• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

NASA Testing Warp Theory For Possible FTL Travel

Status
Not open for further replies.

DrForester

Kills Photobucket
8UDTFkt.jpg


http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/20...speed-scotty-it-may-actually-be-possible?lite

In the "Star Trek" TV shows and films, the U.S.S. Enterprise's warp engine allows the ship to move faster than light, an ability that is, as Spock would say, "highly illogical."

However, there's a loophole in Einstein's general theory of relativity that could allow a ship to traverse vast distances in less time than it would take light. The trick? It's not the starship that's moving — it's the space around it.

In fact, scientists at NASA are right now working on the first practical field test toward proving the possibility of warp drives and faster-than-light travel. Maybe the warp drive on "Star Trek" is possible after all.

According to Einstein's theory, an object with mass cannot go as fast or faster than the speed of light. The original "Star Trek" series ignored this "universal speed limit" in favor of a ship that could zip around the galaxy in a matter of days instead of decades. They tried to explain the ship's faster-than-light capabilities by powering the warp engine with a "matter-antimatter" engine. Antimatter was a popular field of study in the 1960s, when creator Gene Roddenberry was first writing the series. When matter and antimatter collide, their mass is converted to kinetic energy in keeping with Einstein's mass-energy equivalence formula, E=mc2.

In other words, matter-antimatter collision is a potentially powerful source of energy and fuel, but even that wouldn't be enough to propel a starship to faster-than-light speeds.

Nevertheless, it's thanks to "Star Trek" that the word "warp" is now practically synonymous with faster-than-light travel.

Decades after the original "Star Trek" show had gone off the air, pioneering physicist and avowed Trek fan Miguel Alcubierre argued that maybe a warp drive is possible after all. It just wouldn't work quite the way "Star Trek" thought it did.

Things with mass can't move faster than the speed of light. But what if, instead of the ship moving through space, the space was moving around the ship?

Space doesn't have mass. And we know that it's flexible: space has been expanding at a measurable rate ever since the Big Bang. We know this from observing the light of distant stars — over time, the wavelength of the stars' light as it reaches Earth is lengthened in a process called "redshifting." According to the Doppler effect, this means that the source of the wavelength is moving farther away from the observer — i.e. Earth.

So we know from observing redshifted light that the fabric of space is movable.

Alcubierre used this knowledge to exploit a loophole in the "universal speed limit." In his theory, the ship never goes faster than the speed of light — instead, space in front of the ship is contracted while space behind it is expanded, allowing the ship to travel distances in less time than light would take. The ship itself remains in what Alcubierre termed a "warp bubble" and, within that bubble, never goes faster than the speed of light.

Since Alcubierre published his paper "The Warp Drive: Hyper-fast travel within general relativity" in 1994, many physicists and science fiction writers have played with his theory —including "Star Trek" itself.

Alcubierre's warp drive theory was retroactively incorporated into the "Star Trek" mythos by the 1990s TV series "Star Trek: The Next Generation."

In a way, then, "Star Trek" created its own little grandfather paradox: Though ultimately its theory of faster-than-light travel was heavily flawed, the series established a vocabulary of light-speed travel that Alcubierre eventually formalized in his own warp drive theories.

The Alcubierre warp drive is still theoretical for now. "The truth is that the best ideas sound crazy at first. And then there comes a time when we can't imagine a world without them." That's a statement from the 100 Year Starship organization, a think tank devoted to making Earth what "Star Trek" would call a "warp-capable civilization" within a century.

The first step toward a functional warp drive is to prove that a "warp bubble" is even possible, and that it can be artificially created.

That's exactly what physicist Harold "Sonny" White and a team of researchers at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Texas are doing right now.

According to Alcubierre's theory, one could create a warp bubble by applying negative energy, or energy created in a vacuum. This process relies on the Casimir effect, which states that a vacuum is not actually a void; instead, a vacuum is actually full of fluctuating electromagnetic waves. Distorting these waves creates negative energy, which possibly distorts space-time, creating a warp bubble.

To see if space-time distortion has occurred in a lab experiment, the researchers shine two highly targeted lasers: one through the site of the vacuum and one through regular space. The researchers will then compare the two beams, and if the wavelength of the one going through the vacuum is lengthened, i.e. redshifted, in any way, they'll know that it passed through a warp bubble.

White and his team have been at work for a few months now, but they have yet to get a satisfactory reading. The problem is that the field of negative energy is so small, the laser so precise, that even the smallest seismic motion of the Earth can throw off the results.

When we talked to White, he was in the process of moving the test equipment to a building on the Johnson Space Center campus that was originally built for the Apollo space program. "The lab is seismically isolated, so the whole floor can be floated," White told TechNewsDaily. "But the system hadn't been (activated) for a while so part of the process was, we had the system inspected and tested."

White is now working on recalibrating the laser for the new location. He wouldn't speculate on when his team could expect conclusive data, nor how long until fully actuated warp travel might be possible, but he remains convinced that it's only a matter of time.

