starship-design: Fwd: No Subject

[KellySt@aol.com]

---------------------
Forwarded message:
From:	lparker@cacaphony.net (L. Parker)
To:	kellyst@aol.com ('kellyst@aol.com')
Date: 97-04-13 23:35:29 EDT

Emerging Possibilities for Space Propulsion Breakthroughs



Originally published in the Interstellar Propulsion Society Newsletter, Vol.
I, No. 1, July 1, 1995. 

Marc G. Millis
Space Propulsion Technology Division
NASA Lewis Research Center
Cleveland, Ohio


The ideal interstellar propulsion system would be one that could get you to
other stars as quickly and comfortably as envisioned in science fiction.
Before this can become a reality, two scientific breakthroughs are needed:
discovery of a means to exceed light speed, and discovery of a means to
manipulate the coupling between mass and spacetime. This article explains why
these breakthroughs are needed and introduces the emerging possibilities that
may eventually lead to these breakthroughs. It should be noted that either of
these breakthroughs by itself would have revolutionary consequences which
would be of enormous value.

The need to exceed light speed: Simply put, the universe is big. The fastest
thing known is light, yet it takes over four years for light to reach our
nearest neighboring star. When NASA's Voyager spacecraft left our solar
system is was traveling around 37- thousand mph. At that rate it couldn't
reach the nearest star until after 80-thousand years. If we want to cruise to
other stars within comfortable time spans (say, less than a term in
Congress), we have to figure out a way to go faster than light.

The need to manipulate mass and spacetime coupling: This need is less obvious
than the light speed issue. The problem is fuel, or more specifically, rocket
propellant. Unlike a car that has the road to push against, or an airplane
that has the air to push against, rockets don't have roads or air in space.
Rockets have to carry along all the mass that they'll need to push against.
To circumvent this problem, we need to find a way to interact with spacetime
itself to induce propulsive forces without using propellant. This implies
that we'll need to find a way to alter a vehicle's inertia, its gravitational
field, or its  general relativity, it has been shown that faster than light
travel may be possible (ref 7). All you need to do is contract spacetime in
front of your ship and expand spacetime behind your ship. This "warped" space
and the region within it would propel itself "with an arbitrarily large
speed" (ref 7). Observers outside this "warp" would see it move faster than
the speed of light. Observers inside this "warp" would feel no acceleration
as they zip along at warp speed.

So what's the catch? First, to expand spacetime behind the ship you'll need
matter having a negative energy density like negative mass, and lots of it
too. It is unknown in physics whether negative mass or negative energy
densities can exist. Classical physics tends toward a "no," while quantum
physics leans to a "maybe, yes." Second, you'll need equal amounts of
positive energy density matter, positive mass, to contract spacetime in front
of the ship. Third, you'll need a way to control this effect to turn it on
and off at will. And lastly, there is the debate about whether this whole
"warp" would indeed move faster than the speed of light. To address this
speeding issue, the theory draws on the "inflationary universe" perspective.
The idea goes something like this: Even though light-speed is a limit within
spacetime, the rate at which spacetime itself can expand or contract is an
open issue. Back during the early moments of the Big Bang, spacetime expands
faster than the speed of light. So if spacetime can expand faster than the
speed of light during the Big Bang, why not for our warp drive?

Just prior to the publication of the above theory, there was a workshop held
at JPL to examine the possibilities for faster-than-light travel (ref 8).
Wormholes, tachyons, and alternate dimensions were just some of the topics
examined. The conclusions from this informal two-day workshop are as follows:

(1) Faster-than-light travel is beyond our current horizons. Not only is the
physics inadequately developed, but this physics is not oriented toward space
propulsion or toward laboratory scale experiments.

(2) Causality violations (where effect precedes cause) are unavoidable if
faster-than-light travel is possible, but it is uncertain whether causality
violations are themselves physically prohibited.

(3) A few experimental approaches are feasible to address the science
associated with faster- than-light travel, including:



(a) Search for evidence of wormholes using astronomical observations: look
for a group of co-moving stars or for the visual distortions indicative of a
negative mass hole entrance.

(b) Measure the velocity of light inside a Casimir cavity (between closely
spaced conductive plates) to search for evidence of negative space energy.
This pertains to wormholes, tachyons, and the negative energy density issue.

(c) Resolve the rest mass issue of the Neutrino, determining whether the
unconfirmed experimental evidence of imaginary mass is genuine.

(d) Study cosmic rays above the atmosphere, using scattering targets of know
composition to look for characteristic evidence of tachyons and more general
particle physics events. 





