View Single Post
Old September 18 2008, 04:14 PM   #21
Christopher's Avatar
Re: WARP derived from known physics

prometheuspan wrote: View Post
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?
I'm not the one who needs to ask questions. I offered you a couple of links to the work that real theoretical physicists are doing in warp theory so that you could investigate them and find out for yourself what actual physics says on the subject. You've come up with a complicated and interesting idea, but Alcubierre and other physicists have come up with a theory that's much simpler and much closer to how fictional warp drives are portrayed, and I thought you might be interested in exploring those ideas.

and from the "warp" concept.
The canon warp concept will never work.
I'm not talking about Star Trek. The concept of space-warp propulsion predates ST by over 30 years. The term "warp" refers to a propulsion system that relies on riding a distortion in spacetime, getting carried along on it like a surfer riding a wave. Wormhole-based propulsion is a different system and the term "warp" isn't generally used for it. It's really more of a jump drive or a point-to-point transit system than a warp drive.

interesting, but I'm mixing in a lot more than General Relativity.
And that's my point -- you may not need to.

prometheuspan wrote: View Post
* 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.
You're right about everything except point 1. Nothing would be transformed into energy if it moved at the speed of light, because nothing can ever reach the speed of light unless it's already a massless particle (which is what people mean when they say "energy" in this context), at which case it can't travel at anything but the speed of light. So there's no transformation involved. No particle with mass can ever reach the speed of light because of the factors you cite in points 2-4. Given that, point 1 is irrelevant as well as incorrect.

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.
This is blurring two distinct concepts. The "FTL" capacity of a wormhole comes from topology, the possibility that it's shorter on the inside than the outside. The speed of light in the space within the wormhole would still be c and would still be a limit on the velocity of any particle passing through it; it's just that the distance it would have to cover would be much smaller.

Granted, if there were an alternate continuum with a higher speed of light, a wormhole would be the only way to reach it, but it's not an intrinsic or required part of wormhole travel per se.

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.
Okay, I have to complain about the way you're using the word "gravitometric." That word means "pertaining to the measurement of gravity." What you're talking about is the actual gravitation itself, not the measurement thereof, so the correct word is "gravitational" or possibly "gravitic."

Trek gets it even more wrong by saying "gravimetric" instead of "gravitational." "Gravimetric" means "pertaining to the measurement of weight," and is thus totally the wrong word to use.

Otherwise, you're on the right track; there would be immense tidal stresses around the mouth of a wormhole, unless it were truly enormous. So some form of gravitationally shielded flat-space bubble would be necessary. However, as I said, this isn't a form of warp drive, but a form of wormhole transit or jump drive.
Written Worlds -- Christopher L. Bennett's blog and webpage
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote