The Trek BBS (http://www.trekbbs.com/index.php)
-   Trek Tech (http://www.trekbbs.com/forumdisplay.php?f=14)
-   -   WARP derived from known physics (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=66999)

 prometheuspan September 16 2008 01:00 PM

WARP derived from known physics

I wrote this quite a while back after spending a few weeks working on the problem. It used to be accompanied by some sketches of a warp field and
a warp engine, but that was long ago in a galaxy far far away and I don't have that stuff any more.

Plus, even if i did, this forum...i have tried to post images, so far it doesn't seem to work...

but anyways...
--------------------

*

* Axiom1

It is impossible for any object inside of the universe to travel at a speed faster than the speed of light.

* Axiom2

It may be possible for an object to essentially "Leave" the universe, and thus, for "distance" to become something very different than it is now.

* Axiom3

An object might be able to travel faster than the speed of light, if it was isolated inside of a Gravitational bubble which was traveling through a wormhole.

* Axiom4

Traveling without a gravitational bubble through a wormhole would be fatal, for a variety of reasons.

* Axiom5

The amount of gravity that a ship will have to distort space/time is always equal to the normal mass energy of the vessel itself.

* Axiom6

Warp, if it works, will be based on using some sort of energy field to come into phase with the gravitional field of th vessel.

* Axiom7

Warp, if if works, will change the specific energy state of Gravitometric quanta, such that a gravitaional bubble forms inside of a wormhole.

* Axiom8

Rate of Speed in Tunnel; ROSIT; Refers to the rate of speed that a vessel would travel down a wormhole. This cannot exceed half of the speed of light or the vessel looses its ability to sense ahead of it. Early warp technologies will actually use fairly low ROSIT speeds.

* Axiom9

Ratio Multiplier of Wormtunnel RMWT; A useful wormtunnel will be shorter on the inside than it is on the outside. The question here is, how much shorter?

* Axiom10

"Warps" Cannot rationally refer to any given speed. Instead, they refer to advanced level Warp Technology, which uses multiple levels of Tunnel. Wormholes inside of Wormholes. Warp 1 thus means 1 worm hole tunnel. Warp 2 thus equals 2 wormhole tunnels, one inside of the other. The actual warp speed will depend on the RMWT and the ROSIT of each Tunnel.

* Axiom11

A functional warp drive system uses magnetic, Tachyonic, AntiEnergy, or other such means to create wormholes. These wormholes actually form dynamic whorl matrixes similar to those describing black holes. Each wormtunnel on the outside must be spun past by virtue of a thrust wormhole. There are thus worm tunnels writhing down the center of any early level warp technologies warp Engines.

* Axiom12

The minimum number of warp engines to counter vortex spin and chaos is 4. Each warp Engine generates a wormtunnel which merges into the others at an event horizon line ahead of and in back of the vessel. Those holomorphic singularities then branch wildly out, or flare, to form the bulbous sphere of the warp bubble. The warp bubble is propelled forward by the zero point energy agitation of serious spatial distortion.

* Axiom13

Another way of describing Axiom 12 is to say that a warp engine generates actually a wheel, whose spokes are pure energy, and whose curving surface is a magnetogravitic spatial distortion.

* Axiom14

The hardest part of generating a useful warp field is making space Roll. Leaving the universe is the easy part. Navigating in hyperspace is whats hard.

* Axiom15

Space and Time are actually 3 Geometric and 1 Kinetic Dimensions. We don't know if there are more Geometric or Kinetic Dimensions, But if there are, they are very small in width. For instance, maybe there is a 4th geometric dimension, which has a width of less than a single atom. It would be a whole dimension, but there would be no point in perceiving it. It would exist on too small a scale. However, it might render useful means by which to control, route, and modulate Warp Energies.

* Axiom16

Space and Time may be composed of many Geometric, Kinetic, or Frequential (Quantum different) Dimensions. If there are more dimensions, and we can learn to access them, this gives high hopes to warp travel theory.

