Talk:Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program

Physics Start‑class Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Diametric Drive

"However, positive and negative gravity on a single spacecraft involves balanced forces within a structure, and would not result in acceleration." Unless I misunderstood the explanation, both forces are not acting on the spaceship. As far as I can tell, what it says is that the positive gravity is acting on the 'brick' of negative matter while the negative gravity is acting on the spaceship. If this is true, then the forces are in fact unbalanced. However, I have no higher claim to physics education beyond highschool level, and it is entirely possible I'm wrong.

76.183.171.22 (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the forces are unbalenced and the system accelerates so I have removed it. 210.138.117.211 added this line and rather underestimates the level of physics required by a NASA study in advanced propulsion. This pairing breaks no conservation laws. The energy for the system at high speed is the same as stationary, as is the momentum. The elephant in the room is simply that though the mathematics allows for negative as well as positive mass/energy, noone has been able to show that the negative values corrispond to anything we can physically observe. Ambix (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diametric weapon

I think the possible usage as a kinetic weapon should be stated.

Differential Sail

Someone who knows more than me needs to fix this; vacuum fluctuations are not related to cosmic background radiation.AtomSmith 09:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to fix this, because it bothered me. Unfortunately, I have messed up the footnote to a reference because I cannot find where it describes how to do this properly. My apologies. I just wanted to fix the factual error. Sorry to be such a noob. -- SD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.107.135.113 (talk) 08:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dysjunction drive

It would be interesting if someone with more knowledge on the subject could clarify the section on the Disjunction Drive. Specifically:

The electromagnet is turned on briefly, then turned off, emitting a pulse of electromagnetic radiation in the process.

Electrical energy would be consumed to create this pulse. Some would appear as heat. Is the remaining energy transformed into a "pull" that propigates toward the iron?

The EMP in the above example carries significant momentum, which it transfers to the plate.

This would seem to say YES to my question.

Imagine two objects floating freely in space, not at a great distance from each other (so speed of light is not an issue), connected by a rope. If object A pulls object B, B will move toward A but A will also move toward B. Does the same thing occur when the "rope" is an EMP?

If so, put A and B a light year from each other and switch back to EMP instead of rope. Can't A "pull" itself toward B whether or not B exists?

The above "paradox" is what fields are all about.

Care to elaborate?

To answer your original question, yes; the device will work even without the object B; if I understand your description correctly, the system is just a rocket with EM radiation as its propellant. Ben Standeven 21:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Field structure pertaining to gravity.

The subject of gravity can be supported by two- fold arguements ,the total field structurally here on the planets surface consists of numerous conjoining and blending dynamics.traditionally the mass/density is said to attract other objects to it but a myriad of affects may be the actul attraction.Torsion,surface-tension,electro-magnetic flux?Questionably the attraction is in a hyperinflexive enviornment to begin with(many faceted variable structured)

Updated information?

AFAIK, this program has been discontinued. Does anyone have any information to share? ---CH 21:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Free energy

Under the diametric drive heading, the term 'free energy' as it is defined by the link to the corresponding article is used incorrectly.

non-breakthroughs

I've added this link:

[1]

Some of that info should probably go on this page. Fresheneesz 08:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pitch Drive

Here is what I emailed to the program manager way back:

"A magnetic field rate of change of the virtual field caused by the assemblage of point sources, at the pole, exceeds the pole's local magnetic field rate, thereby causing the magnetic monopole to appear."

It is a line of point sources one hundred meters long, one meter spaced, charged at 1 megavolt. Pushing the line of charges through the sun's magnetic field causes the monopole polarity. Push toward the sun and turn on and it attracts, push away from the sun with a small chemical rocket and turn on the voltage and it repels.

Pitch change was the terminology for the rate of parameter change in the abstract. My monopole pitch exceeds the local magnetic pole pitch rate. It all boils down to the infinite rate at the top of the magnet, and all magnets are fintite because of the size of the ferrocenters. Well that is a very small change, and I did email the idea in.