"The bottom line is, nature can do it," said White. "So the salient question is, 'can we?'"
 

Error

Jealous of the Glory that is Johnny Depp
nice, i remember reading that MIT created a hypospray not long ago iirc.
 

jett

D-Member
It's sad that even if they manage to do this we won't see anything like this applied to a real world situation during our lifetimes. Still, pretty interesting, although I wonder what becomes of the crew inside the spaceship. I suppose time outside the bubble will pass them by at a highly increased rate? Or something? No? I really don't know. :p
 

akira28

Member
so that casimir effect, the vacuum energy...so...zero point energy? If that's what they mean, then that is so weird.


I guess they'll try with a drone first. Man that will be exciting. During my lifetime.
 

Burt

Member
Sorry, but everyone already knows that looking at things as space moving instead of the ship itself is how you teleport from one point to the other when moving at warp speed, not how you reach warp speed itself.

So sayeth Scotty in the last Star Trek, which means that it has to be true.
 

jchap

Member
Edit: Found something:

Here is an explanation of the experiment that hasn't been technically raped by some layman reporter
 
They tried to explain the ship's faster-than-light capabilities by powering the warp engine with a "matter-antimatter" engine. Antimatter was a popular field of study in the 1960s, when creator Gene Roddenberry was first writing the series. When matter and antimatter collide, their mass is converted to kinetic energy in keeping with Einstein's mass-energy equivalence formula, E=mc2.

In other words, matter-antimatter collision is a potentially powerful source of energy and fuel, but even that wouldn't be enough to propel a starship to faster-than-light speeds.

Not to go full trekkie but didn't warp in star trek work differently. I was under the assumption matter + antimatter when connected via dilithium could produce a subspace bubble which would remove the ship from the confines of normal space (and thus the laws of physics) so when using standard propulsion methods E=mc2 never came into play and they could accelerate faster with less propulsion.
 

DrSlek

Member
My understanding is that the engine would warp space infront of the craft and behind the craft creating movement?

Star_Trek_Warp_Field.png
Pretty much exactly it. I read about the Alcubierre drive theory a few years ago. Though my understanding was that rather than pinching space at the front of the ship, and expanding space behind the shit, it would be the other way around.
Pinch space/field behind the ship, and expand the space in front. Kind of like the dynamic between high and low pressure. Pinching the space behind the ship increases "pressure" in the alcubierre field, and expanding space in front of the ship, creating an area of "low pressure". The high pressure behind the ship forces the alcubierre field and the ship within it into the low pressure area of space, thus creating motion.

Perhaps my undertstanding was totally flawed.
 

Raxus

Member
Wait. That is EXACTLY how the Planet Express ship travels on Futurama.

Give credit where credit is due NASA!
 
Not to go full trekkie but didn't warp in star trek work differently. I was under the assumption matter + antimatter when connected via dilithium could produce a subspace bubble which would remove the ship from the confines of normal space (and thus the laws of physics) so when using standard propulsion methods E=mc2 never came into play and they could accelerate faster with less propulsion.

Yeah, it totally relies on the fictional subspace. Even their FTL comms use subspace.
 

antonz

Member
Isn't there a concern that the bubble so to speak builds up immense amounts of space radiation and when travel would end it would release the massive amounts of radiation forward thus requiring any kind of warp travel to be well out of range of planetary bodies etc?
 

Raist

Banned
Isn't there a concern that the bubble so to speak builds up immense amounts of space radiation and when travel would end it would release the massive amounts of radiation forward thus requiring any kind of warp travel to be well out of range of planetary bodies etc?

There are a lot of problems with the alcubierre drive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive#Difficulties

http://www.askamathematician.com/20...lly-building-one-and-going-faster-than-light/
 

Woorloog

Banned
Was a bit excited until I read "Alcubierre"... oh well.

Proven that it doesn't work, right? EDIT ah, you posted links, good.
IIRC, the original Alcubierre drive requires more energy than there is in the universe.
Even the revised drive doesn't work.

Besides, if we could warp space, we probably could create wormholes (which are highly warped regions of space-time (simplified)), which would be far more practical than actually traveling around, no?

EDIT and the biggest problem, even if we could move space faster than light, causality would be an issue. A big one.
 

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
Wait. That is EXACTLY how the Planet Express ship travels on Futurama.

Give credit where credit is due NASA!

As stated in the article, this man first published the theory in 1994.

I'm also pretty damned sure I've read far older sci-fi that used the concept. It's not a new idea in and of itself.
 

Mudkips

Banned
To reach luminal/superluminal speeds you'd still need infinite mass (or energy).

You don't get to warp space for free, nor do you get to do so at any speed that would allow your net speed to exceed c. If you could, you'd violate causality.

