...theoretically, electromagnetic energy could be converted into gravity...

Time to build one....

http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=337?


Heim's attempt to heal this divide added four "sub-space" dimensions to Einstein's four, making a total of eight. Later he decided that two of the dimensions were unnecessary, and removed them from the theory. His two sub-space dimensions coupled the forces of electromagnetism and gravity, which meant that theoretically, electromagnetic energy could be converted into gravity. This is the principle that his hyperdrive idea was based upon. The theory was so compelling and the math worked out so well that after Heim announced it, Wernher von Braun– the man leading the Saturn 5 rocket program– contacted Heim and asked him whether the Saturn 5 was a waste of money.

Inte4resting

This will require a huge rotating ring placed above a superconducting coil to create an intense magnetic field. With a large enough current in the coil, and a large enough magnetic field, Dröscher claims the electromagnetic force can reduce the gravitational pull on the ring to the point where it floats free. Dröscher and Häuser say that to completely counter Earth's pull on a 150-tonne spacecraft a magnetic field of around 25 tesla would be needed. While that's 500,000 times the strength of Earth's magnetic field, pulsed magnets briefly reach field strengths up to 80 tesla. And Dröscher and Häuser go further. With a faster-spinning ring and an even stronger magnetic field, gravitophotons would interact with conventional gravity to produce a repulsive anti-gravity force, they suggest.

Long ago, a friend of mine wanted to design one and wanted me to design the control system. I think the catch would be to find a cheaper superconducting high Tesla system. May be one of these days....

This will require a huge rotating ring placed above a superconducting coil to create an intense magnetic field. With a large enough current in the coil, and a large enough magnetic field, Dröscher claims the electromagnetic force can reduce the gravitational pull on the ring to the point where it floats free. Dröscher and Häuser say that to completely counter Earth's pull on a 150-tonne spacecraft a magnetic field of around 25 tesla would be needed. While that's 500,000 times the strength of Earth's magnetic field, pulsed magnets briefly reach field strengths up to 80 tesla. And Dröscher and Häuser go further. With a faster-spinning ring and an even stronger magnetic field, gravitophotons would interact with conventional gravity to produce a repulsive anti-gravity force, they suggest.

Does any of this actually work? Has a scale model of this ever defied gravity?

Why rotating though? What does a rotating magnetic field provide that a static field does not?

Does this theory unify all 4 fundamental forces or just Electromagnetism and Gravity?

Proposed methods of interstellar travel
If a spaceship could average 10 percent of light speed, this would be enough to reach Proxima Centauri in forty years. Several propulsion systems are conceivably able to achieve this, but none of them are ready for near-term (few decades) development at realistic cost.


Nuclear pulse propulsion
Since the 1960s it has been technically possible to build spaceships with nuclear pulse propulsion engines, i.e. ships driven by a series of nuclear explosions. This propulsion system contains the prospect of very high specific impulse (space travel's equivalent of fuel economy) and high speed, and therefore of reaching the nearest star in decades rather than centuries; construction and operational costs per unit of payload were expected to be similar to those of ships using chemical rockets.[4]

Proposed interstellar spacecraft using nuclear pulse propulsion include Project Orion and Project Longshot. Using miniature nuclear bombs as fuel, Orion would be able to reach a velocity of 10% of the speed of light. It is one of very few known interstellar spacecraft proposals that could be constructed entirely with today's technology.


Fusion rockets
Fusion rocket starships, using foreseeable fusion reactors, should be able to reach speeds of approximately 10 percent of that of light. These would "burn" such light element fuels as deuterium, tritium, or 3He. One proposal using a fusion rocket is Project Daedalus. Because fusion yields on the order of 1% of the mass of the nuclear fuel as released energy, it is energetically more favorable than fission, which releases only on the order of 0.1% of the fuel's mass-energy. However the most achievable fusion reactions release a large fraction of their energy as high-energy neutrons, which are not simple to use for propulsion.

A problem with all traditional rocket propulsion methods is that the spacecraft would need to carry its fuel with it, thus making it quite heavy. The following three methods attempt to solve this problem.


