Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Wormhole Generator (Kinda) Patented 405

Posted by Hemos from the i-want-one dept.
Faw writes "Someone has filed a patent for a wormhole generator. It says it is a hyper-light speed antenna, but to me it looks like a wormhole. What do you think?" Here's the abstract: "A method to transmit and receive electromagnetic waves which comprises generating opposing magnetic fields having a plane of maximum force running perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the magnetic field; generating a heat source along an axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of the magnetic field; generating an accelerator parallel to and in close proximity to the heat source, thereby creating an input and output port; and generating a communications signal into the input and output port, thereby sending the signal at a speed faster than light. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wormhole Generator (Kinda) Patented More

Wormhole Generator (Kinda) Patented

Comments Filter:

  • Re:Backwards in time?? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Light travels really fast, but it still takes time. You couldn't get the message before it was sent, but you could get the message before the visual image of it being sent was received. If the transmit rate was twice the speed of light, you wouldn't percieve the difference at close distances, but on a astronomical scale, the time savings would be huge.

  • accelerating plant growth (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    accelerating plant growth

    This whole thing seemed rather dubious, but this can't be argued. BS does indeed aid plant growth!

  • Slower than light? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    On a related topic, I was reading an article about some scientists that had successfully slowed down light. They drop a certain chemical compound to near absolute zero and pass photons through it. They say they can fire off some photons, go for a cup of coffee, come back, and the photons are still moving through the apparatus. Cool!
  • No, they didn't really think that at the end of the 19th century. There were many unsolved mysteries, such as the structure of atoms, the photoelectric effect, and why Mercury's orbit was odd. These helped drive research into relativity , particle physics and quantum mechanics.
  • The affect the occurs when particles move faster than light in water or the like is Cerenkov radiation. Its a blue glow caused by the particles striking atoms in the water and exciting them so they release photons, usually visible as a blue glow.

    A nice example (and a link to a better explanation) of this effect can be seen here [reed.edu].

  • >If the signal travels faster than light, wouldn't it get received before it was sent??

    probably not :) it takes light 8 minutes to reach the earth, and say u used this and it transmitted at 4c (4 times the speed of light) then you would simply see stuff from the sun in 2 minutes rather than 8

    what ACTUALLY happens at super-luminous speeds is theoretical though.

    I always wondered...say you have a REALLY rigid pole (please no jokes :P) and it spanned from here to say the Sun, and you yanked on that pole, would the information (the force of the tug) exceed the speed of light or would you have to wait 8 minutes for the opposite end of the pole to move (i think itd be instantanious, for example, spacetime is not bound to 'c') can anyone tell me? :)

    "There is no spoon"-Neo, The Matrix
    "SPOOOOOOOOON!"-The Tick, The Tick

  • bah! (Score:1)

    by Nate Fox ( 1271 )
    Who says you have to be a rocket scientist to read slashdot?

    -----
    If Bill Gates had a nickel for every time Windows crashed...

  • Actually, the only mathematical impossibilty arises when you go exactly the speed of light.

    So light travelling at the speed of light routinely breaks this equation? What are the implications of that?

  • the information that is 'travelling' between the pair of photons is without mass.

    If it has no mass, then it couldn't be called matter...then I guess it doesn't matter!
    So why bother sending it in the first place?

    OrbNobz

    - I hate people that are redundant, repetitive, and say the same thing over, and over, and over again!
  • | David Strom is an experimental particle
    | physicist with ties to CERN and University of
    | Oregon's physics department.

    The inventor: Strom; David *L.* from Aurora, CO
    The physicist from UO: David *M.* Strom

    I don't think the inventor and your physicist are the same person.


  • Does that mean I get to do a inter-galatic travel via wormhole some 25 yrears or 50 years - depending when the darn patent expires - from now?

    Wow !

  • If the phrase "wormy-talkies" is original to you, better get it copyrighted, registered, whatevered right away :)
  • They're probably in the catalog but with the purple stock numbers so that you have to special order them. Of course if actually want the thing to work you might not want to use Radio Shack parts :)
  • Then they could have posted that "Stephen King book on the internet" story back when it *was* news. :)
  • This wasn't by any chance filed by the LinuxOne people, was it?
  • I think you're right. Perhaps this was used to transmit the story backwards in time from April 1. The ultimate April fool's joke. :)
  • Right, there is no material that you could use to build such a rod. Also, imagine that you were on the moon and were tracing a line from New York to Los Angeles with a laser pointer. If you swept this beam back and forth fast enough, the spot could move over the Earth's surface at greater than the speed of light. BUT.

    Neither people in LA, nor New York could affect the path of that beam as it is controlled from the moon, so they can't send any data.
  • IBM's site seems to be down at the moment, but you can use the USPTO's site. [164.195.100.11] Indeed, very frightening.
  • I'd like to see the math behind these claims. In general, when one thinks one is sending something faster than the speed of light, one has neglected to take into account some factor. All claims that I've seen in the past have crumbled when shown that the distance distortion, for example, when taken into account shows that the signal propigates slower than the speed of light.
  • Many scientifically literate people I know get
    infuriated by "new ageism" and pseudo-sciences
    like astrology, parapsychology, etc, etc. Most
    of them are concerned, and rightfully so, about
    the effect that these fads have on children,
    the uneducated, the naive.

    How is this mumbo-jumbo different? How many
    of you are naive enough to think that this is
    anything but pseudo-scientific quackery?
    Not many, I hope, but just think of the damage
    this causes among the scientifically illiterate
    nerd crowd.

    Many of you may disagree, but I feel that these
    sort of stories, like stories on astrology,
    numerology and clairvoyance, simply don't deserve
    to be given further publicity.
  • First part: ok, no real problem there. I didn't know about the appearance thing untill I read the travel section in Traveller 2300 :)

    Second part: Um, cone rotated sideways (ok), FTL travel pointing backwards: eh? you just warped everyting. How can that work?

    Third part: the world is flat, the universe goes round the earth, etc, etc. Sorry, that's no proof.

  • Thanks for that (esp the URL), but one problem: the signal being discussed was not going FTL, the observer was. That said, I have no problem with what you had to say (I already knew of it from Traveller 2300/2300AD), and I find that sort of thing fascinating.
  • It would cause SOMEONE to observe the signal traveling bacwards in time. Because we have to transform the times for any inertial observer someone in a rocket ship going very fast (but still below the speed of light) will see the transmission of the signal occur after it is recieved.
    I can agree with the first part, but the seconed seems to be utter rubish. If the person in the ship saw the signal being received, he has to have already seen it transmitted. If he's between the transmitter and the receiver, the transmittion will pass him on its way to the receiver (unless he's going FTL towards the receiver), therefore it's seen first. If he's going towards the receiver faster than light, he will not see the transmittion until sometime after he slows to less than the speed of light, and then he will either see the transmisstion before the reception, or at the same time (depending on location).

    Any speed towards the transmitter is simple, unless the receiver is between him and the transmitter, he will see the transmittion first, otherwise at the same time.

    The above is all for a linear arrangement. With a triangle arrangement, he will always see the transmittion first.

