To the Reader: This is chapter 1 of the book. Unfortunately I do not have the remainder… If desired, I could include Chapter 2 as well….
Chapter 1
New frontiers in Space Propulsion Science Part I- The Environment and Some History Related to ‘Advanced’ Space Propulsion Science P. A. Murad* Morningstar Applied Physic, LLC Vienna, VA 22182
Abstract We need to understand significant fundamentals before actually discussing advanced space propulsion concepts. This includes our understanding and knowledge about the environment before we can define goals, create new instrumentation, and maturate both contemporary and embryonic technologies. The lessons learned should start from the very beginning until now, and possibly learn if we can replicate some of nature’s capabilities within a space propulsor. Present technology using chemical rocket or nuclear powered systems are inadequate for this desired journey. Unfortunately the technology to implement these notions of near or close to the speed of light is an elusive objective with the technology remaining to be still undiscovered from an engineering perspective. Moreover, we want to solve problems considering ‘out-of-the-box’ thinking if we will ever achieve travel to reach the far-abroad in the cosmos. Here, these new ideas will be essential to expand our imagination as well as develop our innate technology. Nonetheless, to achieve these tasks, the obvious solutions will demand adequate funding as well as growing the intellectual motivation to far better appreciate and satisfy identifying the purpose for mankind to fly amongst the cosmos.
Introduction When first asked to write a chapter on advanced space propulsion, I was reluctant to meet this challenge. The basic reason was I wondered if I was qualified or have the required expertise. The problem is more acute in that I really doubt if anyone has such real expertise *
E-mail address:
[email protected], CEO Morningstar Applied Physics, LLC. Published by permission 2014.
Paul A. Murad because if someone built such a device, they would have already demonstrated this capability. On this basis, let us learn together to try to understand some of the problems where we are unknown or knowledgeable about the discipline of advanced space propulsion. To meet this challenge, there are many issues that demand to be addressed. We first need to understand our conventional wisdom about the environment, our contemporary technology, our analytical capabilities, and what are our expectations. All of these are not trivial issues. Obviously we all can assume our motivation is the desire to go to the far-abroad space region to understand our origins, our future, and exploit the commercial opportunities to make our life any better. One may argue what does the term means to make life better but for all intentional purposes let this be our main objective for looking into this discipline.
Discussion The question is some prerequisites are necessary to address before we begin our journey about related theoretical or experimental issues. This will require some history to explain our understanding of the environment and what our expectations are. There are also ancillary items that want to be addressed in terms of necessities for our spacecraft. Where do we start from the beginning to address advanced space propulsion?
A. The Big Bang Let us start at the beginning of the Big Bang. Here, an immense explosion supposedly occurs within a small instance of time. Mass seems to stream into our fourdimensional cosmos. As this occurs, there are many changes. The unifying force is reduced to different categories of forces such as near and far-term nuclear effects, electricity, magnetism and gravitation. All of this supposedly occurs in extremely small measures of time. One wonders about the unifying force. I would also venture an intermediate state should probably include the Poynting field, which breaks down into electricity and magnetism during this evolution within the first instance of existence. With using the conventional wisdom, the approach is if positive mass is created, then there must be a balance with negative mass or what some may call as dark matter. Likewise, with the energy impulse created, one may go far enough to add there must also exist negative energy like dark matter as well. Dark matter is needed because of several problems to include the gravitational pull in galaxy spirals do not satisfy Newtonian gravitation. The problem is maybe Newtonian gravitation is not valid considering we only know about Newtonian gravitation based upon our near-abroad view within a limited region of the solar system. There is no reason we could assume Newtonian gravitation is true everywhere else away from our solar system. There is no ‘real’ evidence we can use or find this. Furthermore, we may be exposed to getting data contamination on red shifts used to determine the distance with far stars. Here, this red shift data could pass by the presence of a celestial body where the body’s gravitation may impact the frequency and shift data. In other words, these stars may be further or nearer than we really know. Thus, we have to physically explore in the far-abroad. Let us go back to the view that if positive mass exists, there must be an equivalent dark matter to compensate for conservation. Is this view regarding conservation real? For example, can the dark energy or negative matter move faster during the initial explosion so that it is located at the far extremes of the explosion where it does not cancel with positive matter? We just do not know because we have not yet reached the extreme edges of the remnants from this Big Bang explosion. We live and die with conservation where something goes into the state of a control volume, goes out of the control volume or the interior status of the control volume somehow changes. Is this valid when the beginning of the cosmos starts?
New Frontiers in Space Propulsion Science - Part I As you can tell, this problem is deeper than what you may expect. For example, some feel the Big Bang is wrong. I like to talk about the “Big Faucet”. This involves a faucet connected by a manifold of additional dimensions above the fifth dimension. This manifold of dimensions is turned on and mass, energy, momentum, and everything streams forth through this faucet into our four-dimensional space and fills all of the galaxies. Did God turn on the Big Faucet? Thus, our exploration may easily enter into metaphysics or become deeper than one would expect and we only started. Moreover, the only way we can demonstrate evidence of what is right or wrong is by finding the geometry of the extreme edges of the cosmos. The trace from an explosion and the trace from a faucet should be different. Let us add a final comment about the beginning. One view is time does not begin before the Big Bang. I wonder about this. What occurred before the explosion occurred and could time be continuous forever? If so, the Big Bang may not be a discontinuity but part of a continuous function of time.
Figure 1. How far back can we go into time?
B. Cosmic Unknowns The cosmos [1]-[3] consists of many wondrous things. When a cosmic explosion like a supernova occurs, the results are either a black hole or a neutron star. In the latter, a star larger than our sun is reduced by an implosion to a diameter of several kilometers. The neutron star in this process retains a significant amount of angular momentum and is capable of rotating at a speed from 10 to 600 revolutions per second. This generates huge magnetic fields and the neutron star is detected by various forms of radiation. We basically assume a neutron star is spherical. If an implosion occurs, the extremity of the supernova should generally possess a spherical shape. This does not occur so the assumption of a neutron star being spherical is questionable. Neutron stars should be viewed as irregular or even ovoid bodies. We need to be realistic about our assumptions to understand the environment in the far-abroad and possibly exploit this knowledge of natural events to develop a space drive. Let us look at the alternative. Regarding black holes [4]-[6], the gravitational attraction is so strong it reveals no light. The only thing leaving a black hole is gravity. If light does not leave, this means there are no magnetic or electric fields around the black hole. One may raise the thought maybe gravity moves at a higher speed than light which is the only thing leaving the black hole. Black holes generally rotate and possess an accretion disk which are nearby remnants surrounding the black hole. This particle velocity rotates with enough energy to oppose the strong gravitational pull of the black hole. How is this possible?
Paul A. Murad Hawking concludes that due to evaporation, the larger the black hole and the less evaporation, the less the instability. We should make a distinction about what is meant by evaporation. Mass, in the form of relativistic particles or even anti-matter, ejected from a black hole will have an initial radial velocity. If this velocity is insufficient to overcome gravity, it should fall back into the black hole thus we would never expect to see the returning ejecta. Everything moving at less than light speed falls back into the black hole. To observe ejecta, it must leave the collapsed star at an escape velocity greater than light speed. If we see any traces of particles or electromagnetic waves emitted from the region of a black hole, they could come from one of three plausible sources. Either these particles come directly from the surrounding region or accretion disk heavily influenced by the black hole, the black hole itself, or a combination of both. If from the black hole itself, this mass must initially move at hyper-light speed in a delayed field sense and this mass under such conditions, will decelerate to asymptotically approach light speed due to the black hole's gravity gradient. Thus the ejecta must initially outrace light waves to demonstrate that hyper-light speed is feasible. It is difficult to say if currently detected waves emitted near a black hole are from either the event horizon or the black hole itself. It is also interesting that when particles were first detected to leave a black hole, the community quickly decided the ejecta must have been from the event horizon or accretion disk. Considering the large distances of hundreds of light years involved, how could we make the determination where the particles came from the event horizon and not the black hole itself? What is the ‘evaporation’ mechanism? This should fall well within the tolerance of experimental error. Despite this, the linear logic raises several thought-provoking questions regarding a rational model of a black hole.
Figure 2. The mysteries of a black hole. (Courtesy of G. I. Shipov).
There is another issue similar to the thought that if one type of mass is created, another type is needed. The Fermi Sea in the cosmos consists of the instantaneous creation of particles as well as their demise. When this cyclic event occurs, they are created with electrical, magnetic and gravitic fields which also decay when the particles degenerate. One may call this an ether to allow the transport of E-M radiation as well as a rich source of energy if the zero-point field could be captured and exploited when these particles are initially created. However, this is currently outside of the realm of our technology but we want to understand these characteristics for assessing the environment.
New Frontiers in Space Propulsion Science - Part I Regarding the stars and our sun as being thermal fusion devices, Kosyrev, a Russian astrophysicist, claimed the surface of the sun is 6,000o F too low for a fusion reaction. When asked about this, Kosyrev claimed the sun is a machine that converts the space-time continuum into energy. This is the crux of the problem. We should understand our environment if we will be able to build realistic spacecraft.
