Hey everyone, Im new here so plse bear with. Im 20 years old and plan on going to college to pursue my childhood fantasy. The development of working FTL drive. It was a dream I lost sight of after a while, the stuff of Star Trek and mankinds' hopes and fantasies. But during some online research in the past year, I discovered that for the first time ever, there was a theoretical groundwork layed out for how an ftl drive could possibly work. I believe and hope that because there is some kind of footing, private science groups and universities will start pumping a lot of money and serious research into this. I have heard and I hope I heard correctly, that the term "warp drive theory" now describes a new branch is science. So my question to u my friends is, where do we stand with the development of an ftl drive? and how can I learn more and where can I study to dedicate myself developing easy interstellar travel? Any and all input is welcome, whatever you've heard. Ive still a lot to learn, Thank you
Hi ftled and welcome to the forum.
You are correct in that faster than light travel is prohibited by relativity theory which is accepted as state of the art in contemporary practice. There are many dissident type alternative theories however, offering valid, but non mainstream, insights that might prove helpful.
My personal view is that it will be accomplished, not a question of if, but when... and then it will be accomplished by an outsider. Mainstreamers, I feel, are so overly indoctrinated in limitations imposed by their rigid educations that most never question the foundations of the assumptions upon which their education is based. Therefore the breakthrough will probably come from an outsider creative enough to construct a physical paradigm based on alternative considerations that will allow the possibility.
If you are going to pursue a career in professional physics.... then the formal educational indoctrination process is going to be a necessity. Learn to question everything, and accept nothing as fact, that cannot be verified.... be sharp enough to know the difference.
You will find that everything in the physical universe is very inter-related, so that the more you know of any single aspect, the more you will likely know about the whole.
Personal opinion again... Any breakthroughs must of necessity deal with the issue of inertia and gravitation as the primary obstacles to achieving FTL propulsion as these not only define space and distance, but energy, as well.
Good Luck!
Jack
QUOTE (fizzeksman+Nov 7 2007, 03:15 AM)
Hi ftled and welcome to the forum.
You are correct in that faster than light travel is prohibited by relativity theory which is accepted as state of the art in contemporary practice. There are many dissident type alternative theories however, 17. offering valid, but non mainstream, insights that might prove helpful.
18. My personal view is that it will be accomplished, not a question of if, but when... and then it will be accomplished by an outsider. 19.Mainstreamers, I feel, are so overly indoctrinated in limitations imposed by their rigid educations that most never question the foundations of the assumptions upon which their education is based. Therefore the breakthrough will probably come from an outsider creative enough to construct a physical paradigm based on alternative considerations that will allow the possibility.
If you are going to pursue a career in professional physics.... then the formal educational indoctrination process is going to be a necessity. Learn to question everything, and accept nothing as fact, that cannot be verified.... be sharp enough to know the difference.
You will find that everything in the physical universe is very inter-related, so that the more you know of any single aspect, the more you will likely know about the whole.
Personal opinion again... 20. Any breakthroughs must of necessity deal with the issue of inertia and gravitation as the primary obstacles to achieving FTL propulsion as these not only define space and distance, but energy, as well.
Good Luck!
Jack
You are correct in that faster than light travel is prohibited by relativity theory which is accepted as state of the art in contemporary practice. There are many dissident type alternative theories however, 17. offering valid, but non mainstream, insights that might prove helpful.
18. My personal view is that it will be accomplished, not a question of if, but when... and then it will be accomplished by an outsider. 19.Mainstreamers, I feel, are so overly indoctrinated in limitations imposed by their rigid educations that most never question the foundations of the assumptions upon which their education is based. Therefore the breakthrough will probably come from an outsider creative enough to construct a physical paradigm based on alternative considerations that will allow the possibility.
If you are going to pursue a career in professional physics.... then the formal educational indoctrination process is going to be a necessity. Learn to question everything, and accept nothing as fact, that cannot be verified.... be sharp enough to know the difference.
You will find that everything in the physical universe is very inter-related, so that the more you know of any single aspect, the more you will likely know about the whole.
Personal opinion again... 20. Any breakthroughs must of necessity deal with the issue of inertia and gravitation as the primary obstacles to achieving FTL propulsion as these not only define space and distance, but energy, as well.
Good Luck!
Jack
I consider fizzeksman's comments to be very brilliant and wise. He's spot on in my opinion. FTL will come, and as usually happens, the science fiction writers will seem to have had some precognition of how it must be done.
