Spaceships of the future to take humans to Mars in 2.5 hours

[lovuian]

http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/76045-0/

Humans can build spaceships capable of reaching the Moon within minutes; a flight to Mars will take 2.5 hours, and a flight to Alpha Centauri, which is scores of light years away from Earth, will take a mere 80 days.




Incredible journeys can be a reality, say two German Doctors of Physics who put forth an audacious theory. Walter Dresher from the University of Innsbruck joined forces with Joachim Hoiser, a leading scientist with the German company HPCC-Space Gmbh.

“The German physicists build their work on a theory formulated by the German scientist Burkhard Heim. The theory was put together in the 1950s,” says Vadim Pimenov, deputy director of the Institute of Theoretical and Applied Physics under the Russian Academy of Sciences, professor at the Lomonosov Moscow State University. “Heim, a brilliant physicist and philosopher, was the first scientist who began thinking over the principles of space flights using a “hyper-engine.”

The concept seems improbable at first sight. In actuality, it is a byproduct of the efforts aiming to combine the quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity – two theories that so far have successfully foiled all the attempts to make them “friendly,” mostly due to differences in the interpretation of space and time. Heim made use of the Einstein concept regarding gravitation as a manifestation of distortions in the “fabric” of space and time. However, he suggested that all kinds of fundamental interaction be considered a manifestation of the complete set of spatial dimensions.
more...
Very Interesting article!!! Enjoy!!!

[benburch]

1. Pravda is not a very relaible source of news, IMNSHO

And I'll believe this space drive when they show me it working even on a small scale.

[Occulus]

10. This has been reported in other sources previously.

This article appeared previously in the Scotsman, IIRC, as well as New Scientist.

A couple points:

Heim's theory never got wide recognition because it was originally published (and then forgotten) in German, not English, and for decades wasn't even known among even the best physicists. For all intents and purposes, as far as I've been able to ascertain, this is a "new" theory to the West.

Heim's theory also apparently does not violate any of the known laws of physics; as I understand the theory, the inertial mass of the object is unaffected by accelerative forces under the proposed propulsion. I can't explain why; there are a couple papers out there summarizing the theory, and the math is WELL beyond me.

I'm always very interested in any new form of propulsion technology; given we know so very little about gravity and electromagnetism- for all that we daily USE those forces- this definitely requires more thought.

Keep in mind, though, that Pravda got this from other sources. This is not first coming from them.

There was a thread about this exact article in the Science forum a couple weeks ago.

[RazzleDazzle]

73. It's actually often much, MUCH better these days than our own MSM

[Atman]

2. Damn! Misleading headline!

I was halfway through packing my bags when I re-read it...but just to be sure...we're not leaving in 2.5 hours?

[Zhade]

25. ...

:rofl:

Nicely done.

[Occulus]

41. Very clever.

:rofl:

[lovuian]

3. Hey guys read the whole article before you turn skeptic

Academic scholars would have reacted quite skeptically to such argumentation had it taken place a few years ago,” says Prof. Pimenov. “Nowadays the situation has changed. The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics recently published a list of last year’s award winners for the best theoretical works in aerospace research.

...it has some basis to it...

[Canuckistanian]

4. Thank God!

I was wondering about whether they would keep their promise.

Now, if only the Martians would only keep up THEIR end!

[derby378]

5. These guys have been reading Frank Herbert, haven't they?

Bring on the Spacing Guild!

[Somawas]

11. It did have a surprising similarity to foldspace.

[alphafemale]

6. ZoomZoomZoom! or Khaput!

[tularetom]

7. OMFG the chimp was right

Remember a couple years ago he talked about going to Mars in his state of the union pukefest and everybody, even his sycophants, was going "What the fuck is he smoking?".

[ThoughtCriminal]

8. Another source

My dad (Ex-NASA rocket scientist) told me about this a few weeks ago:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18925331.200.html

[lovuian]

15. Thanks Thought Criminal :)

Ya Know it reminds me of the Time machine in the movie Contact

[Occulus]

18. It's actually simpler than that.

But I'm betting, were I to get into the pseudosciencebabble from that movie, someone somewhere would claim that those rings were magnetically charged in some way.

That's no coincidence.

[salvorhardin]

22. Why would it be a coincidence?

When Sagan was an astronomer, and a rather smart one at that, with all kinds of access to theoretical physicists.

[Occulus]

29. That's sort of my point.

We know frighteningly little about gravity or electromagnetism, for all that we use those forces daily. We have no idea what generates them, and I'm betting at fantastic energy levels, we'll witness some very bizarre effects.

One thing that turns my head on this theory is that it's only now coming to light after more than 50 years. It was originally published in German and never got the recognition it probably should have.

Rotating magnetic fields have been of special interest for some time now. I'm only talking about what I've read online; you'll find a LOT more info on physics forums and message boards than is ever reported in "mainstream" journals.