    One last thing: If he's going FTL towards the receiver from the transmitter, he will see the reception, but not the tranmission as he is outrunning that signal. And as soon as he turns around to race to the transmitter to tell them not to transmit (assuming 0 inertia), he will see them do so and thus be too late.

    If you (or anyone) can give links to a nice explanation with clearly labeled diagrams and math, that would be great, as all the explanations I've seen make no sence at all.

  • You need to find a better excuse. The round trip to the geosyncronous communications satellites is 750+ ms. That's why they are pretty much not used for phone calls any more, and for sure, not for the Internet.


    ...phil

  • From what I've read lately, Dickinson seems to be focused on streamlining the patent process so that more people can receive patents more quickly. A bad thing IMO. He wants to give patents on anything and everything possible and give out as many patents as possible. After all, the PTO is a business now and is supposed to support itself. That's the biggest problem I think. The PTO shouldn't be required to support itself. That just begs for corruption and a shift in focus from the original goal of promoting innovation to their new goal of promoting patents as a method of generating revenue.

  • Why? If an invention does not work--especially ones that violates the laws of physics--what is the harm in granting someone a patent?

    Because if you can patent something that you can't actually get working, you can speculativly patent things you believe may be made to work (by someone else) within 10 years or so.

    Example, Wait another 5 years or so then quietly patent a tokamak (sp?) fusion reactor that actually surpasses breakeven. Do plenty of hand waving around everything that isn't current practice. Now wait another 5 years for the more or less EXPECTED achievment, then sue. Since you'll have the patent, you'll have the benefit of presumption on your side. Your investment: $10,000 and some time spent over a 1 year period. THEIR INVESTMENT: $10,000,000,000 and 30 years of research (at least).

    On the other hand, if the successful applicant must show a working model (say within a year or two of provisional acceptance), the people who did all the work and invested all the money will win the patent and you'll waste $10,000 (as it should be).

    I say within a year or two of provisional acceptance for a reason. That will allow an inventor to get a provisional patent and then on the strength of that, get backing from investors and industry in order to build a potentially expensive working version. By the same token, it will not allow scum to race to the patent office while the real inventor toils over making the thing actually work.

  • used to explain electricity through through a wire. The general version uses a tube of billiard balls rather than a pole. Push a ball/electron in at one end of the tube/wire, and a ball/electron pops out at the other end aftera delay indicated by the speed of light. It's not the *same* ball/electron,but the information travelled at lightspeed (for the medium in question).

    hawk, onetime physicist among his many hats
  • Well all the French tenses that are such a pain to learn at high school exist in English too:
    compound perfect (passé composé): I have loved
    pluperfect: I had loved
    future perfect: I will have loved
    past historic: I loved
    imperfect: I was loving
    past anterior: umm, OK, sort of like the pluperfect..., but a bit posher.

    The real problem here is that English is not taught properly anymore, so teaching grammar is left up to the poor French, Spanish, German and Latin teachers. Most Anglophone kids have no idea what 'voice', 'mood' or 'gender' mean until they start studying a second language which is a real shame.

    OK, bonus points to anyone who can come up with a future subjunctive clause in six words or less (in English)...

    Nick

  • Does this remind anyone else of the Ansible (sp?) in Ender's Game? It still maintains the limit on travel that is set by light speed, but removes the limit on communications. Maybe this is just another example of life imitating art.

    Or maybe it's just some crackpot with some good drawings.
  • ...with the emphasis on art. It's somewhat interesting to note that several patent applications were denied because Jules Verne had already described them in his science fiction novels. The best known case of this was for the periscope, which Verne had described some years earlier in 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. I have been told that there were other instances of this from Verne's novels, but don't recall what they were.
  • I really don't have a problem with this, although I'm sure the other 499,999 Slashdot citizens probably will. Patents exist, in theory, to guarantee someone that their years of hard work and research won't go for naught by having their great idea stolen from them. If whoever this person can generate wormholes (pretend with me for a second), then by all means, he should be able to patent his idea. By doing so, he will be encouraged to work further on it. The benefits to all of humanity from being able to create wormholes far, far outweigh any highbrow philosophical qualms I might have about patents.

    --


  • You said:
    "Maybe this was addressed in the patent write up but I wasn't able to read it, presumably because of the Slashdot effect."

    Don't you realize that Slashdot itself _has_ caused the time to travel backwards !

    The Slashdot Effect [tm] has turned back the clock so much that the server that supposed to store the patent info hasn't got the chance to get the info yet !!

    Yea ! We have done one of the "impossibles" - now what is left for all the slashdotters is to do another of the "impossible" - we are going to travel to the future using our (in)famous Slashdot Effect [tm].

    :)

  • If the signal travels faster than light, wouldn't it get received before it was sent??

    Woah. That makes my head hurt, but I'm going to try anyway...

    Depending on the distance between the station and destination, let's assume the signal travels *at* the speed of light.

    Now, let's assume the station is orbiting Earth, and the target is hovering somewhere near the Sun. If we send a signal out *at* the speed of light, it would take about 8 minutes to reach the destination. So assuming there's no accelleration curve involved, if we send the signal at *twice* the speed of light, it would probably get there in about 4 minutes.

    Light has to travel a distance, so I can't see it being received before it's sent. Either that, or my brain refuses to let me see it until I can think straight. :)

    -- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

  • ...say you have a REALLY rigid pole (please no jokes :P) and it spanned from here to say the Sun, and you yanked on that pole, would the information (the force of the tug) exceed the speed of light or would you have to wait 8 minutes for the opposite end of the pole to move[?]

    Well, if it were possible to have a pole that spans from here to the sun that DOESN'T bend, and you pulled it in a certain direction, I'm guessing the pole would appear to bend when you jerk it away, and as light catches up and hits Earth, the pole would appear to straighten out.

    Oh, and my pole isn't rigid right NOW, but you have the length about right. ;)

    -- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

  • So what are YOU saying?
    You have a glass on the table. You pick up the glass and move it to the other end of the table. Since the atoms have to catch up to each other, the glass distorts until it stops?
    No.
    Atoms are held together by their own properties. Moving a glass across the table doesn't go any faster than moving a pole that spans halfway across the solar system. You're not transmitting information at the speed of light, or anything faster. BUT, since the other end of the pole is outside the near-immediate viewing perspective of the POV, light takes time to catch up. The pole moves instantly, but we don't SEE the whole thing move instantly.

    -- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

  • Okay, forget the patent...

    If you want to send something faster than light, take two particles, and get them to have some association with each other...then separate them...if you do something to one, it will affect the other, instantaneously.

    Or theoretically anyways...an example of this can be done with diffraction slits.

    --
  • Sorry Accipiter, but that's just plain wrong. The far end of the pole does *not* move instantaneously.

    The physical explanation is this: the volume of any solid matter is filled with, indeed entirely composed of, the electromagnetic fields of the electrons within it (the positive atomic nuclei themselves are relatively small and being sheilded from one another don't tend to interact with each other very much). These fields might be hybrid electron orbitals - though in the case of metals the electronic structure is rather more complicated than that.

