Almost exactly a year ago, I posted a story called A Practical Positron Rocket, about Gerald Smith’s work at Positronics Research on a positron reactor. Antimatter is always a hot topic, given its potential for remarkably powerful engines and its implications for deep space work, but the post in question generated responses that ranged far beyond antimatter into numerous other potential solutions to the propulsion problem.
Which is fine, but we may be encountering a bug in WordPress which is keeping more recent comments from appearing properly. I haven’t been able to confirm this, but I suspect that once comments for a given post reach a certain size limit, odd things begin to occur. In any case, I’ve had some anecdotal evidence (not just here) that this is the case.
This post, then, is for those of you who want to keep the ‘Practical Positron Rocket’ thread running. Please use the comments section here to do so, and we’ll retire the old post as a forum for comment.
jim,looks like so many people now want to go to the moon that there may be a parking problem! if….you buy everything they all say that is.did you,anybody,see that article about a certain dr young bae supposedly developing a means of thrust by which mars may now be less than a week away!? did’nt understand the point of his idea and had very little luck so far getting anyone to explain! thank you george ps paul? did you see that article? could you fill me in on what was meant!? well,again, thanks everybody,your friend george
Hi George:
I did a Google search on Dr Young Bae and found a discription of his photonic thruster system that uses many beam bounces between two highly reflective surfaces to produce a amplified force of repulsion between the mirrors. Each time the photons in the beam bounce off a mirror, they impart momentum or impulse to the mirrors. If the mirrors are nearly perfectly reflective, the space craft containing them will have a net foward momentum imparted to it equal to twice the magnitude of the momentum of the pre-impinging photon because the magnitude of the change in the pre-impinging photon’s momentum upon bouncing off the mirror is lPincidentl + lPreflectedl = 2lPincidentl.
After many bounces between the two mirrors, a laser beam can cause a much greater force to build up and act on each mirror wherein the force on each mirror is in the opposite direction to that of the opposing mirror. Dr. Bae has come up with an ingenious propulsion method that involves basically repeated momentum transfer between the laser beam and the mirrors each time the beam is reflected from the mirror.
If a continuous wave laser beam was able to bounce back and forth continuosly between two parallel mirrors a billion times neglecting dopplar shift induced losses, the force induced on each mirror would build up in one billion disceet steps to that of a billion times greater that that caused by the first bounce.
George, this technique makes perfect theoretical sense and I am amazed that someone has not come up with this concept sooner. It is a brilliantly simple application. Thanks very much for bringing it to the attention of the Tau Zero readership!
Thanks Again;
Your Friend Jim
jim thank you very much for the explanation – only the second one i have recieved so far by the way! but yeah,really cool idea! with a “rocket exhaust” traveling at the speed of light because the “exhaust” IS light,that should then pack some real power as regards propulsion acceloration,velocity etc. !! had no idea before this that that could be done! as an engineer friend of mine just put it,”it is like using a flashlight for acceleration but if it is a powerful enough flashlight it works”!!! again thank you very much, your friend george ps i just carefully re read the explanation above and i guess i still have some questions but… lol who says i have to “get” EVERY detail all the time!? dr bae is quite an accomplishe individual and i am just very glad to have been made aware of all of this! exciting stuff. :) g
Hi George;
Thanks for the encouragement and enthusiams and critical review of my previous posting. I have some other comments regarding photon thrusters as follows.
A version of Dr Bae’s Photon thruster occurred to me wherein a reflecting sheet or slab would be released from the photon thruster spacecraft wherein laser beams would bound back and forth between the craft and the slab or sheet wherein the sheet would be quickly brought to near light speed because of its relatively low mass compared to the spacecraft upon which the slab would travel to an oppositely directed space craft or perhaps a much larger mass or thruster “anchor” wherein the larger mass would have a lasing means to push the slab back to the spacecraft wherein the process would repeat itself as many times as possible for continued acceleration of the spacecraft. As the spacecraft receded from the anchor mass. successively lower mass slabs could be deployed so that slabs could travel back and fourth between the anchor mass and the spacecraft at velocities ever closer to light. One might recall at this point in time that according to special relativity, the speed of light is the same for all observers.
For slabs made of antimatter or compound matter antimatter such as some undiscovered substance such as solid and very high strength positronium or some analogous material, the slab could in theory be used as a source of energy and/or reaction mass to give the spacecraft an added boost in velocity upon sudden, or probably most preferably, gradual conversion into energy by Dirac Fermi particle pair annihilation commonly known as matter/antimatter annihilation. Any successive slabs might be made of matter, antimatter, or matter/antimatter composite material for additional energy boosts once the slabs oscillatory motion effectiveness is reduced as the craft closes in on C.
Alternatively, the slabs may be composed of ordinary matter that is nuclear fusionable for a less exothermic slab processing but which may still give the spacecraft quite a boost as the slab is processed entirely nearly simultaneously, or perhaps preferably, gradually as fusion fuel. Still another form of slabs would be made of fissionable material for a substantial nuclear energy based boost although somewhat less exothermic then most nuclear fusion reaction materials involving the lower atomic number elements.
For fusionable slabs, perhaps some sort of carbon nanotube material could be the material of choice in their construction because of the high strength and temperature resistance of some forms of carbon nanotubes and the fact that carbon, if it can be brought to a high enough temperature, is still a good fusion fuel candidate.
For slabs approaching a space craft at relativistic velocities, some sort of additional mechanism could be provided to utilize the slabs motion in the form of kinetic energy extraction means wherein say, a negatively or positively charged slab would be made to rebound from the spacecraft by a negatively or positively charged shield or reflecting screen optionally pushed by lasers after rebounding. The slab could travel back and fourth between the spacecraft and the anchor or oppositely directed spacecraft until the spacecraft(s) velocity and/or separation distance made the use to the slab iinpractable for repulsion. Thus the slab could electro-dynamically, or analogously, magneto-dynamically be used as a repulsion mechanism or a reaction mass although slab energy loss in the form of electromagnetic radiation caused by the electrodynamic repulsion processes as well as form kinetic energy deposition to the space craft via electrodynamic interaction would occur. Once again, the slab could be constructed out of matter, antimatter, and/or a combination of both matter and antimatter as in some form of composite material such as positronium and the like for exothermic energy release based propulsion mechanisms. Once the effectiveness of the first slab was reduced, additional slabs could then be launched of optionally decreasing mass for further space craft acceleration.
The slabs may additionally have at least one surface made of materials of negative index of refraction so that the slab can actually accelerate toward the space craft by the impinging electromagnetic energy beamed from the craft upon which that slab would be rotated or otherwise made disposed to be repelled by the spacecraft by laser light, lower frequency beams such as microwave and/or radio-frequency radiation, or by electrodynamic and/or magnetodynamic repulsion as mentioned above. Note that materials of negative index of refraction that would actually be pulled in the direction of an incident electromagnetic energy source are an object of current research at a number of institutions included the publicized work at Duke University of Chapel Hill, North Carolina. These slabs might in theory also optionally be constructed of matter and/or antimatter, fusionable fuel, and/or fissionable fuel. Note that negative index of refraction materials could in theory have a number of other fascinating exotic properties. Visit the Duke University website for more information on negative index of refraction materials.
The energy to drive the lasers, or electromagnetic mechanisms in general, on the space-craft and the opposing anchor or oppositely directed spacecraft might optionally be beamed from a remote source, powered by onboard matter/antimatter reactors, and/or fusion and/or fission reactors. The energy generator from the remote beam source might ultimately be powered by nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, matter-antimatter, or perhaps even extensive chemical energy reactors such as combustors. Alternatively, large solar energy collectors or other starlight collectors, or perhaps even very large CMBR collectors could be used to power the beam generator(s) via photoelectric, thermoelectric, and/or turboelectric mechanisms. Any laser beams used might optionally be generated by optical pumping of the lasing medium from concentrated sunlight or starlight or thermal pumping of the lasing medium by heat generated by concentrated ambient electromagnetic radiation in general. If it can be effectively harnessed, one or more of the various zero point vacuum energy fields might possibly be utilized to power any or all energy requiring components of the above types of space transport systems.
In order to prevent the slabs from running into each other for cases where multiple slabs are in route in opposite directions between the spacecraft and the anchor or between two oppositely directed spacecraft, some sort of course correction mechanism could be included in the slabs such as diversionary mechanisms based on Lorenz force interaction with the interstellar magnetic fields in the space through which the slab or slabs travel. Another option is to cause the slab to be diverted via onboard-slab thrusters or rockets. Another mechanism might include slab interaction with the cosmic microwave background radiation or perhaps even star light while traveling in the depths of interstellar space.
Alternatively, the slabs might be induced to fold up in such a manner that one folded or otherwise temporarily compacted slab passes by through or between other slabs in their general flight path.
Now these ideas dawned on me recently, but I make no claim to be the originator of these versions of the Photon Thruster concepts as developed by Dr Bae. Either Dr Bae and/or others may have thought them through before I even I ever imagined the concept of the basic Photon Thruster as such although I do remember having a similar basic idea to Dr. Bae’s Photon Thruster a year or so ago although I am quite sure that Dr Bae’s well thought out concepts of such occurred earlier than any of the much more primitive thoughts I had previously about such. Thus, I make no claim to be the originator of any of the concepts in this posting. However, it is fun to discuss the ramifications of Dr. Bae’s brilliant work on site.
