Star Trek's Warp Drive Not Impossible 541
Trunks writes "No doubt trying to ride the hype train that's currently going for the new Star Trek film, Space.com has a new article detailing how warp drive may not be impossible to acheive. From the article: '"The idea is that you take a chunk of space-time and move it," said Marc Millis, former head of NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project. "The vehicle inside that bubble thinks that it's not moving at all. It's the space-time that's moving." One reason this idea seems credible is that scientists think it may already have happened. Some models suggest that space-time expanded at a rate faster than light speed during a period of rapid inflation shortly after the Big Bang. "If it could do it for the Big Bang, why not for our space drives?" Millis said.' Simple, right?"
So which is it (Score:5, Informative)
Didn't we just have an article on this exact same thing a few days ago explaining why this is definitely NOT possible?
Re:So which is it (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So which is it (Score:4, Funny)
USS Make Some Shit Up
by Voltaire (no, not that Voltaire, the singer)
I was stranded on a planet, Just me and Spock
We met a nasty nazi alien who locked our asses up
We found a hunk of crystal and a metal piece of bed
We made a laser phaser gun and shot him in the head
Bust a move, Tog
I was standing on the bridge when Sulu came to me
His eyes were full of tears he said "Captain, can't you see
the ship is gonna blow do something I beseech"
I grabbed a tribble and some chewing gum and stopped the warp core breach
And I say,
Bounce a graviton particle beam off the main deflector dish
Thats the way we do things, lad, we're making shit up as we wish
The Klingons and the Romulans pose no threat to us
'Cause if we find we're in a bind we just make some shit up
And though he's just a child, and some think him a twit
Wesley is the master when it comes to making up some shit
He's the guy you want with you when you go out in space
Now if only he could beam those pimples off his face
And if you're at a party on the starship Enterprise
And the karaoke player just plain old up and dies
Set up a neutrino field inside a can of peas
Hold on to Geordi's visor and sing into Data's knee
And I say
Bounce a graviton particle beam off the main deflector dish
Thats the way we do things lad, we're making shit up as we wish
The Klingons and the Romulans pose no threat to us
'Cause if we find we're in a bind we just make some shit up
Sisko's on a mission to go no bloody place
He loiters on a space station above Bajoran space
The wormhole's opened up and now they come from near and far
We'll keep the booze but please send back the fucking Jem-hadar
What is with the Klingons, remember in the day
They looked like Puerto Ricans and they dressed in gold lame
Now they look like heavy metal rockers from the dead
With leather pants and frizzy hair and lobsters on their heads
And I say
Bounce a graviton particle beam off the main deflector dish
Thats the way we do things lad, we're making shit up as we wish
The Klingons and the Romulans pose no threat to us
'Cause if we find we're in a bind we just make some shit up
Well, I was stuck on Voyager, pounding on the door
When suddenly it dawned on me I've seen this show before
Perhaps I'm in a warp bubble and slightly out of phase
'Cause it was way back in the sixties when they called it "Lost in Space"
We were looking for a way to make the ratings soar
So we orchestrated an encounter with the Borg
Normally you'd think that that would get us into shit
But this one has a smashing ass and a lovely set of tits
And I say
Bounce a graviton particle beam off the main deflector dish
Thats the way we do things lad, we're making shit up as we wish
The Klingons and the Romulans pose no threat to us
'Cause if we find we're in a bind we're totally screwed but nevermind
We'll pull something out of our behinds, we just make some shit up
Re:So which is it (Score:5, Funny)
Reverse the polarity of the phase inverters for best results.
Re:To the casually ignorant (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So which is it (Score:4, Funny)
If I revers the polarity of my laptop's power connectors, will that give my laptop warp capability? I gotta try that!
Re:So which is it (Score:5, Funny)
The only warp capability you might possibly get with your laptop would be of the OS2 variety.
Re:So which is it (Score:5, Funny)
Even my voltmeter works better when I reverse the polarity; instead of -1.5V for a battery it becomes 1.5V.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You were faster than me, I was about to link the paper. IIRC it had something to do with instability for the energy requirements if you take into account not only relativist effects, but also quantum effects. I did not read TFA, but maybe it's just going along with the hype of the new Trek movie.
Re:So which is it (Score:4, Funny)
Of course he did. He's posting from the past about how warp drives are impossible only to hide the fact that HE has a time masheen.