As I said elsewhere on this thread, the people on the physicist's forums- and I'll try to find you all links, but they're fairly easy to find in conjunction with this article and others about the same topic- are NOT dismissing this idea.

In fact, as far as they're concerned, it's time to experiment. They don't seem to have any difficulties with Heim's theory; it violates no physical laws (including the conservation of energy) and requires no mass to generate thrust, thereby skating right around the constraints put in place by Einstien's theories.

I'm hoping to hear a lot more about this, and if it's viable... we will hear a LOT more about this.

edit: these comments may prove enlightening. As "Occulus", I posted on that thread a transcription of the "Conclusions" image I posted elsewhere on this one here at DU.

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:j_6kiKjnG8sJ:www.defensetech.org/archives/002065_comments.html+aiaa2003-4990-Talk_Huntsville.pdf&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2

[daleo]

36. I think Sagan got advice from Kip Thorne of Cal Tech on that warp ship

Indeed, two very brilliant minds contributed to that scenario.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

38. Yeah, it was Thorne's wormhole model

IIRC Thorne was one of the first physicists to do any deep theoretical work on the nature of wormholes.

[Zhade]

27. No, no, those rings are powered by - JESUS!

Sorry, don't know where THAT came from!

[Occulus]

34. South Park is where it came from.

Don't you remember Jesus and his amazing carpentry skills?

[Mythsaje]

40. Read the book...

That's the only thing I can say.

It's a brilliant, entertaining book... The movie was rather lame.

[Occulus]

44. What does he think about this? n/t

[ThoughtCriminal]

63. He thinks it might work

We did not discuss the technical problems of actually building it though.

[Occulus]

87. It would require materials we don't yet have commercially available,

I'm sure.

I'm just as sure that the technology necessary to actually build a working unit is already within our grasp; it's the implementation that has yet been fully thought out.

Or,

Why are UFOs classically believed to be saucer-shaped?

Answer:

Because they contain a torus generating a magnetic field. The classical UFO/"flying saucer" shape is perfect for the shape of the fields involved.

I'm not implying the existence of anything other than the most desireable shape of craft when making those comments.

[Wilms]

9. .

[beam me up scottie]

13. I SAID "Beam me up, Scottie!"

...is this communicator on?

[stevedeshazer]

12. Let's send Bush right now. 2.5 hours is not soon enough!

[lovuian]

31. LOL!!! that is an awesome pic thanks!!!

He can't get the NASA program working....

[eppur_se_muova]

69. "These reconnaisance photos show evidence of weapons of mass destruction"…

[drm604]

76. Yes!

They have illudium q-32 explosive space modulators!

[darkism]

14. So when are the self-anointed physicists and skeptics...

...going to come into this thread screaming "IMPOSSIBLE!" ?

Sometimes the impossible is worth our best shot.

HOWEVER, if this works, the unfortunate effect is that it's increasingly more likely that we're the only civilization in the galaxy intelligent enough to harness it. And if we're the most advanced civilization in the galaxy, well, that's pretty sad.

[beam me up scottie]

19. Why would they do that?

If it's legit, unlike chemtrails, bigfoot and compassionate conservatism.

[benburch]

64. Instead we come in screaming "PROVE IT"!

That's what science is all about.

[Occulus]

66. And in this case

concrete proof positive would be a gourmet dish.

As I said elsewhere, while I don't pretend to understand any of the math involved (nor do many physicists!), others on other forums are dividing into what looks like two camps:

+ Heim Theory looks inaccurate because we don't fully understand it (notice the word "looks").

+ Heim Theory is sufficiently well-formed that it deserves further investigation/experimentation.

According to everything I've read on this subject since the first thread on it was posted here in the Science Forum, Heim was well-recognized during his time for being brilliant, even a genius. One reason his theory never received wide exposure was because it was written in German; something else I learned only last night is that he actually used some homegrown notation of his own (in the equations, I think). That alone will take some time to decipher.

Given the buzz this has generated just in the places I've looked, it seems to me that if the theory is inaccurate, it will take a good deal of detective work to find out why. There's lots and lots of discussion on Heim Theory out there if you go looking.

I'll continue to post links to physics discussions relating to Heim Theory as I find them. My feeling is (and it's only a gut feeling) with as many people looking at it as there are now, the chances are good that if there's a problem with the theory itself those problems will be exposed relatively quickly.

[benburch]

67. Exactly.

Build me even a small space drive... Add 5 meters per second to the space station with it. At that point I'll believe in it.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

68. Spacedrives are a bit much for a first shot.

How about this? Build me an experimental rig that proves the field interactions work, and then explain to me why magnetars don't blink into hyperspace. At that point I'm willing to believe it.

