The Romulans may have got the right idea with insterstellar

posted on December 4th, 2009, 5:44 am

Space-time only breaks down inside the singularity at the center of the black hole, so FTL by taking advantage of the singularities properties would probably require that the ship be (at least partially) inside the black hole.

I dont see how a Black Hole in any way allows you to go faster than light. It does nothing more than alter perceptions of time, as a result of the extreme gravity (Which also posses the ability to bend and capture light photons). None of that in anyway has anything to do with relativity, which states if anything achieves FTL, it reaches infinite mass and blows up. There are plenty of workarounds though, like Artificial Wormholes or space folding, or creating a bubble of space around the ship and moving the space with the ship inside. Most are still highly theoreticle, some relies on String Theory, not everyone is a fan of string theory though, from what i've seen.

posted on December 4th, 2009, 6:47 am

I was under the impression thermodynamics made M/AM reactors worthless for generating power. As i recall one scientist putting it, if every nation in the world pooled its resources, we could only make a handful of the stuff, and it would not return on its investment. The power necessary to create anti-matter is greater than the power generated by a matter anti-matter reaction, making it worthless.

There's two ways to make antimatter, and we're using the slow, but understood, first method:

1) Fire atoms at a gold foil. Every one in one million or so shots "bounces" off just right and becomes antimatter. We don't really know how or why.

2) Flip a large quantity of matter thru a multi-dimensional variable-geometry "pocket" universe via a kinetic mass driver and what equates to a quantum singularity (read, micro black hole). This is more efficient, but not currently (for obvious reasons) possible.

A third method was discovered not long ago, and is detailed in the article below:

More on anti-matter here http://courses.washington.edu/phys55x/More%20Sci-%20Than%20Fi,%20Physicists%20Create%20Antimatter.htm

That test with Athena is the first mass produced anti-matter production EVER btw.

[Zyrious]

posted on December 4th, 2009, 7:23 am

Last edited by Zyrious on December 4th, 2009, 9:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

There's two ways to make antimatter, and we're using the slow, but understood, first method:

1) Fire atoms at a gold foil. Every one in one million or so shots "bounces" off just right and becomes antimatter. We don't really know how or why.

2) Flip a large quantity of matter thru a multi-dimensional variable-geometry "pocket" universe via a kinetic mass driver and what equates to a quantum singularity (read, micro black hole). This is more efficient, but not currently (for obvious reasons) possible.

A third method was discovered not long ago, and is detailed in the article below:

More on anti-matter here http://courses.washington.edu/phys55x/More%20Sci-%20Than%20Fi,%20Physicists%20Create%20Antimatter.htm

That test with Athena is the first mass produced anti-matter production EVER btw.

50,000 anti-hydrogen atoms isnt exactly a lot of anti-matter. And the energy released by the anti-hyrdrogen obliterating normal atoms is probably very minor compared to the amount of energy used to produce it. Thus, yet again, thermodynamics. Sure, it produces energy, and certain particles we can produce more anti-matter versions of (or in this case, anti-atom). But there is a reason why in the article the scientists pay no mention to it leading to any kind of power-generation or propulsion sciences in the field of anti-matter, because this project has made no headway into that, rather this is more helping with the study of anti-matter itself.

As for your second method, well, that seems to rely on a lot of highly theoretical views on how the universe works, it sounds like its in the same field as String theory, lots of math behind it, but no observed or physical evidence that says it would ever be possible.

posted on December 4th, 2009, 8:29 am

There is a way that Antimatter could be made 'worth it'.  Sure, it took a huge amount of power to make that fuel load for the reactor.  But that's a huge amount of reactant that the ship doesn't have to carry.  It might ONLY be any good for space travel.

posted on December 4th, 2009, 9:21 am

There is a way that Antimatter could be made 'worth it'.  Sure, it took a huge amount of power to make that fuel load for the reactor.  But that's a huge amount of reactant that the ship doesn't have to carry.  It might ONLY be any good for space travel.

Anti-matter has been considered for propulsion before. However, we cannot even create enough of it currently to move a small probe 5 meters. When we can make a lot of it, it will still be a VERY expensive fuel, far more expensive then everything from liquid petroleum to every form of nuclear fission or fusion, and much more. I feel anti-matter will only ever be considered for a source of propulsion if everything else fails to meet expectations. In that sense, anti-matter is a last resort.

And as far as power generation is concerned, anti-matter will NEVER be used for that, its simply too inefficient.

posted on December 4th, 2009, 2:17 pm

Anti-matter has been considered for propulsion before. However, we cannot even create enough of it currently to move a small probe 5 meters. When we can make a lot of it, it will still be a VERY expensive fuel, far more expensive then everything from liquid petroleum to every form of nuclear fission or fusion, and much more. I feel anti-matter will only ever be considered for a source of propulsion if everything else fails to meet expectations. In that sense, anti-matter is a last resort.

And as far as power generation is concerned, anti-matter will NEVER be used for that, its simply too inefficient.

And what, 70 years ago people said the same thing about heavier than air -craft replacing the dirigible for trans-oceanic flight, but look at us now

That's the funny thing about technology - the better it is, the faster it grows, and the more powerful it becomes in a shorter span of time. Exponential growth is a grand thing.

