Slashdot Mirror


Introducing the Warpship

astroengine writes "Dr. Richard Obousy, a guy who has put modern science into the warp drive, has designed his very own warpship. Now, for the first time, he's shared it with the world. It might not be the sleek Starship Enterprise, but its structure has been optimized to harness local 'dark energy,' generating a warp bubble so faster-than-light velocities are possible." Now, the only question is: will the ship achieve faster-than-light travel ... or will the company hit those speeds once it has enough money from investors?

361 comments

  1. Let's not put the cart before the horse by ikirudennis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How about we figure out how to warp time first and then figure out a ship to utilize that science for the sake of travel?

    1. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by T+Murphy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Because we all know from Douglas Adams that it takes so long to learn how to perform time travel you need time travel in order to do so. I don't recall what we're supposed to do instead, so just write 42 on everything and we'll be okay until we run out of towels.

    2. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by gparent · · Score: 1

      You're right! Let's head at Warp 9.975 into that direction!

    3. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by oneirophrenos · · Score: 3, Funny

      How about we figure out how to warp time first and then figure out a ship to utilize that science for the sake of travel?

      Where's the fun in that?!

    4. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by gnick · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah - Here's the kicker, found on Page 2 of TFA:

      Exactly how the 11th dimension would be expanded and shrunk is still unknown.

      Sounds pretty similar to the way I walk - I move my feet and the Earth rotates beneath me. I'm planning on starting to fly instead, it's just maintaining altitude after lift-off. But I won't let that small detail stop me from making travel plans - I'll work that out after jumping.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    5. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by Jurily · · Score: 4, Funny

      Where's the fun in that?!

      Not where, when.

    6. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by FredFredrickson · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Did anybody else have the name Steorn come to mind?

      --
      Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    7. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by Bazman · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Oh we figured that out already. I say 'we', of course I mean 'Einstein'. Mass and energy warp space and time, so we just have to gather together some mass or energy. [Insert "your momma is so fat" joke here]

      I recall a TV show about time travel where they reckoned they needed most of the mass in the universe to make a time travel machine...

    8. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by internerdj · · Score: 4, Funny

      How am I supposed to secure the patent if I wait until after someone else has discovered the underlying science?

    9. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by epiphani · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sounds pretty similar to the way I walk - I move my feet and the Earth rotates beneath me. I'm planning on starting to fly instead, it's just maintaining altitude after lift-off. But I won't let that small detail stop me from making travel plans - I'll work that out after jumping.

      Oh that part is relatively simple: Just throw yourself at the ground and miss.

      --
      .
    10. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually 42 was not the answer to everything but only the answer to the ultimate question of life the universe and everything.

    11. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by aardwolf64 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Steal their invention, then travel back in space-time and patent it.

    12. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I already have a time warping machine. I use it once daily to skip ahead 8hrs into tomorrow.

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
    13. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      No, you actually need a greater-than-infinite amount of energy to exceed the speed of light. To reach the speed of light, you would only need an infinite amount of energy.

      Think of c not so much as a speed, but as the ultimate ratio of time to space.

      I'm assuming the proposed method of FTL travel is similar to the Alcubierre Drive, which (probably) requires exotic matter--matter with negative mass. It's vaguely possible that such things exist, but unlikely.

      Basically, exceeding the speed of light is either a misconception, or it would break our understanding of physics in sort of a big way.

    14. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by Razalhague · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know, flight isn't a very good example as... well... you know... we've learnt how to do that. Hell, if I remember correctly, they considered heavier-than-air aircraft at least as impossible as warp-drive is considered today.

    15. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by Razalhague · · Score: 4, Funny

      I've got one too, though unfortunately it's stuck going forward at x1 speed.

    16. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by bhima · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Orbo is based upon time variant magnetic interactions, i.e. magnetic interactions whose efficiency varies as a function of transaction timeframes."

      So. Are they selling electric motors or perpetual energy devices?

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    17. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by DeltaStorm · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh that part is relatively simple: Just throw yourself at the ground and miss.

      I never knew I had such good aim.

      --
      .sdrawkcab si gis siht
    18. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      It must be frustrating when someone walks in the opposite direction!

    19. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Mine varies by alcohol consumption.

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
    20. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by Sandbags · · Score: 1

      11th dimension? hell, have you even tried working in 5D?

      http://www.gravitation3d.com/magiccube5d/

      --
      There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
    21. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      You know what sound it makes when you jump and miss the ground?

      Whoosh!

    22. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A co-worker of mine does this...trust me, having "42" show up instead of NULL gets annoying rather quickly, especially when 42 is actually a valid error code.

    23. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      The hard part is when the ground keeps chasing after you. Once I figure out a way to disabuse the ground of the notion of following me, I'll be set.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    24. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by Gilmoure · · Score: 3, Funny

      Write up the button pushing process part of it, get that filed and then claim prior art?

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    25. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by WED+Fan · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah - Here's the kicker, found on Page 2 of TFA:

      Exactly how the 11th dimension would be expanded and shrunk is still unknown.

      Sounds pretty similar to the way I walk - I move my feet and the Earth rotates beneath me. I'm planning on starting to fly instead, it's just maintaining altitude after lift-off. But I won't let that small detail stop me from making travel plans - I'll work that out after jumping.

      Being half serious:

      How will those, that are aware in the 11th dimension, experience this when WE expand their Universe?

      "Honey, does this warpship make my ass look fat?"

      And the 11th dimensional husband heads out to the 9th dimension for a drink before he answers that question.

      --
      Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
    26. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by jftitan · · Score: 1

      Umm Capt? Do we know how to stop this once we are a GO? or you know how to get around that galaxy once we get there?

      --
      "Don't Forget to Salt the Fries"
    27. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by gnick · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Honey, does this warpship make my ass look fat?"
      --
      Just because you aren't asking the question doesn't mean you aren't going to get the answer.

      If those are at all related, I'm guessing you're single. If you're going to tell your wife that her ass looks like it's bending space-time, at least let her ask the question first. That's not the kind of thing you volunteer.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    28. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by c6gunner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So. Are they selling electric motors or perpetual energy devices?

      That's a false dichotomy. The great thing about pseudoscience is that it's "experts" can sell you anything you want!

    29. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by RichardJenkins · · Score: 1

      Nossir, we don't have us none of those fancy schmancy spell checkers in that thar future.

    30. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      That's why, I put a physical separator between myself and the ground, to prevent it from catching me. There are many seperators that will work, I myself prefer a step ladder.

      Still haven't figured out how to go faster than the rate of the earth's rotation. Maybe you need a step ladder on wheels and a jet engine for that.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    31. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by somecreepyoldguy · · Score: 1

      Except we knew birds could do it....

    32. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by ZarathustraDK · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, time-travel has post-poned the discovery of itself until Microsoft is no more.

      Which means that the year of the Linux-desktop coalesce with the discovery of time-travel.

      --
      If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
    33. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by jftitan · · Score: 3, Funny

      all hail Orbo!

      --
      "Don't Forget to Salt the Fries"
    34. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      I was thinking of maybe a chair and a whip. That should be enough to keep the Earth at a distance.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    35. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mountain Dew, meet keyboard.

      Thanks a lot ;-)

    36. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by bertoelcon · · Score: 1

      Nossir, we don't have us none of those fancy schmancy spell checkers in that thar future.

      If I asked my relatives, maybe 1/8 would find anything wrong with that sentence, and maybe 1/32 would have the right way to fix it.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    37. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by boiert · · Score: 1, Insightful

      ..., or it would break our understanding of physics in sort of a big way.

      I thought the Earth was flat!

    38. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by compatibles · · Score: 0

      Nice! I thought the rum was just making me black out. Turns out pirates discovered time travel. Time to catch up ninjas.

    39. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by jdgeorge · · Score: 1

      More importantly, how did they get somebody to tag this "science"? Oh, yes; the old Jedi mind trick. Never mind. He can go about his business.

    40. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by flyingsquid · · Score: 2, Funny
      All I can say is... that is one dorky looking spaceship. Looks sort of like some bike tires in an awkward three-way. I mean, come on! Can you imagine showing up for a space battle in that kind of thing? The rest of the galaxy would just think we were completely uncool. It'd be like the alien commander would take one look at the screen and he would hiss from his fifteen slime-covered mouths, "That's their ship? That thing? Wait, you're sure it's not like a refinery, or a space station, or some kind of orbital exercise facility? Maybe a decoy, and they have like a really awesome spaceship hidden behind it? Wow, so that's really the flagship of the Human fleet? Oh. Man, I feel sorry for these guys... maybe we should go easy on them." And then our admiral would have to lie and be all like, "Uh, it's not really my ship. Yeah, my ship's really badass. But it's in the shop. New photon torpedo tubes and a couple heavy laser banks. And we're putting some bitchin' flames on the side. This is just a rental till my real ship is back from the shop."

      I am not saying that every spaceship has to be as awesome as the Millennium Falcon, but is he saying that we can solve the problem of harnessing dark energy, and we can solve the problem of warping the space-time continuum, but we can't figure out how to do it without building something that looks like an intergalactic Segway?

    41. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by Abreu · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it should have the shape of a very sleek white running shoe

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    42. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by dyfet · · Score: 1

      The real trick is not flying, but rather landing, that is letting yourself fall back to the ground and successfully missing.

    43. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by BotnetZombie · · Score: 1

      Just throw yourself at the ground and miss

      If you try to fail and succeed at it, what the hell have you just done?
      Ah, I see what you're doing here. Perpetual energy by dead philosophers spinning in their graves?

    44. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by progmanj · · Score: 2, Funny

      Forget time travel, lets just use the Infinite Improbability Drive! There's an infinite improbability that we'll get where we want to go, but we'll probably arrive as a petunia! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improbability_drive#Infinite_Improbability_Drive [wikipedia]

    45. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 4, Informative

      Throw yourself at a clock, and miss. What's so hard about that?

