PDA

View Full Version : To Mars in three days??



Hans
2006-Jan-05, 05:21 PM
http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=16902006

The story above seems rather fantastic and perhaps a bit wooish?

Comment from the experts please!

NEOWatcher
2006-Jan-05, 05:37 PM
It could be another "wishful" thinking article. They use the words theoretical, hypothetical, controversial, potentially, etc.

Did Burkhard Heim do his experiment in Philidelphia:think:

The_Radiation_Specialist
2006-Jan-05, 05:38 PM
Nice story. If you travel at the speed of light it will take you much less than three hours more like 20 minutes at maximum distance.

Bob
2006-Jan-05, 05:54 PM
But there is a z machine.

http://www.aip.org/pnu/2004/split/702-1.html

sidmel
2006-Jan-05, 06:07 PM
Something with a little more meat to the preposed hyperspace engine. Apparently this paper was written in '79, not sure if it's the same thing they are talking about.

http://www.unexplainable.net/artman/publish/article_1160.shtml


ABSTRACT
A new propulsion concept has been developed based on a proposed resonance between coherent, pulsed electromagnetic wave forms and gravitational wave forms (or space-time metrics). Using this concept, a spacecraft "propulsion" system potentially capable of galactic and inter-galactic travel without prohibitive "travel times" has been designed. The "propulsion" system utilizes recent research associated with magnetic field line merging, hydromagnetic wave effects, free-electron lasers, laser generation of megagauss fields, and special structural and containment metals. Research required to determine potential, field resonance characteristics and to evaluate various aspects of the spacecraft "propulsion" design is described.

sidmel
2006-Jan-05, 06:23 PM
Deleted accidental second post.

Oh, and there is a mention of UFO's in the above article so take it with a big grain of salt...or sugar if you prefer.

NEOWatcher
2006-Jan-05, 06:27 PM
This sounds more like they are trying to put the explaination of a new theory into layman's terms. Although a working engine in 5 years?? I guess it depends on your definition of "engine".

Why do I keep hearing a Scottish voice saying "Yee cahnt change the laws of Physics"?

sidmel
2006-Jan-05, 06:40 PM
Another non-technical and kinda interesting read for anyone wanting to look into this and/or provide some feedback for Hans.

http://www.aulis.com/manned-space-flight.htm

Celestial Mechanic
2006-Jan-05, 06:49 PM
[Snip!]Oh, and there is a mention of UFO's in the above article so take it with a big grain of salt...or sugar if you prefer.
Bicarbonate of soda might be better! :)

Blob
2006-Jan-05, 07:08 PM
Hum,
new scientist has jumped onto the bandwagon...

Engage! (http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/mg18925331.200-take-a-leap-into-hyperspace.html)

ToSeek
2006-Jan-05, 07:33 PM
Hum,
new scientist has jumped onto the bandwagon...

Engage! (http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/mg18925331.200-take-a-leap-into-hyperspace.html)

New Scientist seems to take a certain amount of pleasure in shocking people. They take a marginal idea and make a big deal out of it on a regular basis.

NEOWatcher
2006-Jan-05, 07:39 PM
And all the articles say the military, Nasa, BAE, etc is interested in the idea. Is saying "Don't come and talk to us until you've proven it" the same as saying there is interest?

Damburger
2006-Jan-05, 08:17 PM
This is New Scientists 50th year (as pointed out on the cover of the magazine containing this article) so perhaps they are looking to break a big story to mark the event?

Not exactly a scientific approach to science reporting...

Oh... on reading the article it seems to be a big appeal to authority fallacy. Because Heims theory is apparantly good for predicting the masses of fundamental particles, any crap based on that theory (in this case, hyperspace) must also be true.

Wolverine
2006-Jan-05, 08:37 PM
New Scientist seems to take a certain amount of pleasure in shocking people. They take a marginal idea and make a big deal out of it on a regular basis.

Precisely why I dislike their page.

Launch window
2006-Jan-05, 09:20 PM
Precisely why I dislike their page.