By the way George, I read another article tonight wherein it was mentioned that NASA now has some ninety or so trained astronauts although about 15 or so have yet to fly into space. With the development of such a large number of fully trained astronauts, we are gradually effectively developing a good “Space Corp”. It would be interesting for the U.S. to develop an “Army Corp of Space Engineers” that is very extensive personnel wise and space flight hardware wise wherein such a service branch would do hopefully mostly peaceful space-based construction projects to further the U.S. and the rest of humanities overall branching out into the solar system, and God willing, the galaxy and then throughout at least the observable universe although I think the latter two will take quite some time. But given enough time, it should be doable.
That’s all for now.
I plan to be back onsite by sometime this weekend.
Thanks;
Your Friend Jim
jim whew! really cool. you remind me of me.the thing has just been invented and already you have ways to soup it up!! your never at a loss for good ideas.and as for the space engineer core,well what can i say except…beam me up scotty! lol thank you your friend george ps it just occured to me that yesterday and the day before dr bae gave a series of lectures about this in ca. at the AIAA space 2007 conference! later i want to google that to see how it all turned out! also,one more thing,if this system can take us to mars in under one week! then how about the moon? under 15 minutes!? anyway talk to you later,thanks again george
Hi George:
Thanks for the encouraging comments and enthusiasm about Dr. Bae’s Photon Thruster concepts.
Some additional interstellar propulsion concepts occurred to me as follows.
1a) Another version of the photon thruster occurred to me that involves the concept of a programmable nanotechnology based meta-material that can transform itself from a material with a positive index of refraction to a material of negative index of refraction wherein such material could be incorporated into a slab that is detachable from an interstellar bound spacecraft wherein the slab would initially have a positive index of refraction upon detachment from the spacecraft wherein a laser beam or other frequency of electromagnetic radiation would be emitted from the space craft and bounced between the spacecraft and the slab such as is anticipated by the photon thruster concept. After the slab would reach a given practical distance limit behind the space craft, it would either rotate and/or be partially or completely switched to negative index of refraction mode and would be pulled toward the spacecraft by electromagnetic radiation beams wherein upon closing in on the spacecraft, the slab would again be switched to positive index of refraction mode wherein it could once again be used as a repulsive shield and the cycle would repeat itself over and over again thus permitting the space craft to accelerate to near C without having to beam electromagnetic radiation off of a distant mirror or other spacecraft.
1b) Alternatively, the slab could have permanent negative index or refraction portions and permanent positive index of refraction components or sections wherein the slab could be judiciously rotated into proper position for laser beams or other electromagnetic radiation beams in order to be pushed in one direction from the craft and then rotated to a different orientation to be pulled toward the craft.
1c) The electromagnetic radiation beam may optionally shine on positive index of refraction components of the slab and then be redirected to negative index of refraction portions of the slab without substantial slab rotation. The slab or slabs used for concepts
The slab or slabs used for concepts 1a) thru 1c) above might optionally be composed of antimatter, matter and antimatter, composite matter/antimatter material, fusionable material, or fissionable material for an extra boost in kinetic energy outside of the normal operation parameters of the on craft beam energy generator(s). Perhaps the energy to power the laser beams could be beamed from a remote location, collected from the ambient interstellar medium such as cosmic microwave background radiation and/or star light, or perhaps from interstellar low mass nuclei or atomic species for purposes of nuclear fusion. It would be excellent if any one or combination of the zero point vacuum energy fields could be utilized to power the crafts beam energy generators.
2a) The next broad concept I wish to discuss is some sort of kinetic energy analogue to the negative index of refraction material that can theoretically by pulled by electromagnetic radiation toward the source of the electromagnetic radiation. The additional concept involves the notion of an as yet fanciful type of matter that would be pulled in the direction of incident relativistic interstellar particulate matter in interstellar space for spacecraft approaching the speed of light. As the spacecraft continued to accelerate, the kinetic energy of the incident particulate matter would increase thus increasing the rate of Earth based reference time frame kinetic energy gain by the space craft as it closes in on C.
Now such a system would be in flagrant contradiction to Newtonian Mechanics, but if negative electromagnetic index of refraction materials can be made to be pulled in the direction of the impinging electromagnetic beam source, perhaps the electromagnetic interaction of relativistic particles on the front of the spacecraft would induce electromagnetic interactions within the surface matter or layers of the spacecraft with its front having negative index of electromagnetic energy of refraction like properties such that the electromagnetic waves or photons generated by the interaction of the interstellar massive medium would be used to pull the space craft forward at a faster and faster rate.
2b) Another spin on this idea is to somehow produce materials that have an exotic index of refraction for phonons, quasi-particle quanta of sound waves that propagate through solid materials, such that the material is pulled forward in the direction of the impinging matter producing the sound within the front of the space ship in the form of phonons. Here, the idea is that the exotic index of refraction for phonons would act in a similar manner that the negative index of refraction materials for electromagnetic radiation would react to photons or electromagnetic waves.
2c) Other concepts would involve the plasmon, spinon, magnon etc., analogues to the photon and phonon concepts discussed in sections 2a) and 2b) above.
Note that due to the potentially very high energies of single particle interaction with the frontal portions of the spacecraft traveling at near C (even for single interstellar atomic nuclei), the material described in sections 2a) through 2c) above would probably need to process photons and quasi-particles of extremely short wavelengths. Thus for photons, the meta-materials structural features that cause the material to have a negative index of refraction would probably need to be constructed on the scale of nanometers if not Angstroms. White dwarf dense materials wherein the atomic electron shells have been greatly distended might be required and perhaps neutron dense materials might be required as the space craft approached C very closely. Thus, solid neutronium and perhaps even solid quarkonium might be of practical use here wherein the layers or other features of these fanciful materials would have dimensions on the order of 10 EXP-15 meters or less (perhaps even down to 10 EXP-17 meters for quarkonium). For phonons of smaller wavelength than the separations of atoms in ordinary atomic matter, compressed white dwarf type material might be required, if not solid neutronium or solid quarkonium.
Perhaps the impinging matter on the spacecraft described above in sections 2a) thru 2c) could be processed in nuclear fusion reactors and as a reactionary thrust based reaction mass for added craft acceleration.
That’s all for now.
I plan to be back on site later this weekend.
Thanks;
Your Friend Jim
jim thank you look forward to hearing more.your friend george ps as i think wewould all agree when it comes to tech – especially of late – we never know what just might be down the road or around the bend!? i still wish we will hear more about that photonic drive! thats one i’d like to see implemented…and… i think it could be done with current technology!! or..so say i – thanks again jim and one and all,george
Hi George;
I am glad to have the opportuinity to post again tonight. It has been a very buzy week for me but I am glad to be back.
I just read two excellent articles on the ABC News Online website.
The first article features a discussion of the potentially excellent opportuinites for future space mission engineers to develope missions to deflect oncoming asteroids which is a subject that is gaining more interest among NASA and organizations related to planetary security.
They mention that there is a one in 10 chance that an asteroid like the one the hit the remote region of Siberia in 1908 and released the energy of 10 to 15 megatons of high explosive will strike Earth during a given century. This is almost as large as the 25 megaton city buster warheads that the Soviet Union fielded at the hieght of the Cold War which basically could total the entire New York City metropolitan area when the incendiary effects of such a device to produce a metrowide firestorm is taken into account. A 1 in 1,000 chance exists for a 300 meter wide asteroid to hit Earth with a yield of 850 megatons during a given century. A one in a million chance exists for an impact like the one that wiped out the dynosaurs during a given century.
I am thinking that any technology developed to remove the asteriod threat whether it be to completely vaporize the asteriod through the deploying of a huge nuclear bomb, blast it off course with a high yield standoff nuclear blast that would work through asteriod surface ablation effects, a nuclear rocket attached to the asteriod to gently thrust it away, a gravitational mass based tug-ship, a solar sail, a solar powered ion rocket attached to the asteriod, or simply a very large yield conventional explosive to nudge it off course, will no doubt have other uses for mankinds space-based endeavors especially with regards to the safe and effective transport of these diversionary mechanisms to the vacinity of the asteriod in a time critical manner. In short, by being forced to redirect or destroy any Earth bound asteriod(s), we will further develope our ability to do large scale operations in interplanetary space thus promoting the development of good interplanetary transportation systems and the ability to do good space based industrial projects.
The second article I read was about a robotic probe mission to orbit the huge asteriod Ceres which is as wide as Texas and another asteroid which is as big as Arizona. The probes will be on an 8 to 10 year mission to orbit and to do detailed remote orbitial sensing of the asteriodal compositions such as their mineralogical contents and extent of any ice covering on or within these bodies etc.
The probe will utilize a zenon ion thruster or zenon ion rocket powered by large solar panels that will be outstretched from the main body of the probe. A amuzing remark is made in the article to the effect that the ion output produces a blueish glow like that in science fiction movies.
If this probe completes its mission as planned, I can envision even more emphasis going into ion thruster or electron thruster propulsion systems such as those which can be powered by PV systems that capture ambient sunlight, nuclear electric propulsion systems using fission or fusion, etc. thus paving the way for manned space travel to the outer reaches of the solar system, and God willing, to our nearest stellar nieghbors with perhaps greatly improved versions of these same technologies.
That’s all for now.
