
DIA Study: Warp Drive, Dark Energy, and Manipulation of Extra Dimensions (2010) - civilitty
https://publicintelligence.net/dia-warp-drives/
======
GW150914
There seems to be little recognition of the fact that FTL implies time travel,
and just how unlikely that really is. I expect major advances in physics in
the far future, but I’m not sure that bypassing causality and FTL will ever be
one of them.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _FTL implies time travel_

I've heard that many times now, but I'm not sure I fully understand it. So,
could someone ELI5 how, given a starship equipped with a warp drive (or in
range of a series of cleverly put stable wormholes), how can I give myself
winning lottery numbers, and meet my great-great-grandfather?

~~~
krohling
As you approach the speed of light, the amount of time you experience gets
slower as compared to a stationary observer. This means that a photon, which
travels at the speed of light, actually experiences no time at all.

I like to think of time and space as two different directions you can go i.e.
forward/backward (time) or left/right (space). A stationary observer travels
only forward, i.e. through time. So they experience lots of time but very
little or no space. As you get closer and closer to the speed of light you're
moving less in time and more in space. Your vector gets closer and closer to
pointing right (using this analogy). An observer traveling at light speed
experiences only space, i.e. no time at all.

Then, once you exceed the speed of light your arrow starts pointing a little
bit backwards. You're still traveling mostly in space, very little in time but
now the time you do travel in is actually negative.

I forget where I read this vector explanation but it's one that makes the
concept tractable in my mind :)

~~~
radarsat1
I love this explanation because when I started thinking of it this way it blew
my mind in ways that no other physics concept has. It's something that truly
sounds crazy except that as far as I know it is a valid interpretation.
(Layman here.)

We think of time being this thing that just moves forward around us, and we
can't stop it, time just goes.

But in this interpretation, it's _us_ who are _falling through time_ ,
literally.

I find that fascinating because it changes entirely how I think about the
universe. I used to think of the "big bang" as a big explosion of little balls
of energy (quarks, electrons, whatever) that eventually coalesced into matter,
when enough time had passed and there was enough room for things to cool down.
The part that I never understood before this interpretation is how "enough
time could pass", when time itself was also supposedly expanding.

But in fact with this interpretation, which I guess is probably more correct
(?), space _and_ time simply exploded and began expanding.. which is what
we're told but it's hard to picture, exactly. But if you think about energy
_always_ moving at the speed of light, and initially all of it flying off in
the same direction (time), then matter becomes those particles which were
somehow slightly _diverted_ onto the spatial axes -- momentum is conserved,
just redirected. And if you think about particles being ripples in fields of
non-zero constant energy, an interactions between the fields causing ripples
to bump away from each other in non-time _directions_ which we describe as
_space_ , this whole relativity thing, and the fact that electric field
particles (photons) do not have mass and move at c, starts to make a bit of
sense.

It's crazy to think that what we perceive as time passing, the very
possibility of things _happening_ , is actually an emergent property of simple
geometry and interactions of pure energy.

The way I visualize it is: start two marbles rolling towards each other down
an inclined slope. They bump, and bounce off in opposite directions on the X
axis. Now imagine there is no table. Would the marbles "feel" anything in the
vertical direction? Or would they only feel something in the horizontal
direction? Time, for them, emerges from the fact that they can get closer,
bump, and move off in the other direction. The other axis, which they are both
moving very quickly in, they have entirely in common and they might agree with
each other that it is simply a stationary frame which allowed the "bump" to
happen. Same for us falling, unrelentingly and unstoppably, through time.
(Maybe?)

~~~
TeMPOraL
Except mass/energy must be really drawing a line across time dimension,
instead of being points in it, right? Otherwise anything traveling in space -
and thus slightly sideways - would immediately desync with the universe around
it and interact only with emptiness?

------
andrepd
I don't know who this group or person is, but their "knowledge" of what
they're talking about is tenuous at best, seemingly obtained from mediocre pop
physics books. This is essentially empty garbage.