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    46. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by jcwayne · · Score: 3, Funny

      The other 63/64 don't understand fractions.

      --
      Failure to follow this advice may result in non-deterministic behavior.
    47. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the answer is yes. (It's really sad when Han Solo is a cooler ship designer than we are.)

    48. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by jcwayne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So. Are they selling electric motors or perpetual energy devices?

      It all depends on which you're interested in buying.

      --
      Failure to follow this advice may result in non-deterministic behavior.
    49. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by genner · · Score: 1

      Because we all know from Douglas Adams that it takes so long to learn how to perform time travel you need time travel in order to do so. I don't recall what we're supposed to do instead, so just write 42 on everything and we'll be okay until we run out of towels.

      You could always create an alternate universe where time travel is already invented.

    50. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by johnsonav · · Score: 1

      And we know Captain Kirk can do warp. What's your point?

      --
      ... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
    51. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by RichardJenkins · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's kinda what satellites do - they're falling all the time but they're moving forward fast enough so the ground curves away underneath them and they miss.

    52. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, there's a finite improbability that we'll get where we want to go.

      Before we can get an infinite improbability drive, we have to master finite probability physics. At that point, we can simply figure out the finite improbability of the existence of an infinite improbability drive, hook the system up to a nice, hot cup of tea, see it pop into existence, and then get beaten to death by a group of scientists who finally realize that the one thing that they really can't stand is a smartass.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    53. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by archgoon · · Score: 1

      I think mine's broken, it never gets a full 8. Then again, I'm a grad student...

    54. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by bertoelcon · · Score: 1
      They understand SAE measurements of bolts and sockets, that is kinda of like fractions.

      Yes, I'm related to rednecks, and proud to be one.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    55. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by feepness · · Score: 2, Funny

      You want to warp time? Spend a weekend at my in-laws.

      Guaranteed it takes a month.

    56. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is the longest string of modded-funny comments I have ever seen on Slashdot.

    57. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by Klintus+Fang · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree that it is way to soon to be talking about engineering designs for a warp drive as anything more than speculative curiosities. But that said, if such a drive works, it isn't time that will be warped. It is space.

      The basic theory behind how that could be done was worked out in a physic's paper published in the 1990s. It requires a large source of negative energy to sustain the warp "bubble" though, and its not clear how or even if that is possible. I presume this is why "dark energy" is being brought into the picture with the proposals linked by this slashdot article. Since the understanding is that if dark energy really does exist, it has a large negative magnitude.

      The other problem with that initial paper that I'm aware of (there may be others) is that the paper showed that a moving bubble in space time that gets between two locations at a speed that exceeds the speed of light can exist as a valid solution to the equations of general relativity in a universe in which negative energy exists. The paper didn't demonstrate though that such a bubble could be constructed from a region of space that didn't already have one. For such a bubble to be usable as a means of transportation, even in theory, you need to demonstrate not only that "warp bubbles" can exist, you need to also demonstrate that they can be constructed at the source, and then deconstructed at the destination.

      Maybe follow-up papers have discussed those details and shown that construction/deconstruction are also theoretically possible? I haven't followed up on it. But even if they do, we still require large amounts of negative energy to do this and negative energy, if it really exists at all, is not well understood.

      I'm also not clear on what kind of radiation such a bubble would give off, but it's possible it would be intense enough to fry anything inside...

      It is exciting to see astrophysics beginning to point at the idea notion that negative energy might actually be real though. It means that things such as warp ships are not complete fantasy. They are way, way off though, if possible at all. We likely won't know for sure for quite a long time. :)

      --
      In a minute there is time For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. -T.S. Eliot
    58. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by hannson · · Score: 1

      Which is exactly what this guy did... sneaky bastard!

      He even had me fooled for a couple of seconds.

    59. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually that is a pretty good explanation for how satellites keep orbiting the earth. They are constantly falling, but due to their horizontal velocity they keep missing the ground.

    60. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by Clived · · Score: 1

      Hmmn, that looks like the ship Spock was flying in the latest Startrek movie

      --
      Clive DaSilva Email: clive.dasilva@gmail.com Ubuntu 18.10 Kernel 4.18
    61. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To fix this, assign all bugs with error code "42" to him.

    62. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ENGAGE!!

    63. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      time is just another dimension. so it's the same.

    64. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by anarche · · Score: 1

      I think the answer is yes. (It's really sad when Han Solo is a cooler ship designer than we are.)

      Oh dear! and you call yourself a nerd...

      --
      Wait! Whats a sig?
    65. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by Tolkien · · Score: 1

      Damned relativity!

    66. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by bvdbos · · Score: 1
    67. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I guess you caught that story about radiation-hardened pentiums too, huh?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    68. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      And all the time he is wasting on laughing at us we will be hacking his networks, launching 500 Megaton nukes, charging our rail guns and unleashing our terrible hoards of nanobot assassins....

      Looks are meaningless, it's what inside that kills.

    69. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's not really what happens at all. The rotation of the earth has absolutely nothing to do with satellite orbit. With the exception of the tiny amount of matter that gets shifted by the earth's rotation, the movement of the satellite would be exactly the same if the earth did not spin at all.

      The direction of the satellite's forward motion (provided by momentum and thrust to overcome what friction there is) is altered by the force of gravity toward the earth. That change in direction creates the acceleration that produces force in the opposite direction of gravity. All you need to do is make sure that acceleration is equal to 9.8 meters per second squared and you have orbit.

      It's satellite velocity + gravity that create orbit, earth's spin has nothing to do with it. Now, the spin of the Earth does have something to do with geo-stationary orbit, because the speed of the earth at the surface and the velocity necessary to maintain orbit mean that a certain altitude will be required. It factors into the calculations on where to put the satellite, but still, it doesn't create the forces involved in orbit.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    70. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by ThePromenader · · Score: 1

      Someone tell Kirk's grandma to stop hanging behind the command chair.

      --

      No, no sig. Really.

      ThePromenader
    71. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by j_sp_r · · Score: 1

      Tried that. Cost me two teeth.

    72. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by ultranova · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So. Are they selling electric motors or perpetual energy devices?

      Actually, wouldn't a faster-than-light device be both? Use an electric engine and a hyperdrive to get a flywheel going faster than light, then extract energy; as it slows down, it's mass increases, and consequently its kinetic energy and rotational momentum, so it'll never slow down to speed of light.

      Isn't it wonderful how once you break some of physics the rest will also unravel ?-)

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    73. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reading comprehension fail.

    74. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by dna_(c)(tm)(r) · · Score: 1

      I dunno, I would have preferred if you just said '42'.

    75. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by FTWinston · · Score: 1

      It kinda is, in spherical polar coordinates.

      But on a less obtuse note, its nothing but daft wishful thinking to assume that something is possible, despite all the evidence being to the contrary, just because we know there are some incomplete parts of our physical theory.

      If you're going to say that exotic matter with negative mass "may well" exist, then thats you're perogative, but its a crazy postulation, and certainly an unsafe assumption.

    76. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by __aaxwdb6741 · · Score: 1

      You must be new here.

    77. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by feepness · · Score: 1

      "Honey, does this warpship make my ass look fat?"

      "No honey, it's the fat that makes your ass look fat."

    78. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Nicely said, but GP said absolutely nothing about the Earth's spin.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    79. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by smoker2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Flight is a very good example IMHO. The first people who wanted to fly, jumped up in the air and promptly fell back down again. So next time they jumped out of trees or off cliffs to extend the time they spent in the air. Gradually they worked out that they needed some other components to slow the descent, and this gradually became a "wing". So they got as far as the hang glider. Wing shape was then concentrated on and eventually the concept of lift was discovered. Then the engines were developed to push that wing through the air fast enough to take off without needing to drop from height first.

      So deciding to do something is the very first step in learning how to do it. Nothing is invented in reverse. Except in computing, where a lot of solutions seem to always be in search of a problem.
      Your last sentence speaks the truth, but negates your argument. Yes, heavier than air flight was considered impossible, and yet boeing 747s are commonplace. But it all started from a few nutters jumping out of trees.

    80. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, no. Time _isn't_ just another dimension, though its often abstracted into one in limited dimension simulations. Go do just a _little_ research, and try looking for something a little less groupthink

    81. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by krenshala · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the flamboyant red (or shiny black) cape! A top hat should also help.

      --

      krenshala

    82. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by krenshala · · Score: 1

      Methinks you need to read more Douglas Adams ... ... but explaining the joke always seems to take the fun away.

      --

      krenshala

    83. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by krenshala · · Score: 1

      Captain Kirk was able to do lots of things. That doesn't mean we want to do them too ...

      --

      krenshala

    84. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by RichardJenkins · · Score: 1

      True, but I didn't mention anything about rotation (where did the spin of the Earth come into it?) or the Earth (where did 9.8m/s^2 come from?).

    85. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by coastwalker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Einsteins space-time says that all that will ever be is mapped out and exists, just like XY and Z. Just because you and I see chemical entropy as elapsing time doesn't mean that the dimension of time is any different from XY and Z. If you have any special insight into what time is I am sure the world would be deeply interested to hear about it. Physics doesnt have a clue what time is, all of the math in physics says that there is absolutely no difference between what happens and what happens when you look at things with time reversed. We await your deep insight. (to be frank the world needs an insight because we don't have a clue about time, theres definitely no chance of any wonder warp drive thats for sure, the human race is going to die inside the solar system and the chances of seeing people on even a single other planet in the solar system are as likely as unbridled Capitalism being the future).
       

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    86. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      This is /.

      I think you meant 3F / 40.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    87. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      False dichotemy is an artificial reduction in choices to two from a larger set.