New ways to think of inertia and gravity: As mentioned earlier, the ideal
interstellar drive would have the ability to manipulate the connection
between mass and spacetime. One approach is to look for ways to use
electromagnetism, a phenomenon for which we are technologically proficient,
to control inertial or gravitational forces. It is known that gravity and
electromagnetism are coupled phenomena. In the formalism of general
relativity this coupling is described in terms of how mass warps the
spacetime against which electromagnetism is measured. In simple terms this
has the consequence that gravity appears to bend light, red-shift light and
slow time. These observations and the general relativistic formalism that
describes them have been confirmed (ref 9, 10). Although gravity's affects on
electromagnetism have been confirmed, the possibility of the reverse, of
using electromagnetism to affect y electromagnetic drag against the Zero
Point Fluctuations. Gravity, the attraction between masses, is described as
Van der Waals forces between oscillating dipoles, where these dipoles are the
charged particles that have been set into oscillation by the ZPE background.

It should be noted that these theories were not written in the context of
propulsion and do not yet provide direct clues for how to electromagnetically
manipulate inertia or gravity. Also, these theories are still too new to have
either been confirmed or discounted. Despite these uncertainties, typical of
any fledgling theory, these theories do provide new approaches to search for
breakthrough propulsion physics. Their utility and correctness remains to be
determined.

Another viewpoint on gravity and spacetime: As mentioned earlier, the ideal
interstellar drive must not use propellant. Instead the ideal drive would
have to use some means to push against spacetime itself. One of the major
objections to this notion is the issue of conservation of momentum (ref 19).
In order to satisfy conservation of momentum, something must act as a
reaction mass. For rockets it is the expelled propellant; for aircraft it is
the air. If one considers propelling against spacetime itself, then one must
entertain the possibility that the fields of spacetime have an energy or
momentum that can serve as a reaction mass. Although existing physics does
not provide this perspective, a recent theory has emerged that might. A news
article published in December 94 (ref 6) introduced a theory (ref 20) that is
challenging Einstein's general theory of relativity. The theory is generating
a bit of controversy because it claims that the Einstein field equations need
a slight correction. Without this correction it is claimed that the Einstein
equations can only predict the behavior of simple one-body problems (where
only one gravitating mass exists whose affect on an inconsequential test
particle is described). For two-body or n-body problems, this new theory
shows that the Einstein equations are inadequate. The required correction is
that another term must be added to the matter tensor, specifically a term for
the stress-energy tensor of the gravitational field itself. This suggests
that gravitational fields have an energy and momentum of their own. This may
be a foundation to address the issue of a reaction mass for the ideal space
drive.

Like the previously mentioned theories, it is uncertain whether this theory
is correct or not, but it is certain that this theory adds yet another
research path to search for breakthrough propulsion.

But wait, there's more: Another avenue to explore pushing against space is to
examine the contents of the vacuum that may be indicative of a reaction mass.
In addition to the items mentioned above, consider the following phenomena:
Cosmic Background Radiation (ref 21), Virtual Pair Production (ref 22), and
Dark Matter (ref 23). Whether any of these may constitute a reaction mass or
may be evidence for a reaction mass is uncertain.

In addition to these recent events, there have been occasional surveys by the
Air Force and others to examine science that may be applicable to propulsion
technology (refs 24-29). The options identified by these studies include
assessments of the technological status of many popular ideas, such as
light-sails, nuclear rockets, and antimatter rockets, plus they include
mention of more speculative work. Many of the more speculative ideas, from
alternative theories of gravity and electromagnetism through unconfirmed
anomalous effects, would be relativity simple to test. Very few of these
possibilities have been rigorously investigated.

As you can see, there are a number of dangling loose ends in physics that may
prove to be fruitful paths to the goal of creating the breakthroughs for
practical interstellar travel. Pick your favorite idea and let us know what
you discover.



REFERENCES

Note: An annotated bibligoraphy is available. 

1.Mallove, E.F., and Matloff, G.L., The Starflight Handbook, Wiley Science
Editions, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York (1989).



2. Gonick, L., "Science Classics (Warp-and-woof drive)", In Discover, p.
44-54, (DEC 1994).



3. Szpir, M, "Spacetime Hypersurfing?", In American Scientist, Vol. 82, p.
422-423, (September-October 1994)



4. Clarke, A. C., "Space Drive: A Fantasy That Could Become Reality", In Ad
Astra, p. 38, (Nov-Dec 1994)



5. Matthews, R., "Inertia: Does Empty Space Put Up the Resistance?", In
Science, Vol. 263, p. 612-613, (4 Feb 1994).



6. Peterson, I., "A New Gravity?, Challenging Einstein's General Theory of
Relativity", In Science News, Vol. 146, p. 376-378, (Dec 3, 1994).



