. If the laser beam hit a non-reflective sail you'd be back at zero. Since the sail is reflective, at least some of the photons bounce and go back in the opposite direction.

      You can think of it as absorption and emission if it's easier to picture. Laser emits photons (-x momentum), photons are absorbed by sail (+x momentum) then photons are emitted by the sail in the direction they came from (+x momentum).

      Photons don't work quite like throwing rocks, but if you could design a regular sail that wouldn't just catch air particles but bounce them back the way they came, with the velocity they came in at, you could indeed power your sailboat by blowing on the sail (although just blowing over the stern rail would be easier). Some thrust reversers on airplane turbofan engines work this way.

    45. Re:But by Late+Adopter · · Score: 1

      That's a terrible analogy. We do that all the time: it's called a gravitational assist ("fly-by").

      Here's a physics experiment for you: take two billiard balls and put one on a level track. Put the other on a track that dips down and then dips up again just before arriving at the same point as another one. Give them each the same push. Which gets to the end first? It's the second ball, because while energy was conserved, it temporarily gave up potential energy to have kinetic energy for a duration that significantly shortened the time-of-flight.

    46. Re:But by Princeofcups · · Score: 1

      The question then becomes, how much does that amount of energy weigh?

      In free space? It weighs nothing. But it does have mass.

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    47. Re:But by ShadowXOmega · · Score: 0

      There's no inherent limit to the amount of kinetic energy we can put into a particle of any mass. The issue for interstellar travel is getting the energy, not applying it. Energy on that scale has an awful lot of mass.

      actually...the max energy density is 1 planck energy unit in a sphere of diameter of 1 planck length: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_energy

    48. Re:But by exploder · · Score: 1

      You're right, but the situation only becomes less favorable at relativistic speeds. The GP's lower bound on required energy is not invalid, just a little loose.

      --
      Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD
    49. Re:But by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > Considering that the article is about accelerating a mass by flinging
      > relativistic objects at (near) it...

      Flinging objects away works equally well.

      > the energy source would likely be stationary...

      "Stationary" is devoid of meaning in relativity.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    50. Re:But by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > Inertial dampening. To accelerate to near c is either going to take a very
      > long time, or it's going to give someone a pretty severe case of whiplash...

      No. Do the math. 1G gets you pretty close to the speed of light (in the only reference frame that matters: yours) in a year or so.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    51. Re:But by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > Despite what the article says, it's not a magical drive. It just gives you an
      > unexpected boost in the specific impulse, which means you can carry less
      > fuel because you get more bang for your kilogram.

      Exactly. It means that a rocket that exhausts subatomic particles at near light speed will have more thrust than classically predicted. No conservation laws are broken (what is the effect when the exhaust is photons, though?)

      > The effect must be awfully small though, because the Tevatron hasn't
      > decided to lift off.

      The mass of the particles circulating in the Tevatron is miniscule and the mass of the magnets is enourmous. Even if the reaction force was increased by orders of magnitude no one would have noticed.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    52. Re:But by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 1

      There's no way around that one, and I don't care WHAT you use to accelerate your object...
      The ONLY exception to this is the "solar sail"...

      Not trolling, but you have a very closed mind about this stuff. Just because humans haven't discovered it yet does not mean it doesn't exist.

    53. Re:But by lymond01 · · Score: 1

      Well, sure. But when the captain says, "Warp 5. Engage!"...what if he didn't bring any Winter clothes?

    54. Re:But by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why take starlight as-is when you can use solar collectors to gather it up and power a laser to drive your sail?

      Here's a handy tip: next time you fall in a hole, you can get out by lifting yourself by your own bootstraps.

      Of course, your example just shows you don't know what he's talking about. You build the solar collectors in orbit around Mercury, and then aim the laser at the solar sail in deep space.

      Robert Forward even showed how you can use one of them to decelerate when you get where you're going - basically, you release about 3/4 of your lightsail, and focus that section so that the laserlight, reflected off the larger section of lightsail shines on the smaller one, decelerating it relative to your start point.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    55. Re:But by radtea · · Score: 1

      and then proposing to build and accelerate something really really heavy out of the solar system at a meaningful speed

      I'm not suggesting that, and neither is the guy who's proposing this experiment, at least the way I'm reading it. I'm proposing instrument packages that have a mass of maybe a gram. Who knows what such a thing might be able to do in a few decades if we keep on making things smaller and lighter.

      A gram is not actually that much to get up to relativistic speeds if you don't have to haul your fuel with you. Remember, a smallish nuclear power plant (1 GW, say) is converting 1 g to energy every twelve hours or so, and to first order the amount of energy required to get a mass up to a respectable fraction of c is that object's mass converted to energy.

      So the power requirements for a relativistic interstellar micro-probe aren't out of this world, although the power plant itself would probably be built on lunar farside. What's required is a way to deliver the power to the probe. This guy thinks he has a more efficient way of doing that. Fair enough: certainly worth testing, and certainly worth wondering how it might be applied to practical interstellar exploration.

      It might not happen for centuries. But never? That's a long time.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    56. Re:But by Bazer · · Score: 1

      m=cc/E, duh!

    57. Re:But by N1ck0 · · Score: 1

      You would have a problem with doppler shift...the energy of the light is not constant with reflection, the momentum imparted by the laser on the reflective surface lowers the energy level of the laser.

    58. Re:But by Mick+D. · · Score: 1

      Unless we use a Bussard Ramjet to collect interstellar dust...

      The math on the Bussard Ramjet actually makes it a better brake than drive. The magnetic field causes more drag than the possible acceleration from the thrust generated by any fusion reaction they could create with intersteller dust.

      --

      Is this the end yet?...How 'bout now...how 'bout now...how 'bout now?
    59. Re:But by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      "The mass of the particles circulating in the Tevatron is miniscule and the mass of the magnets is enourmous. Even if the reaction force was increased by orders of magnitude no one would have noticed."

      I'm not saying the effect doesn't exist, just that the "OMG, warp drive!" is a little premature. In order to turn the thing into a warp drive you'd have to basically make a particle accelerator and turn it into a spacecraft, or make a spacecraft and shoot the output of a particle accelerator at it. Either way, if you can just barely measure the thrust from this effect you're not going to suddenly get a powerful space drive.

    60. Re:But by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      True, but you still come out ahead. There's no Doppler shift if the laser doesn't put net energy into the sail.

    61. Re:But by wurp · · Score: 1

      Er, typo. 115,000 tons.

