• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

NASA may have incidentally discovered Warp Drive?

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
If traveling that fast, doesn't the vehicle know the future and hence, will know what might be just ahead?

I don't think so?

This is actually a good question.

If the vehicle were travelling at these speeds in their local frame, then yes, they would be, in effect, moving into their own pasts. Once any object travels faster than light, it travels backwards in time.

Think of this as two cars in a race around a track. One car is you, the other is time. Time moves at the speed of light around the track, constantly lapping you at a blindingly fast rate. But as you pick up speed, you begin to catch up to time.

Once you reach c then you can look over into time's car and you both are at a relative standstill, everything has stopped. However, once you exceed c, you start lapping him....

This is in effect, how our chronology works. Everytime that time laps you we would consider an event. Once you start lapping time, events would be moving backwards (or in essence, the event count would move in the opposite direction); thus the arrow of time is moving in the opposite direction.

It gets really funky when you consider that time isn't really time, but space-time, but we'll leave that for another day.

Anyway Doug, yes, if you could move at 10c within your local reference frame you would see objects moving into their own pasts. Since you've already observed that past, then you could avoid or predict their movements.
 
How do you compress space?

We have many theories of gravitation. But Einstein may have been more right than we originally thought.

In the 90's and even now, many think of gravity in a quantum sense as being a scalar force that uses gravitons as force carriers; like the other three forces in the universe (em, strong, weak).

However, Einstein stated that gravity was not a force, and general relativity predicts that gravity is merely the deformation of the space-time manifold which is caused by any and all objects based on their mass-energy.

Thus space itself has some substance, it isn't merely nothing. In fact, nothingness in quantum mechanics simply doesn't exist - there's no such thing.

When we go down this road, we begin to realize that space acts as a sheet under tension, tension caused by mass-energy (mass or energy, which are equivalent forms of the same concept (e=mc^2)). This tension is what we know as gravity.

Now... when you get into the maths of general relativity, you notice that the equations work for both positive mass energy (what we all know and love), as well as negative mass energy (..wtf..). Most scientists at over the past century had completely dismissed negative mass energy as being a very minor flaw in our own understanding of mathematics, not necessarily a flaw in general relativity and simply discarded it from classical physics.

Quantum mechanics however, proved experimentally in the lab that negative energy not only exists (Casimir effect), but is prevalent throughout all existence. It is a fundamental requirement for the existence of the universe (which has a net energy of 0).

So, what does all this mean?

Well, again, think of that spatial manifold as a sheet, stretched out flat and under tension. When we apply positive mass-energy objects (like us, or the Sun or the Earth) this creates a deformation of space-time. Think of it as a dip in the sheet. Objects that come near enough to this dip are accelerated towards each other due to the depression gradient in the sheet. The greater this gradient, the greater the dip, the greater the accelerative force between the two objects.

But what if we apply a negative mass-energy?

Then instead of a dip, we get the reverse; instead, we get a bump. So think about it in the same analogous terms. Now, objects that exert a negative energy against space will be raised on the sheet, creating a gradient but this gradient will cause objects to be repelled (they'd tend to roll down to the flatter parts of the sheet rather than roll up a hill). Thus, negative energy has a reverse gravitational effect, such that, instead of being universally attractive, it is universally repulsive.

Thus we can both compress space, and contract space, causing both positive and negative gradients in space-time by using both positive and negative energies.

By conforming these negative energies into particular spatial geometries, we can utilize specific solutions to general relativity, such as the Alcubierre solution, to create a warp bubble. This bubble expands space right behind us , and contracts space right in front of us, creating a uniform difference and moving space around us, rather than us through space.

p.s.
You might be wondering, how do we know this works?

In the 90's we conduct experiments that tested a theory regarding the Casimir effect.. This theory suggested, in layman's terms, that if the virtual particles that pop into and out of existence all the time were constrained between two very smooth metal plates placed very close to one another then there would exist a pressure differential between the interior of the plates and the exterior.