    In any case, when you apply a force to one end of a solid, you deform the electromagnetic field of the atoms therein, which then pushes back and in doing so alters the spatial position of those atoms in relation to their immediate neighbours.

    The atoms now exert an altered electromagnetic force upon their neighbours with a similar result: said neighbours change their spatial arrangement in response to the force applied. Those neighbours, having moved in relation to their other neighbours, now exert an altered force upon them, so that they in turn change position. And so on all the way through the solid.

    There is a strictly temporal causal sequence. Nothing happens instantaneously, because it takes *time* for the force felt by the electromagnetic field on one side of an atom to transmit around to the other side. And that in turn is because information propagation through an electromagnetic field is not instantaneous but always occurs at the velocity c. That is what c *is* by the way; the velocity of a wave moving through the electromagnetic field.

    Conclusion: there is _no_such_thing_ as truly *rigid* (except in childish jokes about male genitalia). This is in fact necessary since spacetime itself has variable geometry.

    Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
    Thought exists only as an abstraction
  • It galls me to say it..but despite your apparently crappy unmathematical reasoning, you're quite right.

    In special relativity there is a mathematical factor referred to as gamma, equal to sqrt(1-(v/c)**2). It tends toward a value of 1 at low v and toward infinity at v~c. Gamma is the value with which you:

    (i) multiply elapsed time in the moving reference frame, to obtain elapsed time in the original "stationary" reference frame (I use the term advisedly for brevity's sake, so DON'T beat me up about it!);

    (ii) divide the length (parallel to the direction of travel) of the moving object, to obtain its Lorentz contraction apparent to stationary observers;

    (iii) multiply the mass of the moving system to obtain its relativistic mass.

    The only objects which can travel at the speed of light are those with a rest mass of zero (because only then does ( rest mass * gamma ) < infinity.
    The photon is the particle character of the wave packet of electromagnetic radiation. It has a rest mass of zero and has a constant velocity equal to c. (NB I'm not sure but I think it can be said that its lack of any mass necessitates it having this velocity).

    Anyway, since the photon has a velocity of c, its gamma=infinity and its subjective elapsed time during the entire journey from creation to destruction is precisely zero. Thus, as you said, light does not travel through time. From the light's point of view, anyway. If a photon born at the instant of the big bang escaped absorption all the way to the big crunch, from the photon's point of view the entire lifetime of the universe would pass by in an instant.

    In general relativity, a similar situation prevails for any object which reaches the event horizon of a black hole.

    Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
    Thought exists only as an abstraction
  • If necessary I will.

    :o)

    Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
    Thought exists only as an abstraction
  • Hey, we're all scientifically minded here. Does anyone want to build one and let us know if it works?
  • WooHoo! Now we can contact Voyager!

    Well, maybe... but why would we ever want to?

    Oh, perhaps to taunt them...

  • Basically, the theory goes that if you have atom with two electrons in the same quantum state except for spin, and you know the spin of one of them and then change it, the spin of the other electron is changed instantly, regardless of distance. However, I think this interaction occurs at the speed of light, and not instantly. It's just that we can't tell the difference between the two because there's no way (presently) to separate the two particles by very much distance.

    This is not true. If you know something about the state of one of a pair of entangled particles, you instantly (regardless of distance) know the state of the other particle in the pair. However this cannot be used to communicate at faster than light speed, because there is no way to encode information in this measurement. The state of the pair is a superposition of the possible states, and the eigenvalue you measure is totally random. You haven't transmitted anything.

    rangek@origin.msi.umn.edu

  • If this doesn't prove that the U.S. Patent Office is so broken that it will let anything become patented, then I don't know what will.

    At the very least there should be some way of verifying that the item being patented does what it is claimed to do before the patent is granted. Not that what this patent claims is impossible or anything... ;-)

    Notice that there are a lot of schematics in the images -- someone should try building the thing and see what, if anything, it actually does.
  • Hello, the patent comes with schematics, if you bothered to actually look at the schematics, so yes. Plus the "Preferred Embodiments" section tells you one way to use the thing.

    So, short answer: YES!
  • That's if you bothered to look at the IMAGES, of course :-\
  • From the application:

    The present invention has discovered the apparent existence of a new dimension capable of acting as a medium for RF signals. Initial benefits of penetrating this new dimension include sending RF signals faster than the speed of light, extending the effective distance of RF transmitters at the same power radiated, penetrating known RF shielding devices, and accelerating plant growth exposed to the by-product energy of the RF transmissions.

    I love how they tack on "accelerating plant growth" right on the end. Classic Kook stuff.
    Reading more about the plants:

    It has been observed by the inventor and witnesses that accelerated plant growth can occur using the present invention.

    For accelerated plant growth, first, you need to create a hot surface that is more than 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Next, you need a strong magnetic field. Only one device is needed for this function. This allows energy from another dimension to influence plant growth.

    Later he goes on to talk about how to make this thing with a halogen lamp (honest! That's his heat source) and some wires wrapped around it (the accelerator). So I guess he really could send a "working model" to the USPTO.

    I bet you could influence the plant growth even more if you use a grow light in place of the halogen.

  • No. You miss the concept.
    An object CAN NOT travel faster than light.
    It may be able change it's location from point a to point b as if it were travelling faster (space folding, wormhole, etc..), but it cannot actually travel faster.
    If you look at the appropriate graphs, something travelling faster than the speed of light is travelling backwards in time.
    If you sent the signal at twice the speed of light (if you could, say) it would actually be something on the order of an anti-signal reaching you the instant you sent it. See, it travelled backwards in time from the receiver(s) to the transmitter at the speed of light (in reverse).

    There is theory to suggest that when a photon turns into an electron-positron pair and back into a photon that this is actually an over-light speed effect; the positron is just the same electron, but travelling backwards in time (which we would still view as forwards.... but with some properties reversed.. get it?)

    Now. If we COULD get a signal to something 8 light minutes away in 4 minutes, we have definately made information (which is not strictly matter or energy, but an effect related to the two) travel faster than light; as for something arriving before it was sent.. no... though in theory through a telescope those at the probe near the sun could observe us sending it several minutes after they received it ;)

    If you really could move something faster than light (I don't mean as IF it were faster than light, but actually generate the beyond-infinite energy to do so, or whatever.... which you can't..), you would actually receive your answer before you asked the question. Hmm.. so the answer may be meaningless, and you would have to spend time figuring out the question.. hey.. this sounds familiar..

  • But.. before and after are very relative terms ;)
  • People need to understand how patents work.
    If you have an invention (doesn't have to actually exist.), an idea, whatever, that you can put down on paper, and file a patent, it goes through several steps.
    This is far from exact, but as long as it is
    1) Not too similar to an existing patent
    2) Not something that has mucho prior art.
    3) Is unique
    Then you can have your patent. It's NOT a problem, not like the software/business model patents.
    Look at it this way.
    If this guys inventions DO work, does he not deserve the patent for coming up with it in the first place? What if 20 years later he is RIGHT. The world used to be flat, remember.
    If he's NOT right, and it's bullshit.. who cares? who's rights is hegoing to infringe on? some other guy who wants to build one too ;)

  • Relatively yes, but absolutely not...

    How's that for an answer...
  • Hopefully, the patent office will treat this like they treat applications for patents on perpetual motion machines.
  • Your confusion is in the definition of "transmission" and "reception" here. "Transmission" corresponds to the moment that the signal left the signal generator. "Reception" corresponds to the moment the signal arrives at the receiver. Any time inbetween is a totally different event.

    In this case, what would happen for any observer in the middle of the flight path of the signal - assuming that the signal left a visible trace (Assume it does, for the moment... say, a huge blue streak) - would be that he suddenly sees a blue streak appear, in the middle of nowhere, and radiate out, faster than light, racing towards *both* the reception *and* transmission points.

    Where the streak arrives first depends on where the observer is. You can write a quick expression using trigonometry to derive the location where the observer sees the streak reach the reception and transmission points at the same time.

    For an image which explains this situation, take a look at http://www.personal.psu.edu/~psa104/FTL .gif [psu.edu].
  • Erm...

    I agree that peretual motion and the like isn't likely to be something I'll ever see, but last time I heard conservation of ebergy was a theory, nothing more.

    It seems to fit, but has it actually been shwon to be true? If it hasn't, all power to anyone trying to disprove it with perpetual motion machines. If they've got that much free time, why not?

    Greg
  • (see : http://slashdot.org/articles/99/08/25/209211.shtml )

    The problem is quite. Simple (should you take the time to look at it if you were able to. Pass a Cisco door examination ( as i did, being quite intellectual ).

    Looking at it with the Octet Rule ( which i invented Obviously to help with our IP addressing problems ), you will find that if you take The subnet of the hyperspace transducer ( which is obviously where these people who did not get Consulting/IT degrees ) and apply it to the force. Of negative ( not bad ) polarity using an electro subnet.

    Unbelievable! To think that simply using common ( for professionals who network as Do I ) engineering principals ( even aginst Obvious people against me ) such as inversion of.

    Never the less, the scheme similar to the one i used ( Obviously ) before when I wrote such a bad. Ly written paper that used ( to be truthful ) incohearant logic That I used before.

  • Whoever wrote this patent has a very good understanding of Power Supply construction, specifically in relation to Switch Mode Power Supplies. Wether the rest of the premise is actually viable is not for me to guess.

    The way they are talking about using accelerators, magnetic fields, and a heat source tends to give me the idea that this thing could be re-arranged to look like some big "Flux Capacitor" from Back to the Future. *grin*

  • Actually, you probably could - the author of the patent gives you a circuit diagram.

    You'll need an EHT power supply unit though.

    Si
  • Is this really a wormhole as described here? Or is it just, as it says, a way of transmiting a signal faster than light speed?

    Yes you are right, the patent is to transmit a signal faster than light speed. I posted that way originally but it was declined. I posted it again and I mention wormhole in the subject and it is suddenly interesting enough to post!
    • The speed of light is constant and will be measured to have the same value by any observer.
    • The laws of physics will be the same for any observer Actually, the first arises from the second; the value of c is a consequence of the (IIRC) permitivity and permisivity of empty space. (Someone check me on that, it's been a long time since I stopped being a physics major and decided to stick to computers.)

      But general relativity - as awesome as it is - is known to be incomplete; it doesn't work well with quantum theory. So it's not impossible that there exist circumstances under which different observers would not agree on the laws of physics. I'm not betting on this - but I wouldn't bet against it either. ("You should never bet against anything in science at odds of more than about 10-12 to 1." -- Ernest Rutherford)

  • It's dumb. It violates causality. It's hokey pseudoscience. It can't possibly work. It makes no sense whatsoever. The person applying for the patent is a gibbering idiot with fantasies of world domination.

    But what the hell, they allow software patents that have exactly the same characteristics, why not approve this one too?

  • Who really cares if somebody patents something that doesn't actually work after all? So he's got a patent on something broken. Big deal. It costs a lot to patent, so most people won't bother unless they think they have something that works.

    The PTO had to do something about perpetual motion machines because they're so popular that the examiners were getting buried. But the occasional warp drive / FTL communicator, or other probably bogus invention isn't as much of a load as having the examiners try to make a call on whether every darn thing submitted actually does what it's supposed to do.

    And who knows? Maybe one of these days somebody will bring in a warp drive or FTL communicator that DOES work. B-)

  • If the signal travels faster than light, wouldn't it get received before it was sent??

    Not quite...

    What would happen is that to certain observers (including ones at the signal destination) the signal would arrive before the light from the source would. Therefore, so someone looking at the sender with a powerful telescope, you would have the message arrive, and then later see the sender do the sending.

    This causes problems with causality, since there is a principle that states that a POV from one reference frame, including the receiver's in which effect seemed to precede cause, is a wholly valid one. Causality is not a law that can be proven from a set of axioms, it is a law in the same sense that there is a Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy or of Uncertainty. It is just a fact about our universe that doesn't ever seem to be contradicted, either in actual or in thought experiment.

  • I think you've all missed the point of why this patent was applied for.


    Assumption: The patent is "that which promotes plant growth and comes from a male bovine"

    1. Applicant applies for patent.
    2. Absent prior art, patent is granted. Remember, it's not the PTO's job to say what won't work.
    3. Applicant starts company: "Look at me! I have a wormhole generator! No foolin', here's the patent number!!!!"
    4. Applicant advertises via any number of channels. I expect to see spam on this RSN.
    5. Fools buy into company. After all, with a valid patent number, it must be true, right?
    6. Applicant skips out with the money

    If my hypothesis of the sequence of events is proven correct, however, then the applicant has falsified government documents with the intent of committing fraud. I hope he is nailed, jailed, and won't be bailed....
  • Inventor(s): Gellert; Reinhard R. , Arlington Heights, IL 60004

    So it's not IBM that has the patent, per-se, you just used IBM's patent database.
    ---
  • That confused me too.
    I often see that where a comment is moderated as say "interesting" when it's intent is obviously humor (and really didn't provide much info I would consider "interesting") or other odd choices.

    It's just perplexing sometimes, like when I see an obvious Troll stating "Go blow goats linux users!" and someone marks him as "off topic" as if there is a slashdot topic where that statement would fit right in at home.
  • The forces holding the atoms in the pole together are electromagnetic in nature, so if you tug on one end of the pole, you create a wave that can't propagate along the pole any faster than the speed of light, and is quite probably _much_ slower.
  • Unfortunatly it's the same laws of physics that place a limit to communication as place the limits on travel. So in theory any system that allows for ftl coms would also provide the possibility of ftl travel (although travel may be impractical due to energy requirements where coms is workable.