    62. Re:But by dkf · · Score: 1

      actually...the max energy density is 1 planck energy unit in a sphere of diameter of 1 planck length

      Sure, but in what reference frame? Lorenz contraction (or the GR equivalent) makes things tricky. And in fact, this is one of the areas where combining GR and QM becomes awkward; trying to combine the two always goes wonky because the theories aren't compatible and once we know how to do the combination... that's the Theory of Everything.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    63. Re:But by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]

      Haven't found evidence of experiments in the past 100 years with 3000kms-1 spaceships. Closest I get is some spacecraft like Pioneer traveling just over 11.6kms-1. Yes there's been a lot of other interesting work done with accelerating SUBATOMIC PARTICLES, but I can hardly imagine you riding one of those. Oh wait, perhaps I can...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    64. Re:But by Prune · · Score: 2, Informative

      You believe wrong. If you had read the damn paper, you'd have seen that the idea is that a mass much larger than the spaceship moving at relativistic speed can repel the spaceship, accelerating it to a speed much higher than its own, while the spaceship itself will not feel the acceleration (it will be in free-fall condition), with the exception of tidal forces.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    65. Re:But by Prune · · Score: 1

      You're an idiot and should have read the fucking paper. This is not discussing propulsion that is part of the spacecraft, but gravitational repulsion by an external large relativistic mass (and the implication that such are to be found out there, though not specific as to the type). Indeed, the mass needs to be larger than the spacecraft itself and moving over a 3rd of c for this to work (the benefit is that the spacecraft will accelerate to much higher speed than the driver mass and those onboard will feel no acceleration, just tidal forces).

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    66. Re:But by Prune · · Score: 1

      I meant sqrt(3)*c for the threshold speed

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    67. Re:But by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Agreed - who knows in 100, or 500 years, what we'll be able to pack into a gram. So, you plan to shoot a beam at this thing to get it moving, I guess, since at just a gram it won't be able to carry a power supply with it or, conversely, be able to harness enough energy to power itself.

      Now tell me, how were you planning on slowing it down again? Unless this were some sort of probe whose job was to merely zip by a neighboring star and send back whatever kind of information can be sent back by something weighing a gram or so, I frankly don't see much potential.

      I understand everyone being excited by this. When I was younger, I was all for space exploration, disappointed by NASA's giving up the Apollo program, revolted by the thought of a space shuttle that at best could manage LEO, etc.

      But now I'm older, and I remember the words of Douglas Adams. Space is big. REALLY big. The only way we will reach the stars is when our sun goes nova. But then our atoms won't remember what we were, or what we aspired to be. Who am I kidding, we can't even run our own planet.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    68. Re:But by Interoperable · · Score: 1

      >Flinging objects away works equally well.

      True, but that's not the idea behind the hyperdrive; which is about not needing to carry fuel with you.

      >"Stationary" is devoid of meaning in relativity.

      But not in the context of conserving fuel on spacecraft that are being sent away from our planet. Why attach "as observed from X reference frame" when engaging in a colloquial discussion?

      --
      So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
    69. Re:But by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]

      Haven't found evidence of experiments in the past 100 years with 3000kms-1 spaceships. Closest I get is some spacecraft like Pioneer traveling just over 11.6kms-1. Yes there's been a lot of other interesting work done with accelerating SUBATOMIC PARTICLES, but I can hardly imagine you riding one of those. Oh wait, perhaps I can...

      Citation needed for relativity having 100 years of testing? WTF are you talking about? You don't need spaceships to test relativity. What, do you think spaceships are somehow affected by physics differently than anything else? Relativistic effects become measurable well below 3000km/s if your measuring device is precise enough.

      As far as the energy required to accelerate a spacecraft (not necessarily one with a person 'riding' it) to some good percentage of c, it's actually more than you even originally said, but still not an unthinkable amount. It's just a lot more than is practical in a chemical rocket. There's lots of other power sources and propulsion methods. This article speculates about one such propulsion method. Power can be acquired in a number of ways, since the power source doesn't have to be on the spacecraft.

      At some points, you sound like you're saying that having relativistic-speed spacecraft is practically infeasible for the near term. That's true. At others, where you quote Scotty "you cannae change the laws of physics", you sound like it's actually impossible impossible, which is completely not true. While the particular propulsion method in this story is unproven, in general, physics says it's quite possible to achieve. It's just an engineering problem.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    70. Re:But by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > True, but that's not the idea behind the hyperdrive; which is about not
      > needing to carry fuel with you.

      The idea is that due to the Hilbert effect a rocket with a relativistic exhaust velocity will have more thrust than "classically" predicted. Thus less reaction mass will be needed, but not none.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    71. Re:But by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > I'm not saying the effect doesn't exist, just that the "OMG, warp drive!"
      > is a little premature.

      Oh, come on. This is Slashdot.

      > In order to turn the thing into a warp drive you'd have to basically make a
      > particle accelerator and turn it into a spacecraft...

      Well, "warp" is just StarTrek gobbledygook, of course, but what you describe is pretty much what would be needed for an interstellar rocket. This effect means that it will have a bit more thrust than we thought it would.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    72. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you could put enough energy into it.

            Exactly. And where, pray, is this energy going to magically appear from?

      Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

    73. Re:But by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      You've watched too many cartoons where people blow in their own sails. Why not skip the sails and shoot the laser out the back, same net effect with less losses.

    74. Re:But by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Uh yeah, that's what I said. Did you not bother to read the thread before replying?

      Nevertheless, "blowing on your own sails" does work with solar sails. Of course, you're way better off skipping the laser altogether, no matter where you point it, and just using the sail.

    75. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming a very high ratio of raw conversion, (say, 90%?) and using the infamous E=MC^2 equation, then using 1kg of matter as "reactor fuel" to energize a much larger mass of reactive mass propellent would be quite doable. (1kg of mass, at 90% efficiency for raw conversion into energy using the relativity equation results in an energy yield of 81,000,000,000,000,000 joules.

      Food for thought.

    76. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CALL ME WHEN YOU REACH A RELATIVISTIC SPEED... oh wait, you can't.

      until then, KE = 1/2mv^2 stands.

      Particle accelerators accelerate particles (surprisingly) to relativistic speeds every day.

      Not to mention the corrections from SR and GR one needs to apply to GPS.

      Your statement implies that you think Newtonian physics gives perfect results even at low speeds, and we've yet to see any relativistic effects in macroscopic objects. This is not true. For instance, atomic clocks are accurate enough to measure time dilation in commercial airliners.