Interstellar ramjets
In 1960 Robert W. Bussard proposed the Bussard ramjet, a fusion rocket in which a huge scoop would collect the diffuse hydrogen in interstellar space, "burn" it on the fly using a proton-proton fusion reaction, and expel it out of the back. Though later calculations with more accurate estimates suggest that the thrust generated would be less than the drag caused by any conceivable scoop design, the idea is attractive because, as the fuel would be collected en route, the craft could theoretically accelerate to near the speed of light.


Antimatter rockets
An antimatter rocket would have a far higher energy density and specific impulse than any other proposed class of rocket. Assuming that energy resources and efficient production methods are found to make antimatter in the quantities required, theoretically it would be possible to reach speeds near that of light, where time dilation would shorten perceived trip times for the travelers considerably.


Beamed propulsion
A light sail or magnetic sail powered by a massive laser or particle accelerator in the home star system could potentially reach even greater speeds than rocket- or pulse propulsion methods, because it would not need reaction mass and therefore would not need to accelerate that as well as the payload. In theory a lightsail driven by a laser or other beam from Earth can be used to decelerate a spacecraft approaching a distant star or planet, by detaching part of the sail and using it to focus the beam on the forward-facing surface of the rest of the sail.[5] A magnetic sail could also decelerate to its destination without fuel, by interacting with the plasma found in the solar wind of the destination star and the interstellar medium.

Beamed propulsion seems to be the best interstellar travel technique presently available, since it uses known physics and known technology that is being developed for other purposes,[3] and would be considerably cheaper than nuclear pulse propulsion.

The following table lists some example concepts using beamed lased propulsion as proposed by the physicist Robert L. Forward[5][6]

Mission Laser Power Vehicle Mass Acceleration Sail Diameter Maximum Velocity (% of the speed of light)
1. Flyby 65 GW 1 t 0.036 g 3.6 km 0.11 @ 0.17 ly
2. Rendezvous
outbound stage 7,200 GW 785 t 0.3 g 100 km 0.21 @ 2.1 ly
deleceration stage 26,000 GW 71 t 0.2 g 30 km 0.21 @ 4.3 ly
3. Manned
outbound stage 75,000,000 GW 78,500 t 0.3 g 1000 km 0.50 @ 0.4 ly
deleceration stage 17,000,000 GW 7,850 t 0.3 g 320 km 0.50 @ 10.4 ly
return stage 17,000,000 GW 785 t 0.3 g 100 km 0.50 @ 10.4 ly
deceleration stage 430,000 GW 785 t 0.3 g 100 km 0.50 @ 0.4 ly


Further speculative methods

Light speed travel/ FTL faster than light

Interstellar travel via transmission
Main article: Teleportation
If physical entities could be transmitted as information and reconstructed at a destination, travel precisely at the speed of light would be possible. Note that, under General Relativity, information cannot travel faster than light. The speed increase when compared to near-light-speed travel would therefore be minimal for outside observers, but for the travelers the journey would become instantaneous.

Encoding, sending and then reconstructing an atom by atom description of (say) a human body is a daunting prospect, but it may be sufficient to send software that in all practical purposes duplicates the neural function of a person. Presumably, the receiver/reconstructor for such transmissions would have to be sent to the destination by more conventional means. Tachyons could not be used for communication.


Faster than light travel
Main article: faster-than-light
Scientists and authors have postulated a number of ways by which it might be possible to surpass the speed of light. Even the most serious-minded of these are speculative.


Warped spacetime
According to Einstein's equation of General Relativity, spacetime is curved:



General relativity may permit the travel of an object faster than light in curved spacetime.[7] One could imagine exploiting the curvature to take a "shortcut" from one point to another. This is one form of the Warp Drive concept.

In physics, the Alcubierre drive is based on an argument that the curvature could take the form of a wave in which a spaceship might be carried in a "bubble". Space would be collapsing at one end of the bubble and expanding at the other end. The motion of the wave would carry a spaceship from one space point to another in less time than light would take through unwarped space. Nevertheless, the spaceship would not be moving faster than light within the bubble. This concept would require the spaceship to incorporate a region of exotic matter, or "negative mass."


