Warp speed spacecraft anyone?

[Further]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/12/tech/innovation/warp-speed-spaceship/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Thanks to a NASA physicist, the notion of warp speed might just travel out of sci-fi and into the real world.
NASA's Harold White has been working since 2010 to develop a warp drive that will allow spacecraft to travel at speeds faster than light -- 186,000 miles per second.
Ripples in space-time revealed Watch astronauts play football in space Virgin's SpaceShipTwo goes supersonic
White, who heads NASA's Advanced Propulsion Team, spoke about his conceptual starship at a conference last fall. But interest in his project reached a new level this week when he unveiled images of what the craft might look like.

Just concept at the moment, they haven't figured out warp yet, but I find it encouraging that physicists at NASA are actually working on this. How awesome would that be!

 

[Denny Crane]

Saw this yesterday.

You need an antimatter core just to power the thing.

Star Trek got it right in the 1960s. Pretty amazing stuff.

 

[Further]

Saw this yesterday.

You need an antimatter core just to power the thing.

Star Trek got it right in the 1960s. Pretty amazing stuff.

I'm not sure what the fixes would be for power, but no doubt it would take more energy per jump than we are even remotely close to being able to handle. Most likely they work on all the other aspects of the warp drive and spaceship until such time as a giant jump in energy production technology is discovered.

 

[MarAzul]

Interesting article. I liked this line, "the concept doesn't violate the laws of physics"
and yet they acknowledge that nothing exceeds the speed of light.

Well this fellow will indeed go where no man has gone before if he does this trick. He might rank right up there with God himself. Creating life, and exceeding the speed of light are both
pretty unique achievements.

 

[Denny Crane]

It doesn't exceed the speed of light. It bends space so you don't have to travel as far.

 

[Eastoff]

Heres a paper from the theorist, form 2011. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110015936.pdf

 

[MarAzul]

It doesn't exceed the speed of light. It bends space so you don't have to travel as far.

Yes, I read that. Sort of like the great circle route, it gets shorter than the straight line. I understand that illusion, I don't not understand a principle in physics of bending space.
Sure willing to try though.

 

[Denny Crane]

Yes, I read that. Sort of like the great circle route, it gets shorter than the straight line. I understand that illusion, I don't not understand a principle in physics of bending space.
Sure willing to try though.

Space is already bent. The concept here is for us to be able to cause and control that effect.

 

[Further]

my question is if you could hypothetically build and operate a warp drive ship, could it only bend between two points in space, or since could it actually bend spacetime so you could travel between two time points, in otherwords a time machine.

 

[MarAzul]

Heres a paper from the theorist, form 2011. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110015936.pdf

Thank you for posting that. Very interesting, it seems they are warping Time not Space. Perhaps that is possible since time is relative to a location in space. The principles of physics are not being exceeded

 

[MarAzul]

my question is if you could hypothetically build and operate a warp drive ship, could it only bend between two points in space, or since could it actually bend spacetime so you could travel between two time points, in otherwords a time machine.

It seems like, if you can do it the any two points should be possible. I have always thought space travel was for science fiction only unless we can shorten the relative time. Exceeding the speed of light isn't going to happen.

 

[Eastoff]

Thank you for posting that. Very interesting, it seems they are warping Time not Space. Perhaps that is possible since time is relative to a location in space. The principles of physics are not being exceeded

Well I don't think they are actually warping time.

time t in the flat space-time volume is the same as proper time τ, meaning the clocks on board the
spacecraft proper beat at the same rate as clocks on earth.

It sounds like they are expanding space similar to how dark energy expands space.

 

[jlprk]

nothing exceeds the speed of light.

Not at all true. Exceptions:

1) Before the first light, the universe expanded faster than light.

2) The speeds of non-electromagnetic forces (gravitation and strong nuclear) are unknown, possibly much faster than light.

3) Quantum entanglement is instantaneous.

http://www.gizmag.com/quantum-entanglement-speed-10000-faster-light/26587/

4) The universe (i.e. the fabric of space) is expanding independently of the speed of light. 20 years ago, Alcubierre's paper said that a spacecraft could exceed light speed if the density of space were decreased in front of it and increased behind, thus pushing it forward. There is no speed limit to spatial expansion. Alcubierre described a ring around a spacecraft, propelling the craft using the Casimir effect.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-03/faster-light-drive

3 years ago, White found that thickening the ring vastly decreased the amount of fuel needed to go to the nearest star, to less than a ton, a trip of only 2-10 weeks.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-03/warp-factor?nopaging=1

 

[jlprk]

Here's some introduction to faster than light technologies.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/technology/warp/ideachev.html

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/technology/warp/possible.html

Heres a paper from the theorist, form 2011. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110015936.pdf

That link has White's paper, then his Power Point titled "Warp Field Mechanics 101." Here is "Warp Field Mechanics 102," his Power Point that gets into the equations.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20130011213_2013010494.pdf

 

[Further]

Very interesting post. I am not saying you are wrong on all these, but I have understood several of these differently. If misunderstood, please explain, it's more likely I'm wrong than right.

Not at all true. Exceptions:

1) Before the first light, the universe expanded faster than light.

The rapid expansion occurred up until the things cooled down enough and the fabric of space time was created. Since speed can only be described in relation to distance and time, there was no time yet, there was no faster than the speed of light.

2) The speeds of non-electromagnetic forces (gravitation and strong nuclear) are unknown, possibly much faster than light.

I didn't know this, especially regarding strong nuclear force, but I have hear Neil Degrasse Tyson on this podcast say gravitational does not exceed the speed of light.

3) Quantum entanglement is instantaneous.

http://www.gizmag.com/quantum-entanglement-speed-10000-faster-light/26587/

One of the coolest things to ponder, still blows my mind to think about. But, yes it's true that communication occurs instantaneously, we don't know if anything moves faster than the speed of light causing this communication. It could be connected through alternate means, in a different dimension, so although we see the particles as separate, they are one or overlap in a different dimension. I really don't know at all on this one, it's just freaky cool, especially since they have now been able to affect a particle and have it retroactively affect a particle BEFORE the first particle was manipulated. (Time travel the entanglement). Just cool stuff.

4) The universe (i.e. the fabric of space) is expanding independently of the speed of light. 20 years ago, Alcubierre's paper said that a spacecraft could exceed light speed if the density of space were decreased in front of it and increased behind, thus pushing it forward. There is no speed limit to spatial expansion. Alcubierre described a ring around a spacecraft, propelling the craft using the Casimir effect.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-03/faster-light-drive

The travel isn't faster than the speed of light, just the result. Bend the space is not so you arrive at an endpoint faster than you would otherwise is not actually moving faster.

3 years ago, White found that thickening the ring vastly decreased the amount of fuel needed to go to the nearest star, to less than a ton, a trip of only 2-10 weeks.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-03/warp-factor?nopaging=1

I don't know anything about this one, but I wonder if it's similar to my last response.


Seeing as that my math skills are very limited, I have to understand physics with words instead, and those pesky words are wholly unreliable.

 

[Denny Crane]

Another prediction by Star Trek. Subspace communications, or quantum entanglement.

The ring is a warp bubble.

I'm skeptical about the transporters, though.

 

[jlprk]

1) The Big Bang created distance and time. In the period called inflation, the universe expanded by 10^50 in 10^30 seconds, faster than light speed (though there was no light yet). Cooling then allowed photons to exist.

2) I looked it up. Gluons are heavy, so scratch my mention of the strong nuclear force. But gravitons are massless and undiscovered. The latest indirect measurement (Nov. 2013) says gravity is a little faster than light (<1.06 of light).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity
see last paragraph

3) As was said by hippies and Eastern religions, everything is one. Separation is maya, an illusion. All particles are connected in higher dimensions and are really one object. Force at a distance and the quantum entanglement discovery didn't surprise us.

4) The universe is 13.7 billion years old, but outer objects are farther apart than that indicates, because the extra distance came from space stretching. I think we can call that "travel." You say the "travel" is relative to the expanding space through which objects travel, not to other objects, but...do you say that a passive balloon in the moving wind doesn't travel? Of course not. So stars have separated faster than the speed of light. This extra speed (relative to other objects, not to empty space) is the basis of the faster than light, Casimir effect propulsion method of Alcubierre and White.

 

[jlprk]

The ring is a warp bubble.

The ring is the exotic composite metal ring around the rest of the spacecraft (see picture). The Casimir effect, which has been experimentally verified, is when 2 sheets of metal a micron apart in a vacuum generate elementary particles out of empty space (called "negative energy," possibly the same as dark energy) which push against the sheets and propel them.

The ugly vertical axis of the coordinate system simply represents the density of negative energy created behind and in front (to propel it forward). Just ignore that and check out the humorous football stitching on the spacecraft.

 

[Minstrel]

Not at all true. Exceptions:

1) Before the first light, the universe expanded faster than light.

The universe is still expanding faster than the speed of light, but it doesn't violate "nothing travels faster than the speed of light" because the edge of the universe is "nothing." It's neither matter nor energy. It's simply the boundary of the reality in which our observed physics operate.