    77. Re:But by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      It's just an engineering problem.

            I guess I must be more of an engineer than you are.

            Philosopher: "I'd like to buy a lever of infinite length and an immovable place to stand"

            Storekeeper: "Sorry I'm fresh out of axiomatic mechanisms today".

            (Paraphrased from Terry Pratchett's 'Small Gods').

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    78. Re:But by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Yes, I meant leave the solar collectors and laser behind near the bloody star. Otherwise the acceleration drop-off with distance isn't going to get any better, is it?

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    79. Re:But by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why that came across as snarky, mind you. I meant that someone else has come up with an ingenious solution that he's just not seen, not that he's somehow mentally deficient for overlooking Dr. Beardy McMathface.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    80. Re:But by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Uh, not you snarky, the guy who I replied to, who wrote the comment about lifting yourself out of a hole with your bootstraps.

      I'm not sure why some idiot modded you as a troll.

    81. Re:But by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Philosopher: "I'd like to buy a lever of infinite length and an immovable place to stand"

      Storekeeper: "Sorry I'm fresh out of axiomatic mechanisms today".

      Again implying you think it's a physical impossibility and thus making you completely, factually wrong.

      I guess I must be more of an engineer than you are.

      Or that I'm willing to consider a longer development time than you. It's not like we have a deadline of 2019 to create relativistic-speed spacecraft! I think you're short-sighted, a poor trait for an engineer not required to operate under unrealistic deadlines, and that's giving you the benefit of the doubt that once again you have misrepresented yourself.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    82. Re:But by Interoperable · · Score: 1

      >The idea is that due to the Hilbert effect a rocket with a relativistic exhaust velocity will have more thrust than "classically" predicted.

      Yes, so it is; I misread the article. Thanks!

      --
      So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
    83. Re:But by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Someone did explain it nicely, by saying that accelerating our space ship so close to light speed (99.9something) would instantly suck in half the planets and stars around it, creating a nice little black hole.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  10. Oct 8th, Warp Drive Day. by Flowstone · · Score: 3, Insightful
    First we have the means to power the thing in the works. http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/10/08/0316200/Design-Starting-For-Matter-Antimatter-Collider

    And now they're getting the theory down for building it.

    Its only a matter of time (pun intended) till this plays out and turns into the world's first hyperdrive.

    1. Re:Oct 8th, Warp Drive Day. by dumeinst · · Score: 4, Informative

      Its only a matter of time (pun intended) till this plays out and turns into the world's first hyperdrive.

      It's only a matter of time until we're all consumed in a fiery death

    2. Re:Oct 8th, Warp Drive Day. by shish · · Score: 1

      It's only a matter of time until we're all consumed in a fiery death

      You'd rather we never research long-distance travel methods, but instead sit here and wait for the sun to explode? :-P

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    3. Re:Oct 8th, Warp Drive Day. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Question is: which will happen first?

    4. Re:Oct 8th, Warp Drive Day. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its only a matter of time (pun intended) till this plays out and turns into the world's first hyperdrive.

      It's only a matter of time until we're all consumed in a fiery death

      That's the whole point of this. Getting out before the fiery death.

  11. power by Alien+Being · · Score: 1, Funny

    Has that thing got a Hemi in it?

  12. turn the LHC 90 degrees so its facing down by circletimessquare · · Score: 1, Troll

    then duct tape a lawn chair on top of it

    interstellar travel here we come!

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:turn the LHC 90 degrees so its facing down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then duct tape a lawn chair on top of it

      Didn't I see this on the Darwin Awards?

  13. One More Thing... by popo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While testing this on the ground, just make sure you're not actually moving the Earth...

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
    1. Re:One More Thing... by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      I move the Earth every time I fart (or do anything else)

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    2. Re:One More Thing... by WonkoS · · Score: 1

      We could aim it at the Moon and then the moon will move out of it's orbit. The moon and moonbase alpha would then wander aimlessly through various plotlines and eventually be canceled.

    3. Re:One More Thing... by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      Or use it to skootch the earth a bit further out to combat global warming...

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    4. Re:One More Thing... by AdamThor · · Score: 2, Funny

      Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups... He pushes the world down.

      --
      -- "Oh. This guy again."
    5. Re:One More Thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While testing this on the ground, just make sure you're not actually moving the Earth...

      Otherwise we might solve global warming. Or make it worse. Or

  14. Reminds me of Elite by lxs · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Where hyperspeed was possible unless there were ships or asteroids nearby. In that case you became "mass locked" So it turns out that more than just a gimmick to skip the boring bits of the game, mass does indeed interfere with fast moving objects.

    1. Re:Reminds me of Elite by MrFurious5150 · · Score: 1

      In the non-canon Trek novel Prime Directive, they referred to this as the Danylkiw Limit. Perhaps the Reeves-Stevens got this idea from Elite. In canon Trek, they're horribly inconsistent on this. In TMP, they "risk going to warp while still in the solar system", while in TVH they take the Klingon Bird-of-Prey to warp while inside the Earth's atmosphere. :P

    2. Re:Reminds me of Elite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Star Wars has a similar idea regarding hyperdrives. I'm not sure to what extent it's clear from the movies, but the various novels usually mention it.

    3. Re:Reminds me of Elite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Star Wars hyperdrive was due to being unable to activate hyperdrives within a gravity well. I think it was possibly if needed, but most computers had insane amounts of safeties set in to prevent it.

      Interdictor class battleships could generate artificial gravity wells to prevent others from just hyperdriving away during deep space combat.

      Further, course had to be carefully plotted because you could apparently smash into objects in hyperdrive if you plan it wrong? I don't know how they made sure to avoid random asteroids and comets though.

  15. any bio-passenger would turn into jelly by peter303 · · Score: 0

    At those accerelations.
    Perhaps useful for robotic exploration.

    1. Re:any bio-passenger would turn into jelly by Kozz · · Score: 1

      Hmm, bio-passenger turns to jelly... sounds like a plausible plot line from Fringe.

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
  16. Ramjet? by JSBiff · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I was reading some science fiction once (I'm thinking maybe it was Larry Niven? Don't remember for sure). Anyhow, the author described a ship which used some sort of large electromagnetic 'scoop' to gather hydrogen gas from space (remember, space isn't a complete vacuum, and, the Interstellar Gas is believed to be about 89% hydrogen), to use as fuel (basically, the scoop in this theoretical ship narrowed down to a cone, and at the extreme minimal point of the cone, achieved compression necessary to cause fusion of the Hydrogen). It was sort of an interstellar fusion ramjet

    Because of the problem you've mentioned, I've always thought that, somehow, this has to be the answer to the long-distance fuel problem - gather your fuel as you go, don't 'pack it all' at the beginning of the voyage.