Disjunction Drive

"There is nothing in mainstream physics to suggest this is possible; indeed, from this description it is impossible to understand exactly what the idea behind this proposal is."

This statement seems a bit unencyclopedic & odd. Is the proposal as vague as this description?

And the statement that the Diametric Drive "sounds suspiciously like perpetual motion pseudoscience" is fishy, too. Is that the opinion of the author or someone else's opinion? Jordansc 20:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

It had a fact-check marker anyway, but I deleted text suggesting that a device that used a hypothetical negative mass to accelerate violates conservation of energy. Energy is equal to 1/2 * mass * velocity^2. Since this is proportional to mass, having negative mass implies negative energy; as the negative and positive masses accelerate, the negative mass gains negative energy at the same time the positive mass gains positive energy, for a net change in energy of zero. Therefore conservation of energy is not violated. Forward explained this in an article in Analog.

There are, however, other problems. It's supposed to be impossible to distinguish acceleration from gravity. However, if you put positive and negative masses in space in an elevator, accelerating the elevator would cause both of those objects to "fall" towards the bottom of the elevator, while in an actual gravitational field the positive mass object falls down and the negative mass object falls up. Ken Arromdee 03:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

react

OK with the negative energy rising with speed, but not with the negative mass in an elevator, "the negative mass would fall towards the positive as does any mass toward any other" so no problem.I am french, and i'm affraid to not really understand "However, positive and negative gravity on a single spacecraft involves balanced forces within a structure, and would not result in acceleration.".Does it mean that with a bond between the two masses, there won't be any acceleration resulting? First I would say no, and then why?Klinfran (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically you still can't distinguish acceleration from gravity - they are, in fact, one in the same. The simple direction difference between the negative and positive masses accelerations are not qualifiers for discrimination. There is no way, in a single reference frame, to distinguish the negative and positive masses - i.e. whether the earth is negative or positive mass and the object in question is positive or negative. Further, the magnitude of the acceleration should be identical for each object.

I would suggest reading up on Hawking's idea (in his universe in a nutshell book) that mass energy + gravitational energy = 0. In essence, you can create all the matter you want, as long as it has gravitational pull which he regards as a negative energy. If this is the case, then there could, in fact, be negative mass with positive gravitational energy, which behaves in an opposite manner. I would presume that annihilation due to matter-antimatter interactions would have gravitational energy considerations as well - but in any case, the mere fact that negative mass would accelerate in a different direction in a gravitational field does not in itself preclude its existence, especially since gravitational laws were formulated without accounting for this eventuality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.64.194 (talk) 10:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time travel?

"Millis retired from NASA on February 3rd, 2010, and continues to pursue similar research under the nonprofit organization Tau Zero Foundation."

I'm looking at this on 1/31/2010 and it's mentioned in the past tense. Is this date accurate?

207.5.203.11 (talk) 03:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Low Importance . . . ?

on the WikiProjects Physics importance scale ? I emphatically disagree & request a discussion on BPP's importance. If the BPP were properly funded over an extended period (instead of the $1.2 million over six years ??), the possibilities discovered might very well increase dramatically. It would profoundly alter every person's view of space exploration. And could there be a path that takes us to a new source of energy ? I think it would be arrogant for humanity to believe that every aspect of physics has been discovered and is known. PFSLAKES1 (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title?

Why do the article name and first sentence disagree about the name? Is it "Program" or "Project"? Is the acronym BPPP or BPP? References please. 70.247.166.5 (talk) 02:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

see here please :-> abstract@ grc.nasa.gov:From 1996-2002, NASA supported the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project to examine physics in the context of breakthrough spaceflight. In this paper To leap past the limitations of existing propulsion, the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics (BPP) Project seeks further advancements in physics from which new propulsion methods can eventually be derived. Also here under Identifying Critical Issues and Unknowns p.2: This process was applied by the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project. -> Project. --Advanceddeepspacepropeller (talk) 18:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]