What is Digg?115 Comments
- Ooddiey, on 08/15/2008, -3/+64Hmmmm I think we should have this technology around 2063 just my estimate.
- rawg, on 08/15/2008, -0/+34Wasn't this how the warp drive was explained in the Star Trek Technical Manual?
- syxxness, on 08/15/2008, -0/+31Pretty sure that this idea has been around for years. This guy isn't the first to think about this. In fact, I would say that the general concept of this probably was thought of sometime shortly after Einstein published his Relativity papers. Not to mention that Kaku and other rockstar physicists like to talk about this stuff all the time to get hype going in physics.
- syxxness, on 08/15/2008, -0/+30Yes, very similar. Not to mention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
And thats from '94... - cnot3, on 08/16/2008, -0/+23Well its a hell of a lot easier when Geordi LaForge comes back in time and helps you work out the kinks.
- S2000, on 08/16/2008, -0/+22FTA: "All this extraordinary feat requires, says the new study, is for scientists to harness a mysterious and poorly understood cosmic antigravity force, called dark energy."
Well, glad to hear it won't be too difficult. - TheMachine1, on 08/16/2008, -0/+21All that means is Jupiter's days are now numbered.
- transmothra, on 08/16/2008, -1/+19Why would there be ANY need for a cause? And what science contradicts the big bang? The big bang is accepted by just about every legitimate researcher out there. Most other plausible theories are just offshoots that still involve a big goddamn explosion. Even a lot of thoughtful theologians accept it.
- jgzman, on 08/16/2008, -1/+19Preceded immediately by an attack by some steampunk cosplayers gone terribly wrong.
- TheRealDeuce, on 08/16/2008, -0/+15April 5th, 2063
- sjbdallas, on 08/16/2008, -0/+15Engage!
- syxxness, on 08/15/2008, -2/+15Actually. It's not much different, if any, than wormhole. The problem is mainly getting an energy/mass source powerful enough to actually manipulate that stuff. We are most likely very very far off from achieving this. And the mass of Jupiter as an energy estimate is is probably a bit to modest. My guess is probably the mass of the solar system or more. We can't even harness the power output of our sun's fusion reactions, let alone the entire mass of it combined. Unless the LHC makes some VERY startling breakthroughs, it's unlikely that this could be achieved (assuming GR is even correct) even in the next several hundred years.
Not to mention the fact that the so called Dark Matter/Energy thing brings at least some doubt to the accuracy of relativity and the actual shape of the universe, but I won't go there. - inactive, on 08/16/2008, -2/+15Its called a "flux capacitor" and it takes 1.21 gigawatts to work.
- ExRe, on 08/16/2008, -1/+13But we'll have BREAKING NEWS about a new breakthrough in warp drive every few months until then. A breakthrough that is certain to allow you to purchase a space ship with warp drive in less than a year!
- Lucifugerising, on 08/16/2008, -0/+12Make it so...
- whazdown, on 08/16/2008, -1/+11''All this extraordinary feat requires, says the new study, is for scientists to harness a mysterious and poorly understood cosmic antigravity force called dark matter..''
Oh, is that it? - MacEnvy, on 08/16/2008, -0/+8Yeah, we've been working on that since the 70s. Nice to see it come to fruition though.
- inactive, on 08/16/2008, -0/+7THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!
- Lucifugerising, on 08/16/2008, -0/+6If only we could turn jerk off sauce into a conveinent form of renewable energy...
- hadak, on 08/16/2008, -0/+6I've solved it! A windmill near a black hole will give us enough energy!
- MacEnvy, on 08/16/2008, -0/+6Alcubierre has had warp drive worked out mathematically for decades.
- gquaglia, on 08/16/2008, -1/+7Right, just about the same time we have flying cars that run on hydrogen. We can't even build an electric car that will go for more then 100 miles without a recharge, do you really think we can come anywhere near the power requirements needed to manipulate space/time for this to work. Maybe in few hundred years, but nowhere in the foreseeable future.
- h4mx0r, on 08/16/2008, -0/+6followed by the war of the machines.
- m3sm3r, on 08/16/2008, -0/+6"Richard Obousy computed the amount of energy required to start up a "warp" process (but not the total energy required to travel a specific distance) around a 10x10x10 metre-cube ship..."
So his plans are to assimilate the needed technology? - EmperorAwesome, on 08/16/2008, -0/+5***** Jupiter.
- Camaroman, on 08/16/2008, -0/+5I'll be old as hell. *****
- BossKey, on 08/16/2008, -0/+5We shoulda asked Scotty about it back when they landed in San Francisco that one time.
- landshrk, on 08/16/2008, -0/+5Make it so, Number One.
- Niightwitch, on 08/16/2008, -1/+6"it's unlikely that this could be achieved...even in the next several hundred years."
That's actually fortunate because, as a species, we're nowhere near being able to handle all that moving through the universe like that entails.....maybe in five or six hundred years we'll be more mature, better able to handle that level of responsibility. - MacSuxWindozSux, on 08/16/2008, -2/+6If you saw something like this actually happen. The ship would appear to stretch forward into the far distance and then the tail end would follow.
