NASA starts building faster-than-light warp engine

rt.com ^ | 7/24/13 | Rt.com

[GrandJediMasterYoda]

NASA starts building faster-than-light warp engine Get short URL Published time: July 23, 2013 19:06 Edited time: July 24, 2013 14:39

Researchers at NASA’s Texas-based Johnson Space Center are trying to prove that it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light, and hope to one day build an engine that resembles the fictional Starship Enterprise.

NASA physicist and engineer Dr. Harold G. White, 43, believes it is possible to bend the rules of time and space that Albert Einstein constructed when he postulated that it is impossible to exceed the speed of light.

White's research is based on the theories of Mexican physicist Miguel Alcubierre, who in 1994 theorized that exceeding Einstein’s galactic speed limit was possible if scientists discovered a way to harness the expansion and contraction of space. And Harold and his team are trying to do just that.

[Tenacious 1]

RE- Post #90 & #91 - Very Clever. Worth an award....

[Dead Corpse]

They are building a research device to study the physics.

And like I said, once they've proven the physics is valid, the rest is just engineering.

[Tenacious 1]

Good Gawd...I’ll never quote Scotty again on this site.

FYI for future reference; Quoting Spock or Bones is the antidote to quoting Kirk or Scotty.

[left that other site]

LOL! I’ll remember that. :-)

[Tenacious 1]

Some things are simply impossible given the nature of the universe. Finding "unknown elements" somewhere out in space is impossible. Violating either the first or second laws of thermodynamics is impossible. Exceeding the speed of light is impossible.

At one time, they said that traveling faster than the speed of sound was impossible too.

[Tenacious 1]

“This thread is dead, Jim”

See?

[CodeToad]

They just didn’t say it, they gave mathematical proof of it. Einstein never said he was dead on correct. He even thought his theory might have not taken into account everything needed.

Let’s not forget when the choo-choo train was invented that some said the human body couldn’t possibly stand up to the forces it could apply in curves and braking.

[left that other site]

Just give me a trowel and some cement and i can heal the world.

[from occupied ga]

At one time, they said that traveling faster than the speed of sound was impossible too.

That's the same bogus argument made by code toad. Apply logic: Just because someone once made a mistaken negative claim about some physical process does NOT imply that all future negative claims about physical processes are false.

To put it another way. Suppose Fred claims you can't put 1000 marbles in a gallon jar. Then George puts 1000 marbles in a gallon jar. Fred is wrong. Next Bob claims you can't put 1,000,000 marbles in a 5 gallon jar. Though many people try no one comes close to putting a million marbles in the 5 gal jar. Fred's being wrong does NOT imply that Bob is wrong.

[Tenacious 1]

That's the same bogus argument made by code toad.

I know. I was being a wiseguy because I was amused by your banter about it.

I think it is naive to make assertions about what is impossible concerning scientific theories given our recent history (the last few thousand years)

It's impossible for all the mass in the universe to exist in a microscopic amount of space with infinite density.

It's impossible for mass driven gravity to exert so much force that it causes matter to be ejected away from it.

It's impossible for matter to pass through matter .... Quantum Physics.

Today we say speed faster than light is impossible. I would bet perspective of speed (time) and point of observation (space) will eventually dispel this as law. It may at first happen at the subatomic level. But it will call into question where it must also occur naturally in the universe as we know it. Then they will call all of us "Flat Earthers" for being so shortsighted.

[Mycroft Holmes]

There is an interesting bit in special relativity that tells you what the mass of an object is at velocity:

m = mass at velocity
m₀ = rest mass
V = velocity of interest
c = speed of light

As an object is accelerated it acquires mass in accordance with the formula above. As V² approaches c² the ratio of the two approaches 1 and the square root of 1 minus the ratio approaches zero and the mass at velocity approaches infinity.

If somehow you were able to exceed the speed of light with a real rest mass you end up dividing by an imaginary number (the square root of -1, or i ) and you end up with an apparent mass with an imaginary component.