However, FTL will have to be of necessity very much FTL in order to get anywhere in the universe. I have always thought that future interstellar travel would have to be practically instantaneous from the viewpoint of both the traveller and Earth. We would set a heading for stellar systems based not on their visible location from earth, but from their location determined by previous adventurous travellors who took a chance on materializing inside a star or some other fatal place, but who survived to set up a reciever at the other end. And so on, across the universe.
Probably a lot of bull. What do you think, fizzeksman?
However, FTL will have to be of necessity very much FTL in order to get anywhere in the universe. I have always thought that future interstellar travel would have to be practically instantaneous from the viewpoint of both the traveller and Earth. We would set a heading for stellar systems based not on their visible location from earth, but from their location determined by previous adventurous travellors who took a chance on materializing inside a star or some other fatal place, but who survived to set up a reciever at the other end. And so on, across the universe.
Probably a lot of bull. What do you think, fizzeksman?
That might me a wee bit difficult. But you never know.... Someday, you may be the real - life "Zephram Cochran" ! I would suggest Wikipedia first. They seem to have the answer to everything. Here are some links:
Wikipedia Link
BBC Link
Scientific American site
I don't know exactly how much you know about FTL travel, so these sites might be way too simple for you, but I hope they help anyway. Good luck !
- Gehn
! I would suggest Wikipedia first. They seem to have the answer to everything. Here are some links:Wikipedia Link
BBC Link
Scientific American site
I don't know exactly how much you know about FTL travel, so these sites might be way too simple for you, but I hope they help anyway. Good luck
!- Gehn
Hi ftled. FTL travel is a subject I am interested in as well, and I too have a dream of becoming the real life "Zephram Cochran" though I temper my enthusiasm with the realization that such an achievement will likely come as a gradual achievement by many scientists, not a sudden leap by a single man, as is so often portrayed in the media.
One of the fascinating aspects of string theory is that it allows for an infinite number of vibrational patterns, and hence an infinite number of particles, with arbitrary properties as defined by those vibrational patterns. This suggests to me that we may be able to create a particle that decays into some sort of open-ended graviton, bound to our 3-brane and thus exerting it's influence entirely upon the normal three dimensions we perceive. We could also create a particle that decays into yet another particle that exerts a repulsive force conveyed by a sort of anti-graviton (not to be confused with anti-matter) We could then shoot this particle fore and aft at very near to c, causing a warping of space around a ship that might be used to create an Alcubierre Metric.
I might be wrong, of course. I am not a physicist myself, so I have no idea how much this theory is speculation and how much is based in real science, but I am hopeful.
I believe you came to the right place, as my first post was on the same subject. I proposed an idea based on negative mass, which was discarded after several helpful (and a few unhelpful) replies from members of this forum. Good luck with achieving your goals :-)
One of the fascinating aspects of string theory is that it allows for an infinite number of vibrational patterns, and hence an infinite number of particles, with arbitrary properties as defined by those vibrational patterns. This suggests to me that we may be able to create a particle that decays into some sort of open-ended graviton, bound to our 3-brane and thus exerting it's influence entirely upon the normal three dimensions we perceive. We could also create a particle that decays into yet another particle that exerts a repulsive force conveyed by a sort of anti-graviton (not to be confused with anti-matter) We could then shoot this particle fore and aft at very near to c, causing a warping of space around a ship that might be used to create an Alcubierre Metric.
I might be wrong, of course. I am not a physicist myself, so I have no idea how much this theory is speculation and how much is based in real science, but I am hopeful.
I believe you came to the right place, as my first post was on the same subject. I proposed an idea based on negative mass, which was discarded after several helpful (and a few unhelpful) replies from members of this forum. Good luck with achieving your goals :-)
Hello,
I have heard of this kind of stuff before....... but the power consumption (and no doubt the means) to actually BEND space around a craft, well, lets just say that sound an awful lot like the 60's hippie fantasies.
But I agree it is a matter of time....... but we have only managed (as of yet) to bend a little bandwith of "light" (electromagnetc energy, reallly,) around an awkward-looking coil.
I think that this would actually need a new form of conveing energy (heat or light maby?) but that seems verry distant.