As for quantum entanglement, it certainly appears to violate the principle but no one currently understands how that entanglement works.

 

[Eastoff]

As for quantum entanglement, it certainly appears to violate the principle but no one currently understands how that entanglement works.

If you change the spin of one particle after they are separated, it doesn't actually change the spin of the other particle. It's like saying, I am going to separate a pair of twins to Portland and Seattle. One is a girl, and one is a boy. Then suddenly you see the boy is here in Oregon, so you know the girl is in Seattle. If you give the boy a sex change, that doesn't mean the girl had a sex change too.

 

[jlprk]

The universe is still expanding faster than the speed of light, but it doesn't violate "nothing travels faster than the speed of light" because the edge of the universe is "nothing." It's neither matter nor energy. It's simply the boundary of the reality in which our observed physics operate.

See Answer #4 in Post #17. I'll add: Imagine 2 photons, 180 degrees apart on opposite sides of the universe, beaming straight out of the Big Bang. Assume constant light speed (ignore the initial speed surge in the millisecond before light). After 1000 years the distance they have moved is due to light speed PLUS space expansion. Their distance apart is greater than that due to light speed alone (with my caveat written in Answer #4).

If you change the spin of one particle after they are separated, it doesn't actually change the spin of the other particle. It's like saying, I am going to separate a pair of twins to Portland and Seattle. One is a girl, and one is a boy. Then suddenly you see the boy is here in Oregon, so you know the girl is in Seattle. If you give the boy a sex change, that doesn't mean the girl had a sex change too.

I KNEW this thread would get transformed into just another transgender thread.

 

[Denny Crane]

Here's a question that baffles me.

Near the time of the big bang, the place in space/time that we occupy was a LOT closer to every other place in space/time. Yet some light takes almost 13.7B years to get to us. If we were much closer 13B years ago, wouldn't the light have long ago hit us and passed us by? Even 6B years ago?

 

[Eastoff]

Here's a question that baffles me.

Near the time of the big bang, the place in space/time that we occupy was a LOT closer to every other place in space/time. Yet some light takes almost 13.7B years to get to us. If we were much closer 13B years ago, wouldn't the light have long ago hit us and passed us by? Even 6B years ago?

Maybe that light started just a little late, and it's moving on a "treadmill." The distance it has to travel keeps getting further.

 

[Denny Crane]

Maybe that light started just a little late, and it's moving on a "treadmill." The distance it has to travel keeps getting further.

Then it would never reach us. But it does.

 

[Further]

Then it would never reach us. But it does.

I thought that light already has, that's why when we look for the Big Bang we look at microwaves and not light. The light we see now comes from other sources after the Big Bang.

 

[Denny Crane]

I thought that light already has, that's why when we look for the Big Bang we look at microwaves and not light. The light we see now comes from other sources after the Big Bang.

Doesn't matter, they both travel at the same speed.

The question still stands, though.

 

[Further]

Doesn't matter, they both travel at the same speed.

The question still stands, though.

Hmmm, I don't know then. You are right about their speeds, I just realized that. I don't know then.

 

[PapaG]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/12/tech/innovation/warp-speed-spaceship/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Just concept at the moment, they haven't figured out warp yet, but I find it encouraging that physicists at NASA are actually working on this. How awesome would that be!

So, as I read it, scientists at NASA are now saying that things from Star Trek and Star Wars may someday possible, and they constructed a digital hybrid between the SS Enterprise and the Millennium Falcon to show how such a craft may look. Nevermind they have no idea on how warp works, or can even be possible given the limitations of the Periodic Table within our own given known elements. This is what 4 years worth of research has yielded.

Mmmmkay...

 

[PapaG]

Doesn't matter, they both travel at the same speed.

The question still stands, though.

Why did you have to go and inject reality into this science fiction?

 

[3RA1N1AC]

we are seeing the light from the past, how fast a galaxy is currently moving away from us now is of zero importance. logically, a galaxy was not moving faster than the speed of light during the moment the light was emitted, so the light was able to "outrun" the universes expansion and travel towards earth for us all to marvel.

basically, the idea is that independent pairs of galaxies are moving at different speeds with respect to each other and the further the galaxies are from each other, the faster they are moving apart. so the furthest light we can see, yes, is not long for this world, but closer light being emitted might still be burning for us to eventually see. i dont know about that.

eventually the universe will expand to the point where billions of years from now all light in the night sky will cease to exist except from only the closest galaxies, and eventually even they will appear to burn out. it is going to totally freak out the cavemen.