* Axiom17

If there are no extra dimensions, they can be in theory manufactured using gravitometric spatial distortions.

* Axiom18

If warp travel becomes possible, it is unlikely that the limitations of "Star Trek" would apply. While there may be limitations, and we don't know what they are yet, the truth is, Warp Speeds fast enough to go to ?Andromeda Galaxy seem every bit as possible as Warp speeds to go to Alpha centauri.

* Axiom19

Falling theory. It may proove to be true that the easiset way to generate a warpfeild is to use a distant gravity well as a target pseudo singularity. If this becomes true, the largest obstacle to warp drive will become finding suitably large targets free from any intervening gravity wells.

* Axiom20

Any normal matter which encounters a warp boundary will be turned cataclysmically into graviton energy.

* Axiom21

Any civilization with warp travel technology has by another name mastered the gravitational bomb. Thus, Warfare in reality won't be pretty, won't look like laserbeams or what not, and entire solar systems could be destroyed by really very small pieces of apparatus. A Gravitational bomb creates a gravity well with a very high specific gravity and a very large feild of effect. Even if the bombs energy only lasts a second, the entire solaar system in question could be yanked towards a single location strongly enough that the solar system would be doomed. The point of this axiom is that Warp Technology warfare is very improbable because it is another order of magnitude larger a "MAD" (Mutual assured destruction) Problem.

* Axiom22

Any civilization with warp technology also has in theory the capacity to access zero point energy to create mass or energy by polarizing Zero. This would end all economics as we know it.

Axiom A;
A functional warp engine will be hollow, and the internal wormtunnel will actually travel down the center of the warp engine, flare out fore and aft, and curve around the ship.

Axiom B;
The amount of energy used to do this is not as important as the degree of organization. In theory, a very small amount of energy could do it if that energy was very highly organized.

Axiom C;
A warp field uses a magnetic field to modulate and cross interfere with the vessels own gravitational field. The vessels own gravity is the initial warp field until the warp distortion begins.

Axiom D; Thus, the wormtunnel can be defined as a distortion, at first, of the vessels own natural gravity.

Axiom E; Thus for early warp experiments, It will actually be (somewhat counter intuitively) Better to use VERY LARGE
vessels since they have more gravity to start with.

 All Seeing Eye September 16 2008 09:35 PM

Re: WARP derived from known physics

Where did you get all this information from exactly? :wtf:

 Ronald Held September 16 2008 10:22 PM

Re: WARP derived from known physics

This corresponds to what canonical references?

 Plecostomus September 16 2008 11:52 PM

Re: WARP derived from known physics

Interesting stuff! Non-canon as hell but still I can see you put some thought into it.

I'll ponder it further when I get home.

 prometheuspan September 17 2008 04:37 AM

Re: WARP derived from known physics

Quote:
 Tachyon Shield wrote: (Post 2077036) Where did you get all this information from exactly? :wtf:
I studied physics, and then tried to figure out how it would work in reality.
No, this isn't canon.

I think canon is swell and all, but I'm interested in actually building the ships and actually obtaining FTL, not upholding the standards created by entertainment.

Quote:
 This corresponds to what canonical references?
As i stated in my short intro, it isn't canon, its REAL LIFE given an esoteric knowledge of quantum mechanics,
gravitational and hyperdimensional physics, and extrapolated from everything current science understanding has to offer us.

I happen to think that building the Enterprise or some semblence thereof is far more important and interesting than
perpetuating canon. I might mention (tho it often gets me in trouble) That I have Aspergers Syndrome, and a 180 IQ.