Thanks;
Your Friend Jim
jim as always really good ideas thank you…funny was just talking on line with some friends about all the great things we could do in space,but,in my humble opinion,we FIRST NEED – a whole “bunch” of NEW SHUTTLES!! only the imagination would or could limit us in such a case!! and there my friend we have it made.just here on centauri dreams/tau zero we have about a billion or two dollars worth of imagination! no kidding. :) george
Hi George;
Thanks for your above great comments!
It is interesting that you mention that we need a whole bunch of new shuttles. I feel the same way. The space shuttle is overall a fairly reliable platform to access low Earth orbit. If they would do some redesign work and update the new would be shuttles with the latest technologies, I think that they could be made even more reliable and safe with considerably less time between launches for a given shuttle.
I would say that the constuction of 2 to 3 new shuttles each year for the next 5 or 10 years would not break NASAs budget especially with extra funding and the standardization of the manufacturing and designs of these new shuttles. If a lot of shuttles were produced, the economy of production scale would result in lower cost to build and maintain and perhaps commercial aerospace enterprizes could operate and maintain some of the shuttles or outright purchase some for science and other projects that they would like to conduct in low Earth orbit.
Perhaps these new shuttles could have improved propulsion systems to allow them to have access to significantly higher Earth orbits.
Once again, great ideas. Keep them rolling.
Thanks;
Your Friend Jim
Hi George;
A few additional ideas occurred to me regarding manned interstellar travel methods.
1) The first idea involves the notion of accelerating counter revolving spacecraft about a central center of mass wherein the separation of the spacecraft could range from a relatively small distance to distances on the order of tens to hundreds of light-years or more.
The idea involves the beaming of laser light or other electromagnetic radiation beam between the revolving spacecraft wherein the beam would impinge on each spacecraft onto a negative index of refraction material wherein as the spacecraft were accelerated in the degree of rotational velocity, they would stay locally bound wherein they would be able the tap into locally or fairly locally located energy sources such as beamed power supplies ultimately deriving their energy from the sun or other nearby star(s) or large fusion reactors such as might be fueled by interplanetary based fusion fuels sources like the gas giant planets, these planets’ moons containing hydrocarbon reserves which are an excellent source for low atomic number fusion fuels, and cometary bodies containing abundant supplies of light elements.
The greater the separation between the mutually orbiting spacecraft, the less the centripetal force would be tending to pull the spacecraft outward and the less powerful the laser or other collimated radiations beams would need to be to hold the craft in a bound state as they approached C.
For craft on the order of a light year apart, relativistic velocities could be attained wherein the angular acceleration would be roughly on the order of 1 G. For craft separated by tens to thousands of light years apart, the craft should be able to obtain time dilation factors of a couple to several orders of magnitude while experiencing a terminal angular acceleration of roughly 1 G.
If the negative index of refraction materials were refractory enough, much higher G forces could be obtained permitting much greater terminal ship-based time dilation factors for a given revolutional separation distance.
The energy to power the laser beams or other electromagnetic radiation beams might optionally come from very large local cosmic microwave background radiation collectors or ambient starlight collectors located in interstellar space. These structures could be primarily composed of very thin membranous reflective materials or porous membranous reflective materials wherein the porous sheets would have a surface that is mostly empty space but which has separations between its reflective or conductive threads a few times shorter than the wavelength of the electromagnetic radiation to be reflected. The energy might optionally be collected from one or more of the zero-point vacuum energy fields or perhaps be extracted from the ambient interstellar and/or intergalactic magnetic fields.
Upon reaching terminal separation velocities, the spacecraft would simply disengage their laser tractor beam-like function and then fly onward through interstellar or intergalactic space towards their destinations.
The craft might optionally have a negative index of refraction material located in their fronts so as to be pulled by the increasingly Doppler blue shifted starlight and/or CMBR as their velocity approached C.
2) The next concept is similar to the first concept mentioned above except that a super strong low mass per unit length line or cable would be attached between the spacecrafts as the spacecraft were brought up to terminal velocities. For relativistic ships ranging from those accelerating with short lines connecting them wherein their angular velocity in radians per unit time is high through ships separated by long lines wherein their angular velocity in radians per unit time could be much lower, some sort of exotic material with unheard of tensile strength to mass ratio would be required since no known material available on Earth would be nearly suitably light weight but strong enough to support the revolution of relativistic spacecraft. Perhaps some sort of neutronium or quarkonium cable would suffice.
3) The third concept that I will mention tonight involves the notion of enclosing two magnetically coupled or electro-statically coupled craft wherein onboard magnets or electromagnets or onboard electric field generators hold the crafts bound as the crafts’ velocity approaches C. To minimize rotational acceleration between the revolving craft, the separations between the craft would have to be very large, similar to that of the apparatus described under sections 1) and 2) above.
To capture radiative electromagnetic energy which would normally be lossed from the accelerating magnetized or electrified charged spacecraft, the spacecraft could be enclosed in a huge chamber, perhaps some sort of superconducting vacuum balloon or at least virtual vacuum balloon wherein the electromagnetic radiation radiated by the accelerating system would be captured by the balloon wall then processed and then reconverted into a form suitable for accelerating the spacecraft.
Regardless of which of the above methods are used to accelerate the spacecrafts, for short separations between the spacecraft and highly relativistic terminal velocities, some sort of centripetal force cancellation mechanism would be needed so as to not have the contents of the inside of the spacecraft including crew and passengers be destroyed by the tremendous centripetal forces. Perhaps selectively electrically charging the spacecraft contents and then counterbalancing the centripetal forces on the charged contents by selectively applying electric fields or perhaps selectively applying very strong magnetic fields within the spacecraft to induce magnetic dipole moment based magnetic properties within the otherwise nonmagnetic contents of the spacecraft wherein the magnetic field patterns set up would be so constructed so as to largely negate the centripetal forces felt by the contents within the spacecrafts.
The materials science and engineering challenges for such solutions would be daunting. For the configurations described under section 1) above, negative index of refraction materials used would need have unheard of refractory capabilities relative to today’s best material if relatively small collection areas were to be used. Very high strength cables of much greater strength to mass ratio than that we are currently capable of producing would be required for the cable tethered systems described under section 2). For configurations as described under section 3) above, the ability to produce incredibly intense but spatially extensive magnetic or electric fields would be required from relatively small sources such as the spacecraft and very low mass per unit area superconducting membranes with a very short skin depth for very low frequency electromagnetic radiation would be required thus probably requiring some sort of exotic superconducting materials for the absorptive membrane construction.
If the configuration of the type described under method 1) wase used, perhaps a much less refractory negative index of refraction of material could be used if a large light collecting membrane were deployed thus allowing for much lower beam intensities and also reducing the required accuracy of ship to ship beam aiming.
4) It may be possible that any combinations of any of the above methods 1) through 3) could be employed in a single space ship acceleration system thus allowing for a hybrid system.
We have seen tremendous advances in material science, mass specific magnetic intensity apparatus, and ability to charge macroscopic objects to very high levels, and the potential development of carbon nanotube materials which may someday have a tensile strength 60 times greater than current commercial grade high strength steels all in a short time space of about 1 century, so its hard to completely rule out the possibility being able to develop systems such as those described above during the coming centuries if not millennia.
Time will tell, but in the mean time, I think we are in for an interesting ride over the next few decades as interplanetary manned travel systems are developed and used.
That’s all for now.
I plan to be back onsite by sometime this weekend.
Thanks;
Your friend Jim
jim thank you exciting ideas but i am afraid,not for the near future…BUT the ideas for new shuttles most certainly could be!! anyone or everyone,feel free to jump in !! thank you one and all your friend george
Hi George;
Thanks for the critical review and comments regarding my two previous postings.
It is interesting to note the wide variety of sub-orbital space-ship concepts being proposed by the approximately half dozen or so companies that have expressed their intentions to make sub-orbital tourists flights a reality by sometime next decade. Perhaps some of these novel designs can be improved upon to provide quick and ready access to low Earth orbit, not only for NASA but for other space-faring organizations as well.
I heard of a space-shuttle concept several years back whereby it was proposed to modify existing and/or build new space shuttles with fuel tanks that would fly back to a run way and land under robotic control with residual fuel that would remain unburnt during the space-shuttles ascent thus allowing for more ergonomic fuel tank recovery and quicker turnaround for shuttle flights thus reducimg the cost per shuttle flight. I think that this is a rather cool idea.
Anybody else, please also feel free to jump in on this discussion. Space exploration is a humanity wide endeavor that deserves and needs input from anyone wishing to put their ideas forward.
Anyhow, that’s all for now.
Thanks;
Your Friend Jim
jim,well,errrr ahhhh anyhow…WE NEED the shuttles no kidding! respectfully george
Hi George:
Thanks for the critical review of my last posting. I think I have overdone this series of space shuttle comments. It is good for me to be re-grounded in reality from time to time.
Something occurred to me as a topic of personal interest of mine that I might be going out on a limb by mentioning but which I thought that I would through out there for discussion.
1) The first concept involves the notion of a highly conducting cable in the form of a belt, much like a fan belt on an automobile, that travels around a series of wheels at a velocity approaching C but less than C. I have often wondered that if the cable had some means to be electrified by power sources imbedded in the cable, would the current traveling in the direction of cable movement actually attain a velocity greater than C with respect to other stationary objects within the environment? Would the fact that the electrical current traveling in its own medium be traveling in its own medium to the extent that its motion or velocity of transit become decoupled at least in part from the surrounding space or stationary objects located within the vicinity of the cable?