    Of course even if you managed to get ftl coms you have to deal with some nasty side effects from relativity such as negative time displacement.
  • ...I mean, do they really expect us to believe that Ricky Martin is really capable of this? Just look at the patent application, his name's on it! (He shortened it to "Rick" to try and throw us off -- the cad!) I'm sure everyone's favorite Latin pop sensation may think the world of himself, but come on, Ricky, even you can't violate the laws of physics!
  • ... since patents only last 20 years. By the time anyone even considers using this technology for practical or commercial purposes, it'll be free tech. One less thing monopolized, whoohoo!
  • IANA physicist, but I think I remember reading about that experiment, and its subsequent explanation.
    If my memory serves, what was demonstrated was that when the particular particles used in the experiment tunneled through a barrier, the front part of the wave got through the barrier, while the back part did not (quantum physics particle=wave stuff). So measuring the 'average' time resulted in finding that the particles were travelling faster than light.
    This is like shutting down a major highway at 4:45, and then saying "look, the average person who got home from work that evening got home earlier than the average person when the highway was still open", ignoring the people who didn't get home at all.
  • They can file for a patent, even if this thing can't work, or won't work, or even if it violates the laws of thermodynamics. However since this won't work they won't have any trouble with people infringing on their patent, will they?
  • If you look at Einstien's equasions then a particle with a real, non-zero rest mass (like an atom) can only go slower than the speed of light. A particle with a zero rest mass (like a photon) can only go at light speed. A particle with an "imaginary" rest mass (a mass that is some real number times the square root of negative one) is called a tachyon and can only go faster than the speed of light. In fact the more energy that a tachyon has the slower it goes, with an infinite speed at zero energy.

    Because no known particle has an imaginary rest mass we need another way to send data or people. A wormhole could act as a "shortcut" from point A to point B without traveling the space in between. It was thought that one could use a wormhole as a time machine by accelerating one end to reletivistic speed, but it now looks like any attempt to use it as a time machine would cause it to explode.

    A gravity drive could "warp" space time and let you travel at any speed without acceleration or time dialation but first you need anitgravity.

    Quantum particles may be able to break (or at least bend) the universal speed limit. A photon can sometimes seem to "quantum tunnel" from one side of a very thin barrier to the other without existing in the space between. It stayed at light speed but skiped part of the journey. You can also speed up photons with a vacume chamber and two copper plates. By placing two grounded conductive planes in close parallel you prevent any particle with a wavelength longer than the distance between the plates from existing in that space. Normaly in empty space particles pop in and out of existance all the time. These are called "virtual particles", "quantum soup" or "quantum fireworks". With less virtual particles in the way a lazer seems to move faster between the plates.

    This is all simplified and may be out of date. Serve with a hefty sprincle of salt.

  • A good link explaining the possibility of time travel using a wormhole is here [pbs.org].


    Click here [c] to crash Windows98
  • Generating opposing magnetic fields each having a plane of maximum force running perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the respective magnetic field;
    The Lorentz force is given by Il x B, which means that the magnetic force is due to a current, and in general, circulates about the current flow.

    This is true, however there is another consequence of the equation you cite. If there is a current and an independent magnetic field perpendicular the medium of the current will experience a force mutually perpendicular to the first two. (id est: current along x-axis, magnetic field y and then force z) generating heat from a heat source along an axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of the magnetic field;

    Unless the heat source is a thin wire, it is difficult to imagine an axial heat source. Heat conduction tends to be uniform, and while I'm not a material scientist, it is difficult for me to think of a material that has non-isotropic heat conduction (ie different depending on direction -- a composite material with fibers might do the trick).

    An axial heat source need only be a material with uniform generation in a cylindrical shape. (any heat generating rod will be the hottest at its centre and heat will travel outwards.
    In the "preferred embodiment of the patent a halogen lamp is suggested as the heat source.
    In any pure isotropic material heat conduction hsould definitely be uniform. The other component of conduction is the gradient. (net heat transfer is from a hotter area to a cooler area) So the shape of the heat generation could affect it.

    Another useful phrase for patents that this one uses is "it is believed". He hasn't gotten this thing to work yet but wants to benefit if someone else does

  • I always wondered...say you have a REALLY rigid pole (please no jokes :P) and it spanned from here to say the Sun, and you yanked on that pole, would the information (the force of the tug) exceed the speed of light

    No, actually. A beam of light sent from the tugger to earth would arrive either first or around the same time as the *tug* (depending on how rigid your pole is!).

    To understand this, you have to accept that the pole can not be infinitly rigid, it is comprised of molecules which themselves must move the distance of the tug. So imagine the pole not as a single object, but as an enormous number of segments pushing or pulling each other (as it actually is).

    This means if an observer could follow the pole from the sun to the earth at the speed of light, s/he would see a ripple of compression travelling the length of the pole all the way to the earth.

    Having a pole with no space between molecules would violate many laws of nuclear physics I'm sure, and the pole itself would probably be so dense it would collapse in on itself and both ends would shoot towards each other into a black hole in the middle.

    Like some sort of cosmic, nuclear sex change.

    Ace905

  • Combining my experience of a couple of years at Uni studying physics with the knowledge imparted here by Mr acgetchell I think we can safely conclude that this patient is just a load of bollocks. I will eat both my legs with a spoon if it really works.

    How do these CRAZY ideas get this far without someone saying "Hey! That is just shit! Stop wasting everyones time."?

  • Re:Backwards in time?? (Score:3)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14, 2000 @04:29PM (#1202583)
    Hmm ... yes and no. The signal would arrive later than it was sent _in the frame of reference of the sender_ But it could arrive ealier than it was sent in the frame of reverence of someone else who travels relative to the sender (even possibly the receiver) at a relativistic speed (>0.1c). This has to do with the time dilatation caused when moving at great speed. An event that happens BEFORE another one in the view of a not-moving observer can possibly happen AFTER the other in the view of a moving observer. As to not violate casuality both the relative speed of the two observers and any connection between the two events is not allowed to be faster than the speed of light.

    A much better (but quite long) description can be found here [purdue.edu].

    This is all based on the theory of relativity. Quantum physics OTOH allows for faster than light information transport. The most famous example is perhaps the tunnel effect. This effect allows particles to pass through energetical barriers although their energy would not be sufficient to do it according.to conventional physiscs. Tunneling is known for a long time but recently (95 or so) it was discovered that the particles need a shorter time to pass that barrier than light would have taken. It was even calimed that information was sent at about 4 times light speed through a barrier.
    For further information use e.g this [weburbia.com].

    I do not know how this all relates to this invention (theres something suspicious in there, namely the claim that increased plant growth has been observed .... go figure) but its interesting nonetheless

  • Re:Backwards in time?? (Score:3)

    by Bill Currie ( 487 ) on Tuesday March 14, 2000 @03:35PM (#1202584) Homepage
    I think this backwards though time bit might be a common mistake. The equation for time dialation is sqrt(1-v*v/(c*c)) and when v is greater than c, it becomes sqrt(-x) which is definity not backwards. If anything, it's sideways.

    Now, if you think about it, assuming FTL is possible, what will happen is that when someone is coming to you faster than light, it will appear that they arrive before they left because the light showing their departure arrives after the light showing their arrival.

    If they're departing from your location, they will appear to arraive at their destination x+y years after their departure where x is the distance in lightyears and y is their travel time in years.

    Of course, all the above could be a load of baloney, but still, I don't see how going faster than light would cause you to really go backwards through time.