[benburch]

75. That would do it for me...

But even a weak space drive would be more useful than you can imagine. So what if it never had more than a milligee of thrust? You could build satellites that could station-keep for centuries. Our planetary orbiter tend to die not from any failure but from exhausting their station-keeping fuel.

[Endangered Specie]

30. ... checking in

[Thor_MN]

49. If every civilization that come close to developing this becomes plagued

with conservative dipshits who want to get their rocks off by projecting power against other countries, then the percentage that doesn't destroy their planet first could be quite low.

I suspect that when we get out there and tell our story, they will say "You had TWO Bushes??? You poor bastards..."

[Occulus]

16. OK, people, THIS ARTICLE IS NOT BUNK.

I've found two .pdf files, one (at least, if not both) given at the AIAA conference in 2004, in which this theory is discussed in detail.

This may well be the real deal.

Here are the files you're looking for (I'm sorry, but you'll have to Google the filenames, but they're NOT hard to find).

aiaa2004-3700-a4.pdf

and

aiaa2003-4990-Talk_Huntsville.pdf

The second is a simplified powerpoint presentation in .pdf form.

I've read several threads on several science sites, with posts purportedly by physics students and professors, and the math they're using is WAY beyond me. These people, I am inclined to believe, know their stuff... and NONE of them are saying is just flat impossible.... rather, they're one and all saying it definitely merits further study.

I'm going to go do a happy dance now.

Edited to add: Pravda is behind on this; it's been reported in a couple other places as well.

edited to add: Here's the "conclusions" page from the powerpoint file I referenced above. Sorry; it's an image from a screengrab of the .pdf file as displayed on my desktop, so you'll probably have to zoom in.

[lovuian]

24. That is awesome KG thanks...

I guess if it doesn't run on gas it doesn't work...

:crazy:

[Occulus]

39. The math of all this is soooooooo beyond me

I think it's calculus.... I'm not sure, I never studied calc, but that's what it looks like.

Here's a shot from a page from the other file, not the powerpoint presentation, but the lengthier paper:



I would post the .pdf files as text, but there's a LOT of math to wade through, and in text form, I just don't know what's what. I'm only posting this image to demonstrate that this is, in fazct, something serious, and not pseudosciencebabble, as so many other such "theories" are.

[Endangered Specie]

53. Just because there is math behind something

does not mean that it is "valid" in science. With math you can create damn near any universe you please, on paper.

Ive seen many perpetual motion sites with "math" on it, same goes for creation sites.

[Occulus]

56. Well, if you understand calc,

you'll already understand more about those two papers than I do. I can't pretend to even begin to understand any of the equations given.

Moreover, not enough physicists are familiar with the Heim theory to begin to speak to its accuraccy. This is perhaps owing to the fact that it was (as I understand the situation) only recently translated into English.

Time will tell... let's just say that this is the first even potentially viable theory into a real FTL drive I've ever heard of. Everything else on this topic I've ever seen is, by comparison, the sort of stuff you'd get out of the Enterprise Technical Manual.

:)

[lovuian]

57. Article says its a theory...

so yes right now its a theory which is going to be put to the test in the laboratory......

[zonmoy]

83. How can it be a theory if it hasn't been tested yet.

It should be called a hypothesis.

[tuvor]

17. Say, that's just crazy talk.

Next you'll be telling us that heavier-than-air vehicles will someday be able to rise up from the ground.

Y'know what? We should just close the patent office. Everything's already been invented by now.

[951-Riverside]

20. I have a theory George Bush will be hauled away in handcuffs Saturday

:)

[Occulus]

21. That is actually less likely than this is.

However likely it is that this theory is sound, yours is less so.

Get thee to a peer review!

:D

[Endangered Specie]

23. If Einstein were here, hed say this is bullshit...

Ill side with Einstein.


and, Pravda?!? come on.

[lovuian]

26. Russian space program is nothing to sneer at my friends

Our Space Shuttle is on hold...

Don't diss the Russians space program...

[Endangered Specie]

28. I hear the nuclear plants work well too.

[eppur_se_muova]

70. And don't forget the "Kliper" under development.

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kliper.html

[Occulus]

33. Not at all.

In fact, it uses Einstein's theories as a springboard. Neither the conservation of energy nor the "brick wall" of c is apparently violated.

Read the two files I provided names for above; they're easily Googled and can tell you more about it than I ever could.

And... Pravda is behind the curve on this; it was previously reported in the New Scientist magazine and was presented at the 2004 AIAA conference. In fact, I think this theory/paper was held up as the premier paper/theory of that conference.

I'm only saying it could have merit and definitely deserves further study and experimentation.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

37. Absolutely.

More to the point, we probably shouldn't start counting our starships just yet. Heim's theory might work, but it hasn't been fully peer-reviewed or had any experimental verification done yet. And even if he's right it might not provide the kind of practical application the articles like to suggest.