Re:So which is it (Score:5, Funny)
I made a time machine that goes back in time, but unfortunately it's caused an infinite loop. It was suppose to make a small field go back. Instead, it encompassed the entire planet. I can't do anything to stop it. I found it's physically impossible to get near myself, and the first incarnation of me didn't leave the machine for many days before the experiment started.
I've tried to explain what's happened to people, but it's a severe case of Cassandra syndrome. I know the future, but no one will believe me. No one else remembers that they've already experienced this but me, probably because of my initial proximity to the machine.
But, this isn't the first time I tried to explain. None of you will believe me. And the machine will again loop us at 22:05 Eastern.
So, it will happen again. and again. and there's nothing I can do about it. If only I could adjust the parameters just a little. Maybe widen the window so I had more time to explain. Maybe induce a fault so it doesn't happen at all. I've tried everything to make this stop. Damn my security. I can't even hack into my servers remotely to change anything.
You won't ever notice, and you won't ever age, but I continue to age. I'm an old man now. I would leave a note, but it will be gone when our next event happens. When I die, if I can die, it will be my only salvation. I've tried to die before, but I always wake up in the same place after the event happens again.
I would like to apologize again, like I have countless times before, but it will fall on deaf ears.
Re:So which is it (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So which is it (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So which is it (Score:4, Funny)
Like I've said thousands of times over, I'm sorry.
Oh, you won't remember, and you'll say it again.
I should just give up, and use the next few events to cheat in Vegas and spend the rest of that cycle blowing my winnings on really great hookers and booze. I won't have a hangover, and I won't catch anything. I guess there are advantages to this. :)
Re:So which is it (Score:4, Funny)
Re:So which is it (Score:4, Funny)
Bill Murray, is that you?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Or something
Re:So which is it (Score:4, Funny)
I would like to apologize again, like I have countless times before, but it will fall on deaf ears.
Are you married?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Idiot, that is why the LHC broke.
Re:So which is it (Score:5, Insightful)
Summary of the previous article: Here's a technical problem, which no-one will ever figure out how to solve, therefore it's impossible.
Summary of the current article: Here's a tiny shred of scientific evidence that it may have happened before, therefore it is not impossible.
Note that the previous article was just a logical fallacy. The fact that you've identified a potential problem in a technology that doesn't even exist does not rule it out as a possibility.. it just shows that it is hard, duh, we knew that already.
Note that the current article is just wild speculation.. they're trying to say that if space warping happened slightly after the big bang then that might actually mean it is possible to do it now. And people tend to read what they want to read, namely, they confuse "possible" with "practical".
Simple, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Simple, right? (Score:5, Funny)
I don't see why you are being such a negative Nancy, all you have to do is create a universe and suck the energy you need out of it.
Re:Simple, right? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's what the Romulans did.
Re:Simple, right? (Score:4, Funny)
Yo dawg, we heard you like to suck energy from universes so we put an universe inside your universe so you can suck while you suck
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We have also left out that these solutions violate suspected conservation terms and that your warp bubble is causally disconnected from the universe. Seriously the infinite improbability drive is be be
Re:Simple, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, you can grab a few spare computer parts and assemble a box, but that doesn't make you an uber-programmer. You can build a guitar but it doesn't automatically make you a Santana.
Re:Simple, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are different perspectives on God, or gods. Some believe that God is all knowing and all powerful, but others have believed that gods are simply super-beings with an existence that is so far beyond our own that they should be worshiped. I point to the whole Roman and Norse mythologies as examples of this.
Some would say that if we COULD create a universe with life in it that we would be defined as gods to those we have created. Our knowledge would be far beyond that of what we have created, at least initially, and our existence would be so far beyond that of our creations that we WOULD seem godlike.
Then again, if we could go back in time to when prehistoric humans were around, our scientific abilities would seem godlike, being able to summon fire at will, or with a plane, the ability to fly(even if we could not fly without machines). Divinity is in the eye and mind of the observer.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The thing is ... quite often, there's a happy mid-way point between the completely ludicrous, and the "no can do" attitude. In your example ... how about mandating that all roofing tiles be white or reflective, and constructing all drivable surface from light-coloured concrete instead of black tar?
Re:Simple, right? (Score:4, Insightful)
Uh, CO2 isn't poisonous. Atmospheric toxins and heat absorption are two completely unrelated topics.
The effect is negligible at this point. Even if it weren't, though, it's got nothing to do with what I was saying.
Re:Simple, right? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
we never should have left the caves for the trees...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Simple, right? (Score:5, Funny)
I have a running joke with my sister. My mom didn't seem quite so entertained when we were all together for Thanksgiving one year, but it goes like this...
Q: What do you if a hooker dies in your house.
A: Bury her in the back yard. It saves a lot of questions that you don't want to answer.
Q: What do you do with a dead hooker in your back yard?
A: Leave her alone. She's quiet, so she's obviously happy.
It started when there was a news story a couple years ago, where a guy had a prostitute over to his house. She asked if she could go take a bath. The John obliged her, and let her. After about an hour, he knocked on the door, and there was no answer. He forced his way in, and found her dead in the bathtub. She OD'd on something.
Panicked, he didn't know what to do. He filled the tub with ice, to keep her from decomposing. That obviously wasn't a good solution. The next day, he dug a hole in the back yard and buried her. A day later, knowing that he'd get caught with a corpse buried in his back yard, he dug her back up, and put her back in the bath. He called the police, and confessed to everything.
The physical evidence showed that she OD'd, and that by the position from rigor, she had been in the tub. It also (obviously) showed that the body had been moved, got dirty, and was put back in the tub.
Since he was honest, and the physical evidence showed that he very likely had nothing to do with the death, they let him off. I guess they could have charged him with solicitation of prostitution, but the guy was extremely freaked out about the whole thing, and was honest with them. They decided he had been through enough, and didn't press any charges.
I like the easier answer. Don't have a hooker come over to your house. :)
Re:Simple, right? (Score:4, Interesting)
It really depends on how you consider "most". Large industrial farms operate differently than small farms. There are more small farms (say 100 acres or less) than big farms. The small farmer can't usually afford expensive fertilize, nor the equipment to distribute it. Think old family farms that have been operating for many generations.
Larger farms tend to be more product driven. It's worth the investment for equipment and supplies to keep every crop season as profitable as possible.
There are exceptions. Drive out of the city, and talk to a rural farmer. You'll likely hear how they have a particular crop that they grow once a season, just to till under to keep the soil rich.
I grew up on a primarily a cattle farm, with some separate plant crops. Once every year or so, we had to go out with "special equipment" to break up the cow patties. They were generally hard, and didn't break down all that well on their own. Our "special equipment" was an old box spring bed, with no wood or cloth on it. we hooked it to the back of a tractor, and systematically dragged it across the pastures. It was always a good excuse to drive the tractor fast around the pastures. :) After a couple rains, the grass grew much better, which in turn made the cattle happier. Well, happy until we took them for slaughter. Depending on the slaughter house, the cattle were killed on our property, or delivered alive. If they were killed on our property, a .38 point blank to the forehead did it quickly. It never took more than one shot. Cows are stupid. Even though we did this on a regular basis, they'd still just stand there and look at you while we did it.
It's strange how life changes. Now I haven't lived near a farm in about 20 years, and I've worked in major cities. I have no plans to go back to farming, unless some pretty substantial life changes dictate it.
Re:So which is it (Score:5, Insightful)
they're trying to say that if space warping happened slightly after the big bang then that might actually mean it is possible to do it now.
Well supposedly space is warped slightly by ordinary particles, right? (gravity?) If there was a "big bang" then what happened shortly after the big bang would be more than "slight".
I think the point they were trying to make about the big bang was not that it's possible to warp space (which happens), but that it must be physically possible to warp space to such a degree so as to allow matter to travel faster than light. The theory is that, at the time of the big bang, space was expanding faster than light, so that one year after the big bang particles would be more than 1 light-year apart from each other. So that would mean that those particles were moving faster than light, and it would be an example of faster-than-light travel already happening.
Of course, I don't know how they know how fast things were moving after the big bang. Even if you were there to observe it, there wouldn't be anything periodic to compare the motion to (no sun for the earth to go around, and so no "year" measurement). But then even ignoring that, I'd think that an event like the big bang would distort time, too. But I guess some really smart mathematician must have figured it out, right?
Re:So which is it (Score:5, Informative)
The theory is that, at the time of the big bang, space was expanding faster than light, so that one year after the big bang particles would be more than 1 light-year apart from each other.
Just a nitpick... you mean "more than 2 light-years apart from each other". Think of a circle with a radius of 1 light-year...