      I think you mean that those two aren't mutually exclusive.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    88. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      That is the the best putdown I've heard.

      +6 funny.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    89. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Thanks, Data. Now perhaps you can get someone to explain humor to you.

    90. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      He is proposing the design of a ship, using technology that has not been invented yet, to manipulate matter/energy that might not exist, and even if it does we do not know the properties of, based on several possibly contradictory theories that might be wrong (and in some of which probably are)

      On another unrelated topic I have a design for a car to drive between m-branes, I don't know what I need to build one, or if m-branes exist, or which of the theories of them is the correct one, or how to manipulate the energy they are made of, but I have a design ....

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    91. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Flight is one of those interesting problems that the Chinese almost solved over a thousand years ago. They invented kites (and used them for elevated military observation), but couldn't work out how to build a wing that didn't need to be tethered to the ground. They invented gunpowder and rockets, but not artillery or rocket-powered flight. The state of the art rocket-propelled aircraft from a little under a hundred years ago were entirely possible with Chinese technology a thousand years ago, but they somehow never combined all of the pieces.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    92. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Humour is the tendency of particular cognitive experiences to provoke laughter and provide amusement.

      Further, as a non-American, you may find this a useful resource.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    93. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Captain Kirk was able to do lots of things. That doesn't mean we want to do them too ...

      You mean like green alien chicks? Green alien chicks are our primary motivation for researching warp technology.

    94. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      That one's easy, just power the ship with Thiotimoline.

    95. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Never EVER tell your wife her ass is fat. The amswer to of "do these pants make my ass look too big?" is always NO, even if her ass is so massive it threatens to collapse into a singularity.

    96. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It looks like they spent more time designing the graphics than they did coming up with a plausible theory.

    97. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by n7kv · · Score: 1

      ... unless we can't remember the opening notes of "Funky Town."

    98. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      this seemed relevant:

      Dogbert: I'm trying a little experiment tonight. I'll attribute a stupid opinion to you, then I'll aggressively mock you while you sit there saying nothing.

      Dogbert: So, according to you, the Internet is a passing fad. YOU MORON! LOOK AROUND YOU! THE INTERNET IS EVERYWHERE! - AND THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT! NOTHING!!

      Dilbert: How did that feel?

      Dogbert: Quite satisfying. I needed a back-up plan in case you ever get laryngitis.

    99. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by cool_story_bro · · Score: 1
      considering your comment, you have the single most appropriate sig I have ever seen. For those who can't see it / in case it changes:

      "Words can only hurt you if you read them. Don't play their game." - Derek Zoolander

      --
      You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.
    100. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by crhylove · · Score: 1

      Well I read "sake" as Sake, the popular rice wine served at sushi bars. So the "Sake of Travel" seems pretty fun to me.

      --
      I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
    101. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

      If you're going to patent a time machine, you might as well make it US Patent #1.

    102. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

      Some how I don't think that's the way man learned to fly. We probably started with the concept of the wing right away by observation of birds and insects.

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    103. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Actually i would tell her that her ass is so massive it threatens to collapse into a singularity and then tell her to give it a lil wiggle for daddy and slap it.

      Works like a charm. These is why geeks have trouble getting laid, they haven't figured out that women screw guys they worship, not guys who worship them.

      Shit my go downhill, but blowjobs go uphill.

    104. Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse by tagno25 · · Score: 1

      Time is at least two dimensions; The normal (to us) plane, and the other options. We only occupy 3 dimensions and a ray.

  2. Is it powered by bovine excretions? by whiledo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The physics behind the warpship is purely theoretical, however. 'Dark energy' needs to be understood and harnessed, plus vast amounts of energy needs to be generated, meaning the warpship is a technology that could only be conceived in the far future. That said, Dr. Obousy's warpship design uses our current knowledge of spacetime and superstring theory to arrive at this futuristic concept.

    Translation: We have a theory based on a lack of theory.

    --
    Moderators: Before moderating a comment Insightful/Informative, check to see if a child post has already refuted it.
    1. Re:Is it powered by bovine excretions? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Funny
      I have a warpship, and the design doesn't need to rely on

      our current knowledge of spacetime and superstring theory to arrive at this futuristic concept

      Instead, the design relies upon our future knowledge of spacetime and superstring[1] theory. That's the nice thing about it... warping space time in a bubble around the ship can result not only in FTL travel, but also time travel. So why should I constrain myself to the currently available theory?

      [1] Also a little bit of sillystring theory, but it gets messy at that point, so I won't go into details.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    2. Re:Is it powered by bovine excretions? by The_Wilschon · · Score: 5, Informative

      I actually know this guy (he was a grad student where/when I was an undergrad). He's not crazy and at least mostly not a crank (I only say mostly because it's never possible to judge that sort of thing perfectly). The article, like most crappy science journalism, doesn't really go into details, so I'll try to recall for you all the contents of a talk I heard him give to a small group once.

      The basic idea, which you can probably get from the article, is to construct an Alcubierre bubble or Alcubierre warp drive. The Alcubierre bubble is a genuine solution to the Einstein field equations of general relativity; it is a spacetime metric which could conceivably exist. Part of the trouble with making one is that you (at least naively) need exotic matter of some sort (tachyons, negative mass, etc) in order to do it, but we obviously don't know of any exotic matter at all presently. What you really want is to make spacetime contract ahead of you and expand behind you. Well, we do know of something that makes spacetime expand: dark energy! So, if we had some way of manipulating the local strength of dark energy, then we could make spacetime expand behind us faster than normal and expand in front of us slower than normal (or maybe contract, I can't remember exactly how far that side of things went). There are apparently some suggestive features of superstring theory that indicate that we might be able to use the Casimir effect and/or cause an expansion or contraction of string theory's predicted extra compact dimensions to affect the local strength of dark energy. Here's another failure in memory, as I remember that the Casimir effect and extra dimensions were both involved, but don't remember which one was supposed to affect the other and which was supposed to affect dark energy. This is about all I can remember. My apologies that it is not more complete.

      Now, all this is of course very speculative. It depends on some things being true which might or might not be true. The existence of dark energy is at least strongly indicated by astrophysical data, whether or not it has a local strength is not known at all. The Casimir effect is quite well established. Compact extra dimensions and the rest of string theory remain a very good candidate for physics, but are of course notoriously difficult to test. If all of these things eventually work out, then Richard's ideas should work quite nicely. If any of them don't, then all bets are off; I don't know how his analysis would change then.

      Of course, even a few years ago when I heard all this presented, it was much more thoroughly developed. You have my poor memory to blame for a very incomplete and fuzzy account. I have no doubt he's been developing it further in the last couple of years.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    3. Re:Is it powered by bovine excretions? by thedonger · · Score: 1

      So, if the untestable theories - which exist to explain the gaps in not-directly-observable-but-currently-held theories - are correct, then we may be able to harness the power of something which may not even exist locally, to produce something not currently believed possible?

      I'm in. Where do I send the post-dated check (for security, of course; he can travel into the future and cash it).

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    4. Re:Is it powered by bovine excretions? by eclectro · · Score: 1

      In other words, they're yanking everyone's string?

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    5. Re:Is it powered by bovine excretions? by Allicorn · · Score: 2, Funny

      duke@3drealms.com

      --
      OMG!!! Ponies!!!
    6. Re:Is it powered by bovine excretions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same sort of thing could have been said circa 100 years ago about electronics. Your "critiques" are not clever and are not useful. Speculative technology (AKA working out the consequences of theories, the validity of which have yet to be established) has an important role in science.

    7. Re:Is it powered by bovine excretions? by bcrowell · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Thanks for the informative post. The thing is, if it's a proposal to build an Alcubierre drive, there are serious problems with that. And they're not just problems as in "that makes it hard to do," they're problems as in "it wouldn't even do what people have in mind when they imagine FTL."

    8. Re:Is it powered by bovine excretions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Anyone who has a lot of wire laying around (like if you're into building Tesla coils) can try this experiment:
      Make one big loop coil with a lot of turns. Then make another coil by wrapping loops around that one. Then once that's done, do an interleaved coil over that like one of those Rodin coils over the first two. (And this design is open source and public domain because I just made it up. Have fun and hack it!) Now instead of operating this thing like a normal transformer or induction coil, you run electricity through all three coils. What you're going to be doing is trying to collapse or expand three different electromagnetic fields upon one point in space in a way that can be best described as abnormal.

      Now the rest of the fun for this experiment is in figuring out what type of electricity to put into the coils and at what power levels/cycles. At most, it may have some interesting results. (See if lasers bend around it, or if objects dropped through the hole in the middle do anything funny.) And then you can come up with theory to describe whats causing the wierd stuff. At the least, it's just a waste of time and possibly some some burnt up wire. (Provided you don't get too stupid and electrocute yourself or burn the house down.) Maybe you could make some really cool dynamic art with ferro-fluid sculptures. (If you have access to ferro-fluid of some sort.) Worst case scenario is that you might accidentally make an EMP device, which may get the FCC or DHS on you.

    9. Re:Is it powered by bovine excretions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not crazy and at least mostly not a crank (I only say mostly because it's never possible to judge that sort of thing perfectly).

      Judging by the way one of the summary links directly to his consulting businesses website, I'd lean more towards the crank judgement.

      Or else he's got this whole modern-day IP patent process figured out, and has just patented the warp drive in anticipation of one being actually invented. Which is a brilliant (mis)use of the patent system.

    10. Re:Is it powered by bovine excretions? by hotdoghead · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here's his paper: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0712/0712.1649v6.pdf Besides discussing a mechanism, he also does some quick calculations about how much energy would be required to use this method to fly at light-speed. "Let us consider a spacecraft of dimensions 10 m x 10 m x 10 m ... The total amount of energy 'injected' locally would equal 10^45 J ... roughly the mass-energy of the planet Jupiter."

