Slashdot Mirror


Star Trek's Warp Drive Not Impossible

Trunks writes "No doubt trying to ride the hype train that's currently going for the new Star Trek film, Space.com has a new article detailing how warp drive may not be impossible to acheive. From the article: '"The idea is that you take a chunk of space-time and move it," said Marc Millis, former head of NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project. "The vehicle inside that bubble thinks that it's not moving at all. It's the space-time that's moving." One reason this idea seems credible is that scientists think it may already have happened. Some models suggest that space-time expanded at a rate faster than light speed during a period of rapid inflation shortly after the Big Bang. "If it could do it for the Big Bang, why not for our space drives?" Millis said.' Simple, right?"

21 of 541 comments (clear)

  1. So which is it by Endo13 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Didn't we just have an article on this exact same thing a few days ago explaining why this is definitely NOT possible?

    --
    There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    1. Re:So which is it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      The last article was just to make the conclusion of this one seem more impresseve. It is impossible to do unless you reroute tacheons through the deflector shield.

    2. Re:So which is it by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Summary of the previous article: Here's a technical problem, which no-one will ever figure out how to solve, therefore it's impossible.
      Summary of the current article: Here's a tiny shred of scientific evidence that it may have happened before, therefore it is not impossible.

      Note that the previous article was just a logical fallacy. The fact that you've identified a potential problem in a technology that doesn't even exist does not rule it out as a possibility.. it just shows that it is hard, duh, we knew that already.

      Note that the current article is just wild speculation.. they're trying to say that if space warping happened slightly after the big bang then that might actually mean it is possible to do it now. And people tend to read what they want to read, namely, they confuse "possible" with "practical".

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:So which is it by geekoid · · Score: 5, Funny

      Geeks don't build shit, Nerds do.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:So which is it by nine-times · · Score: 5, Insightful

      they're trying to say that if space warping happened slightly after the big bang then that might actually mean it is possible to do it now.

      Well supposedly space is warped slightly by ordinary particles, right? (gravity?) If there was a "big bang" then what happened shortly after the big bang would be more than "slight".

      I think the point they were trying to make about the big bang was not that it's possible to warp space (which happens), but that it must be physically possible to warp space to such a degree so as to allow matter to travel faster than light. The theory is that, at the time of the big bang, space was expanding faster than light, so that one year after the big bang particles would be more than 1 light-year apart from each other. So that would mean that those particles were moving faster than light, and it would be an example of faster-than-light travel already happening.

      Of course, I don't know how they know how fast things were moving after the big bang. Even if you were there to observe it, there wouldn't be anything periodic to compare the motion to (no sun for the earth to go around, and so no "year" measurement). But then even ignoring that, I'd think that an event like the big bang would distort time, too. But I guess some really smart mathematician must have figured it out, right?

    5. Re:So which is it by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Funny

      There is nothing dorkier than geeks and nerds arguing over the correct name to use for wonks.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    6. Re:So which is it by stonedcat · · Score: 5, Funny

      Reverse the polarity of the phase inverters for best results.

      --
      You can't take the sky from me.
    7. Re:So which is it by dpilot · · Score: 5, Informative

      And that's the whole point... From what can be told, it appears that during the Inflationary Era the universe was expanding faster than light. The only reason that doesn't cause headaches is that space itself was expanding, so the objects in it weren't moving too fast. Only problem with the grandparent post is that he *under*estimated the speed.

      Even now it's estimated that less than 10% of the universe is within our light-cone, meaning that 90%+ got away from us, and can never be observed.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    8. Re:So which is it by JWSmythe · · Score: 5, Funny

          I made a time machine that goes back in time, but unfortunately it's caused an infinite loop. It was suppose to make a small field go back. Instead, it encompassed the entire planet. I can't do anything to stop it. I found it's physically impossible to get near myself, and the first incarnation of me didn't leave the machine for many days before the experiment started.

          I've tried to explain what's happened to people, but it's a severe case of Cassandra syndrome. I know the future, but no one will believe me. No one else remembers that they've already experienced this but me, probably because of my initial proximity to the machine.