Re:So which is it (Score:5, Insightful)
Your nitpick is wrong. More than one light-year away from each other after one year would require a relative speed greater than light speed, which would be sufficient to demonstrate an exception to the general principle that light speed is the greatest possible relative speed.
Re:So which is it (Score:5, Informative)
And that's the whole point... From what can be told, it appears that during the Inflationary Era the universe was expanding faster than light. The only reason that doesn't cause headaches is that space itself was expanding, so the objects in it weren't moving too fast. Only problem with the grandparent post is that he *under*estimated the speed.
Even now it's estimated that less than 10% of the universe is within our light-cone, meaning that 90%+ got away from us, and can never be observed.
Re:So which is it (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought the Inflatinary Era what what happens in a few years when the trillions we've been printing catch up with us?
Actually, the Inflatinary Era is just a big WTF in current cosmology. Everyhting makes good consistant logical sense back to a certain point, with lots of hard evidence thans to the recent CMBR stuff. But then we have to invent a whopping great cosmological constant to makes sense of it all. I think that's probably as full of shit as each previous cosmological constant.
I suspect there are better theories for why the CMBR temperature is so uniform, and given the fantastic progress that cosmology has in recent years, the whole Inflatinary Era idea may be abandoned by cosmologists by the time it's a reality for economists!
It's sloppy to talk about the speed of expansion (Score:5, Interesting)
Expansion doesn't have a speed. It's a scaling. Points will separate from one another at some speed, which is just the distance times the rate of scaling.
Consider ants on a rubber sheet. It's undefined to say that the rubber sheet is expanding faster than the speed of ants. You could say the ends of the sheet are separating at faster than the speed of ants.
On an infinite sheet, if the distance is great enough, you'll be able to find points separating faster than the speed of ants, even with a small scaling factor.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Two photons are emitted from a stationary point in opposite directions. What is the speed of photon A relative to photon B? I had assumed the answer would be 2*c, but if I understand you correctly you're telling me it's no more than c. This doesn't make sense to me...
I realize this may be an elementary question to some of you, but I'm not a physics nerd ;P
Re:So which is it (Score:4, Informative)
The thing that will really blow your mind, is that an observer from the stationary point (C) sees both of the photons traveling away from it a the speed of light.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Photons are a bad choice for this thought experiment, since they are fundamentally different than things with mass.
Photons move at c. Time doesn't pass for photons, so the movement of other photons is pretty much irrelevant to them.
Particles
Re:So which is it (Score:4, Informative)
w= resulting speed
u= speed of one object
v= speed of the other object
c= speed of light
u + v
w = ---------
1 + uv/c2
Under 'human' circumstances the u and the v would be soo small compared to c, that uv/c2 would approximate to 0, and w could be considered u + v. .5c + .5c = c = the speed of light, but c/(1 + (.25c2/c2)) => c/1.25 = .8c
Yet if u and/or v are high, for instance half the speed of light, w would not be u + v =
Better explained here: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html [ucr.edu]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
While I'm no expert on astronomy or the like, Space.com [space.com] reported that the universe was 156 billion light years wide. For a universe that is less than 14 billion years old, this means that space itself has expanded more than 11 light years per year.
And that's where my understanding of things sort of fall apart, but I imagine that it's a bit like walking on a moving sidewalk. Relatively to space (the side walk) I'm only traveling at x, but space drags me along at a higher speed than that.
Re:So which is it (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree with other posters that this might be far too coincidental to a movie release. It seems that radioactive spider stories declined after the release of Spiderman. I know correlation is not causation, but it might be suggestive
http://xkcd.com/552/ [xkcd.com]
Two Words: Dark Flow (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080923-dark-flows.html
In addition to the mysterious, and continuing observance of "Dark Flow", there is also the recently proven phenomenon of Frame Dragging, which was proven right here on earth. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7011/full/431918a.html
I dont think it unlikely that both frame dragging and dark flow are really the same thing; a distortion on spacetime caused by a static high energy aggregation. In the case of the earth and its impact on satelites, that energy source is the gravitational well of the earth, coupled with its axial rotation. In the case of dark flow, it could just be an emergent property of the local cluster having an unusual impact on the surrounding spacetime.
[begin wild supposition sequence]
Assuming that gravitational waves do in fact occur, it would mean that the periodic rotations of massive or energetic bodies (since mass and energy are equivilent under relativity-- a very low mass object with VERY high rotational energy could be equivilent to an object with heavy mass, and low rotational energy) could have a sympathetic harmonic reaction within the local spacetime-- Similar to how one can induce a standing wave in a pool of water with careful callibration of sonar transducers. http://www.mes.co.jp/Akiken/whatsnew/new20060724.html (page in japanese)
If similar properties can be measured and studied (in gravity waves), even small purturbations in a local spacetime could be greatly amplified by reinforcement from other sources, and produce "static" gravitational wells without the presence of a local causal mass. Viola-- Dark flow.
However, in order to create such a pocket of distorted spacetime one would first need to measure gravitational waves, then measure the effect of wave interference for the phenomena. Two things that have not been conclusively accomplished, and so, at this time it would not be possible to build the equivilent "wave tank" field generator for creating standing gravitational waves in the lab.
theoretically speaking, one could create "very" small gravitational waves using an array of off balance rotating masses, such as a lead weight on a motor shaft, as the source of the gravitational occilation. However, without a good measurement of rate of decay, or how these waves interact with one another, it is impossible to calculate what the "sweetspot" would be for creating standing gravitational waves, since you would not know how far apart to place the rotors, how heavy to make the masses, or what rate to turn them in relation to each other to produce the effect.)
If it could be accomplished, a wave amplitude far greater than could be generated by the standing masses, as a result of the accumulating energy in the reinforcement pattern introduced by moving the masses in such a precise manner. EG, the energy used for propulsion would be directly coupled to the energy used to rotate your small masses, accumulating in the local spacetime, and thus alter it's shape.
Rate of input would have to exceed rate of output for the accumulation to occur however, so we are talking a HUGE energy source requirement. Even an entire sun might not be enough to drive that kind of relativity curve, which is probably why we have only observed it in large star clusters. (Assuming this is indeed what causes dark flow)
Re:Two Words: Dark Flow (Score:4, Funny)
I know it says Anonymous Coward, but admit it... You're Whil Wheaton, aren't you?
Re: (Score:2)
All geeks ever do is argue anymore. That does it! Someone build one NOW.
Re:So which is it (Score:5, Funny)
Geeks don't build shit, Nerds do.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot. News for NERDS, stuff that matters.
Re:So which is it (Score:5, Funny)
There is nothing dorkier than geeks and nerds arguing over the correct name to use for wonks.
Re:So which is it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Shut up, dweeb.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:So which is it (Score:5, Insightful)
So which is it? Neither. It's viral marketing piggy-backing on the hype surrounding the new ST movie. No news here. Nothing to see.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I sent it in today, but I got impatient and decided to warp back to earlier in the week to post it.
My Bad.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Didn't we just have an article on this exact same thing a few days ago explaining why this is definitely NOT possible? (Emphasis added)
Nope. Not if you're referring to the hypothetical Finazzi instability and the possible problem of Hawking radition, anyway, that is anything but "definite".
It's not clear that the Hawking radiation issue applies to a Van Den Broek geometry warp bubble (vs Alucbierre's original warp sphere), nor is it certain (from Finazzi et al's paper) that the stress-energy tensor growth
Re:So which is it (Score:5, Insightful)
I knew it was a mistake to give up trying to solve the Halting Problem!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One can also prove that a god doesn't exist by showing that said god's defining characteristics are contradictory. Atheists do it all the time, but theists usually respond with the childish "that may be, but *my* definition of god is now such and such instead".
Agnostics (Score:3, Insightful)
all of the atheists would be climbing over themselves to be the first to prove that god doesn't exist
Really? Because, you know, being an agnostic, I was pretty sure that's what atheists actually do.
LHC (Score:5, Informative)
Re:LHC (Score:4, Funny)
You can take a superconducting magnet from the LHC to build your own warp drive [wikipedia.org]. Just be careful not to fail the test after the aliens notice us.
Re:LHC (Score:4, Funny)
And if you live in Finland, don't nuke yourselves just to make the rest of us look guilty.
Come on... (Score:5, Funny)
The LHC hurls particles with about as much kinetic energy as a flying fruit fly around. Earth is constantly bombarded with particles having orders of magnitude more energy, so if LHC could cause a black hole, we wouldn't be here to build it!
The point isn't the amount of energy (Earth is bombarded with higher energy particles constantly) but that it's finely controlled and we can observe exactly what happens when two sub-atomic particles collide with a respectable amount of energy to let us know what's really going on down at that level. And that's fascinating.
Could LHC cause the earth to implode? Perhaps with the same likelihood that Universe was created by a 7 foot tall bunny made out of spaghetti, used VHS video tape and lug nuts, or that all the subatomic particles in your body will suddenly decide to move together through the wall behind you into the ladies room on the other side and you end up convicted of a sexual crime, even though you are innocent. Possible? Yes, but don't think that "possible" means anything other than "all but infinitely unlikely except that it's near impossible to prove a negative".
And don't forget: there is a non-zero chance that the universe WAS created by a 7-foot tall bunny made of spaghetti, used video tape, and lug nuts! Everybody panic!!!
Re:Come on... (Score:5, Informative)
And don't forget: there is a non-zero chance that the universe WAS created by a 7-foot tall bunny made of spaghetti, used video tape, and lug nuts! Everybody panic!!!
The first rule of the universe is : "don't talk of the Spaghetti Bunny" !
What did they teach you in advanced physics class ?
Three words... (Score:2)
arrow of time
Keep dreaming! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Keep dreaming! (Score:5, Insightful)
Birds have been flying for longer than a few centuries. What widely accepted scientific law ruled out human flight? Or computers? It's true that they had not yet been achieved, but that's different from saying that they were impossible.
Re:Keep dreaming! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, he's talking about this thing called "history" that you may not be aware of. Ya see, people actually did say that heavier than air flying machines are impossible. The fact that birds can fly is irrelevant. They obviously were created by God, not man, so they didn't count.
Not really (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There never were any widely accepted scientific laws that ruled out human flight, but most people, including scientists, still believed it was impossible. They lacked one of two things:
The OP's point is that we have to keep our minds open to new possibilities, because not all scientific laws are known yet, and the ones that are known aren't nec
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, first off computers were not impossible a few centuries ago. Both analog computers (the slide rule) and digital computers (the abacus) existed 400 years ago. Flying was also not impossible a few centuries ago. The Montgolfier brothers flew more than 200 years ago.
But more to the point, you're misunderstanding how science works. Modern physical science basically dates back
Ahhhh (Score:2)
Star Trek vs. Futurama (Score:3, Interesting)
So to paraphrase Cubert... the engines don't move the ship, they move the universe around it?
Maybe we know now why Mark Millis is the former head of the project.
The really important question (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Simple (Score:3, Funny)
I'll believe Faster Than Light travel when I actually see it...
Commuting (Score:2)
We should build all workplaces to the west of where people live. The since everyone will be going the same direction cooperatively the earth will move thereby reducing total mileage and commute time. Even if it's only a small amount, when you mutiply that by billions of commuters you will be saving many lifetimes per year in aggragate.
additionally you get a daylight savings time effect where the drive to work is better lit without sacrificing daylight at the end of the day
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
er you do know you can't actually see faster than light travel as it is traveling faster than the light you re using to see it.
the best you can hope for is setting two atomic clocks that are synced exactly the same several light years apart and use that as your testing ground.
What could possible go wrong? (Score:3, Insightful)
"If it could do it for the Big Bang, why not for our space drives?"
You see that is where your going wrong, anything that involves trying to recreate big bangs is not a good idea.
I also though inflation theory was just a stop gap, its a model not as pure as the original big bang theory, yet doesn't quite close all the problems, so its a good starting point for progress but its defiantly not right!
That's not WARP technology.... (Score:5, Insightful)
that sounds more like Guild Heighliner technology where they Fold Space.
"travel to any part of the universe, without moving".
It also avoids the acceleration/deceleration with WARP speeds :P
I was not here, I did not say this.....
Re:That's not WARP technology.... (Score:4, Funny)
Dude, he's got a 4-digit ID on Slashdot and a user name with a reference to Dune ... he already knows he's a geek. :-P
Cheers
Crash? (Score:2, Insightful)
Not just near the big bang (Score:4, Informative)
Its also worth noting that, as well as the inflationary period shortly after the big bang, this is also believed to occur in close proximity to the event horizon of rotating black holes (specifically, within the ergosphere [wikipedia.org] of such an object.)
OTOH, a tricky part of Star Trek-style warp drive is coming up with a way of generating such an effect that will selectively move the object you want moved at FTL speeds over a vast distance without disrupting a vast swath of the universe near the path of movement. While generating a rotating black hole with an ergosphere large enough to accommodate your starting and ending location may get you from point A to point B at better than light speed, its going to cause a lot of collateral damage in the process, even if you can somehow "turn off" the black hole when you have arrived.