This would happen because there was less probability of the existence of virtual particles between the constrained plates (these particles exist in relatively empty space, by constraining the space, you reduce the number of particles in a non-linear fashion).

Therefore, there would be a force exerted on the exterior plates, pushing them together.

When we tested the theory, we found out, not only do virtual particles exist, but the Casimir effect was real - we could measure this force.

However, scientists began to postulate if this "pressure" wasn't actually the virtual particles colliding with the exterior of the plate -which was happening but didn't really explain the force entirely- but instead was due to a negative energy density within the interior of the two plates causing the space between the plates to actually contract, while the space on the exterior of the plates was inversely expanding.

So we've known about this for some time, but we couldn't really think of how to harness this in any useful way, because you cannot really extract any work from the plate configuration.

However, in comes Harold G. White - more of an engineer than a theoretical physicist. He has apparently (or, supposedly) increased the efficiency of the Alcubierre metric by more several orders of magnitude (which is frankly amazing), completely re-configured the geometry of the warp bubble, and now has supposedly determined that by configuring the casimir plates as capacitors (think of the interior of a capacitor) and then aligning many of them in series into a toroidal configuration (like a donut), that one would end up with a negative energy density displaced within the center and exterior of the toroid (the donut hole).

If looking at a cutout of the toroid, the energy density would look something like:

---++++-^-++++--- << +, positive energy; - negative; ^ is your ship.

That's how this works.
 
Last edited:
Man, I don't understand any of that.

Mass and energy are equivalent, we call this mass-energy.

Instead of thinking that all mass-energy is positive, like we normally do, we realize that mass-energy can also be negative.

This means objects can have negative mass. (-energy)

Gravity is generally a universally attractive force between objects dependent upon their mass.

We have determined that gravity is not universally attractive, but is dependent upon the sign of the mass-energy; or in other words, positive energy is attractive and negative energy is repulsive.

Knowing this, we can determine that since gravity is the deformation of space, generally in a single direction (attractive); that we can deform space in the opposite direction (repulsive).
 
Stupid question...

But if we attain the capability to travel at such tremendous speeds, don't we greatly increase the likelihood of crashing into space junk, asteroids, meteroids etc during space travel due to a lack of control of the vehicle?

Star Trek works around that issue with the forward deflector which is needed at impulse power. While Gour is right that it may not be necessary to have a deflector during warp speed, it would be very important at sub-luminal speeds that can be potentially reached by this EMdrive. A paint chip once cracked the space shuttle's windshield at the relatively low velocity it has in orbit. This EMdrive potentially can achieve up to 9.7% of light speed, probably less in the solar system, but still far faster than anything we have come up with. Some sort of system would have to be in place, or maybe just armor, before a trip to Mars at the speeds suggested by the EMdrive team.
 
How long until we get our floating cars? :(
 
How long until we get our floating cars? :(

The Military is supposed to have flying HUMVEE cars by 2020. So that means even longer than that for the general population.
 
The Military is supposed to have flying HUMVEE cars by 2020. So that means even longer than that for the general population.

Which means flying cars have been in the making 3 decades ago. Trickle down...
 
The team released their research report. They also announced that they've completed tests in a vacuum and got positive results (eliminating any possibility that the measurements are due to heated air).

In their paper, the propose quite a few ground-break concepts:

1) unification of gravitation with the quantum vacuum;
2) that the vacuum is not immutable as we always thought;
3) that there is no difference between electrons and virtual electrons, or really any fermion and it's "virtual" counterpart. 'Realness' is nothing more than a measurement of state, and that electrons (and all fermions) swap places with their virtual brethren ad infinitum.
4) that particular deformations of spacetime can be achieved by various geometric configurations of mass-energy (constraining the quantum vacuum "plasma," and thus altering the surrounding gravitational field).

Err...