    11. Re:Is it powered by bovine excretions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This seems an awful lot like it should be filed under "shifting the problem to something people generally understand less to make it look easier".

      I can't tell you how to make a ship that travels faster than light but I can tell you that if we had something that already travels faster than light (tachyons) or possesses some comparable "classical violation" we could show you how to do it.
      I'm not so sure this is solving the "hard part".

    12. Re:Is it powered by bovine excretions? by KillerBob · · Score: 1

      y'know.... there was an interview with Alcubierre in the documentary How William Shatner Changed the World where he said that while the math supports the possibility of a warp drive, the energy requirements would be prohibitive. Like... an order of magnitude or two larger than the output of Sol.

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    13. Re:Is it powered by bovine excretions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is it wrong that i read your post in the voice of Dr. Farnsworth while thinking the provided graphic looked like the Planet Express ship, remains stationary while moving space around it, and it requires dark matter...?

    14. Re:Is it powered by bovine excretions? by thedonger · · Score: 1

      Scientific and technological thought and practice of 100 years ago fails as an analogue for the same today. Are you really comparing the transistor to time travel? Hmmm, maybe a capacitor...Oh wait, that was invented in the 1700's. Either way, yes, we think something is impossible only to be proven wrong time and time again. At least via conventional physics.

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    15. Re:Is it powered by bovine excretions? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      The problem with time travel is that, unlike a transistor or capacitor, we're stuck with a problem of available resources. It is exponentially more difficult (and expensive) to get the ingredients all together, so we've got to be damn sure we've got it right (or close) the first time. Because, in all likelihood, we won't be able to test it (and fail) again (due to cost).

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    16. Re:Is it powered by bovine excretions? by mcvos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      100 years ago, many scientists thought that almost everything had been discovered, and they only needed to work out the details. Turns out there were completely new worlds hidden in those details.

      We know for sure that there are gaps in our scientific knowledge. Who knows what kind of worlds are hidden in those gaps? It's too early to definitively rule out warp travel.

    17. Re:Is it powered by bovine excretions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Supposed all of this would be possible there is still another problem to be solved. All this space time contraction would better be contained somehow in a 'small' volume around the spaceship. I remember seeing a simulation (cant find a link now) of what would happen to the *whole solar system* when USS Enterprise engages warpdrive going out into space. Not a pretty sight :p

    18. Re:Is it powered by bovine excretions? by FTWinston · · Score: 1

      True, it is. But its not to early to say that it looks very, very unlikely.

    19. Re:Is it powered by bovine excretions? by master_p · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's all in the PDF paper he published, which can be reached from the 1st link. The energy to manipulate the quantum vacuum in order to shrink the extra dimension and enlarge the spacetime is about the mass of Jupiter. Propulsion is achieved by altering the quantum vacuum, which means altering the cosmological constant in general relativity terms.

      One little joke that can be made in this case is this one: if the laws of the universe do not allow you to do a certain thing, then alter the laws of the universe!!! this is certainly what it is, because it alters locally the cosmological constant.

    20. Re:Is it powered by bovine excretions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just think it's great that we are talking about warp bubbles in a quasi-serious way. That seems like progress to me! Now where is Whil Wheaton and the Traveler when we need them?

    21. Re:Is it powered by bovine excretions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [1] Also a little bit of sillystring theory, but it gets messy at that point, so I won't go into details.

      It only looks messy, but it's pretty easy to clean up; that's the trick that most "scientists" can't get - they're thinking too hard about something that's inherently simple.....

    22. Re:Is it powered by bovine excretions? by keatonguy · · Score: 1

      I can't say I have anything useful to add to this conversation, but I do have to admit, this line of research has an eerie similarity to the sci-fi in Mass Effect. Did anyone else notice that?

      --
      If you aren't angry, you aren't paying attention.
  3. Right after they make the flying car. by jbezorg · · Score: 1

    I've been on the waiting list for one, like, forever.

    --
    I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
    1. Re:Right after they make the flying car. by pinkj · · Score: 1

      this ship should help with bumping you up that list.

    2. Re:Right after they make the flying car. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.terrafugia.com/

      Merry Christmas, sir.

    3. Re:Right after they make the flying car. by jbezorg · · Score: 1

      SWEET! Now the morning commut ....

      Wait...

      Damn. I'd have to fly around DC and land by Andrews AFB. Flares and chaff are not on the option list. I don't think I can order that stuff from JC Whitney's either. Perhaps Uncle Al's?

      --
      I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
  4. Venture capitalists by kheldan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm sure they won't have any problems finding investors -- so long as they cater to the investors who have interest in flying cars, another technology that hasn't actually gotten off the ground yet. What was it someone said about "a fool and his money"?

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:Venture capitalists by routerl · · Score: 3, Funny

      What was it someone said about "a fool and his money"?

      That they're soul-mates and stay together forever?

      --
      Trust me, kids; don't drink and post.
    2. Re:Venture capitalists by th0mas_g · · Score: 3, Funny

      I've always heard that a fool and his money are some party!

    3. Re:Venture capitalists by EvilToiletPaper · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What was it someone said about "a fool and his money"?

      ... are my best friends

    4. Re:Venture capitalists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Investing in insane pipe-dreams is simply a rational hedge in a portfolio overly weighted toward sane endeavors.

    5. Re:Venture capitalists by turgid · · Score: 1

      Is that like in the Jerk, where he has his own private disco?

    6. Re:Venture capitalists by Chabo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well why not invest in this? It's bound to get a better return than most stocks nowadays!

      --
      Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
    7. Re:Venture capitalists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flying cars have gotten off the ground. Its the insurance that keeps the public from getting them.

    8. Re:Venture capitalists by rbanffy · · Score: 1

      Let's call the first ship of this kind the "Barnum".

      I expect the investors to line up in 3... 2... 1...

    9. Re:Venture capitalists by anarche · · Score: 1

      I'm sure they won't have any problems finding investors -- so long as they cater to the investors who have interest in flying cars, another technology that hasn't actually gotten off the ground yet. What was it someone said about "a fool and his money"?

      Or maybe get 3D Realms to organise funding... they never seem to need a forward plan..

      --
      Wait! Whats a sig?
    10. Re:Venture capitalists by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      You've been moderated funny, but it's almost true. Any investment has a potential return, and a risk. If the potential return is very high, typically so is the risk. A typical portfolio will have a spread of high-risk, high-return and low-risk, low-return investments. The idea is that most of the high-risk investments will fail, but the few that don't will more than pay for the ones that do. This is why DARPA funds research into psychics and antigravity; the projects will probably fail, but they are relatively cheap and if one of the does succeed then the return is going to be a lot more than total investment into all of them.

      This, however, is both high-cost and high-risk, which means the risk:reward ratio is high enough to frighten off any sane investor. Fortunately, as the current economy will testify, sane investors are a minority.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    11. Re:Venture capitalists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure they won't have any problems finding investors -- so long as they cater to the investors who have interest in flying cars, another technology that hasn't actually gotten off the ground yet. What was it someone said about "a fool and his money"?

      erm www.terrafugia.com ?

  5. Only solving half the problem... by argent · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You still end up with global causality violation if an object can communicate outside its light cone.

    1. Re:Only solving half the problem... by FredFredrickson · · Score: 1

      I don't think our current concept of causality requires information to be slower or equal to the speed of light to work out. No violation neccessary.

      --
      Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    2. Re:Only solving half the problem... by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 1

      I thought causality didn't require faster than light travel to be impossible, only travelling backwards in time at more than 1s/s (i.e. cancelling the normal flow of time out and stopping) to be impossible?

    3. Re:Only solving half the problem... by e4g4 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Causality-Shmausality. I dropped a glass because I found it in pieces on the floor just this afternoon...

      --
      The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein
    4. Re:Only solving half the problem... by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 4, Informative

      Didn't Novikov solve that problem?

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    5. Re:Only solving half the problem... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      You still end up with global causality violation if an object can communicate outside its light cone.

      Perhaps a knowledgable phycisist can clarify: is the light cone thingy a fundamental rule necessary to make our current theories work, or is it merely a consequence following from the fact that our current theories generally do not allow for faster-than-light travel? If the latter, a warp drive wouldn't "violate" any causality rule.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    6. Re:Only solving half the problem... by EvilToiletPaper · · Score: 2, Funny

      is that like a universal 404 error?

    7. Re:Only solving half the problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't worry, you can just buy a causality default swap as a hedge, and then tranche the resulting multiverse into marketable reality instruments.

    8. Re:Only solving half the problem... by damien_kane · · Score: 1

      Causality-Shmausality. I dropped a glass because I found it in pieces on the floor just this afternoon...

      Excellent, I was pretty sure you dropped a glass because I found it in pieces on the floor just this afternoon also, and now I have proof.

    9. Re:Only solving half the problem... by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Well really, I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about that as something that "needs to be solved" before you time travel. You can more or less assume that such things will work themselves out, just so long as you're confident that you're not going to destroy the universe or anything.

      I'm not worried though, because I don't think we'll invent time machines. If we were to one day invent them, then most likely a future traveller would have shown up by now. I've just come to the conclusion that if a time machine will ever be invented, that the person who invents it will eventually use it to go back in time and prevent himself from inventing it, thereby preventing time travel from ever occurring, solving all time paradox problems.

    10. Re:Only solving half the problem... by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

      Could I interest you in some causality insurance? In the event nothing happens anymore, you can make a claim.

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    11. Re:Only solving half the problem... by nine-times · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you can travel faster than light, then you should, by our current scientific understanding (general relativity) be able to travel backward in time. If you can send a message faster than light, then you should be able to send that message back in time.

