Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

arXiv blog

The Physics arXiv Blog produces daily coverage of the best new ideas from an online forum called the Physics arXiv on which scientists post early versions of their latest ideas. Contact me at KentuckyFC @ arxivblog.com

Email Subscription

Recently on the arXiv blog...

Recent comments on the arXivblog

  • AKT : This shows complete stupidity of physicists and their culture. They are hopeless people.   In the...
  • doanwon : AKT: With your good mathematical background, I think you should spend your energy developing your...
  • AKT : Why don't you write a paper on your claim and send it to JSL, JPAL, MLQ, JPL etc. Good luck.  ...
  • AKT : Take it easy. Chemistry is based upon Quantum Physics, a theory which has no known classical...
  • bergerdj : Nonsense. The BS about "life could form under any conditions" shows nothing but ignorance of...
  • AKT : This is an absolute double standard. This chap accepts academic physics which the small technical...
  • ... : As a webmaster who has taken on her first adult site, an escorts and adult entertainment...
  • ZephirAWT : You still didn't demonstrate, AWT doesn't work. And who is we? Are you suffering with schizophrenia?
  • flared0ne : But that doesn't work. So we continue ignoring you.
  • ZephirAWT : Every theory is based on inconsistent postulate set, as I explained you already. If these...
  • ZephirAWT : It doesn't matter, what you're thinking AWT - the influence means, you're thinking about it...
  • brentrobot : Hey freeze it in some water, put it under vacuum, blast it with a bunch of radiation and see if...
  • AKT : Take it easy. These biologists are not calling themsleves "king of science".   The king odf...
  • AKT : The only thing which is scieitificaly legitimate these is that SR is inconsistent.   Best...
  • AKT : > So, yes, accelerator-based characterizations of particle identities ARE valid and viable,...
  • AKT : MIT could not teach you how to maintain consistency in your thought. You believe that a theory...
  • AKT : This is not a scientific response to any of the issues I raised. The matter is fatal to all...
  • flared0ne : I still remember, as a freshman at MIT, that first semester Physics class where we went through...
  • Brian H : Aha, so that answers my post above. Yeast extract would give all the nutrients one could desire. 
  • Brian H : Yabut -- it needs STUFF. Chemicals to assemble, food. Cells do not live by energy alone, much...
Advertisement
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.

Before we discuss that, let's track back a little. According to quantum mechanics, any vacuum will be filled with electromagnetic waves leaping in and out of existence. It turns out that these waves can have various measurable effects, such as the Casimir-Polder force.

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 payoff. The question is: who has the balls to try it?

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0912.1031: A Magneto-Electric Quantum Wheel

Comments

  • Delta-v or orientation change?
    The body of the article claims the possibility of effecting a delta v without a reaction mass, which is interesting.  The abstract however mentions only orientation change, but that doesn't seem particularly special as we have the means now for attitude control without ejecting matter, namely reaction or momentum wheels.  Attitude control isn't mentioned in the body of the article.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    Liam
    12/09/2009
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • Hmmm...I recognize this..
    The device being proposed to test this principle bears a striking resemblance to something that has already been proposed, utilizing the Blackett Effect to achieve the same goal.  The creator dubbed the device the "Dillon-Wagoner Graviton Polarity Generator", though it acquired a more colloquial name:  the "spindizzy".

    I'm delighted.  Just as scores of other authors have predicted science, once again, we see it happening again.  Bravo.

    I'm looking forward to see if this experiment bears fruit.  We desperately need some sort of quantum propulsion device.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    ArdRhi
    12/11/2009
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
  • Impulse Engines
    adding to the previous comment, this drive concept sounds very similar to the drives envisioned by Gene Roddenberry for Star Trek and slower than light travel - "Impulse Engines". Now, combine that with fusion from Plasma focused Fusion devices, http://www.lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/ and you REALLY have something!
    Rate this comment: 12345

    ta2025
    12/11/2009
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
  • Absurdities must have limits
    In another reply to an article here, I had given an elaborate response under the same subject. I am giving this brief response under the same subject. God, if you do exist then please save physics from absurdities.

    Sunil Thakur
    http://www.norlabs.org
    Rate this comment: 12345

    sunil.thak...
    12/11/2009
    Posts:22
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
  • so does it push the spaceship forward, or space back?
    BAMM!  Every action still has an opposite and equal reaction == you still need to eject a mass.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    happyjack2...
    12/11/2009
    Posts:2
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
    • Re: so does it push the spaceship forward, or space back?
      It doesn't take reaction mass to move an object.  Look at electromagnetic propulsion, no mass is ejected from the transport at all (unless you consider the odd passenger or so).
      Rate this comment: 12345

      rshelton30...
      12/13/2009
      Posts:12
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      • Re: so does it push the spaceship forward, or space back?
        Electromagnetic propulsion ejects ionized gasses.  Very very small amounts, but amounts nonetheless.   Usually hydrogen nuclei, I believe.  It just gets a lot of force out of each atom.  It still pushes the atoms as much as it pushes the space ship.