The analogy I am trying to arrive at is any similarity between this situation and the situation of objects traveling in space in regions beyond the observable universe wherein the velocity of such objects with respect to Earth is greater than C because the space they are traveling in is receding from Earth at a velocity greater than C so that the velocity of such objects relative to Earth is a function of the recessional velocity of the space-time in which they are traveling and their velocity superimposed on this space as these objects travel through this (their local) space.
If there would be no measurable relative velocity greater than C within the above cable system, would the use of superconducting cable more precisely bound the region of cable or space in which the current travels to provide a greater decoupling of the electrical current velocity within the cable from the surrounding reference frame.
2) The second concept is similar to the first but instead involves the travel of a light beam through a medium with a different relative index of refraction than that of free space which has a relative index of refraction of unity or one by definition. Is it possible that a beam of light traveling through and completely contained within a medium with index of refraction greater than one might actually travel faster than C relative to the surrounding space-time reference frame even though the speed of light at the frequency used is significantly less that C, for example 0.90 C ?
3) The third concept involves the transport of the electrified belt or optical belt through a Casimir plate apparatus or similar conduit made out of conducting walls such that the quantity 1/{[(Mu naught)(Epsilon naught)]Exp 1/2} would be greater than C if only by a little. If ordinary conducting conduit walls would not work, perhaps superconducting walls would significantly decouple the electrical current velocity or optical current velocity of the electrical current or light traveling through the conduit within the electrical cable or light cable respectively with respect to the velocity of C outside of the conduit.
Now, it would seem likely that any such affects within relativistic electrical cables or relativistic optical cables would not simply be a superposition of the cable velocity and the electrical current or photons velocity within the respective cables, because, we would probably have noticed such effects by now, even though the velocity of our macroscopic electrical and optical current carriers is usually well below one km/sec relative to the surrounding space or reference frame. This is due to the very high precision and measurement capabilities of our electrical and optical sensors and communication apparatus. Thus any such superluminal velocity superposition probably would not go as
Vo = Vcable + C and probably also not as Vo = v’ + C where v’ = ( v1 – v2)/{1 – {[(v1)(v2)/(C exp 2)]}} where v’ is the observed velocity of the cable from an outside observer.
If such a phenomenon manifests itself in some observable way, v’ will likely have to be modified by one or more added constants Ai or functions f(Ai) or multiplied by a factor of one or more constants Bi or functions f(Bi) or modified by both additive constants and/or functions and multiplicative constants and/or functions.
At least one of any such additional terms is likely to be a function of the quantitative and/or qualitative degree of decoupling of current velocity for the current traversing cable media with respect to the value of C within the surrounding reference frame outside the cable or outside of any conducting conduit or superconducting conduit enclosing the relativistic cable.
Because of the currently highly evolved electromagnetic sensing and communication networks within both the experimental lab and within the general telecommunications infrastructure, any such undetected effects are likely to be minuscule, perhaps beyond the detection ability of current technologies. However, as our laboratory apparatus becomes more advanced and as the our ability to produce mechanically faster cables increases, the testing of this above hypothesis might perhaps yield some new physics and along with it, perhaps some new physics that can be applied within the methods and apparatus of future manned interstellar travel, perhaps by chance, in superluminal manned interstellar travel.
Perhaps an electrical or optical cable would need to be placed within a series of nested conducting or superconducting conduits to adequately decouple the electrical current velocity or optical current velocity respectively, from the surrounding or external space-time reference frame.
4) Alternatively, it might be required to decouple the electrical cable or optical cable from the surrounding space by some sort of gravity modification apparatus not yet developed such as an artificial gravity field generator or antigravity field generator or simply a gravity shield that operates analogously to an electrically conductive or superconductive electromagnetic field shield.
Now such speculation seems to be in stark contradiction to the additive properties of velocities within the space-time reference frame as we know it which is that the maximum observable velocity between any two reference frames is always less than or equal to C and that the velocity of light in a vacuum is always equal to C for all reference frames .But if we could produce relativistic electrical cables, relativistic superconductive cables, relativistic optical conduits, and any required electromagnetic shielding or gravitational shielding conduits, nested or not, I wonder what we would or could discover.
Note that experiments are planned to measure the speed of a laser beam as is passes through a conducting or a superconducting conduit analogous to the one used in the Casimir experiments by which a slight inward force was measured as a result of the imbalance within the zero-point electromagnetic frequency spectrum within the cavity relative to the outside of the cavity. The experiment will attempt to measure the velocity of light through the apparatus as having a velocity ever so slightly greater than C in an open and free vacuum, in short, greater then the special relativistic value of C.
Perhaps the geometrical shape of any Casimir like apparatus enclosing the very high speed electrical or optical cables would have an effect on the degree of any velocity decoupling as discussed above under item number 3). The shape of the cable cross-section and/or its degree of electrical or optical conductivity might have an effect on any electrical current or optical current velocity decoupling in experimental setups described under sections 1) through 4) above.
That’s all for now.
I plan to be back onsite sometime tomorrow.
Thanks;
Your Friend Jim
The current problem, as I understand it, with Positron rocket development is the weight factor currently required for magnetic containment of positrons. I believe once this problem is overcome the rest of the design necessities seemingly could fall into place. Positrons reacting with a solid molecular fuel could first ionize the fuel by anihilating electrons, producing gamma rays. These gamma rays could produce non-chain reacting nuclear fission of the atomic elements of the fuel with a powerful propulsion force, requiring generally contained gamma rays and neutrons, seemingly great for interplanetary and interstellar travel.
Hi Forrest:
Thanks for the comments. As you said, using antimatter to produce non-chain reacting nuclear fission of the atomic elements of the fuel is potentially an excellent means for interplanetary and interstellar travel.
Also, I just thought that I would mention the the company Positronics claims to be working on or have developed a nuetral form of antimatter fuel wherein an antielectron or positron would someone be bound in a stable manner at just the right distance from an electron wherein the two particles would be bound electromagnetically but remain far enough apart not to annihilate. The trick here is to have the distance of seperation within the right range to prevent particle pair annihilation. When the fuel is ready for annihilation, the amount of socalled positronium fuel needed would be perturbed in such a way that the positronium atoms would decay and convert to gamma rays for direct photon thrust or to provide thermal energy for other propulsion systems.
Time will tell if Positronics has managed to produce a few positronium atoms. The next step, however, will be to learn how to effeciently ramp up production of positronium to useful quantities.
The production and brief temporary storage of antihydrogen atoms which has already taken place at CERN in terms of a total of a few hundred antihydrogen atoms wherein the positron is bound to an antiproton in a stable manner to produce pure antimatter hydrogen. However, the anti-hydrogen atoms have a tendancy to leak into the containment vessel’s walls and annihilate soon after production. If antimatter hydrogen ice could be produced in usable quantities, it might be much easier to store than a liquid from would be.
Once Again;
Thanks for the insightful response.
Your fellow interstellar travel seeker;
Jim
forrest,yes thank you very much for your comments! that is the sort of tweak to our understanding of science thus far that we all hope for! good to hear from you. george
jim yes thank you the problem has always been controlling and storing the anti matter ! if advances are being made as i KNOW they CAN BE ,then that is very good news indeed!!!lol,i almost forgot the little detail of producing it !!!!!!!! it was indeed good to recieve forrest’s thoughts too.hope that more people will join in! thanks george
Great ongoing dialog, Thanks George and James!
As James discussed in his ideas/ comments back in May, weight disadvantages of a Positron rocket built here on earth could be overcome by building a Positron Rocket Spacecraft in space or possibly on the moon.
Also his comments regarding “beaming energy from a powerful source” I believe is a practical idea right now—using this idea for a Hybrid Positron Rocket propulsion system: Conventional rocket fuel could lift the Rocket/ Spacecraft to a height (conceivably 10 miles or less) where ionized atomic nuclei could be “beamed” to the craft. This could be done by using a present-day Proton Accelerator which is also capable of accelerating totally ionized atomic nuclei. These nuclei could conceivably be combined with positrons in a combined plasma beam. This beam probably could be transmitted within a small diameter like a laser beam. (Note: a Proton Cannon has already been publicly demonstrated). Atomic-Nuclei Cannons are known to be classified military devices probably still in development.
In the case of a Hybrid Positron Propulsion system, a beam sent in pulses, of both positrons and oxygen nuclei could be sent to a propulsion system using a present-day proton accelerator with an auxiliary beam-directing device. The beam would need to be powerful enough to control dissipation of the beam but not too strong to damage the propulsion receiver/ orifice. In this way positrons could be used as a fission producing fuel as previously discussed. The oxygen nuclei could be used for both/ either conventional or gamma-ray reaction fuel.
In the case of failure, or during the testing of this Positron Propulsion system, conventional fuel could bring the craft back. During space flight the beam could be relayed by a satellite system. Because of the relatively small amount of fuel initially needed for an earth lift-off, this type of propulsion Craft might eventually be built to be no larger in size and weight than a 747.
Hi Forrest and George:
Thanks for the continued dialogue and great enthusiasm regarding interstellar space-flight ideas.
