New glass, ductile and stronger than steel

[KitemanSA]

"Glass is an amorphous (non-crystalline) solid material. . ."

IMNSHO this is another mis-appropriation of a perfectly good general purpose word (glass = amorphous silicate; as it has been known for millenia) and perversion by the elite.

[DeltaV]

Glass is lousy in tension (fiberglass excepted), great under compression: Glass Spheres

[JohnFul]

"Ruby or Emerald"

My, what a conundrum...

Speaking of which, Ruby is corundum otherwise know as aluminum oxide. Emerald is a beryl mineral, (Be3Al2(SiO3)6). You can actually go get emeralds at the only public emerald mine operating in the United States (Hiddenite NC http://www.hiddenitegems.com/ ) which is about a three hour drive from where I live. I've been up there a few times.

I prefer to go look for TiO2 crystals (Rutile) up at Graves Mountain GA http://www.exploregeorgia.org/Listing/O ... s-Mountain which is only about 40 miles from where I live. I have some nice 5-6" samples I got up there last year.

J

[GIThruster]

We already have transparent aluminum too. Not sure it's one of these funky materials, but I remember reading about it a few years back.

Yeah, isnt transparent aluminum called ruby or emerald? The trick of course is in manufacturing it in bulk.

I think you're thinking of synthetic sapphire which is an aluminum oxide. It is manufactured in large quantities. You'll find it as the crystal in many watches, especially dive watches intended for deep waters, and in armored vehicles since it's much stronger than silicon glass.

[Skipjack]

I believe that they just recently got better at making "saphire glass". They can make larger plates of it now.

[CaptainBeowulf]

ductile glass is ho-hum "schtick" out of Caltech and warp drive research is all-there

Well look on the bright side. For the last ten years, we've had "starship window" glass. Good enough for big observation windows out into space without being weaker than the rest of the hull.

Really, apart from the impossible physics stuff (warp drives), we've actually been creating most of the technologies shown in sci-fi shows from the 1950s-70s (cell phones = personal communicators, wall-mountable flat panel televisions = starship Enterprise's viewscreen, etc.).

[Skipjack]

The saphire glass already existed before StarTrek 4 though.
In the movie that was just a joke for those who know.

[GIThruster]

Well look on the bright side. For the last ten years, we've had "starship window" glass. Good enough for big observation windows out into space without being weaker than the rest of the hull.

Really, apart from the impossible physics stuff (warp drives), we've actually been creating most of the technologies shown in sci-fi shows from the 1950s-70s (cell phones = personal communicators, wall-mountable flat panel televisions = starship Enterprise's viewscreen, etc.).

I wouldn't call warp drives "impossible physics". I think Kip Thorne showed back in the late '80's that warp drives and wormhole generators are both quite possible, but you have to have negative mass with negative inertia. There's nothing that says such mass is impossible, but it would be very difficult to find in nature. For one to make practical applications from negative mass, one would need to make it from regular mass--also not impossible but a difficult task to be sure.

[kurt9]

Sapphire glass is often used for view-port windows on vacuum chambers. Its much stronger than regular glass and has better chemical and thermal stability.

I think the gems such as Ruby and Emerald are doped Al2O3.

[CaptainBeowulf]

Warp drives are impossible physics based on our current understanding - sure, there are loopholes in our understanding of physics which may make them possible, but no promising leads so far.

I watched Heim theory for a while, but it seemed to be just too much of a confused mess. The little outburst of excitement over on Physorg it in the mid-2000s seems to have blown over now.

There's also the whole Mach thruster business, which is IMO is more at the level of an experiment to determine whether one theory of how inertia works is right or wrong. I'd be interested to see the result, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

In 1996 Alcubierre also showed that you can write mathematics for a "warp drive" that don't violate the laws of physics, and Van den Broeck later modified his design.

However, the whole question around warp drives and wormholes is whether substantial amounts of negative energy exist in nature, or can be manufactured and maintained in a stable form. We have no proof that large amounts of concentrated exotic matter which could generate negative energy (negative mass, negative inertia) can be made.

It's possible that negative energy which could drive expansion or some such only manifests over very large distances. Once again, we're in one of those situations where just because you can't prove it's impossible doesn't mean it's possible...

[CaptainBeowulf]

Looking at that other thread on antimatter and anti-gravity, if antimatter repels regular matter, it could be used to create a gravity drive, but as far as I can tell it still would have positive mass and positive inertia. Such a drive might get close to the speed of light, which actually makes interstellar travel entirely possible for those who aren't hung up on going home again, but it wouldn't allow for FTL.

[GIThruster]

Warp drives are impossible physics based on our current understanding - sure, there are loopholes in our understanding of physics which may make them possible, but no promising leads so far. . .

There's also the whole Mach thruster business, which is IMO is more at the level of an experiment to determine whether one theory of how inertia works is right or wrong. I'd be interested to see the result, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

In 1996 Alcubierre also showed that you can write mathematics for a "warp drive" that don't violate the laws of physics, and Van den Broeck later modified his design.

However, the whole question around warp drives and wormholes is whether substantial amounts of negative energy exist in nature, or can be manufactured and maintained in a stable form. We have no proof that large amounts of concentrated exotic matter which could generate negative energy (negative mass, negative inertia) can be made.

Sorry but I can't agree. What modern physics says is, that negative mass and negative inertia are quite possible, even probable.

Maybe we just have different definitions as to what is "possible"?

The best physics of our day say negative mass and negative inertia are "possible", so warp and wormholes are as well.

You're right to connect the issue with Woodward's work, and you're right to say you have little confidence here, but when we talk about what is "possible", surely we have to admit that Woodward's work is such.

Warp Drive and Wormholes are certainly, theoretically "possible". Whether they're likely needs to wait on experiment.

[icarus]

I have no idea which part of the topic title or the first post screams to you people, "let's discuss warp drive physics sci-fi here!"

Take it somewhere else.

[GIThruster]

"Yes Mom. . ." geeesss, the nag follows me everywhere.