 Plecostomus September 17 2008 05:44 AM

Re: WARP derived from known physics

Quote:
 prometheuspan wrote: (Post 2078485) I happen to think that building the Enterprise or some semblence thereof is far more important and interesting than perpetuating canon. I might mention (tho it often gets me in trouble) That I have Aspergers Syndrome, and a 180 IQ.
Well... and I'm not mocking you at all... if you decide to knock together a prototype the fabrication shop I work for is more than willing to help. It'll cost though so be sure to line up some funding first. We're all high-IQ trekkers as well and some of us are Asperger cases as well. :)

 prometheuspan September 17 2008 05:54 AM

Re: WARP derived from known physics

THANKS!!!!

Well, I will be interested in putting together a prototype in the forseeable far future so thats a great offer. At this point, I'm just trying to get people involved in the design process.

There are a lot of things I don't do or know well enough to do, I'm kind of like the guy with the macro. I need detailers and experts to flesh the stuff out.

I wouldn't start with an FTL ship, I'd start with a realistic Earth to high orbit space plane.

http://mytalktoday.com/solutions/viewforum.php?f=50

http://mytalktoday.com/solutions/vie...hp?f=50&t=1012

 Christopher September 18 2008 12:30 AM

Re: WARP derived from known physics

You clearly put a lot of thought into this, but you've wandered a bit afield from known physics and from the "warp" concept. For actual warp theories derived from General Relativity, look here:

http://omnis.if.ufrj.br/~mbr/warp/

And for the latest string-theory based refinement:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.1957

 SonicRanger September 18 2008 06:29 AM

Re: WARP derived from known physics

Sorry, prometheuspan, but that's gibberish, not "known physics."

 Timo September 18 2008 08:22 AM

Re: WARP derived from known physics

Well, it's a list of axioms. Or what in science is also known as fiction.

Axioms by definition are baseless claims, to be given future credibility by inference from outside evidence, experiments and so forth. Sometimes a structure of seeming coherence can be formed out of a big heap of axioms that don't contradict each other and in some cases even support each other, but that merely results in one giant axiom which remains as baseless as ever until connected to actual research.

In that sense, PrometheusPan is brutally honest: it's all pure speculation, not connected to reality by any demonstrated means, and the terminology spells this out.

Timo Saloniemi

 prometheuspan September 18 2008 09:02 AM

Re: WARP derived from known physics

Quote:
 You clearly put a lot of thought into this, but you've wandered a bit afield from known physics
Its incumbent upon you to be a little more specific than that. In fact,
All of this is derived from physics to the best of my ability. If you have a question or issue with a given axiom, why don't you ask a real question?

Quote:
 and from the "warp" concept.
The canon warp concept will never work.

Quote:
 For actual warp theories derived from General Relativity, look here:
interesting, but I'm mixing in a lot more than General Relativity.
Quote:
 Sorry, prometheuspan, but that's gibberish, not "known physics."
No, its not gibberish. Its also not known physics, its extrapolated from known physics.
failure to understand something doesn not mean its gibberish, it means you don't understand the sense it makes.

Quote:
 Well, it's a list of axioms. Or what in science is also known as fiction.
I think its fair to call it speculation, but not fiction, since no claims have been made. Fiction would be if
i cast this as a presentation or document made by a fictional person inside of a fictional universe to some other person.
Quote:
 Axioms by definition are baseless claims, to be given future credibility by inference from outside evidence, experiments and so forth. Sometimes a structure of seeming coherence can be formed out of a big heap of axioms that don't contradict each other and in some cases even support each other, but that merely results in one giant axiom which remains as baseless as ever until connected to actual research.
Axioms by definition are supposed to be self evident truths. You can't have "one giant" axiom because an axiom by definition is a single idea. Axioms together form paradigms. You can thus call this a speculative paradigm. Its
impossible to do research until we get far enough away from the earth to not endanger it. Till then, its more meaningful to speculate realistically than it is to subscribe to "canon."
Quote:
 In that sense, PrometheusPan is brutally honest: it's all pure speculation, not connected to reality by any demonstrated means, and the terminology spells this out.
This is true, I don't put my "work on the chalkboard" I just offer my results.
Its not an attempt to demonstrate, the idea is to start a conversation, preferably one where people ask questions
or seek clarificiation or ask for the relevant science ideas to a given axiom.

I hope that people can see this in the spirit it was posted, and that we can have a nice conversation over it, rather than just shooting me down because its easier to do than think about it.

 Timo September 18 2008 09:05 AM

Re: WARP derived from known physics

Quote:
 If you have a question or issue with a given axiom, why don't you ask a real question?
Yes, why not.

The question is the same for each and every axiom:

"Why do you believe this is the case?"

Timo Saloniemi

 prometheuspan September 18 2008 09:28 AM

Re: WARP derived from known physics

Quote:

Timo wrote: (Post 2083157)
Quote:
 If you have a question or issue with a given axiom, why don't you ask a real question?
Yes, why not.

The question is the same for each and every axiom:

"Why do you believe this is the case?"

Timo Saloniemi

I was hoping you would give me a chance to do this slowly over time.
I can't answer that question without violating the rule here about posting more than 3 times in a row.

It is however a pretty brilliant and awesomely on target question, and, I have to give you credit for your grasp of how to get down to the heart of the matter.

I will attempt to give a brief answer then, per axiom, however, I can't possibly give a full answer in the space I have, so the conversation will have to move from there on to an axiom by axiom discussion, one axiom at a time.

 Timo September 18 2008 10:11 AM

Re: WARP derived from known physics

Oh, no hurry. I guess I will have enough trouble digesting just a handful of the answers per day, or week. All of this looks fairly alien, to the surface at least, and not easily derived from known or accepted premises.

I just feel a slow step-by-step guide through the axioms would be the natural next step for this thread, rather than a jump straight into some higher-level musings.

Timo Saloniemi

 prometheuspan September 18 2008 10:18 AM

Re: WARP derived from known physics

Quote:
 * Axiom1 It is impossible for any object inside of the universe to travel at a speed faster than the speed of light.
I think the answer to why I think that this is the case is really easy and something those of us familiar with physics can agree on. But to recap the obvious;
1. Anything moving at the speed of light would itself be transformed into energy.
2. The amount of energy required to propel a mass increases as the speed increases at an exponential rate as one approaches the speed of light.
3. The mass of an object increases as it approaches the speed of light.
4. Thus it would seem that it would require an infinite amount of energy
to move an object at the speed of light.

Quote:
 * Axiom2 It may be possible for an object to essentially "Leave" the universe, and thus, for "distance" to become something very different than it is now.
The ideas of brane cosmology, M-theory, and dimensions of a geometric nature outside of our universe are pretty standard ideas now in cosmology.
It would seem the only obvious answer and it seem to be the more or less the standard answer as well. So far, nothing I have said really deviates significantly from the standard ideas regarding.

Quote:
 * Axiom3 An object might be able to travel faster than the speed of light, if it was isolated inside of a Gravitational bubble which was traveling through a wormhole.
1. A wormhole could in theory exit the universe as we know it, and thus no longer be subject to the problem of rate of speed per sey.
2. The largest problem with most wormhole theories is that gravitometric stresses entering or inside of a wormhole would be theoretically fatal.
3. Thus it would seem necessary to protect the vessel inside a different gravitometric construct, IE; the gravitometric bubbles.

Quote:
 * Axiom4 Traveling without a gravitational bubble through a wormhole would be fatal, for a variety of reasons.
1. Acceleration at hundreds or thousands or millions of Gs upon entering
the wormhole.
2. The irregularity and sharpness of gravitometric chaos inside of a wormhole means that different parts of a ship would be accelerated at different rates and in slightly different directions.

Quote:
 * Axiom5 The amount of gravity that a ship will have to distort space/time is always equal to the normal mass energy of the vessel itself.
How could it be otherwise?
Quote:
 * Axiom6 Warp, if it works, will be based on using some sort of energy field to come into phase with the gravitic field of the vessel.
What else is there to work with? Gravity is itself a spatial curvature. Increase and distort that curvature, and you have the potential for
a wormhole.