This is all very novel science, to say the least. This isn't strings, this isn't loop quantum gravity, and this isn't classical physics... these are very new concepts, AFAIK...

I don't know if any of this is valid though. Seems to fly in the face much of what we know of modern physics.
 
The team released their research report. They also announced that they've completed tests in a vacuum and got positive results (eliminating any possibility that the measurements are due to heated air).

In their paper, the propose quite a few ground-break concepts:

1) unification of gravitation with the quantum vacuum;
2) that the vacuum is not immutable as we always thought;
3) that there is no difference between electrons and virtual electrons, or really any fermion and it's "virtual" counterpart. 'Realness' is nothing more than a measurement of state, and that electrons (and all fermions) swap places with their virtual brethren ad infinitum.
4) that particular deformations of spacetime can be achieved by various geometric configurations of mass-energy (constraining the quantum vacuum "plasma," and thus altering the surrounding gravitational field).

Err...

This is all very novel science, to say the least. This isn't strings, this isn't loop quantum gravity, and this isn't classical physics... these are very new concepts, AFAIK...

I don't know if any of this is valid though. Seems to fly in the face much of what we know of modern physics.

Can't change what we know til we learn more right?

Real skeptical that anything will come of this, but cautiously excited it might be.
 
The team released their research report. They also announced that they've completed tests in a vacuum and got positive results (eliminating any possibility that the measurements are due to heated air).

In their paper, the propose quite a few ground-break concepts:

4) that particular deformations of spacetime can be achieved by various geometric configurations of mass-energy (constraining the quantum vacuum "plasma," and thus altering the surrounding gravitational field).

I wonder how much energy it would take to generate a warp field around a ship, say the size of a space shuttle. Certainly, any further advances in this field will require a huge leap in power generation technology. I imagine someone within the Pentagon is already putting together a team to study the possible weapons applications such distortions may have....

Still waitin' on that 'ole fusion chestnut to ripen.
 
I wonder how much energy it would take to generate a warp field around a ship, say the size of a space shuttle.

On the high end, it would take roughly 7.3 x 10^19 kJ or roughly the equivalent force of a 17,500 megaton explosion. The most powerful man-made device ever constructed would be the Tsar Bomba, which was originally designed as a 100 MT themonuclear bomb (which was reduced to 50 MT for testing purposes).

It would take ~175 Tsar Bomba's to power a warp drive equipped vessel, using Harold White's GR metrics, on a round-trip journey for Earth to Alpha Centauri at 10c.

Certainly, any further advances in this field will require a huge leap in power generation technology.

Now, how much power is that in real terms? Well.. You're right on the money with respect to power requirements.

We would need 100,000 S-class 100MW nuclear reactors (found in the US nuclear submarines). This is the equivalent of 1,250 Kariwa Japanese nuclear power-plants (the largest nuclear reactors on Earth).

So.. obviously, that's absurd.

Fusion reactors could have a theoretically larger output by an order of magnitude, reducing the need for power substantially. Fusion would also be incredibly safer, having virtually no radioactive byproducts (that couldn't be filtered out), and requiring really nothing more than common elements like d-t, but there's also the possibility of using He-3 (in more advanced fuel cycles)

Fusion would be ideal because it's long-lasting and you could literally have ships that could refuel literally anywhere and everywhere (the elements used in the various fuel cycles are the most common throughout the universe). But it might not give us enough juice.

So with that, we're likely looking at either greater efficiency requirements - or - we'll need anti-matter... Roughly 900kg of anti-hydrogen would do it.

And yes, to produce that much anti-hydrogen would be a massive, world-wide undertaking and it certainly shouldn't be done in one location.

Harold White has stated he hopes further testing and research will allow them to further improve efficiency by either and additional 1 or 2 orders of magnitude.

If we could reduce the requirements down by 2 or more orders of magnitude, then warp drive would be feasible with a fusion reactor or many advanced fission reactors.