~~~
dionian
In which respects?

~~~
hurpaDurpa
Starting with:

    
    
      Of course, this may not bе actualized until many years in 
      the future, but consider the many spectacular physical 
      phenomena that are believed to bе true at this early point 
      in the 21st century.
    

To make the leap from that premise, to practical utilization of even the most
grounded phenomenon from the paper's title, Dark Energy, is essentially "
_magical thinking_ " at best, and at worst, a deliberate waste of time.

Consider that dark energy isn't even an assuredly verifiable phenomenon. Dark
energy is a place holder in equations with a theoretical gap in understanding
for the fundamental mechanisms driving the behavior of observable systems. We
can't explain certain noticeable details, but, the difference between
conflicting concepts that do explain disparate observations, is where the
assumption of a hypothetical dark energy to bridge the difference, as an idea
to help resolve conflicting observations, comes into play. On paper.

A thousand years ago, we did not know that microbial life was responsible for
fermenting food, but we weren't ready to tackle that gap in awareness, until
the microscope was invented. Prior to the invention of the microscope, ideas
like spontaneous generation were still plausible. Without the proper equipment
to declare dark energy or extra dimensions or worm holes as tangible, grounded
facts founded in direct evidence, these ideas themselves are simply grasping
at straw to reconcile known truths.

Given that these concepts deal in cosmological theory, there isn't even a lab
to test or prove facts in. Such ideas are based on connecting the dots between
imagery gathered from telescopes, for the purpose of studying astronomy. We
probably wouldn't be able to construct a laboratory, until we graduate to a
space-faring civilization and succeed at it for a couple of generations.

------
lainga
Even though the EagleWorks' research turned out to be a fizzle, I'm impressed
that they got the DIA to at least put out a paper about it.

~~~
hdivider
Was it a fizzle? Didn't they get an "inconclusive" result, rather than a
negative one?

(No criticism intended -- I really want to know.) :)

~~~
thekingofh
After further review I believe they found that for the EmDrive, the thrust was
being generated by interaction of the electricity through the cables with
Earth's magnetic field. Someone tested it by dampening the actual microwaves
and still getting the same thrust result, which eliminates the microwave
cavity as a source for the thrust. However the follow up test was with very
low power, so they wanted to run it with magnetic shielding and higher power
to fully rule it out.

~~~
boznz
"I believe they found that for the EmDrive, the thrust was being generated by
interaction of the electricity through the cables with Earth's magnetic
field." isnt that still thrust without and propellant or am I missing
something?

~~~
ben_w
I think what you’re missing is that the entire Earth is the reaction mass.

I’ve had a bit of fun doing the maths on space launch systems that function
like this — if I remember right, you might even be able to do it… if you can
make a monocrystalline superconductor, of whatever the best critical current
density was about five years ago, about ten times the combined mass of your
payload and cooling equipment.

Unfortunately there are limits on which direction this force can act in that
make it even less useful than I’ve just made it seem.

------
wuliwong
I am not familiar with this site. Is it safe to assume this is an authentic
document? It's been an interesting read so far. :)

~~~
ryanmercer
[https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/public-
intelligence](https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/public-intelligence)

I'd take it with as big of a grain of salt as you do things like wikileaks
leaks.

~~~
wuliwong
I thought wikileaks was reputable. What documents have they released that
turned out to be fake?

~~~
ryanmercer
I never said they weren't reputable. I said take the information with a
similar grain of salt.

------
dookahku
Published April 2nd

------
Ancalagon
I understand the feasibility of such an endeavor as faster than light travel
is not high, but does anyone else get kind of existential depression for not
being able to live long enough to see these kind of advancements humanity
might make?

~~~
dguaraglia
The short answer is "yes". The long answer is: the longer you live, the more
your concerns lay elsewhere (career, health, kids, etc.) and you stop worrying
so much about what you are going to miss, and start focusing more on what you
might be missing right now.

From a philosophical aspect, it also helps to remind yourself that - for all
we know - we might be living in the "Golden Age" of humanity and it's all
downhill from here.

Enjoy the present, maybe experiment with psychedelics. It gets better :)

