Author Topic: Hyperdrive  (Read 84737 times)

Offline DonPMitchell

  • The Right Stuff
  • Moonwalker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1200
  • Gender: Male
    • Mental Landscape
Hyperdrive
« on: January 07, 2006, 08:23:14 AM »
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/06/hyperdrive/

Some googling around shows a big following for the theories of Burkhard Heim, and a couple German scientists have recently proposed building a hyperdrive ship, powered by a rotating magnetic ring of some sort.

Unfortunately, this seems to be pseudo-science, and I suspect this is the beginning of a long series of flame wars about anti-gravity and secret Nazi science.  What I don't understand is why NASA can't find some real scientists to explain whether or not there is anything to these alleged theories.  This should be a straightforward question for leading experts in the field.
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
  - Agent Smith

Offline spacecat27

  • The Right Stuff
  • Apollo CDR
  • ****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Hyperdrive
« Reply #1 on: January 07, 2006, 10:25:38 PM »
Yeah, Don- I've been seeing this cropping up lately on other boards & news briefs... even the Brit "New Scientist" gave it some mention.  I agree- if not NASA, then maybe better still a few reputable university physicists ought to dissect this and either debunk it, or blatantly say there are too many unknowns or variables to make it serious.
The notion of one lone scientist working alone in secret and then changing the world is romantic and popular in novels- but I sure can't think of too many examples from real history..... Gregor Mendel, maybe.... :)

Offline Satanic Mechanic

  • The Right Stuff
  • Moonwalker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1834
Re: Hyperdrive
« Reply #2 on: January 08, 2006, 12:19:57 AM »
I too have been seeing this story show up in the AP and other news sources.  Give it a week and it will die.

SM

Offline DonPMitchell

  • The Right Stuff
  • Moonwalker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1200
  • Gender: Male
    • Mental Landscape
Re: Hyperdrive
« Reply #3 on: January 08, 2006, 08:00:11 AM »
Here's a new news article that debunks the hyperdrive technology, a leading physicist calls Heim's theory "crackpot".

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3217961/

I contacted a physicist yesterday, I knew from Caltech, and he said the same ("wacky" was his exact word).
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
  - Agent Smith

Offline spacecat27

  • The Right Stuff
  • Apollo CDR
  • ****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Hyperdrive
« Reply #4 on: January 08, 2006, 01:17:32 PM »
Since yesterday I looked over the original paper- admittedly, the math is beyond me though it might have made more sense back in college when I was up to speed..... but I've also seen it addressed by a few (so far as I know) competent physicists in blogs and the premise seems to be--- 'IF the structure of the universe is like this; then we can do that.'

Kind of like saying IF we could make miles equal to millimeters; then a good jogger could travel at thousands of miles per second.   :lol:
« Last Edit: January 08, 2006, 06:29:15 PM by spacecat27 »

Offline Jirnsum

  • The Right Stuff
  • Apollo LMP
  • ****
  • Posts: 214
  • Gender: Male
    • Simphoni Central Forums
Re: Hyperdrive
« Reply #5 on: January 09, 2006, 07:17:28 AM »
Hello people, long time no see (end of year stress at work)

If I remember correctly, the graviphotons the author talks about also had something to do with the evaporation of black holes as put forward by Stephen Hawking. He retracted that theory last year though...

Spacecat's remark (IF THEN) is correct. The whole paper is full of stuff like the following

Quote
In Table (1) it is shown that gravitons (attractive) are exchanged between real particles, gravitophotons (attractive and repulsive) are exchanged between virtual particles, and the quintessence or vacuum particle is due to the vacuum itself.

Where the author neglects to tell you that the particles he's talking about are all theoretical, and presents them as a fact of nature.

Gravi-pie in the sky ;)
The Law of Controversy: Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real data available

Offline DonPMitchell

  • The Right Stuff
  • Moonwalker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1200
  • Gender: Male
    • Mental Landscape
Re: Hyperdrive
« Reply #6 on: January 09, 2006, 11:16:10 AM »
I took a long look at one of Heim's papers.  OK, I did graduate physics at Caltech, and while I am not a field-theory expert, I know what the math looks like.  Heim's papers are full of dense math, but it is gargage, just long algebraic expressions with lots of variabls and numbers.  Looks like A/8352+b*113 + (c*3002 - d/200)**2 + ...  I've never seen real math that looked like that, I didn't see any differential equations, path integrals, Lie groups, etc.  There was no truly sophisticated mathematics in the whole paper, not even calculus.  I think the guys was basically one of the many wacky Nazi scientist, like the folks who said planets were hollow.

This is probably also the Nazi antigravity work that I mentioned a few weeks ago, when I got into an argument with a BBC journalist (who thought there was such a thing).
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
  - Agent Smith

Offline spacecat27

  • The Right Stuff
  • Apollo CDR
  • ****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Hyperdrive
« Reply #7 on: January 09, 2006, 05:19:07 PM »
 :lol:   Careful, Don- next thing you know you might find "World Grid" guys out tampering with your brakes!  :lol:
(if the Bermuda Triangle folks haven't gotten to them first... but they usually come AFTER the Philadelphia Experiment crowd)

Offline snake river rufus

  • The Right Stuff
  • Apollo LMP
  • ****
  • Posts: 208
  • Gender: Male
Re: Hyperdrive
« Reply #8 on: January 09, 2006, 05:42:05 PM »
:lol:   Careful, Don- next thing you know you might find "World Grid" guys out tampering with your brakes!  :lol:
(if the Bermuda Triangle folks haven't gotten to them first... but they usually come AFTER the Philadelphia Experiment crowd)
And the 'HAARP is evil' folks, don't forget those wackados :lol:
Great oogalee boogalees!

Offline DonPMitchell

  • The Right Stuff
  • Moonwalker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1200
  • Gender: Male
    • Mental Landscape
Re: Hyperdrive
« Reply #9 on: January 09, 2006, 09:48:29 PM »
Yeah, some folks are just True Believers.  Makes you wonder what is going on in our schools when such large numbers of people fall for nutty ideas.
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
  - Agent Smith

Offline Nik

  • Gemini Pilot
  • ***
  • Posts: 103
Careful...
« Reply #10 on: January 13, 2006, 10:29:36 AM »
Two cautious thoughts...

Heim was not your average crack-pot; he shunned publicity and had to be prised from his shell.

His work on predicting particle masses had *spooky* accuracy. And, the match improved as other workers put more accurate data into his published equations. So, either he used a circular argument that has --as yet-- escaped notice, or stumbled onto a Bode's Law effect --so falsifiable-- or he's onto something.

I'm reminded of the appalling complexity of Maxwell's field equations... 

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/MaxwellEquations.html

...versus the elegance of those tuned cavities in a magnetron.

D'uh, the baseline 'Lifter' design in NewScientist article reminded me of that enormous 'rings within rings' fictional whatsit that featured in 'Contact' book & film. No thanks !!

What Heim concept needs is equivalent of Faraday, Michael (1791-1867). He could not understand Ampere's arcane math, but his bench-top experiments produced the minimalist 'wire hanging in mercury puddle' homopolar motor-- and the rest. 

Offline DonPMitchell

  • The Right Stuff
  • Moonwalker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1200
  • Gender: Male
    • Mental Landscape
Re: Hyperdrive
« Reply #11 on: January 13, 2006, 10:59:08 AM »
Maxwell's equations are not appalling complex.  They are four simple differential equations that describe electric fields, magnetism, radio waves and countless other phenomena.
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
  - Agent Smith

Offline Nik

  • Gemini Pilot
  • ***
  • Posts: 103
Speaking for myself...
« Reply #12 on: January 13, 2006, 12:28:37 PM »
I *comprehend* the concept, methodology and power of Differential Equations, partial or otherwise. I just cannot do the Math. Like my near-tone-deafness, it is a blind-spot.

Also, I'm reminded that Maxwell's Equations still surprise...

Offline Spinalwayswins

  • Stargazer
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: Hyperdrive
« Reply #13 on: January 17, 2006, 11:38:55 PM »
i'm curious is any1 here actually interested in gravitational anomalies or the drama of unspecified results? I'm pretty certain that Heim's theory looks nutty 2 a bunch of skeptical people who probably were leaning on hte negative side from the start, i mean what groundbreaking individual's ideas were not dismissed by main stream science as crap, stupid, crazy, crackpot? I'm not here 2 say that Heim is right just that there exist truth in all material, you just have 2 read between the lines. If any1 has noticed that many have suggested that by spinning magentic fields (disc shaped) you get some sort of anomalous forces. I ahve actually been doing research into the results of spinning bodies for a while, and it seems that spin is one of the things that scientist dont like to play with, i mean our rockets use linear emission on fuel!

Offline Johno

  • The Right Stuff
  • Apollo CDR
  • ****
  • Posts: 534
  • Gender: Male
  • We came in peace for ALL mankind.
Re: Hyperdrive
« Reply #14 on: January 18, 2006, 05:12:23 AM »
You are correct that sometimes a scientist with a well-researched, well thought-out theory gets carpeted by people who don't want to believe it.  This is a shame, but it's a consequence of humanity - people think they are logical in their decision making, when in fact they are emotional.

Where you are incorrect is your assumption that someone is likely to be correct BECAUSE they get carpeted by the establishment.  I am a scientist who believes some non-mainstream ideas which are victims of such tendencies, yet even I can say that the establishment is correct to be skeptical the majority of the time.  A lot of the time, the reason a scientist gets written off as a clueless crackpot is because he is in fact a clueless crackpot. :)

As regards your research, I for one will reserve judgement until I have read it.  In which journal is it published?