C. Ether The issue about inertia is either a clear-cut issue or one leading to controversy. As an engineer, inertia is important to define accelerations and the energy required to determine forces for propulsion reasons. A physicists may have an entirely different perspective considering if the acceleration of a particle is in a specific geometric trajectory to satisfy the Theory of Relativity or if the particle is exposed by ‘imaginary’ forces. These forces are not treated as ‘real’ from an engineering perspective because they fall within a different category in the field equations. The different language between the engineering disciplines as well as the physics community should talk with the same language. C.1. The Zero-Point Field An important discovery in the mid-seventies showed the ZPF acquired special characteristics when viewed from an accelerating coordinate system. In conjunction with radiation from evaporating black holes as proposed by Hawking in 1974, and Davies in 1975. Unruh in 1976 determined that a Planck-like component of the ZPF will occur in a uniformlyaccelerated coordinate system having constant proper acceleration which can be characterized as a temperature. This 'temperature' does not originate in emissions from particles undergoing thermal motion. Thus the Casimir demonstrates the existence of the ZPF. Haisch [7] developed and tested a published theory where Newton's equations of motion can be derived by Maxwell's equations of electrodynamics as applied to the zero-point field (ZPF) of the quantum vacuum. In the ZPF-inertia theory, inertia and to some degree mass is postulated as not being an intrinsic property of matter but rather an electromagnetic drag force that proves to be an acceleration dependent upon the spectral characteristics of the ZPF. The theory proposes interactions between the ZPF and matter takes place at the level of quarks and electrons, hence could account for the mass of a composite neutral particle such as a neutron. Moreover, Haisch suggests the principle of equivalence implies gravitation would also be an effect originating in the quantum vacuum along the same lines as initially proposed by Sakharov in 1968. A speculative hypothesis of matter possessing negative inertial mass, a concept originated by Bondi in 1957, is considered logically impractical. The linked ZPFinertia and ZPF-gravity concepts, however, open the conceptual possibility where manipulation of inertia and gravity can occur within the vacuum phenomena. An essential concern is whether the proposed ZPF-matter interactions generating the right mass that might involve more than one resonance. One may initially feel where the physical vacuum concept from the east is akin to the zero point field (ZPF) or zero point energy concepts discussed and adopted in the west. There are, however, very distinct differences. The ZPF advocates essentially have examined a slow moving charged particle and concluded inertia is a Lorentz force acting against the ZPF. This is in agreement with late nineteenth century efforts which implied electromagnetic fields acting on a charged particle tend to increase the particle's mass acceleration. Further assessments suggest the ZPF may act equally against sub-particles to constitute atomic particles. If true, then to take advantage of the ZPF as a propulsive medium, these effects
Paul A. Murad suggest our starship must therefore have an electric or magnetic charge or, as a bare minimum, act as a charged dipole. Forward [8] in 1996 offers some criticism of the ZPF, and if we allow for an extrapolation, the same may be said about the physical vacuum. Forward once claimed that although the vacuum is the hottest topic in contemporary physics, it is the source of numerous effects: force fields emerge from nowhere, particles popping in and out of existence, and energetic jitterings occur with no apparent power source. Forward examines the Haisch, Rueda, and Puthoff [9] conjecture mass and inertia of a body with induced effects brought about by changes in the quantum-fluctuation energy of the vacuum. Although it is not possible to identify a specific or unique experiment, Forward suggests some experiments may be defined to prove or disprove how mass can be altered by changing the vacuum effects surrounding the body. Thus regarding Haisch, Puthoff et al [7]-[10] where inertia represents an electromagnetic force acting against the zero-point field, the problem is this force is continuous even at constant velocity in lieu of appearing only during acceleration. This parameter of inertia is crucial if you develop a propulsion system or is it possible that the Newtonian laws defining forces and reactions are passé? Forward claimed one may extract energy from the vacuum which has an energy density of 10108 J/cc and a mass density of 1094 g/cc with much higher than values associated with nuclear energy. Although this is a little understood field, it does have potential as an energy source or changing mass of an object. The objective is to develop a vacuum propulsor drive to push against the vacuum itself. Forward goes on to indicate that the uncertainty principle predicts the vacuum is teeming with pairs of charged particles called electron-positron pairs. Supposedly the empty vacuum is not only full of photons but also a tenuous plasma of charged electron-positron pairs. This plasma makes the vacuum index of refraction slightly different from unity and makes it respond non-linearly to strong electromagnetic fields. In 1998, although Haisch et al [10]-[12] presented an analysis proposing the most fundamental property of matter- inertia- could be explained as an electromagnetic force traceable to the ZPF, this exploratory investigation admittedly had two weaknesses: (1) the mathematical development was complex, and (2) the calculations were dependent upon a simplified model to represent the interactions between material objects and the ZPF. Despite this, the remarkable results infer Newton's law was based upon Maxwell's laws of electrodynamics as applied to the ZPF. Thus, matter was not an inane property but an electromagnetically driven force. If true, the potential exists for future technologies to manipulate the electromagnetic phenomena to alter mass or gravitation. These efforts indicate the principle of equivalence of gravitational mass will undergo an analogous reinterpretation from the foundation laid down by Sakharov some 50 years ago. It is postulated that the concept of energy being proportional to mass should be viewed as a statement regarding the kinetic energy of the ZPF fluctuations induced by the quarks or electrons constituting matter. It also shows extracting energy from the vacuum does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. The ZPF advocates also propose inertia too is a Casimirlike acceleration-dependent drag force. Haisch states there are four types of matter:
Inertial mass- this is the resistance of mass to acceleration more commonly called inertia; Active gravitational mass- the ability of matter to attract other matter by Newtonian gravitation, Passive gravitational mass- the property of matter to respond to gravitational force; and Relativistic rest mass- the mass of the body to be converted to energy during total annihilation.
New Frontiers in Space Propulsion Science - Part I In using Newton's third law about equal and opposing forces, results now include an electromagnetically derived force for inertia. There are two views on the origin of the electromagnetic ZPF embodied by the perspectives for quantum electrodynamics (QED) and Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED). The QED approach is currently regarded as the 'standard' physics. Here it implies ZPF radiation is comparable to black-body radiation because of applying quantum laws. SED is just the opposite where it is assumed the ZPF is as real as any other electromagnetic field. Regarding its origin, zero-point radiation came into the universe. SED and QED are not on an equal footing since SED has been successful in providing satisfactory alternatives to some quantum phenomena. C.2. The Physical Vacuum
There is a different view regarding the ether or the presence in the cosmos. This view may possibly provide an analytical confirmation of the Fermi Sea. The void of space can be examined from a perspective motivated to explain astrophysics problems. An attempt to resolve these issues and model the vacuum was initially performed by Shipov [13], who used the geometrization of the equations of physics to examine unification, and Akimov who later examined validity of the data. They did not treat the vacuum as a polarized medium but the void as a continuous or homogeneous entity somewhat akin to the contemporary zero-point field views adopted by the west. This approach was unsuccessful at explaining unusual anomalous phenomenon and the theory, which was extended by Dyatlov [14]-[16], based by data furnished by Dmitriev, to focus upon the vacuum as an inhomogeneous domain. This means the inhomogeneous domain is a specific region that can surround an anomaly as a boundary condition. The Dyatlov approach extended the equations of Maxwell and Heaviside by treating the vacuum using the concept of classical polarization. Here, the void is filled with dipoles and moments capable of creating electric, magnetic, gravitic, and spin fields; these dipoles are not elementary particles. The extended inhomogeneous theory is capable of providing insights into anomalous events occurring on a global scale as well as smaller scale phenomenon such as ball lightning and unusual natural weather events such as tornadoes. The physical concept of a vacuum domain is developed from the Big Bang theory by Zeldovich and Kozyrev. This concept, however, only relates to the forces within the nucleus and not to macroscopic electromagnetic and gravitational fields. At the same time, a term within the definition of the vacuum domain is also appropriate in the model on the basis of classical polarization theory. The initial appearance and disappearance of vacuum domains within the Universe should be considered as the physical essence of a vacuum, which is understood as a medium occupied with elementary particles. Such concepts already have a long history for their development dating back to the electron-positron vacuum of Dirac. Later in the quantum field theory a physical vacuum arises and is understood to be analogous to a “boiling bouillon from which virtual particles- antiparticles” appear and disappear. Furthermore, one may think of the physical vacuum as some type of “crystal lattice” with particles-antiparticles (quarks, gluons) suggested by Simonov and Shevchenko. It should be noted, however, the progress of the idea where a “vacuum is not a void” goes against the notion of an old problem from gravitational theory – that is: the problem of the gravity paradox. When elementary particles occupy a vacuum, the vacuum acquires a positive mass, whereas the majority of physicists say no to the logic of
Paul A. Murad
using negative mass. Thus, vacuums should increase in positive mass if we do not consider particles having negative mass. Without question, the acceptance of negative mass equal to positive mass in the Universe leads that the law of the increase in entropy is somehow affected. But it is only touched, whereas the problem of the gravity paradox is completely eliminated. Really, one may construct theoretical models where physical processes are connected with an increase in entropy passing into local regions and physical processes connected with a decrease in entropy, strongly scattered in the space of the Universe. Hence the law for the growth in entropy is still satisfied in every local physical process but as a whole within the Universe, entropy remains a constant. Thus, one more unpleasant problem of physics - the problem of a thermal dearth of the Universe is thus easily eliminated. The polarization model of the inhomogeneous vacuum [5] relates exactly to similar models. Problems within the inhomogeneous physical vacuum [14]-[16] are foremost the same problems within the development of the vacuum domain theory; the theory requires a solid experimental foundation. At present, there is three specific directions for the continued development of this work:
The development of the macroscopic theory of vacuum domains on the basis of Maxwell's electrodynamics, Heaviside's gravidynamics and the classical theory of polarized inhomogeneous mediums to describe the macroscopic processes of anomalous phenomena, The development of the microscopic quantum theory of vacuum domains, on the basis of the theory of high energy elementary particles to describe the microscopic processes of birth and annihilation of vacuum domains, and The development of an experimental basis for a preliminary study on using vacuum domains considering macroscopic and microscopic theories.
The polarization model of the inhomogeneous vacuum appears to be an irradiation, in the sense it gives at once a qualitative explanation for a whole spectrum of macroscopic properties of vacuum domains of anomalous phenomena. On the contrary, there is a coincidence of physical properties inherent only to objects of the classical theory of polarized inhomogeneous mediums, with the properties of vacuum domains of anomalous phenomena. This gives the most striking evidence in favor of the concept where the physical vacuum is a polarized and simultaneously electrical, magnetic, gravitational and spin medium. The polarization model of the inhomogeneous vacuum may play an important role to understand the whole theory of vacuum domains. The microscopic theory of vacuum domains has not made its first steps. However, the polarization model of the inhomogeneous physical vacuum has already applied certain restrictions on a future microscopic theory. The Heaviside equations are similar to Maxwell’s equations, when secondary quantized, they give the value of 1 to the spin of a graviton which is also equal to the spin value for a photon. It follows from the GTR of Einstein that a spin of a graviton should be equal to 2. Thus Heaviside gravidynamics, followed by the polarization model of the inhomogeneous physical vacuum, comes into conflict with Einstein's GTR. Only by experiment, however, can one solve the discrepancy on the value of spin for a graviton. As long as such experiments are not performed, we cannot consider Einstein's GTR to be the last word of truth. The procedure for the comparison of experimental and calculated data must be performed in the polarization model of the inhomogeneous physical vacuum in the same
New Frontiers in Space Propulsion Science - Part I
way as in electrodynamics. Here, the calculations of fields are performed after determining all of the sources of the fields and all constants of the mediums in some defined space. For example, sources and parameters of mediums may be defined as tensors, operators, and nonlinear relations and so on. In electrodynamics, however, there is a powerful experimental basis for defining these parameters and functions. In electrogravidynamics. It is necessary to establish laboratory conditions for research in vacuum domains. Such places already exist as the abysses aligned with the Earth’s fractures or by using magnetic and electric traps to capture vacuum domains. Thus we see where there is a controversy about the environment our spacecraft will use. Is the ZPF a Dirac Sea with a cycle of particles undergoing life and death or is it the physical vacuum as some type of “crystal lattice” formed by particles-antiparticles?
D. Time When Einstein wrote his initial paper on the Theory of Relativity, he used several pages in the text to discuss the notion of time. As mentioned earlier [1], one view is time began with the Big Bang. The view of time is one that is continuous; it starts from the beginning to the end. Time represents a part of the metric to measure distance, velocity, and acceleration. For example, when we consider additional dimensions, these are treated as spatial dimensions. Is it feasible to have two different time dimensions in a specific space that are convergent at the present but at the past and the future, one may use linear time while the other may be exponential time? We cannot limit our space travel options to consider only approaches involving the conventional wisdom. There is nothing more intriguing in cosmological conjectures as the concepts of time and space within the meaning of the context “universe.” The dimensions, which define spatial and temporal “space”, are represented by a continuum of many dimensions and universes – an infinite number of them. Time is not only relative, but also the discriminator or “definer” of a continuum of these universes. Time may identify the start or closure of a separate series of these dimensional sets which can exist as parallel universes or sequences of realities. Consequentially, spatial dimensions as well as gravity may also offer a portal to these different sequences of realities. Compared to space and time, gravity may hold the key for inter-dimensional and/or inter-universe space travel due to its multidimensional nature. Thus we propose a framework for developing a space-time-universe fabric that may offer opportunities for inter-dimensional and/or inter-universe space-travel.