Wormholes
Wormholes are conjectural distortions in space-time that theorists postulate could connect two arbitrary points in the universe, across an Einstein-Rosen Bridge. It is not known whether or not wormholes are possible in practice. Although there are solutions to the Einstein equation of general relativity which allow for wormholes, all of the currently known solutions involve some assumption, for example the existence of negative mass, which may be unphysical.[8] However, Cramer et al. argue that such wormholes might have been created in the early universe, stabilized by cosmic string.[9] The general theory of wormholes is discussed by Visser in the book Lorentzian Wormholes[10]

Sorry if this is a little vague but i just cut and stuck it from another arcticle.

Alcubierre drive is a non-starter.
If anyone's particularly interested I can dig out the papers/ links that outline the insuperable problems with it.

Could you post me those links about it being a non-starter, i understand the basics as long as its spoon fed laymans terms that is.

First two I had on my hard drive -
http://doc.cern.ch/archive/electronic/other/ext/ext-2004-110.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9906/9906050v4.pdf

And I vaguely remember John Cramer's "Alternate View" column discusses some of the problems, this is a link to the index page, you'll have to search from there (and enjoy the other articles while you're at it).

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/av_index.html

Does this theory unify all 4 fundamental forces or just Electromagnetism and Gravity?

I think EMF and Gravity is related. Someone doing research in hypercharge also thinks so.....

Does this theory unify all 4 fundamental forces or just Electromagnetism and Gravity?I thought electromagnetism and the two nuclear forces had already been united. Isn't finding a way to join gravity into that group the Holy Grail of physics? The Grand Unified Theory of Everything or G.U.T.E.?

I thought electromagnetism and the two nuclear forces had already been united. Isn't finding a way to join gravity into that group the Holy Grail of physics? The Grand Unified Theory of Everything or G.U.T.E.?

As far as I was aware, yes.
Hence my question, if this theory unifies all 4 forces then surely it would be a leading candidate for the theory of everything.
Since that doesn't seem to be the case, I figured there had to be some reason, and guessed that that might be it.

Perhaps Ben, AlphaNumeric or someone else similarly knowledgeable can enlighten us.

It appears that Droscher & Hauser have published another paper on "Gravitational Field Propulsion"; with supporting data from Dr Tajmar's latest experiments, and the Gravity Probe B data.

Of particular note were the paragraphs toward the end of their paper.

"The following assumptions were made for the experiment producing the vertical gravity-like field : N =10, number of turns of the solenoid, current of about 13.6A (needed to calculate Bz), diameter of solenoid 0.15 m, and vTq =50 m/s. The disk should be placed directly above the solenoid to produce a magnetic field in z-direction only. This experiment should give an acceleration field of about ggp = 6 x 10-3gez; which is an appreciable field acting directly above the rotating disk.

From these numbers it seems to be feasible that, if our theoretical predictions are correct the realization of a space propulsion device that can lift itself from the surface of the Earth is within current technological limits.

For a more realistic propulsion device in order to generate a force of 1.98 x 10^6N, a mass of 3.15 x 10^3kg and a rotation speed of 200 m=s, a coil of 1 m diameter with 2,500 turns and a current of 13.6 A was calculated. The
cross section area of the coil was determined to be about 2.5 x 10^-2 m2. These numbers will be recomputed in our forthcoming review article. All trip times given in (Dröscher,W., J. Hauser: Guidelines For a Space Propulsion Device Based on Heim’s Quantum Theory, AIAA 2004-3700,
40th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASE, Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 11-14 July 2004, 31 pp.) remain unchanged, but as can be seen from the specifications above, technical requirements were substantially reduced and should be feasible employing current technology. The reason for this change is boson instead of fermion (vacuum polarization) coupling."

Things are definately looking interesting. This is a size device that could be built by a university physics group, or maybe even an enterprising backyard engineer.

...theoretically, electromagnetic energy could be converted into gravity...

Time to build one....

http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=337?

Should be in pseudoscience...

Which part? Heim's theory or in general?

Saw this on the net. You are the expert.


