RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,928
Posts: 5,478,786
Members: 25,054
Currently online: 440
Newest member: DRayTrekkie

TrekToday headlines

Trek Shirt And Hoodie
By: T'Bonz on Nov 27

A Klingon Christmas Carol’s Last Season
By: T'Bonz on Nov 27

Attack Wing Wave 10 Expansion Pack
By: T'Bonz on Nov 27

New Star Trek Funko Pop! Vinyl Figures
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

QMx Mini Phaser Ornament
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

Stewart as Neo-Nazi Skinhead
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

Klingon Bloodwine To Debut
By: T'Bonz on Nov 25

Trek Actors In War Of The Worlds Fundraiser
By: T'Bonz on Nov 25

Star Trek: The Next Generation Gag Reel Tease
By: T'Bonz on Nov 24

Shatner In Haven
By: T'Bonz on Nov 24


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Tech

Trek Tech Pass me the quantum flux regulator, will you?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 18 2008, 10:23 AM   #16
prometheuspan
Lieutenant Commander
 
prometheuspan's Avatar
 
Location: yes, i do live
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
my feeling is that its only complicated before you understand it and then its pretty simple.


and not easily derived from known or accepted premises.
My feeling is that if you know physics and think about it, that this stuff really does derive from known physics pretty well at least most of it, so
it should trace back quickly to somewhat familiar 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.
I wish you would pick just one to focus on. The first few seem rather self evident to me, I could be wrong but it doesn't seem like spending a lot of time on the first few will be that enlightening.

Where do you first encounter something you find "off" or which you don't understand?
__________________

http://mytalktoday.com/solutions/viewforum.php?f=50
please come help get us into space for real!!
prometheuspan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18 2008, 10:44 AM   #17
Gep Malakai
Vice Admiral
 
Gep Malakai's Avatar
 
Send a message via AIM to Gep Malakai Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Gep Malakai
Re: WARP derived from known physics

Between prometheuspan and think, my brain has been hurting a lot lately.
__________________
"From the darkness you must fall, failed and weak, to darkness all."
-Kataris
Gep Malakai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18 2008, 10:58 AM   #18
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: WARP derived from known physics

my feeling is that its only complicated before you understand it and then its pretty simple.
Oh, it's not complexity that worries me. The issue is alienness, the degree to which this all is disconnected from reality. Star Trek warp drive is "pretty simple", too, but that doesn't make it any more real.

I guess #1 is a good axiom in the sense that we have no reason to disbelieve in it yet, and it follows from a theory that is supported by observations.

Let's look at the others, then.

#2: The existence of "extrauniversal" realms is similarly accepted as part of seemingly consistent theories. However, from this does not follow that movement from "in" to "out" or vice versa should or would be possible, or does it?

#3: Gravitometric bubble does not sound like a property of our universe, so ending up in one would already call for the departure you postulate. While a number of the later axioms are relatively "easy" and typically only list fantastic possibilities, this one already seems to present a gigantic chasm for the required leap of faith.

#4: At least the rough properties of the gravitometric bubble would have to be known before its role in protection could be evaluated.

#5: I see no particular reason for this claim, since the whole idea is to operate the ship in a realm where gravitic interactions are different from those familiar to us. And in the very next step you in any case postulate that gravitic interactions can be affected by factors as such unrelated to gravity.

#6: Energy coming into phase with gravity is just gobbledigook. One would need to specify how the desired type of energy can interact with gravity.

#8: Interpreting the geometry of the interior of the wormhole as conventional 3D space within which travel through spatial dimensions takes place is a rather dubious move. But okay, this is what axioms should be about: the defining of terms for later use.

#9: Same as above.

#10: This just piques my curiosity: why talk about "warps" when the idea is not to discuss the Star Trek FTL drive anyway?

#11: Okay, so this is just a list of means that might create a wormhole, according to various theories, and not actually a direct endorsement of those particular theories?

#12: Sounds like so much gobbledigook, applying potentially unrelated layman principles to phenomena not properly described.