Three quotes set the scene for this contemplation: “Consider a world in which cause and effect are erratic. Sometimes the first precedes the second, sometimes the second the first. Or perhaps cause lies forever in the past while effect in the future, but future and past are entwined.” Alan Lightman, “Einstein’s Dreams” ‘I don’t understand you,’ said Alice. ‘It’s really dreadfully confusing.’ ‘That’s the effect of living backwards,’ the Queen said kindly. ‘It always makes one feel a little giddy at first.’ ‘Living backwards!’ Alice repeated in great astonishment. ‘I never heard of such a thing!’ ‘But there’s one great advantage to it, that one’s memory works both ways.’ ‘I’m sure mine only works one way,’ Alice remarked. ‘I can’t remember things before they happen.’ ‘It’s a poor sort of memory that only works backward,’ the Queen remarked.
Paul A. Murad Lewis Carroll, “Through the Looking-Glass” “Time possesses a quality that creates a difference between causes and effects evoked by directionality or patterns. This property establishes the difference between the past and the present. Causes and results are separated by space and time.” P. A. Murad, “It’s All Gravity”, STAIF 2003.
It is difficult to find and document with suitable evidence, which relates or finds a manifold that connects the past, present, and future in a current reality. The reason is the technology or the concepts are not there to perform such a task. The intention here is to take an initial step and look at these possibilities to determine potential gate or portal keepers, which would allow inter-dimensional space-travel. We can only suggest that to analyze our conjecture, we must answer several questions such as: How do we cross into (or tunnel into) other sequences of realities – other universes? What about the fundamental difference between mass or gravity currents or waves of gravity and gravitational waves in the space-time-universe fabric? What kinds of mathematics and mathematical tools can deal analytically with these conjectures? What happens when we have an event horizon with a hypothetical antigravity field that comes in contact with a gravity field? Would you be willing to undergo teleportation? And this list of questions is only the beginning!
Figure 4. Art shows us science to pierce the blanket of ignorance to gain our ‘final’ freedom.
N. A. Kosyrev [17]-[21] examined time to include theoretical concepts, experiments on the properties of time, and basic findings. He claimed “Time” is an energetic property of nature and the concept of time that surpasses our imagination. It involves the most profound and completely unknown properties of the world. Exact science attempts to negate time. For example, a body cannot develop an external force without the participation of another body. Consider an ideal gyroscope where the mass is located at a certain single distance from the axis. The top can affect another body through the material axis of rotation and masses can be disregarded. The change in several bodies can lead to the appearance of new forces according
New Frontiers in Space Propulsion Science - Part I to d’Alembert’s Principle. Newton’s laws can be a direct result of the properties of causality and the pattern of time. In the casual relationship with a spinning top, we can expect to see additional forces acting along the axis of rotation. Properties of time must be measured by experiments. Here, gyroscopes were suspended and sealed in a hermetic box to exclude air current effects. When suspended, the gyros were spun up to a given rotation and the entire box was dropped. If spun or stationary, the weights of the gyros were the same. It was found if rotation was clockwise and directed downward, the gyroscope became lighter (gravity effects decreased). With additional experiment variations, Kosyrev found the weight of the gyroscope varied with rotation about the vertical axis. When the weight fell with a spinning gyroscope in the counter-clockwise direction, there was a weight increase. Tests with a pendulum suspending the gyroscope produced similar results. Kosyrev went on to discuss effects of the Earth’s rotation about its axis and the influence of the Earth’s surface upon time. This creates differences in gravity over the equator versus gravity at the planet’s poles due to the force of time patterns. Investigations by Korotaev [18]-[19] devised an experiment to measure effects of Kosyrev’s interaction of natural geophysical and solar processes treated as a macroscopic non-locality. The detectors had three orders of magnitude higher efficiencies and care was taken to eliminate noise-producing factors. Results demonstrated there was a large non-social influence of several large-scale processes related to weather change, geomagnetic variations, ionospheric and solar activity that creates a detection lag of numerous processes involved in geophysical forecasts. From the mid-50 to the late 70’s, Kosyrev used a different receiving system mounted on a telescope. His experiment was a means of looking at the past, the present and the future. When directed at a certain star, the detector registered an energy signal even when a metal screen shielded the main mirror of the telescope. This suggested a star had some electromagnetic radiation which could not be shielded by the screens. When the telescope was directed not at the visible but the true position of the star, the detector registered an even stronger incoming signal suggesting some of the star’s radiation reached the detector instantaneously at billions of times greater than the speed of light. Moreover, Kosyrev found his detector registered an incoming signal when the telescope was directed toward a position that was symmetrical with the visible position of the star relative to its true position. This was interpreted as a detection of the future position of the star. According to Dadaev [17] of the Pulkovo Observatory who provided details regarding these experiments, Kosyrev drew conclusions about the reality of Minkowski geometry. Experiments with a similar detector were repeated a decade later separately by M. M. Lavrentiev and A. F. Pugach. Others have interpreted these repeating experiments by claiming stars are objects with large angular momentum and these experimental results were detection of torsion field radiation. An additional investigation [18] at the Geoelectromagnetic Research Institute, examined the theory and Kosyrev’s casual mechanics experiment. Ideas of casual mechanics have met a contradictory reaction because of the theory’s weak formalization and doubts about experimental rigor; however, these experiments demonstrated reproducibility. The basic tenets of casual dynamics were strictly formulated revealing a connection of casual dynamics with action at a distance, electrodynamics, and quantum non-locality. Kosyrev statistical showed that a star’s coordinate in state space falls on such a cooling surface. This means there are no other mechanisms of energy emission independent of heat radiation. Recent discoveries of the deficit in the solar neutrino flow and low temperature of the central solar interior (sun’s surface) correspond to Kosyrev’s theories. Kosyrev suggests time cannot be treated distinct from substance. All processes in the universe are sources of time, feeding the flow of time. Therefore one can expect relations between systems upon another through time and any dissipative process related with radiation and with radiation damping. Several of
Paul A. Murad Kosyrev’s astrophysical and gyro experiments, Lavrentyev et al, and Hayasaka and Takeuchi reproduced his results ten years later. Morozov demonstrated similar findings regarding dissipative processes. Kosyrev applied casual mechanics to problems such as zonal asymmetries of the Earth and other planets, lunar-terrestrial relationships, and evolution of double stars.
E. Gravity Newtonian gravity is adequate for predicting both planetary and spacecraft motion. Gravitational anomalies [22]-[27] and the desire to travel at relativistic speeds suggest that before devising an advanced far-term propulsion system, gravity should be understood and integrated within a unified theory to possibly include electricity and magnetism for dealing with space propulsion. Thus, new theories need to be created that can predict currently accepted phenomenon as well as accept anomalies. Incorporating angular moment within gravity itself can explain various unknown spin asymmetries by allowing transfer of gravitational radiation directly into angular momentum. Slowing the rotational rate of a rapidly spinning neutron star may be due to generating gravitational waves with the star’s attendant reduction in energy and angular momentum. Angular momentum conservation implies the star’s gravitational field “carries away” angular momentum by changes within the gravitational field in a tangential direction, or tangential-force term, occasioned by radiated gravitational waves.
Usually physicists linearize gravity by treating the gravitational tensor simply as a vector based upon the main diagonal elements to reduce mathematical complexity. This implies the gravity tensor may have off-diagonal elements, which induce these effects and such elements indicate linearizing the gravity tensor ignores some physical realities. This could include off-diagonal elements in the gravity matrix as shown below for a spherical coordinate system with its metric:
grr 0 gi j 0 gt r
0 r2 0 0
0 gr t 0 0 r 2 sin 2 0 0 gt t
or : ds 2 2 gr t dr dt g r r dr 2 r 2 d 2 r 2 sin 2 d 2 gt t dt 2
(1)
Note the mathematical difficulties enhanced if gravity depends upon time to generate gravity waves or the terms may not vanish. If non-zero, Murad [26]-[27] points out angular momentum can be converted into linear momentum which is why this is so important. • •
•
The suggestion is some of the off-diagonal terms may involve none-zero values to also increase the nonlinearity of the field equations. This also implies off-diagonal components may exist where effects from one degree of freedom, say angular momentum about an axis of rotation, may impact another degree of freedom. If curvature exists, then it implies the existence of a field, usually a gravitational field. Other fields such as an electric, magnetic or even a torsion field could exist to create curvature; however, the field strength would have to be considerable.
New Frontiers in Space Propulsion Science - Part I A distortion within the space-time continuum can be considered as:
R
1 g R 0 2
(2)
This is sometimes referred to as the vacuum field equations. In many situations, engineers and scientists tend to linearize complex systems in the hope of creating a solution to a particular problem. By ignoring the more difficult challenges posed by a nonlinear problem, they lose sight of potential solutions which may solve real problems of interest. Linearizing the field equations by vectorizing the gravitational tensor into a vector to satisfy Newtonian gravity requirements creates a vectorized Ricci tensor as well. Examining the field equations has provided an engineering framework to look at developing a far-term space drive. It also reveals a situation to generate a gravitational distortion. The challenge is for the engineering disciplines to develop the technology that creates these anomalous conditions.
E.1.
Spin-related Notions about Gravity
There are several anomalous behavior that infer gravity has some impact with rotation. Research indicates in a binary pulsar [4]-[6], there is a relationship of the neutron star’s gravitational attraction with respect to a companion star based upon the masses of both bodies and the rotation rate of the neutron star. If there is such a situation, the question is if rotation has some impact that can result in space propulsion. Moreover, these concepts may consider a large activity involved with generating a vortex with energy or momentum. In the words of Dyatlov [14]-[16], a former Chief Scientist who once lived in Novosibirsk: “One does not learn anything new if phenomenon obeys the conventional wisdom. We should look at anomalous behavior in nature and, if the data is real, must make a decision whether to include the data or not within our ‘standard’ models. If accepted and we must act as honest scientists and engineers, then we must create a new conventional wisdom that not only predicts the existing database but includes the anomalies as well.”