    Also, because fusion releases so much energy, it has a much better 'energy density' than current, conventional fuels. So, you can get more acceleration from smaller amounts of fuel mass.

    1. Re:Ramjet? by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's Niven's early Known Space universe (I think the hydrogen scoop was abandoned after ships switched to hyperspace travel.)

  17. So everything should repel everything else? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's plenty of things all around us in the universe moving above the speed of light, including light.

    1. Re:So everything should repel everything else? by holmstar · · Score: 1

      And everything seems to be moving apart... interesting, that.

    2. Re:So everything should repel everything else? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      There's plenty of things all around us in the universe moving above the speed of light, including light.

      Maybe, but we haven't detected any of them yet. Unless I missed the announcement of someone detecting tachyons, but I would expect that to have been a big enough deal to make lots of headlines.

  18. Re:David Hilbert stood idly by by hardburn · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm sure someone posting Anonymously on /. has the courage to stand up to thugs.

    --
    Not a typewriter
  19. Sounds more like an... by tmosley · · Score: 1

    This sounds more like an "impulse drive" to me. I'm growing more convinced every day that Gene Roddenberry came to us from the future.

    1. Re:Sounds more like an... by petrus4 · · Score: 1

      This sounds more like an "impulse drive" to me. I'm growing more convinced every day that Gene Roddenberry came to us from the future.

      I suspect the more elegant explanation is that at some point or another, he and Majel dropped acid. ;)

  20. you saw it at the multiplex this summer by circletimessquare · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    tell me the guy with the lawnchair and the balloons was not the inspiration for the movie "up"

    but i loved that guy's plans for descent: just shoot the balloons with a bbgun one by one. i think i'd have some trepidation with that plan sitting in a lawnchair at 2,000 feet. lol

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  21. As long as we don't follow canonicals example: by LordAndrewSama · · Score: 1

    If you name it Hyperdrive now, what will you name a FTL drive? Full-speed Hyperdrive? Hi-Speed?

    Windows: Hyperdrive 7.

    Mac: Hyperdrive Snow leopard.

    Ubuntu: Hyperdrive Jaunty Jackalope.

    Fine, fine, I'm going...

    1. Re:As long as we don't follow canonicals example: by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Nah, for an Ubuntu-style name you'd need to bump a few letters to maybe Lugubrious Llama or Morose Macaque.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  22. Hyperdrives don't work that way. by symbolset · · Score: 1

    A drive allows you to occupy a contiguous set of physical locations from origin to destination, optimally in a straight line.

    A hyperdrive allows you to take a shortcut and skip some of the locations.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:Hyperdrives don't work that way. by PinkyDead · · Score: 1

      To be fair, if the guy gets the thing to work then he can call it whatever he wants.

      Up to this point a 'hyperdrive' is a product of science fiction, so the only way you can stop him is to present your hyperdrive.

      Fuck it, if he wanted to he could call it an 'Infinite Improbability Drive'.

      --
      Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
  23. Hyperdrive? Nah... Impulse Drive, maybe... by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

    Hyperdrive is FTL. 1/2 Impulse is 1/2 the speed of light. Every treker, trekie, star trek fan, watcher of star trek, ..., knows that! Dah!

    "The idea is that the repulsion allows the relativistic particle to deliver a specific impulse that is greater than its specific momentum, an effect that is analogous to the elastic collision of a heavy mass with a much lighter, stationary mass, from which the lighter mass rebounds with about twice the speed of the heavy mass."

    How does one get a mass stationary anyhow? Just try and make a mass stationary in this Universe. What is zero velocity? With respect to what? Heck even space is "growing" so even if one is stationary space is growing around and in you and thus you're moving. The stars and even the galaxy are moving and rotating pulling all those stationary objects around. Just a question. Is it even possible to ever be stationary?

    1. Re:Hyperdrive? Nah... Impulse Drive, maybe... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Well if you could find the center of the universe the point at which the big bang happened and parked a black hole there then you would have a mass at a point in space that isn't moving...
      I know that must be wrong but just trying to figure out why gives me a splitting headache.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    2. Re:Hyperdrive? Nah... Impulse Drive, maybe... by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, splitting is what it is...

      There is no center of the Universe as the big bang too place every where! Now wrap your head around that ache. Before the big bang the universe didn't exist and there was no space nor time. Actually it makes little sense to talk about a before since time didn't exist. Then the big bang existed at the moment that time and space began... and rapidly expanded space itself till today where that singularity is now the entire universe.

      Or so the Big Bang Hypothesis, er mythology, with some evidence goes to say. Now of course there are other variants on this but this is a summary of the major bits of the mainstream view. Corrections welcome.

    3. Re:Hyperdrive? Nah... Impulse Drive, maybe... by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1

      What point on a surface of a balloon is the "center" after you have started inflating the balloon?

    4. Re:Hyperdrive? Nah... Impulse Drive, maybe... by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > What is zero velocity? With respect to what?

      With respect to you. Your frame of reference is as good as anyone else's.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    5. Re:Hyperdrive? Nah... Impulse Drive, maybe... by smoketetsuo · · Score: 1

      I'm with you on calling it the impulse drive. I'd prefer that over naming it after the creator. Crossing the tracks and referencing star wars hyperdrive is 0.5 past the speed of light. Either way it's a pretty exciting development to me.

    6. Re:Hyperdrive? Nah... Impulse Drive, maybe... by Kryptic+Knight · · Score: 1

      1/2 Impulse is NOT 0.5-C

      Impulse maximum speed is dependent on the vessel's Impulse drive, a combination of fusion-reactor(s), a driver coil / accellerator, and a vectored thrust output. These create a vectorable (steerable) thrust of plasma, effectively a plasma rocket.

      The speed available depends on the power (of the impulse drive) vs weight (of the vessel).

      Examples of season episodes (thus CANON) give speeds of anywhere from 2.5% lightspeed (for a shuttle "TNG:Suspicions") up to 66% lightspeed for a long range survey starship (Voyager "VOY:Fair Haven").

      --
      --- This meme is memory intensive
    7. Re:Hyperdrive? Nah... Impulse Drive, maybe... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      So I should try and think of the universe as a multi-dimensional expanding surface with one of the dimensions being time.
      oh that makes my head feel so much better now.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  24. First purely terrestrial test of GR ?!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I totally agree! If it works - its historic.

