Warp Drive

[quantumjumper]

I am a physicist and interested to know if any one on this forum thinks that warp drive is possible.

 

For several years I have been working on the possibility of designing and building such a device that warps space-time.

 

I have had some success - although yet to be verified with a new design and experimentation.

 

The design is based on my hypothesis of the true nature of warped space-time and its cause.

 

By the way if my theory is confirmed then the inertial dampers aboard the Enterprise will become superflous.

 

 

 

 

[Rara Avis]

Maybe you can find some answers here:

http://www.whatthebleep.com/rabbithole/

 

No joke intended. I'm currently investigating this theory and it's applications.

 

 

[bones2097]

humm, lets not jump the gun, try to figure out a plausible sub-light engine.

[TetsuoShima]

Depending on what kind of acceleration you're looking for, we allready have one: the ion engine. Can go quite fast but takes a long tong time to get at a decent speed. :D

[quantumjumper]

You are right about the ion engine, but it will also take just as long to decelerate and will be limited to sub-light speeds, for interstellar space travel this wold be incredibly slow.

 

We need a drive that can JUMP to incredible speeds (faster than the speed of light) and decelerate just as fast.

 

The problem in Einstein's universe the speed of light is a real physical barrier because of infinite mass increase and time dilation effects.

 

There is also the problem of inertial effects with the great accelerations needed.

 

If my theory on the true nature of space-time is correct then with my design for a warp drive:

 

1. Any speed is possible.

2. There will be no mass increase

3. There will be no time dilation effects.

4. Faster than light speed is possible

5. Great accelerations are possible - jumping to warp and beyond

6. With no inertial effects.

 

Space-time warp is the key to the future of space travel.

 

 

[TDE]

Okay i am sorry but I have to interrupt here. There is no way in which people can go the speed of light.

okay its not really the formula I was looking for but it will work.

 

As you increase in speed the mass will decrease. It is impossible, speaking with physics, to go the speed of light or faster the speed of light.

 

So unless you are making a new physics, which I would like to see, it is not physically possible to travel at that speed. You have a better chance of proving warm wholes exist.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_addition_formula

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#.22Faster-than-light.22_observations_and_experiments

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=7879&st=0[br]Posted on: September 29, 2007, 07:53:39 AM

---

okay I am sorry for the quick reply but I will, if you want, bring more examples on why we can't go faster then the speed of light.

[quantumjumper]

You are right, mass does increase as you approach the speed of light.

 

Using the Lorentz factor in the equation you quoted at 99% the speed of light mass increases by 7.09 times.

 

But this equation fails to understand the nature of mass and space-time itself.

 

In fact at these near light speeds mass increase does not happen - it is an apparent increase if you understand the real nature of space-time. 

 

It is inertial mass which increases - not mass itself.

 

There is a distinct difference between the two and yet they appear the same.

 

We measure mass using Newton's Laws, the greater the mass the greater the force needed to increase the speed of the mass (acceleration).

 

And this is why IT DOES GET HARDER to get to near light speed.

 

This is a real effect.

 

But it is not the rest mass (m0) which is increasing, it is the inertial mass which is increasing and therefore requires a greater accelerating force.

 

 

Let me give you a clue as to why warping past the speed of light is possible.

 

In my theory on the nature of space-time and its effects the mass of a spaceship approaching warp speed does not actually increase

 

IT IS THE NEWTONIAN ACCELERATING FORCE NEEDED TO INCREASE THE SPEED OF THE MASS WHICH INCREASES.

 

This is why it seems impossible - the faster you go, the greater the force needed to accelerate the mass - at light speed an infinite force would be needed, and so the spaceship would appear to have an infinite mass.

 

It is not the apparent mass increase we have to worry about, it is the increasing Newtonian forces needed.

 

And there is a way around this problem.

 

 

 

[hayden]

Ive read somewhere, and im kinda to lazy to find where, but isnt there a theory where you create a negative field in front of a craft and a possative one at the back and the vessel is 'pulled or dragged' through space at FTL speed?

[bones2097]

i've had a similar theory where a ship has 2 magnets, one behind the other at some distance, each having opposite ahem i mean same ::)  field polarity (alternating of course). producing thrust.

 

 

ahh but i know what your thinking, the repulsive force, is only felt by the waves... well i did figure a solution out.. but i forgot where i wrote it...

 

I also have my own version of the ion drive, but thats top secret!!

keep that safe for when I start my space empire, and all you fools will be my slaves!!!!!

 

 

MOoooooHHaaaaHhaaaa!!!! ;)

[TetsuoShima]

to clarify, my reply above was a reply to bones question about fast sub-light travel.