Best of luck in your presuit,
QUOTE (ftled+Nov 5 2007, 12:39 AM)
Hey everyone, Im new here so plse bear with. Im 20 years old and plan on going to college to pursue my childhood fantasy. The development of working FTL drive. It was a dream I lost sight of after a while, the stuff of Star Trek and mankinds' hopes and fantasies. But during some online research in the past year, I discovered that for the first time ever, there was a theoretical groundwork layed out for how an ftl drive could possibly work. I believe and hope that because there is some kind of footing, private science groups and universities will start pumping a lot of money and serious research into this. I have heard and I hope I heard correctly, that the term "warp drive theory" now describes a new branch is science. So my question to u my friends is, where do we stand with the development of an ftl drive? and how can I learn more and where can I study to dedicate myself developing easy interstellar travel? Any and all input is welcome, whatever you've heard. Ive still a lot to learn, Thank you
Yes, we very much need determined and intelligent physicists to work on these types of problems. Are you smart enough to excel at university? You're going to need really high grades to get into graduate school and you'll have to do very well in graduate school to be allowed to work on things like this.
If you were really good at math and physics in high school, then I recommend boning up on math and then getting into university. Then, in order to succeed in your goals, you'll need to focus a lot of your life at becoming VERY excellent at physics. Only top students will get a shot at working on things like this.
Determination and focused effort go a LONG way towards success!
For boning up on your maths (or even prelearning the maths, which really helps make university easier) you should check out MIT's opencourseware. And study, study, study! Don't just live in a fantasy world!
Yes, we very much need determined and intelligent physicists to work on these types of problems. Are you smart enough to excel at university? You're going to need really high grades to get into graduate school and you'll have to do very well in graduate school to be allowed to work on things like this.
If you were really good at math and physics in high school, then I recommend boning up on math and then getting into university. Then, in order to succeed in your goals, you'll need to focus a lot of your life at becoming VERY excellent at physics. Only top students will get a shot at working on things like this.
Determination and focused effort go a LONG way towards success!
For boning up on your maths (or even prelearning the maths, which really helps make university easier) you should check out MIT's opencourseware. And study, study, study! Don't just live in a fantasy world!
Also, remember that FTL travel is probably not going to happen any time soon, if at all. I'm also a star trek fan and I'd love it if a warp drive was possible, but knowing what I know about physics (not an expert yet, but any stretch of the imagination) I'd say it's not possible.
QUOTE
brupen
However, FTL will have to be of necessity very much FTL in order to get anywhere in the universe. I have always thought that future interstellar travel would have to be practically instantaneous from the viewpoint of both the traveller and Earth. We would set a heading for stellar systems based not on their visible location from earth, but from their location determined by previous adventurous travellors who took a chance on materializing inside a star or some other fatal place, but who survived to set up a reciever at the other end. And so on, across the universe.
Probably a lot of bull. What do you think, fizzeksman?
However, FTL will have to be of necessity very much FTL in order to get anywhere in the universe. I have always thought that future interstellar travel would have to be practically instantaneous from the viewpoint of both the traveller and Earth. We would set a heading for stellar systems based not on their visible location from earth, but from their location determined by previous adventurous travellors who took a chance on materializing inside a star or some other fatal place, but who survived to set up a reciever at the other end. And so on, across the universe.
Probably a lot of bull. What do you think, fizzeksman?
Once upon a time....
Fires were started by rubbing sticks together
Faster than sound travel was considered impossible
It was believed that man could never fly
it was a certainty no one could ever travel to the moon
The earth was thought to be the center of the universe
Then the sun was believed to be the center of the universe
Instantaneous communication with anyone from a great distance was impossible
Photographs were black and white.. then movies...then tv
The wrist radios of the "Tracy" Comic Strip fame were a fantasy
No one could ever determine the composition of distant stars
Faster than light travel was considered an impossibility
Those who expressed dissident views of accepted physics were persecuted
What do you think brupen?
Jack
To everyone:
We'll only get to the FTL if enough people stop watching the colour TVs long enough to get actual work and learning done!
There's no reason why this shouldn't be you.
We'll only get to the FTL if enough people stop watching the colour TVs long enough to get actual work and learning done!
There's no reason why this shouldn't be you.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Nov 7 2007, 03:27 PM)
This suggests to me that we may be able to create a particle that decays into some sort of open-ended graviton, bound to our 3-brane and thus exerting it's influence entirely upon the normal three dimensions we perceive.
I'd just like to point out that I was mistaken in this assumption. AlphaNumeric pointed out in a PM that the closed ends of a graviton are intrinsically bound to it's effect on other particles. Just trying to keep the record straight.
I'd just like to point out that I was mistaken in this assumption. AlphaNumeric pointed out in a PM that the closed ends of a graviton are intrinsically bound to it's effect on other particles. Just trying to keep the record straight.
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Nov 8 2007, 07:08 PM)
We'll only get to the FTL if enough people stop watching the colour TVs long enough to get actual work and learning done!