#14: How do we leave the universe? So far, there's no indication that this would ever have happened to anybody or anything, only that our current thought constructs don't all categorically deny the possibility. One step to me sounds at least as difficult as the other - and we actually think we know how space rolls in the "natural" case, around mass, while we have no "natural case" to go by as regards the other issue.

#15: I see no evidence of the connection between hidden dimensions and the ability to control movement in or entry into a wormhole.

#16: Okay, the universe might be like that, and we might make use of it one day.

#17: Doesn't seem that anything in current science would predict this sort of an ability. It would require some very specific properties of the universe...

#18: Sounds nice. Here's hoping!

#19: A wild guess?

#20: A wilder guess? (Why gravitational energy?)

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18 2008, 11:02 AM   #19
prometheuspan
Lieutenant Commander
 
prometheuspan's Avatar
 
Location: yes, i do live
Re: WARP derived from known physics


#2: The existence of "extrauniversal" realms is similarly accepted as part of seemingly consistent theories. However, from this does not follow that movement from "in" to "out" or vice versa should or would be possible, or does it?
Correct. We have no reason to believe that we can ever access the"extraverse".


#3: Gravitometric bubble does not sound like a property of our universe, so ending up in one would already call for the departure you postulate. While a number of the later axioms are relatively "easy" and typically only list fantastic possibilities, this one already seems to present a gigantic chasm for the required leap of faith.
Absolutely true. Which is why most scientists say wormhole travel is
impossible because you'd just be ripped to quanta.

#5: I see no particular reason for this claim, since the whole idea is to operate the ship in a realm where gravitic interactions are different from those familiar to us. And in the very next step you in any case postulate that gravitic interactions can be affected by factors as such unrelated to gravity.
I'm not attached to it, it just seems that it would be like that to me.


#6: Energy coming into phase with gravity is just gobbledigook. One would need to specify how the desired type of energy can interact with gravity.
At this point we don't know of any means to do that.
Other than negative energy, which itself is theoretical and possibly even more impossible to obtain than unobtainium,
theres no theory which allows us to us energy to effect gravity in such a way short of using as much energy as
would be created if one converted say the mass of jupiter to energy.

#8: Interpreting the geometry of the interior of the wormhole as conventional 3D space within which travel through spatial dimensions takes place is a rather dubious move. But okay, this is what axioms should be about: the defining of terms for later use.
I don't think I am doing that, but i can see how you could get the impression i was. Remember the language is 3 dimensional, thats not my fault.


#10: This just piques my curiosity: why talk about "warps" when the idea is not to discuss the Star Trek FTL drive anyway?
i confess its always been a pet peeve of mine, which made no sense at all. What does a "warp" mean or would it really mean? I always found the canon explanation to be silly, and, so did they, which is why they kept changing it.


#11: Okay, so this is just a list of means that might create a wormhole, according to various theories, and not actually a direct endorsement of those particular theories?
Correct. I'm not offering this as a "how to", its an exploration of what I think to be theoretical fundamentals
if we are going to have serious discussions about the theory. More than anything its an attempt to build a conceptual lexicon. Nothing more.


#12: Sounds like so much gobbledigook, applying potentially unrelated layman principles to phenomena not properly described.
I don't have them memorized by number, so I hope that in the future we can be more specific. I'm not pretending that
any of these make absolute sense, I'm just making the best sense I think can be made on the topic.
At the end of the day, warp is still impossible as far as we know. So its all gobledygook , or its all conjecture, depending on how interested you are in the topic.
Lets just buckle down and ask for better descriptions, or for delayman-ization of same.

I'm trying to start a conversation here, not pretend to be the ultimate authority on everything in the universe.
I can understand how people would get the latter idea, but a shift in perspective is in order. I just want to have a frank, informed, cogent and adult conversation on the topic. I have no attachments and no pretensions.
I hope Warp drive can some day be achieved. I design generation sleeper ships for the purpose of exploring the Galaxy because I have looked into it pretty deeply and as far as I can tell, its impossible. That shouldn't stop us from traying tho.