 

 

as for the speed of light being unbreakable, that is untrue, as there are allready known effects that propagate instantaneously accross great distances (ex. entanglement), what in effect however is still impossible with current understanding of the universe, is moving 'information' faster than the speed of light. of course, when a person is traveling faster than the speed of light, that obviously classifies as information, the speed of light itself being unbreakable however is not a correct statement (ye, I'm nitpicking ;P ).

 

Since there's a big problem between quatum physics and general relativity, it's clear that one of them is not complete, both have a lot of experimental data supporting them, so they're unlikely to be completely flawed, but one of them (possibly both) is definately incomplete. As such we cannot say with certainty that it will always be impossible to send information faster than the speed of light, all we can say with certainty, is that with our current understanding of the universe, it is.

 

It will probably take a very inspired and smart person (or multiple persons) to come up with a 'better' representation of the universe though, but given enough time, I'm sure eventually it'll pop up. For the time being we're stuck with what we've got. :D

 

Also, don't forget, that for the most part, we're still working with newtonian physics in space sciences, for broad application, general relativity is way too complex to use as default. From what I've seen, the more generalised your theory becomes, the less usable it will be in real life. And then we still have the philosophical question to answer: "can the universe be exactly represented by means of mathematics at all? Or is all we're doing, making an approximation of 'real life'?" But that's probably going beyond the scope of this thread. :D

[quantumjumper]

You are right about negative fields in front of a spaceship and positive fields behind - these are gravitational fields - warped space-time, hence the name warp drive.  The enterprise surfs a gravity wave!

 

The field in front 'pulls' while the field behind 'pushes.'

 

Regarding quantum mechanics and general field theory both are right and can be unified in the understanding of gravity fields - a gravitational distortion of space-time is both quantum in nature AND obeys the principles of general relativity.  How can this be true?  Well this is because a gravitational field has two intrinsic properties/causes which give it a quantum and at the same time a field nature.

 

It is not the speed of light which is the limit - it is our understanding of what limits it.

[TetsuoShima]

It doesn't matter, whether they can be unified in one specific area, as long as they cannot be completely unified, at least on of them is incomplete or incorrect (provided current unification beliefs and understandings about he beginning of the universe are largely true).

 

As of yet, there is no proof for the existence of gravitons, and as such, it's nothing more than a fancy theory. Without gravitons, there can be no unified theory as they are currently postulated (there are more unified theory candidates, some more promising than others) and the 'incompatibility' remains. Should there be a real graviton, then both theories can be 'more easily' unified/completed. It would in all likelyhood also imply that sending information faster than the speed of light will be beyond our reach. However, anything at this level of physics is for a large part beyond my detailed understanding. In fact it most likely is beyond the detailed understanding of most physicists, unless it's their specific field of interest.

 

Don't forget to draw a clear line between theory and practice btw, without defined and objective proof, a theory holds little practical value. Though I do acknowledge that without a theory, there is nothing to be tested against experimental values, so theories do have potential value.

 

As for your italic remark, it is quite well understood why no information can exceed c, as to why c has the specific value it has... who knows... questioning that value, means questioning all current accepted physics, that is beyond my ambition. :D

[bones2097]

warp drive shh-warp drive... so last season.... i wonder just how much energy do you need to create & maintain a warp field to engulf an entire ship anywho....

 

it seems  every other sci flick uses some form of hyper-space drive to get around the c problem, and it would most likely have a smaller carbon footprint too ::) lol ;) .

[quantumjumper]

Gravitons: interesting, gravity does not need gravitons to act since gravity is an effect on space-time by a mass.  Gravity remember IS an acceleration, but many physicists don't understand what this means.  All of Einstein's special and general relativity effects, including the understanding of what gravitational acceleration means can be explained by my theory of what gravity really is and what causes it.  And yes, this theory/model is based on real Newtonian and quantum physics and real physical effects in the quantum world (measurable).  The theory explains. what big G, the gravitational constant is and how to calculate it from fundamental constants.  My theory also explains the limit of the speed of light and what time really is - also why time 'ticks' at the rate of 1sec/sec and therefore why space and time dilation (gravity) happens. 

 

I have mathematical and experimental evidence for the cause of gravity and have derived a new formula for calculating the strength of a gravitational field which does not need big G.

 

Understanding of gravity in this model means that light speed is not a limit, it is only an apparent limit because of the very nature of space (not space time). 

 

The universe runs at a fixed rate governed by the speed of light which is itself governed by the nature of the fabric of space. 