On this basis, we require to consider these anomalous behavior. There are many notions about spin [2], specifically if there is a feeling gravity and rotation are related. Jefimenko [28]-[30] strongly felt that his gravity law was not only an attraction but it also induced angular rotation. This involves notions similarly supported by Dyatlov’s gravispin induction [14]-[16], as well as Winterberg’s consideration [3]-[6] where the rotation of neutron stars could diminish its gravitational field from its companion. Jefimenko uses the gravitational equations of Heaviside [31] to derive the equations of celestial mechanics. The derivation includes additional terms to the gravity potential that account for the spin (torsion) field of the sun and the galaxy ignored in both Newtonian theory as well as Einstein's Theory of Relativity. These 'spin' terms [23] account for rotation of the sun, planetary bodies, artificial satellites, and other space objects and contraction of the elliptical orbits of the planets. Consequences of the Heaviside gravity theory are verifiable and represent a modern approach to better understand Astronautics. There are many anomalies as well as new theories worthy of consideration. Gravity may no longer depend upon position within the field but as Jefimenko suggests may consist of a gravitational and a cogravitational field. With this model, gravity at relativistic speeds may now become a function of both position and velocity. Furthermore, gravity may no longer be a purely attractive force but could also be repulsive or even include an angular momentum component that produces rotation. Jefimenko recently points out limitations/shortcomings [28] of Newtonian
Paul A. Murad gravity despite it accurately predicts motion of planets and satellites. Here, Newtonian gravity is incapable of explaining: –A fast-moving point mass passing a spherically-symmetric body causes the latter to rotate, –A mass moving with rapidly decreasing velocity exerts both an attractive and repulsive force on neighboring bodies, –A fast-moving mass passing a stationary mass exerts an explosion-like force on the latter, –A rotating mass that is suddenly stopped causes neighboring bodies to rotate, and –The period of revolution of a planet or satellite is affected by the rotation of the central body. Jefimenko goes on to state the generalized theory of gravitation indicates that a link exists between gravitation and electromagnetism since beams of electromagnetic radiation (light beams) are deflected and bent by strong gravitational fields. Models provided by Jefimenko [28] also suggest when a stationary mass rotates, it creates a cogravitational field. Gravikinetic induction suggests a mass near a larger mass is affected, will accelerate or rotate. A rotating sphere near a flat plate will produce a gravitational and cogravitational field and could be treated as a point mass as a cogravitational dipole. Force depends upon the sphere’s linear and angular velocities. He also suggests Generalized Newtonian theory is based, to a large extent, on the idea that the gravitational-cogravitational field is the seat for momentum and energy. Einstein’s equivalence principle forbids gravitational energy as a source of a gravitational field. Jefimenko claims this is not a convincing or compelling argument since gravitational energy is hardly prominent. A nonlinear gravitational field can admit both gravity and anti-gravity. There are some unusual but natural effects on the Jupiter moons of Himalia and Elara. Himalia is near spherical while Elara is irregular. These bodies are at very close distances and the eccentricity is also very close. What is surprising is rotation rates are almost identical1. This rotation could not be explained with Newtonian gravitation.
Figure 9. The larger moons of Jupiter. Himalia is at a distance of 11,480,000 km from Jupiter’s surface and rotates every 0.4 days but requires 250.6 days to complete a revolution around Jupiter. Elara is at a distance of 11,737,000 km from Jupiter’s surface and rotates every 0.5 days with an orbital period of 259.6 days. Differences are due to orbital eccentricity for Himalia of 0.1580 and the orbital eccentricity for Elara of 0.2072. After capture, tidal effects, or whatever process creates synchronization, would slowly reduce the rotation rate transferring angular momentum to Jupiter. 1
New Frontiers in Space Propulsion Science - Part I
F. Our Analytical Tools As previously mentioned, conservation is important especially for engineers. Engineers live and die with conservation. An aerodynamicist chases streamlines, an electrical engineer traces electrons, and a nuclear engineer tracks neutrons and so on. A rationale was brought forth that to look at a space drive, it must conform to conservation. This is not a bad idea concerning mass, momentum, and energy but it provides some limitations regarding how to deal with nuclear explosions, over-unity events where more energy is provided than the inputs, or how to deal with gravity. The physicists has an interesting tool with Einstein’s field equations. Here, there is a stress-energy tensor. This term essentially is a collection of all of the conservation laws to include Maxwell’s equations. If conservation occurs, this tensor vanishes. If, however, it does not vanish, the other important terms of the field equation is it becomes part of either spacetime curvature or changes the gravity tensor. If we want to build an advanced space propulsion system, we need to treat Einstein’s field equation without the constraint of conservation. Keep in mind about this. “A scientist discovers that which exists. An engineer creates that which never was.” Theodore von Karman Let us have some starting point in this problem. 1. Space and time form a 4-dimensional continuum where the word continuum implies a manifold. 2. The existence of globally inertial frames suggests there exist global space-time frames with respect to unaccelerated objects moving in straight lines at constant velocity. 3. The speed of light c is a universal constant, the same in any inertial frame. 4. The principle of special relativity or the laws of physics are the same in any inertial frame, regardless of position or velocity. Basically Einstein’s field equations examine the curvature of a space-time continuum based upon a gravitational field and various forces represented by: 1 8G (3) R g R T 2 c4 This form does not include the cosmological constant, which accounts for an expansion or contraction of the universe. A more complete form would be:
1 8 G (4) g R g T 2 c4 where Rμν is the Ricci curvature tensor, R the scalar space-time curvature, gμν the gravitational metric tensor, Λ is the cosmological constant, G is Newton's gravitational constant, c the speed of light, and Tμν the stress-energy tensor sometimes referred to as the mass-energy tensor or even the stress-energy-momentum tensor. This last tensor for Maxwell’s equations, for example, look like: R
Paul A. Murad 0 E x Fi j c Ey c E z c
Ex c
Ey
0
Bz
Bz
0
By
c
Bx
Ez c By . Bx 0
F i ,ji k j j L
1 F i j Fi j j i Ai . 4 o
T i j ui u j
1 i k j 1 i j kl Fk F a F Fk l c 2 4 (5)
T T , 0
Gertenshstein [32]-[38], a Russian astrophysicist, and others explored using the field equations as well as defining metric equations. Some efforts in examining singularities are assumed to be either a black hole or a wormhole. These singularities could occur either with time or the spatial dependency. He examined these possibilities regarding singularities and induced time loops with interesting consequences. Such singularities should be viewed with both time and spatial coordinates. Murad performed an analysis [39] of the conditions to move at a speed greater than light. Normally, the equations for velocity moving above the speed of light result in imaginary values for a reference body moving below the speed of light. The initial body releases a bubble of light that moves at the speed of light. As time proceeds, the reference body sees the bubble of light growing in time as it grows larger and faster than the reference body. When examining a reference body moving faster than the speed of light, using Einstein’s mathematical rationale, the reference moves faster than light and looks at a reference light bubble. The bubble becomes smaller and eventually disappears. Basically this implies the speed of light is not a limitation as Einstein suggests but can proceed faster than light with his own logic. We will have to treat this possibility for a space drive. We need to consider Newtonian gravity may have significant flaws and what is required are some useful experiments to demonstrate the local gravitational fields. To do this, we want different gravitational laws to demonstrate specific events in space such as unusual trajectory perturbations or the Libration Points. In an investigation, Morningstar derived a conservation law of the Poynting field [40]-[43]. This included a vortex configuration based upon the magnetic and electric fields. This field drives a wave equation under the premise that electric and magnetic fields are wave equations, then the Poynting field should also be a wave equation. When investigated, an accompanying equation was derived to represent a torsion or localized gravitational field. If a field, this equation has more granularity than the derivation by Gertenshstein and comments later by R. Forward implying electricity and magnetism related to gravitation. Gertenshstein’s derivation assumed if electrical and magnetic fields moved at the same speed of light, using Einstein’s field equation, there should be a coupling between the three fields.
G. Challenges for Advanced Space Propulsion Physical environmental phenomenon was mentioned that if mankind is as of yet to still learn about some of these wondrous events from Mother Nature. To do this, a meaningful measurement system needs to understand instrumentation as well as the performance of our craft. Some of these systems do not exist. For example, if we are to move at faster than the speed of light, how do we measure this? One may view such a venture as trivial. When satellites first flew with visual sensors, one could claim there was no need to look any further. However, when infrared sensors were used, observations showed a different perspective. This is also true with ultraviolet sensors.
New Frontiers in Space Propulsion Science - Part I Each of these systems compliments the data space of an observation so it is imperative to look into a faster than light sensor. How do you define a parameter that is unique as a function of velocity? Moreover, this parameter must be identified with a specific sensor. For example, could a space-time curvature sensor be defined? What are the requirements to assess gravity along a fast traveling trajectory? The other part of the problem will be how to measure engine performance as well as determine navigation. For navigation, it appears a pulsar system should be used representative of the GPS algorithmic systems. During traversing the far-abroad, no reference satellites will be available so the system would require using ‘natural’ flagstones to identify anchor points. Pulsars have an accuracy higher than what one could expect with an atomic clock used in GPS. This would require larger radio telescopes to discover these pulsars and identify unique parameters for identification. This may be a suitable option for a long-range spacecraft capable of reaching the stars. The issue with engine performance will also have to deal with unusual problems such as high electrical and magnetic fields. Problems with nuclear operation are fairly well treated but here, magnetic fields would include magnetic nozzles or other approaches that exceed continuously more than 20 Tesla. Moreover, the craft may require an electrostatic charge of millions of volts to deflect debris during the high-speed trajectory. This instrumentation may be adequate considering existing technology. Communications may be problematic. Using E-M fields at the speed of light may be inadequate. An experiment by Podkletnov using a gravity pulse suggested evidence the pulse moved at 63 times the speed of light. Moreover, Kosyrev’s experiment also provided indication of action faster than the speed of light. If this is true and can be further validated, one may use a gravitational wave communicator with the travelers moving in the far-abroad. One should recognize developing suitable instrumentation can be a very difficult problem and may require funding alternatives. Meholic [44]-[45] claims the energy level is not unique based upon conditions below and above the speed of light. This result concerning energy is nonlinear and self-defeating demonstrated in Figure 3 from [44]. Obviously the point is to realistically look at gravity and space travel that currently exceeds our technological depth. Clearly instrumentation technology must be developed.
Figure 3. Normally the axis is used only above energy value but in reality, a negative possibility exists.
H. Propellantless Propulsion These concepts [46]-[47] generally use fields and do not expel or reject mass for creating thrust. This will rely upon generating a field that opposes or acts against some
Paul A. Murad
other field or the same field to create motion. These approaches are complex and may involve maturation of significant technology for travel to the cosmos far-abroad. H.1. The Polarizable Physical Vacuum for Interstellar Motion A theme of propellantless propulsion or field propulsion has come to the fore in advanced planning for long-range space exploration. One version of this concept involves the projected possibility where empty space itself (the quantum vacuum, or space-time metric) might be manipulated so as to provide energy/thrust for future space vehicles. Such a proposal is solidly grounded in modern theory that describes the vacuum as a polarizable medium which sustains energetic quantum fluctuations. Thus the possibility where matter/vacuum interactions might be engineered for space-flight applications and is not a priori ruled out, although certain constraints want to be acknowledged. Quantum theory tells us that so-called empty space [7]-[10], [48] is not truly empty, but is the seat of myriad energetic quantum processes. Specifically, quantum field theory tells us, even in empty space, fields (e.g., the electromagnetic field) continuously fluctuate about their zero baseline values. The energy associated with these fluctuations is the zero point energy (ZPE), reflecting that such activity remains even at a temperature of absolute zero. Such a concept is almost certain to have profound implications. When a hypothetical ZPEpowered spaceship strains against gravity and inertia, there are three elements of the equation where the ZPE technology could in principle address: (1) a decoupling from gravity, (2) a reduction of inertia, or (3) the generation of energy to overcome both. The Russian physicist Andrei Sakharov was the first to propose that in a certain sense, gravitation is not a fundamental interaction at all, but rather an induced effect brought about by changes in the quantum-fluctuation energy of the vacuum when matter is present. In this view, the attractive gravitational force is more akin to the induced van der Waals and Casimir forces, than to the fundamental Coulomb force. One is associated with the gravitational attraction between bodies, while the other is a measure of resistance to acceleration, even far from a gravitational field. A ZPE model for inertia which developed the concept that although a uniformly moving body does not experience a drag force from the (Lorentz-invariant) vacuum fluctuations, an accelerated body meets a resistive force proportional to the acceleration. The extraction of energy from the vacuum fluctuation energy reservoir, there are no energetic or thermodynamic constraints preventing such release under certain conditions. H.2. The Space-Time Metric (Metric Engineering Approach) Maxwell’s equations in curved space are treated in the isomorphism of a polarizable medium of variable refractive index in flat space; the bending of a light ray near a massive body is modelled as due to an induced spatial variation in the refractive index of the vacuum near the body. The reduction in the velocity of light in a gravitational potential is represented by an effective increase in the refractive index of the vacuum, and so forth. In terms of a variable vacuum dielectric constant K in which vacuum permittivity o transforms to o Ko, vacuum permeability to o Ko. In a planetary or solar gravitational potential K 1+ 2GM / rc2 > 1. The variable K indicates the dimensions of material objects that adjust in accordance with local changes in vacuum polarizability - thus there is no such thing as a perfectly rigid rod. From the standpoint of the polarizable vacuum (PV) approach, this is the genesis of the variable metric of such significance in GR studies.