#14: How do we leave the universe? So far, there's no indication that this would ever have happened to anybody or anything, only that our current thought constructs don't all categorically deny the possibility. One step to me sounds at least as difficult as the other - and we actually think we know how space rolls in the "natural" case, around mass, while we have no "natural case" to go by as regards the other issue.
In theory, we leave the universe by proceeding in a direction away from it other than the standard 3 dimensions.
You are right, we don't have any reason to think that this is possible. At the same time, as far as the science goes,
if it is possible, then there is the window of a smidgen of a chance for our warp drive.


#15: I see no evidence of the connection between hidden dimensions and the ability to control movement in or entry into a wormhole.
Neither do i which i think is why i state that navigating would be harder than exiting the universe.

#16: Okay, the universe might be like that, and we might make use of it one day.
I'd make that point for most all of this. its all one big fat MAYBE???


#17: Doesn't seem that anything in current science would predict this sort of an ability. It would require some very specific properties of the universe...
Since i don't know off the top of my head what you are referring to, I'll just restate the obvious. As far as science now knows warp is impossible. Yet, there are some things in science which give us pause to hope, and I think that they are worth exploring.

Why graviton energy?
because its sheering in two different directions at FTL speeds.
Can't turn into much of anything else.

Between prometheuspan and think, my brain has been hurting a lot lately.
would you accept a half hearted apology?
__________________

http://mytalktoday.com/solutions/viewforum.php?f=50
please come help get us into space for real!!

Last edited by prometheuspan; September 18 2008 at 11:25 AM.
prometheuspan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18 2008, 12:00 PM   #20
Shaw
Commodore
 
Shaw's Avatar
 
Location: Twin Cities
Re: WARP derived from known physics

prometheuspan wrote: View Post
Axioms by definition are supposed to be self evident truths.
Then doesn't most of what you've put forward fail to be axioms by this definition? I'm not saying that this needs to live up to mathematical rigor at this point, but much of what you've put forward seems to display a lack of ability to look at your own work critically. Do you honestly think that the ideas you've put forward would withstand scrutiny by you? If someone else had posted this and you were seeing it for the first time, what would your reaction be?

It seems to me that you are playing awfully lose and fast with this stuff and lack a certain understanding of what you are assuming you know. I'm getting the strong impression that you are lacking the core foundations in physics, geometry and topology to help really see what some of the science you are using is actually saying.

One of the drawbacks of "popular explanations" of physics theories is that they are attempts to put into words things that really can't be fully communicated in words. And people often believe that having read these "popular explanations" that they now have an understanding equal to that of the people who are actually rigorously working in these areas.

I just think if you scrutinized your own work more you might have an easier time understanding why it is getting the reaction it is.

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've asked for clarification on your use of terms before, and I'll ask for clarification again here (as you have invited this)...
1. What do you mean by 3 Geometric and 1 Kinetic Dimensions?
2. Isn't holomorphic singularities sort of a contradictory term? Specially when considering the definition of singularity.
3. What, in your mind, are dimensions? You seem to be using the term even more loosely than in any "popular physics" references that I've seen.
Additionally, please don't take this as picking on you. I'm assuming you want serious responses to what you've put forward, but until we're able to ascertain what you think this stuff means when you reference it, it is hard to tell where you are coming from.
Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18 2008, 03:14 PM   #21
Christopher
Writer
 
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.


[QUOTE]
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.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 11/16/14 including annotations for "The Caress of a Butterfly's Wing" and overview for DTI: The Collectors

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18 2008, 05:14 PM   #22
prometheuspan
Lieutenant Commander
 
prometheuspan's Avatar
 
Location: yes, i do live
Re: WARP derived from known physics

Then doesn't most of what you've put forward fail to be axioms by this definition?
Its an interesting paradox of consciousness that one persons self evident truth can be another persons bumbling inane gobbledygook. I find
these ideas to be self evident, but, thats me.
Similarly, truths we now think of as self evident, such as gravity, or,
the roundness of the earth, or, the laws of conservation of matter or energy were at one time considered crackpot ideas.