    General Relativity has only a few real direct tests: bending of light, perihelion shift (such as of mercury), gravitational waves, gravitational red-shift... Maybe a few more.

    It also has some indirect supporting results such as the indirect discovery of black holes in the center of galaxies. No one has visited those holes, we believe they are there based on the behavior around them.

    In cosmology, GR is the only theoretical model that is widely accepted; the main game in town.. But it has some challenges with the discoveries of the "accelerating expansion of the universe" and the dark matter & dark energy debates. Some people try to explain these mysteries with non-GR theories and who knows - they may be right.

    Note that none of these are experiments you can do isolated in a terrestrial lab! They are all astronomical. So if this idea works, it would be the first purely terrestrial test of GR. Its Nobel-prize material.

    1. Re:First purely terrestrial test of GR ?!! by tenco · · Score: 1

      What about a working GPS? That's pretty terrestrial from my point of view.

    2. Re:First purely terrestrial test of GR ?!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The frequency shift attributable to general relativity is readily apparent with satellites in geosynchonous orbits; clocks in the satellites run fast compared with identical clocks at sea level. This affects all clocks, from precision manufactured oscillators to natural oscillators, including photons which appear to slow down climbing from sea level to orbit, and which appear to speed up when descending from orbit to sea level. The frequency shifting is fairly large (hundreds of microseconds a day) in that it is readily apparent when using reasonable quality interferometers or comparing precise clocks. Since geosynchronous satellites are relatively at rest as seen by sea level observers (i.e., they occupy the same patch of sky at the same distance for long intervals), the frequency difference is to all practical purposes entirely caused by gravitational time dilation.

      In GPS and on the ISS are also Lorentz contractions attributable to special relativity too but these tend to cancel out across a whole orbit; you have to know the relative velocity of orbital platforms (i.e., you have to know their orbits) in order to correct for these, otherwise as a satellite passes across the sky that you can see, all its clocks will appear to run fast while it appears to approach you, and slow as it appears to recede from you. Again, this is readily measurable (for example, your GPS position and altitude are likely to be wrong by many metres if you make your GPS receiver ignorant about the orbits of the satellites by telling it to ignore the satellite-broadcasted ephemeris and almanac positional information) including via interferometry.

      (To sea level observers, GPS also appears to run fast by about 71 seconds per year attributable solely to gravitational time dilation; clocks at the heights of the ISS or MIR run fast by roughly 5-10 seconds per year).

      Rocket-lifted H2 masers were used in the late 1970s similarly and demonstrated gravitational time dilation in accord with GR to about ten parts per million.

      Time dilation due to GR is in principle testable on the scale of a few metres of vertical displacement, and some work in the area of atomic fountains has tried to probe the accuracy of GR without involving rocketry or other conditions which can introduce dilations attributable to relative motion between transmitter and receiver. A supercooled atomic oscillator should manifest a clear correlation between its height in the fountain cavity and a shift in frequency attributable to the gravitational potential gradient the cavity slices through. A fountain approach allows for more motion-related terms to be controlled and should allow for a comparison with theoretical prediction that is clearly accurate to a few hundred parts per trillion.

      Finally, to cosmologists the standard model of quantum mechanics is also very important in understanding the equation of state of visible matter. In particular, it is the forbidden states from QM that explain spectral lines and which explain some aspects of the anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background radiation.

      QM and GR both work very well in the (observational) astrophysical limit (i.e., they don't have noteworthy conflicts except very near black holes or in the early part of the universe, which are areas of study which are not presently amenable to direct observation), and this is very important to cosmologists and people who design and maintain frequency standards and things derived from them (like GPS or Galileo).

      Some people try to explain these mysteries with non-GR theories and who knows - they may be right.

      The problem is that the alternative theory must ALSO explain all the observed effects that GR renders "non-mystery". These include Mercury's orbital precession, Jupiter's gravitational lensing, distant-galactic-cluster gravitational lensing (there is a neat iPhone app for that incidentally), gravitational time dilation in Earth's immediate neighbourhood, radar, microwave, IR and optic

  25. Dibs on Andromeda. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2, Funny

    OK. Me first. Got dibs on Andromeda. Poor chaps what will they do when they discover that we had filed the plans to build a highway through them and taped it to the underside of a sink in an unused bath room in a dark basement guarded by leopards?

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  26. "Now an American physicist..." by lseltzer · · Score: 2, Funny

    Zephram Cochrane?

    1. Re:"Now an American physicist..." by cashman73 · · Score: 1

      We better keep an eye out for a Borg invasion coming from 300 years in the future to try and destabilize the LHC.

    2. Re:"Now an American physicist..." by WoRLoKKeD · · Score: 1
      So long as it's not Gordon Freeman, it can't end TOO badly. Right?

      ...Right?

      --
      Immolation is the sincerest form of flattery.
  27. Passive propulsion by CODiNE · · Score: 1

    So hey, physics dudes... would this work? A space ship that's black on one side and white on the other. The white side reflects light, the black side absorbs it... besides being warmer than the white side would it slowly begin to move? Maybe a millimeter a century or so? :) Long range probes I guess.

    --
    Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    1. Re:Passive propulsion by VoidCrow · · Score: 1

      The black side would get 1 kick per photon, the reflective side 2 kicks per photon. Net result, 1 kick. A better idea would be a mirror sail that transmits light on one face, and reflects it on the other.

    2. Re:Passive propulsion by dhTardis · · Score: 2, Informative

      A better idea would be a mirror sail that transmits light on one face, and reflects it on the other.

      The 2nd law says no. I could make a box out of your one-way mirror (note that real "one-way" mirrors are something else entirely) material (all reflecting surfaces inward) and concentrate energy arbitrarily.

    3. Re:Passive propulsion by dhTardis · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The white side reflects light, the black side absorbs it...

      Once you reach the same temperature as your surroundings, you'll radiate as many photons as you absorb on the black side, and not go anywhere. If there's any anisotropy in the surrounding radiation field, you can use that to move around (but that's just called a solar sail for the common dipole case).

    4. Re:Passive propulsion by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      NB: This post arises out of ignorance, not trolling.
       
      Why does the second law say no to arbitrarily concentrating energy? Surely the fact that you are drawing all your energy from outside the system (your box) would allow for a localised loss of entropy, given the gains in entropy outside the system.