So I'm cautiously optimistic, but I'm gonna wait for independent verification from CERN, Los Alamos and Tokyo University before I break out the bubbly.

[Occulus]

88. Precisely.

Suppose it works only halfway, and you can go into a dimension where c is faster than it is here, but organic material is completely incinerated in the process?

That's only one unknown unknown. :)

I would definitely support their use of the Z machine at Sandia to try and test this theory. It may not be enough power, as incredible as that statement is given their own experimental results lately. We're talking about the possibility of a spacedrive and FTL flight- that, logically, must involve an absurdly high amount of energy to accomplish, and applied correctly to boot.

I, too, want to see this tested. Therein lies the proof. It would, without a doubt, alter human history forever.

I've felt, throughout my entire adulthood, and even ever since I was exposed to the concept back in 4th or 5th grade, that one day in my lifetime we would break the light barrier and begin to truly explore the stars. It's nice to see that even the idea, once irrecovably impossible by dogma and decree, is gaining traction among the crowd of physicists entering and practicing in the field today. They have maybe, and perhaps moreso than most, been more exposed to popularized sci-fi than any previous generation. It's a sort of hokey thought, but science fiction, in the end, often does become science fact if the concept is a popular one.

[Salviati]

90. A little OT but oh well...

This reminds me of a SF short story I read at one point. The air force was doing reasearch into all sorts of crazy FTL methods, such as mental teleportation, and other really REALLY hairbrained schemes. A prominant physicist discovered the possibility that their may be another "hyperspace" dimention that we could jump to where the speed of light would be different, but was brushed off by the AF. He kept pushing the issue until the AF finally admited that his theory had been discovered before, fully developed, and a parctical hyperspace engine developed, only to find that the speed of light in "hyperspace" was less than c...

[Richard D]

32. Call me utterly wacked . . .

. . . but I'd bet we'll see something like this occurring within the next 10 years. Just a strong hunch, but now it's in the archives.

[hopeisaplace]

35. Mars was bought & paid for by Halliburton, God got the cheque yesterday

Soooo

first one to Mars owns it?

[lovuian]

42. Hey guys what is this American project called Sandia ???

The dreams of a time machine are beginning to take shape in America . The so-called Z-machine is being built by the American National Laboratory Sandia. The machine is one of the world’s most powerful “impulse” sources of a magnetic field and the most powerful generator of roentgen rays. Similar experiments are being conducted in Moscow , by the Institute of Theoretical and Applied Physics under the Russian Academy of Sciences.


Anybody know about this one???

[Occulus]

43. I believe I read somewhere that's a candidate for testing this very theory

I think I read somewhere that the Z machine could well be a possible conduit for testing this theory to see if it is viable. Certainly, the energies required for this space drive would fall into the realm of what the Z Machine will be able to produce.

I think that's what I read.... I clearly recall the Z machine and this theory being mentioned- somewhere- in the same sentence.

I'm going Googling.

[lovuian]

45. So the Z machine is a Time machine??? It must be

a viable theory if they are building the machine...fascinating times

if all the countries could pull their resources we maybe going space traveling... but what are we doing try to destroy ourselves!!!

[Occulus]

51. No... no, it's being used to study fusion

http://www.sandia.gov/media/z290.htm

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. -- Researchers at Sandia National Laboratories' Z machine -- the former dark horse among accelerators meant to produce conditions required for nuclear fusion -- have increased the machine's X-ray power output by nearly 10 times in the last two years.

The most recent advance resulted in an output X-ray power of about 290 trillion watts -- for billionths of a second, about 80 times the entire world's output of electricity.

The figure represents almost a 40 percent increase over the 210 trillion watts -- itself a world record -- reported last summer.

Strangely, the power used in each trial is only enough to provide electricity to about 100 houses for two minutes. Electricity is provided by ordinary wall current from a local utility company.

--more--

[lovuian]

59. Oh Fusion ... Oh I have heard of this project...

Wouldn't it be awesome that we do fusion and electricity would be limitless

WOW!!! ok I'm impressed...

[Endangered Specie]

46. bwhahahhaha

According to them, a fast-spinning circle combined with a ring-shaped magnet in a strong magnetic field can “push” a space ship to other dimensions where different values of the natural constants, including the speed of light, may exist. The machine will be capable of creating anti-gravitation by moving a spaceship in regular space. “We’re not trying to challenge the existing laws of physics, we are expanding our views on them,” said Kelvin.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

thanks for the laugh.


of course, all of this will be forgotten in a week, just another paper trying to sell headlines.

Cold fusion anyone?

[Occulus]

48. Yeah, here's a few other "predictions"

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
- Popular Mechanics, 1949

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
- Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

"But what... is it good for?"
- Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
- Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp, 1977

"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us."
- Western Union internal memo, 1876

"The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?"
- David Sarnoff's associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in the 1920s

"The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives."
- Admiral William Leahy, US Atomic Bomb Project

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
- Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895

"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value."
- Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre

"Man will never reach the moon regardless of all future scientific advances."
- Dr. Lee De Forest, inventor of the vacuum tube and father of television

"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
- Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899

I'm not laughing. Really.