I'm not saying that this needs to live up to mathematical rigor at this point, but much of what you've put forward seems to display a lack of ability to look at your own work critically.
I would encourage you to refrain from projecting your capacity to look at these ideas critically onto me. I can be very skeptical, and I might ask a lot of questions or refer people as you have to some reference materials.
I'm happy to receive criticism if its constructive. The purpose of this thread as I see it is to work on the problem together, not pat me on the back, and, not tear me down.


Do you honestly think that the ideas you've put forward would withstand scrutiny by you? If someone else had posted this and you were seeing it for the first time, what would your reaction be?
I honestly think that these ideas are entirely defensible and in point of fact they have withstood scrutiny by people with doctorate degrees in physics.


It seems to me that you are playing awfully lose and fast with this stuff
I consider that a fair appraisal on your part.


and lack a certain understanding of what you are assuming you know.
I consider that an unfair appraisal on your part.



I'm getting the strong impression that you are lacking the core foundations in physics, geometry and topology to help really see what some of the science you are using is actually saying.
I am not sure what gives you that impression, but I hope that we can quit talkign about me and talk about the physics, the theories, and the ideas.
If you feel that you could do better, then you absolutely should. How do you think it should work?

One of the drawbacks of "popular explanations" of physics theories is that they are attempts to put into words things that really can't be fully communicated in words.
And So here i am, putting things into two or three sentence chunks which really are much more complicated than that, and opening myself to all sorts of potential criticism, fully knowing that I have super simplified much for the purpose of brevity and starting the conversation.


And people often believe that having read these "popular explanations" that they now have an understanding equal to that of the people who are actually rigorously working in these areas.
Yeah, that sucks when that happens.

I just think if you scrutinized your own work more you might have an easier time understanding why it is getting the reaction it is.
I understand completely. There are several factors at play. The first and most important one to consider is that the links to current science are not apparent. I didn't put all my work on the black board. If i had and tried to post it here, I'd be accused of flooding. How much work would such represent if it actually is true that I'm deriving this from a depth exploration of science? Hundreds of hours.

The second is attachment to both canon and to science dogmas. As is said in martial arts; First you learn the form. Once you have mastered the form, the form falls away. That falling away may look sloppy but the masters movement works. Over the long term and with more introspection on your own part, I think you will realize that these ideas have lasting and meaningful staying power, even if they might be better formulated or more
eloquently expressed than I have.

The third is standard pack psychology and egotism. The first impulse of any male is to find fault. Thats millions of years of evolution and hard habit to break. Its also pointless, because while its easy to attack me, its a whole lot harder for you to come up with your own 22 or 30 basic axioms.
Thats the challenge here in any case, not knocking me down.

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.
What you seem to fail to understand is that this presentation is a result of looking at those same kinds of materials.
Frankly this is a more advanced and more diverse exploration of ideas than anything you are going to find to link me to.



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.
Yes, they have come up with some interesting ideas. And I think we should explore them. Which is what I am doing.
If you feel that I have left something out, by all means add your own 30 axioms.

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.
In my opinion, both concepts together would have to be employed to make it work. Also, a wormhole could in theory
be created which would be shorter on the inside than the outside, but also, thats not true of all wormholes by necessity.



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.
I don't know why you are telling me this when I just got done saying the same thing in the body of ideas which you are criticizing.


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.
My opinion is that a wormhole is only functional as such to get into and out of higher dimensional realities and etc,
and that in fact to make warp work will require a combination of several different approaches.
Perhaps this is a failure of clarity on my part, but I also am exploring simultaneously a few different possibilities, some of which might even be mutually exclusive.
__________________

http://mytalktoday.com/solutions/viewforum.php?f=50
please come help get us into space for real!!
prometheuspan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18 2008, 05:30 PM   #23
prometheuspan
Lieutenant Commander
 
prometheuspan's Avatar
 
Location: yes, i do live
Re: WARP derived from known physics

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.
"

important semantic factoid which we should adopt for the remainder of the thread.



