Quantum propulsion

[docm]

A "Quantum Wheel" would push on the virutual electromagnetic fields in spacetime, propelling a vehicle without consuming fuel mass (but of course consuming electricity).

MIT Technology Review....

Paper....(PDF)

Wednesday, December 09, 2009

A Blueprint For A Quantum Propulsion Machine

Push on the electromagnetic fields in the quantum vacuum and you should get an equal and opposite force.

The quantum vacuum has fascinated physicists ever since Hendrik Casimir and Dirk Polder suggested in 1948 that it would exert a force on a pair of narrowly separated conducting plates. Their idea was eventually confirmed when the force was measured in 1997. Just how to exploit this force is still not clear, however.

In recent years, a new way of thinking about the quantum vacuum has emerged which has vastly more potential. And today, one physicist describes how it could be used to create propulsion.
>
The new approach focuses on the momentum associated with these electromagnetic fields rather than the force they exert. The question is whether it is possible to modify this momentum because, if you can, you should receive an equal and opposite kick. That's what rocket scientists call propulsion.

Today, Alex Feigel at the Soreq Nuclear Research Center, a government lab in Yavne Israel, suggests an entirely new way to modify the momentum of the quantum vacuum and how this can be exploited to generate propulsion.

Feigel's approach combines two well-established ideas. The first is the Lorentz force experienced by a charged particle in electric and magnetic fields that are crossed. The second is the magnetoelectric effect--the phenomenon in which an external magnetic field induces a polarised internal electric field in certain materials and vice versa.

The question that Feigel asks is in what circumstances the electromagnetic fields in a quantum vacuum can exert a Lorentz force. The answer is that the quantum vacuum constantly interacts with magnetoelectric materials generating Lorentz forces. Most of the time, however, these forces sum to zero.

Hwever, Feigel says there are four cases in which the forces do not sum to zero. Two of these are already known, for example confining the quantum field between two plates, which excludes longer wavelength waves.

But Feigel says the two others offer entirely new ways to exploit the quantum vacuum using magnetoelectric nanoparticles to interact with the electromagnetic fields it contains.

The first method is to rapidly aggregate a number of magnetoelectric nanoparticles, a process which influences the boundary conditions for higher frequency electromagnetic waves, generating a force.

The second is simply to rotate a group of magnetoelectric nanoparticles, which also generates a Lorentz force.

Either way, the result is a change in velocity. As Feigel puts it: "mechanical action of quantum vacuum on magneto-electric objects may be observable and have a significant value."

The beauty of Feigel's idea is that it can be easily tested. He suggests building an addressable array of magnetoelectric nanoparticles, perhaps made of a material such as FeGaO3 which has a magnetoelectric constant of 10^-4 in a weak magnetic field.

These nanoparticles simply have to be rotated in the required way to generate a force. Feigel calls it a magnetoelectric quantum wheel.

of course, nobody is getting a free lunch here. "Although the proposed engine will consume energy for manipulation of the particles, the propulsion will occur without any loss of mass," says Feigel. He even suggests, with masterful understatement, that this might have practical implications.

So here is a high-risk idea with a huge potential pay off. The question is: who has the balls to try it?

 

[pleed]

Never heard of quantum propulsion before, but warp drive seems more popular and feasible at this point. Love to her those new space tech ideas though.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

docm that was a very interesting article. Thanks for posting. The universe and the forces in it are so amazing and fascinating.

The future always seems just seconds away...

 

[annodomini2]

Depending on how much energy this system would consume relative to the force generated and the mass of the supporting infrastructure will determine its practicality as a propulsion system.

 

[EarthlingX]

Lovely thing, very nice find docm. Do we have a physicist to check this a bit ? This is suspiciously on the border of being 'antigravity drive', and i would be more than glad if it would stay in SB&T :?

Anyone ?

Otherwise it sounds like some NIAC project.

 

[emudude]

I hope they test for the "electro- magnetic zero-point fluctuations" due to the quantum vacuum soon; especially due to the recent research (which they cited non-wikipedia style in the paper docm posted)...either way, I'm watching intently for the results :shock:

 

[ihwip]

I want to know what happens to the quantum components that receive the butt end of this propulsion. If there is an equal and opposite reaction to this propulsion that means forcing 1kg/s/s of acceleration on a space ship would force 1kg/s/s of acceleration on something. What would that something be? If particle/anti-particle pairs are constantly popping up and popping out then maybe these would go flying off in the opposite direction? What kind of consequences would we be looking at with a large amount of virtual quantum particles blasting at Earth?

 

[Shpaget]

Wouldn't it mean that once you orient these nano-magnet thingies, you could lock them in place and have propulsion without any other input of energy? :?

Perpetuum mobile?

 

[kelvinzero]

Im very dubious about this article because it does not seem interested in explaining how it is, or why it is not, violating conservation of momentum.

It isnt that something that seems to violate the conservation of momentum is automatically wrong, it is just that any reputable physicist would deal with this point very thoughly, not gloss over it to talk about applications to space travel.

