Live data from Hacker News

Some Emerging Possibilities For Space Propulsion

nasa.gov

51–60 of 61 posts

Re: Some Emerging Possibilities For Space Propulsion

#51
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a hypothesis, unsupported of course, that everything has a fixed spacetime velocity. As beings with mass, we perceive the universe as having three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension. We move relatively slowly in the spatial dimensions, and we find it easy to change direction. As a result, we are hurtling incredibly fast in the temporal dimension. A photon, on the other hand, moves incredibly fast in…

"We move relatively slowly in the spatial dimensions, and we find it easy to change direction. As a result, we are hurtling incredibly fast in the temporal dimension." There exists an invariant such that you can look at anything and sum its spatial and temporal velocities in a certain manner to obtain c , but it's not a very useful observation because you end up with only two categories: Things moving at c , and thin…

That seems like a form of solipsism for intergalactic travelers. Wherever you go, there you are.

If you have a point of origin or a destination, you can define your speed relative to either of those points. And if you are at rest with respect to another object, you will both have the same velocity vector for (x,y,z,t) = (0,0,0,c) or maybe (0,0,0,-c). You both move at the same velocity through time, so you age at the same rate.

Now, if you throw that object away from you, in your frame of reference, you are at (0,0,0,c) and the object is satisfying something like sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2-t^2)=c (real physics is more complicated, naturally). You age normally, and the object ages more slowly. From the object's frame of reference, it is aging normally, and you age more slowly, because you're the one moving fast.

Now as that spatial component approaches c, it becomes more and more difficult to hang a left at Betelgeuse. So you can usually treat all the dimensions that square to a positive number as the magnitude of their combined vector (let's call it s). The dimension that squares to a negative number, t, could be the magnitude of a vector in multiple dimensions that all square to a negative number (let's call them u, v, and w).

So a photon might prefer to see its spacetime vector as (s,u,v,w) = (c,0,0,0) or maybe (-c,0,0,0), provided that x^2+y^2+z^2=s^2 and u^2+v^2+w^2=t^2 (or similar equivalent constraints that change the signs around). And whatever happens that might appear to us as though the photon is traveling at less than c is actually the photon stepping sideways through temporal dimensions orthogonal to our own hard-to-divert movements through time.

If you look at dual quaternions or geometric algebra, the math for systems with dimensional signatures (+,+,+,-) and (+,-,-,-) are often nearly identical, with a few sign flips here and there. And it would allow for odd things like imaginary mass and imaginary energy. We simply might not notice the additional temporal dimensions, for the same reason that it is difficult for us to change the direction of a massless, chargeless photon without touching it.

Re: Some Emerging Possibilities For Space Propulsion

#52
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a link to a good discussion of some related issues by cosmologist Sean Carroll: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2011/09/24/can-neut... (It's in the context of that mistaken "neutrinos move faster than light" claim from a few years back, but the arguments are general. Bob Geroch's article mentioned near the end is pretty much the gold standard for dealing with these issues as far as I know.) I really n…

Thanks! Could you explain a bit more about how Alcubierre can't be used to send information? Wouldn't a spaceship traveling FTL be able to carry information?

I believe his point was "only if they can stop traveling at FTL".

Re: Some Emerging Possibilities For Space Propulsion

#55
post #42
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do these "legitimate" ideas for FTL deal with causality? I've always wondered that. People always use causality to argue against FTL, but then readily acknowledge that wormholes or Albicurie might allow it. I'm not getting that disconnect?

>People always use causality to argue against FTL, for some definitions of causality. Anyway, far-far galaxies are running away from us FTL using part of the same machinery as Albicurie drive - ie. space expansion and no causality violation so far. Anyway before FTL, we need to get basic aneutronic fusion drive working - emitting 0.05c alphas - so that we can comfortably travel inside Solar system and send first near…

What would be a better approach for fusion research?

Re: Some Emerging Possibilities For Space Propulsion

#56
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you heard of the idea of running a current through a long wire to propel a spacecraft against the earth's magnetic field? I remember reading about it somewhere, but I can never find it again.

Yep. It's called an electrodynamic tether. Proposed for stationkeeping for everything from space stations to skyhooks, among other things.

Might be too late to follow up. (I wish HN had the response alerts like Reddit does)

But how can you have a current in a single wire without a loop?