7. Alcubierre, M., "The warp drive: hyper-fast travel within general
relativity", In Classical and Quantum Gravity, Vol 11, p. L73- L77, (1994). 

8. Bennett, G., "Warp Speed, Fact or Fiction?", In Final Frontier, p. 35-39,
(September-October 1994). 

9. Pool,R., "Closing in On Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity", In
Science, Vol. 250, p. 1207-1208, (Nov. 9, 1990).



10. Misner,C.W., Thorne,K.S., and Wheeler,J.A., Gravitation, W.H.Freeman and
Co., New York (1973). 

11. Haisch, B., Rueda, A., and Puthoff, H.E., "Inertia as a Zero-Point Field
Lorentz Force", In Physical Review A, Vol. 49, No. 2, p. 678- 694, (FEB 1994)


12. Puthoff,H.E., "Gravity as a zero-point-fluctuation force", In Physical
Review A, Vol. 39, N. 5, (A89-33278), p. 2333-2342, (Mar 1, 1989).



13. Boyer,T.H., "The Classical Vacuum", In Scientific American, p. 70-78,
(Aug 1985). 

14. Sparnaay, M. J., Measurements of Attractive Forces between Flat Plates,
In Physica, Vol. 24, p. 751-764, (1958).



15. Casimir,H.B.G., and Polder, D., "The Influence of Retardation on the
London-van der Waals Forces", In Physical Review, Vol.73, N.4, p.360-372,
(February 15, 1948). 

16. Boyer,T.M., "Random Electrodynamics: The Theory of Classical
Electromagnetic Zero-Point Radiation" In Physical Review D, Vol.11, N.4,
p.790-808, (Feb 15, 1975).





17. Puthoff,H.E., "Ground State of Hydrogen as a Zero-Point-Fluctuation-
Determined State", In Physical Review D, Vol.35, No.10, p.3266-3269, (15 May
1987).



18. Haroche,S. and Kleppner,D., "Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics" In Physics
Today, p.24-30, (January, 1989).



19. Millis, M. G., "Exploring the Notion of Space Coupling Propulsion", In
Vision 21: Space Travel for the Next Millennium, Symposium Proceedings, Apr
1990, NASA-CP-10059, p. 307-316, (1990).



20. Yilmaz, H., "Toward a Field Theory of Gravitation", In Il Nuovo Cimento,
Vol. 107B, no. 8, p. 941-960, (Aug 1992).



21. Muller, R. A., "The Cosmic Background Radiation and the new Aether
Drift", In Scientific American, Vol. 238, N. 5, p. 64-74, (May 1978).



22. Kaufmann, W. J. III, Black Holes and Warped Spacetime, pp 206-208, W. H.
Freeman and Co., San Francisco, (1979).



23. Krauss, L. M., "Dark Matter in the Universe", In Scientific American, p.
58-68, (Dec 1986).



24. Mead, F. B. ,Jr., et al, Advanced Propulsion Concepts - Project
Outgrowth, AFRPL-TR-72-31, (JUN 1972).



25. Forward, R. L., "Feasibility of Interstellar Travel: A Review", In Acta
Astronautica, Vol. 14, p 243-252, (1986)



26. Mead, F. B. ,Jr., "Exotic Concepts for Future Propulsion and Space
Travel", In Advanced Propulsion Concepts, 1989 JPM Specialist Session,
(JANNAF) Chemical Propulsion Information Agency, CPIA Publication 528,
p.93-99, (May 24, 1989).



27. Cravens,D.L., Electric Propulsion Study, AL-TR-89-040, Final Report on
Contract FO4611-88-C-0014, Air Force Astronautics Lab (AFSC), (Aug 1990).



28. Evans, R.A., British Aerospace Ltd. Co (BAe) University Round Table on
Gravitational Research, Report on Meeting held at the NOVOTEL Conf. Ctr.,
Preston , on March 26-27, 1990, FBS 007, (Nov 1990).

29. Forward, R. L., 21st Century Space Propulsion Study, AL-TR-90-030, Final
Report on Contract FO4611-87-C-0029, Air Force Astronautics Lab (AFSC), (Oct
1990). --AND-- Forward,R.L., 21st Century Space Propulsion Study (Addendum),
PL-TR-91-3022, Final (Addendum), OLAC Phillips Lab, formally known as Air
Force Astronautics Lab (AFSC), (June 1991).