Then we may as well give up
.
Not many people can keep away from the boob tube for long...
- Gehn
re: where do we stand with the development of an ftl drive
There is some work on this being done with photons, however one needs to be very determined and lucky if such a device is ever to be realized since the outcome depends on getting it right before commencing the launch sequence. I would not want to discourage people but it might be wise to keep in mind that it is highly doubted by many such a feat can ever be achieved for a massive spacecraft.
There is some work on this being done with photons, however one needs to be very determined and lucky if such a device is ever to be realized since the outcome depends on getting it right before commencing the launch sequence. I would not want to discourage people but it might be wise to keep in mind that it is highly doubted by many such a feat can ever be achieved for a massive spacecraft.
That why we need people to keep on striving.
Yes. I suspect such a feat may eventually have something to do with projections of quantum virtual teleprobing matterwaves. It's has been shown to be possible in the lab.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3576594.stm
The link above is not going to work unless you squeeze it together your forum is worried I am a spammer.
I would suggest reading this article. It has a foundation in science and referes to what Albert Einstein called spooky action. The idea is that two particles can become entangled even if they are far apart. Then you can manipulate one and cause the other to change. Currently the technology relies on infrastructure such as fiber optic cables and satellite links. But eventually we will learn how to manipulate the entanglements without the added infrastructure we need to perform the experiments. If we develop FLT drive, chances are that it will be because of discoveries based on this and similar communications technology...
The link above is not going to work unless you squeeze it together your forum is worried I am a spammer.
I would suggest reading this article. It has a foundation in science and referes to what Albert Einstein called spooky action. The idea is that two particles can become entangled even if they are far apart. Then you can manipulate one and cause the other to change. Currently the technology relies on infrastructure such as fiber optic cables and satellite links. But eventually we will learn how to manipulate the entanglements without the added infrastructure we need to perform the experiments. If we develop FLT drive, chances are that it will be because of discoveries based on this and similar communications technology...
Now that's a statement of crass ignorance.
How would adding more sails make a trans-Atlantic crossing possible in less than a day?
On the plus side, you have earned an invitation to our May Day festivities. It's California Casual, but feel free to come as you prefer. Details to be announced.
How would adding more sails make a trans-Atlantic crossing possible in less than a day?
On the plus side, you have earned an invitation to our May Day festivities. It's California Casual, but feel free to come as you prefer. Details to be announced.
Well, if we could hijack the Planck constant and change its value to about 3x10^7J-s, we might be able to lose an apple somewhere inside of a light year. I know that doesn't sound very useful. The idea is to change a macroscopic object into a wave function. No, I don't know how to do that.
I've been playing around with the idea that wave functions are tachyon fields in disguise. I just don't believe in time travel because it violates causality (and makes good people want to kill there grandparents).
The Higgs field, which gives objects their mass, is the ground state of a tachyon field, then excited states will put that field into a tachyon field state. The idea is to create a tachyon field around an FTL starship. Yes, I understand that steering it is still a problem.
It's like an impossibility machine that will get you lost in space. So bring lots of canned food.
I've been playing around with the idea that wave functions are tachyon fields in disguise. I just don't believe in time travel because it violates causality (and makes good people want to kill there grandparents).
The Higgs field, which gives objects their mass, is the ground state of a tachyon field, then excited states will put that field into a tachyon field state. The idea is to create a tachyon field around an FTL starship. Yes, I understand that steering it is still a problem.
It's like an impossibility machine that will get you lost in space. So bring lots of canned food.
Relativity limits the maximum speed, but it does not limit the travel times.
For very high speeds length contraction reduces the needed travel time at a geometric rate.
The real obstacle is the time of acceleration, both positive and negative, as this actually requires more time than anything else. The longer it takes to get to max velocity, the more food and resources you need for the travellers. This is the real obstacle, as I've demonstrated. A one way journey to Proxima Centauri ~3.6 ly, is not really as hard as it's been made out to be.
Length Contraction:
L' = L*sqrt(1-(v2/c2))
with a target velocity of 0.999c we have
L' = 3.6ly*sqrt(1-(0.9992)) <= ~0.161ly
Now, assuming we average acceleration of 10-15m/s2 (safe human limits), then we need 232 to 347 days each for the positive and negative acceleration phases.
Literally 464 to 694 days for accelerations, but less than 59 days of "coasting".
Doing the math, we see that on a one way journey, we "only" need to be able to keep the human passengers alive for about 2 years 23 days. There's been astronauts on space stations for about that long before.
