Not Coming Soon to a Spaceship Near You

Mustafa’s Space Drive: An Egyptian Student’s Quantum Physics Invention

Mustafa invented a way of tapping this quantum effect via what’s known as the dynamic Casimir effect. This uses a “moving mirror” cavity, where two very reflective very flat plates are held close together, and then moved slightly to interact with the quantum particle sea. It’s horribly technical, but the end result is that Mustafa’s use of shaped silicon plates similar to those used in solar power cells results in a net force being delivered. A force, of course, means a push or a pull and in space this equates to a drive or engine.

In terms of space propulsion, this is amazing. Most forms of spacecraft rely on the rocket principle to work: Some fuel is made energetic and then thrust out of an engine, pushing the rocket forward.

First of all: clever. The dynamic Casimir force was observed last year or thereabouts (thenabouts?), and it breaks down like this: the vacuum isn’t empty, it has a bunch of virtual photons and other virtual particle/antiparticle pairs in it. In the static Casimir effect you can get a force by excluding some of the EM modes, which gives an imbalance in the energy, which manifests itself as a force. In the dynamic Casimir effect, you move a mirror really fast and create real photons from the virtual photons (basically you are adding energy to them to allow them to become real). So as far as I can tell, this drive is photons. The generation of the photons is a new process, but at the end of the day, it’s photons. From a dynamics standpoint, this is going to be the same as shining an LED out of your rocket and feeling the thrust, because photons have momentum. This is the rocket principle, despite the implication of the article.

Which means this all boils down to how efficiently you can make your photons, from an energy and thrust/weight standpoint. I suspect that energy-wise, this is an inefficient way of making photons; LEDs are in the vicinity of 50% in converting input power to photons. All of that presupposes that photons are a good solution to the space propulsion problem, but photons are very inefficient in terms of how much momentum you get for the energy you use.

For a photon, the momentum is simply E/c. 1 eV of photons (be is a single photon or a bunch of lower-energy ones, it doesn’t matter) gives you a momentum of about 5 x 10^-28 kg-m/s of momentum. (Non-relativistic) Massive particles, though, have a momentum of sqrt(2mE). Give that same energy to a hydrogen atom and you get almost 50,000 times as much momentum; this scales with the square root of the mass, so Xenon, with an atomic mass ~130 times larger, boosts your momentum by another factor of 11 or so. That’s what you get with ion drives, and those still have limited use.

And Mustafa’s invention can, rudimentarily, be compared to a solar sail…because it doesn’t need “fuel” as such, and exerts just the tiniest push compared to the thundery flames of SpaceX’s rockets. It’s potential is enormous–because of its mechanical simplicity and reliability it could make satellite propulsion lighter, cheaper, and thus indirectly lower the cost of space missions of all sorts.

It’s actually half as efficient as a solar sail, because a reflection gives you twice the change in momentum (since the photon changes direction) and while, like an LED, no fuel is needed, you still need the energy source to run the thing. So it remains to be seen if this is viable and better than existing systems, but there’s a reason why we don’t use photons already (other than by accident, as with the mentioned Pioneer anomaly — which was a ten billionth of a g, i.e. a tiny effect) and this isn’t going to get you into orbit in the first place.

Is Secrecy Worth It?

A tale of openness and secrecy: The Philadelphia Story

The former Manhattan Project scientists who founded what would eventually become the Federation of American Scientists were adamantly opposed to keeping nuclear technology a closed field. From early on they argued that there was, as they put it, “no secret to be kept.” Attempting to control the spread of nuclear weapons by controlling scientific information would be fruitless: Soviet scientists were just as capable as US scientists when it came to discovering the truths of the physical world. The best that secrecy could hope to do would be to slightly impede the work of another nuclear power. Whatever time was bought by such impediment, they argued, would come at a steep price in US scientific productivity, because science required open lines of communication to flourish.

At the University of Pennsylvania were nine scientists sympathetic to that message. All had been involved with wartime work, but in the area of radar, not the bomb. Because they had not been part of the Manhattan Project in any way, they were under no legal obligation to maintain secrecy; they were simply informed private citizens. In the fall of 1945, they tried to figure out the technical details behind the bomb.

This basic problem hasn’t gone away. The conflict between the desire for secrecy and progress’s need for communication is still there.

Getting Freaky With a New Lubricant

Shouldn’t it be a lubrican rather than a lubrican’t?

MIT’s Freaky Non-Stick Coating Keeps Ketchup Flowing

When it comes to those last globs of ketchup inevitably stuck to every bottle of Heinz, most people either violently shake the container in hopes of eking out another drop or two, or perform the “secret” trick: smacking the “57” logo on the bottle’s neck. But not MIT PhD candidate Dave Smith. He and a team of mechanical engineers and nano-technologists at the Varanasi Research Group have been held up in an MIT lab for the last two months addressing this common dining problem.

There are two ways to go with the idea of waste, I think. With the coating there will be less condiment thrown away when it is “empty”, but for a traditional bottle, not having the same effective viscosity means pouring a lot faster, which may mean more waste as you accidentally drown your food. With squirt bottles, I think you’re OK. But less consumer waste means you purchase less, so a bold prediction of mine is that the product cost will rise to compensate.

You Don't Look a Day Over …

Happy Birthday, Electron

This month marks the 120th anniversary of a profound and influential creation, the electron theory of Dutch physicist Hendrik Antoon Lorentz. His electron was not merely a hypothesized elementary particle; it was the linchpin of an ambitious theory of nature. Today physicists are accustomed to the notion that a complete description of nature can rise out of simple, beautiful equations, yet prior to Lorentz that was a mystic vision.