    5. Re:Passive propulsion by StarsAreAlsoFire · · Score: 1

      Satellites in orbit actually have to take into account solar pressure. Of course, IIRC that's almost exclusively solar wind pressure, not photon reflection pressure, but whatever.

      *due to the heat difference* it would not move, which I think is confirming what you didn't mean. As to the reflection part - what I think you did mean - a silvered mirror in space that does basically what you described is called a solar sail. There are two types: one for reflecting light, and one for slowing down high-speed charged particles streaming out from the sun.

      Your sail would have on the order of 100K times the area of your 'cabin'. To be more precise, the solar sail would need an area proportional to the mass which it would be dragging around, multiplied by the desired acceleration. etc etc.

      The mag sail is even more awesome: it would just be a MASSIVE loop of superconducting wire with a charge running through it.

      "Space Propulsion Analysis and Design" has a nice section on such interesting types of propulsion. Or search for magnetic sails or solar sails.

      Cheers

    6. Re:Passive propulsion by dhTardis · · Score: 1

      Why does the second law say no to arbitrarily concentrating energy?

      Because it lets me extract useful work simply from a hot environment with no cold reservoir. I just put my box in a room and it gradually gets hotter while the room gets colder. After a while I set up a heat engine between them and extract some work from the difference. Then I can repeat the process: this time, the room can't heat the box as well, but the room is colder too, so the heat engine still works. Eventually I can get (almost -- see the 3rd law) all the heat from the room extracted as useful work, which is not allowed.

      (By "arbitrarily" I meant "without reason or effort" rather than merely "without bound". Sorry for any confusion.)

      Surely the fact that you are drawing all your energy from outside the system (your box) would allow for a localised loss of entropy, given the gains in entropy outside the system.

      Entropy goes the other way: any normal physical system that gets hotter gains entropy, so the box would be gaining it and the room losing it. But hot systems (by definition!) gain less entropy from, say, a joule of heat than cold systems do. This is the reason for the unidirectional flow of heat: if I'm hotter than you, you lose more entropy giving up a joule than I gain from getting it, so we can't send the heat that way.

    7. Re:Passive propulsion by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Of course, I didn't think of it that way. It does make me think about ways to make it work though. Thanks for the info.

  28. Obligatory XKCD by Wolvenhaven · · Score: 1
    --
    Orwell was an optimist.
  29. Another wonderful physics article by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    "thereby achieving speeds greater than the driving particle's speed"

    I'm pretty sure Hilbert didn't include that statement.

  30. T3-M4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But we haven't even created astromech droids yet, how will we create a hyperdrive???

  31. Other Potential Outcome by ari_j · · Score: 1

    Placing a test mass next to the beam line and measuring the forces on it as the particles pass by should confirm the theory â" or scupper it entirely.

    ...or launch the test mass into the wall of the LHC at half the speed of light.

  32. Test with Cosmic Rays? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    calculated that a stationary mass should repel a particle moving towards or away from it at more than half the speed of light

    Can't we test this using cosmic rays? Cosmic rays travelling in the direction of the Sun should be slower near the Sun and faster the further out you go. Or would the Sun's magnetosphere, heliosphere and other repulsive effects dwarf this Hilbert repulsive effect?

  33. Squishy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whilst it's all good and well working out how to accelerate a spacecraft to half the speed of light, you have to consider a couple of big issues:

    (a) the need for some kind of inertial dampening system to prevent the human body turning into a jam like substance at the back of the spacecraft...

    (b) the minor problem of complete and utter structural integrity failure caused by the spacecraft coming into contact with another object say an atom sized particle whilst travelling at half the speed of light... i.e. the need for some kind of deflector system...

    1. Re:Squishy... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      There's a couple of solutions for this:
      1) create a warp bubble around the spacecraft, so that everything inside the bubble isn't moving at all, and the bubble is moving through space at 1/2c.

      2) shift the spacecraft into "hyperspace" (or "subspace") where it can move at a lower speed, but when it shifts back to regular space it's moved a long distance.

      3) crate a wormhole.

  34. Your limit... by VoidCrow · · Score: 1

    E=mc^2

  35. Tom Swift by Dragged+Down+by+the · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Sounds like Tom's Repelatron ...

  36. Re:David Hilbert stood idly by by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2, Funny

    Not to mention that Hilbert was already preoccupied with the sphere packing problem, so at that time he had no spare balls which he could have employed in solving other problems.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  37. This is Subspace Drive...we need Warp Drive by dtjohnson · · Score: 1

    The 'hyperdrive' is basically just subspace drive. This will be helpful for short trips to Mars or Jupiter but would not be useful for interstellar trips. What is needed is Warp Drive where space-time is continuously folded 'warped' allowing the spacecraft to achieve relativistic velocities greater than the speed of light.

  38. Classic SciFi Answer by Tekfactory · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Scientist's name is Felber, therefore the small fraction of light speed drive would likely be known as the Felber Drive.

    If that doesn't sound sexy enough for you try the Hilbert-Felber Drive.

    If you really want it to be metal, stick an umlaut in there somewhere.

    1. Re:Classic SciFi Answer by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      The Scientist's name is Felber, therefore the small fraction of light speed drive would likely be known as the Felber Drive.

      If that doesn't sound sexy enough for you try the Hilbert-Felber Drive.

      Oh, come on, you missed the logical next step. Hilbert-Felber Drive -> HiFeDrive.

      Will give us geeks yet another subject to be annoyingly superior about when people call it hyperdrive anyway. Win-win!

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    2. Re:Classic SciFi Answer by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      The Hilbërt-Fëlbër Drivë? Duuun-duun! Duunn-duun! O yeah! They will be louder than even Disaster Area!

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  39. ! Particle Joke by monkeyboythom · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I'm thinking someone at the site is going to fall for the "hey, stick your hand in here" bit.

  40. Gravity Well? by hhawk · · Score: 1

    I think the real trick is getting outside the gravity well.

    Then you can use chemical, nuclear, solar plus "stealing momentum from other celestial bodies" to build up to some decent speed whereby you could, I would assume, make good use of this so called Hyperdrive.

    In terms of slowing down, I don't think any trick is needed, clearly all these things we used to gain speed could be used to help us lose it. E.g., slow down with a solar sail, give momentum to other celestails bodies, then use your limited on board fuel to "limp" into orbit (and become the overlords of some other planet)...

    --
    http://www.hawknest.com/
  41. Read the papers. by mattr · · Score: 1

    I looked some of the papers which include animations but am not a physicist. Would much appreciate if a competent one could check them out.