The total amount of energy needed for each phase of accelerating a craft more than capable of performing this task is actually several orders of magnitude less than the total explosive energy of tsar bomba.
If relativity holds true, length contraction is our friend. The people on the ship will survive the journey with only 2 years and 23 days worth of supplies. They could actually survive a 100ly journey with only about 6 years 136 days worth of supplies.
Assuming a nuclear drive, not even anti-matter, I am convinced that this IS doable right now with existing technologies in America, even with a uni-lateral effort.
The Orion and Super Orion projects are considered "doable" right now, and we really do not need a project that big.
A healthy population can be maintained with as few as a couple dozen starting couples, say, 50 couples from as many race/nationality backgrounds as possible to maximize genetic diversity.
For very high speeds length contraction reduces the needed travel time at a geometric rate.
The real obstacle is the time of acceleration, both positive and negative, as this actually requires more time than anything else. The longer it takes to get to max velocity, the more food and resources you need for the travellers. This is the real obstacle, as I've demonstrated. A one way journey to Proxima Centauri ~3.6 ly, is not really as hard as it's been made out to be.
Length Contraction:
L' = L*sqrt(1-(v2/c2))
with a target velocity of 0.999c we have
L' = 3.6ly*sqrt(1-(0.9992)) <= ~0.161ly
Now, assuming we average acceleration of 10-15m/s2 (safe human limits), then we need 232 to 347 days each for the positive and negative acceleration phases.
Literally 464 to 694 days for accelerations, but less than 59 days of "coasting".
Doing the math, we see that on a one way journey, we "only" need to be able to keep the human passengers alive for about 2 years 23 days. There's been astronauts on space stations for about that long before.
The total amount of energy needed for each phase of accelerating a craft more than capable of performing this task is actually several orders of magnitude less than the total explosive energy of tsar bomba.
If relativity holds true, length contraction is our friend. The people on the ship will survive the journey with only 2 years and 23 days worth of supplies. They could actually survive a 100ly journey with only about 6 years 136 days worth of supplies.
Assuming a nuclear drive, not even anti-matter, I am convinced that this IS doable right now with existing technologies in America, even with a uni-lateral effort.
The Orion and Super Orion projects are considered "doable" right now, and we really do not need a project that big.
A healthy population can be maintained with as few as a couple dozen starting couples, say, 50 couples from as many race/nationality backgrounds as possible to maximize genetic diversity.
History told us you can't invent super-sonic flight before sub-sonic flight.
Similarly, if nobody is ever willing to invent a 0.1c, 0.2c, 0.3c, ... ..., 0.9c..., etc, engines, then why even bother postulating about a FTL engine?
Similarly, if nobody is ever willing to invent a 0.1c, 0.2c, 0.3c, ... ..., 0.9c..., etc, engines, then why even bother postulating about a FTL engine?
When I work out the time dilation and change in position during the acceleration phase, which is so complicated I usually ignore it for simplicity sake, I do see that the problem is a bit more subtle, but still is not "unatainable" as we keep thinking.
If we acclerate at 10m/s2 for what "should be" 29970000s <= 347 days.
We get some interesting results.
Time dilation due to acceleration formula:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
g and a are the same, except you need to reverse the sign.
I used the following numbers:
g = 10m/s^2
v0=0 (since we are accelerating from rest relative to earth.)
t=29,970,000s
The after acceleration, we have:
Position = x = 8.598e15 meters (9.4608e15 meters is a light year)
So paradoxically, the ship travels almost an entire light year during the acceleration phase....
velocity = v = 212,025,888.75 m/s
Strangely, the velocity ends up lower than Newton says it "should be", but we actually travelled farther!
Proper time = T' = 585,518,761s = 6,777days = 18.57 years
Ok, proper time really, really hurts me
Wow, you really can't ignore the acceleration phase at all. Lol. That really hurts the travellers.
Still, this would suggest a 100ly journey could still be made in human lifetimes even with nothing but existing technologies.
====
Ok, I'm in the middle of typing this, but I just found something that has got to be some sort of mistake. When I plug in numbers to this formula for accelerating at the absurdly slow rate of 1m/s2, I find that, according to the formulas as given by wikipedia, the ship reaching the exact same velocity in less time!
a = g = 1m/s^2
v0 = =
t = 299,700,000s
The according to the formula
x = 3.7216e16m (4 ly!?)
v = 212,025,888.75m/s (same as other way)
T' = 103,822,077.4s = 1201.64 days = 3.29 years.