Re: Some Emerging Possibilities For Space Propulsion

#57
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was an interesting paper, but I'm having trouble with the concluding paragraphs. Is the argument against the grandfather paradox essentially "You can set up the mechanism to create the grandfather paradox, but it won't actually work the way you think it will?"

Bob's argument is (more or less) that it's easy to set up a thought experiment in which you imagine setting up closed causal curves, but that the devil is in the details. Earlier in the paper, he argued that the new physics will still have its own causal structure, in a well-defined sense involving initial conditions and differential equations. If you start with complete and well-behaved initial data, his argument is…

Thanks for the thorough response. My original paraphrasing was probably a little too simplistic, but I guess I got the gist of the general argument.

Re: Some Emerging Possibilities For Space Propulsion

#58
post #55
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>People always use causality to argue against FTL, for some definitions of causality. Anyway, far-far galaxies are running away from us FTL using part of the same machinery as Albicurie drive - ie. space expansion and no causality violation so far. Anyway before FTL, we need to get basic aneutronic fusion drive working - emitting 0.05c alphas - so that we can comfortably travel inside Solar system and send first near…

What would be a better approach for fusion research?

Tokamaks are fine, even great, for "research". It is the "development" where they are non-starters. For the last 20+ years it has been pretty obvious that inertial confinement is a way to go to build a working fusion device.

For fusion development where are 2 main factors in play:

1. in the second half of 199x it was decided that fusion plant produced electricity can't be cheaper than the current then $0.04/kwh of coal electricity, thus focus on "research" (especially to support modelling instead of real testing of conventional nukes) not on "development" as energy source

2. non-proliferation. A working inertial confinement device may probably be miniaturized to the military acceptable size of say a large truck/container. Without all the fuss of gigantic multi-year enrichment programs of fissile materials.

Laser driven is an inertial confinement which is well resistable to miniaturization/weaponization due to its complexity and low efficiency [though even that may start to change slowly with semiconductor lasers]. That makes it fine for "research", and there is no need for "development" due to the above mentioned factor #1.

Even 15 years ago it was obvious that somebody need to put DT target inside the wire spool of the Sandia Z-machine discharge target. They probably even did, un-publicly, put it there back then :) They upgraded the machine since then, slowly, and sometimes later (~2010) publicly announced shooting into DT target. Yet it is pretty obvious that they are not in a rush, very very not in a rush... The Z machine schema has much higher efficiency and much lower level tech (i.e. higher theoretical proliferation potential) than femto-lasers.

There is even slower movement, pretty much no movement at all in areas of DPF or fusor-descendant schemas (except a bit for polywell) - the schemas which were beating Tokamaks since the dawn of times, and one can only speculate how things would be if they got even small share of funding that Tokamaks got...

Re: Some Emerging Possibilities For Space Propulsion

#59
post #58
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would be a better approach for fusion research?

Tokamaks are fine, even great, for "research". It is the "development" where they are non-starters. For the last 20+ years it has been pretty obvious that inertial confinement is a way to go to build a working fusion device. For fusion development where are 2 main factors in play: 1. in the second half of 199x it was decided that fusion plant produced electricity can't be cheaper than the current then $0.04/kwh of co…

Thanks for your comprehensive comment. It's incredible what level of damage the Cold War has done to nuclear research. Although I'm not 100% convinced it is only bad; we don't want an AK-47 of nuclear bombs until the world is a much more peaceful place than today.

Out of curiosity, what is your background for knowing all this stuff?

Re: Some Emerging Possibilities For Space Propulsion

#60
post #59
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tokamaks are fine, even great, for "research". It is the "development" where they are non-starters. For the last 20+ years it has been pretty obvious that inertial confinement is a way to go to build a working fusion device. For fusion development where are 2 main factors in play: 1. in the second half of 199x it was decided that fusion plant produced electricity can't be cheaper than the current then $0.04/kwh of co…

Thanks for your comprehensive comment. It's incredible what level of damage the Cold War has done to nuclear research. Although I'm not 100% convinced it is only bad; we don't want an AK-47 of nuclear bombs until the world is a much more peaceful place than today. Out of curiosity, what is your background for knowing all this stuff?

thanks, at the end of 199x i just asked myself "where is my fusion drive?" :)
Post reply on HN