  • Fun with patents... (Score:3)

    by Uruk ( 4907 ) on Tuesday March 14, 2000 @03:33PM (#1202585)
    Maybe it's real, but most likely, it's some losers idea of a practical joke. I must admit though, that for all the screaming about patents that goes on here, it would be kinda cool to have a patent of my own. My patent would be on something that's definately obvious, but harmless to everyone. Something like "Patent on a method for ultra-high-speed avoidance of job-related injuries using three pounds of cool-whip, a pair of scissors, and a copy of the new Stephen King eBook (after I had bitfrobbed it out of whatever pathetic format they're distributing it in) while walking and chewing bubble gum"

    Just you fools wait! You'll all owe me MILLIONS when this type of activity becomes all the rage!

    Alternately, I could preemptively patent the "Natalie Portman/Hot Grits" post, and make TRILLIONS of dollars. (But #2, why make trillions of dollars, when we could make....BILLIONS OF DOLLARS!!!!) Also possibly in the future is the Jon Katz flame post patent, the "Slashdot sucks since it's become freshmeat" post patent, and the all-important meta-whiner post patent.

    I think that all right-thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that ordinary decent people are fed up in this
    country with being sick and tired. I'm certainly not. But I'm sick and tired of being told that I am.
    - Monty Python

    It's an option...

  • What do _I_ think? (Score:3)

    by jimhill ( 7277 ) on Tuesday March 14, 2000 @02:55PM (#1202586) Homepage
    I think it's past time for the USPTO to reinstate its requirement that patent applications be submitted with working models.

  • Beneficial side effect leaves more questions (Score:3)

    by A nonymous Coward ( 7548 ) on Tuesday March 14, 2000 @03:27PM (#1202587)
    Quoting from page 16, column 1, lines 22-28:

    Initial benefits ... include ... and accelerating plant growth exposed to the by-product energy of the RF transmissions.

    and further, same page and column, lines 48-55:

    It has been observed by the inventor and witnesses that accelerated plant growth can occur using the present invention.

    For accelerated plant growth, first, you need to create a hot surface that is more than 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Next, you need a strong magnetic field. Only one device is needed for this function. This allows energy from another dimension to influence plant growth.

    I want to know more!

    How do you protect the plants from the hot surface? Is this the purpose of the magnetic field?

    Does this work on cattle, pigs, and other carnivorous delights?

    Is there any bill to pay to the other dimension whose energy is used?

    The hell with plant growth! Why not simply use the energy to replace oil wells and coal mines and nuclear reactors?

    --

  • Re:Ender's Game, anyone? (Score:3)

    by wtpooh ( 15154 ) on Tuesday March 14, 2000 @06:14PM (#1202588) Homepage Journal
    Ursula K. LeGuin mentioned the ansible in her 1974 novel "The Dispossessed" - It was a nice surprise to see it there since I had assumed that it was Card's original idea. I don't know if anyone used it before her, though.

  • Utter crap! Violates Basic E&M (Score:3)

    by EricWright ( 16803 ) on Wednesday March 15, 2000 @04:34AM (#1202589) Journal
    A method to transmit and receive electromagnetic waves which comprises generating opposing magnetic fields having a plane of maximum force running perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the magnetic field

    Consider an electromagnetic wave travelling in a particular direction, say down the positive x axis. The oscillatory magnetic and electric fields comprising these waves oscillate in mutually perpendicular planes, and perpendicular to the direction of propagation. For the sake of argument, let the electric field's plane of oscillation be the +/-y axis, and the magnetic field's plane be the +/-z axis.

    The Poynting vector (roughly E x B, where x indicates the vector cross product) defines the momentum density of the EM wave. In this case, E x B is proportional to EB(y x z [= x] ). Thus, the momentum carried by the EM wave is transmitted down the longitudinal axis of the wave.

    From Newton's second law, F = dp/dt. When the EM wave is incident on a surface, the wave reflects, changing the direction of travel. If the wave is normally incident on a surface, its direction goes from +x to -x, such that the direction of dp is +x, parallel to the longitudinal axis.

    Note from the quoted section of the patent application that this wormhole method of communication requires a plane of maximum force perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the magnetic field. There is no plane of maximum force, there is only a direction (vector). A vector (one dimensional object) can lie in an infinite number of planes (two dimensional objects).

    Either this guy has developed a completely new universe in which his physics is drastically different from ours, or he never bothered taking a graduate level E&M course.

    Eric

  • The big problem (Score:3)

    by mindstrm ( 20013 ) on Tuesday March 14, 2000 @09:31PM (#1202590)
    with this, and of course, I may be misunderstanding, is one of perception.

    Yes, we say that to observe is to modify (and indeed, it is).
    The theory is that until one of the pair is observed, the particles exist in a superposition of states. When we observe one, we 'cause' it to collapse into the appropriate state. This also, as the particles are entangled, causes the other particle to assume it's state.
    This is largely an exercise in abstract thought. THe real issue is that we do not KNOW the state of the other particle in the pair, and by observing it, we screw with the process.

    In short, the only way real information can be transmitted using this method is to also transmit initial state information via a conventional method, which defeats the purpose altogether.

  • Re:Backwards in time?? (Score:3)

    by Mike Van Pelt ( 32582 ) on Tuesday March 14, 2000 @03:21PM (#1202591)
    If the signal travels faster than light, wouldn't it get received before it was sent??

    A single signal, not necessarily.

    However, if you can send signals faster than light, you can set things up to get a signal before it was sent. This is inherent to the geometry of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transforms.

    Now, if you can find another mathematical transform which gives the same answers as the Lorentz-Fitzgerald in all areas where it has been tested, but avoids the possibility of time travel, you might have something. But this theory has been very thorougly tested to a lot of decimal places over a very wide range. As near as we can tell, if you can send a message (or anything else) somewhere faster than light could get there, you can arrange a causality violation.

  • Re:Backwards in time?? (Score:3)

    by Weezul ( 52464 ) on Tuesday March 14, 2000 @04:17PM (#1202592)
    No, it's not a missconception and the FTL implies time travel arguement has nothing to do with the way things ``appear.'' Actaully, almost nothing from realitivity talks about the way things appear. Realitivity talks about the way things ARE based on a well calibrated measurment grid, i.e. taking into account seperation. This means the core of the theory is not interested in how long it takes for light to get to your eye. Generally, solving the problem of "how do things appear" (taking into account how long it takes light to get to your eye) is a MUCH harder problem.. that the general public knows almost nothing about.

    Anyway, It's pretty easy to show that FTL implies time travel.. just consider what happens when you use your FLT from an accelerated referance frame. The light cone of the accelerated referance frame is rotated on it's side, so the FTL travel points backwards from the original referance frame. It's not hard to fill in the details from this picture.

    Also, every physics person I have ever talked to about this says it is true. I think there is even a Hawking quote about "We have not seen any visitors from the future, so there is probable no way to go FTL."

  • Re:Ender's Game, anyone? (Score:3)

    by speek ( 53416 ) on Tuesday March 14, 2000 @04:44PM (#1202593)
    I could be wrong, but I believe the Ansible is a standard sci-fi concept for ftl communications, and did not originate from Orson Card. I don't remember who first came up with it (maybe Ursula LeGuin?), but it's been used many times since.