New Frontiers in Space Propulsion Science - Part I H.3. Metric Engineering Solutions In the polarizable vacuum (PV) approach, Puthoff [47]-[48] introduces an equation which plays the role of the Einstein equation for a single massive particle at an origin. This is:
2
1 2 K K K 2 2 4 c / K t
mo c 2 2 K
1 w 2 1 1 w 2 2
3
r .....
(6)
where w = v /(c / K). In this PV formulation of GR, changes in the vacuum dielectric constant K are driven by mass density (first term), EM energy density (second term), and the vacuum polarization energy density itself (third term). The constant c4 / 32G, where G is the gravitational constant. In space surrounding an uncharged spherical mass distribution (e.g., a planet), the static solution K / t 0 is found by solving: 2
d2 K 2d K 1 d K . 2 dr r dr K dr
(7)
The solution satisfies the Newtonian limit given by:
GM K 1 2 2 ... rc
(8)
Which can reproduce to appropriate order the standard GR Schwarzschild metric properties as they apply to the weak-field conditions prevailing in the solar system. A typical solution might look like:
a 2 b 2 K cosh r
a 2 b 2 a sinh r a 2 b 2
, where a 2 b 2 .
(9)
This means there is some semblance of control for defining the space-time curvature tensor. These notions touched briefly on innovative forms of space propulsion, especially those that might exploit properties of the quantum vacuum or the space-time metric in a fundamental way. In developing such nascent concepts, it is premature to even guess at an optimum strategy, let alone attempt to forge a critical path. It still remains to be determined whether such exploitation is even feasible. Nonetheless, only by rigorously inquiring into such concepts can we hope to arrive at a proper assessment of the possibilities and thereby pursue in our steps first to explore our solar system environment, and to reach the stars.
I. Propulsion- A Historic Perspective Seeds have been planted regarding environment. These issues clearly need to be resolved. Moreover, mankind should gladly seek after these issues to find a morsel of more knowledge to give us insights within the mysteries of the cosmos. The hopes are this new information could allow mankind to replicate some events for creating newer space propulsion. Could the spacecraft tame the violence within a black hole or a tornado of particles permit in what Dyatlov [48] calls ‘gravispin’?
Paul A. Murad
Figure 4. Comparison of zero-point radiation pressures: (a) zero-point radiation pressure gradient caused by an accelerating ship at 0.99 speed of light and (b) zero-point radiation pressure gradient caused by accelerating ship at 2.0 speed of light [49]. Let us address the argument requisites to discuss some of these ideas created by physicists who have used Einstein’s field equations. These may be great ideas but how can we implement this technology? How can the machine be made that converts the space-time continuum into energy? This requires a close relationship between the disciplines of physics and engineering if there is any possible success for developing such a future space propulsion device with meaningful performance. Some of these problems are really difficult. A noteworthy quote is: "There have been many people (some of them quite well known), that have ‘proved' by ‘calculation’ where interstellar flight is ‘impossible.’ Actually, in each case, all they ‘proved’ was that with the initial ‘obvious’ assumptions in which they forced on the problem, the problem was made so difficult that they were unwilling to consider it further." -Dr. Robert L. Forward, 1986.
Before we try to search for the truth, let us keep in mind we warrant to be openminded about these issues to break away from our own self-deluded ignorance. Science fiction is replete with Warp-drive driven spacecraft capable of traveling faster than the speed of light. To do so, however, would violate Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity. There are three basic concepts that claim to support this notion. These are:
An Alcubierre warp-drive where space-time curvature is warped in front of and behind the spacecraft enshrouding the vehicle in a bubble where, relative to a fixed observer, the vehicle and the bubble travels faster than the speed of light, The Krasnikov tube where a tunnel is created at very high sublight speeds, but a return through the same tunnel to the point of origin in the other direction is faster than the speed of light, and, A traversable Wormhole capable of connecting different portions of space-time curvature with a geometry permits travel from one location to another at speeds that appear, to a fixed observer, to be faster than the speed of light.
Millis [50] suggests developing an interstellar propulsion system would require several breakthroughs. These are a means to exceed the speed of light, and discovery how to manipulate the coupling between mass and space-time. Such research would most likely
New Frontiers in Space Propulsion Science - Part I introduce emerging technologies to achieve these things while producing revolutionary consequences of enormous economic value. Millis implies to develop a warp drive, all that is required is to contract space-time in front of a ship while expanding space-time at the rear. This ‘warped’ space-time would propel itself at arbitrarily large speeds and expand spacetime in the rear of the ship using a negative energy density or negative mass. Classical physics says this does not exist.
J. The Alcubierre Drive In 1994 a Mexican mathematician, Miguel Alcubierre, discovered solutions to Einstein’s equations that allow warps in a space-time metric to travel faster than the speed of light. Alcubierre [51] showed that by distorting the local space-time metric in the region of a spaceship in a certain prescribed way, it would be possible in principle to achieve motion faster than the speed of light as judged by observers outside of the disturbed region, without violating the local velocity-of-light constraint within the region. Furthermore, the Alcubierre solution showed the proper (experienced) acceleration along the spaceship’s path would be zero, and the spaceship would suffer no time dilation, a highly desirable feature for interstellar travel. He introduces a foliation of space-like hypersurfaces of constant coordinate time t as a function for an interval of proper time between the hypersurfaces and an Eulerian observer (whose four-velocity is normal to the hypersurface). The metric to the space-time can be written as:
ds 2 d
2
g dx dx ,
ds 2 2 i
i
dt
2
(10)
2 i dx i dt i j dx i dx j .
Where the metric γij is positive definite for all values of time and the space-time is globally hyperbolic with no closed casual curves. From this expression, he finds the top-hat function and rewrites the metric:
ds 2 dt 2 dx v s ( t ) f ( r s ) dt 2 dy 2 dz 2 where
f ( rs )
tanh ( ( r s R )) tanh ( ( r s R )) 2 tanh ( R )
(11)
.
This 3-geometry of the hypersurface is always flat and for certain values of these constants, the time-like curves normal to these hypersurfaces are geodesics and the Eulerian observers are in free-fall. The metric has a drawback where it violates all three energy conditions (weak, dominant, and strong). Alcubierre looks at the Einstein tensor and finds the energy density given by:
T n n 2 T
00
2 2 1 vs 8 4 r c2
df 2 . dr
(12)
This term is negative everywhere which implies a violation of the energy conditions. Moreover, the same happens with wormholes and exotic matter for faster than light travel. In fact negative energy density may arise from the Casimir effect. Alcubierre’s proposal was unrealistic based upon: 1. It required a huge amount of negative energy, 2. The drive displayed no causality between the ship and the field itself, and
Paul A. Murad 3. The exotic energy states violated certain quantum energy conditions.
Figure 5. The Alcubierre Warp Bubble top-hat function describes a volume whose space-time elements expand behind the object (residing in the center flat region) and contract in front of it; producing motion in the direction of the contraction.
The issue of control at luminal speeds appears problematic and may require viewing null geodesics for control references. Moreover, Jose Natario showed the energy of a photon distorted by a warp drive would be lethal at luminal speeds. The solution was to layer the warp bubble to deal with hazardous matter and radiation. Halerewicz, jr. [51] claims Alcubierre proposes a form of bipolar (or dual) gravitational waves as a propulsion scheme. In General Relativity, gravitational waves are planar and each wave expands and contracts. The Alcubierre metric suggests that such a bipolar effect possibly explains the need for negative energy. Manipulation of space-time to propel a localized region of space or warp bubble is by expanding and contracting the metric field achieved with a ‘Top Hat’ function embedded into the metric. Thus, this principle is similar to gravitation as the idea is of how electric and magnetic fields propagates electromagnetic radiation. Space-time is given an intrinsic geometry dependent upon matter within the space according to Einstein’s field equations and particles tend to follow geodesic paths within this space-time. Geodesic motion explains inertia and tends to replace the primitive notion where objects in motion tend to remain in a state at constant velocity. Lobo and Crawford [52] suggest solutions have been obtained to Einstein’s Field Equations involving negative energy densities, or matter which violates the weak-energycondition, have been obtained with traversable wormholes, the Alcubierre warp drive, and the Krasnikov tube [51]-[53]. It is difficult to construct such metrics allowing superluminal travel in flat Minkowski space-time. Negative energy density or exotic matter represents a severe drawback. The Alcubierre approach involves a small bubble-like region such that the bubble may obtain arbitrarily large velocities. The approach is based upon the inflationary theory of the early universe and the expansion of space-time. Here, the distribution of negative energy density is concentrated in a toroidal region perpendicular to the direction of travel. Krasnikov suggests an observer on a spacecraft cannot create nor control on demand an Alcubierre bubble with velocity greater than light speed around the ship. The 2dimensional model is reminiscent of an event horizon. Moreover, the Krasnikov metric has the interesting property where the time on a one-way trip cannot be shortened, the overall time on a round trip can be made arbitrarily small. Pfenning and Ford [54] apply a quantum-inequality type of restriction to Alcubierre’s metric where the local space-time is flat. These restrictions reduce the negative energy requirement placing limits upon the warp bubble where the wall thickness is of the order of
New Frontiers in Space Propulsion Science - Part I Plank’s length. These restrictions and the energy restrictions make the thin walls physically unattainable. The spacecraft sits at rest with respect to the interior of the warp bubble and an observer may move through the interior of the bubble at constant velocity. The major issue is negative energy or exotic matter can produce space-time curvature in either the Alcubierre drive or a traversable wormhole. Moreover, the Krasnikov metric also requires extremely thin walls to reduce the amount of exotic matter to allow for superluminal travel. Pfenning [55] examines negative energy densities to demonstrate the failure of classical energy conditions, the production of closed time-like loops and faster than light travel, which violates the second law of thermodynamics, and the existence of naked singularities. Although quantum field theory does introduce negative energy, it also provides a constraint in the form of quantum inequalities. Moreover, the uncertainty principle limits the magnitude and duration of any negative energy. Pfenning indicates the localized energy density in a quantized field theory is not always positive definite. The Casimir vacuum energy density for the quantized electromagnetic field between two perfectly conducting flat plates is constant and everywhere negative when the plates are forced to be attractive. The issue of negative energy density is not necessarily a problem but could be beneficial allowing time travel where mankind could construct a spacecraft, to warp space-time around them for travel around the universe faster than light speed. Even wormholes would represent self-consistent solutions to Einstein’s equation. Van Den Broeck [56] demonstrates a minor modification of the Alcubierre geometry dramatically reducing the energy requirements to maintain a warp bubble. This places the energy requirements on the same mass scale of large transversable wormholes. He mentions the Krasnikov tube was an attempt to improve upon the Alcubierre geometry; the latter of which would deform space-time in the spacecraft’s immediate vicinity such that the curve becomes a time-like geodesic while still keeping most of the Minkowski space-time. The Alcubierre geometry is defined where the geometry violates strong, dominant, and especially the weak energy condition (WEC). A macroscopically large bubble must contain an unphysical large amount of negative energy where the bubble wall is extremely thin. The ‘f’ term disappears outside of the bubble and the geometry is Minkowskian. He makes a modification to this geometry with:
ds 2 dt 2 B 2 ( rs ) dx v s ( t ) f ( rs ) dt 2 dy 2 dz 2 .