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.
Perhaps I should be blunt. I find the idea of a warp drive without a wormhole to be merely a science fiction fantasy construct and cannot find
it to have merit. Thus for my own purposes, I have somewhat redefined "warp" as what you are now calling transit or jump drive. This may again be a failure of my own mind and I am not above the possibility I have erred.
However, to my knowledge, and after discussing it with people who are much more practically knowledgable than I am, It is my opinion that the only way to travel faster than light is to leave the universe via what for lack of a better word I am calling a wormhole. If you have a case to make
for a propulsion system of the more standard basic warp concept, I certainly would invite you to make your case. My feeling is that this thread should be a collaborative effort to solve the problem, and I invite any and all approaches towards that end.
__________________

http://mytalktoday.com/solutions/viewforum.php?f=50
please come help get us into space for real!!
prometheuspan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18 2008, 06:26 PM   #24
Shaw
Commodore
 
Shaw's Avatar
 
Location: Twin Cities
Re: WARP derived from known physics

prometheuspan wrote: View Post
I honestly think that these ideas are entirely defensible and in point of fact they have withstood scrutiny by people with doctorate degrees in physics.
Okay... not if what you've given us here is what you gave them.

I am not sure what gives you that impression, but I hope that we can quit talkign about me and talk about the physics, the theories, and the ideas.
If you feel that you could do better, then you absolutely should. How do you think it should work?
We can't start talking about physics until we are on the same page. From what you've given us to work with so far, either you don't understand the physics or you aren't sure how to word your ideas.

And quite frankly, the odds are that you don't truly understand some of these ideas as you really can't seem to explain the basics. It must be nice to by pass years and years of physics, but by doing so you've skipped all of the foundations of what you want to work with.

At this point, you are either a waste of time or you have some potential.

I don't care what your IQ is or how many people think your great... show me that you have a clearer understanding of the basic building blocks that you are using. When I ask you to explain your terminology, don't make me ask three or more times. I'm not trying to make you look bad, I'm trying to provide help (if I can).


Again, I didn't make those other quoted statements.
Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18 2008, 06:56 PM   #25
prometheuspan
Lieutenant Commander
 
prometheuspan's Avatar
 
Location: yes, i do live
Re: WARP derived from known physics

And quite frankly, the odds are that you don't truly understand some of these ideas as you really can't seem to explain the basics.
I'm sorry if i initially found your question too vague to make sense of.
I think i have answered it. If you have further questions, ask. At this point i think the thread would be better served if you run with your first impression that I'm an idiot, and just give us the low down of how you think real warp technology would work. Then we can all follow your lead, and I can safely retreat back into just being the guy who started the thread.



It must be nice to by pass years and years of physics,
Sure, while everybody else was having a social life, I was reading textbooks. From the age of 8 to 18, my nose didn't come out of them. So
some people might think I took the easy route, and some people may even resent that I might make such claims, but the real truth is that I worked very hard for my understanding, possibly as hard or harder than those who earn degrees because I have disabilities I have to overcome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodidact

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

I am truly bored talking about me and sure you have all sorts of insights into warp theory that would be much more interesting.


but by doing so you've skipped all of the foundations of what you want to work with.
Either stand and deliver, or go away. please.


At this point, you are either a waste of time or you have some potential.
I could say that about you and virtually the whole lot of humanity.

Please come back to the topic. How does warp work, in theory, given what you know of physics?
__________________

http://mytalktoday.com/solutions/viewforum.php?f=50
please come help get us into space for real!!
prometheuspan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18 2008, 07:40 PM   #26
Shaw
Commodore
 
Shaw's Avatar
 
Location: Twin Cities
Re: WARP derived from known physics

prometheuspan wrote: View Post
Sure, while everybody else was having a social life...