          But, this isn't the first time I tried to explain. None of you will believe me. And the machine will again loop us at 22:05 Eastern.

          So, it will happen again. and again. and there's nothing I can do about it. If only I could adjust the parameters just a little. Maybe widen the window so I had more time to explain. Maybe induce a fault so it doesn't happen at all. I've tried everything to make this stop. Damn my security. I can't even hack into my servers remotely to change anything.

          You won't ever notice, and you won't ever age, but I continue to age. I'm an old man now. I would leave a note, but it will be gone when our next event happens. When I die, if I can die, it will be my only salvation. I've tried to die before, but I always wake up in the same place after the event happens again.

          I would like to apologize again, like I have countless times before, but it will fall on deaf ears.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    9. Re:So which is it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      So... it's all YOUR fault. You are the reason for all the duplicate stories on Slashdot.

    10. Re:So which is it by erpbridge · · Score: 5, Funny

      The only warp capability you might possibly get with your laptop would be of the OS2 variety.

  2. Keep dreaming! by Dyinobal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's good to remind ourselves sometimes that such things may be possible. It's obvious from the articles length that it's publication is simply due to the movie coming out. How ever I think it's important not to simply shut our eyes and claim things impossible. Just a few centuries ago computers were impossible, as was flying and a great number of other things we think of as common now. The article though isn't much more besides an attempt to generate hits from the looks of things.

    1. Re:Keep dreaming! by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, he's talking about this thing called "history" that you may not be aware of. Ya see, people actually did say that heavier than air flying machines are impossible. The fact that birds can fly is irrelevant. They obviously were created by God, not man, so they didn't count.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
  3. The really important question by Nkwe · · Score: 5, Funny

    If we can skip through space and time, can we use this to skip commercials?

  4. Simple, right? by Locke2005 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All we need to do is create an engine that generates as much energy as there was present in the entire universe a few nanoseconds after the big bang... D'oh! Yeah, coating the entire surface of the Earth with gold foil to increase its reflectivity and eliminate global warming is technically possible too -- but that doesn't mean it's going to happen!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Simple, right? by maxume · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't see why you are being such a negative Nancy, all you have to do is create a universe and suck the energy you need out of it.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:Simple, right? by JWSmythe · · Score: 5, Funny

          I have a running joke with my sister. My mom didn't seem quite so entertained when we were all together for Thanksgiving one year, but it goes like this...

          Q: What do you if a hooker dies in your house.
          A: Bury her in the back yard. It saves a lot of questions that you don't want to answer.

          Q: What do you do with a dead hooker in your back yard?
          A: Leave her alone. She's quiet, so she's obviously happy.

          It started when there was a news story a couple years ago, where a guy had a prostitute over to his house. She asked if she could go take a bath. The John obliged her, and let her. After about an hour, he knocked on the door, and there was no answer. He forced his way in, and found her dead in the bathtub. She OD'd on something.

          Panicked, he didn't know what to do. He filled the tub with ice, to keep her from decomposing. That obviously wasn't a good solution. The next day, he dug a hole in the back yard and buried her. A day later, knowing that he'd get caught with a corpse buried in his back yard, he dug her back up, and put her back in the bath. He called the police, and confessed to everything.

          The physical evidence showed that she OD'd, and that by the position from rigor, she had been in the tub. It also (obviously) showed that the body had been moved, got dirty, and was put back in the tub.

          Since he was honest, and the physical evidence showed that he very likely had nothing to do with the death, they let him off. I guess they could have charged him with solicitation of prostitution, but the guy was extremely freaked out about the whole thing, and was honest with them. They decided he had been through enough, and didn't press any charges.

          I like the easier answer. Don't have a hooker come over to your house. :)

         

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    3. Re:Simple, right? by harry666t · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, that wouldn't make you a god. That would make you the creator. I'm certainly sure that the ability to create an universe doesn't imply the creator's ability to have full and unrestricted control over its every aspect.

      I mean, you can grab a few spare computer parts and assemble a box, but that doesn't make you an uber-programmer. You can build a guitar but it doesn't automatically make you a Santana.