In the 1950s, Heim had predicted what he termed a 'contrabary' effect whereby photons, under the influence of a strong magnetic field in a certain configuration, could be transformed into 'gravito-photons', which would provide an artificial gravity force. This idea caused great interest at the time. A recent series of experiments by Martin Tajmar et al., partly funded by ESA, may have produced the first evidence of artificial gravity (about 18 orders of magnitude greater than what General Relativity predicts). As of late 2006[update], groups at Berkeley and elsewhere were attempting to reproduce this effect. By applying their 'gravito-photon' theory to bosons, Dröscher and Häuser were able to predict the size and direction of the effect . A further prediction of Heim-Dröscher theory shows how a different arrangement of the experiment by Tajmar et al. could produce a vertical force against the direction of the Earth's gravity.

Should be in pseudoscience...

Prolly, since this is pretty much how the current "UFO" myths explain flying saucer style travel.

Should be in pseudoscience...
Concur.

How about changing the story to electro-magnetic propulsion? Some items hinted here and I am sure we can dig up some thought with NASA and Boeing?

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9dlgt_the-secret-to-antigravity-revealed_tech

If this does not get traction, I will move it to PS. Never fight conventional wisdom. Not worth it.

Should be in pseudoscience...

why?

Prolly, since this is pretty much how the current "UFO" myths explain flying saucer style travel.

why?

Because YOUR BOSS says so?

Concur.

why?

Because YOUR BOSSES AND PEERS say so?

...theoretically, electromagnetic energy could be converted into gravity...

Time to build one....



It is very interesting to review the published work of many famous scientists of the late 1800s. A short list: Heaviside, Voigt, J. J. Thomson, Fitzgerald, Lorentz. They had worked out extensive mathematical theories explaining gravity, inertial mass, and, momentum, in terms of electromagnetic theory.

So, theoretically, gravity could be converted into electromagnetic energy. Except, darn it, all the work of those crackpots was proved totally wrong.......

I was wondering about something???? Why would you want to use a superconducter?? Magnetic fields can be overlapped in a way to create a magnetic field stronger then a superconducter.... Also why dont you use a non conventional way to increase the magnetic field strength through a non equilibrium gas or even liquid nitrogen and then electrify it by passing it through another set of electro magnets. I see all of this hard work that people want to do but get discoraged when they realize the daunting task ahead of them. why not simplify the problem to create a solution to the bigger issue. Why dont we have hyperdrive or ftl engines yet we have the knowlegde and the materials but what is holding us back.???????

Why dont we have hyperdrive or ftl engines yet we have the knowlegde and the materials but what is holding us back.???????
Because we don't have the knowledge: and without the knowledge we don't know if we have the materials.

So, theoretically, gravity could be converted into electromagnetic energy.Well sure. It's all quarks and leptons and bosons after all. (Got that from our AE&C subforum.:)) But the GUTE (Grand Unified Theory of Everything) is not complete, and we in fact have not been able to fit gravity into a nice neat paradigm with electromagnetism and the two nuclear forces. So the conversion is only a speculation based on reasoning.
Why dont we have hyperdrive or ftl engines yet we have the knowlegde and the materials but what is holding us back.?Huh??? I think you're confusing "Star Trek" with reality. Our state of the art in science tells us that FTL travel is impossible, with the possible exception of transmitting rudimentary information between pairs of elementary particles.

Why rotating though? What does a rotating magnetic field provide that a static field does not?

probably compensates for string theory linear harmonic inconsistencies.

Originally Posted by kmguru
Why rotating though? What does a rotating magnetic field provide that a static field does not?probably compensates for string theory linear harmonic inconsistencies.
No, it compensates for clueless people spouting specious technobabble.

No, it compensates for clueless people spouting specious technobabble.

why troll ?
is that all you can do ?

step up to the debate and simply explain why that does not relate to what i have suggested as a theory instead of trying to look clever to the ignorant.

why troll ?
is that all you can do ?
On the contrary, the trolling is yours.


step up to the debate and simply explain why that does not relate to what i have suggested as a theory instead of trying to look clever to the ignorant.
"Look clever to the ignorant"?
This from someone who strings several unrelated words together in an effort to look technical?
"Suggested as a theory"?
Please, go ahead and show us:
1) these "linear harmonic inconsistencies" in string theory and then
2) how a rotating magnetic field compensates for them.

I'm sure there's any number of real physicists waiting with bated breath for your "insights".

why?

Because YOUR BOSSES AND PEERS say so?

Why?

Because your TIN FOIL HAT thinks you should build one?

The rotation has to deal with a concept called, "frame dragging."

You could engage in frame dragging in a linear fashion, but that wouldn't do you much good; as you'd be constantly running away from the generated field. The rotating coil (or superconductor, I've seen claims of either) keeps the region of dragging immediately over the device.

The last time I sat down and crunched numbers, the use of a rotating superconductor required a super conductor 1? 2? meters in diameter and weighing about 3 tons, spinning at about 10,000 rpm. I don't know of anyone with that much superconducting material.

I'm not sure if this is correct - something's flawed with the reasoning.

AlanCast said "If a spaceship could average 10 percent of light speed, this would be enough to reach Proxima Centauri in forty years."

It would be roughly 80 years - unless you didn't intend to stop.

Why?

Because your TIN FOIL HAT thinks you should build one?

What the...

I don't ever remember making this post. Seriously. :bugeye:

That was a little harsh. I'm sorry. :shrug:

The rotation has to deal with a concept called, "frame dragging."

You could engage in frame dragging in a linear fashion, but that wouldn't do you much good; as you'd be constantly running away from the generated field. The rotating coil (or superconductor, I've seen claims of either) keeps the region of dragging immediately over the device.

The last time I sat down and crunched numbers, the use of a rotating superconductor required a super conductor 1? 2? meters in diameter and weighing about 3 tons, spinning at about 10,000 rpm. I don't know of anyone with that much superconducting material.

Hmmm, I take it that mechanical advantage doesn't exist in hyperspace. Hmmm, maybe does. It would seem that they do.
Hmmm, that means that you could achieve the same results through application of systems that minic their physical space traits.

I suppose using stepped superconducting magnets would make the power easier to manage, and less than conventional magnets of the same weight. There have been some encouraging new developments in high temp superconducting wire recently as well reducing the need for super-coolants. I wouldn't want to be sitting near a 3-5 tonne ring spinning that fast when it decides it's bearings can no longer hold out.
I have seen an EM ring levitate, but have no idea how it was done. Maybe some hidden magnets. Also, some of the newer exotic superconducting magnets look quite cool, but whether they can be adapted for experiments like these is another matter, most of them appear to be dipole magnets.

While this may not be the place, since it is my OP (I forgot all about it) I am reading UFOs - myths, conspiracies, and realities by John B. Alexander, PhD. Very interesting in the sense that the UFOs were able to pull 40g and 90 degree turns. That means either the craft was unmanned or had the Star Trek type Intertial Dampners...

One of these days, after I set up my Research Lab for nuclear research in South Africa, I am thinking of sneaking in my pet project - to develop a 100+ Tesla field and play with it in various configurations...to see what happens.

The fact that UFOs seem to inhibit aircrafts electronics - high magnetic field could be a cause.

40g and 90 degree turns.
Even if a craft can handle such forces why should they?

I have an idea about a super-drive (no Hyperdrive).
But I will talk later about it.

I suppose using stepped superconducting magnets would make the power easier to manage, and less than conventional magnets of the same weight. There have been some encouraging new developments in high temp superconducting wire recently as well reducing the need for super-coolants. I wouldn't want to be sitting near a 3-5 tonne ring spinning that fast when it decides it's bearings can no longer hold out.
I have seen an EM ring levitate, but have no idea how it was done. Maybe some hidden magnets. Also, some of the newer exotic superconducting magnets look quite cool, but whether they can be adapted for experiments like these is another matter, most of them appear to be dipole magnets.

Don't forget the the material itself is subject to stress. 10000 rpms would either have to have a structure that would be a VERY solid material for your superconductor. (colder is denser unless the materials acts like a crystal at low tempertures), OR a VERY small rotating superconductor - to keep the mass down (then it would have to be a VERY effective superconductor) for a "warmer" superconductor.

The bearings, if they were physically connected, would pretty much have to be part of the rotating mass - adding to its energy gradent + providing a stablization surplus (depending on the shape and drag coefficient +adding to the kinetic friction problems). Magnetic Grapplers may be the answer, but would require a measured distance so that "other" forces (buried iron nails, iron in the red brick of buildings, etc) would not unbalance the rotation, if the magnetic field was too large (tenuous but extended) or intense (locally).

Micro-superconductors build in tandem may be an answer. Then the field would be limited in size, but providing an extended field effect that would power the system, providing not more than was put in, but more than is required to run the superconductor - allowing for more through-put.

Additionally if something went wrong the damage would localized - comparatively (if you are in a car wreck it feels differently than if you are watching one), but at least you wouldn't destroy the building or craft.

Even if a craft can handle such forces why should they?

Why would someone drive a metal carriage at 45 miles an hour when the horse and buggy looks normal...:)

Why would someone drive a metal carriage at 45 miles an hour when the horse and buggy looks normal...
It's not the speed in a straight line I'm wondering abouth imagen if in stead of smooth lines or circles you had downright corners on the highway. At best it would keep the speed limit down but most likely it would result on metal stress and accidents.
In all making extreme manauvres is stupid unless you want to avoid something

...theoretically, electromagnetic energy could be converted into gravity...

Time to build one....

To convert electro magnetism into gravity, you need to output cold instead of heat. This is done because gravity is based on cold air dragging everything down, like a blanket. To make it generate 'cold' you should follow the priciple for an air conditioner - this will load the travel with 'gravitons', as I call it.

This is done because gravity is based on cold air dragging everything down
:roflmao:

Why does cold air move downwards?

You could make a 2 meter mass spin at 10000 rpm, how do I know this?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/A380-trent900.JPG/300px-A380-trent900.JPG

don't they have electromagnetic thrusters already?

http://htx.pppl.gov/images/DSCN0383.jpg

:roflmao:

Why does cold air move downwards?

Because it is getting heavier because it is condensing.

Because it is getting heavier because it is condensing.
Okay.
And "heavier" means...?

Why would someone drive a metal carriage at 45 miles an hour when the horse and buggy looks normal...:)

Here's the question though: why do we really need the horseless metal carriage?

You have hard disk drives in your computer rotating that fast all the time.

Admittedly, they are aluminum platters, not palladium hydride or other high Tc material. Not sure what the tensile strength of a 300kg mass of a palladium hydride disk or ring at 75 Kelvin is; but I'm sure there are some alloys that could be used to encase it for added support.

You're not going to turn one of these drives on and off at the flick of a switch though. It's going to take some time to bring that big of a fragile mass up to operating speed.

Charlatan "This is done because gravity is based on cold air dragging everything down"

I always thought that cold air sank and warm air rose do to the molecules in warm air being a biy more "excited" than those in cold air. Cold air has less space between the molecules, is therfore more dense, and therefore technically has more mass than an equivalent body of warm air. Gravity is the attraction of two objects that have mass. The greater the mass the greater the attraction. In deep-space dust has mass and therefore gravity. Or am I completely wrong about gravitational theory. My point is is that gravity has an effect on cold air but is not based on it. If you cool helium to a cooler temperature than the rest of the room it still is going to float away unless you cool it a whole lot.

According to one cited in this article (http://news.discovery.com/space/warp-drive-spaceship-engine.html), warp drive is several millenia off; is that overly conservative, or it's possible to exist within hundreds of years? Related, I've heard that travel time would be much shorter for travelers who travel near the speed of light than outside observers -- commentary?

:roflmao:

Why does cold air move downwards?

It is more dense than warm (hot) air . . . .

According to one cited in this article (http://news.discovery.com/space/warp-drive-spaceship-engine.html), warp drive is several millenia off; is that overly conservative, or it's possible to exist within hundreds of years?

Too hard to even estimate. The one method we know of that might work (the Alcubierre drive) is not realizable with anything like modern technology. Indeed, it would require insane amounts of energy even if we could get it to work i.e. more than the mass of the universe in antimatter to take a small ship across the galaxy.


Related, I've heard that travel time would be much shorter for travelers who travel near the speed of light than outside observers -- commentary?

Yes. A passenger on a very fast ship might experience a trip to Barnard's Star as taking only 4 years, even though an observer on Earth observed the trip taking 8 years. (Barnard's Star is 6 light years away.)