I am truly bored talking about me and sure you have all sorts of insights into warp theory that would be much more interesting.
Frankly, I don't care about your life. And as someone with my own disabilities to deal with, I'd suggest that you stop using yours as a crutch. Stop trying to tell us anything about yourself and stick to the physics if you can.

Either stand and deliver, or go away. please.
I don't have anything to prove, but then again, it is starting to seem that neither do you.

What I'm getting here is that you've spent years reading math and physics books... but skipped all the math. That explains quite a bit... You're right, I have nothing to offer here as this (and most of your ideas) seem to fall into the realm of science fiction (and I generally attempt to avoid applying physics to science fiction).
Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18 2008, 07:44 PM   #27
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: WARP derived from known physics

prometheuspan wrote: View Post
Yes, they have come up with some interesting ideas. And I think we should explore them. Which is what I am doing.
If you feel that I have left something out, by all means add your own 30 axioms.
I don't need to. I already gave you the links to the actual papers that actual theoretical physicists have written on these subjects. They've done the work far better than I could.


In my opinion, both concepts together would have to be employed to make it work. Also, a wormhole could in theory
be created which would be shorter on the inside than the outside, but also, thats not true of all wormholes by necessity.
If you constructed a wormhole with two mouths close together and then separated the mouths through normal space, those mouths would remain motionless relative to the interior space, therefore the interior distance would not increase along with the exterior distance. So it's possible to generate a wormhole in such a way as to ensure that the interior distance is shorter.

And again, as I said, you're right that some form of alternate continuum with a higher speed of light could allow effective superluminal travel, but again, that's not a warp drive. The term for that would be a hyperspace drive or hyperdrive.

Here's a list that physicist/SF author Geoffrey A. Landis compiled, basically a taxonomy of the various categories of FTL drive in fiction:

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/roc...tml#stardrives

Warp drive is category 2.2.1.9; yours seems to be in the 2.2.2.2 section, "Alternative space without fixed nodes."


I don't know why you are telling me this when I just got done saying the same thing in the body of ideas which you are criticizing.
Hey, no need to be defensive. I'm just trying to offer further information on a subject you're interested in. I apologize for overlooking your reference to that point elsewhere in this long thread. I'm skimming a lot of it.


My opinion is that a wormhole is only functional as such to get into and out of higher dimensional realities and etc,
and that in fact to make warp work will require a combination of several different approaches.
Perhaps this is a failure of clarity on my part, but I also am exploring simultaneously a few different possibilities, some of which might even be mutually exclusive.
...
Perhaps I should be blunt. I find the idea of a warp drive without a wormhole to be merely a science fiction fantasy construct and cannot find
it to have merit.
Well, I recommend you explore the links about the Alcubierre-type warp theories; there's more on that if you scroll further down the page containing the Landis list. I think that the recent Cleaver-Obousy proposal of using the Casimir effect, combined with the Van Den Broeck micro-warp bubble idea, could conceivably get the energy requirement for a warp drive low enough to be practical. And that's entirely based on known physics, no need to postulate any hypothetical otherspace beyond the extra dimensions already proposed in string theory.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 11/16/14 including annotations for "The Caress of a Butterfly's Wing" and overview for DTI: The Collectors

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18 2008, 07:51 PM   #28
prometheuspan
Lieutenant Commander
 
prometheuspan's Avatar
 
Location: yes, i do live
Re: WARP derived from known physics

I don't have anything to prove, but then again, it is starting to seem that neither do you.
good, we are on the same page on that.


What I'm getting here is that you've spent years reading math and physics books... but skipped all the math.
Yes, thats absolutely true, I can't do math. I can on the other hand run a
lucid visualization simulation, and that can yield results which are remarkably similar to doing math.


That explains quite a bit... You're right, I have nothing to offer here as this (and most of your ideas) seem to fall into the realm of science fiction (and I generally attempt to avoid applying physics to science fiction).
If thats your way of politely bowing out, then its been nice chatting with you.
Otherwise, No, I'm not doing science fiction, I'm trying to create a collaborative problem solving process and am acutely aware of the both the
things of merit I have to bring to that process and how much I need other people to fill ini blanks which I can't.