  5. Who put the military in charge anyway? by tlambert · · Score: 5, Funny

    Who put the military in charge anyway?

    Who is the General Relativity, and why does he think he can order us around; we're civilians, right?

    -- Terry

  6. Come on... by mcrbids · · Score: 5, Funny

    The LHC hurls particles with about as much kinetic energy as a flying fruit fly around. Earth is constantly bombarded with particles having orders of magnitude more energy, so if LHC could cause a black hole, we wouldn't be here to build it!

    The point isn't the amount of energy (Earth is bombarded with higher energy particles constantly) but that it's finely controlled and we can observe exactly what happens when two sub-atomic particles collide with a respectable amount of energy to let us know what's really going on down at that level. And that's fascinating.

    Could LHC cause the earth to implode? Perhaps with the same likelihood that Universe was created by a 7 foot tall bunny made out of spaghetti, used VHS video tape and lug nuts, or that all the subatomic particles in your body will suddenly decide to move together through the wall behind you into the ladies room on the other side and you end up convicted of a sexual crime, even though you are innocent. Possible? Yes, but don't think that "possible" means anything other than "all but infinitely unlikely except that it's near impossible to prove a negative".

    And don't forget: there is a non-zero chance that the universe WAS created by a 7-foot tall bunny made of spaghetti, used video tape, and lug nuts! Everybody panic!!!

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
  7. Two Words: Dark Flow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080923-dark-flows.html

    In addition to the mysterious, and continuing observance of "Dark Flow", there is also the recently proven phenomenon of Frame Dragging, which was proven right here on earth. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7011/full/431918a.html

    I dont think it unlikely that both frame dragging and dark flow are really the same thing; a distortion on spacetime caused by a static high energy aggregation. In the case of the earth and its impact on satelites, that energy source is the gravitational well of the earth, coupled with its axial rotation. In the case of dark flow, it could just be an emergent property of the local cluster having an unusual impact on the surrounding spacetime.

    [begin wild supposition sequence]

    Assuming that gravitational waves do in fact occur, it would mean that the periodic rotations of massive or energetic bodies (since mass and energy are equivilent under relativity-- a very low mass object with VERY high rotational energy could be equivilent to an object with heavy mass, and low rotational energy) could have a sympathetic harmonic reaction within the local spacetime-- Similar to how one can induce a standing wave in a pool of water with careful callibration of sonar transducers. http://www.mes.co.jp/Akiken/whatsnew/new20060724.html (page in japanese)

    If similar properties can be measured and studied (in gravity waves), even small purturbations in a local spacetime could be greatly amplified by reinforcement from other sources, and produce "static" gravitational wells without the presence of a local causal mass. Viola-- Dark flow.

    However, in order to create such a pocket of distorted spacetime one would first need to measure gravitational waves, then measure the effect of wave interference for the phenomena. Two things that have not been conclusively accomplished, and so, at this time it would not be possible to build the equivilent "wave tank" field generator for creating standing gravitational waves in the lab.

    theoretically speaking, one could create "very" small gravitational waves using an array of off balance rotating masses, such as a lead weight on a motor shaft, as the source of the gravitational occilation. However, without a good measurement of rate of decay, or how these waves interact with one another, it is impossible to calculate what the "sweetspot" would be for creating standing gravitational waves, since you would not know how far apart to place the rotors, how heavy to make the masses, or what rate to turn them in relation to each other to produce the effect.)

    If it could be accomplished, a wave amplitude far greater than could be generated by the standing masses, as a result of the accumulating energy in the reinforcement pattern introduced by moving the masses in such a precise manner. EG, the energy used for propulsion would be directly coupled to the energy used to rotate your small masses, accumulating in the local spacetime, and thus alter it's shape.

    Rate of input would have to exceed rate of output for the accumulation to occur however, so we are talking a HUGE energy source requirement. Even an entire sun might not be enough to drive that kind of relativity curve, which is probably why we have only observed it in large star clusters. (Assuming this is indeed what causes dark flow)