• Cap@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’m almost 50 years old and I’ve been hearing about this for almost 50 years.

  • DeepThought42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    While the concepts outlined in the team’s new paper pave the way toward making travel through space nearing light speed a reality, constructing such an engine is likely something that will only be feasible far in the future, as the present state of technology would not allow for such a device.

    • sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      … by an astounding margin.

      The paper is paywalled and I am too lazy to look for a free/open link, but the shown graphs indicate many squared meters of energy concentrations of 1 - 10 * 10^39 joules.

      The entire energy output of the Sun, in a year, is around 10^34 joules. 6.6 * 10^39 joules is apparently the estimated total mass energy of the Moon, if you basically perfectly E = mc^2 transformed it into pure energy.

      In 2010 the estimated total energy consumption of humans on Earth was 5 * 10^20 joules.

      So we just need something around ten billion * ten billion more joules than that, presumably generated by something i dont know, naval frigate sized?

      Yeah. Faaaaaar off indeed.

      • EtherWhack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Like Hippocrates telling people that a new breakthrough in medicine could allow bones to be seen in detail without cutting into flesh

    • phdepressed@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Most of space is empty, analysis of the path beforehand and a structure that can withstand the smaller objects is really all that’s necessary. But those are just as theoretical as this engine.

      • catloaf@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Problem is that asteroids are very hard to see, as they are both cold and dark, meaning they don’t stand out against space very much at all. And even a micrometeoroid poses a risk even when traveling at low velocities (e.g. someone orbiting earth, the meteoroid itself has a relatively high velocity). Getting hit by a 1cm meteoroid at warp 1 would be devastating.

  • bassomitron@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Nobody can be excited for anything. Whether or not it’s possible in even the next century or two, I still think it’s awesome that there are dreamers out there trying to make at least a solid theoretical plan on how to accomplish stuff like this. I also think people are discounting the exponential rate of knowledge we accumulate every generation. It might be awhile, but unless society collapses, I wouldn’t be surprised if we have interstellar propulsion like this in the next couple centuries. Hell, I expect to see a thriving commercial space industry in the next 50-some-odd years within our solar system.

  • MonkderDritte@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    This article is crap. Repeats everything 3 times and explains nothing.

    At least they linked the study but since

    The solution involves combining a stable matter shell with a shift vector distribution that closely matches well-known warp drive solutions such as the Alcubierre metric.

    doesn’t mention How they do this, i guess this is a purely mathematic experiment?

    • just_another_person@lemmy.world
      cake
      OP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Well…yeah. No warp drive is possible with current tech, so it’s all theoretical. We have no capabilities at all ever mentioned in these articles, but it’s still interesting.

      • MonkderDritte@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        What i meant: physics has a lot of mathematic nuts. Some take it a bit too far and think, just because you can make a formula that works out, it proves anything, instead of mathe describing the logic. As an example: some thesis at ETH Zurich “proved” the existence of god by having some set parameters and assumtions (which were a classical logical fallacy). I think this might be similiar.

        For the alcubiere warp drive, the logical explanation is: it warps space before the ship and back behind it, so it basically makes the distance for the ship shorter. I expected a similiar explanation for this. But it looks more like people played mathematics here.