Forrest, the positron oxygen propulsion concept as mentioned above is just the sort of detailed analysis we need to determine which propulsion systems will be economically viable for interplanetary and interstellar transport and chosen to be developed and manufactured.
A lot of my postings have been far out and at times a little short on the details and it is interesting to see your detailed description of a potentially real world solution.
As science and technology progresses, I hope the the wormhole and space warp ideas that you, George, champion will come to fruition.
By the way, the Positronics Research LLC’s website states that some of the work that Positronics is doing is related to research on matter antimatter assymmetry including the study of the phenomenon of why there appears to be very little antimatter in our universe. They are also doing research in the field gravity science in an attempt to find a means for gravity modification according to their website. I would recommend a review of their website as it is very interesting. I must say I learned at lot by simply spending an hour reading their website and related links.
Thanks Very Much;
Your Friend Jim
forrest and jim,first of all forrest i see that you have read some excellent ideas that have been posted here going waaaay back a couple of months.that shows me that like jim and myself you are really interested in this stuff!!!! then jim,really good to see a company so interested in anti matter.one of the very forms of advanced propulsion we will probably be able to use for some advanced space craft with which to tool around the solar system/galaxy,i hope in the not overly distant future!!! and yes my friend worm holes would be good too! but as i have said alot of late – alot people seem to be getting interested of late…so…not just good …BUT GREAT!!! very nice to be able to talk to both of you and only just hope that the numbers here on this particular site will continue to swell! but for now,thank you one and all your friend george
Hi George and Jim,
Thought this was interesting. I pulled it off the web. This is one of the current manufacturing processes used to manufacture positrons.
“Positrons generated by a positron source (22Na) are thermalized in a tungsten moderator. Slow positrons emitted from the backside of moderator are extracted by a grid electrode and transported by a magnetic guiding field. The implantation energy of a positron beam is adjusted by” the input energy to an EM accellerating device.
Comment: The beam speed needed for the above positron propulsion system might be roughly 1/4 the speed of light. Too high a speed, and therefore energy level, might damage the receiver.
your new friend, forrest
Hi guys, Hope I’m not over doing it!
This is more web info concerning gamma-rays, the product of a Positron Propulsion System: Gamma Rays with energy levels above a few MeV begin to induce reactions with nuclei being radiated. Therefore, when nearly any material is bombarded with high-intensity gamma rays the nuclei are altered. The extent of any resulting neuclear fission or radio activity is depedent on the intensity of the gamma rays and the material being radiated.
forrest
Hi Forrest and George;
Thanks for the comments.
Forrest:
Thanks for the info regarding the use of 22Na to produce positrons. I was not previously aware of that method. Forrest, feel free to continue posting as often as you wish about antimatter or other topics. I find the information you provide on antimatter very informative and helpful.
George:
It is indeed great that more people are getting interest in wormholes. Your great enthusiasm and insight on such matters very helpful.
Regarding Positronics work on matter/antimatter assymmetry studies, it is interesting to note that such assymmetry might turn out to be useful in generating altered or moderated gravitational fields. It would be interesting to precisely measure the gravitational attraction between two large and dense macroscopic pieces of antimatter in a Cavendish like experimental set up to see if there is any deviation from that of normal matter lumps of the same mass, density, and geometric shape. Perhaps a precisely conducted Cavendish experiment between equal massed, shaped, and densitied normal matter and antimatter lumps may be experimentally revealing as well.
It is interesting to note that certain types of proposed gravity based space-warp propulsions schemes simply involve the production of a slight gravitational field imbalance or other forms of slight gravity modification that would boot strap themselves up or grow into a full scale space warp that would or may accordingly be used to propell a space craft through space by moving the space that the spacecraft occupies throught the surrounding space at perhaps up to many times the speed of light. In fact, in once such scheme, although appearently not yet producable with today’s technology, a space-craft might be induced to travel entirely accross the Milky Way Galaxy in 2 seconds Earth reference frame time. Note that in certain types of space warp propulsion schemes, there is no relativistic time-dilation because the craft would travel with the space-time instead of through the space time.
However, regardless of whether or not we develop such non time dilating space travel, the use of good old inertial travel through space at velocities less than but approaching C might still be of great use.
For example, suppose it was desired to travel a distance of 10 EXP 24 or more lightyears during one year of a normal human lifetime shiptime and that such a space time warp system as mentioned above could only be used for 1 year ship time thus permitting a distance travelled of about (3 X 10 EXP 7)(2 X 10 EXP 6) or 6 X 10 EXP 13 lightyears during that same period Earth or ship-time. Even if the hypothetical ship could maintain such a rate of travel for about 1.7 X 10 EXP 10 years ship or Earth time, it would still obviosly take well over 10 billion years ship or Earth time to travel a distance of 10 EXP 24 light-years. In such a case, it might be more desirable to accellerate a manned spacecraft to a relativistic time dilation factor of 10 EXP 24 very very quickly with some as yet to be develped technology wherein the crew would only experience one year of time passage while back on Earth 10 EXP 24 years would have passed, and on our warp drive ship, 1.7 X 10 EXP 10 years ship-time and Earth time would be required to travel the same distance although the time passage on Earth for the space warp trip would be many orders magnitude less than that required for Earth time passage during the near light speed inertial travel through space.
There might be some very good reasons to use such inertial travel through space such as for sending contemporary political, cultural, or scientific embassedors to distant space-time locations for the purposes of legacy or charitable scientific, cultural, theological, philosophical. and technological artifactual and/or informational transmission or exchange.
Now, if by chance, we could learn how to send a spacecraft inertially through space by accellerating it to light speed, something which special relativity says can’t in practicallity happen because of the infinite energy requirement to do such, we could travel literally infinite distance shiptime in only a miniscule fraction of a second ship time. We could also send embassedors an essential physical eternity into the future while traversing infinite distances of space. Talk about cultural, scientific, technological, theological, and philosophical exchange. I will have more details. perhaps a little vague, on potential as yet fanciful means on how such might be accomplished in one of my postings to follow in a few days.
Now, concerning antimatter/matter beaming to a space-craft which uses matter/antimatter annihilation for propulsion, the virtue of such a technology is that when the matter finally caught up to the space-craft, even if the space-craft were traveling at a very highly relativistic velocity, say at .99995 C, the energy derivable from the beamed fuel would in theory always be equal to E=M(C exp 2) where M is the rest mass of the beamed energy. In otherwords, there would be no relativistic dopplar incident beam energy downgrading associated with beamed electromagnetic energy. This could prove very useful in certain circumstances.
That’s all for now.
I will be back on site tomorrow.
Thanks;
Your Friend Jim
P.S., Forrest, its good to have you among us as a new friend that both George and I consider you as.
jim and forrest, my head is about spining after reading that group of good ideas for ways and means of spacecraft propulsion! as long as people are having discussions such as these then i think that the human race is headed in the right direction in so far as concepts that will eventually pan out for space exploration. and… i am not so arogant or foolish as to suppose that we are the only ones…i know that similar discussions are going on right now worldwide among small groups of space enthusuasts like us probably everywhere from florida to moscow to india,china and japan!!! lol not to mention all our other friends here on the centauri dreams / tau zero site who are even as i speak typing away under their own particular subjects of interest!and…forest and or jim… do not worry that your ideas might be to fanciful or theoretical (i forget which one of you said something like that) – because,oh brother have i ever had ideas like that myself!! how to make them work at the moment? a vague idea but little else. but a hope,a hope that somebody will read my idea and say…oh,george said thus and so,very interesting but maybe if this or that… and in such a way someone much smarter than i might get the thing kicked off!! so don’t worry about your ideas…just keep trying!! so, i guess i have said all i can think of for now,hope i expressed myself well enough to make sense to one and all! always glad to hear anyones comments too naturally! so,thanks for now your friend george
Hi George;
Thanks very much for the kind words and critical review of our latest postings.
Buy the way, as you know, the 50th aniversery of Sputnik is comming up in a few days. Even though the Russians’ beat us to Earth orbit, I am going to treat myself to a special meal, perhaps have a nice cookout with my family to mark the anniversery mainly in part to the ongoing space-faring legacy started by that event. It just so happens that I have a little charcoal grill that with its covering, looks very simmilar to Sputnik when the grills support legs are extended.
I will be back on site in a day or so upon finishing of my thought formulation on the topic of my previous posting as promised yesterday.
Thanks Very Much;
Your Friend Jim
Hi Jim,
I’ve read the Positronics web-sight as you suggested. I agree there’s lots of interesting stuff there. In regard to your comments regarding the asymmetry of matter/ anti-matter, I believe there is lots of evidence to indicate that this asymmetry is valid. Here on earth, particles are created in pairs if not the result of particle decay or radiation. During these pair creations, positrons are hard to capture. Most disappear immediately, many without tell-tail gamma-ray traces. During anti-proton creation, as a result of proton bombardment of a metal target, no attention is paid to new proton creation.
(probably because it would seemingly be impossible to tell a new proton from a pre-existing one in this manufacturing process). The anti-protons being created are also difficult to capture. Many are seemingly destroyed during their capture attempt.
The point is that there is considerable evidence to support the idea that electrons are more often created permanently than positrons, that many of these pair-created positrons disappear (decay) immediately, maybe as virtual particles. However, once created, captured and stored, positrons seem to be stable, only being annihilated by electrons with tell-tail gamma-rays.