I don't need to. I already gave you the links to the actual papers that actual theoretical physicists have written on these subjects. They've done the work far better than I could.
Somehow I think my error was in not directly addressing those papers to start with. Okay, I'll backtrack and do that.
This classification page you found is great. Actually the stuff i put out is a few different ones on this list, cuz I was going with a few different ways of solving the problem.

Well, I recommend you explore the links about the Alcubierre-type warp theories; there's more on that if you scroll further down the page containing the Landis list. I think that the recent Cleaver-Obousy proposal of using the Casimir effect, combined with the Van Den Broeck micro-warp bubble idea, could conceivably get the energy requirement for a warp drive low enough to be practical. And that's entirely based on known physics, no need to postulate any hypothetical otherspace beyond the extra dimensions already proposed in string theory.
I think the casimir effect is great as one way to work out some of the problems with the warp engine. Its even better as a method for augmenting a slower than light ramrocket. String theories abound, which interpretations are we specifically talking about?

I did miss those follow up papers, my bad. Thanks for pushing a second time a bit harder.
The follow-up papers *
  1. Photon propagation in a stationary warp drive space-time
    Claes R. Cramer
    e-print: gr-qc/9510018, (1995)
  2. Some thoughts on the Implications of Faster-Than-Light Interstellar Space Travel
    I.A. Crawford
    Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, vol. 36, 205-218, (1995)
  3. Physical and Cosmological Implications of a Possible Class of Particles Able to Travel Faster than Light
    Luis Gonzalez-Mestres
    e-print: hep-ph/9610474;
    Contribution to the 28th International Conference on High Energy Physics, Warsaw (Poland), (1996)
  4. Warp drive and causality
    Allen E. Everett
    pdf; Physical Review D, vol. 53, 7365-7368, (1996)
  5. A Superluminal Subway: The Krasnikov Tube
    Allen E. Everett & Thomas A. Roman
    e-print: gr-qc/9702049; postscript; pdf;
    Physical Review D, vol. 56, 2100-2108, (1997)
  6. Quantum effects in the Alcubierre warp drive spacetime
    William A. Hiscock
    e-print: gr-qc/9707024; postscript; pdf;
    Classical and Quantum Gravity, vol. 14, L183-L188 (1997)
  7. The unphysical nature of "Warp Drive"
    Michael J. Pfenning & L.H. Ford
    e-print: gr-qc/9702026; postscript; pdf;
    Classical and Quantum Gravity, vol. 14, 1743-1751, (1997)
  8. On the Possibility of a Propulsion Drive Creation Through a Local Manipulation of Spacetime Geometry
    Vesselin Petkov
    e-print: physics/9805028;
    Presented at the 34th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, (1998)
  9. `Operational' energy conditions
    Adam D. Helfer
    pdf; postscript; Classical and Quantum Gravity, vol. 15, 1169-1183, (1998)
  10. No warp drive
    D. H. Coule
    pdf; postscript; Classical and Quantum Gravity, vol. 15, 2523-2527, (1998)
  11. Quantum Inequality Restrictions on Negative Energy Densities in Curved Spacetimes
    Michael John Pfenning
    e-print: gr-qc/9805037; Doctoral Dissertation, (1998)
  12. Hyperfast Interstellar Travel in General Relativity
    S. V. Krasnikov
    e-print: gr-qc/9511068; postscript; pdf;
    Physical Review D, vol. 57, 4760, (1998)
  13. Superluminal travel requires negative energies
    Ken D. Olum
    e-print: gr-qc/9805003; postscript; pdf;
    Physical Review Letters, vol. 81, 3567-3570, (1998)
  14. Hyper-fast travel without negative energy
    Eric Baird
    e-print: gr-qc/9903068; (1999)
  15. Warp drives, wavefronts and superluminality
    Eric Baird
    e-print: physics/9904019; (1999)
  16. A traversable wormhole
    S. Krasnikov
    e-print: gr-qc/9909016; (1999)
  17. Speed Limits in General Relativity
    Robert J. Low
    e-print: gr-qc/9812067; postscript; pdf;
    Classical and Quantum Gravity, vol. 16, 543-549, (1999)
  18. Null geodesics in the Alcubierre warp drive spacetime: the view from the bridge
    Chad Clark, William A. Hiscock & Shane L. Larson
    e-print: gr-qc/9907019; postscript; pdf;
    Classical and Quantum Gravity, vol. 16, 3965-3972, (1999)
  19. A `warp drive' with more reasonable total energy
    Chris Van Den Broeck
    e-print: gr-qc/9905084; postscript; pdf;
    Classical and Quantum Gravity, vol. 16, 3973-3979, (1999)
  20. On the warp drive space-time
    Pedro F. Gonzalez-Diaz
    e-print: gr-qc/9907026; postscript; pdf;
    Physical Review D, vol. 62, 44005-44012, (2000)
  21. On the (im)possibility of warp bubbles
    Chris Van Den Broeck
    e-print: gr-qc/9906050;
    Summary of talk delivered at STAIF-2000, (2000)
  22. Reduced Total Energy Requirements for a Modified Alcubierre Warp Drive Spacetime
    F. Loup, D. Waite & E. Halerewicz Jr
    e-print: gr-qc/0107097, (2001)
  23. Warp Drive With Zero Expansion
    Jose Natario
    e-print: gr-qc/0110086; postscript; pdf;
    Classical and Quantum Gravity, vol. 19, 1157-1166, (2002)
  24. A Causally Connected Superluminal Warp Drive Spacetime
    F. Loup, R. Held, D. Waite, E. Halerewicz, Jr., M. Stabno, M. Kuntzman & R. Sims
    e-print: gr-qc/0202021, (2002)
  25. Weak Energy Condition Violation and Superluminal Travel
    Francisco Lobo & Paulo Crawford
    e-print: gr-qc/0204038, (2002)
  26. On the Problems of Hazardous Matter and Radiation at Faster than Light Speeds in the Warp Drive Space-Time
    C.B. Hart, R. Held, P.K. Hoiland, S. Jenks, F. Loup, D. Martins, J. Nyman, J.P. Pertierra, P.A. Santos, M.A. Shore, R. Sims, M. Stabno & T.O.M. Teage
    e-print: gr-qc/0207109, (2002)
* The dates indicated within parenthesis refer to the last known uploaded or published version of the paper.
__________________

