The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Off Topic Discussions > Fusion: Where we Currently Stand.
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 05-07-2012, 08:08 AM
LCARS 24's Avatar
LCARS 24 LCARS 24 is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 593
Default

Even that fission rocket to which I linked an article and photo was less than 6 feet in diameter yet had power output about equal to five nuclear power plants. (The 104 U.S. nuke plants average around 900 megawatts.)
__________________
Star Trek Journal
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-07-2012, 05:14 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LCARS 24 View Post
Here's one article on turning virtual particles into photons using a Superconducting Quantum Interference Device (SQUID). That's long way from from a government giving some scientists a blank check and telling them, "Now, close the door and don't come out until you can give us unlimited free energy."

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/1106....2011.346.html

Anyway, any breakthrough like polywell fusion or zero-point energy might solve the two biggest barriers to space travel: money (since cheap energy would change the world economy) and fuel. It would also rein in the problem of radiation to some extent by allowing faster travel to a destination, since continuous acceleration (as opposed to a brief burn of a rocket followed by coasting most of the way) allows great speed to build up, as I showed with some math above. And artificial gravity with 1-g acceleration then deceleration would be just icing on the cake.
O' my God, LCARS. The Casmir Effect only is astounding evidence but this result proves Quantum Mechanics is no longer merely a theory any more! It means Virtual particles are REAL!
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-08-2012, 03:22 AM
LCARS 24's Avatar
LCARS 24 LCARS 24 is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 593
Default

It may be surprising that the Casimer force holds two 1-sq-ft plates ground as smooth as current tech will allow with force of 2,160 pounds, even though the plates are uncharged and in the best vacuum that can be created in the laboratory.

Looking at a recent chart of relative strengths of the four fundamental interactions I see strong: 10^38, electromagnetic: 10^36, weak, 10^25, gravitation: 1.
That can be confusing, but when comparing the strong force and gravity it's just that the force holding two protons together in a nucleus is 10^38 as great as the gravitation between them.

There was a nice comment on this in an old Wikipedia article:
Quote:
The strength of gravity is simply what it is and the strength of the electromagnetic force simply is what it is. The electromagnetic force operates on a different physical quantity (electric charge) than gravity (mass) so it cannot be compared directly to gravity. To note that gravity is an extremely weak force is, from the point of view of natural units, like comparing apples to oranges. It is true that the electrostatic repulsive force between two protons (alone in free space) greatly exceeds the gravitational attractive force between the same two protons, and that is because the charge on the protons is approximately a natural unit of charge but the mass of the protons is far, far less than the natural unit of mass.
In academia there is the expression “Publish or perish.” But there’s also “Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach.” The point is that “Publish or perish” doesn’t apply to the very best scientists, who work at places like Los Alamos or Lockheed Skunk Works on extremely important and highly classified projects. That’s where the real work on zero-point energy would be done, and if they actually have implemented it and are withholding it despite the tremendous potential economic and global-warming benefits, my guess as to the reason would be that it’s too easy for people to weaponize (read: “thousands of times more dangerous than the threat of nuclear-weapon proliferation”), where any jealous husband could have the equivalent of the early A-bombs in a fairly cheap handheld device if such technology became widely known. Just a guess. Conspiracy buffs have much more cynical theories, involving “big oil,”etc. But for space travel, zero-point energy (stimulating and using so-called virtual particles at a net energy profit) would be even better than antimatter. Now we’re talking same-day travel to Mars! Understanding how quantum gravity, virtual particles, and the Casimir effect are related would be a good start.

One more little quote related to quantum gravity, from the Web site of Vienna University of Technology:
Quote:
The cosmological constant problem entails a gigantic discrepancy (123 orders of magnitude) between observation and naive theoretical expectation, and so far no satisfying explanation exists that resolves this discrepancy.
Cute, but part of that might be attributable to failure of astrophysicists to include H2 molecules in space in their redshift calculations. The scientists who detected them wrote in their article more than 10 years ago that the levels found made enough difference in those calculations that scientists should stop blithering about the big bang, dark matter, and expansion of the universe.
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/index.html
__________________
Star Trek Journal

Last edited by LCARS 24 : 05-09-2012 at 08:10 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-08-2012, 05:51 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

This is intriguing. Alot too. I've just did a small bit of research on this but I need to see more sources. Fascinating though, this falls right in line with my expectation that dark matter is nothing special.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-08-2012, 10:11 PM
omegaman's Avatar
omegaman omegaman is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Penrith NSW Australia
Posts: 4,603
Default

A theoretical idea: Physics permitting.

As a means of travelling between stars, could it be possible, if we had the ability to create a stable wormhole between two Suns using some type of galactic positioning system, then be able to travel to that distant star using either a push (Solar wind) effect from our Sun or a pull (magnetic, gravitational) effect from the distant Sun?

If this idea worked we would only ever need conventional propulsion systems such as rockets to navigate the distant Sun's solar system, much the same way we do now.

Your thoughts Saquist?
__________________
TREK IS TREK. WHATEVER THE TIMELINE!

The next TV Series should be called STARFLEET!

Last edited by omegaman : 05-08-2012 at 10:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-10-2012, 04:22 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Sounds like a stargate.

Stable wormholes are the biggest culprits in the physics department. An Einstein-Rosen Wormhole would never be observable an it would be questionable is it existed seeing as light would cause it collapse.

There was a possibility of holding open a wormhole with exotic matter (a yet undiscovered form of matter with negative energy that could effectively repel space time at the throat of the worm hole)

But there is also some theoretical evidence that suggest in the early universe cosmic strings created wormholes. They are extremely theoretical but the observance of one unlikely.

Stargates created naquada as an answer to exotic matter with high density. Supposedly these hold the opening open to allow a small matter stream to pass through the throat by means of a localized water like event horizon.

A wormhole DOES have an event horizon so it would still shred you to pieces (meaning that light could not escape which means the gravitational force would stretch you untill you were atomized.) This is the biggest problem with even a wormhole. Normally with high gravity fields like the Earth or sun the stretching of space time only means HI gravity. But at a singularity the warping is so STEEP it goes beyond merely free fall. Your atoms can no longer stay together because the gravity is so uncommonl strong it exceeds the usually stronger Strong Nuclear Force which binds them. I don't know if it will ever be possible to travel through a worm hole intact. The nature of the wormhole is so similar to a black hole...I think the steep space-time vector is necessary at some value for tunneling to other locations. You see it's not the singularity that is the problem.

A singularity is just a massive body which space has collapsed around. But the Event Horizon is the point where light can't escape and that maybe well in advance of the singularity itself. (Think about it) if light can't escape then this is extreme gravity) Matter starts fragmenting far ahead of the event horizon. In fact you'll get molecular fragmentation long before atomic fragmentation. This is effectively a stretching effect. So if you were falling into a black hole or wormhole you'd first would start to elongate. You'd get taller because space is stretching and because you're moving across parts of space with different gravitational gradients. (like going down a hill that perpetually gets steeper and steeper until free fall only...without the "until" part.

(just like a comet will fragment before reaching a star's surface so will you if the gravitational force is strong enough. (This is called a Roche Limit. Usually that distance is bellow an object's surface unless we're talking really big planets or stars or blackholes.)

1. Stretching
2. bodily fragmentation. (electromagnetic cohesion bonds are broken)
3. Molecular Fragmentation (strong nuclear force bonds are broken)
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:32 PM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.