An interesting thought experiment is to start with an imaginary rest mass. This requires that the velocity always be greater than c to yield a real apparent mass. And no, I have know idea what it means for mass to have an imaginary component.

But there it is.

Check out Relativistic velocity transformation as a genitor of transformation equations for the gory details of the math.

[from occupied ga]

Today we say speed faster than light is impossible. I would bet perspective of speed (time) and point of observation (space) will eventually dispel this as law

If you're saying that it might be possible, then I can't disagree. Anything might be possible, but to make the analogy that toad code did that people were wrong in the past implies that they're wrong in the future doesn't work. As more and more becomes know about the physical universe, fewer and fewer "impossibilities" exist. I MIGHT be proven wrong, but I'll stay with Einstein on this one.

[CodeToad]

“That’s the same bogus argument made by code toad. Apply logic: Just because someone once made a mistaken negative claim about some physical process does NOT imply that all future negative claims about physical processes are false.”

However, you’re bogus argument is illogical because you fail to understand that a once “proven” argument later proven to be false shows that any other “proven” argument can also possibly be later proven false as well.

You argument about a physical marble equating to a mathematical equation is silly at best. Again, you fail terribly at logical reasoning.

So, no, my argument isn’t “bogus”, it is just you fail to understand logical reasoning.

[CodeToad]

“ply logic: Just because someone once made a mistaken negative claim about some physical process does NOT imply that all future negative claims about physical processes are false.”

P.S. I never said that as a conclusion, so once again your ability to understand logical reasoning, not to mention reading comprehension, is terrible.

[Dead Corpse]

Now imagine that the mass stays, effectively, at rest and space-time moves instead...

*BOOM*

Warp-drive. Next stop, FTL.

Just be careful stopping.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/140635-the-downside-of-warp-drives-annihilating-whole-star-systems-when-you-arrive

I think they are wrong. The risk of leaving a particle wake is there, but there would need to be something keeping that charge confined to the leading edge for it to have the theorized effect on collapse of the warp field.

This is surfing, not magnets.

[Dead Corpse]

Is it a requirement to use the same size marbles in both experiments? Because Fred could just use a much smaller marble for the 1M in a 5gal bucket.

Same here. They aren't trying to violate E=MC², they are trying to work around it.

See?

[Mycroft Holmes]

I also think the particle uptake problem is illusory. The big problem is that you need a rapidly spinning black hole to make the thing actually work. Surf’s up dudes!

[Tenacious 1]

but to make the analogy that toad code did that people were wrong in the past implies that they're wrong in the future doesn't work.

I didn't take what he said that way. It's a fun thread so I gon't get too serious or committed either way. But I do find the ideas fascinating.

Fire CAN exist in a vacuum and metal does burn. Ice can skip the liquid property and be instantly turned to a gas. Gravity can be affected by magnetism and momentum and may not be tied to mass in different parts of the universe. Science, when properly pursued is truly fascinating.

Consider this. There is no static point in the universe from which to measure space or time. Everything is in motion relative to everything else. We assume that which we measure on earth, or in our own solar system is constant law throughout the universe. Geometry and calculus based on assumptions based on theoretical and observation data gives us the constants we depend on to make physics work in a lot of astronomical study. It starts to blur the lines of physics and metaphysics. This is why I am cautious about making absolute statements of what is scientifically possible or impossible.

[ElkGroveDan]

I’m commenting on how unrelated to the experiment the headline is — i.e NASA has most definitely NOT started “building a warp engine” — and you are commenting on how promising the technology is. These are two different unrelated debates. I’m sure you can find lots of people who want to argue the pros or cons of your premise — but I’m not one of them.

[Dead Corpse]

“We’re gonna build a motor.”

“Ok, what’s it gonna do and how are going to fuel it?”

They have a stated end goal in mind. This is akin to setting up a single piston/cylinder with some compressed gas to prove the theory that a V8 ICE is feasible in theory.

I don’t see a disconnect, where you obviously do.