      It's a bit tough to explain, and it would help to be able to give a diagram, but it has to do with the "light cone" the GP post refers to. If you can find information on a "light cone", Einstein said that anything outside of a light cone may be viewed as happening at the same time as the event at the vortex, but to people traveling at different velocities, any one of those points outside of these light cones could be viewed as having happened first.

      If you can travel to an arbitrary point in space-time outside of your light cone, then you could go to a point where the past event (from your original position) is now outside the light-cone of your new position. From there, you would be able to travel to that point in space-time, which would have been firmly in the past from your original location.

      Maybe someone can provide a better explanation? Meh, go read Einstein. But if you don't, then just remember "travelling faster than light" is the same as "able to go back in time".

    12. Re:Only solving half the problem... by Chabo · · Score: 1

      What if you can only "change lanes" to other parallel dimensions, and can't "change speed" relative to our own timeline?

      --
      Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
    13. Re:Only solving half the problem... by nine-times · · Score: 1

      may be viewed as happening at the same time as the event at the vortex

      "vortex" should be "vertex".

    14. Re:Only solving half the problem... by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

      You still end up with global causality violation if an object can communicate outside its light cone.

      Perhaps a knowledgable phycisist can clarify: is the light cone thingy a fundamental rule necessary to make our current theories work, or is it merely a consequence following from the fact that our current theories generally do not allow for faster-than-light travel? If the latter, a warp drive wouldn't "violate" any causality rule.

      I'm not sure that I entirely understand the way the question is phrased. However, to try to answer your question: if the basic laws of physics (i.e., Maxwell's equations) are the same in a moving reference frame as they are in a fixed reference frame, then the ability to communicate outside the light cone is also the ability to communicate backwards in time. If you can communicate backwards in time, causality is violated.

      So, if "the laws of physics are the same in a moving reference frame as they are in a fixed reference frame" is what you refer to as a "fundamental rule," then, yes, the light cone "thingy" is a fundamental rule, and communicating outside the light cone (i.e., faster than light) violates causality.

      It's not absolutely, completely, unambiguously clear that strict forward-causality is a necessary law of physics... but it's hard to come up with self-consistent laws of physics without it.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    15. Re:Only solving half the problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Solved is a little strong for an essentially unverified theory. Posited a solution for, yes.

    16. Re:Only solving half the problem... by Isarian · · Score: 1

      You still end up with global causality violation if an object can communicate outside its light cone.

      Oh shit, here comes the Eschaton: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity_Sky

    17. Re:Only solving half the problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, paraphrased, "faster than light travel equates to time travel because "?

    18. Re:Only solving half the problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is that like a universal 404 error?

      No, 501 Not Implemented.

    19. Re:Only solving half the problem... by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 1

      Good point. I stand corrected. Someone mod AC up so he's visible.

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    20. Re:Only solving half the problem... by bcrowell · · Score: 1

      Didn't Novikov solve that problem?

      No, he didn't. All they did was find one very simple toy model in which there was no inconsistency. And even in their toy model, there are too many solutions, with no way to tell which is the one that actually would occur.

    21. Re:Only solving half the problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like 500 error

    22. Re:Only solving half the problem... by bcrowell · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'll give a couple of examples, one using special relativity and one involving some general relativity, to amplify a little on what Geoffrey Landis said above.

      Let's start with a couple of definitions. An "event" in relativity means a combination of time and place. Event B is defined as lying outside event A's light cone if the distance from A to B, in light-years, is greater than the time-difference between A and B, in years.

      Example #1: Suppose that faster-than-light (FTL) were possible. Then it would be possible for event A to cause event B, where B lies outside A's light cone. You could simply travel in your FTL spaceship, starting at A and ending up at B, where you'd deliver a message. But according to special relativity, the time-ordering of events is not as absolute as in classical physics, because observers in different frames of reference disagree on the flow of time. Suppose the original setup was described according to one observer, O1, and now we have a second observer, O2, who is moving relative to O1 at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light. If the speed of the relative motion is high enough, then you can always get a situation where O2 says B happened before A, rather than after A. (This only happens if B is outside A's light cone.) So O1 says A caused B, but O2 says B caused A.

      Example #2: In general relativity, wormhole is a possible way to travel between different places, but since time and space are treated on the same footing in general relativity, there's every reason to believe that if wormholes exist, they would also go between different times, i.e., they would be time machines. But let's suppose for the sake of argument that you come across a wormhole that only goes between different places, with both mouths being synchronized in time. This would seem like FTL without time travel. But such a wormhole can always be used for time-travel as well. One method is to use gravitational fields to accelerate one mouth of the wormhole in some direction, bring it to a stop, and then use a similar acceleration and deceleration to bring it back to where it started. When you do this, you get something exactly like the twin "paradox" of special relavitity; the wormholes' times are no longer synchronized. So now if your no-time-travel FTL has been turned into FTL with time travel.

      There's nothing special about these two examples. The idea that FTL naturally makes time travel possible is tightly bound to the structure of relativity. Since time travel seems to lead to causality paradoxes (e.g., going back in time and killing yourself), the conclusion seems to be that FTL leads to paradoxes, and that makes physicists suspect that FTL isn't actually physically possible.

    23. Re:Only solving half the problem... by bitrex · · Score: 1

      Imagine a Cartesian coordinate system, with time on the Y axis and distance on the X axis to the left and to the right. So you have 1 light year, 2 light years, etc on the X axis, and 1 year, 2 years, etc. on the Y axis. Now, if you take off for your destination at very close to the speed of light, you will be traveling about 1 light year per year, so the slope of the line will be 1 and it will form a 45 degree angle. Draw two of these lines positive going from the origin along the positive Y axis, one to the left and one to the right. This is your "light cone." Now imagine you travel along one of these lines, at very close to the speed of light, until you reach your destination at 10 light years in 10 years. Then let's say you decide to travel back at some speed faster than light, like 0.5C or 0.1C. Draw another cone with the mouth pointing downward from your destination along the original line and you'll find that the slope of the new line will be less than 1, so the angle of the new line will be less than 45 degrees. If that's the case, the new light cone for the return journey can intersect the light cone of the original journey at some point in spacetime, meaning you can intercept yourself during your original trip! If you return at the same velocity close to C that you left, the going and return trip slope will both be 45 degrees and the light cones will not intersect, thereby avoiding the paradox.

    24. Re:Only solving half the problem... by vikstar · · Score: 1

      You still end up with global causality violation if an object can communicate outside its light cone.

      I don't think our current concept of causality requires information to be slower or equal to the speed of light to work out. No violation neccessary.

      It does require information to be less than or equal the speed of light. However, I'd like to conjecture that there is no causality violation because you are carrying part of the light cone with you in the bubble.

      --
      The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
    25. Re:Only solving half the problem... by genner · · Score: 1

      Could I interest you in some causality insurance? In the event nothing happens anymore, you can make a claim.

      Does that involve events everywhere in the universe or just in my life......because that might be a good deal for me.

    26. Re:Only solving half the problem... by thebigbadme · · Score: 1

      what if people have already come back? I don't really think this way, but, for the sake of discussion (irrational or not) ... how would you know?

      --
      "It's the Law of the Universe, and I'm the sheriff." Slash-cott 2/10-2/17
    27. Re:Only solving half the problem... by genner · · Score: 2, Funny

      What if you can only "change lanes" to other parallel dimensions, and can't "change speed" relative to our own timeline?

      Then stay out of the left lane. Your slowing the rest of us down.

    28. Re:Only solving half the problem... by argent · · Score: 1

      However, I'd like to conjecture that there is no causality violation because you are carrying part of the light cone with you in the bubble.

      If the information gets outside your light cone it doesn't matter what kind of trick you used to make it happen... wormholes, warp bubbles, or rotating cylinders... you've violated causality.

    29. Re:Only solving half the problem... by argent · · Score: 1

      Could be 301 Moved Permanently back inside your light cone.

    30. Re:Only solving half the problem... by onemorechip · · Score: 1

      For any point in space time, draw a cone with that point as origin (actually a hypercone, but you can visualize it as a 3-d cone if you strip out one spatial dimension). The axis of the cone is the time axis running through the origin. The upper half of the cone's surface and interior represents the future, and the lower half represent the past. The sides of the cone represent light speed; light that can be seen by a person at this point converges on that point following this surface from the past, and light leaving the origin travels along this surface in the direction of the future. The cone's exterior represent points in space that are neither past nor future (or *either* past or future, which one will depend on observer's frame of reference, but from a causation standpoint they are *neither* because events in this region cannot affect events at the origin).

      The slope of the sides of the cone is 1/c (or alternatively, -1/c). If you travel faster than light, you travel along a line with a slope that is between -1/c and 1/c. If the slope you are traveling on is between 0 and 1/c to one observer, there must exist an alternate frame of reference where your slope is between -1/c and 0.

      In order to go back in time, you first go outside of the light cone whose origin is your starting point in space time; this requires traveling faster than light. But you aren't yet in the past. If you then turn around and travel in the other direction faster than light, you can re-enter the light cone at a point that is in the past relative to the origin. In order for this to happen, there must exist a frame of reference in which both lines of travel have negative slopes, otherwise you will re-enter the light cone at a point that is in the future relative to the origin.

      Paraphrasing, GP said FTL travel is a sufficient condition for traveling into the past. Strictly that's not true as I just explained what additional condition must be met. But there's nothing in special relativity that says that once we allow objects to move faster than light, that additional condition cannot be met.

      --
      But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
    31. Re:Only solving half the problem... by onemorechip · · Score: 1

      Then let's say you decide to travel back at some speed faster than light, like 0.5C or 0.1C.

      Either of those choices would be slower than light.

      --
      But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
    32. Re:Only solving half the problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What no-one seems to have ever bothered establishing is why causality is some sort of barrier. Why can't you violate it? Maybe some of us really hate our grandfathers and want to kill them. I mean, not me, but some people might.