In the same way anti-protons could more readily form (be created) than new protons (possibly because both electrons and anti-protons have the same charge and therefore spin in the same direction), but unlike positrons, anti-protons are difficult to store. They slowly “evaporate” within the best known magnetic protection. Protons are known to be very stable particles without any known decay rate. Neutrons on the other hand decay in a vacuum here on earth in about 11 minutes. Some theorize, and I concur, that anti-protons also have a naturally short half-life, maybe only minutes like neutrons. Maybe the only reason we can store them is because in their storage rings they are continuously accelerated which re-inforces their spin and therefore their existence.
These above-mentioned theories of formation and half-life of anti-particles/ anti-matter seem to explain why the observable universe appears to contain only matter as its permanent constituents. Even if these theories are true Jim, this knowledge may not assist Positronics or humanity in altering gravitational forces—however, I believe there are probably solutions but don’t expect anything practical in the foreseeable future.
George,
Thank you for your kind sentiments. We all seem to be putting some time into this website. Who is in charge? Is it O.K for us to digress to space travel, cosmology, physics, etc.? as I have been now doing here on this website?
your friend, forrest
jim,a special cook out in honor of the anniversary of sputnik !! cooked on a sputnik grill !! wow !!! talk about taking space seriously! lol…like we all don’t?! enjoy! also…………..forrest, as far as i know the person in charge is paul our administrator.author of a really great book entitled centauri dreams,i have a hard cover copy that i have so far read twice! i recommend it. if i get hold of a really great space book i tend to read it many times over the years for example arthur c clarke’s 2001 a space odessy – think i have gone through it about 5 or 6 times by now.also i own the dvd of the movie.i find that to appreciate that movie you have to first have read and understood the book.how do you feel about all of that forrest? yeah,we are all space fans! lastly as to subjects! the subject matter here is pretty wide open! with people talking about everything or anything about literally any space or science related topic. science related topics fit particularly well into one of my favorite avenues types of propulsion for space craft and star ships. how hypotetical? THE SKY IS THE LIMIT! but anyhow thanks and hope i hear from everybody again soon! your friend george
Hi George,
Happy Sputnik. In responce to your question– I have read some sciece fiction in the past but aparently would rather write science fiction in the form of web-site replys (tongue in cheek). But science theory, which I believe includes all sciences and textbooks in general, interests me very much. I’ve read a number of books on science theory many times.
My work background has been as a general engineer in many fields. Also as a general construction contractor and handy-man. I’ve written an unpublished book in Cosmology and Theoretical Physics. My Major was math.
I finally realized there are lots of other locations/ topics on this web-site. Saw your responce on some of them and left my own replys on several including:
….Black Holes, ….Galactic Cloud, ….Brown Dwarfs–so far.
talk to you and Jim soon, your friend forrest
forrest,good to hear from you.yes i know the feeling lol,i think that i have written alot of “science fiction” in the very same vein!when i was younger friends used to kid me about all of the different books on way out theories that i used to read. i have had a lifelong interest in all of this stuff and done a great deal of reading in general about it so when i found centauri dreams/tau zero,i took to it like the proverbial duck to water!!! anyway you are always welcome here hope we get to talk again soon! your friend george
Hi Forrest and George:
Thanks for the kind words, critical review of my previous postings, and encouragement.
I had a couple of fanciful notions regarding how one might obtain the infinite energy required according to special relativity to accelerate a non-zero rest mass space craft to C while at the same time protecting the universe from the tremendous effects of the would be interaction between the space craft and the interstellar medium in which it travels.
1) The first concept involves drawing in energy from higher dimensional space wherein there is more volume or really more hyper volume in which to extract the energy. For hyper-spatial dimensions for which there is no fine grain structure to space-time, in theory for situations where there is a finite amount of energy in a given 3-D volumetric sub-set of such hyperspace, there should be an infinite amount of energy available in a given hyper-spatial volume of space of the same linear dimensions as that of the 3-D subset. For continuous space of hyper-spatial dimensions adjacent to a region in our ordinary 4-D space, potentially infinite amounts of energy might be derivable.
For cases of fine grained spatial structure such as that of quantum field theory and now more appropriately string theory, brain theory, and lattice-loop quantum gravity theory, it still may be possible to derive tremendous energy from adjacent higher dimensional space. In such cases wherein such hyperspace would be flat on the distance scale of a spacecraft or at least only mildly curved, then the energy content of such space, assuming that it was intra-dimensionally and extra-dimensionally uniform, might approach A x [(10 EXP – D) EXP -1]EXP N where D is the distance scale of space granularity (theoretically about 10 EXP -35 meters for our universe), N is the dimensionally of the space being considered, and A is the energy content of an N dimensional differential fine grained spatial element contained within the higher or N dimensional space having linear dimensions 10 EXP – D. Even for quantized higher dimensional space whereby the space, or space-time is discreetized on a finite length scale, for an infinite number of such adjacent or nearly dimensions, the amount of energy available should potentially be infinite.
For certain versions of string theory in which the entire higher dimensions are curled up on a scale as small as 10 EXP -35 meters, there still might be vast energies available based on the fact that the entire curled up higher dimensional space is ever in close proximity to the location of the space-craft what ever its location in ordinary 4-D Einsteiniam space-time such that, upon finding the right mechanism to extract the higher dimensional space energy, a near infinite supply of energy may be available to propel a spacecraft to virtually C.
2) The second concept involves extracting energy from parallel universes of parallel histories of the forms conjectured about by the many worlds interpretation of basic quantum theory wherein it is believed that the path of a particle in space can be viewed as its average path over an infinite or near infinite number of other paths within an associated infinite or near infinite number of parallel histories. Such theories generally conjecture that each quantum mechanical event that occurs in our universe causes an entire world history to break of from the branch or twig that is our history thus producing an entire parallel universe or world or history if you so desire to call it. If there is some objective reality to such histories and they are not simply a mathematical tool or conjecture to make sense out of some of the very abstract notions or paradox’s arising from quantum theory in some of its many interpretations, then perhaps these parallel histories can somehow be re-bridged in such a manner so as to extract matter and/or energy from these other histories. Perhaps, then, infinite energies could be extracted from one or more, or more likely from a transfinite or infinite number of such histories. It may also be possible that we could create such histories at will for the purposes of utilizing them for their energy contents.
3) The third concept involves the notion in the theory of Chaotic Inflation in which at just about every location within out universe, child universes are popping into existence as a result of quantum mechanical fluctuations within an almost all present background vacuum state. In this theory, many of these universes go on to expand indefinitely, some are balanced precisely between eternal expansion and collapse and thus are still eternal, and some are closed and set for eventual if not immediate collapse. It would be fantastic if we could find a way to harness the energies available within these universes and transport such energy back into our universe to derive an infinite or near infinite power source for inertial spacecraft propulsion through space on impulse.
Perhaps some way can be derived to produce such universes in a controlled manner without having to resort to extreme measures such as the compression of about 50 kilograms of a perhaps somewhat fanciful but proposed very exotic yet to be discovered material known as a false vacuum to the dimensions of a proton with the requirement of a macroscopic waiting period of time at which upon termination, the false vacuum would inflate into a universe at random based on the false vacuum sample’s statistically based half-life. Perhaps electric field stress-points in certain atomic or molecular crystalline structures can be used to induce the formation of universes as such. Or perhaps single molecules with electromagnetic bonds between certain atoms can be so strong yet so stressed so as to promote vacuum field state virtual fluctuations becoming real in such a manner that all though the net energy of the newly formed baby universes would be close but not equal to zero, the net positive energy of such a universe and the net negative energy of such a universe would bootstrap each other into greater levels thus promoting the expansion and evolution of a full scale universe like our universe, which is essentially the natural mechanism proposed for the formation of our universe in certain Big Bang models from essentially very small quantities of net energy, the positive energy nearly entirely canceling out the negative energy for a very small level of initial total net energy.
Note that Chaotic Inflation hold that our universe is a naturally occurring universe which formed and branched off from a parent universe which formed and branched of from a grandparent universe on infinitum thus promoting the name of the whole infinite component ever growing tree of successive universes the Fractal-verse derived from the chaos theory of a mathematical abstraction known as a fractal tree or simply a fractal.
It is interesting to note that philosophically, if there is such a fractal-verse, and we live in one, there is no reason why their could not be an infinite number of separate, perhaps completely separate fractal verses, some or all of which are completely causally disconnected from our fractal verse. Moreover, just as the characteristics of child and parent universes may very within our fractal verse, so might the over all characteristics of the various fractal verses differ from each other, and perhaps how much more might the universes within any other existent fractal verses differ from universes formed within our fractal-verse.
4) The fourth concept involves somehow making real or manifesting the infinite self energy terms of electrons in classical electrodynamics and more appropriately, in quantum-electro-dynamics in which the energy required to produce an electron from some nebulous disembodied electrical charge by compressing the electrical charge to a point like configuration of an electron is infinite (more as a thought experimental device), although, in practice, this is not how nature produces electrons.
The idea here is that if the canceling out of this infinite self energy term as occurs in quantum-field-theory can somehow be undone in a real physical sense, then WOW!!, we would potentially have an infinity of infinite energies reservoirs available for us to tap into based on the possible infinite extent of our universe and thus the existence of an infinite number of electrons. It is anyone’s guess how to disembody the 1.602 x 10 EXP -19 coulombs of electric charge from its embodying particle, the electron ,and yet still have the electric charge be electric charge, but not an electric field as in an electromagnetic wave or photon, for instance in one of the two .511 MeV photons resulting from electron/positron annihilation.