http://mytalktoday.com/solutions/viewforum.php?f=50
please come help get us into space for real!!

Last edited by prometheuspan; September 18 2008 at 08:05 PM.
prometheuspan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18 2008, 08:16 PM   #29
prometheuspan
Lieutenant Commander
 
prometheuspan's Avatar
 
Location: yes, i do live
Re: WARP derived from known physics

The Canonical List of StarDrives

If you want to roll your own, you might find the following useful. Noted physicist and Hugo & Nebula award-winning SF author Geoffrey A. Landis has created a catalog of every kind of StarDrive that has ever existed in science fiction. It appears here with Dr. Landis' permission.
__________________

http://mytalktoday.com/solutions/viewforum.php?f=50
please come help get us into space for real!!

Last edited by prometheuspan; September 18 2008 at 10:19 PM. Reason: copyright
prometheuspan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18 2008, 08:18 PM   #30
prometheuspan
Lieutenant Commander
 
prometheuspan's Avatar
 
Location: yes, i do live
Re: WARP derived from known physics

uhm
__________________

http://mytalktoday.com/solutions/viewforum.php?f=50
please come help get us into space for real!!

Last edited by prometheuspan; September 18 2008 at 10:18 PM. Reason: copyright
prometheuspan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
technobabble, warp drive

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:25 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.