The whole thing could be more science fiction than science fact, they say that the universe is connected to other universes through wormholes, and all of the universes are found within "hyperspace" - wormholes have been predicted by M-theory and described by Einstein's space time and strong theory but have yet to be found and it would take enormous energy to create one - perhaps all the energy from a neutron star or a dyson sphere that encircles a blackhole. Hyperspace would be like Minkowski space, which is a 4-D real vector space equipped with a symmetric bilinear form. One theory says that black holes are so dense that they actually rip the fabric of space, effectively connecting sections of space which would normally be too far apart to even communicate, try as we may, it is impossible for our brains to visualize the fourth spatial dimension, computers, of course, have no problem working in N dimensional space and string theory predicts up do 11-dimensions in our universe. Hyperspace from space-time in special relativity would take into hyperplanes and affine subspace of codimension and be very like the standard 3-dimensional Euclidean space, we still have much to study on large scale objects like clusters, neutron stars/blackholes and tiny sub-atomic particles from Cern and Fermilab before we even begin to find out if this stuff is science fiction or science fact
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=36659
a second thread on it

trinitree88
2006-Jan-05, 09:20 PM
Something with a little more meat to the preposed hyperspace engine. Apparently this paper was written in '79, not sure if it's the same thing they are talking about.

http://www.unexplainable.net/artman/publish/article_1160.shtml

The alternate universe, hyperdimensional drive will never work. The reference alludes to the "disappearance" of UFO's, and their "reappearance" presumably from out of another dimension. Human persistence of vision ~ 1/16 to 1/20 second means that you find "motion" in Edison's "movies" by adding the new image to the old in the brain....even though the light flashes only while the projector holds the image still against the glass (otherwise it'd be blurry if in continual motion.....watch a slow motion film of a movie projector in action). Accelerations greater than ~ 20 g's are not catchable to the eye. If I could play God as a physicist, and accelerate a baseball out of my palm at 25 g's....you'd think it disappeared while you were looking at it. If it decelerated at 25 g's, and landed on my hand, you'd think it appeared from nowhere.
At MIT, they built a mass driver that operated at 100 g's. ~6ft foot tube. Iron ball on the left. Press button. 100 g's of acceleration. Iron ball on the right. During the time-of-flight, your persistence of vision continues to see the left ball. Before that image disappears, it arrives on the right. Now you see two of them. Then the left one "disappears". You never see it travel.
UFO's accelerating at greater than ~ 20 g's will "disappear", but not into another dimension, nor do they appear "out of nowhere". Get a high speed camera on them, and you'll see the acceleration.
Of course a human being would never survive 40 g's with their bones intact...Dugway Proving Grounds rocket sled tests showed that.:naughty:

Physics, if you stick to known physics, it's less mysterious than you think. Pete.

01101001
2006-Jan-05, 09:31 PM
Pointers to the (pay-for or web-missing) paper, and a related paper, are in the earlier thread: Take a leap into Hyperspace (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=36659).

joema
2006-Jan-05, 09:59 PM
...mass driver that operated at 100 g's... UFO's accelerating at greater than ~ 20 g's will "disappear"...
Here's a video of a Nike Sprint missile accelerating at over 100 Gs. Video is in three sections: the 1st and 3rd are slow motion, the 2nd section is real time (not speeded up).

It does 0-8,000 mph in about 4 seconds, or 0-60 mph in 28 milliseconds. Would be interesting to see a UFO drag race it.

Sprint test launch (2MB mpg video): http://www.srmsc.org/video/004204m0.mpg

Sprint launch: http://www.srmsc.org/images/000102m0.jpg
Sprint salvo test launch: http://www.srmsc.org/images/001725l0.jpg

phunk
2006-Jan-05, 11:21 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't all the physics & chemistry be different in a dimension with a different speed of light? Who knows if atoms would even be stable, or if the chemistry of our bodies would still work, if the speed of light was changed.

cjl
2006-Jan-05, 11:55 PM
I go to many high power rocket launches, where rockets are routinely accelerated at >20 g's (fastest I've ever seen was 170 g's, on rare occasions, they can accelerate as fast as 300), and I can tell you that objects don't just "disappear" until WELL past 20 g's. You can visually track 70-80 g's without difficulty, and 100-110 g's is trackable (though difficult). The time I saw the 170 g launch, it essentially disappeared. I would also guess that this "trackability" depends on the size of the object, as a Mosquito (a VERY small rocket) at 40 gees vanishes, while a large rocket at 40 gees is quite easy to track.

trinitree88
2006-Jan-06, 12:23 AM
I go to many high power rocket launches, where rockets are routinely accelerated at >20 g's (fastest I've ever seen was 170 g's, on rare occasions, they can accelerate as fast as 300), and I can tell you that objects don't just "disappear" until WELL past 20 g's. You can visually track 70-80 g's without difficulty, and 100-110 g's is trackable (though difficult). The time I saw the 170 g launch, it essentially disappeared. I would also guess that this "trackability" depends on the size of the object, as a Mosquito (a VERY small rocket) at 40 gees vanishes, while a large rocket at 40 gees is quite easy to track.

OK, I concede that you may see them depending on some more elaboration of parameters, but did your anticipation of their motion lead you to follow their motion?...or were you looking in just one visual reference frame, without canting the head and eyes to follow?
It would be interesting to see if people can determine whether an acceleration was right or left, >>20 g's reliably....with the object able to go both ways, and no preliminary cues. Thanks. Pete.

joema
2006-Jan-06, 01:52 AM
20 Gs isn't that high, in terms of objects vanishing. From S=1/2*a*t^2, in one second it only moves 322 ft (98 m). Yes a tiny marble-size object would will be out of sight in a second. If it was 1 meter in front of you, and you were slow about turning your head, it would seem to disappear.

But consider a large object the size of an large fighter aircraft, assuming a cross-sectional area from your viewing angle of about 400 square feet (37 m^2). At 20 Gs, in one second it's at 322 ft (98 m), in two seconds at 644 ft (196 m), in three seconds at 1449 ft (442 m), in four seconds at 2576 ft (785 m). As long as you're sighting along the trajectory, you could easily still see it after four seconds. If you were looking, say 4 km perpendicular to the trajectory you could easily see it pass in front of you for many seconds.

Sailors stationed on the Iowa-class battleships could see the 16 inch shells for several seconds, as they depart at 2700 ft/sec (823 m/s), after accelerating at 1,750 Gs for 0.048 secs over 66 ft (20 m).

There's no single answer, as it varies widely depending on your viewing angle to the object's trajectory, object size, and lighting conditions. However unless the object is very small (i.e, marble size), or unless the acieration is many hundreds of Gs, I think you could see it for 1-2 seconds.

cjl
2006-Jan-06, 06:10 AM
OK, I concede that you may see them depending on some more elaboration of parameters, but did your anticipation of their motion lead you to follow their motion?...or were you looking in just one visual reference frame, without canting the head and eyes to follow?
It would be interesting to see if people can determine whether an acceleration was right or left, >>20 g's reliably....with the object able to go both ways, and no preliminary cues. Thanks. Pete.

I would say the anticipation helps little, if at all, as high power rocket motors take a small (and varied) amount of time to come up to pressure. Admittedly, you are watching for them, so it is somewhat expected. On some rockets, it is easier to see because of a smoke trail, but others leave little (if any) smoke, such as some blue propellant formulas. I think there are just too many factors to state a single number and say stuff disappears above it and is visible below it.

On a side note, that would be an interesting test. Maybe a small cart with permanent magnets under it on a track with linear induction motors (that should easily top 20 gees for neodymium magnets and a lightweight cart, plus strong electromagnets). That could be instantly propelled in either direction, with no significant noise, and no previous visual cues to the observer. The acceleration could also be easily controlled.

Halcyon Dayz
2006-Jan-08, 05:41 AM
Sol to Alpha Centauri in 80 days boils down to
an average speed of roughly 20c, not bad. :whistle:

01101001
2006-Jan-08, 06:10 AM
Pointers to the (pay-for or web-missing) paper, and a related paper, are in the earlier thread: Take a leap into Hyperspace (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=36659).
The paper seems to be available now:

GUIDELINES FOR A SPACE PROPULSION DEVICE BASED ON HEIM'S QUANTUM THEORY (http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/aiaa2004-3700-letter.pdf) (PDF .5 megabyte)

Eroica
2006-Jan-08, 09:30 AM
I just glanced through the paper. It sounds pretty exciting. I hope there's something in it - but I'm not holding my breath.

By the way, the paper gives 34 days for the trip to Mars, 4 hours to the Moon, and 11 days for a 10-light-year trip through parallel space (80 days, with deceleration, for a one-way trip to Procyon!).

Bob B.
2006-Jan-08, 01:23 PM
Here is another opinion on this topic:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3217961/


"I looked through this stuff ... completely crackpot, as far as I can see," theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss told me in an e-mail early today. He said he found the New Scientist report "irresponsible in the extreme ... they did not interview any real particle physicists, nor talk about the fact that the theory appears to have no real quantum field theory in it."