    Test of relativistic gravity for propulsion at the Large Hadron Collider (the Oct. 9, 2009 paper)
    and 'Antigravity' Propulsion and Relativistic Hyperdrive
    presented at 25th International Space Development Conference, Los Angeles, 4-7 May 2006 (2006b as referenced on page 2 of the above paper).

    What I get from it:
    - He's been working on it for at least 3 years actually. And it matches with results others have found so far. Hilbert saw a hint of this in the 1920s. It comes from Einstein's work but until about 2005 it had only been solved for a slow driver source, and then only to first order approximation, so it looked like there was not much effect. For relativistic, time-dependent sources, even a weak gravitational field can be repulsive.
    - According to the 2005 paper, any mass moving faster than 0.58c will repel any mass ahead of it. Under that speed and the ship gets sucked in towards the driver. (Oops!) I don't see this as a drive mounted on a ship myself yet but maybe I misunderstand it. Seems you could shoot a particle beam at the ship to accelerate it in roughly the same direction though.
    - Such a relativistic driver would accelerate a ship standing in front of it through a gravitational repulsion field acting in a narrow cone within which the ship is found. Occupants would seem not to feel inertia. (This cone is not apparent from the older animations which seem to be more talking about passing a black hole.) From 2006b:

    In the "antigravity beam" of a speeding star or compact
    object, however, a payload would draw its energy for propulsion
    from the repulsive force of the much more massive driver.
    Moreover, since it would be moving along a geodesic, a payload
    would "float weightlessly" in the "antigravity beam" even
    as it was accelerated close to the speed of light.

    - The limit of acceleration can be calculated using equations of motion in a Schwarzschild field (like you are near a black hole). The repulsion field will be evident to a distant observer if the driver is a mass moving faster than 0.58c.
    - If you look at Felber's 2005 paper Exact relativistic "antigravity" propulsion and download from that page the tar-gzip archive there are some cool video clips. The driver is similar to a black hole. You can see in v58 that if the driver is a black hole moving towards the ship at near the speed of light, the ship gets pushed ahead of it. (the animations don't show the kick to higher speed that is discussed in 2006b).
    - I read the driver as a relativistic particle beam aimed at a ship but maybe not so, there is speculation that an appropriate driver might be found in space. The idea (from 2005 paper below) is to discover an approaching relativistic black hole and maneuver near its trajectory while not too close to be hurt by its tidal forces. Sounds tricky, and depends on how broad that cone is.
    - Reference [11] in the recent paper is here (Apr 18, 2006) and animations in the source seem to describe the ship's possible trajectories.
    - You need a driver with a pretty strong field to be able to kick the ship way up toward light speed, otherwise not as much bang (can only then accelerate the ship from rest to the speed of the driver).
    - Much stronger effects may be possible if you use a rotating compact driver mass, which would generate a strong Kerr field and could impart energy via inertial frame dragging.

    My question: Are there any events that could be hypothesized that are likely to generate a signature easily detectable by radio or X-ray telescopes?

    I though

  42. mass? in space!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure there's a lot of mass in space, but it's spread out quite a bit (read: space is a vacuum)

    Gathering enough particles to move a stationary mass maybe doable in a lab experiment, but again, humanity fails us again: we create our own universe in lab experiments.

    I would rather use gravity assist: much more reliable and predictable.

  43. No, you've missed the point Re:! hyperdrive by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The point of the drive is not that it enables light speed, or that it saves energy, because it doesn't do either.

    The point of the drive is that it would accelerate you and you *don't* feel it!

    The drive would accelerate you by gravity. Just like the International Space Station astronauts are still falling towards the Earth, but they can't feel it- you can't feel relativistic gravity either.

    So you could accelerate at 1000 times the Earth's surface gravity if you wanted, and not even spill your coffee (potentially, if it works, and it should do).

    Of course scaling up an effect that is only faintly sensed on an accelerator the size of the LHC is left as an exercise to the reader ;-), but it's fundamental research and you never know where it could lead.

    --

    -WolfWithoutAClause

    "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    1. Re:No, you've missed the point Re:! hyperdrive by w0mprat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You could use this to insulate a crew capsule from the effects of acceleration. A more conventional starship could be accelerating at 10G, 100G or even more, and a onboard particle accelerator could be in turn pushing the crew habitat ahead of the starship by this means.

      The occupants would experience freefall.

      --
      After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    2. Re:No, you've missed the point Re:! hyperdrive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the literal effect of this is acceleration of surrounding mass, then couldn't this device be used on a smaller scale to create artificial gravity?

    3. Re:No, you've missed the point Re:! hyperdrive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point of the drive is that it would accelerate you and you *don't* feel it!

      I think I've had sex similar to that.

    4. Re:No, you've missed the point Re:! hyperdrive by Labcoat+Samurai · · Score: 1

      Well.... I am not a physicist, but I think the main reason why you don't feel it is that every atom of your body is accelerated at roughly the same rate with weak gravitational forces. If you're accelerated in a rollercoaster, the chair exerts force on your back, your back exerts force on your neck, your neck exerts force on your skull, and your skull exerts force on your brain. The force is heavily concentrated rather than broadly distributed. Concentrating the force puts stress on your body. For example, your brain will subtly deform and compact under high acceleration in a centrifuge or rollercoaster, and you might feel sick. When free-falling, every part of the brain is accelerated more or less equally, so it maintains its physical state.

      However, with a massive gravitational force, the difference in distance between one part of your body and the center of the opposing mass and another part of your body and the center of the opposing mass could result in dramatically different forces between parts of your body, causing similar stresses.

      In short, I don't think this is a trait that scales without consequences.

    5. Re:No, you've missed the point Re:! hyperdrive by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>The point of the drive is that it would accelerate you and you *don't* feel it!

      What would this do to the twin paradox, then?

  44. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  45. Evaluating the claimed effect by kelseymh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A colleague of mine asked if I thought this was possible or hokum. The authors own "paper" (unpublished preprint, linked above) contains a rather lot of self-references to other unpublished preprints, usually a sign of some level of crack-pottedness. Also, his own numbers in the abstract for this idea (an acceleration of 3 nm/s^2 for 2 ns) make this completely unworkable. That corresponds to a displacement of a test mass of 1.5 x 10^-35 m. The most sensitive displacement detectors are the laser gravitational wave observatories, each of which are a pair of perpendicular 10km Fabry-Perot cavities. These detectors have a sensitivity of about 10^-18 m. That's seventeen orders of magnitude difference. On an amusing note, that displacement is actually the same order of magnitude as the "Planck length". I can't help but wonder whether the author engaged in some silly numerology in order to get it to work out that way.