    33. Re:Only solving half the problem... by mdmkolbe · · Score: 1

      "Faster than light equates to time travel because at the speed of light you have stopped time(*); to go any faster, time has to run backwards(*)"

      (*) At least in one particular reference frame, but once you get it in one frame, you can daisy chain your frames together to run backwards in all frames. Also these speeds are in a hyperbolic metric where "faster" and "slower" are slightly different than in the euclidean metric.

      (This is a very gross simplification (almost like calling the internet a series of tubes). Do not attempt to draw any inferences from it. If you do, they will probably be wrong. But maybe it will help your intuition become comfortable with the idea.)

    34. Re:Only solving half the problem... by bitrex · · Score: 1

      Please just imagine I put a 1 there instead of a zero and everything should work out! :D

    35. Re:Only solving half the problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, so you could see light from your past journey. But could you actually interact with your past?

    36. Re:Only solving half the problem... by lordofwhee · · Score: 1
    37. Re:Only solving half the problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would only apply if you were actually moving at or beyond light speed.

      Alcubierre's warp theory states that spacetime is compressed and stretched around a warp bubble, the inside of which is completely stationary normal spacetime, resulting in effective superluminal velocity. Sort of like how an airplane wing creates lift. Or, even better, how oxygen bubbles rise in the water.

      Since nothing is really moving, you aren't violating causality. Normal spacetime in and outside of the bubble remains constant.

    38. Re:Only solving half the problem... by arazor · · Score: 1

      Thanks looks like a great read.

    39. Re:Only solving half the problem... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      A lot of the causality discussion seems to assume that you can't travel faster than light, and then show that assumption is consistent. If that's the case, if you assume that it is possible to travel faster than light then a lot of that reasoning goes out the window.

      Causality is not a law, it's just something we'd prefer was true. Einstein would have preferred if quantum mechanics were not true, but it looks like it is anyway.

    40. Re:Only solving half the problem... by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      Maybe someone can provide a better explanation?

      I've tried to explain the connection between FTL travel and travel back in time here. But, as you said, it really requires spacetime diagrams that I haven't had time to draw yet...

    41. Re:Only solving half the problem... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Causality-Shmausality. I dropped a glass because I found it in pieces on the floor just this afternoon...

      You laugh, but are actually correct. The laws of physics don't discriminate by the direction of time. If you see a glass falling towards floor, you can reasonably conclude that there is a point in spacetime where a glass hits the floor; if you see pieces of glass on a floor, you can reasonably conclude that there is a point in spacetime where a glass hits the floor. The important thing is that spacetime is continuous, that there are no discontinuities in either space or time. Given a point in spacetime, you can draw conclusions about other nearby points, both past, present and future, because those points must "fit" your point. This extends the normal intuitive concept of causality, where the future must fit the present.

      The problem with time travel is that it allows the creation of closed loops, which are not necessarily continuous. Imagine yourself doing a year of research, then traveling in the past and giving yourself your research. Your past self would then continue where your future self left off, skipping the research he's already done at the previous iteration of the loop. The problem with this is that information comes out of nowhere - since you never did the research, yet it was you who gave it to you, where did it come from?

      One possible way to solve this is to assume that time is actually two-dimensional, which allows us to turn the closed loop into a spiral. Another way is to simply accept the existence of such loops, which violate the naive concept of determinism, as long as the loop doesn't create discontinuities - information simply exists in the loop. And a third would be to assume that such loops cancel themselves out - you go through the loop over and over again, altering the past again and again, until you alter it so much you no longer travel there; at that point, since you never traveled there, the original past is replayed, but quantum uncertainties cause it to play out differently, so you never travel there (if you do, if the differences are not sufficient to prevent you, then the whole thing simply happens again and again until they are).

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    42. Re:Only solving half the problem... by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      That's why you need a Heisenberg Compensator !

    43. Re:Only solving half the problem... by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      Concentrating on the paradoxes isn't very useful. It just gives a way to avoid the question of "is it possible".
      If a ship travels at 1.5c away from the earth for a year, it still has taken a year to do that. If it then travels back at the same speed, it will take a year to do that. So 2 years have passed since you set off. I don't see how it can be said that 20 or 30 years might have passed on earth. You can argue that it would depend where you measure that year from, either in the ship or on the earth, but it is not a deal breaker. If you work out what the time dilation effect is at 1.5c you can set your clock on board ship to the relevant value relative to earth time. So you could travel for a minute at 1.5c (ship time) and reach a point which has taken a year to reach (earth time). You wouldn't come back before you left because you can't have negative time, either on earth or in the ship. If you go faster, then relatively more time passes on earth, you don't go backwards in time. Whatever speed you travel at, time passes. It takes time to go anywhere, as speed is a function of time and distance. Surely you would need a negative value for either speed or distance to get a negative value for time.

    44. Re:Only solving half the problem... by master_p · · Score: 1

      Faster-than-light travel does not cause causality violation for the simple reason that Bob is never in Alice's past, not matter what the Minkowski diagram says. However, Bob can experience Alice's past while Alice is in the future. That does not really cause a causality violation problem, it's just that Bob can't observe Alice directly because Alice is in a different reference frame. But they could certainly exchange FTL messages.

    45. Re:Only solving half the problem... by master_p · · Score: 1

      Time travel to the past is not possible - the past does not exist. Alice can sent information to Bob when Bob sees a past image of Alice, but when he tries to affect Alice, nothing will happen: Alice is not there, it's only a ghost image of Alice.

      If I had a faster-than-light Star destruction beam and shoot it directly to the Sun, would the Sun be destroyed? nope, because I would have shot my ray not to the current position of the Sun, but to the position of the Sun 8 minutes ago.

      There is no need for such philosophical twists.

    46. Re:Only solving half the problem... by master_p · · Score: 1

      Example #1: it may be that each observer sees the order of events differently, but that could not be used to change the state of the other observer. It's only an observational problem.

      Example #2: the twin paradox is no paradox at all. The faster an object moves, the slower time passes. It has been proven with atomic clocks.

      In conclusion: trips to the future are allowed by traveling at relativistic speeds. Trips to the past are not.

    47. Re:Only solving half the problem... by vikstar · · Score: 1

      If the information gets outside your light cone it doesn't matter what kind of trick you used to make it happen... wormholes, warp bubbles, or rotating cylinders... you've violated causality.

      It is impossible for information to get outside of the light cone. If information gets out then it is because the light cone is getting out, leaking if you will, but still not violating causality.

      --
      The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
    48. Re:Only solving half the problem... by Doc+Ri · · Score: 1

      if you work out what the time dilation effect is at 1.5c [...]

      You can't, sqrt(1 - 1.5c/c) is not a real number, that's the whole point.

      Btw. the form of this factor in the Lorentz transformations follows from a few very fundamental assumptions. The limiting speed 'c' appearing in the formula on the other hand can not be derived from first principles. So a priori it could be anything. We do know from experiment, however, that this speed is in fact the speed of light.

      --
      617B3B7F7E7C7D7F00EOF
    49. Re:Only solving half the problem... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      This whole thread is 203 Non-Authoritative Information

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    50. Re:Only solving half the problem... by argent · · Score: 1

      Preventing local causality violation doesn't prevent global causality violation. Redraw the space-time diagrams so the bubble fits between the end-points, and you can erase the bubble.

    51. Re:Only solving half the problem... by argent · · Score: 1

      Why can't you violate it?

      You break quantum mechanics and your insurance doesn't cover that.

    52. Re:Only solving half the problem... by argent · · Score: 1

      If my light cone leaks does that mean I get causality all over my kitchen floor?

    53. Re:Only solving half the problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll give a couple of examples, one using special relativity and one involving some general relativity, to amplify a little on what Geoffrey Landis said above.

      Let's start with a couple of definitions. An "event" in relativity means a combination of time and place. Event B is defined as lying outside event A's light cone if the distance from A to B, in light-years, is greater than the time-difference between A and B, in years.

      Example #1:
      Suppose that faster-than-light (FTL) were possible. Then it would be possible for event A to cause event B, where B lies outside A's light cone.
      You could simply travel in your FTL spaceship, starting at A and ending up at B, where you'd deliver a message. But according to special relativity, the time-ordering of events is not as absolute as in classical physics, because observers in different frames of reference disagree on the flow of time. Suppose the original setup was described according to one observer, O1, and now we have a second observer, O2, who is moving relative to O1 at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light. If the speed of the relative motion is high enough, then you can always get a situation where O2 says B happened before A, rather than after A. (This only happens if B is outside A's light cone.) So O1 says A caused B, but O2 says B caused A.

      I'm sorry but to my EE mind this is no more a temporal paradox than the old post hoc arguement! Confusion about the order of events by an observer doesn't change the actual order in which they happened, even in a relativistic universe.

      Example #2:
      In general relativity, wormhole is a possible way to travel between different places, but since time and space are treated on the same footing in general relativity, there's every reason to believe that if wormholes exist, they would also go between different times, i.e., they would be time machines. But let's suppose for the sake of argument that you come across a wormhole that only goes between different places, with both mouths being synchronized in time. This would seem like FTL without time travel. But such a wormhole can always be used for time-travel as well. One method is to use gravitational fields to accelerate one mouth of the wormhole in some direction, bring it to a stop, and then use a similar acceleration and deceleration to bring it back to where it started. When you do this, you get something exactly like the twin "paradox" of special relavitity; the wormholes' times are no longer synchronized. So now if your no-time-travel FTL has been turned into FTL with time travel.