[Endangered Specie]

50. "there is a sucker born every minute"

This reminds me of the threads on DU touting new 500% effecient machines and over unity devices.

I'll start believing it when some expirements start happening.

[Occulus]

54. I can't speak to experimentation,

but this thread has some interesting discussion:

http://forums.hypography.com/physics-mathematics/5026-heim-theory.html

[Thor_MN]

55. Here's to hoping that the other dimensions have faster speeds of light

Imagine finding out that this works, only to find that we live in the fastest possible dimensions...

[eppur_se_muova]

81. Sounds roughly analogous to the Lense-Thirring effect.

See http://stacks.iop.org/cq/20/2527 http://www.iop.org/EJ/S/3/434/4jIZuF3t4X3w0Vu7L7WU8w/article/0264-9381/20/13/305/q31305.pdf for some historical background. Thirring is one of the giants of twencen physics; his "Lehrbuch der mathematischen Physik" (translated as "A course in mathematical physics") depicts a device in which masses, flowing through a coil wrapped around a toroid, if subjected to large accelerations (an "alternating mass current"), generate a field analogous to a gravitational field, but which can be either repulsive or attractive. The only problem is that to get a large enough field to be macroscopically useful, the density of the mass current requires micro-black holes, (IIRC) traveling at relativistic speeds. So the principle is not unprecedented.

[Occulus]

47. Here's another article on this topic

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/06/hyperdrive/

The Z machine is mentioned right at the end.

[lovuian]

52. Oh thanks KG there it is explains it better

Roger Lenard, a space propulsion researcher at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico does think it might be possible, though, using an X-ray generator called the Z machine which "could probably generate the necessary field intensities and gradients

as Spock says Fascinating...

[Occulus]

58. Here's the Wiki talk page on this theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Heim_theory

[karlrschneider]

60. I must remain ambivalent about this. I am a scientist by avocation,

an engineer by education and a pilot by occupation, and I think I have a decent grasp of most disciplines (the arch-typical 'jack of all trades, master of none')

I think nothing is impossible, except the obvious logical oxymorons like "the immovable object vs. the irresistable force"

[occuserpens]

61. Speed of light is no limit

for these drunks

[Occulus]

62. Here's the Wiki on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory

[htuttle]

65. I was delighted when I read about this a few months ago

Not because I'm a physicist. I'm a software programmer, and one of my side projects right now (ie., nobody's paying me for it yet) is a Sci-Fi type game.

When devising the inevitable 'backstory' to explain how humanity managed to colonize nearby space, I wanted to avoid all the old, hackneyed plot devices you so often find in Sci-Fi/Space Opera: No aliens showing up at the last moment with fantastic technology, no strange Stargate-like artifacts found that revolutionize society, etc... After reading this, I realized I could build my whole 'game world' by simply projecting our current world forward a few hundred years, with the difference being that Burkhard Heim's theories actually work. Perfect for what I am aiming for.

So, regardless of whether or not Heim's theories hold water, or whether we can ever utilize the theory to travel to the stars, it's one heck of a cool plot device for Sci-Fi writers and game designers. :)

[eppur_se_muova]

71. Recently-launched probe to Pluto passed the Moon in only 9 hrs.

The moon is about 1.3 light-seconds away, and Mars is light-minutes, not light-hours away. So far, no speeding violations. Alpha Cent in 80 days is a big claim, though.

It's a theory. It needs to be tested. If Heim correctly calculated the masses of several fundamental particles as claimed, the theory has already passed a very BIG test.

[benburch]

77. I'll believe a spacedrive when I see one work even on a tiny scale.

And if space drives are possible, they make the lack of visible alien civilization artifacts and signals really hard to explain.

[mainegreen]

78. Actually, if space drives are possible, wouldn't that make the lack of...

aliens easy to explain: ie there are none?

Just sayin'

;-)

[benburch]

79. Then it makes our unique existance the difficult thing to explain. nt

[Occulus]

89. Space is vast.

Bigger than you can possibly imagine. So unimaginably big that bigness itself pales next to it.

It's utterly, stunningly, massively huge, and yet mostly 'empty' in the sense that an unfilled glass is 'empty'.

We don't yet know if intelligent life elsewhere is anything remotely 'like us'; in fact, common consensus says that other intelligent life will be very different from us. Not all species would necessarily be curious enough, or bold enough, to expand to the stars, even if they could. For all we know, there are beings somewhere on a huge planet who themselves are very small in comparison to ourselves for whatever reason, and thus achieved spaceflight without ever fully exploring their own planet's landmasses.