And why on earth would someone make a statement like "without consuming fuel mass (but of course consuming electricity)." Once you have thrown away conservation of momentum, there is nothing 'of course' about conservation of energy. Where has this electricity gone???? You can't say it has gone into the kinetic energy of the vehicle because obviously from some frames of reference its kinetic energy has been reduced.

 

[Solifugae]

You need mass to generate electricity, so... ?

 

[kelvinzero]

You need mass to generate electricity, so... ?

No I wasnt talking about turning mass into energy.

Suppose you could turn electical energy into kinetic energy without using propellent:

Suppose you spend half the energy in your batteries and it gets you going 100km/h. You think energy is conserved because the energy of your motion equals the energy lost from your batteries.

But now you are drifting along at 100km/h in space relative to your previous velocity. What if you want to stop again? There are two ways of looking at it:

(a) You expend the remaining half of the energy in your batteries to accelerate 100km/h in the other direction. But now you have the same velocity as you had initially, but empty batteries. You have not conserved energy.

(b) Or perhaps decelerating fills your batteries again. This conserves energy and actually is what happens with electric trains. The problem is that trains push against the earth. In space there is no difference between speeding up and slowing down. Both are just changes in velocity with respect to your previous velocity. So why should accelerating in one direction have emptied your batteries and accelerating in the other filled them?

 

[docm]

Or you use solar cells or a small reactor and don't worry about it.

 

[kelvinzero]

Im not entirely sure if you are pulling my leg or not..

What I am saying is you appear to have a paradox to resolve. Not only does throwing away conservation of momentum throw away conservation of energy, but different observers would measure different outcomes.

Now this isnt to say that there are not ways around this apparent paradox. For example mere decades ago we did not know about dark matter. Suddenly there may be more stuff in vacuum to push against than we thought. Or what about a tractor beam with which you can grab onto a star of your choosing at any range and swing across the galaxy like tarzan? There may be no such thing but I dont think that it violates any obvious physical law or creates paradoxes.

The point is, no serious scientist would release a claim like this without dealing with the issue of this apparent violation of conservation laws.

 

[docm]

As I understand it the usual conservation rules don't necessarily apply under the many worlds interpretation. The conservation would apply across the average of all universes, but local "violations" would just be another QM uncertainty.

 

[kelvinzero]

Im not talking about esoteric maths here though. I am talking about one person seeing a spacecraft speeding up and expending battery power, while from a different frame of reference another person will see the same space craft slowing down but still expending battery power.

I doubt any two people here can hold a non-hand-wavy argument about the many worlds interpretation. I know I cannot.

However I think what you are saying is, conserve momentum by pushing against mass that we do not normally experience, ie mass in neighboring uinverses.

At this point reputable physicists start drawing impossible geometries in crayon while babbling in dead languages of the elder gods.

The thing is, the many worlds interpretation is an interpretation. But if you can push against it, it is suddenly no longer an interpretation. It is measureable! We have reinvented something like an ether: there will be one average for the all the mass in all the neighbouring universes and we can classify a ship in terms of its absolute motion wrt to this ether. Not only can we push on it, we can extract energy from it because it is not going to be moving at the exact velocity of the ship. Just as a sailing ship extracts motion for free from the difference between the velocities of the air and the ocean, we can now tack between planets by playing gravity against this multiuniverse 'wind'.
Hey.. but we are not just pushing on other universes, we are also communicating across universes! Time to start listening for someone pushing back!

That would be really cool.. But again, if physics is suddenly going to gain an ether, the world suddenly gains a free energy source, the many worlds interpretation is suddenly testable and a method for sending information across universes has been developed, there really should have been a memo!

 

[aaron38]

Im very dubious about this article because it does not seem interested in explaining how it is, or why it is not, violating conservation of momentum.

Where has this electricity gone???? You can't say it has gone into the kinetic energy of the vehicle because obviously from some frames of reference its kinetic energy has been reduced.

I didn't see anything in the article that suggested momentum would not be conserved. Why wouldn't it be? What the article is talking about is generating an equal and opposite reaction, not by throwing mass out the back of the ship, but by using what is essentially a traction drive against the "ether" of the quantum fields. Momentum would be conserved just like it is when a ship uses a propeller to push itself through the water. The water moves back, the ship moves forward.
In this case, the quantum fields would be pushed back with the space ship moving forward. Conservation of momentum. And I don't think we need to involve parallel universes.

The electricity goes into imparting momentum to the quantum fields. From some frames of reference the Space Shuttle is decelerating all the way into orbit. So where has all that missing energy gone? The answer is it doesn't matter, a delta-V change is a delta-V change. If you expend energy to reduce kinetic energy, it goes into heat.

If the "ether" is real, and we can push on it, a reactionless drive would be a hell of a thing.

 

[kelvinzero]

It sure would be a cool thing, and I mentioned what you describe as a way around the momentum conservation problem.

My point was if we did find an ether/dark matter/astroturf to push against, then this itself would be a vast breakthrough for physics.

No serious physicist is going to talk about the practical applications and neglect to mention that physics has just been turned on its head.