kurt9 wrote:Would it not be correspondingly easier to make wormholes as well with the White modification?
Jim Woodward's standard claim is that wormholes require a Jovian mass of negative mass, and IIRC the "standard" Alcubierre warp requires a solar mass of negative mass (maybe more). Per Paul, the White boost requires zilch negative mass - just casimir effects. You tell me.
First, we'll see if White's experiments yield positive results. Woodward's experiments seem definitive to me at this point. His effect is real. We have yet to see the results of White's experiment.
In any case, if the warp bubble can indeed be made without any negative mass, it seems to me that the same should be true for a traversable wormhole, given that both are based on the same concept.
djolds1 wrote:Jim Woodward's standard claim is that wormholes require a Jovian mass of negative mass
Actually his standard claim is that absurdly benign wormholes require a Jupiter mass of negative mass-energy. There are several other types of wormhole configurations out there that require less, but they're not the type that you'd like to have anywhere near Earth.
djolds1 wrote:Jim Woodward's standard claim is that wormholes require a Jovian mass of negative mass
Actually his standard claim is that absurdly benign wormholes require a Jupiter mass of negative mass-energy. There are several other types of wormhole configurations out there that require less, but they're not the type that you'd like to have anywhere near Earth.
While Jim may or may not have repeated the comment, it cannot be originally attributed to him. Accordlingly, the best answer based on currently technology is that we don't know. We're still shooting in the dark so to speak, but hopefully we'll have a much clearer picture in the relatively near future.
kurt9 wrote:First, we'll see if White's experiments yield positive results.
It will take a lot of review of the experiment before we know anything. It seems to me there are several scenarios whereby you could get a positive result and not have created a warp field.
This is why models like this usually go though peer review before money changes hands. This could all end up being a big waste of time. OTOH, lets hope its not.
GeeGee wrote:Actually his standard claim is that absurdly benign wormholes require a Jupiter mass of negative mass-energy. There are several other types of wormhole configurations out there that require less, but they're not the type that you'd like to have anywhere near Earth.
IIUC, desktop wormhole generators ought to be possible that connect different space-times, but that have such tremendous gravitational sheering that normal matter cannot pass through. An EM signal could however pass through, so one could send a signal, or perhaps even view through the thing.
Between absurdly benign and the ability to pass just a signal there's a whole range of sizes that create gravitational sheer that would injure a person, but not sturdy structures. This was all the focus of Kip Thorne's work with his grad students in 1988.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
kurt9 wrote:First, we'll see if White's experiments yield positive results.
It will take a lot of review of the experiment before we know anything. It seems to me there are several scenarios whereby you could get a positive result and not have created a warp field.
This is why models like this usually go though peer review before money changes hands. This could all end up being a big waste of time. OTOH, lets hope its not.
GeeGee wrote:Actually his standard claim is that absurdly benign wormholes require a Jupiter mass of negative mass-energy. There are several other types of wormhole configurations out there that require less, but they're not the type that you'd like to have anywhere near Earth.
IIUC, desktop wormhole generators ought to be possible that connect different space-times, but that have such tremendous gravitational sheering that normal matter cannot pass through. An EM signal could however pass through, so one could send a signal, or perhaps even view through the thing.
Between absurdly benign and the ability to pass just a signal there's a whole range of sizes that create gravitational sheer that would injure a person, but not sturdy structures. This was all the focus of Kip Thorne's work with his grad students in 1988.
Ron:
I'm curious as to what you think may be the error sources that may crop up in the warp-field interometer experiment? I've already started collecting some of the expected error sources for future review, especially since we are now starting to see interesting fringe shift results just using the DC excited cap-ring AKA the warp-core.
paulmarch wrote:
I'm curious as to what you think may be the error sources that may crop up in the warp-field interometer experiment? I've already started collecting some of the expected error sources for future review, especially since we are now starting to see interesting fringe shift results just using the DC excited cap-ring AKA the warp-core.
Paul, I think you need a better physicist to answer that question! This is why the issue needs peer review. In the meantime, I would ask Jim as field theorists are hard to find and they're the ones to ask. There was a paper from Japan on Jim's reading list a few weeks ago, posted by Jack I think; that was positing warping space-time with just a magnetic field. That was not a 5D model and it would seem to say there's more than one way to interpret a positive result of your experiment. There might be others that explain a positive result with a strong e-field alone, that don't involve warp. Jim has investigated many different sorts of supposed "magneto-gravitic" linking over the years and probably no one knows the history of these suppositions better than he does. He's one of the very few physicists who always reads other physicists.