Space is big; it could happen. One theory inplies that because I conceived of it (and, perhaps, others before me), it already has happened, or will, somewhere, somewhen.

In other words, just because we don't know about it doesn't mean it isn't out there.

[zonmoy]

92. or it could be that something happens to all technological civilizations

that either destroys or cripples them. either nuclear war or they are unable to find viable alternative energy sources and sources of vital chemicals other than from fossil fuels.

[Ready4Change]

94. Burnt out light bulb

What I call the idea that civilizations like ours only remain viable for short periods of time, relative to the universes time scale.

For example, we've only been emitting electrical signals for a few hundred years, which is barely an eyeblink on the universal scale. And only now are we getting to the point that we could emit signals that might have any real hope of eventually reaching any other listening ears.

If, for example, petroluem were somehow the only way that a civilization can develop such signalling ability, it is possible that each civilization only has a 50 year window in which it can emit a decent signal. (Afterwards, either it has no oil, or it has killed its environment with byproducts of burning the oil.)

Then, once that signal is emitted, other civilizations only have a 50 year window in which to hear it, as the signal passes over them. For example, perhaps a signal passed Earth in 1000 BC, but no one had radios with which to hear it, so we missed our chance.

Further, even if we do recieve a signal, if it's from more than 50 LY away, there may no longer be anyone "home" to hear any response we might send.

Such ideas can create a universe full of intelligent species, who just have little chance of learning about each other.

[rman]

96. maybe they stay away from us on purpose

[htuttle]

80. Naw

Space is big. Very, very big.



Those are all GALAXIES, and this image would fit within the diameter of a dime 75 feet away.

The apparent lack of alien contact wouldn't be that hard to explain. Keep in mind that radio signals would still only be able to travel at the speed of light, Burkhard Heim's theories notwithstanding. We've only been listening to and transmitting Electro-magnetic signals for 100 years or so. That only accounts for a sphere with a 100LY radius. The Milky Way is almost 2000 LY thick, not to mention how large it is in diameter (100,000LY, which means that it would take 100,000 years for a radio signal to make it to us, assuming it made it intact).

Space faring civilizations may also be very short lived. I'd be very surprised if our current civilization makes it another 200 years without a collapse. It also might be the case that not so many sentient civilizations that manage to make it off planet figure out FTL transportation (if it's possible).

Hell, there's parts of the Earth we haven't explored yet (such as the deep oceans).

I wouldn't give up even if we CAN make it to Alpha Centauri in 80 days and find nothing but rocks.

[eppur_se_muova]

82. Either we are alone,or we are not.Either way, it's a staggering thought.

"Sometimes I think we're alone in the universe, and sometimes I think we're not. In either case the idea is quite staggering."
-- Arthur C. Clarke

or Was it Buckminister Fuller? BrainyQuotes gives both attributions; I always thought it was Clark.

"By 2000, politics will simply fade away. We will not see any political parties."
R. Buckminster Fuller

[eppur_se_muova]

72. You can post screen shots, but not the original links??? GEEZ...

http://www.hpcc-space.com/publications/documents/aiaa2004-3700-a4.pdf

http://www.hpcc-space.com/publications/documents/heim_staif2005-letter.pdf

[Occulus]

74. I couldn't find the original links, sorry...

I looked, too, but all I found were the articles in the press, and at that hour, I needed sleep, so I cheated. :)

[Solon]

84. My impression of this theory...

if you could call it that. First, let's talk about the times involved for the travel to Mars and the Moon, both well within Einstienian Physics. OK, Mars, at its farthest point from Earth, is about 40 light-minutes from us. So, if you take a spaceship, ignore good space travel etiquette in conserving fuel, then you could, if you had enough energy, move at a speed of .5c or so, in that case, you can get there in 80 minutes or so, if you use SHARP accelleration and decelleration. So sharp in fact, that an unprotected human body, after such a trip, would be nothing but a big red and pink smear in the cockpit. But, let's say in a liquid enviroment on-ship, then a human being could stand the gees, its certainly possible. Same for the Moon, but its going to be hell to figure out the EXACT time you need to accelerate, if your off by a picosecond, you'll have to spend more fuel to get back to even orbit the Moon, and if your off on your trajectory, then a new crater is formed instead, and that can just ruin your day. :)

As far as going to Proxima Centauri, or the Rigel Kentaurus Stars A or B(its technically a trinary system), in as little as 80 days. I guess, if we knew the EXACT amount of time dilation involved, then to a person on board the starship, yeah it could seem that short a time. To everyone else, back on Earth its still going to take you 4.33 years or so to get there, but that's time dilation for you. This is assuming your moving at a speed of about .99c.

[benburch]

85. Anything moving at more than about 0.05 C is history.

Imagine a spacecraft moving at one-tenth the speed of light encountering an interstellar dust grain?