Energy infinities of other types crop up in quantum field theories and are often cancelled out in these theories by mathematical processes referred to in short hand as renormalizations. But, if by chance, these infinities could be un-cancelled in some as yet unknown real technological physical process, we might have several to numerous types of infinite energy supplies available to us.
Now string theory and brane theories in some forms conveniently do away with these infinities in part by theories that fundamental particles such as the electron, are not infinitesimal or point like, but are rather tiny vibrating loops of finite extent (~10 EXP -35 meters across for the electron and quarks) embedded in higher dimensional space (11-D space-time or 26-D space-time for some of the original versions of string theory of which there arenow several versions and many nuances). But perhaps, at some level, revisiting certain concepts of cancelled infinities could yield insights into how to tap into huge supplies of energy as such infinities show up in future theories, even if quantum-field-theory and quantum-electro-dynamics fall by the way side as only convenient approximations in engineering as Newtonian Mechanics has done several decades ago.
As for keeping the craft from disastrously interacting with the adjacent interstellar medium, perhaps some form of space warp could be set up or space-time discontinuity could be set up around the space craft to prevent the space craft’s infinite or near infinite energy from leaking into or interacting with the surrounding interstellar environment. The energy and/or gravity emitted from the craft might conveniently be redirected into hyperspace, string theory or brane theory higher dimensional space, or pre-existing or artificially newly created parallel histories or parallel universes.
Alternatively, the craft might be converted into some exotic material form that does not interact with its surrounding environment. Selectively converting the craft into Cold Dark Matter or Weakly Interacting Massive Particles might be one way to prevent the craft from interacting with the interstellar medium except through gravity. As the craft approached stellar mass level relativistic mass increase, gravity could become a problem. If the craft became to massive with respect to its largest linear dimensional extent, it could fall into it self as a black hole, so some means would need to be manifest to prevent any of these two situations from happening. I am not sure how such would be done.
In the event that special relativity might not hold up in extremely relativistic velocities in such a manner that the speed of light could be reached by inertial impulse propulsion of a craft through ordinary space-time with only a relatively “small” amount of kinetic energy input, but yet where the time dilation level at C for an inertially propelled space craft would be infinite, then the need for infinite energy supplies would be completely done away with. It just so happens that in the new theory of Double Special Relativity, the velocity of a photon in a vacuum is slightly dependent on its energy. The effects of higher velocities of higher energy photons would only become manifest in an easy to measure manner for photons of energy levels far beyond those we can create or that we have observed in nature, even in the case of the most energetic photons detected as cosmic rays with energies of perhaps as high as roughly 10 EXP 20 eV as measured indirectly.
Now, some of the conjectures above might involve over reification of mathematical abstractions and some perhaps somewhat dated ideas, but one is wise to remember that the very concept of a perfect circle, which in practice is obviously a purely mathematical device, or as Plato and Aristotle would have put it, a mathematical form, has proved ever more useful as modern science and technology progresses. The usefulness of not perfect but very precise physically circular objects abounds in society because they are so close to round. Take for instance the extreme tolerances required of the turbines in the engines of modern day jet fighters, or the extreme precision required in laboratory grade electric motors, or the rotary motor components on the liquid fuels pumps of modern rocket craft such as the space shuttle and in newer perhaps more advanced unmanned boosters developed within the U.S. and/or within other space-faring nations. Sometimes, old notions have a way of ever revisiting us and becoming ever more relevant.
That’s all for now.
Your Friend Jim
Hi Jim, George & Forrest
Hey did you see the news piece from a few years back about repulsive gravity due to high speeds? Basically GR – nothing exotic, just plain GR – predicts the gravity field of a mass is “beamed” forward just like an electromagnetic field emitted at relativistic speeds, and above 57.7% of c it’s actually felt as repulsive by rest masses. At high speeds the enhancement factor goes to (gamma)^5 – thus the ultra-high gamma factors of GRBs (gamma = 400) enhances the gravity of the moving mass by (400)^5 = 10 trillion. Thus a 200 Earth mass GRB fireball repels mass in front of it with a force of 6 billion times the Sun’s mass.
Could this be used as a natural force-field?
Imagine Frank Tipler’s cross-Universe micro-ship with a gamma=500,000. Thus the enhancement factor is 3.125E+28 – for 0.1 kg ship it now pushes with a force of 523 Earth masses. Anything approaching within a metre is repelled by a force of 2.2E+16 gees.
A thought occurred to me that since neutrinos mass so little their gamma factors are enormous, thus they repel things things with much more force than their gravitational attraction – could they be the cause of Dark Energy?
Hi Adam;
Thanks for the great insights about ultra high gamma factors. I was not previously aware of the GR concept of the repulsive forces felt by rest masses in the vacinity of relativisitic masses above 57.7% C. This is really great stuff!! And since neutrinos have so very little rest mass but yet their velocity appears to be so very close to the speed of light (some observed cosmic ray neutrinos have been infered as having an energy of over 10 EXP 12 eV while neutrinos have a mass of perhaps of atmost 1 eV/[C EXP 2] perhaps even much smaller), I think there is a good chance that you are on to something. Definately talk to the administrator, Paul, about this. Also, contacting a good university professor with a well established background can’t hurt either. If you get a poor response, go to another university professor. Obviously, there are many well established cosmologists who are just looking for the next big idea. So keep trying. I think that your conjecture is brillant. I will be happy to talk to you more about it in the following days.
Thanks;
Your Friend Jim
Adam, this was startling enough I did a quick search here and there. The fellow is Dr. Franklin Felber. Lots of objections to his interpretation and manipulation of GR casting doubt on the solution he claims. I found no evidence his paper passed peer review. He does appear to have good credentials, and there is also evidence of commercial intent. Even if true there are widely varying opinions of what it all means, including that the acceleration is not real, merely an observational artifact of an observer — the objects still collide normally.
I have no opinion in the matter as it’s beyond my expertise. It is however an extraordinary claim. Here is one link to an article, from which it is easy to find other material on the net.
http://www.physorg.com/news10789.html
Hi Ron S.
I had wondered what the response was. He has kept putting pre-prints into the ArXiv server and as you say he is well credentialed. Problem seems to be interpretation. The immediate thing that occurred to me though was there aren’t really any fictitious forces in GR – even “centrifugal force”, usually called an illusion, has effects in orbits around black holes.
Anyway it would be nice to see some meaningful physics results from this guy’s ideas that can be tested in accelerators, though I’m not sure how high a gamma-factor the LHC particles will reach, for example. A proton with 1 TeV energy has a gamma of ~ 1000, which should have some interesting effects, but a lead or gold atom will only hit about 5.
With gamma factors of 40,000,000 anti-gravity becomes stronger than the other forces – which should have interesting results for the very early Universe. At temperatures above 4E+20 K anti-gravity starts to dominate. Would that cause a Big Bounce?
Hi Adam and Ron;
I think the LHC will accellerate protons to about 7 or 8 TeV energy and have, if I am not mistaken, the ability of producing a counter rotating proton beam with the same proton energies thus yielding about 15 TeV collision energy which as you know will yield a gamma factor on the order of 10,000. However with or without the counter rotating beams, the gamma factor will still be roughly on the order 10 EXP 4.
Interesting comment on the Big Bounce. Very Intriguing.
If Dr. Franklin Felber’s concept turns out to be valid, I wonder how many other potentially huge tidbits lie hidden in good old general relativity just waiting to be discovered and perhaps in some or many cases, put to good use.
Thanks;
Your Friend Jim
jim,i very much liked those ideas you just posted they very much call to my mind the theory i had been discussing quite a bit a while back and just revisited on line afew minutes ago about how we might be able to draw propulsion for a space craft from the energy in the zero point field ! good going! adam and ron, thank you both very much for sharing some ideas here i really appreciate it! the purpose of this site is in my mind to do just that,develop new ideas for space craft/star ships that just might “take off” pun more or less intended! but anyway everybody really good to hear from you.your friend george
George, thanks for your response,
Guess we know a little more about each other. Great!
Jim, you really laid it down. There are always interesting ideas within the stuff you present. Unfortunately I can only provide a “valuable” critique, however, in the areas where I have expertise or insight. Most of these are theories which I do not adhere to, even though I understand only some of them. Talk to you again soon.
Adam, No I never saw this work but I believe the principle is valid also based upon dark-matter theory. Essentially as I understand it, this could occur during a large gamma-ray blast/burst from a super-nova. The matter particles, primarily protons and electrons move out from this powerful explosion moving at, in this case, 57.7% C. What happens is that this vast amount of matter “drags” a gravitational field (dark matter) with it. This pushes up a large wave of dark matter in front of it – like a boat moving through water—essentially a wake. This wake is a compressed field of dark matter that will have the ability to forcefully push whatever it encounters. Because of the high energy of these particles, wouldn’t want to surf this wave. No hang-tens! Talk about wipe-out, wow!!!!! However, according to theory, if you followed such a wave at the same speed as the wave, you would have a draft advantage like two racing cars (the one behind has the draft advantage, the first car bearing the full brunt of air resistance, in this case field resistance). A spacecraft if it had the ability to keep up with the wave at 57.7 C would have to spend little or no energy to maintain its speed. As to practical applications I don’t have a clue or idea. But I do believe this principle is valid.