This is a serious paradox in that the formula says you can actually travel almost ten times farther during the acceleration phase in 1/6th the time by accelerating more slowly, and actually expending far less energy in the process.
Ok, so I assume I've made a math error, but what that might be, I have no clue.
Can anyone be bothered to double check these results? I've re-checked them already with apparantly the same results.
This crazy formula literally suggests that the slower you accelerate the faster you will get to the destination, and literally get there faster than if you started out moving at the speed of light in the first place, which is ridiculous.
If we acclerate at 10m/s2 for what "should be" 29970000s <= 347 days.
We get some interesting results.
Time dilation due to acceleration formula:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
g and a are the same, except you need to reverse the sign.
I used the following numbers:
g = 10m/s^2
v0=0 (since we are accelerating from rest relative to earth.)
t=29,970,000s
The after acceleration, we have:
Position = x = 8.598e15 meters (9.4608e15 meters is a light year)
So paradoxically, the ship travels almost an entire light year during the acceleration phase....
velocity = v = 212,025,888.75 m/s
Strangely, the velocity ends up lower than Newton says it "should be", but we actually travelled farther!
Proper time = T' = 585,518,761s = 6,777days = 18.57 years
Ok, proper time really, really hurts me
Wow, you really can't ignore the acceleration phase at all. Lol. That really hurts the travellers.
Still, this would suggest a 100ly journey could still be made in human lifetimes even with nothing but existing technologies.
====
Ok, I'm in the middle of typing this, but I just found something that has got to be some sort of mistake. When I plug in numbers to this formula for accelerating at the absurdly slow rate of 1m/s2, I find that, according to the formulas as given by wikipedia, the ship reaching the exact same velocity in less time!
a = g = 1m/s^2
v0 = =
t = 299,700,000s
The according to the formula
x = 3.7216e16m (4 ly!?)
v = 212,025,888.75m/s (same as other way)
T' = 103,822,077.4s = 1201.64 days = 3.29 years.
This is a serious paradox in that the formula says you can actually travel almost ten times farther during the acceleration phase in 1/6th the time by accelerating more slowly, and actually expending far less energy in the process.
Ok, so I assume I've made a math error, but what that might be, I have no clue.
Can anyone be bothered to double check these results? I've re-checked them already with apparantly the same results.
This crazy formula literally suggests that the slower you accelerate the faster you will get to the destination, and literally get there faster than if you started out moving at the speed of light in the first place, which is ridiculous.
QUOTE
Ok, so I assume I've made a math error, but what that might be, I have no clue.
Was there a reason for increasing the time by a factor of 10?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Ok, so I assume I've made a math error, but what that might be, I have no clue. |
Was there a reason for increasing the time by a factor of 10?
t=29,970,000s
QUOTE
t = 299,700,000s
Ftl is, if you read the book UFO Contact From The Pleiades, has already been developed.
From what they say in the book, this is a changed phased state of matter. In other words, through some realm of operational stance via a shift in frequency resonance, as this would impose to the upper limit of near the top speed of light, the nature of matter composing the ftl drive, changes to another velocity.
Supposedly, there are a few other off world cultures that possess ftl drives.
There are other means of travel, but I will stick to your request in the ftl area.
From what they say in the book, this is a changed phased state of matter. In other words, through some realm of operational stance via a shift in frequency resonance, as this would impose to the upper limit of near the top speed of light, the nature of matter composing the ftl drive, changes to another velocity.
Supposedly, there are a few other off world cultures that possess ftl drives.
There are other means of travel, but I will stick to your request in the ftl area.
QUOTE (AlexG+Jul 3 2009, 04:23 PM)
Was there a reason for increasing the time by a factor of 10?
Yes, there was.
Ok, my target velocity would have been 0.999c. So that is where I got those numbers from (even though, as it turns out, they don't actually give you that result, but roughtly 2/3 of it.)
I want to be moving at 0.999c because the faster you move in the uniform motion relativity equations, the more length contraction, which helps most for the "coasting" phase. So that is why my target velocity is so high.
So, if I am accelerating at 10m/s^2 then time would be 1/10 that of accelerating at 1 m/s^2, according to intuition due to the normal "non-relativistic" equation of v = at.
If I increase acceleration by a factor of ten, then to obtain the same velocity, I should decrease time by a factor of ten. That is where that came from.
So then g*t ends up being the same either way.
Paradoxically the formula predicts you would travel farther, and in less "proper time" by accelerating at 1/10 the rate.