A flash, a bang, and there is a nice big hole in your spacecraft.

You pretty much have to push a huge erosion shield ahead of you.

[Solon]

86. True, or sometype of electromagnetic deflector of sorts...

I mean, technically we could make shields as large as we want, IF we have the technology to move a spacecraft of 500 metric tonnes at near light speed, then we could also do the same for one that weighs ten times that, most of that weight being shielding. I don't know, Water Ice would be a decent shield, you'd need a HELL of a lot of it, a kilometer or more thick of solid ice for each impact, and self repairing on the trip too, refreezing so to speak, cause Space is JUST dense enough that objects moving that those speeds will encounter more than enough atomic and subatomic particles to hit the shield in the same spot repeatedly. Of course, in-system, taking a week to go to Mars wouldn't be that much of an inconvienence, just energy intensive, but definately within CURRENT technological grasp, the stuff this theory is purporting is possible wouldn't be practical for aanother century or more, if ever. I'm just talking about the times, after all, I'm not even saying it would be practical, I mean, the proper etiquette to follow for space travel is using the least amount of fuel possible, so gravitational assists and timing of orbits is critical. But I will say, we are getting MUCH better at that over the past 30 years or so years we have been sending probes to other planets. This lengthens the times dramatically, but its the safest route, we could send robotic probes STRAIGHT to Mars or Venus or even Saturn if we wanted too, but they would require a HELL of a lot more fuel for us to do that.

[Occulus]

91. I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding working here

I've read a bit more about this theory since it was originally posted, and I've gathered a few points for discussion:

The local acceleration felt by a passenger on such a ship would (apparently) be 1g, or close to that. Also, since the ship would be entering a sort of higher-dimensional hyperspace, there likely wouldn't be any dust or debris; dust wouldn't be able to get there on its own.

Remember, we're not talking about speed here; in this theoretical hyperspace, G and c are different values than they are here. Acceleration is the issue, and how to do it without using conventional propulsion.

It sounds fantastically impossible, but those are the claims. I myself would like some experimental evidence, and the one thing that sets this theory out from other 'crackpot' FTL drive "theories" is that this has an actual experiment that can be performed. The problem is, the energies required are so absurdly high that only the most advanced technology on the planet is sufficient to permit the experiment to be done.

I do think there's more to this theory, and more study definitely needs to be done- there's just something about it that other theories of its kind completely lack.

edit: shot bio snip about Heim, mostly unrelated to the theory itself, from http://www.answers.com/topic/heim-theory (this appears to be from a Wiki page)

"The basic theory was developed in near isolation from the scientific community. Heim's handicap led him to prefer this isolation as the effort of communication in a university environment was too much of a strain for a handless, essentially deaf and blind physicist. Heim himself only had one publication in a peer reviewed journal, and this only at the insistence of his friends, as he himself did not see the need for publication until his theory was complete. Heim's original 1977 publication remains the only peer-reviewed publication on Heim theory. A small group of physicists who learned of Heim's work and studied it in sufficient detail to recognise its potential is now trying to bring it to the attention of the scientific community, by publishing and copy-editing Heim's work and by checking and expanding the relevant calculations."

handless, essentially deaf and blind

:wow:

[Ready4Change]

95. High speed collisions are a real issue with interstellar travel.

Avoiding them requires some form of science fiction technology, no matter how you go about it.

To use a physical shield you've got to have a LOT of mass, which demands a huge ship, and a huge space born infrastructure to construct it. You also still have to accept maximum speeds of a very low % of light, or even a large shield mass won't help. So, you're pretty much talking about ships with generations of space travellers aboard. The people who arrive at the destination are the children, or grand children, of those who started the trip. Supporting generations of people in space is still fiction.

Or, you could have an electro-magnetic field projected ahead of the ship, pushing particles to the side. To be effective, at high speeds, it has to be projected WAY ahead of the ship, which takes lots of energy, or be able to give those particles huge sideways shoves, which also takes lots of energy. OTOH, if you accept the existance of such technology, such a field could be used to "swim" in space, by reaching ahead, grabbing particles, and shoving them "backwards" as well as aside, generating thrust. Still, such a thing requires huge gobs of energy, which we can't produce as of yet.

Or you can sidestep the issue entirely, by shunting the entire ship into some form of alternate space. Since, so far, that is fiction as well, you can grant such space any number of convenient advantages, such as lack of particles to collide with, or altered rules of physics. We've a plethura of theories about that, but no verified scientific findings.

It sounds like Hiem Theory is of the latter ilk. Its prediction of some particle masses is intriguing.

I want all of these things to be possible. I love stories written with them in mind, and I hope research will find the means to make something like them reality. But, the rationalist within me still admits we aren't there, yet.