(13)
The B term must be twice differentiable. Ford and Pfenning calculated the minimum negative energy with a warp bubble. “However, the warp drive has a trivial topology, which makes it an interesting space-time to study.” Van Den Broeck [56] examines objections raised concerning the Alcubierre geometry. These suggest the geometry is unlikely within the framework of general relativity and quantum field theory although subluminal bubbles are feasible. Another objection claims the divergence of quantum fluctuations on a warp drive background is not valid. The total energy is reduced dramatically by keeping the surface area of the warp bubble microscopically small while at the same time expanding the spatial volume inside the bubble. A problematic feature is behavior of the negative energy in the warp bubble wall. If tachyonic motion is interpreted as meaning part of the exotic matter is not able to keep up with the bubble when it goes superluminal, the outer shell could destroy the warp effect. This induces a naked curvature singularity in front of the bubble. Due to the lack of horizons, potential problems due to diverging vacuum fluctuations will not arise and there will be no tachyonic motion of exotic matter if the geometry is correctly chosen. Loup et al [57] claim horizons do not exist for warp drive space-times traveling at subluminal velocities. Horizons develop when you reach luminal velocities. The claim is a
Paul A. Murad control region of a warp drive ship may lie within a warped region casually connected to the ship even at superluminal speeds allowing the ship to slow to subluminal velocities. A skeptical physicist regarding warp drives, would be concerned about the appearances of horizons when the ship reaches superluminal velocities. How is the ship controlled when the bubble detaches or casually disconnected from the ship and the bubble is not turned off to reduce velocity? He introduces the Hiscock horizon, the ‘top hat’ function associated with the Alcubierre drive, and the Pfenning piecewise function. It is concluded the Pfenning function provides the ingredients for the control of the warp bubble. Is there a different approach toward resolving the negative stress-energy or exotic matter issue? Desiato and Storti [58] compare the Alcubierre ‘warp drive’ metric space-time can be an electric field superimposed onto an array of time varying 4-current density sources. The energy condition violation required by this metric is provided by the interaction term of the Lagrangian density. Negative energy density exists as the relative potential between these sources. The interaction results in a macroscopic quantum phase shift is similar to the BohmAharonov Effect. Although the energy density is positive using a polarizable vacuum approach, this energy may be interpreted as negative resulting from a relative negative permittivity. Exotic matter is required for all space-time shortcuts. Recent efforts by Storti et al focused upon reducing the amount of negative energy required. Although E-M fields are created by real sources of charge and currents, a negative potential energy density can be formulated. For the Bohm effect, each field emitter possesses a 4-current density as a function of time near the coordinates relative to the center of mass and the other field emitters. Fields involved do not need to be necessarily strong. The superimposed fields control the Lorentz force exerted on each field emitter and EM fields are orders of magnitude stronger than gravitational fields. Desiato suggests for identical field emitters, coherent waves represent a flux linkage similar to an electric induction motor. If all field emitters are thus coupled, a relative phase displacements in both space and time could control the speed of the array. The authors crucial claim does not require exotic mass where they derive equations which entails that the Lorentz force does work to move the field emitters forward. An E-M field is radiated behind the emitters thereby conserving energy and momentum (the reaction field is radiated in the –z direction). The author concludes the metric is not the same as the Alcubierre metric and space-time curvature emerges from a phase shift induced by a gauge phase factor by semi-exotic matter. Superimposing a strong E-M field on this matter exerts strong Lorentz forces and not weak gravito-magnetic accelerations. Szpir [59] states the warp drive as envisioned by Alcubierre would create a disturbance in space-time directly in front of the spaceship where it is contracted and one expanded behind the craft. This distortion in space-time propels a spacecraft forward like a surfer riding the crest of a breaking wave. Although it violates Einstein’s special theory of relativity, violations lead to casual paradoxes where actors in the present may alter the past. Alcubierre claims his idea does not lead to such violations because time flows at different rates, the passengers on such a craft will not feel any acceleration and would be weightless. Hart et al [60] suggests if we assume that space-time could be influenced by a warp drive, the need exists to deflect matter in the form of meteors away from the ship. Intrinsic properties of the space-time metric can deflect matter. If one created a static warp field, meteors could be deflected from planets by using a fleet of subluminal ships. Hazardous radiation and collisions with matter on a warp drive ship pose serious obstacles to interstellar travel. The Broeck metric offers a potential solution where the horizon problem no longer exists. These problems could, for example, include photons at the front of the ship which are blue-shifted to lethal very high energies and radiation due to the Pfenning warped region. The Pfenning warped region is described by the top hat function going from 1 to 0, and the
New Frontiers in Space Propulsion Science - Part I Broeck warped approach contains two warped regions. Photons emitted in the forward direction, seen by the ship, change sign in the horizon and will lose contact with the ship. The remote frame will see photons emitted by the ship, crossing the horizon, and emerging outside in behavior similar to the event horizon of black holes. Here, a remote observer never sees the photons crossing the event horizons but an observer inside the hole will see the photons going to a singularity. The ship loses contact with photons in the horizon, but an outside observer in front of the ship will see those carry information as emerging from the warp bubble and reaching external space-time. Hart claims for a rigid body, the gravitational gradients in the Broeck regions have the property to tidally disrupt and deflect hazardous matter in the ship’s vicinity. Pieces of matter too small to be disrupted by the tidal forces will be slowed down by the Broeck warped region potentially, impacting the ship at low speeds. Larger pieces of matter will be tidally interrupted in the Broeck region and are not expected to hit the ship. Krasnikov demonstrated a Broeck warp drive could be obtained with –10 kg of exotic matter using classical scaling fields in lieu of quantum fields. This considerably lower value of exotic matter requires a microscopic size radius for the warp field. The authors claim warp drive space-times cannot be ruled out due to limitations from energy, blue shifts, or horizons. Everett [61] implies Alcubierre recently exhibited space-time allows travel at superluminal speeds with a negative energy density and be possible with closed causal loops that may involve cosmic strings. Moreover, this approach does not require using wormholes. Hiscock [62] finds the expected value of a stress-energy tensor for an Alcubierre drive. However, at the appropriate temperature, the stress-energy tensor diverges on past and future event horizons, which form the apparent velocity when the spaceship exceeds light. The use of exotic matter to generate a warp bubble around the spaceship is implausible. It is not spherically symmetric and cannot be reduced into two dimensions. The space-time is cylindrically symmetric about the axis the other dimensions are y = z = 0.
ds 2 1 v o2 ( t ) f 2 ( rs ) dt 2 2 v o f dt dx dx 2 .
(14)
Since the spaceship travels at constant velocity, there should exist a Lorentz-like transformation to a frame in which the ship is at rest. Hiscock determines this transformation and near the horizon where the observed energy density is negative while a divergence occurs at both the past and future horizons. If this divergence is to be avoided, then the ship’s drive must be presumably the source of the requisite stress-energy of the created particles and there would be a warp drag on the ship. Van Den Broeck [63] implies Hiscock argued the energy density due to fluctuations of conformally coupled quantum fields that diverge at particle horizons within the bubble at superluminal speeds. Although these calculations for 2-dmensions, it is reasonable this phenomena would occur in four dimensions. It is questionable such a divergence would be present if the warp bubble went superluminal and developed horizons a finite time in the past. This is comparable to a newly formed black hole that is not in thermal equilibrium with the field at infinity. Gabriele et al [64] show for particular choices of the shaping function, the Alcubierre metric in the context of conformal gravity does not violate the weak energy condition, as the case of the original solution. In particular, the resulting warp drive does not require the use of exotic matter. Therefore, if conformal gravity is a correct extension of general relativity, super-luminal motion via an Alcubierre metric might be a realistic solution, thereby allowing faster-than-light interstellar travel. As you can see, these are great ideas but how do you use this for reality?
Paul A. Murad
K. Kransnikov’s ‘Tunnel’ Tube Krasnikov [65] examines if a traveler could reach a destination faster than a photon considering that the traveler can control his space-time geometry. Results indicate the traveler could make a round trip within an arbitrarily short time based upon observations from a stationary observer. A beam of test particles are sent to a location moving at sub-luminal speed without influencing any effect on the surrounding environment. Upon reaching its destination, light is reflected and some portion heads back to the starting point. It is conceivable the particles could reach a wormhole to shorten the time to the original location. Suppose a spaceship is launched under similar conditions. By space-time, this is a smooth Lorentzian connected global manifold with no restrictions placed upon the matter field. The spaceship interaction with the environment may not be weak with a small expenditure of energy could influence equilibrium. Moreover, it is assumed tachyons do not exist to maintain causality. On a one-way trip:
ds 2 dt 2 dx v s ( t ) f ( rs ) dt 2
(15)
Which resembles Alcubierre’s space-time. But, the metric for the round-trip becomes:
ds 2 dt dx dt k ( t , x ) dx
(16)
where k is a function that considers propagation within light cones. When unity, the spacetime is flat and does not influence gravity. An analysis result implies violation of the weak energy conditions and an exorbitant amount of negative energy is required during the superluminal return. Halerewicz [66] suggests the Krasnikov Tube generates an exotic energy field causing space-time coordinates to rearrange themselves according to a projection scheme. It is the simplest warp drive concept because it does not suffer from ‘horizon’ problems although it requires a spacecraft which travels near the speed of light. With no real reference, the pilot has very little means to control the warp drive. This is related to the Cosmological Constant based upon an expanding universe and gravity appears to both repel as well as attract. The model is also known as the “Subway to the Stars” where no special space-time constructions are needed. However, exotic matter is required to generate the shortcut within global space-time resulting in an Alcubierre-type warp drive during the return trip. Pfenning [67] indicates the Krasnikov space-time occurs when a spaceship travels to a distant star at subluminal velocity creating a tube of negative energy behind it thereby altering space-time as it goes. When it reaches its destination and turns around, the time elapses between the departure and return can be arbitrarily small or even zero related to observers at the destination point.