 

So there is hope that this universe which god has made and set in motion can be explored by mankind at interstellar light speeds - the limit of our imagination is the only true limit in god's universe.

 

 

[TetsuoShima]

quantumjumper, what you are saying makes no sense in light of 'accepted' physics: as far as quantum mechanics is concernerned all fundamental forces need a mediator particle, for gravity this would be the (currently theoretical) graviton. For quantum gravity and current theoretical models there are no definitive proofs yet, at least not to the degree that they are widely accepted as being 'true'.

 

The more I read the less you seem to be a real physicist to me, for example, the gravitational constant is a fundamental universal constant in the current physical frame of reference, its value is determined experimentally and it is in fact rather hard to determine it with much precision mostly due to the 'weak' nature of gravity.

 

If you are saying you can calculate G from other universal constants, then you're not only unifying gravity and quantum theory, you're also rewriting a lot of the currently accepted physical model of the universe. So, that leads me to conclude, if your 'work' truely had any decent merrit, you would not be discussing it on a scifi (science FICTION) forum, but instead be writing papers about it and discussing in real science fora.

 

As for time going a 1s/s, that statement does not make any sense at all, suppose time would tick at 2s/s, then all the mathematics would have to be reinvented too. You should know that 1s is just a definition, it has changed over the years too btw! The reason the length of a time unit is currently 1s with 60s being 1 minute, is historical/logistical in nature!

 

Everthing you have said in your last post needs very hard proof or is utter rubbish, sorry to say so...

I suggest you either try to sell your story as 'fiction' or get it out there in the real scientific world and have it widely accepted. Since it is not my place to judge fundamentally new works of physics, all I can do is put it in light of what IS currently accepted and base my conclusions on that.

[quantumjumper]

'Accepted physics' does not break new boundaries, it is a base to work from and in some cases 'accepted physics' only shows us things to a certain level.

 

Let's not get personal or insulting here, what you don't understand is the physics behind my points - because I have not yet published my work.

 

As far as the gravitons as a force carrier you cannot argue about its lack of proof of existence and then as if its proven to exist.

 

I will repeat what I said gravity does not need gravitons to carry the force because gravity is not a force.

 

What we see as a force is a secondary effect, we are not seeing a force but an acceleration.

 

There are forces involved and the photon as a mediator of the electromagnetic force is all that is needed to explain gravitational acceleration (lets keep it as it is - an acceleration and not a force).

 

As you say, gravity is a weak 'force', this is because it is a secondary effect of known forces.

 

G is a fundamental 'constant' only because its value is dependent on other fundamental constants such as c.

 

Why did you miss the point about 'rate of change' ie time since time  in current theory is relative,  but in fact time dilation changes the real rate of time, in gravity fields and velocity differences there is a different real change in the rate of time, it is not because an observer sees or measures it differently. 

 

Time I will repeat (1 sec) has been defining as a specific number of oscillations in an atomic clock and this is our reference for comparing other real time changes, the rate of oscillation of the atomic clock changes as space-time is distorted - these are real not just relative effects.  The nature of the fabric of the universe limits the speed of light and therefore electromagnetic interactions and therefore  'rate of change' - we have time simply because the universe limits light.

 

As far as what is currently accepted physics my theory of gravity uses just that accepted newtonian and quantum physics, that is the reason my theory makes sense and is not utter rubbish.

 

I am very disappointed, of all places I would expect sci.fi enthusiasts to have an open mind about the possibility of warp drive.  Originally I asked for only an opinion.

 

My theory is written in a book to be published but only when I am satisfied I have added all that is necessary to complete the work - including some yet to be done experimental work.

 

For obvious reasons I cannot yet give details of the physics, the only other person who knows any details of my work is my son and it was he who this year encouraged (more like pleaded) me to write it all down in a book for publishing.

 

I came here to give enthusiasts for interstellar travel some hope for the future.

 

[TetsuoShima]

'Accepted physics' does not break new boundaries, it is a base to work from and in some cases 'accepted physics' only shows us things to a certain level.

 

Agreed.

 

Let's not get personal or insulting here, what you don't understand is the physics behind my points - because I have not yet published my work.

 

I didn't mean to insult, all I did was show you I was not convinced and that I will not be convinced on this forum, the only way to convince me, is to publish your work, so it can be critically studied and go through peer review.

 

As far as the gravitons as a force carrier you cannot argue about its lack of proof of existence and then as if its proven to exist.

 

I did not do that, I suggest you read what I said again, more carefully.

 

 

I will repeat what I said gravity does not need gravitons to carry the force because gravity is not a force.