    1. Re:Evaluating the claimed effect by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      On an amusing note, that displacement is actually the same order of magnitude as the "Planck length". I can't help but wonder whether the author engaged in some silly numerology in order to get it to work out that way.

      The whole thing seems a bit elaborate for a prank; but then again those LHC scientists probably have a very interesting sense of humor provided that one can actually understand enough to get the "in jokes".

    2. Re:Evaluating the claimed effect by mburns · · Score: 1

      I was going to say no way to this effect. But frame dragging is very real. It can be seen from afar, just as the preprint claims. But this is not free energy, but maybe an increase in propulsion efficiency.

      --
      Michael J. Burns
    3. Re:Evaluating the claimed effect by oku · · Score: 1
      I cannot access the PDF, so that I have to assume the 3 nm/s^2 for 2 ns are correct. That's small, but not hopeless.

      The experiment is probably involving a resonating mass, which is tuned to the packet frequency of the LHC. With 2800 packets making one cycle per 90ms, this gives a frequency of about 3 * 10^7 Hz. If the resonator is of sufficient quality, we might get (I am guessing) 10^9 impulses before the oscillation is damped significantly. This amounts to a maximum velocity of the oscillator of 3 * 10^-9 m/s^2 * 2 * 10^-9 s * 10^9 = 6 * 10^-9 m/s. Assuming a harmonic oscillator, that's a displacement of 6 * 10^-9 m/s /(2 * pi * 3 * 10^7 Hz) ~ 3 * 10^-17 m.

      This effect is minuscle, but it might be just at the limit of dectability. A significant problem will be the shielding of the detector, because the LHC should generate a lof of 3 * 10^7 Hz noise, which would influence the experiment. Maybe it would pay to use a higher frequency resonator, despite the smaller displacement.

    4. Re:Evaluating the claimed effect by oku · · Score: 1

      Sorry for the typo: Make that 90 microseconds instead of 90ms. The remainder is correct, though.

    5. Re:Evaluating the claimed effect by ZonkerWilliam · · Score: 1

      Interesting! this is exactly what was written in Technology Reviews Blog http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24211/. Might want to not be so predictable.

  46. Obligatory by 2names · · Score: 1

    Just because humans haven't discovered it yet does not mean it doesn't exist.

    Amen to that.

    --
    "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
  47. Lots of data on relativistic speeds by wurp · · Score: 1

    We push subatomic particles at relativistic speeds all the time and observe the mass change. Or maybe you think it works differently when it's lots of particles moving together?

    Then there's the fact that the classical KE formula *just happens* to be the first order approximation of the relativistic formula for KE:

    E = mc^2/(1 - v^2/c^2)^.5

    which expands to:
    E = mc^2 (1 + .5*v^2/c^2 + 3/8*v^4/c^4 ...)
    E ~= mc^2 + .5*mv^2

    Rest energy (RE) = mc^2

    KE = E - RE ~= (mc^2 + .5*mv^2) - mc^2 = 1/2mv^2

    But that's just luck. Those hundreds of physicists spending years of their lives double checking all of this obviously have it wrong.

    1. Re:Lots of data on relativistic speeds by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      We push subatomic particles at relativistic speeds all the time and observe the mass change. Or maybe you think it works differently when it's lots of particles moving together?

            No. But tell me what the electric bill was at Fermilab or wherever to move those subatomic particles? I sure don't want to pay it. Now multiply that by Avogadro's number to get the cost of moving just one mole of whatever you were moving. What's the exponent on the amount of Joules you'll need?

            See the thing is we can argue all day about what happens at relativistic speeds. Smarter minds than you or I have solved the equations and staked out the territory. But there's AMAZINGLY HUGE difference between moving some neutrons, and moving something with REAL mass. This seems to be the communication problem I'm getting from all of you theorists. So you can shoot a neutron at almost the speed of light at nearby star for a billion bucks. SO WHAT?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Lots of data on relativistic speeds by wurp · · Score: 1

      I thought we were talking about whether the KE equation is correct or not. Was I wrong that your assertion is that the relativistic mass equation is wrong?

      (BTW, I personally think it's wrong, just because as we learn more there will be refinements. But I also believe it's a much better approximation than KE=1/2mv^2.)

      Now you seem to be arguing that it will be very expensive to move a macroscopic amount of mass to relativistic speeds. I agree.

    3. Re:Lots of data on relativistic speeds by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I didn't make my point clear enough in my original post.

      I cited KE = 1/2mv^2 because frankly, neither you or I will ever LIVE to see an object with real (kg or more) mass moving at relativistic speeds (without being torn apart). So although dreaming about relativity is fine, and great food for thought and PhD's, I can't see any practical applications outside a lab setting. So Newtonian physics is what we will ever observe when we're playing with our bigger toys. Now I'm not an all-seeing god dictating my Word, but I'm not stupid either. It's just common sense. You need too much energy, and it always comes down to that.

      I do not doubt Einstein, and all the people who followed. Like I said, men smarter than me have spent their lives on it. But someone wants to build an engine for a spaceship on this? Good luck... They can't even get the LHC working right.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:Lots of data on relativistic speeds by wurp · · Score: 1

      I agree with your original point. I was just arguing with your apparent disputation that the classical KE equation was correct rather than the relativistic one.

      I don't necessarily agree that we'll never see it in our lifetimes, but the minimum energy needed is the KE of the moving ship (or whatever), and I agree that people don't generally have any comprehension of just how much that is. (On the order of 100x the energy released from fission of an amount of plutonium massing the same as your ship, assuming perfect efficiency in capturing the energy and turning it to KE.)

    5. Re:Lots of data on relativistic speeds by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is that he keeps rejecting the relativistic kinetic energy equation, when using it actually shows a higher amount of energy needed to accelerate a mass to a given velocity which you would think supports his point.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  48. What, More Mass for the LHC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Placing a test mass next to the beam line and measuring the forces on it as the particles pass by should confirm the theory -- or scupper it entirely."

    Golly Gee, Cmdr Taco, I was under the impression the LHC was already surrounded by "test masses" and measurement devices...

  49. Patents filed many years ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I filed patents on LINAC NLS propulsion 8 years ago and published papers in AIAA.

    I also have patent filed on antimatter propulsion which blows the doors off LINAC. Nothing will
    ever be published by me or USPTO on this very secret technology.