    But then again, I could be wrong.

  • Re:Ender's Game, anyone? (Score:3)

    by signe ( 64498 ) on Tuesday March 14, 2000 @06:42PM (#1202594) Homepage
    Does this remind anyone else of the Ansible (sp?) in Ender's Game? It still maintains the limit on travel that is set by light speed, but removes the limit on communications. Maybe this is just another example of life imitating art.

    ...imitating life. If I remember correctly, the "ansible" is an sci-fi extension of a real quantum theory (how close it approximates reality, I don't know). It even came up in a previous Slashdot discussion [slashdot.org].

    Basically, the theory goes that if you have atom with two electrons in the same quantum state except for spin, and you know the spin of one of them and then change it, the spin of the other electron is changed instantly, regardless of distance. However, I think this interaction occurs at the speed of light, and not instantly. It's just that we can't tell the difference between the two because there's no way (presently) to separate the two particles by very much distance.

    -Todd
    ---

  • Nonsense (Score:3)

    by gorgonite ( 79857 ) on Tuesday March 14, 2000 @03:14PM (#1202595)
    You can deform spacetime, at least in principle, but not using toys like antennae and such. see This little nasa page [nasa.gov]

  • Re:Backwards in time?? (Score:3)

    by LoRez ( 107779 ) on Tuesday March 14, 2000 @04:01PM (#1202596)
    causality violation? Ha, I get it:
    Universe.stderr: causality violation, core dumped!

    Let's see god read that one and debug! ;-)

    ------

  • Re:Circular File (Score:3)

    by trintragula ( 119106 ) on Tuesday March 14, 2000 @04:06PM (#1202597) Homepage

    Hopefully, the patent office will treat this like they treat applications for patents on perpetual motion machines

    You are more correct than you think. I shall try to explain why...

    In making his special theory of relativity, Einstein first stated the following two assumptions:

    • The speed of light is constant and will be measured to have the same value by any observer.
    • The laws of physics will be the same for any observer

    Everything else you have ever heard about relativity is a logical consequence of these two statements. This is the beauty of the theory.

    It is the second one which we are interested in here. If this device did work, energy would be transported from one point to another faster than light would take to do the same thing. Now, the observer who activates the machine will see some energy disappear into his machine, then some time later, see it reappear at the other end.

    An observer at the other end of the machine, will first see some energy appear at his end of the machine, then later see some disappear from the other end. This would violate the law of conservation of energy for the second observer and is thus a no-no.

  • I'm not surprised (Score:3)

    by Signail11 ( 123143 ) on Tuesday March 14, 2000 @03:17PM (#1202598)
    It [should] go without saying that this patent is pseudoscientific babble masquarading as a real invention that some patent examiner bought. Unfortunately, this is not very surprising considering what other, ahem, odd patents have been approved.

    For example, numerous perpetual motion machines have been patented, as well as unlimited energy supplies and other such nonsense. These are really great for laughs on a rainy day when your own project is on the fritz. Of course, they never work, but this never seems to stop the USPTO from issuing the patents anyway. The laws of physics (and the gross violation thereof) don't seem to bother the patent office.

  • The man responsible (Score:3)

    by cretog8 ( 144589 ) on Tuesday March 14, 2000 @06:11PM (#1202599)
    Perhaps it's time to question the person responsible for the current state of the USPTO, and the preposterous patents we see granted. People are quite willing to hold Janet Reno personally accountable for the failings of the Justice Dept., why not this guy?

    Q. Todd Dickinson [uspto.gov] is the Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks. He's only been on the job for 4 months, so we can't blame him personally for many past failings, but he's the one to address about making it stop. According to his biography, "Under Dickinson's leadership, the PTO is implementing the most sweeping reform in patent law in a half-century and its restructuring into a performance-based organization."

    Since IANAL, I can't make much sense of Dickinson v. Zurko [techlaw.com], but it might give some insight on Disckinson's attitudes. It vaguely makes it look like he tried pretty vigorously to strenghten the legal force of PTO decisions that something was prior art and couldn't be patented. It may or may not also strengthen decisions that something is patentable. He says he's trying to hire many more people familiar with software, and make more resources available for recognizing prior art.

    There's several of his speeches [uspto.gov] available at the PTO site.

    Dickinson did praise the late Judge Giles Sutherland Rich, who wrote the opinion in the State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group Inc. [callaw.com] case that explicitly made it acceptable to patent mathematical algorithms and business models.

    It would be great if the slashdot masters could arrange an Ask Slashdot with this guy.

  • Re:I'm not surprised (Score:3)

    by Pyotri ( 161802 ) on Tuesday March 14, 2000 @04:12PM (#1202600)
    Imagine the scene in the USPTO. An overworked, underpaid trainee patent clerk has just finished scrutinising the design for a revolutionary mousetrap, and then he spots this on top of his in-pile. He looks at it, doublechecks, and looks at it again. Five minutes later, his supervisor returns from the coffee machine, and finds his young charge laid prostrate, and still suffering from fits of helpless giggles. "Let me guess." he asks, as he sips his capuccino. "Perpetual motion? Time travel? Lead into gold?" "No, even better," the young man manages to gasp between convulsions of hilarity, "a hyperwave transmitter." After calming his trainee down, the supervisor explains to him how to process such applications. "We shall accept this patent." "What? But it's crazy! It can't work! It's just a bunch of..." "I know that! So what's the harm in accepting it?" "What?" "Well think about it. Do you imagine how much trouble this applicant could cause if we reject this one? So where's the harm in humouring him? Just stamp it approved, file it away, and we have one happy lunatic and one patent that can't be challenged because it never made sense in the first place. That way, everybody's happy." "But won't that just encourage him?" "And that's the beauty of it! The thought of seeing another one of these is what gets me out of bed in the morning. And just consider how quick and easy it is to deal with. The more of these you get, the better your productivity bonus." "Ahh, I see. I think I'm going to like this job after all!" "Don't count on it."

  • Re:Backwards in time?? (Score:4)

    by PG13 ( 3024 ) on Tuesday March 14, 2000 @03:54PM (#1202601)
    It would cause SOMEONE to observe the signal traveling bacwards in time. Because we have to transform the times for any inertial observer someone in a rocket ship going very fast (but still below the speed of light) will see the transmission of the signal occur after it is recieved.

    It is even worse as the reception of the light will be in his past light cone at some time (a signal from the reception can reach him) and the transmission will be in his future light cone (he can send a beam of light to the transmission point before the transmission occurs). Therefore in his reference frame (just as valid as any other) he can see the result of the transmission and then tell them they shouldn't send.

    For the record unless this is talking about speed of light in water or anything else other then the signal speed in vaccu it is a load of BS.

  • YAY! (Score:4)

    by Accipiter ( 8228 ) on Tuesday March 14, 2000 @02:54PM (#1202602)
    A method to transmit and receive electromagnetic waves which comprises generating opposing magnetic fields having a plane of maximum force running perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the magnetic field; generating a heat source along an axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of the magnetic field; generating an accelerator parallel to and in close proximity to the heat source, thereby creating an input and output port; and generating a communications signal into the input and output port, thereby sending the signal at a speed faster than light.