Quote:
 * Axiom7 Warp, if if works, will change the specific energy state of Gravitometric quanta, such that a gravitaional bubble forms inside of a wormhole.
I don't really remember the point of this one.
let me think on it.
Quote:
 * Axiom8 Rate of Speed in Tunnel; ROSIT; Refers to the rate of speed that a vessel would travel down a wormhole. This cannot exceed half of the speed of light or the vessel looses its ability to sense ahead of it. Early warp technologies will actually use fairly low ROSIT speeds.
So if you are traveling down a wormhole, how fast are you going relative to the wormhole? The wormhole is the new "universe" inside of which all the standard laws of physics still apply. You can't move faster than light inside of the wormhole, and you don't go anywhere inside the wormhole without some amount of forward velocity.

Quote:
 * Axiom9 Ratio Multiplier of Wormtunnel RMWT; A useful wormtunnel will be shorter on the inside than it is on the outside. The question here is, how much shorter?
The whole point of having a womtunnel in the first place is to create a spatial distortion in which you travel a very short distance on the inside while space itself travels a much farther distance on the outside. If this is not true or does not work out, then entering a wormhole is pretty pointless and rather dangerous, with no real useful gain other than perhaps the science information one might obtain from the inside.
Quote:
 * Axiom10 "Warps" Cannot rationally refer to any given speed. Instead, they refer to advanced level Warp Technology, which uses multiple levels of Tunnel. Wormholes inside of Wormholes. Warp 1 thus means 1 worm hole tunnel. Warp 2 thus equals 2 wormhole tunnels, one inside of the other. The actual warp speed will depend on the RMWT and the ROSIT of each Tunnel.
Why do i think this is so? wow, thats complicated. Esp to sum up with brevity. The RMWT of any given worm tunnel is itself the largest problem
for high warp velocities. How much stretch can you get? There are a lot of different theories on this, ranging from the possibility that you can leave the universe hyperdimensionally, making the point moot, to the idea that you can only sort of half leave the universe, but stay connected to it, by
traveling in essence along the event horizon of those higher dimensions, or the universe itself, relative to the larger omniverse.
So to achieve better warp velocities if the latter is the case, (And star trek and a large number of theories do assume this) The way to get the stretch
one needs is to use worm tunnels inside of wormtunnels.

Quote:
 * Axiom11 A functional warp drive system uses magnetic, Tachyonic, AntiEnergy, or other such means to create wormholes. These wormholes actually form dynamic whorl matrixes similar to those describing black holes. Each wormtunnel on the outside must be spun past by virtue of a thrust wormhole. There are thus worm tunnels writhing down the center of any early level warp technologies warp Engines.

This is much better to discuss or explain using images or drawings. But consider the problem in your own mind. You have to put something in a gravitometric box, and then you have to suspend that box in a wormhole.
Where does the wormtunnel originate and how is it formed? How does the engine actually create the wormhole and the other spatial distortion geometries?
The verbal best to give you in brevity is, how could it possibly be any other way?

Quote:
 * Axiom12 The minimum number of warp engines to counter vortex spin and chaos is 4. Each warp Engine generates a wormtunnel which merges into the others at an event horizon line ahead of and in back of the vessel. Those holomorphic singularities then branch wildly out, or flare, to form the bulbous sphere of the warp bubble. The warp bubble is propelled forward by the zero point energy agitation of serious spatial distortion.
1. By definition, a wormtunnel is formed as space time wraps and curves
around itself mostly in an elongation, but, somewhat of necessity in a circular motion around the circumference of the tunnel.
2. That curving with only one warp engine would cause the vessel to begin
rotating at enormous velocities, causing break up of the ship, or, disintegration of the wormhole.
3. Each curving vector force has to have some other curving vector force to push off of. Think of a helicopter. Without the tail blade, the helicopter is going to spin and drop.
4. If using only two engines, those forces will push the vessel either up or down depending on what direction each engine is spinning relative to the other. (again, this is much easier to understand if you draw it.)
5. If using three engines, how do you balance two engines off of one?
The forces would be too irregular, and again, you'd end up spinning and being pushed sideways into the wall of the wormhole.
6. In order to create complicated warp geometries, it will require several different worm holes cross modulating each other. Again, this is easy to see if you start drawing it.