L. Traversable Wormholes Low [68] claims it is well known that linear perturbations of a metric on an Einstein vacuum satisfy a wave equation. Moreover, the bicharacteristics of this wave equation are the null geodesics of the background space-time. Thus finite perturbations in a gravitational field travel along null geodesics for no faster than light and constructing an Alcubierre warp drive is impossible without exotic matter. Low suggests it is difficult where the metric of spacetime in general relativity should be fixed; how could one make a decision that would change the metric in one’s future? It may be possible to arrange a space-time such where a slower
New Frontiers in Space Propulsion Science - Part I spaceship can arrive with less lapsed time in such a way when the return trip may be made short, as seen by a stationary observer, as mentioned in Krasnikov in 1998. Thus, we may want to change the metric if matter satisfies an evolution equation allowing faster than light travel. Krasnikov [69] looks at a class of wormholes with wide throats where the source for the WEC violations are required by the field equations describing the vacuum stress-energy of the neutrino, electromagnetic, or massless scalar field. A wormhole is basically a tunnel that connects a part of the universe with another sufficiently remote part disconnected from the initial region. If a signal is transmitted through the wormhole then it is called transversable. Krasnikov examines the Morris-Thorne wormhole whose metric is:
ds 2 e 2 ( r )dt 2 1 b( r ) / r dr 2 r 2 d 2 sin 2 d 2 where : , b( r ) / r and all derivatives go to zero as r approaches . 1
(17)
As the radius goes to infinity, the metric becomes a Minkowski metric. The stressenergy tensor of a quantum field need not obey the WEC. However, this tensor is not arbitrary for a specified metric so this condition still holds. The author writes Einstein’s equations separating the total stress-energy tensor and neglecting the interaction of the field with other matter. He defines some inequalities and determines the resulting expressions hold for neutrino, electromagnetic, and massless scalar (uniformly coupled) fields. This term was subtracted from the total stress-energy tensor to satisfy the WEC for a wormhole. Thus if wormholes are theoretically possible, an experiment for finding a macroscopic wormhole would be the gravitational micro-lensing of a background bright sources such as a quasar. The gravitational field of a wormhole is assumed to be clumps of exotic matter having a stellarscale negative mass although this was not considered. Moreover, a wormhole should generate a well-collimated beam of high-energy photons. If such a beam sweeps over the earth, it could be detected as a flash or a gamma ray burst. Finally, note no velocity appears in these expressions except through b(r); hence there is no way to easily describe the velocity of a particle within a traversable wormhole.
Figure 6. QM Wormholes: Instantaneous travel via quantum-tunneling through interstellar space.
As these efforts show, the warp drive concept is an intellectual and technological challenge. There are real problems regarding negative or exotic matter and how it becomes
Paul A. Murad part of these issues. Many investigators have given these concepts serious thought as well as tried to understand the first and second tier problems to allow a spacecraft to travel at or greater than the speed of light. They do so in the fear of not violating special relativity while still achieving capabilities outside of the realm of special relativity. Some efforts involve diminishing the size of the problem by reducing the amount of exotic matter required. Others look directly at the Einstein equations and have found some ways of circumventing this problem. Despite these theories, the want still exists to provide a means of experimental verification where these problems are real and resolvable. This is yet to be achieved. M. Some Additional Historical Thoughts
The questions and comments about the approach to measure events and wonders is worth addressing. LaViolette [70] offers a dated perspective from 2000 that still represents the current state of the art. His words are paraphrased as follows: “According to U.S. patent law, a patent has the right to be issued if the technology is new and if it works. There is nothing in the legal code that says the patent necessarily has to conform to theories of physics or chemistry as they happen to be defined by certain academic science societies. Unfortunately, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) have been illegally blocking the issuance of patents on new technologies that challenge current scientific thinking.” “A patent was awarded in February 2000 on an invention capable of sending communications faster than the speed of light. Witnesses attested the invention worked as claimed. Yet shortly after the patent was issued, believing the invention violated the theory of special relativity, the patent was altered. As a result of similar discrimination, government research moneys are routinely withheld from companies or individuals trying to develop such cutting edge ideas. In the name of preserving an outmoded set of theories that they claim their particular view. Government officials need to recognize that a working technology should not be suppressed just because it lies outside of the current scientific paradigm and produces results that refute this paradigm.” “Nonconventional technologies may be our only hope for solving the problems that presently lie ahead of us, but they are currently the underdog. We need an affirmative action program to educate government agencies and mainstream media to develop a more positive attitude toward nonconventional technologies, to treat researchers of these technologies in a fair manner, and to stop engaging in witch hunts. If we are going to deal with the problems we face, the scientific community needs to make a radical paradigm shift. They have to adopt a radically different attitude with respect to what is possible and what is not. There is not much time.” “The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy may be neither created nor destroyed. But there is evidence that nature routinely violates the First Law. The discovery that the Jovian planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune) lie along the same luminosity trend line as stars of the lower main sequence (e.g. red dwarfs) that throws a monkey wrench into theories of how stars generate their energy. Nuclear energy cannot explain this correspondence. One very simple solution to this problem is that a photon's energy is not constant, that photon's inside celestial bodies slowly blue shift – increase their energy over time. Thus energy is being continuously created in stars throughout the universe. This so called "genic energy" emerges as a prediction
New Frontiers in Space Propulsion Science - Part I
of a new physics methodology called subquantum kinetics. Although this rate of energy creation is ten orders of magnitude smaller than what can be detected in laboratory experiments, it nonetheless weakens the arguments of those who maintain the First Law as an inviolable doctrine of nature. If nature violates it, why can't we violate it also? Physics needs to make a major shift in thinking, shed their linear models which predict that there is no such thing as a free lunch, and embrace the newly emerging nonlinear models which allow the possibility that matter and energy may be created and destroyed.” “In the mid 1920's Townsend Brown discovered that electric charge and gravitational mass are coupled. He found when he charged a capacitor to a high voltage, it had a tendency to move toward its positive pole. This became known as the Biefeld-Brown effect. His important findings were opposed by conventional minded physicists of his time. General relativity doesn't explain the Biefeld-Brown electrogravitic effect or any other antigravity phenomenon since it predicts masses have just one gravitational polarity and should only attract one another. It allows the possibility of charge-mass coupling, only at very high energies, such as those attainable in particle accelerators far more powerful than any thus far built.” “The Searl Electrogravity Disc, developed over 40 years ago by the British engineer John Searl, consisted of a segmented rotating disc each of whose segments was supported by a set of cylindrical permanent magnets rolling within a circumferential track. It is alleged to have achieved complete lift off. In the past few years two Russian scientists associated with the Russian National Academy of Sciences, Roschin and Godin, have built a simplified version of the Searl Disc that confirms its anomalous weight loss effects. They spun a 1 meter diameter disc at 600 rpm and obtained a 35% reduction in its weight while at the same time generating a 7 kilowatt excess electric power output. A research team in Finland led by Dr. Podkletnov were experimenting with a rotating superconducting disc that was floated on a repelling magnetic field generated by a series of electromagnets. In 1996, they reported the disc was able to partially screen the Earth's gravitational field, reducing the weight of objects positioned above the disc by two percent. Greater weight reductions are envisioned by stacking several discs over one another. Besides propulsion, there are obvious applications to tapping the resulting gravity differential for mechanical power generation.” “James Woodward, a physics professor at Cal State Fullerton, is conducting research indicates that electromagnetic waves can induce lifting forces in piezoelectric ceramic media. His ideas are described in a 1994 U.S. patent and in a 1990 physics journal article. Woodward has conducted experiments that confirm this thrust effect in the audio frequency range (~10,000 Hertz), and his calculations suggest it may be substantially increased at higher frequencies, with optimal performance being obtained in the microwave range (0.1 to 10 gigahertz).” All of these issues tend to imply that conservation and our conventional wisdom raising anomalous behavior are raised warrants continued attention. Moreover, this may offer opportunities to discover and satisfy current worldwide energy problems as well as creating advanced space technology to the far-abroad.
Paul A. Murad
Conclusions Despite the knowledge base that exists, our capabilities are still wanting. The basic problems facing us about the space environment is daunting. Some of these are important because they may provide insights about new propulsion approaches or provide some means that allow us to use the necessary physics to operate. For example, to develop a warp drive, the energy level is huge and could be as large as the mass of Jupiter. Similarly, the claim is huge expenditures of energy can be used to reap the zero point field. This may be so and plausibly used for the energy needed for a warp drive; however, the technology is not there. The theories are excellent but the engineering skills make these issues extremely different to capture these capabilities. The technology is inadequate without funding or motivation. Similarly, some historical data was provided. These issues tend to question about successes making these items very controversial. Our notion about seeking conservation may also be wanting because some of these concepts violate conservation. These approaches may be real and may be the ideal approach to alter the gravitational tensor as well as the curvature tensor. Engineers live and die with conservation. Thus this may require a different paradigm if we intend to develop a space propulsion system that reaches past the near-abroad to distances in the far-abroad thereby seeking mankind’s destiny to satisfy its curiosity.
References [1]
[2]
[3]
[4] [5] [6]
[7] [8] [9]
[10]
Murad, P. A. “Cosmology and the Door to Other Dimensions and Universes”, co-authored with R. M. L. Baker, Jr., AIAA 2003-4882 presented at the 39th AIAA/ASME/SAE/SAEE Joint Propulsion Conference, 20-23 July 2003, Huntsville, Ala. Murad, P. A. “Gravity Laws and Gravitational Wave Phenomenon, Is There a Need for Dark Mass or Dark Energy?” presented at the AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, AIAA 2008-5123, 2008. Murad, P. A. “An Alternative Explanation of the Binary Pulsar PSR 1913+16,” in Proceedings of Space, Propulsion and Energy Sciences International Forum, edited by G.A. Robertson, AIP Conference Proceedings 1103, Melville, New York, 2009. Murad, P. A. “A Tutorial to Solve the ‘Free’ Two-Body Binary Pulsar Celestial Mechanics Problem”, SAP Journal 2013. This paper was also presented at STAIF II in 2013. Murad, P. A. “Pulsar Behaviour that may impact a Future Space Propulsor”, SAP Journal 2012. This paper was also presented at STAIF II in 2012. Murad, P. A. An Alternative Explanation of the Binary Pulsar PSR 1913+16, in Proceedings of Space, Propulsion and Energy Sciences International Forum, edited by G.A. Robertson, AIP Conference Proceedings 1103, Melville, New York, 2009. Haisch, B., Rueda, A., Puthoff, H. E. "Inertia as a Zero-Point-Field Lorentz Force", The American Physical Society, Physical Review A, Vol. 49, No. 2, Feb 1994, pp 678-694. R. L. Forward "Mass Modification Experiment Definition Study", PL-TR-96-3004, Feb. 1996. Haisch, B., Rueda, A., Puthoff, H. E. "Advances in the Proposed Electromagnetic ZeroPoint Field Theory of Inertia", Invited AIAA 98-3143, 34th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, July 13-15, 1998, Cleveland, Ohio. Rueda, A., Haisch, and Sunahata, H. Electro-magnetic Zero Point Field As Active Energy Source in the Intergalactic Medium", AIAA 99-2145, at the 35th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, 20-24 June 1999, L.A., California.