    WooHoo! Now we can contact Voyager!

    (P.S.: If that's the abstract, I don't want to see the specifics. heh)

    -- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

  • Only for perpetual motion claims. (Score:4)

    by Ungrounded Lightning ( 62228 ) on Tuesday March 14, 2000 @03:54PM (#1202603) Journal
    They stopped requiring working models for everything but devices to violate the conservation of energy after they filled up a bunch of warehouses with working models of everything under the sun. (A lot of it was big farm implements.)

    Many of the Smithsonian exhibits are old working models from patent applications.

    Interestingly: A very efficient still (using counter-current heat exchangers and creating near-vacuum by being 30ish feet tall at approximately atmospheric pressure at the bottom) was initially rejected for being a perpetual motion machine (for which they have rather high standards, in addition to the working-model requirement. B-) ) But the inventer was able to convince them to grant the patent after he showed them that you still had to input the heat of solution plus some heat for various losses.

  • There's more (Score:4)

    by Duxup ( 72775 ) on Tuesday March 14, 2000 @03:28PM (#1202604) Homepage
    IBM has all kinds of neat patents.

    Some a bit more disturbing than others. [ibm.com]

  • The USPTO must be reformed NOW! (Score:5)

    by Hrunting ( 2191 ) on Tuesday March 14, 2000 @02:59PM (#1202605) Homepage
    I'm sorry. First, Jeff Bezos and Amazon patent One-Click Shopping and now this!? Are they completely nuts?! Do they realize that wormhole generation technology has been alive and well on the Internet for the past umpteen years? I mean, come on, if they're giving out patents for this stuff, I'd better reserve my spot in line for Air!

    It is common knowledge that transmitting and receiving electromagnetic waves which comprise opposing magnetic fields having a plane of maximum force running perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the magnetic field; generating a heat source along an axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of the magnetic field; generating an accelerator parallel to and in close proximity to the heat source, thereby creating an input and output port; and generating a communications signal into the input and output port, thereby sending the signal at a speed faster than light is the easiest way to generate a wormhole. Other more difficult methods include being an alien species in control of vast amounts of subspace energy and doing something weird with the warp core.

    If this patent goes through, it will mean the death of the Internet e-commerce for sure. Companies will have to stop using wormhole shipping techniques and revert to slower, more earthbound methods like UPS and Airborne Express. Everyone should write the USPTO right now before this thing gets approved and make sure that the system isn't abused once more and ensuring that future generations will have unlimited access to wormhole generating technology.

    NOTE: This post not for the humor (or humour) impaired.

  • This isn't NEWS... (Score:5)

    by Gothland ( 34482 ) on Tuesday March 14, 2000 @03:17PM (#1202606) Homepage
    I submitted it three weeks from now. Come ON!

  • Wormhole physics (Score:5)

    by acgetchell ( 143901 ) on Tuesday March 14, 2000 @04:25PM (#1202607) Homepage
    First, an excellent technical reference (that I'm using in this discussion) is Matt Visser's book
    • Lorentzian Wormholes: From Einstein to Hawking

    In general, to create a wormhole one must manipulate the general metric, which is a tensor that describes spacetime (for example, the relatively flat Minkowski metric takes on the form diag(-1,1,1,1) where diag refers to a diagonal matrix). Most "constructed" metrics that produce a wormhole solution have pathological flaws. For example, a Schwartzchild wormhole necessarily occludes the throat with a black hole, which tends to kill off passersby. The Kerr metric solution requires a several solar mass black hole formed into a ring and spun at relativistic angular velocities: how we might accomplish this feat of metric engineering anytime soon is troublesome.

    The two most plausible ways of doing so is a Morris-Thorne-Wheeler wormhole, which simply requires exotic matter and violation of ANEC (Averaged Null-Energy Condition), and the Alcubierre spacewarp.

    "Exotic" matter is simply matter with negative energy density. All matter and antimatter known has positive mass, and so there's only one way that we know of to get it: the Casimir effect. Briefly, the Casimir effect comes about due to vacuum fluctuations. Even the purest ideal vacuum is not truly empty, but has countless particle-antiparticle pairs appearing and disappearing within the time limits set by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The continued existence of these virtual particles has a noticeable effect, and is possibly a source of Einstein's Cosmological constant. At any rate, by setting up a parallel plate capacitor, one can reduce the likelihood of the virtual particles appearing, and thereby generate a negative energy density.

    Unfortunately, it would take a spherical capacitor the size of the Earth separated by an angstrom (10 E-10 meters) to create a 10 meter or so wormhole using the Casimir effect.

    Robert Forward nicely sidesteps this issue by postulating "negative matter" in his novel "Timemaster". As he explained it to me, "Why not?".

    Alcubierre's metric contracts spacetime in front of the "ship" and expands it behind. It also requires exotic matter and violating the weak, strong, and dominant energy conditions. Lastly, Pfenning and Ford (1997 Classical Quantum Gravity 14 1743) show that this configuration is rather implausible, and Hiscock (1997 Class. Quant. Grav 14 L188) shows that a backreaction (warp drag) or tuning of the warp field may be required for it to maintain the Alcubierre metric, a difficult proposition given that past and future event horizons are causally disconnected.

    In sum, there's really a renaissance occuring in General Relativity, and these issues are discussed in the professional literature. Like everyone else, I'd have to see a publication in the technical literature to consider seriously the claims made in this patent.

    Now, with this in mind, after reading the abstract this patent seems to be nonsensical. Examining the claims:

    Generating opposing magnetic fields each having a plane of maximum force running perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the respective magnetic field;

    The Lorentz force is given by Il x B, which means that the magnetic force is due to a current, and in general, circulates about the current flow. Due to the cross product, the resultant geometry is not planar. Since we have not discovered any magnetic monopoles, magnetic induction in general forms loops from one pole to another.

    generating heat from a heat source along an axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of the magnetic field;

    Unless the heat source is a thin wire, it is difficult to imagine an axial heat source. Heat conduction tends to be uniform, and while I'm not a material scientist, it is difficult for me to think of a material that has non-isotropic heat conduction (ie different depending on direction -- a composite material with fibers might do the trick).

    generating an accelerator parallel to and in close proximity to the heat source, thereby creating an electromagnetic injection point; and generating a communication signal into the electromagnetic injection point, thereby sending and receiving the communication signal at a speed faster than a known speed of light.

    What is exactly meant by "an accelerator"? Why does this magically add up to FTL?

    Also note one of the other claims:

    It has been observed by the inventor and witnesses that accelerated plant growth can occur using the present invention.
    For accelerated plant growth, first, you need to create a hot surface that is more than 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Next, you need a strong magnetic field. Only one device is needed for this function. This allows energy from another dimension to influence plant growth.

    Again, there seems to be no basis in which to make this claim. A wormhole would certain create a characteristic signature, even leaving causality problems aside. --Adam

Slashdot Top Deals

The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh

Close