As to neutrinos, ATT (according to selective theory(s)), like photons their rest mass is zero. This according to dark-energy theory only means that they would “float” in a gravitational field—not move toward a center of gravity. They would still have an insignificant existence. However, without this relative motion within a gravitational field a photon and a neutrino become only infinitesimal/ insignificant parts of the dark matter field that surrounds it, and that they probably never could be observed with today’s technology. But when they would be moving at light speeds or close to it, they would have a small mass, meaning they would move toward a center of gravity –like light is bent by a star as Einstein predicted. This, as far as a know, has been “detected’ in the case of neutrinos, by those camps that assert that fast moving neutrinos, as we have observed them, do have a mass. The problem for the utility of the energy, as I see it, is that: neutrinos (and photons) although ubiquitous are still an infinitesimal part of the background field of elementary particles called dark-matter, zero-point-energy, quark jets, aether—each are either facets of or another word for the same thing—a background field. The repelling factor of neutrinos IS enormous compared to its gravitational influence. Could this be the cause of dark matter? Yes, ATT but only a very minor part of it. How to use this info—also I have no clue/ idea.
The cause of Dark Energy? I believe Dark Energy, ATT does not exist. It’s only a misinterpretation of experimental data. As you can see Adam, I’m big on theory(s) that most people have never heard of. My passion is “simple” theories of how things work and don’t work. These were interesting comments to me.
Ron, also interesting research and critical comments.
Talk to you all soon, forrest
T
Hi George, Forrest, Ron & Adam (or should I now say Folks);
Wew! There are now getting to be so many posters it is hard to keep with with all of you folks. This is great. As George has commented, Tau Zero is really getting to be the “in” site or should I say insight (pun intended, especially with regards to all of the valuable insights you folks are offering)
George, thanks for the kind words. Also, I look foward to hearing more about your wormhole and zpf ideas. As I always say, keep me informed with your ideas on wormholes and the zpf as you see fit in the future. I am always happy and enlightened to hear your ideas on these matters and on any other matters.
Forrest, thanks for the comments and kind words and for your insights. Your in depth analysis and deep understanding of many of the fundamental issues in theoretical physics is very helpful. I found your insights and knowledge about the seeming asymmetry in antimatter with respect to matter very informative. Also, very interesting comments on supernova remnants and wake riding and dark matter. I have never heard of such a concept before and it is fascinating.
I plan to do some reading on Dr. Franklin Felber’s theories since I don’t know much about them other than the great insights and distillations that I have recieved from the onsight postings.
Adam, thanks for the distillation of Dr. Felber’s theories. You presented the respective material in an easy to remember format with clever wording and sequence of ideas along with the intriging ideas you presented. I still think you may be onto something regarding your recent on site discussions of big bang theory applications to Dr. Felber’s theories.
My personal hunch is that Dark Energy does exist but I hope we are able to learn much more about it in the comming years in terms of its behavior as experimental/observational apparatus and methods improve so that our knowledge and understanding of any existent Dark Energy becomes less ambiguous.
That’s all for now.
I will be back on site by tomorrow at the latest.
Thanks;
Your Friend Jim
Hey guys,
Correction: in my last reply, second to the last paragraph, second sentence
“This according to dark-energy theory only” should be changed to:
—The meaning of the statement “rest mass is zero” according to dark-matter theory, only……….
changed primarily to correct error–dark matter instead of dark energy
can’t look at it too long or I’ll see other f-ups. forrest
Hi Forrest:
Thanks for the correction.
Your Friend Jim
Adam (and everyone else I guess),
I tend to default to skepticism with this stuff and similar styles of claims since it all seems to come down to a method derived from formal logic — what is sometimes called the Fantasy Rule. It runs something along the lines of:
If X is a theorem, then Y is a theorem. It doesn’t really much matter what X is, you can just make it up. The implications of X’s theoremhood ripple through the formal system, perhaps causing an inconsistency, perhaps not, or undecidable.
Some of these ‘out there’ physical claims seem to follow the same structure:
If dark matter has properties A, B, and C, then…
If inertia is due to Mach’s Principle and we can sequester energy type Q in a subset of the system, then we can generate propulsion in the following fashion…
If inertial mass and gravitational mass are not equivalent, then…
If quantum states can travel superluminally, then…
If 1+1=3, then…
If pigs could fly, then…
Well you can probably see my point. When they also mix in experimental data that is allegedly almost, but not quite, buried in the noise, or the experiment is out of reach of current technology or no one will ante up money to fund it, then the claim seems to stand there defying criticism.
While I like to think of myself as an optimist, I do have just a smidgen of cynicism. Especially if there is money involved in some way.
Hi Ron
Fair point. I feel the same whenever I read some wannabe Theory of Everything that denies SR/GR or Quantum theory. I’d love warp-drives, agrav, worm-holes and force-fields to be true, but like you I’ll start applauding when I see the independent lab-work.
Hi Ron S,
Like you, I believe that criticism of theory is important. This, however, I believe is just an innocent theory. Of course you have a right not to believe it and can criticize the logic, details, etc. I like you am skeptical of many theories. I don’t know anything of the details of this theory other than what I’ve read on this website and I probably won’t investigate it further, but the theories which I do ascribe to and that I have written suggest that there may be validity to the concept(s) of this theory— Think your criticism is funny but I don’t understand the logic of it relating to this theory. Oh well, maybe just my problem, however, there probably is one or more published criticisms of this and any theory concerning GR implications or consequences.
I prefer concentrating skepticism/ criticism of theories where a lot of money is being spent, and which I believe have countless holes in them like the Big Bang, Particle Theory, Atomic Theory, Quark Theory, etc.. (Evolution on the contrary may have only a few flaws that I know of). Save our public wealth and start criticizing big theories as a public service where you think criticism is deserved (a little tongue in cheek here). See link concerning serious criticism of Big Bang, and of course there are seemingly countless similar criticisms that you could Google. This, however, is one of the better ones. http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/55839?&print=yes
Adam, I agree with everything you said, and go you one better. Wrong theories are by far the majority, but what’s wrong with a little science fiction here and there.
forrest
ron adam forrest thank you for the above and yes i tend to agree that sometimes it could be dangerous to go too far out onto the limb of…well if a=b and b=c then 3 and 3 must be 7!!!?? bet i’ve done it myself though from time to time! thanks for all your good well considered work! your friend george
Hi Folks;
Good discussion! I have also found that I have gone too far out on a limb at times. However, we should be mindfull not to lightly dismiss all bold new ideas, even ones at times that have no experimental basis as of yet and no explicit formulations within the current well established, well excepted paradymns such as special relativity, general relativity, and quantum theory.
Afterall, one of the hall-mark traits of the human species is our ability to envision, even in very abstract senses, ideas, concepts, notions, etc., for which there is not yet any supporting proof or experimental evidence. I think that if many contemporary conservative physicists were also trained within the social sciences had lived in the late 1800’s or early 1900’s and studied Einstien at age 16 with his thought experiments about ridding along a beam of light while observing the beam of light, they would have probably dismissed him as a childish adolescent crank.
Humanity is loaded with examples of ideas that are widely excepted but for which there is no experimental proof such as believe in the existence of God or a higher power, belief in the afterlife or of an immortal soul, belief in purely spiritual created beings referred to as angels, belief in free will (for which modern congitive psychology and neuroscience seem to now have evidence that we are not so free afterall based on laboratory findings), etc.
These many abstract notions which give so much meaning to our lives have little more than philosophical reasonings in support of them and very little if no objective scientific proof.
Let us be careful not to get too carelessly far-out but lets us also not shrink from our bold efforts to consider the What Ifs ? Just as a prophet is said to be never excepted in his own time, so too, are many scientific visionaries not excepted within the contemporary scientific community. Let’s be careful, but let us be willing to think boldly where no man has thought before. Then, will we eventually become an interstellar space-faring species and go boldly where no man has gone before.
Thanks;
Your Friend Jim
Nice Jim,
I would have liked to have laid it down that nicely.. but I guess comedy is my main gig.
forrest
Einstein was also a comedian– and poet.
These quotes I posted on another location as a reply to George above– and think it also fits here very well. Einstein:
A theory should be as simple as possible but not simpler. –If the facts don’t fit the theory change the facts. –Imagination is more important than knowledge. –It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid. (I’ve had some success in this area– forrest).
Logic will get you from A to B; imagination will get you everywhere. –Most of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple, and may, as a rule, be expressed in a language comprehensible to everyone. –No amount of experimentation can ever prove a theory right; but a single experiment can prove it wrong. –Once we accept our limits, we go beyond them. –The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. –There could be no fairer destiny for any physical theory than that it should point the way to a more comprehensive theory in which it lives on as a limiting case. –There is no logical way to the discovery of these elemental laws; there is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance. –To the Master’s honor all must turn, each in its track, without a sound, forever tracing Newton’s ground. –We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. –We still do not know one thousandth of one percent of what nature has revealed to us. –When I examine myself and my methods of thought, I come to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than any talent for abstract, positive thinking. –When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second; when you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour; that’s relativity.
Great stuff, right? forrest
The barmaid quote is from Ernst Rutherford, not Einstein, I’m afraid.