You could warp space along a path permanently to bring two sections of space closer together to create a shipping lane or whatnot. This would be done at subluminal speeds, take massive amounts of energy to do (and possibly to maintain), and everything along that path would be affected, but causality wouldn't be violated and future trips down that path would take less time since less space would be traversed. Note that this is different from wormholes/stargates/etc. Those operate on sub-space or alternate dimension horse shit. There's no reason a separate spatial dimension would allow for shortcuts. A flat lander wouldn't be able to travel from A to B more quickly by having access to a 3rd dimension. (Of course, m-theory says that the dimensions are "folded" on each other, which could allow for such shortcuts. But there's more evidence for leprechauns living in my butthole than there is for m-theory's wankery.)
 
I think the author of the article took some liberties but it is still neat.

"Warp Drives", "Hyperspace Drives", or any other term for Faster-than-light travel is at the level of speculation, with some facets edging into the realm of science. We are at the point where we know what we do know and know what we don’t, but do not know for sure if faster than light travel is possible.

The bad news is that the bulk of scientific knowledge that we have accumulated to date concludes that faster than light travel is impossible. This is an artifact of Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity. Yes, there are some other perspectives; tachyons, wormholes, inflationary universe, spacetime warping, quantum paradoxes...ideas that are in credible scientific literature, but it is still too soon to know if such ideas are viable.

One of the issues that is evoked by any faster-than-light transport is time paradoxes: causality violations and implications of time travel. As if the faster than light issue wasn’t tough enough, it is possible to construct elaborate scenarios where faster-than-light travel results in time travel. Time travel is considered far more impossible than light travel. Source

Alcubierre’s "Warp Drive"

Here’s the premise behind the Alcubierre "warp drive": Although Special Relativity forbids objects to move faster than light within spacetime, it is unknown how fast spacetime itself can move. To use an analogy, imagine you are on one of those moving sidewalks that can be found in some airports. The Alcubierre warp drive is like one of those moving sidewalks. Although there may be a limit to how fast one can walk across the floor (analogous to the light speed limit), what about if you are on a moving section of floor that moves faster than you can walk (analogous to a moving section of spacetime)? In the case of the Alcubierre warp drive, this moving section of spacetime is created by expanding spacetime behind the ship (analogous to where the sidewalk emerges from underneath the floor), and by contracting spacetime in front of the ship (analogous to where the sidewalk goes back into the floor). The idea of expanding spacetime is not new. Using the "Inflationary Universe" perspective, for example, it is thought that spacetime expanded faster than the speed of light during the early moments of the Big Bang. So if spacetime can expand faster than the speed of light during the Big Bang, why not for our warp drive? These theories are too new to have either been discounted or proven viable.

Any other sticky issues?

Yes... First, to create this effect, you’ll need a ring of negative energy wrapped around the ship, and lots of it too. It is still debated in physics whether negative energy can exist. Classical physics tends toward a "no," while quantum physics leans to a "maybe, yes." Second, you’ll need a way to control this effect to turn it on and off at will. This will be especially tricky since this warp effect is a separate effect from the ship. Third, all this assumes that this whole "warp" would indeed move faster than the speed of light. This is a big unknown. And fourth, if all the previous issues weren’t tough enough, these concepts evoke the same time-travel paradoxes as the wormhole concepts.
 

akira28

Member
Even if it were technically possible, who is going to pay for the starship?

It'll pay for itself. We need tech demonstrators first.

I don't know if they could make a small test ship or if they need the large toroid shape or not. If it's scalable, they could make a baby one and send it into the black.
 

XiaNaphryz

LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
Isn't this essentially the same story that was put out last Fall? I'm guessing they want more coverage with Star Trek hitting theaters.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
My uneducated guess is that in order to shorten the spatial distance between two objects, you need to change their gravity.

So basically, the only way I can imagine a warp working is by making it extremely dense, but I don't see what it would do other than "crush" anything going outright into it.

My understanding is that the engine would warp space infront of the craft and behind the craft creating movement?

Star_Trek_Warp_Field.png

How do you expand space?
 

Woorloog

Banned
To reach luminal/superluminal speeds you'd still need infinite mass (or energy).

You don't get to warp space for free, nor do you get to do so at any speed that would allow your net speed to exceed c. If you could, you'd violate causality.

You could warp space along a path permanently to bring two sections of space closer together to create a shipping lane or whatnot. This would be done at subluminal speeds, take massive amounts of energy to do (and possibly to maintain), and everything along that path would be affected, but causality wouldn't be violated and future trips down that path would take less time since less space would be traversed. Note that this is different from wormholes/stargates/etc. Those operate on sub-space or alternate dimension horse shit. There's no reason a separate spatial dimension would allow for shortcuts. A flat lander wouldn't be able to travel from A to B more quickly by having access to a 3rd dimension. (Of course, m-theory says that the dimensions are "folded" on each other, which could allow for such shortcuts. But there's more evidence for leprechauns living in my butthole than there is for m-theory's wankery.)

Isn't bringing two regions of spacetime closer a wormhole in practice? Maybe it wouldn't be like a "hole", rather it'd be a large... region... or some such. But still, basically the same principle as a wormhole, no?
...
Wait, it can't work just like that... gravity warps space time, can bring something closer, no?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom