Scientists claim warp drive is possible

[MPT]

From the PCW website...

 

A research paper has suggested that a warp drive capable of moving a craft at faster than the speed of light could indeed be possible.

 

Putting the Warp into Warp Drive (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0807/0807.1957v2.pdf) was written by Baylor University physicists Gerald Cleaver and Richard Obousy.

 

The paper suggests that the speed of light could be broken by manipulating the fabric of space to create a bubble on which a craft could ride.

 

Einstein's laws of relativity would not be violated by such a drive since the craft itself would remain stationary and the bubble of space would be mobile.

 

This would also shield passengers from the enormous G forces from such acceleration.

 

However there are significant hurdles to be overcome, most notably creating an engine powerful enough to produce such a distortion.

 

"There is nothing that theoretically prevents the creation of warp drive," said the physicists.

 

"Early calculations indicate that superluminal propulsion for a ship of volume 1000m3 could be achieved at an estimated energy cost of 10 to the power 45 J, or roughly the total mass-energy contained within Jupiter after using the famous relation E = mc2."

 

This is a significant step forward, since previous calculations have shown that it would take more energy than exists in the entire universe to power such a craft.

 

"This approach, although highly theoretical at this stage, gives us a glimpse as to how one might address the problems associated with the vast distances involved in interstellar travel, and opens up exciting new avenues for future research," the paper concluded.

[Maur]

Re: Scientists claim warp drive is possible

 

Read it again, speed of light isn't broken as the craft moving this way is still obeying the rules of relativity. It is just finding a unique way around the issue by stretching and folding space around it. Light moving through the folded space is still moving at the speed of light, even that given off by the ship, heheh.

[Nyrath]

Re: Scientists claim warp drive is possible

 

This is just a re-hash of Alcubierre's Warp Drive, from a paper published in 1996. The only difference is a recalculation of the required energy.

 

As always, while it may not violate relativity, it most certainly violates causality.

[Clonus]

Re: Scientists claim warp drive is possible

 

This is just a re-hash of Alcubierre's Warp Drive, from a paper published in 1996. The only difference is a recalculation of the required energy.

 

As always, while it may not violate relativity, it most certainly violates causality.

 

Of course causality or to be specific the idea that causes must always precede effects, is more of an axiom than anything else and sometimes axioms are invalid. However, there is the question of how you get out of your pocket universe at your destination.

[Maur]

Re: Scientists claim warp drive is possible

 

IIRC Einstein showed examples of causality that were backwards (effect before cause) due to relativistic effects.

[Zeropoint]

Re: Scientists claim warp drive is possible

 

I'm certainly no expert on this subject, but it was my understanding that causality has never been established as an actual law--it's just that we've never observed any causality violations, and the universe would be a surpassingly weird place if they could exist. However, the universe is under no obligation to make sense to us.

 

Edit: I'm glad to see the energy requirements coming down on this. Another jump like that one, and this will start looking really attractive!

[Maur]

Re: Scientists claim warp drive is possible

 

Actually we have seen effect followed by cause with light and a Bose-Einstein Condensate where the light was emitted before it entered.

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: Scientists claim warp drive is possible

 

This is a significant step forward' date=' since previous calculations have shown that it would take more energy than exists in the entire universe to power such a craft.[/quote']

 

Wow! What a relief! It used to be theoretically impossible but now it's only incredibly difficult. Maybe the next time they check the math it might work offa two D-cells?

 

In all seriousness, I thought of a similar space drive when I was in high school, but wasn't concerned about feasability but scientific plausability. It's beginning to look more plausible, but still impossible with present-day technology, or that of the forseeable future for that matter.

[mirage]

Re: Scientists claim warp drive is possible

 

Read it again' date=' speed of light isn't broken as the craft moving this way is still obeying the rules of relativity. It is just finding a unique way around the issue by stretching and folding space around it. Light moving through the folded space is still moving at the speed of light, even that given off by the ship, heheh.[/quote']

 

I noticed a few things, conservation of energy and the differences in potential energy between point a and point b.

 

Of course I don't think this will be an issue because to create their 'warp bubble' they would have to convert the entire mass of Jupiter into energy.

 

And they spent a great deal of time describing the effect, but I didn't see any description of the mechanism for actually creating the bubble. I guess that in the had waved section.

 

Something else they failed to mention about the Casimir Effect, energy should still be conserved. The Casimir effect like Hawking Radiation is due to a non-zero ground state and unbalanced forces. In the case of the Casimir effect the sum of the forces will come up to zero, because the sum of the forces of the system, that includes both plates, is zero. In the case of Hawking Radiation, the sum of the forces is non-zero, so the extra energy comes from the mass of the black hole.

 

So I'm more curious about how they take care of the conservation of energy. I guess its where requiring energy with the mass of Jupiter comes into play.

[Nyrath]

Re: Scientists claim warp drive is possible

 

Well, as the link stated, physicists are reluctant to discard causality, since without it the entire structure of the science of physics crumbles into dust.

 

But this can be safely ignored if all you want is an FTL drive for your Star Hero campaign.

[gamerz123]

Re: Scientists claim warp drive is possible

 

Wow! What a relief! It used to be theoretically impossible but now it's only incredibly difficult. Maybe the next time they check the math it might work offa two D-cells?

 

Rep

[Clonus]

Re: Scientists claim warp drive is possible

 

Well' date=' as the link stated, physicists are reluctant to discard causality, since without it the entire structure of the science of physics crumbles into dust.

 

Already happened with Newton. They'll survive if it happens again.

[Nyrath]

Re: Scientists claim warp drive is possible

 

Already happened with Newton. They'll survive if it happens again.

I beg to differ.

 

What happened to Newton when relativity arrives was covered over the Correspondence principle. This states that any new theory must give the same answers as the old theory where the old theory has been confirmed by experiment.

 

Newton's laws and Einstein's Relativity give the same answers in ordinary conditions, they only give different answers in extreme conditions such as near the speed of light, refining the accuracy of the GPS system, or calculating the orbit of Mercury (none of which Newton could confirm by experiment).

 

Getting rid of causality basically says that science doesn't work any more.

 

Can I use this sized girder to brace my rocket motor? Material physics tells me that x amount of tensile strength subjected to y amount of force will cause a failure in the girder.

 

But without causality, you cannot say that y amount of force will cause a failure, because without causality you cannot use the word "cause."

[Clonus]

Re: Scientists claim warp drive is possible

 

I beg to differ.

 

What happened to Newton when relativity arrives was covered over the Correspondence principle. This states that any new theory must give the same answers as the old theory where the old theory has been confirmed by experiment.

 

Newton's laws and Einstein's Relativity give the same answers in ordinary conditions, they only give different answers in extreme conditions such as near the speed of light, refining the accuracy of the GPS system, or calculating the orbit of Mercury (none of which Newton could confirm by experiment).

 

Getting rid of causality basically says that science doesn't work any more.

 

Can I use this sized girder to brace my rocket motor? Material physics tells me that x amount of tensile strength subjected to y amount of force will cause a failure in the girder.

 

But without causality, you cannot say that y amount of force will cause a failure, because without causality you cannot use the word "cause."

 

Speak for yourself. I most certainly can use the word "cause" even when under certain restricted circumstances, the cause comes after the effect.

[Nyrath]

Re: Scientists claim warp drive is possible

 

Speak for yourself. I most certainly can use the word "cause" even when under certain restricted circumstances' date=' the cause comes after the effect.[/quote']

Sure, you can use "cause" colloquially in that situation, but you cannot use it scientifically in that situation. In the same way you can colloquially talk about the physical damage caused by an energy only attack, but you cannot talk about it in the Hero System context.

 

If you have an an attack that only does energy damage, there is no physical damage. If you have no physics style causality, there is no cause and effect.

[Zeropoint]

Re: Scientists claim warp drive is possible

 

If causality CAN be violated, then it means that it is ALREADY not a law of nature, which means that all currently existing science has been done under causality-free conditions. That science won't be invalidated just because we discover that causality is not as strict a condition as we thought it was. Bridges will not suddenly collapse if we discover that causality can be violated. Internal combustion engines will not suddenly cease to run. The scientific foundations of the universe will not change at all; only our understanding of them.

[Nyrath]

Re: Scientists claim warp drive is possible

 

Well, surprise surprise, most physicists are of the opinion that the fact all currently existing science was done using causality as an axiom is compelling evidence that causality cannot be violated. But I suppose they are all stick-in-the-mud old fogies.

 

Technically, the science will be invalidated, specifically all the hypothesis developed to explain the observations will have to be thrown out. The observations are just fine, they can stay. But all the scientific explanations are now worthless, since they are based on invalid axioms.

 

It is unclear how a structure of science can be created without causality. It is similar to the problem faced with making a structure for mathematics, if 1 + 1 = 2 only some of the time.

[Nyrath]

Re: Scientists claim warp drive is possible

 

Those who are interested in going into more detail about causality and physics may find this interesting:

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp

[Clonus]

Re: Scientists claim warp drive is possible

 

Sure' date=' you can use "cause" colloquially in that situation, but you cannot use it scientifically in that situation.

 

But I can use it in all the situations where that doesn't hold true and cause really does precede effect. Note that physics already contains postulated quantum-level acausal events.

[Nyrath]

Re: Scientists claim warp drive is possible

 

Note that physics already contains postulated quantum-level acausal events.

Do you have a reference for that so I can read it? I was under the impression that no mainstream physicists espoused quantum acausal events, the only people who did were pseudo-physicists with an agenda, trying to prove the existence of telepathy, magic, free will, or something along those lines.

[L. Marcus]

Re: Scientists claim warp drive is possible

 

I'd hazard a guess he means that certain quantum effects, such as an excited electron emitting a photon, doesn't have a obvious, immediate cause.

[Nyrath]

Re: Scientists claim warp drive is possible

 

I'd hazard a guess he means that certain quantum effects' date=' such as an excited electron emitting a photon, doesn't have a obvious, immediate cause.[/quote']

Ah, I see. I'm used to seeing that referred to as "non-deterministic", not "acausal". A quick Google search with "quantum acausal" will turn up all sorts of crack-pot fake science websites, trying to use quantum mechanics to prove the existence of telepathy, magic, and similar concepts.

 

One of the main reasons that physicists maintain that causality is required is because without it, it can lead to unsolvable paradoxes. Which is another way of saying that removing causality destroys the foundations of physics.

http://www.physicsguy.com/ftl/html/FTL_part4.html#sec:howwegetup

[Clonus]

Re: Scientists claim warp drive is possible

 

I'd hazard a guess he means that certain quantum effects' date=' such as an excited electron emitting a photon, doesn't have a obvious, immediate cause.[/quote']

 

That sort of thing, yeah. Stuff that apparently isn't so much caused as just probable.

[Nyrath]

Re: Scientists claim warp drive is possible

 

That sort of thing' date=' yeah. Stuff that apparently isn't so much caused as just probable.[/quote']

Even there some physicist wonder if quantum mechanics are ruled by a lack of cause, or by invisible causes ("hidden variables").

 

But the "acausality" or "lack of cause" problem, bad as it is, pales into insignificance compared to the "violation of causality" or "effect occurring before the cause". That's when you have to deal with the nasty unsolvable paradoxes. Which also destroy the fabric of physics.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Scientists claim warp drive is possible

 

Even there some physicist wonder if quantum mechanics are ruled by a lack of cause' date=' or by invisible causes [i']("hidden variables")[/i].

 

But the "acausality" or "lack of cause" problem, bad as it is, pales into insignificance compared to the "violation of causality" or "effect occurring before the cause". That's when you have to deal with the nasty unsolvable paradoxes. Which also destroy the fabric of physics.

 

I'd file that under "extremely implausible but not entirely impossible" (as in, since there's so much about existence we're ignorant of, violation of causality may actually exist, but we're ill-prepared for that in our present state of development, as it would fly in the face of everything we've figured out or discovered so far).