I imagine someone within the Pentagon is already putting together a team to study the possible weapons applications such distortions may have....

I haven't even thought about this, but I have no doubt you're right.

If we do go the anti-matter route though, that surely has military applications; especially if we don't use a stable method of storage.

Still waitin' on that 'ole fusion chestnut to ripen.

We're there already honestly.. What's needed is more funding!

Congress has really held us back, because the science for tokamak and ICF is there... we just need to pay for the engineering and application.
 
Last edited:
On the high end, it would take roughly 7.3 x 10^19 kJ or roughly the equivalent force of a 17,500 megaton explosion. The most powerful man-made device ever constructed would be the Tsar Bomba, which was originally designed as a 100 MT themonuclear bomb (which was reduced to 50 MT for testing purposes).

It would take ~175 Tsar Bomba's to power a warp drive equipped vessel, using Harold White's GR metrics, on a round-trip journey for Earth to Alpha Centauri at 10c.



Now, how much power is that in real terms? Well.. You're right on the money with respect to power requirements.

We would need 100,000 S-class 100MW nuclear reactors (found in the US nuclear submarines). This is the equivalent of 1,250 Kariwa Japanese nuclear power-plants (the largest nuclear reactors on Earth).

So.. obviously, that's absurd.

Fusion reactors could have a theoretically larger output by an order of magnitude, reducing the need for power substantially. Fusion would also be incredibly safer, having virtually no radioactive byproducts (that couldn't be filtered out), and requiring really nothing more than common elements like d-t, but there's also the possibility of using He-3 (in more advanced fuel cycles)

Fusion would be ideal because it's long-lasting and you could literally have ships that could refuel literally anywhere and everywhere (the elements used in the various fuel cycles are the most common throughout the universe). But it might not give us enough juice.

So with that, we're likely looking at either greater efficiency requirements - or - we'll need anti-matter... Roughly 900kg of anti-hydrogen would do it.

And yes, to produce that much anti-hydrogen would be a massive, world-wide undertaking and it certainly shouldn't be done in one location.

Harold White has stated he hopes further testing and research will allow them to further improve efficiency by either and additional 1 or 2 orders of magnitude.

If we could reduce the requirements down by 2 or more orders of magnitude, then warp drive would be feasible with a fusion reactor or many advanced fission reactors.



I haven't even thought about this, but I have no doubt you're right.

If we do go the anti-matter route though, that surely has military applications; especially if we don't use a stable method of storage.



We're there already honestly.. What's needed is more funding!

Congress has really held us back, because the science for tokamak and ICF is there... we just need to pay for the engineering and application.

I think the planet-wide effort as produced something like a few grams of anti-matter? And, of course Congress. This is America. We always ask" "Well, warp drive and its derivative technologies would improve the human race far beyond our wildest imaginations and give us real hope of ending poverty, war, disease and misery. However, the important question is who can get rich off this."

Beyond anti-matter weapons (photon torpedoes), I would think that the ability to perfectly control the distortion could lead to various toys like implosion devices, phase-shift weapons and the like. I mean what would happen to organic material nakedly exposed to a partial field? Or being caught half in the field and half out?

What are the medical implications of technology that can control time dilation? Could we put people in a bubble that would slow down cellular decay or keep them in stasis until proper medical treatment could be rendered?

Possibilites are endless.
 
Last edited:
@gourimoko, would you also be so kind as to explain the difference in the various approaches to achieving fusion?

I know the basic outlines of magnetic confinement versus internal confinement. I am also somewhat familiar with the travails of cold fusion and the big question of whether or not it is a pipedream.

In your opinion which is most practical and feasible and why we are still stuck with trying to create heat to drive steam turbines to generate electricity rather than moving on to something more direct and efficient?
 
@gourimoko, would you also be so kind as to explain the difference in the various approaches to achieving fusion?

Right now there are two promising forms of fusion in development, inertial confinement and tokamak plasma fusion.

Tokamaks are the most likely near-term solution, but inertial confinement is the more promising solution long-term and for smaller and safer applications (including as small as a car).

Tokamaks use torus shaped magnetic confinement systems that are filled with superheated plasma. Fuel in the form of various hydrogen, lithium, beryllium, or helium isotopes is injected into the plasma and high temperatures and pressures (simulating the environment of a fission explosion or that of the interior of the sun). This causes the fusion fuel cycle to commence.

In general, tokamaks rely on heat more so than anything else to create fusion - very much like the Sun.

Inertial confinement is different. These systems use pellets of stable, frozen/cooled fusion fuel (typically a deuterium-tritium mix) that are placed in magnetic suspension and then blasted at multiple angles simultaneously by multiple lasers. The impact causing an implosion of the pellet under great pressure and thus, the strong force takes over, and we get fusion. This is more akin to how a thermonuclear warhead is designed. It is more pressure and force than it is temperature.

The benefit of inertial confinement is the potential for miniaturization, and the portability of it's fuel (pellets). Tokamaks will always be fairly large, unwieldily, and dangerous. Tokamaks also require a great deal of energy to get started, let alone maintained.

However, tokamaks have some added uses, one of which (since we're talking about future energy production) is that they can be used in far-term scientific pursuits towards using singularities as energy storage; but that's a ways off.

I know the basic outlines of magnetic confinement versus internal confinement. I am also somewhat familiar with the travails of cold fusion and the big question of whether or not it is a pipedream.

Cold fusion isn't a pipe-dream, it is not only possible but has been experimentally demonstrated. This is commonly known in science circles; but among popular science articles the concept of room temperature fusion is often conflated with the claims of a few crackpot scientists who stated they caused fusion in some kind of table-top experiment. This is unfortunate because it killed research into very viable yet elusive forms of fusion based on binding muons with nuclei to form muonic atoms which are far easier to fuse.

Real cold fusion is muon-catalyzed fusion, and again, is experimentally sound and a verifiable phenomenon. It does not produce more energy than what is put into the experiment, however, due to the difficulty in generating muons, among other things. However, with greater research, it may be possible to overcome some of these limitations.

Muon catalyzed fusion is not dependent upon high temperates, so for all practical purposes, it should be known as cold fusion - but, it isn't, so go figure.

Anyway, we need a great deal more research on muon generation at large scales before we can overcome the several problems associated with, let's call it, "luke-warm" fusion..

In your opinion which is most practical and feasible

The ITER tokamak is already being built, so we should start with tokamaks for the time being until inertial confinement generally replaces it on small and moderate scales. Tokamaks should then be reserved for the largest scale energy generation.

Going back to an earlier point, I think we need to explore anti-matter generation at large scales as well. Tokamaks can be useful here as well.

One way of generating anti-matter quickly and cheaply is to collimate beams of charged particles into an oppositely charged Reissner-Nordstrom singularity that is actively and simultaneously evaporating due to Hawking radiation. This would take place, confined, within a tokamak attached to a particle accelerator. Such a system would yield a 50% conversion rate of matter-antimatter.

There are difficulties to this approach (primarily getting the singularity to have a large enough cross-section), but in general it is sound.

and why we are still stuck with trying to create heat to drive steam turbines to generate electricity rather than moving on to something more direct and efficient?

Fusion can get us there; especially the helium-3 fuel cycle.

One could potentially generate electricity, directly, without the need for turbines, with fusion reactors. This is because the helium-3 (+boron) fuel cycle is aneutronic, and releases very little energy in the form of non-reactive pions which carry off energy and ultimately decay into lethal gamma rays.

Instead, He-3's fuel cycle results in mostly high velocity charged particles as end products (protons), meaning these particles can be directly converted into electrical current, rather than using a medium for thermalization, steam, blah blah blah...

This is a much more efficient process than using a turbine.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-14: "Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:14: " Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey."
Top