        And btw, in addition to being wrong, your argument was incomplete:  you didn't even bother to propose how electromagnetics can violate the law of conservation.  (Which would be ironic, seeing as though it's considered one of the forces through which it acts.)
        Rate this comment: 12345

        happyjack2...
        12/14/2009
        Posts:2
        Avg Rating:
        2/5
        • Re: so does it push the spaceship forward, or space back?
          You are the one who is missing the point -

          Think of a maglev train, not a spaceship. Through the application of electroweak force in a specific manifestation (the magnetic component, to the extent this is severable), a force lifts and propels the train without reaction mass leaving the train.

          Likewise, if you wish to only speak about spaceships (which seems to be the source of your logical error above) a mag-field generator used when near a magnetized body would produce acceleration through the interaction of magnetic fields without ejecting any reaction mass from the spacecraft.

          Your mistake was in  confusing electromagnetic propulsion with what is called "ionic propulsion" by the aerospace industry.

          Your proper reply to this should be, well, yes, I misunderstood, but even the examples here which correct that misunderstanding do not violate the principle in question: the track (and the planet to which it is connected) is pressed back as the train is pressed forward in the first case and in the second case, the generic "magnetized body" - Jupiter might be a good example, the earth is another - is pushed back.

          But you are missing the point if you reply in such a way. The proponents of this concept are excited about not carrying the reaction mass on board the space-craft. They are not excited about violating known physics.

          Hope this clears up the confusion...

          your friendly, neighborhood cripdyke
          Rate this comment: 12345

          cripdyke
          12/16/2009
          Posts:39
          Avg Rating:
          3/5
  • so does it push the spaceship forward, or space back?
    Relatively speaking, yes.

    The two have no meaningful difference.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    YetAnother...
    12/11/2009
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    • Re: so does it push the spaceship forward, or space back?
      I would just use the simple system used by a Flying Saucer which I patented.
      You only have to learn one formula: Q = CV .
      Mit had a good laugh when I told someone there how it worked and they were not interested to publicize it.
      It is based on the impossible-to-do-in practice-
      problem  by Faraday (The two metal concentric spheres that do not touch and form a capacitor etc etc.).
      Just like Nasa, where they found that the Propulsion Engineers would become obsolete.
      Who would need them if we could fly to the Moon in an hour or top Mars inside one day?

      US patent 4,095,162
      Rate this comment: 12345

      Spacer
      12/11/2009
      Posts:2
      Avg Rating:
      1/5
  • Does this need work ???
    I think this concept needs just a little bit of work !!!

    Are not the two metalic plates metalic planets ?

    The vacuum is outterspace between the planets ??

    And the nanoparticles are there in space being spun up by robotic lasers on energy producing satilites which would create a magnetic worm whole ???

    The magnetic fields of the planets would be joined together adding to the power of the worm hole, thus it MIGHT create a quantum singularity for any metal object like a space ship tossed into it, meaning the ship could quickly accelerate to lightspeed, mass gains would be irrellevent !!!!!!

    If THAT does NOT happen a ship could still ride the massive magnetic wave between the two planets !      
    Rate this comment: 12345

    MACchine
    12/19/2009
    Posts:8
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
    • This is a REALLY GOOD idea ???
      Here THIS might be the BEST way to do this ...

      Set up your nano particles and robotic laser system to spin the particles between the Sun and Jupiter to get a super powerful worm whole, if you used the Earth with Jupiter the Earth might move a little bit more then normal -- BAD SCIENTIST !

      Anything metallic entering the worm whole would immediately accelerate in whatever direction it was traveling in to light speed.

      Maybe this is how the SUN REALLY WORKS no fusion just quantum accelerated particles slamming into each other living in a zero time quantum flux.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      MACchine
      12/22/2009
      Posts:8
      Avg Rating:
      5/5
Advertisement

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement
Technology Review September/October 2010

Current Issue

The TR35
Our annual selection of the world's top innovators under the age of 35.
•  Subscribe
Save 36%
•  Table of Contents
•  MIT News
» Gift Subscription
» Digital Subscription
» Reprints, Back Issues
» Subscribe
» Table of Contents
» MIT News

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2010 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.