There is huge value in understanding the history of gravity physics and all the various models and theories to come along and that's what Jim did his PhD in and has studied ever since.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
Yes well, don't get too excited. While such a thing seems theoretically possible, we have no idea how one would steer/point such a device through space-time. I saw a discussion of this in an ARXIV paper a couple years ago, and this concerns the entropy/progress of the universe as it expands, and the lightcome it has, but no one has done serious theoretical work here that I'm aware of. Getting access to warp and negative mass will foment the beginning of such discussions.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
GIThruster wrote:Yes well, don't get too excited. While such a thing seems theoretically possible, we have no idea how one would steer/point such a device through space-time. I saw a discussion of this in an ARXIV paper a couple years ago, and this concerns the entropy/progress of the universe as it expands, and the lightcome it has, but no one has done serious theoretical work here that I'm aware of. Getting access to warp and negative mass will foment the beginning of such discussions.
I was being facetious. I know there's a lot of development work in this, assuming it's real in the first place, which I'm still not convinced of. At this point, it looks like we will get the space drive. However, all of the FTL/warp/wormhole stuff remains very speculative. If I was a hard SF writer, I would have a space drive in my stories, but everything would be strictly sub-light and the action would be in our own solar system only (like Paul NcAuley's "Quiet War" stories).
The space drive alone will make it much easier and cheaper to do the O'neill "High Frontier" concept. We need to do the "High Frontier" thing before going to the stars anyways.
kurt9 wrote:
I was being facetious. I know there's a lot of development work in this. . .
Mastering gravitic technology is going to be just as transforming of everyday life as mastering electromagnetism has been the last 150 years. Andrew Palfreyman was the first I've noted who posited that these devices, if they can deliver the way we hope, will enable fantastical architecture that doesn't need to support its own weight. The applications are only beginning to be understood. Could Ben Franklin have ever conceived of the cell phone? I think not.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
kurt9 wrote:
I was being facetious. I know there's a lot of development work in this. . .
Mastering gravitic technology is going to be just as transforming of everyday life as mastering electromagnetism has been the last 150 years. Andrew Palfreyman was the first I've noted who posited that these devices, if they can deliver the way we hope, will enable fantastical architecture that doesn't need to support its own weight. The applications are only beginning to be understood. Could Ben Franklin have ever conceived of the cell phone? I think not.
It will certainly change transportation, at the very least.
Indeed the business model is to develop, then license the technology to the Boeings, Toyotas, etc,; then use the royalties to finance the space transportation applications. An additional benefit of this technology is the dramatic reduction in fossil fuel usage in transportation.
GIThruster wrote:Yes well, don't get too excited. While such a thing seems theoretically possible, we have no idea how one would steer/point such a device through space-time. I saw a discussion of this in an ARXIV paper a couple years ago, and this concerns the entropy/progress of the universe as it expands, and the lightcome it has, but no one has done serious theoretical work here that I'm aware of. Getting access to warp and negative mass will foment the beginning of such discussions.
I was being facetious. I know there's a lot of development work in this, assuming it's real in the first place, which I'm still not convinced of. At this point, it looks like we will get the space drive. However, all of the FTL/warp/wormhole stuff remains very speculative. If I was a hard SF writer, I would have a space drive in my stories, but everything would be strictly sub-light and the action would be in our own solar system only (like Paul NcAuley's "Quiet War" stories).
The space drive alone will make it much easier and cheaper to do the O'neill "High Frontier" concept. We need to do the "High Frontier" thing before going to the stars anyways.
This made me wonder if the ME-Thruster makes a noise like cloth ripping, like Niven's gravity polarizer drives.
GIThruster wrote:Yes well, don't get too excited. While such a thing seems theoretically possible, we have no idea how one would steer/point such a device through space-time. I saw a discussion of this in an ARXIV paper a couple years ago, and this concerns the entropy/progress of the universe as it expands, and the lightcome it has, but no one has done serious theoretical work here that I'm aware of. Getting access to warp and negative mass will foment the beginning of such discussions.
You might want to take a look at John Cramer's recent Analog column, "Shooting Wormholes to the Stars":