Restating:
Example 1:
g = 10m/s2
t = 29,970,000s
gives
x = 9.598e15m
v = 21202588.75m/s
t' = 585518761s
Example 2:
g=1m/s2
t = 299,700,000s
gives
x = 8.5976e16m (crazy!)
v = 212, 025, 888.75m/s
t' = 103822077.4s
====
x is the distance the formula claims you travel during the acceleration time, since it represents the change in position.
Again, I have double checked these results, and they are accurate, according to the formula.
The formula claims you can literally travel farther by accelerating at 1m/s2 for proper time approximately 1/5 as long as if you accelerated at 10m/s2!
This is definitely a a paradox, because it suggests you require 1/50th as much energy to obtain the same velocity by simply accelerating as slowly as possible.
====
Scenario 2 is crazy because the formula claims you will pass proxima centauri by in less than 4 years, having never exceeded 2/3 of the speed of light, and by accelerating at only 1m/s2!!
QUOTE
I want to be moving at 0.999c
How would you suggest accelerating to that speed?
Ok, mercifully, I've found more mistakes than I can count.
I must have been asleep or something earlier, because my results previously were completely wrong and I feel like an idiot.
t'= 26,419,989s <=306 days
not 585,518,761s!!
I'm not sure why I got that result twice in a row...
I also apparantly made a mistake in example 2 as well, as I got the wrong number. I am not sure how that is possible, maybe I got the formulas mixed up or something. At least I wasn't wrong on the velocities, lol, I can still do something right!!
in example 2, for t' we should have:
t' = 26,419,989s <= 3060 days
Which makes much more sense.
Example 1:
g = 10m/s2
t = 29,970,000s
gives
x = 3.72155969211e15m (= 0.393ly)
v = 212,025,888.75m/s
t' = 26,419,989s <=306 days
Example 2:
g=1m/s2
t = 299,700,000s
gives
x = 3.72155969211e16m (3.93ly)
v = 212, 025, 888.75m/s
t' = 264,199,890s <= 3060 days
====
Ok, crap. This is right, I'm sure of it.
Yeah, it seems to make sense now, because if we then allow ship 1 to "coast" for a couple thousand days while ship 2 continues to accelerate, ship 1 will still leave ship 2 in the dust because it has obtained max velocity much faster, which is exactly what should happen.
Heh, silly me, I have no clue why I kept getting such obviously wrong answers.
Anyway, even these results are nowhere near as bad as everyone makes them out to be, and they are certainly attainable, I believe.
Example 2 is 1 joule per kilogram of the ship per second for 264,199,890s.
Taking the space shuttle, we have:
91819kg * 264,199,890 = 2.42586e13 joules*
*this actually only gets us to 2/3 of c, not 0.999c.
The fact that in the proper reference frame the target velocity wasn't actually obtained by my input numbers doesn't matter, because the time dilation has helped us out so much anyway. Even calculating it this way, 2.42586e13 joules is insignificant compared to the energy in a nuclear bomb or anti-matter.
If you do all the math, and again assume an only 2.5% efficiency engine, and assume another 50% is lost to neutrinos, and consider both positive and negative phases, then half a kilogram of anti-matter annihilated with half kilogram of matter is STILL enough to do 23 one-way missions sending a ship the size of the space shuttle!
The Tzar Bomba nuclear bomb also would still represent more than enough energy to make those same 23 one way shuttle missions.
So, no matter how you look at it, we DO have the capability to do inter-stellar missions at relativistic speeds right now, through the usage of nuclear rocketry.
I must have been asleep or something earlier, because my results previously were completely wrong and I feel like an idiot.
t'= 26,419,989s <=306 days
not 585,518,761s!!
I'm not sure why I got that result twice in a row...
I also apparantly made a mistake in example 2 as well, as I got the wrong number. I am not sure how that is possible, maybe I got the formulas mixed up or something. At least I wasn't wrong on the velocities, lol, I can still do something right!!
in example 2, for t' we should have:
t' = 26,419,989s <= 3060 days
Which makes much more sense.
Example 1:
g = 10m/s2
t = 29,970,000s
gives
x = 3.72155969211e15m (= 0.393ly)
v = 212,025,888.75m/s
t' = 26,419,989s <=306 days
Example 2:
g=1m/s2
t = 299,700,000s
gives
x = 3.72155969211e16m (3.93ly)
v = 212, 025, 888.75m/s
t' = 264,199,890s <= 3060 days
====
Ok, crap. This is right, I'm sure of it.