Quote:
 * Axiom14 The hardest part of generating a useful warp field is making space Roll. Leaving the universe is the easy part. Navigating in hyperspace is whats hard.
I think this is self evident. Why would I think that? Well, how do we make space roll?

Quote:
 * Axiom15 Space and Time are actually 3 Geometric and 1 Kinetic Dimensions. We don't know if there are more Geometric or Kinetic Dimensions, But if there are, they are very small in width. For instance, maybe there is a 4th geometric dimension, which has a width of less than a single atom. It would be a whole dimension, but there would be no point in perceiving it. It would exist on too small a scale. However, it might render useful means by which to control, route, and modulate Warp Energies.
this is basic information which is known to be scientifically accurate and not even slightly conjectural.

Quote:
 * Axiom16 Space and Time may be composed of many Geometric, Kinetic, or Frequential (Quantum different) Dimensions. If there are more dimensions, and we can learn to access them, this gives high hopes to warp travel theory.
Again, this is just what the basic science says. We don't have proof that other dimensions exist but many different interpretations of assorted quantum theories and models predict that they exist mathematically. Notice
I don't commit one way or the other here, I just put forth the possibility.

Quote:
 * Axiom17 If there are no extra dimensions, they can be in theory manufactured using gravitometric spatial distortions.
This assumes that we can grab a hold of space/time some how, probably via gravitons or tachyons or negative energy or etc. But if you can do that
and work up a hyperdimensional distortion, then you can pick a new goemetric dimension and poke out of the distortion in that direction.

Quote:
 * Axiom18 If warp travel becomes possible, it is unlikely that the limitations of "Star Trek" would apply. While there may be limitations, and we don't know what they are yet, the truth is, Warp Speeds fast enough to go to ?Andromeda Galaxy seem every bit as possible as Warp speeds to go to Alpha centauri.
I lifted this idea directly from reading theorists talk about their ideas, mostly if I remember correctly out of Discover or Omni or some such magazine.
I don't remember the specifics well any more, but the reason to think so
is that theres no theoretical boundary or limit above light speed that we know of. If you are leaving the universe, than any two points inside of the universe are the same distance apart from each other relative to you, it doesn't matter how far those points are separated from each other.
If you leave the universe, the whoel universe relative to you becomes a singularity with an INTERNAL inflation event. All of space/time in our universe is just an instantaneous quantum fluctuation in a flashpan from a perspective outside of the universe.

Quote:
 * Axiom19 Falling theory. It may prove to be true that the easiset way to generate a warpfeild is to use a distant gravity well as a target pseudo singularity. If this becomes true, the largest obstacle to warp drive will become finding suitably large targets free from any intervening gravity wells.
I'd point out that this all doesn't present a single theory of warp or even a single paradigm really as such, it covers a bunch of slightly different ideas,
some of which are compatible with each other and some of which are not.

But if theres some intermediate level of reality between the universe as we know it and the larger omniverse such as "subspace", which some theories predict might exist, then any given gravity well in that hyperspace might be thought of as a singularity and the whole universe could then be thought of
as singularities riding each others surfaces. So in such a case, you could just tune to the gravitational pull of a remote singularity and then fall towards it.

Quote:
 * Axiom20 Any normal matter which encounters a warp boundary will be turned cataclysmically into graviton energy.
Why is this so? well, the outside of the warp boundary is longer than the inside, an atom comes up against that two dimensional surface- and its quanta are ripped away in assorted directions- at faster than light speeds.

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:33 AM.