Hell, ten years ago they made antimatter 1 molecule at a time by super-accelerating it into a gold leaf suspended in an ion cloud... now they can make 50,000 at once.

Imagine in ten years what they will be able to do... the more they study and learn about these things, the better.

PS - Deuterium, supercooled anti-Hydrogen 2 Isotope, has been around for a while

posted on December 4th, 2009, 6:20 pm

Ah, Deuterium.  Now if they can just figure out the casing for the Farnsworth Device.

posted on December 4th, 2009, 9:33 pm

And what, 70 years ago people said the same thing about heavier than air -craft replacing the dirigible for trans-oceanic flight, but look at us now

That's the funny thing about technology - the better it is, the faster it grows, and the more powerful it becomes in a shorter span of time. Exponential growth is a grand thing.
...

Ah, but those were statements by "ordinary people", not by scientists - you can't change the laws of physics, as Scotty would say  . You must always work within the realm of reality.

There's two ways to make antimatter, and we're using the slow, but understood, first method:

1) Fire atoms at a gold foil. Every one in one million or so shots "bounces" off just right and becomes antimatter. We don't really know how or why.

2) Flip a large quantity of matter thru a multi-dimensional variable-geometry "pocket" universe via a kinetic mass driver and what equates to a quantum singularity (read, micro black hole). This is more efficient, but not currently (for obvious reasons) possible.

In regard to that, we certainly know why and how to create anti-matter - there is nothing mysterious about it. As Zyrious said, its creation is far too inefficient to ever be a useful power source. In regard to your second method… I have honestly no clue what you are talking about there. The article you posted is quite out of date incidentally. Best to rely on actual papers rather than interviews really. (I also wouldn’t call it “mass-produced” – it isn’t an industry)

Space-time only breaks down inside the singularity at the center of the black hole, so FTL by taking advantage of the singularities properties would probably require that the ship be (at least partially) inside the black hole.

Since we can't predict what occurs inside of the event horizon, it is impossible to say whether the laws of our universe hold true, etc. "Violating relativity" would only be provable outside of our universe, which would mean you could not travel within our universe anyway...

posted on December 6th, 2009, 1:02 am

However, there is a theory stating that a sufficiently powerful EM field could affect gravity.  If said theory is true, it may be possible to look inside a black hole with an insanely powerful EM field.  Who knows?  That could pave the way for black holes to be used as off-ramps.  Or just tell us that the only thing through a black hole is black hole, and we used up a grotesque amount of energy to find out something that doesn't help us at all. 

posted on December 6th, 2009, 1:14 am

I don't understand you I think... are you trying to describe gravitational waves (which could potentially be used to "see inside")? 

Remember, nature despises a naked singularity - which is the only way to "see" inside with EM. I mean, using EM fields to look inside a black hole makes absolutely no sense. If you are bombarding the source you'd be feeding the black hole... You can't see beyond the event horizon in any case - even gravity lensing is just observing the event horizon again.

posted on December 6th, 2009, 3:28 am

Different theory.  It's a theory based on non-ported terrestrial propulsion.  According to the theory, a sufficient EM field could be used to create a reduced or negated or possibly even redirected or inverted area of gravity.  As it would be a general field rather than any kind of thruster system, it would be used for things like Jetsons-esq hovercars.

Of course, generating a strong enough EM field to actually hedge out earth's gravity is already a problem for power generation.  One strong enough to hedge out a black hole?  If we can generate that kind of power, we'll probably no longer care to try.

posted on December 6th, 2009, 5:06 am

Well, it sounds to me like you are just describing how you can use electromagnetic fields to simulate gravity (decreasing or increasing the acceleration due of course). I don't see how that could be applied to a planet or a blackhole at all. When you are talking about Jetson-esque hovercars, that is using the Earth (or anything that has a gravitational field) as a reference point. You are pushing off the Earth - just as you would a maglev or some other system. All of the objects in question still have gravitational fields however, which have not been altered. To "push" the Earth, you'd need a reference point - which is what? There is nothing to push off from. Of course, you could always change the gravitational constant to achieve your goal (or the mass of the object), but you cannot use any sort of EM field to decrease the gravity of a car, the earth, or a blackhole for that matter 

posted on December 6th, 2009, 5:22 am

Yeah, the theory is based on the idea that the gravitational field itself can be affected by a strong enough EM field.

I don't know if it can or not.  I don't have the equipment or resources to test that.  As I said, it's a theory, and to my knowledge, remains purely a theory.

posted on December 6th, 2009, 7:00 am

Yeah, the theory is based on the idea that the gravitational field itself can be affected by a strong enough EM field.

I don't know if it can or not.  I don't have the equipment or resources to test that.  As I said, it's a theory, and to my knowledge, remains purely a theory.

I'm pretty sure that's a myth, and i'm pretty sure it was disproven, several times, on Mythbusters...

posted on December 6th, 2009, 4:21 pm

Yeah, the theory is based on the idea that the gravitational field itself can be affected by a strong enough EM field.

I don't know if it can or not.  I don't have the equipment or resources to test that.  As I said, it's a theory, and to my knowledge, remains purely a theory.

Can you give me the name of the paper where this theory was published, or perhaps the name of this theory? Sounds like you are describing a hypothesis - not a theory - to me