New Frontiers in Space Propulsion Science - Part I [11]
[12] [13] [14] [15]
[16]
[17] [18]
[19] [20]
[21] [22] [23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28] [29] [30]
Haisch, B., Rueda, A. "The Zero-Point Field and the NASA Challenge to Create the Space Drive", NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop, NASA Lewis Res. Ctr., Aug. 1214, 1997. Haisch, B., Rueda A. "Progress in Establishing a Connection Between the Electromagnetic Zero-Point Field and Inertia", STAIF-99, Jan 31- Feb 4, 1999, Albuquerque, N. M. Shipov, G. I. Physical Vacuum Theory, Moscow, NT-Center, 1993. Dyatlov, V. L. Electrogravimetric Energy Transformation, Moscow, NT-Center, 1995. Murad, P. A., Dyatlov, V. L., and Dmitriev, A. N. “Interesting Problems of the Inhomogeneous Physical Vacuum”, Proceedings of the Science 2000 Congress, St. Petersburg, Russia, July 3-8, 2000. Murad, P. A., Dyatlov, V. L. “Comparing the Inhomogeneous Physical Vacuum and the Zero-Point Field”, Proceedings of the Science 2000 Congress, St. Petersburg, Russia, July 3-8, 2000. Dadaev, A. N. “Astrophysics and Casual Mechanics”, Galilean Electrodynamics & GED East, Volume 11, Special Issues No. 1, Spring, 2000, pp. 4-7. Korotaev, S. M., Serdyuk, V. O., Sorokin, M. O. ”Experimental Verification of Kosyrev’s Interaction of Natural Processes”, Galilean Electrodynamics & GED East, Volume 11, Special Issues 2, Fall 2000, pp. 23-28. Korotaev, S. M.: ”The Force of Time”, Galilean Electrodynamics & GED East, Volume 11, Special Issues 2, Fall 2000, pp. 29-33. Kosyrev, N. A. “Possibility of Experimental Study of the Properties of Time”, JPRS: 45238, 2 May 1968; Pulkovo, O Vozmozhnosti Eksperimental’Nogo Issledovaniya Svoystv Vremeni, Russia, Sept 1967, pp. 1-49. Parshin, Pavel F. “Preface to the Kosyrev Issues”, Galilean Electrodynamics & GED East, Volume 11, Special Issues No. 1, Spring, 2000, pp. 3. Murad, P. A. “An Anzatz about Gravity, Cosmology, and the Pioneer Anomaly”, presented at the February 2010 SPESIF Meeting at John Hopkins University. Lavrentiev, M. M., Dyatlov, V. L., Fadeev, S. I., Murad, P. A. and Kostova, N. E. “Rotation Effects of Bodies In Celestial Mechanics”, Proceedings of the Science 2000 Congress, St. Petersburg, Russia, July 3-8, 2000. Co-authors are from Novosibirsk, Russia. Murad, P. A. “Exploring Gravity and Gravitational Wave Dynamics, Part I: Gravitational Anomalies”, in Proceedings of Space Technology and Applications International Forum (STAIF-2007), edited by M. S. El-Genk, AIP Conference Proceedings 746, Melville, New York, 2006. Murad, P. A. “Exploring Gravity and Gravitational Wave Dynamics, Part II: Gravity Models”, in Proceedings of Space Technology and Applications International Forum (STAIF-2007), edited by M. S. El-Genk, AIP Conference Proceedings 746, Melville, New York, 2006. Murad, P. A., Baker, jr., R. M. L. “Gravity with a Spin: Angular Momentum in a Gravitational-Wave Field”, co-authored with R. M. L. Baker, Jr.: Presented at the First International High Frequency Gravity Wave Conference, Mitre Corporation May 6-9, 2003. Murad, P. A. An Ansatz about Gravity, Cosmology, and the Pioneer Anomaly, in Proceedings of Space, Propulsion and Energy Sciences International Forum, edited by G.A. Robertson, AIP Conference Proceedings 1208, Melville, New York, 2010. Jefimenko, O. D., Gravitation and Cogravitation, Electret Scientific Company Star City, ISBN 0-917406-15-X, 2006. Jefimenko, O. D. Electromagnetic Retardation and Theory of Relativity, Electret Scientific Company, Star City, West Virginia, 1997. Jefimenko, O. D. Causality Electromagnetic Induction and Gravitation, Electret Scientific Company, Star City, West Virginia, 1992.
Paul A. Murad [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]
[36]
[37] [38] [39] [40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53]
Heaviside, O. A Gravitational and Electromagnetic Analogy, Part I, The Electrician, 31, 281-282 (1893) and Part II. The Electrician, 31, 359 (1893). Gertsenshtein, M. E. “Wave Resonance of Light and Gravitational Waves,” Soviet Physics JETP, Volume 14, Number 1, pp 84-85, 1962. Gertsenshtein, M. E. “The Possibility of an Oscillatory Nature of Gravitational Collapse,” Soviet Physics JETP. (USSR) 51, 129-134, July 1966. Braginskii, V. B., Gertsenshtein, M. E. “Concerning the Effective Generation and Observation of Gravitational Waves”, ZhETF Pis’ma 5, No. 9, 348-350, 1 May 1967. Gertsenshtein, M. E., Ingel, L. Kh., and Fil’chenkov, M. L. “Problem of the Physical Singularity in the General Theory of Relativity,” UDC 523.11, All-Union ScientificResearch Institute of Opticophysical Measurements, Fizika, No. 7, pp. 7-12, July 1978. Gertsenshtein, M. E., and Melkmova, E. Yu. “About the Singularity Criterion in General Relativity,” Translated from Izvestiya Vysshikh Uchebnykh Zavedenii, Fizika, No. 2, pp.954-99, 1987. Gertsenshtein, M. E. “Time Machine and The General Theory of Relativity,” Russian Physics Journal, Vol. 41, No. 2, 1998. Gertsenshtein, M. E. “Elementary Particle Physics and Field Theory: New Problems in General Relativity,” Russian Physics Journal, Vol. 41, No. 3, March, 1998. Murad, P. A. “Faster Than Light Travel Versus Einstein”, Vol. 13, No. 3, Galilean Electrodynamics, May/June 2002. Brandenburg, J. E. and Kline, J. F. Application of the GEM theory of Gravity-ElectroMagnetism Unification to the Problem of Controlled Gravity, Theory and Experiment, presented at the 34th Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, AIAA 98-3137, 1998. Murad, P. A., Brandenburg, J. E. “The Murad-Brandenburg Poynting Field Conservation Equation and Gravity”, SAP Journal 2012, presented at STAIF II in 2011 and presented at the 48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 2010. Murad, P. A., Brandenburg, J. E. “The Murad-Brandenburg Equation- A Wave Partial Differential Conservation Expression for the Poynting Vector/Field”, 50 th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA 2012-0997, Nashville, Tennessee, 9-12 January 2012. Murad, P. A., Brandenburg, J. “An Extension of the Murad-Brandenburg Poynting Field Conservation Equation and Possible Gravity Law”, presented at STAIF II in New Mexico, April 2014. Meholic, G. V. A Novel View of Space-time Permitting Faster-Than-Light Travel, STAIF 2004. Meholic, G. V. Fluidic Space-time and Representation of Fields in the Tri-Space Model of the Universe, STAIF 2005. Puthoff, H. E., Little, S. R., Ibison, M. Engineering the Zero-Point Field and Polarizable Vacuum for Interstellar Flight, JBIS, Vol. 55, pp.137-144, 2002. Puthoff, H. E. Advanced Space Propulsion Based Upon Vacuum (Space-time Metric) Engineering, JBIS, vol. 63, pp 82-89, 2010. Puthoff, H. E. “Polarizable-Vacuum (PV) Approach to General Relativity”, Foundations of Physics, Vol. 32, No. 6, June 2002 (© 2002). Robertson, G. A., et al. Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 436–452 449. Millis, M. G. “Emerging Possibilities for Space Propulsion Breakthroughs”, The Interstellar Propulsion Newsletter, Vol. 1, No. 1, July 1, 1995. Halerewicz, jr., E. “WDT- The Basics of Warp Drive Physics”, 2001. Lobo, F., Crawford, P. “Weak Energy Condition Violation and Superluminal Travel”, 9 April 2002. Alcubierre, M. “The Warp Drive: Hyper-Fast Travel Within General Relativity”, Class. Quantum Grav. 11-5, L73-L77 (1994).
New Frontiers in Space Propulsion Science - Part I [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60]
[61] [62] [63]
Pfenning, M. F. “Quantum Inequality Restrictions on Negative Energy Densities in Curved Spacetimes”, Ph.D. Dissertation for Tufts University, April 23, 1998. Pfenning, M. F., Ford, L. H. “The Unphysical Nature of ‘Warp Drive’”, Class. Quantum Grav. 14(1997) 1743-1751. Chris Van Den Broeck: “A ‘Warp Drive” with more Reasonable Total Energy Requirements”, Class. Quantum Grav. 16 (1999) 3973-3979, Printed in the UK. Loup, F., Held, R., Waite, D., et al: “A Causally Connected Superluminal Warp Drive Space-time”, January 28, 2002. Desiato, T. J., Storti, R C. “Warp Drive Propulsion with Maxwell’s Equations”, January 27, 2003. Szpir, M. “Space-time Hypersurfing”, (American Scientist V82). Hart, B. B., Held, R., Hoiland, P. K., Jenks, S., Loup, F. et al. “On the Problem of Hazardous Matter and Radiation at Faster than Light Speeds in the Warp Drive Spacetime”, July 27, 2002. Everett, A. E. “Warp Drive and Causality”, PHYSICAL REVIEW D, Vol. 53, No. 12, 15 June 1996. Hiscock, W. A. “Quantum Effects in the Alcubierre Warp-Drive Spacetime”, Letter to the Editor, Class. Quantum Grav. 14 (1997) L183-L188. Chris Van Den Broeck: “On the (im) possibility of Warp Bubbles”, KUL-TF-99/22 grqc/9906050.
[64] Gabriele U. Varieschi, Zily Burstein, Conformal Gravity and the Alcubierre Warp Drive Metric, arXiv:1208.3706v1 [gr-qc] 17 Aug 2012. [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70]
Krasnikov, S. V. “Hyperfast Interstellar Travel in General Relativity”, gr-qc/9511068 v6, 9 Mar 1998. Halerewicz, jr., E. “WDT- The Basics of Warp Drive Physics”, 2001. Pfenning, M. F. “Quantum Inequality Restrictions on Negative Energy Densities in Curved Spacetimes”, Ph.D. Dissertation for Tufts University, April 23, 1998. Low, R. J. “Speed Limits in General Relativity”, gr-qc/9812067 v1, 18 Dec. 1998. Krasnikov, S. V. “A Traversable Wormhole”, gr-qc/9909016 v4, 7 Aug 2000. LaViolette, P. A. “Moving Beyond the First Law and Advanced Field Propulsion Technologies”,
[email protected], October 4, 2000.
![[PDF] Download Advanced Space Propulsion Systems ... - Google Sites](https://m.moam.info/img/260x300/pdf-download-advanced-space-propulsion-systems-goo_647809e9097c4737708c5d7c.jpg)
![[PDF] Deep Space Propulsion - Google Sites](https://m.moam.info/img/260x300/pdf-deep-space-propulsion-google-sites_64777251097c4796708bb603.jpg)