[Solon]

97. I would say we aren't there yet, I can agree with that...

It isn't really a technological problem so much as an industrial problem. Let me see if I can explain, we have all these disparate technologies, some very recent, others decades old, that, when put together, could theoritically help build a starship capable of both relativistic speeds(not close to speed of light, but fast enough), and also deal with the interstellar medium and interstellar erosion.

OK, first things first, energy and thrust, two different things, but also related, for the amount of energy generated my a spacecraft can also translate to thrust. OK, we have a few possibilities, the first, good old chemical thrust, is not efficient enough, good for interplanetary travel, but between stars, I don't think so. However, two other possibilities exist, the first are Ion drives, yes they exist, NASA launched and tested Deep Space One years ago. Useless in atmosphere, nonetheless, Ion drives are very efficient even though acceleration is pretty slow, its steady. Another are untested Plasma drives, creating plasma from nuclear reactions and using it to drive a spacecraft is more efficient than Chemical reactions if a little more hazardous. JPL is doing some experiments, but we haven't launched an reactive nuclear power plant yet into space, I don't think anyone wants to risk that, yet. The Pioneer and Voyager probes do use nuclear energy but from the natural decay of Uranium, not actual fission, that's part of the reason why Voyager 2 is STILL sending telemetry data.

OK, so those are the possibilities for the thrust and energy needed. So now onto the shielding and why Mass isn't as big a problem as people think, first things first, we can, in micro-gravity, if we had the INDUSTRIAL capacity, build structures that are kilometers, hundreds of kilometers long, there is a limit, using traditional materials like Steel and Aluminum, however, recently, that limit has been expanded, greatly, by the creation of Carbon Nano-fibre tubes, these could reinforce such materials as steel, similar to what steel does for concrete, and expand the size, strength, and durability, of construction materials. Also, Carbon Nano-fibres have the odd ability, a side effect, if you will, of being able to repair themselves on the molecular level when damaged, and having the carbon be availuable.

One thing to mention, as I said, Mass isn't that big a problem, if we can simply continue to accerlerate it to a certain velocity, it will remain at the velocity until forcibly stopped. An example I can give, I guess, if I was going to build an interstellar space ship, let's see, about one or two kilometers long, to hold the Argon fuel for the Ion Drives, the Uranium nuclear reactors, good for about 40 or more years, subjective time to power the thrust and the various other supplies needed for a decade long trip, both ways, give or take. Now, the sheilding is important, probably using ablative Carbon fibre plates, in addition to Carbon reinforced water ice. This would be good for most of the dust in between stars, if you encounter a good sized asteroid on the way, or even a rogue planet, well, let's just say you wouldn't know what hit you. It would take about half the mass of the spacecraft, overall, in sheilding. To save on mass, the sheilding will only be present on the very front of the craft, when the craft turns around, at the decelleration point, the shielding will be moved to the other end of the craft, or the engines could rotate.

Now, how would this work, the Ion drive will produce constant thrust, lasting YEARS, to get the ship up to speed, let's say .5c, this would be fast enough for a trip to Proxima Centauri. Now, the objective time would be about 10-15 years, give or take, given both accelleration and then decelleration, however, on board ship, time will be about half that, thank Einstein for that discovery, so about 5 to 7 years. The ship will be capable of both centrifugal gravity, through rotating its habitable section, and also acceleration g forces, we'll max out the gee forces acceleration at about 1 g, so for about one third of the trip, the ship will be under a longitudial gravity, when engine cutoff commences, it will be under centrifugal gravity, and when decellerating, under longitudial gravity again.

So with technology we have now, we can build an interstellar ship, not saying its PRACTICAL, that's a different argument, or even needed, I don't think so, development and expansion into our own solar system hasn't even happened yet. I'm just saying its possible, but then again, we can also terraform Mars with current technology, and all sorts of other "Science Fiction" things, but we don't have the economic prowess for that yet. The thing people need to think about is this, we are more advanced than we even give ourselves credit for, but the problem is that the IMPLEMENTATION of that technology is half assed and somewhat shortsighted, not to mention expensive. It will change, either slowly or quickly, it all depends, but we have already done what was previously considered fantastical things. Right now there are 4 probes, one still transmitting, that are now entering the interstellar medium, so we know we have the technology to leave the Sun's Gravity well, we just need to have the will to implement what we learned so far.

[Occulus]

93. A thread everyone should read about this subject

For those who were intrigued when this was first posted, and for those who participated in the discussion:

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4385

A great discussion about the technicalities of this theory.

Apparently, the mass prediction equation is correct... someone on that thread even wrote a Java program that uses Heim's equations to be able to plug in values and get a resulting mass.

We need experimentation; happily, Heim himself provided one in his theory... but it fell through due to lack of funding.

By the way, there are something like 40 reels of audiotape of Heim describing his theory that are being translated into English right now. Eventually, we'll have his own explanation in his own words.

I hope nothing's lost in translation....