 

What we see as a force is a secondary effect, we are not seeing a force but an acceleration.

 

That is in contradiction with what many (most) other physicis would say, I'm more inclined to share their visions. :)

 

There are forces involved and the photon as a mediator of the electromagnetic force is all that is needed to explain gravitational acceleration (lets keep it as it is - an acceleration and not a force).

 

At first sight I'd say, rubbish.

 

As you say, gravity is a weak 'force', this is because it is a secondary effect of known forces.

 

Accepted proof or submitted accepted paper?

 

G is a fundamental 'constant' only because its value is dependent on other fundamental constants such as c.

 

Utter rubbish, untill proven.

 

Why did you miss the point about 'rate of change' ie time since time  in current theory is relative,  but in fact time dilation changes the real rate of time, in gravity fields and velocity differences there is a different real change in the rate of time, it is not because an observer sees or measures it differently. 

 

Time I will repeat (1 sec) has been defining as a specific number of oscillations in an atomic clock and this is our reference for comparing other real time changes, the rate of oscillation of the atomic clock changes as space-time is distorted - these are real not just relative effects.  The nature of the fabric of the universe limits the speed of light and therefore electromagnetic interactions and therefore  'rate of change' - we have time simply because the universe limits light.

 

You seem to be confusing 2 concepts here.

 

As far as what is currently accepted physics my theory of gravity uses just that accepted newtonian and quantum physics, that is the reason my theory makes sense and is not utter rubbish.

 

Ok, let me put it differently, you need to prove what you say and have it widely accepted, untill that time, I and most others consider it a non-proven theory that has about as much value as the theory that the Earth is flat in a simple euclidian space.

 

I am very disappointed, of all places I would expect sci.fi enthusiasts to have an open mind about the possibility of warp drive.  Originally I asked for only an opinion.

 

My theory is written in a book to be published but only when I am satisfied I have added all that is necessary to complete the work - including some yet to be done experimental work.

 

For obvious reasons I cannot yet give details of the physics, the only other person who knows any details of my work is my son and it was he who this year encouraged (more like pleaded) me to write it all down in a book for publishing.

 

I came here to give enthusiasts for interstellar travel some hope for the future.

 

You seem to be announcing your success before achieving it, that is my main problem here. Anyone with a serious background in sciences would be sceptical about your 'work'. If you were right, it would make traveling faster than light a lot easier (probably), which is a good thing in the long term, but there is still this 'if' to consider. Until such time your work is proven or accepted, I shall consider it false. :)

[quantumjumper]

It is interesting that you think anything that is 'not proven' is utter rubbish and that you go with the majority view.

 

 

if you scan the internet you will see that G has already been derived from fundamental constants.

 

'you need to prove what you say and have it widely accepted, untill that time, I and most others consider it a non-proven theory that has about as much value as the theory that the Earth is flat in a simple euclidian space.

'

 

My you do have a closed mind.

 

I do have proof mathematical and experimental, but I can see I am wasting my time here.  The saying which comes to mind is: 'Casting your pearls...'

 

Have a nice cosy unchanging world where the Earth is the centreof the universe.

[TetsuoShima]

It is interesting that you think anything that is 'not proven' is utter rubbish and that you go with the majority view.

 

That is a default characteristic of most physicists and mathematicians actually. Not to believe anything that is unproven, if I vehemently don't believe something, I call it rubbish. :)

 

if you scan the internet you will see that G has already been derived from fundamental constants.

 

Just for fun, I just did, what I found was a bunch of meta-physical mumbo-jumbo with no value.

 

'you need to prove what you say and have it widely accepted, untill that time, I and most others consider it a non-proven theory that has about as much value as the theory that the Earth is flat in a simple euclidian space.

'

 

My you do have a closed mind.

 

Have a nice cosy unchanging world where the Earth is the centreof the universe.

 

My mind is as open as any other realistic scientist, however, you seem to be dealing in meta-physics and trying to sell it as real physics, that is where open changes to closed for me.

 

btw, the fact that the Earth is not the center of the Universe is something that is widely accepted. I would have sooner thought you would be the one who believed such things. Given current knowledge, it would be revolutionary view. :p

(ok, ok, bad joke ;) )

 

I do have proof mathematical and experimental, but I can see I am wasting my time here.  The saying which comes to mind is: 'Casting your pearls...'

 

An easy way to get out of the situation...

Anyway, if you do turn out to be right, I bet we'll hear about your theory in the news soon enough, at that time I'll apologise for not believing you, no sooner. :)

 

EDIT: since this thread has evolved from the very first replies into something not at all related to Star Trek, it is now being moved to modern science.