Yeah, it seems to make sense now, because if we then allow ship 1 to "coast" for a couple thousand days while ship 2 continues to accelerate, ship 1 will still leave ship 2 in the dust because it has obtained max velocity much faster, which is exactly what should happen.
Heh, silly me, I have no clue why I kept getting such obviously wrong answers.
Anyway, even these results are nowhere near as bad as everyone makes them out to be, and they are certainly attainable, I believe.
Example 2 is 1 joule per kilogram of the ship per second for 264,199,890s.
Taking the space shuttle, we have:
91819kg * 264,199,890 = 2.42586e13 joules*
*this actually only gets us to 2/3 of c, not 0.999c.
The fact that in the proper reference frame the target velocity wasn't actually obtained by my input numbers doesn't matter, because the time dilation has helped us out so much anyway. Even calculating it this way, 2.42586e13 joules is insignificant compared to the energy in a nuclear bomb or anti-matter.
If you do all the math, and again assume an only 2.5% efficiency engine, and assume another 50% is lost to neutrinos, and consider both positive and negative phases, then half a kilogram of anti-matter annihilated with half kilogram of matter is STILL enough to do 23 one-way missions sending a ship the size of the space shuttle!
The Tzar Bomba nuclear bomb also would still represent more than enough energy to make those same 23 one way shuttle missions.
So, no matter how you look at it, we DO have the capability to do inter-stellar missions at relativistic speeds right now, through the usage of nuclear rocketry.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Jul 3 2009, 05:26 PM)
How would you suggest accelerating to that speed?
Anti-matter or nuclear rocketry.
In conventional rocketry, since the energy comes from chemical reactions, accelerating the ship is almost entirely about accelerating the fuel you need to keep accelerating the ship. Most of the fuel is used to accelerate other fuel...
Since the energy densities of nuclear and anti-matter are so much higher, they do not suffer nearly as badly from this problem.
The energy density of nuclear is about 100,000 to 1,000,000 times greater per unit mass. So to produce about the same amount of net thrust, you need one hundred thousandth or even a millionth as much fuel.
Anti-matter is even better.
In anti-matter propulsion, since the amount of energy density is so high, accelerating the mass of the fuel source becomes negligible. There are about 50 megatons of TNT worth of energy in a single kilogram of anti-matter. The key is detonating it in small, controllable amounts, just like igniting gasoline in your internal combustion engine: a few particles at a time.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Jul 3 2009, 05:26 PM)
How would you suggest accelerating to that speed?
To answer this more directly.
If we do the relativity of velocity formula backwards, starting with 0.999c as "v", then we can find t, for any g.
We will call this "example 3": Accelerating to 0.999c in the proper frame.
Assume our destination star is 100ly distant.
for the special case where v0 =0 (rest relative to earth,) the formula becomes:
v = gt/sqrt(1+ (((gt)^2)/c^2)
Plugging this into a TI-86 calculator, and substituting Y for V and X for t, I was able to solve this for proper time:
for g=10m/s2
and v = .999c (299700000m/s)
t' = 298510000s (9 years 170 days)
To find the amount of energy needed to accelerate the space shuttle to 0.999c, we take the acceleration and multiply by mass and by proper time during acceleration applied.
This still only gives us 2.741e14 joules for the positive stage.
This is still far, far less than the amount of energy available in Tzar Bomba or in a half kilogram of anti-matter plus half kilogram of matter (328 times as much, actually).
So again, figure half lost due to neutrinos, 2.5% efficiency after that, double energy needs to account for negative phase, and then you will find that a half kilogram of anti-matter could accelerate TWO space shuttles to 0.999c, and then deccelerate them in the PROPER FRAME.
At that speed, the length contraction formula combined with the position formula tells us where we will be at any given time.
Remember, I got t by solving the velocity equation backwards, assuming g = 10.
====
Positive phase:
d1 = 8.1004e16m (8.562 ly)
t1 = 9 years 170 days
final velocity v1= 0.999c
Negative phase:
d2 = 8.1004e16m
t2 = 9 years 170 days
final velocity = 0
Coasting phase: as long and as far as you want to go.
We need to travel 82.876ly during this time.
However, length contraction at 0.999c reduced that amount to 3.7054ly
so
t3 = 3.7054/0.999 = 3.7091years
Total time(in the ship) <= 22 years 234 days
This accounts for all relativistic effects. The people onboard the ship need to survive for basicly 22.75 years to reach a star we on earth observe as 100ly away. The vast majority of this is acceleration and decellaration time.
This is DOABLE with existing technology. Extremely expensive, but doable.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.