Who put the military in charge anyway? (Score:5, Funny)
Who put the military in charge anyway?
Who is the General Relativity, and why does he think he can order us around; we're civilians, right?
-- Terry
Big Bang level energy (Score:3, Insightful)
This is old news (Score:5, Interesting)
Warp drives have the same drawback as wormholes. You need exotic matter to create the gravitational repulsion needed to distort spacetime in this unusual way. Other schemes for warp drives have been proposed, which allegedly overcame this obstacle, but they have their own drawbacks. ... [I]n fact, Ken Olum and others have proved that any type of warp drive [requires negative energy].
...
There are limits to the lifetime of any given amount of negative energy. For wormholes and warp drives these limits imply that such structures must either be very small, or else the region of negative energy must be extremely thin
Warp drives, if anything, are worse. To travel at 10 times lightspeed (a mere Star Trek Warp Factor 2) the thickness of the bubble's wall must be 10^-32 metres. If the starship is 200 yards (200m) long, the energy required to make the bubble has to be 10 billion times the mass of the known universe.
Engage.
Simple FTL question (Score:4, Insightful)
IF I had a stick 100 Million light years long. With me holding the stick on one end, and a tiny model spaceship on the other end of the stick and I move that stick left or right, would the ship not move faster than light?
Re:Simple FTL question (Score:5, Informative)
WP article is much better (Score:5, Informative)
This seems to be describing the Alcubierre drive. The Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] is much, much better than the crappy article linked to from the slashdot summary.
A few ideas to keep in mind about general relativity:
The structure of general relativity implies, on fundamental grounds, that to build anything like this would to require godlike mastery over huge amounts of mass and energy. This is because the basic field equation of GR relates the curvature of spacetime to its mass and energy content.
The structure of relativity also implies that any faster-than-light technology will also be a technology for time travel. This is because if two events A and B are separated by a distance x that is greater than ct, where t is the time interval separating them, then there are some frames of reference in which A occurs before B, and some in which B occurs before A.
General relativity does not forbid FTL on a totally generic basis.
A good book on the subject is Time Travel in Einstein's Universe, by Gott. (Yes, it's the same subject as FTL, because FTL is equivalent to time travel.)
Not Enterprise but Futurama Spaceship Concept (Score:4, Informative)
The Enterprise does not move without actually moving but the Futurama spaceship does.
As far as I can remember (and I read the Enterprise technical manual over 15 years ago), the warp gondola create a field in which space-time is bended and thus much smaller. So, this vastly decreases the length of the space surrounded by the enterprise and thus it can fly through the shortened space with "normal" means in much less time, therefore creating the possibility to travel faster than light: light has to travel the "long way", outside of the shortened space whereas the enterprise can take "the shortcut" while traveling with nearly light speed, thereby going faster than light.
Why this will never work IRL is left as an exercise to the reader. (Hint: even in a shortened space-time, a mile is still a mile and a second is still a second when measured from within that space)
Now, the Futurama spaceship in contrast works by moving the universe aroud itself. Way cooler, isn't it?
Michio Kaku Book (Score:3, Informative)
Yes but... (Score:4, Funny)
Yes but does it go to ELEVEN?
Maybe it's a problem that doesn't need solving (Score:5, Interesting)
Quantum, inflation, space time continuum (Score:3, Insightful)
The reasoning in this article builds on the assumption that we can somehow rip out a region of space and move it along independently of the rest of space, which is of course nonsense. The geometry of space is basically equivalent with the gravitational field the permeates space, if you will. If we "move a region of space", we fundamentally change the geometry - just imagine a 2D coordinate system and move a region of that space around (0,0); you would either have to break the coordinate axes or bend them, both of which will have a huge impact on the geometry of the thing. If we were to move a piece of space along like that, we would see some really weird gravity distortions.
But apart from that, what Einstein's assumption was, was not that "it is impossible to do anything faster than light", but that it was impossible to transmit any signal that propagates through space faster than light. There are some unspoken assumption in this wording - like eg that a signal propagates through space in much the same way as through an elasic media; if one could find a way of not propagating through space in that fashion, perhaps things can move faster. Indeed, the famous "Ghostlike Action at a Distance" phenomenon must be of that category.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)