Would take 3h43mins to reach the nearest star. - TheIguana, on 08/16/2008, -0/+4Would be amazing if it were actually possible, but I am going to take the stance that most other scientists will. Skepticism. Yes warp drive, very cool, but please guys show some experimentally repeatable results before clamoring over to journalism majors who have likely never touched a physics textbook in their lives.
- raydeen, on 08/16/2008, -0/+4Sheldon and Leonard should have no problem working this out. Oh wait...different Big Bang Theory.
- sdubois92, on 08/16/2008, -0/+4Now if only Stargates were real...
- modifiedbears, on 08/16/2008, -3/+7This will never happen.
FTA: "The energy to kick start the drive turned out to be equivalent to turning the entire mass of Jupiter into energy, by Einstein's famous E equals Mc squared equation, where c is the speed of light. Given the mass of Jupiter is around 2000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms, that is a big number." - TaintBrush, on 08/16/2008, -0/+4Oh! So all we have to do is harness dark energy? Piece of cake!
- jp12380, on 08/16/2008, -0/+3Which by the way it is doubted if that "dark energy" even exists.
- Tallon29, on 08/16/2008, -0/+3Oh yeah? Well I helped John Titor load some stuff into his trunk.
- gamerzworld, on 08/16/2008, -0/+3Thanks for the complement!
- temsi, on 08/16/2008, -1/+4Actually, the link you provided proves my point.
This is how you used the word:
"In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality."
and not this way:
"In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation."
You've made an incorrect assumption in your own understanding of the word.
Whenever someone says "it's just a theory" that implies "it's just speculation, and not based on evidence".
That's essentially what you said - it may not have been what you meant, but it is what you said... - lordwow, on 08/16/2008, -0/+3Now all we need are the damn inertial dampers.
- AndrewDS, on 08/16/2008, -1/+4If the "cybernetic beings from the future" don't stop them first.
- DDION, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2Actually, they said it was dark energy, not dark matter.
Wake me up when we even have a handle on dark matter, let alone the other.... - skeez86, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2"No, actually there are only a relatively few people who actually work on such things. The rest simply accept what they are told because...they are being told by other scientists."
Welcome to the definition of science.
You accept what they say because they have sound scientific explanation. If you can't believe something you haven't worked on yourself, there would be absolutely no progress in any field.
It's not like there's some master book telling everyone the way things are so they can blindly follow it. (ie. bible)
It is very evident that you are amercian because you display an utter lack of scientific understanding. Go go invisible man in the sky. - kingvik, on 08/16/2008, -1/+3Everything is impossible until it's possible.
- credence, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2Actually, he's right. If the car in bttf didn't travel through space too, then he's damned lucky to keep winding up where he started since the earth rotates constantly. If you jump back 12 hours forward/backwards in time, you should be in the ocean or asia if you aren't moving when this happens.
- temsi, on 08/16/2008, -2/+4Actually, you are confusing the word theory with the word hypothesis.
Confusion like that is what the Intelligent Design morons rely on in order to dismiss the observed fact of biological evolution as "just a theory."
A theory is not just an idea someone pulled out of their ass, nor is it an empty speculation.
A theory is a carefully thought out set of rules designed to explain a natural phenomenon; a set of rules which can be tested.
In this case, there's a hypothetical explanation of how this might work. There's no practical way to test this, nor is this based on observation of any kind of natural behavior. This is simply a couple of scientists speculating within the guidelines of what we know about physics, on how this might be possible in real life.
In daily usage of the word, "theory" has taken on the meaning of conjecture or speculation, which has nothing to do with the scientific meaning of the word.
Here, you are throwing about the word "theory" in a scientific context, but your use of it indicates the "daily usage" meaning of the word - which is not applicable here.
Since this isn't testable until we harness the power of anti-matter, this is hypothetical, and not a theory.
Science is about testing hypotheses. Once tested and a predictable outcome is achieved, then a theory is formed on how it works. Peer review doesn't technically test the theory itself, it tests the same hypothesis, and the outcome either supports the existing theory or challenges it.
Now, this is my understanding of it - but as an amateur, not a professional.
If someone here actually is a physicist or a scientist who deals with hypotheses and theories regularly, please correct me if I'm wrong. - Hurricane, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2This nothing but math, no real way of implementing it, just a way to prove that it does not violate previously set rules.
- BrentDPayne, on 08/16/2008, -1/+3Umm doesn't the sun have the amount of energy that's needed to jumpstart this rusty 10x10x10 pile of bricks? Surely they thought about figuring out a way to propel this cube into the sun and use it's energy to create the necessary jumpstart right?
But what do I know. I'm a cold fusion believer. Yes, that's right. Call me nuts, but then again I held the cathodes and the heavy water at Marvin Hawkins house in Trementon, UT. - landshrk, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2...?
- overridemymind, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2*sigh* transmothra... what MacSux is saying is that when the spacecraft "jumped to warp" IE accelerated to c, As it was accelerating, it would give the optical illusion of stretching, because light is still travelling to the eye, even though the object is no longer present -- basically an optical version of a sonic boom.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 119 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is