3 ms·
The Reddit post didn’t link directly to the study. Reactions there range from “omg Star Trek” to “nothing to see here, it’s all math/computer models.” I’ll adm
by koprulusector 5y ago
The Reddit post didn’t link directly to the study. Reactions there range from “omg Star Trek” to “nothing to see here, it’s all math/computer models.”
I’ll admit that I lack sufficient math and physics education to fully appreciate the study, but after reading the actual abstract I must say that it certainly seems more grounded than either of those two extreme reactions.
There’s a lot of suggestive and uncertain language being used like “to be qualitatively quite similar”, “correlates well with”, or “correlation would suggest”, and I’m uncertain if I should Interpret the rhetoric as conservative excitement sprinkled with self doubt, or if this is the physics PhD researcher version of ostentatious nerd flexing with a bit of CYA in case future research/results don’t pan out.
I’m looking forward to reading the comments of the European physics and engineering PhDs in the morning.
- rolleiflex 5y agoSame here, though they say this in the paper, about the experimental confirmation they propose: "...To be clear, this would not be some simple analogue or proxy representation of a space warp phenomenon, rather it would be a genuine implementation of the idea in physical fact with observable consequences in the laboratory – just not in the dramatic form of a craft bound for a distant stellar destination." It seems that they're proposing a real, achievable-with-current-manufacturing-skill experimental contraption that they think will be able to create a real, not analogous, not hypothetical, honest to god warp bubble. So I'm waiting for a real physicist to wake up, come and crush my dreams on this one.