      I take it by "twin 'paradox' you mean this one? If so, as you can see this isn't a real violation of causality (which would be an actual temporal paradox), instead it really is just a weird artifact of time dialation. Going back to your example #2, if space and time are connected it is likely that the ability to travel through time is directly linked to the length of the wormhole. Therefore, to travel to an arbitrary point in space-time you'd have to manipulate both ends, using gravitational fields; which have yet to be prove to even exist, much less how we could create and control fields of the magnitude required. It may turn out that to utilize this method of time travel is theoritically possible, but to use it to travel significantly into the past or future would take more energy than is available in the Local Group of galaxies! So I'd say your still safe from becoming your own grandparent.;)

      There's nothing special about these two examples. The idea that FTL naturally makes time travel possible is tightly bound to the structure of relativity. Since time travel seems to lead to causality paradoxes (e.g., going back in time and killing yourself), the conclusion seems to be that FTL leads to paradoxes, and that makes physicists susp

    54. Re:Only solving half the problem... by onemorechip · · Score: 1

      I did and I still found your explanation doesn't work. Your forward trip is entirely within the light cone, and your return trip does not intersect the original trip as you say.

      To have it work out as travel into the past, you first need to exit the light cone, then re-enter it (specifically, re-enter it in the lower half-cone representing the past). So, you have to make both trips at FTL speeds.

      --
      But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
    55. Re:Only solving half the problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're thinking of this as if "travel" was an absolute. If light originates from you and travels (relative to you) a few hundred feet, if the global point of origin is on the opposite side of the universe or not, the total distance it has traveled is still the same. You've just moved its local reference frame.

      If you don't like that way of looking at it, consider that forcing the object through spacetime in a bubble moves the origin of the light - the light stops at the original edge of the spacetime bubble and is emitted at its new origin - wherever the spacetime bubble breaks free of the "wave" it's riding.

      Relative to both its source and the light wave itself, it has not moved through intervening space - it's simply been absorbed and re-emitted by spacetime itself. Is that hand-wavey pseudoscience mumbo jumbo? Maybe, but so is waving "causality" and the speed of light around as if they were magic. Causality is just another hand-wavey term which states that you don't get an effect without an observable cause - you can't get something from nothing. The Big Bang theory alone puts that one on shakey ground.

      Posting anon to avoid losing moderation.

    56. Re:Only solving half the problem... by argent · · Score: 1

      You're thinking of this as if "travel" was an absolute. If light originates from you and travels (relative to you) a few hundred feet, if the global point of origin is on the opposite side of the universe or not, the total distance it has traveled is still the same. You've just moved its local reference frame.

      Yes, it matters if the point of origin is on the opposite side of the universe or not. If you can encode information in the light and transfer information outside the light cone of any moving object, you can violate causality. That's why "spooky action-at-a-distance" doesn't violate relativity, because you can't encode information in the so-called collapse of the state vector.

      Handwaving terms like "hand-wavey pseudoscience mumbo-jumbo" around like you're James Randi doesn't carry an argument if you miss the actual point.

    57. Re:Only solving half the problem... by bitrex · · Score: 1

      Ah, I see now - to make the return trip intersect the lower half cone one has to be outside the upper half cone at some point in the departing journey, implying that for some part of time you traveled faster than light. I somehow managed a faster than light "sidestep" at the end of the departing journey to make it work out; don't know why I did that. You really should have tackled this analogy instead of me. :)

  6. Scotty by arizwebfoot · · Score: 1

    But I'm giving all she's got, cap'n!!

    --
    Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
    1. Re:Scotty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Resistance if futile.

    2. Re:Scotty by TinFoilMan · · Score: 2, Funny

      Resistance is always futile, especially if a woman is involved.

      --
      In my other life, I eat cats.
    3. Re:Scotty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Resistance is always futile, if a woman is involved.

      There, fixed that for you.

  7. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OMG, the usual crap! So let me get this straight. The big bang did occur (to say otherwise is heresy). It was driven, faster than the speed of light, by dark matter - which scientists do not know anything about at all.

    In the beginning was the word, and the word was... well, that is as scientific as the Big Bang Theory!

    Why is this kind of rubbish on Slashdot?

    1. Re:Anonymous Coward by FredFredrickson · · Score: 1

      Holy crap! You just discovered the missing link! Jesus is dark matter! It all makes sense now!

      --
      Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    2. Re:Anonymous Coward by Rycross · · Score: 1

      You joke, but Jack Chick made a Chick Tract that basically claimed that gluons were Jesus. Seriously. I'd find it for you but I'm at work right now.

    3. Re:Anonymous Coward by Koim-Do · · Score: 2, Funny

      and there it was all along..

    4. Re:Anonymous Coward by Endo13 · · Score: 1

      The difference though is that you can actually find scientific evidence that would seem to indicate some kind of big bang event. (Which probably wasn't so much a "big bang" as just a sudden rapid expansion of the universe.)

      Also, the big bang and "in the beginning was..." try to explain two different things. They are not mutually exclusive. Taking Genesis literally actually allows for a "big bang" event (initiated by God). "In the beginning" would be the explanation of what was before the big bang.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    5. Re:Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TFA is guilty of a little bit of nonsense WRT "dark energy" contribution to expansion.

      Early in the history of the universe the effect of dark energy was extremely negligable.. Most cosmology types believe that the expansion rate of the universe actually slowed a bit initially as the gravitational attraction of objects constrained the expansion rate. Then at some point later the rate of expansion sped up again due to the so-called "dark energy" or what is really most likely just a property of space itself to get bigger and bigger.

      Dark matter and dark energy are totally separate items.

      Dark matter is stuff we can't see because their made of rocks, heavy neutrinos or other even more exotic nonsense.

      Dark energy is the metric expansion of space (hubble expansion) the balloon concept in TFA is a good way of thinking of it. I'll add that for the naysayers who think exceeding C from an observers perspective is still not possible .. we can actually view galaxies receding from us at greater the speed of light due to the effects of metric expansion.

      There just...ah..isn't really any way we know to practiacally do it as TFA points out.

    6. Re:Anonymous Coward by FredFredrickson · · Score: 1

      hahaa holy shit, nice find- thanks! This is hilarious.

      --
      Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
  8. All characters, no gameplay by Itninja · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of my preteen years making dozens and dozens of D&D characters, even though I had no idea (at the time) how to play the game. But man, making those characters sure was fun....let's just do that! What's 'psyche'? I don't know, but let's roll a d20 for it! WHEE!

    --
    I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    1. Re:All characters, no gameplay by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of my preteen years making dozens and dozens of D&D characters, even though I had no idea (at the time) how to play the game. But man, making those characters sure was fun....let's just do that! What's 'psyche'? I don't know, but let's roll a d20 for it! WHEE!

      Sorry, Psyche is Marvel Super Heroes. You'd roll d% for it and consult the chart. Maybe you were having trouble learning the games because you were mixing the two (they were both TSR). That could have been fun...
      "Galstaff, you have entered the door to the north. You are now by yourself standing in a dark room; the pungent stench of mildew emanates from the wet dungeon walls. ... There are there are seven ogres surrounding you."
      "Colossus prepares to throw Wolverine with a Fastball Special"
      "OGRES!?! Man, I got an ogre slaying claw! It's got a +9 against ogres!"
      "If there's any girls there Gambit wants to do them!"

    2. Re:All characters, no gameplay by Itninja · · Score: 1

      You know, I think you are right. For some reason the word 'FASERIP' keeps coming to me. I wonder if I put that on a vanity license plate....

      --
      I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
  9. Impossible to observe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    And, if the ship does achieve faster than light travel, will an observer even be able to see it doing so?

    1. Re:Impossible to observe? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Only if the headlights are on.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:Impossible to observe? by node+3 · · Score: 1

      Photonic BOOM!

  10. A consultant said it so it *must* be true by StuartHankins · · Score: 3, Funny

    A consultant, eh? Making the big promises, he is?

    Well when he's done and had his turn, I've got some marvelous things to show you. I wouldn't show just anybody, it's our secret. Everyone will want one and we'll be rich and famous so get them while you can now!

  11. Better than the Enterprise by newcastlejon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It puts me in mind of an Outsider ship, which is odd when you consider how they prefer travelling at sub-light speeds.

    --
    If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
  12. Investors? by drunken_boxer777 · · Score: 1

    I can't see this venture returning capital on anything that remotely resembles "short term". As such, I envision only government entities or wealthy individuals uninterested in ROI funding a project such as this.

    Honestly, what kind of question could there be about investors in this type of technology? I didn't see anything remotely relevant to a business plan in any of the links.

    1. Re:Investors? by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can't see this venture returning capital on anything that remotely resembles "short term". As such, I envision only government entities or wealthy individuals uninterested in ROI funding a project such as this.

      Honestly, what kind of question could there be about investors in this type of technology? I didn't see anything remotely relevant to a business plan in any of the links.

      I didn't either, but I do see a catastrophic sense of humor failure in your post.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
  13. Understand your target audience by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Funny

    So, they are seeking funding from the same people that invested in the Moller Skycar, then?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  14. love the graphics by spidercoz · · Score: 1

    is that a Cardassian ship I see?

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    1. Re:love the graphics by jimbobborg · · Score: 1

      No, it's DS9.

    2. Re:love the graphics by LordDragoon · · Score: 1

      No I think it's based on a Tom Swift book I read in Elementary school, this one: http://www.amazon.com/Tom-Swift-Race-Moon-Adventure/dp/B0007E816Y/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245126163&sr=1-15

      --
      Still in my pyro...still in the mines! {POF}LrdDragoon
  15. Not exactly a Dr. Richard Daystrom, but will by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    we see "Obousy" Collectors? hehehe They won't exactly be "Broussard Collectors".

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    1. Re:Not exactly a Dr. Richard Daystrom, but will by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      Or, indeed, Bussard Collectors.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
  16. Something about that... by hardwarejunkie9 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This article bothers me primarily because it simply recovers old ground on a theory of the possibility of warp travel. The idea of utilizing dark energy to create waves in space-time is hardly new or original and so what we end up seeing in front of us is a series of explanations about possible "space time bubbles" that we have no idea how to create, or even if they're technically feasible, supplemented by a few minor CAD renderings and a wonderful representation of a planar mesh. Pardon me if I'm not entirely enthused. There seems to be no real mention of any progress since this topic was last covered in the scientific press. In short, while a nice idea, it's an old theory and less than stellar (if you'll pardon the pun). This is more science fiction than science, in my opinion.

    --
    I like losing arguments, it just means that I can take your point and make it my own.
    1. Re:Something about that... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Which means as long as the USPTO grants him a patent (I don't see this as being a problem. Never mind the law, we have cool 3D renderings!), he should be able to get his investors on board, with no trouble at all.

      This guy is the PT Barnum of FTL travel.

    2. Re:Something about that... by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1

      One interesting problem with the theory of faster than light travel, is that in conjunction with special relativity theory (FWIW unlike these weird space bubble theories, SRT is checked literally billions of times every day in particle accelerators), it is possible to build a telephone that you can phone yesterday with.

      Needless to say, that causes major problems with causality- you can phone order a hit on yourself yesterday, which would preclude you from making the phone call...

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
  17. Oh yes! by Kranerian · · Score: 1

    I'll be sure to buy my faster than light ship, once the nice man from Nigeria finishes transferring me the money he promised!

    --
    Do you have any idea how long it takes to dig graves for twenty-three oak trees?
    1. Re:Oh yes! by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      You're missing a business venture. Put the man from Nigeria in contact with the Scientist for a finder's fee.

  18. Can't they get anything right? by jollyreaper · · Score: 2, Informative

    I told them to say warship instead of worship. Stupid spiders.

    (will be downmodded before anyone gets the reference.)

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    1. Re:Can't they get anything right? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      They're not spiders, they're Dill-Rats. Dwe all understand Yuubuu here.

    2. Re:Can't they get anything right? by GMFTatsujin · · Score: 1

      +1 username FTW.

    3. Re:Can't they get anything right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wanted to ask you about your flowers.

      Quasi-science meets Quasi-space?

    4. Re:Can't they get anything right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *golf clap*

    5. Re:Can't they get anything right? by Blancmange · · Score: 1

      I haven't played all of Star Control II yet, but I believe you're referring to the race who, if they were real, will one day be formerly known as the Ilwrath.

      As Douglas Adams pointed out in The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, the ability to travel through time means for a multitude of temporal grammatical tenses.

      --
      Blancmange
  19. I'm not against thinking outside the box by juanergie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    but this fully speculative article will only confuse people.

    I can already hear my non-scientific-inclined friends assuring that it has been demonstrated by Dr. Blah that faster-than-light travel is absolutely possible and we even have the ship ready.

    When Jules Verne wrote his masterpieces he made it clear that it was scientific fiction, and people thrilled shuffling the pages. He was later called a visionary, but he did not pretend to be a scientist, merely a very intelligent writer.

    It bothers me when plausibly smart people make interesting points but place them in the wrong category - nothing wrong with being smart, creative, and wild but, please, let us distinguish science from speculation.

    --
    Aeroespacio.org
    1. Re:I'm not against thinking outside the box by fermion · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Putting a hat on a bunny confuses people. The difference between a Stop sign and a Yield sign sends people into convulsions. Most people don't know the difference between enter and return. Just because it is going to confuse people doesn't mean that smart people should be punished.

      Science fiction is mostly about the relationship between people and technology, or people and ideas, or people and people, and how those relationships grow over time. In many cases, the main technology is a plot device, as in Star Trek. It does not, most of the time, dwell on the technology, and often fiction that does is quite bad. Rather, the fiction dwells on the development or consequence. Stranger in a Strange Land would have been a might weaker book if we spent many pages describing the apparatus and working out the equations.

      In this case we are talking about some possible emerging technology. Others have already written books about how the technology might effect us. What Dr. Blah, as you say, does is work out some equations and cite scientific literature. There is only one or two peer review articles on the subject, and nothing that will work. OTOH, I have seen funded proposals that have less background that this. Scientist are the real ones who dwell in science fiction, until they become science fact. Without them, science stays fiction.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    2. Re:I'm not against thinking outside the box by juanergie · · Score: 1

      I fail to see how the comment punishes smart people, my simple point was that it is important to distinguish scientific fact from plausible speculation.
      Overall public may be confused about all things you mention, and even more. However, this does not mean that we should confuse them even more or, worse, not give a shit about it because, if I recall correctly, the Space Program is funded by taxpayers in most countries.
      Also, educating the public and helping them distinguish reality from well-wishes is a good thing. We could all do better if society as a whole was more critical and not as innocent.
      Nothing wrong with dreaming, as long as we can distinguish when we are awake.

      --
      Aeroespacio.org
  20. Dune. by auric_dude · · Score: 1

    The Spacing Guild http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Spacing_Guild have been harnessing the Holtzman Effect http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Holtzman_Effect for ages in the search for Melange http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Spice_Melange so may well be a case of Prior Art?

  21. "with astronomical amounts of energy" by starglider29a · · Score: 4, Insightful
    From TFA #2:

    "but by manipulating extra dimensions with astronomical amounts of energy dot dot dot"

    Well, if we could manipulate astronomical amounts of energy, instead of sailing off to Alpha Centauri or Wolf 359, we could:
    • Have rolling roads (a la heinlein and Asimov) and eliminate the need for flying cars or rolling cars
    • Desalinate seawater to irrigate the arid lands
    • Control global climate change, or run a computer cluster model that can disprove it. Pick one.

    But we can't. I know this is a fun dream. But before you try to replicate the Federation, take a look at the world that they were based upon. The Earth of Roddenberry is VERY different than this one. Let us strive to achieve THAT before we strive for the fastest way off of here.

    1. Re:"with astronomical amounts of energy" by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      From TFA #2:

      "but by manipulating extra dimensions with astronomical amounts of energy dot dot dot"

      Well, if we could manipulate astronomical amounts of energy, instead of sailing off to Alpha Centauri or Wolf 359, we could:

      • Have rolling roads (a la heinlein and Asimov) and eliminate the need for flying cars or rolling cars
      • Desalinate seawater to irrigate the arid lands
      • Control global climate change, or run a computer cluster model that can disprove it. Pick one.

      But we can't. I know this is a fun dream. But before you try to replicate the Federation, take a look at the world that they were based upon. The Earth of Roddenberry is VERY different than this one. Let us strive to achieve THAT before we strive for the fastest way off of here.

      Imagine charities researching the causes you mention. Now imagine everyone giving a dollar to those causes every time someone repeats the "let's solve all the problems on Earth before we start exploring space" mantra. Those causes would then have enough money to fix all those problems, we'd have our utopia on Earth, and then we'd be free to go on exploring space.

      Personally, between 6 billion of us, I think we should be capable of working on more than one project at once.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    2. Re:"with astronomical amounts of energy" by starglider29a · · Score: 1

      The problem isn't money. It isn't even technological.

      It's Elections in Iran, Bailouts on Wall Street, Cholera in Zimbabwe, it's Bandwidth in Africa. Google "Base of the Pyramid." 4 Billion of the 6 Billion are trying to eat and not die of malaria. No time for string theory.

      But really, that wasn't the mantra. My mantra there is "moving mass at a distance takes energy, and time. To use less of the latter, use more of the former." The amount of energy it takes to get anywhere but here is beyond our comprehension. To move a mass the size of the Enterprise takes zillions more mass than the Enterprise.

      But, for the sake of discussion, IF we had that energy, list the Top 3 reasons for going 'there'.

      Anyone? Seriously... anyone?

    3. Re:"with astronomical amounts of energy" by BlueScreenOfTOM · · Score: 1
    4. Re:"with astronomical amounts of energy" by GMFTatsujin · · Score: 1

      Green Orion slave women. Got it in one.

    5. Re:"with astronomical amounts of energy" by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Here is a reason. Humanity as a group has decided that population control is bad. Yes, some groups have advocated it and even tried to do something about it, but as a whole, humans have decided it is bad. Thus, going 'there' is the only path to move forward.

    6. Re:"with astronomical amounts of energy" by starglider29a · · Score: 1

      "A NEW LIFE AWAITS YOU IN THE OFFWORLD COLONIES. A CHANCE TO BEGIN AGAIN..." Obligatory Bladerunner.

      Yes. Sending a few "spacers" to the "shoulder of Orion" is a way to solve the population problem... for them. Or were you thinking of sending a couple billion 'there'? You are going to need astronomical amounts of energy, squared.

      I agree that 'population' versus carrying capacity is a problem. But the carrying capacity of Mars is less, and Ceti Alpha 6 is about 15.

      If we had as much energy as it takes to get there, we could solve the problem in situ. At least technoligically.

    7. Re:"with astronomical amounts of energy" by DragonWriter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now imagine everyone giving a dollar to those causes every time someone repeats the "let's solve all the problems on Earth before we start exploring space" mantra.

      This would seem to be very bad for the substantial portion of the world's population living on $1/day or less, as the usage of the mantra on Slashdot alone would force them to donate several dozen times their total income.

    8. Re:"with astronomical amounts of energy" by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      The whole premise here has relied on having infinite power by today's standards.

    9. Re:"with astronomical amounts of energy" by rbanffy · · Score: 1

      The Earth of Roddenberry had been through a nuclear war. I would prefer we avoid it.

    10. Re:"with astronomical amounts of energy" by baKanale · · Score: 1

      ...the "let's solve all the problems on Earth before we start exploring space" mantra.
      ...
      Personally, between 6 billion of us, I think we should be capable of working on more than one project at once.

      Not to mention that the solutions to our problems might be found out there or along the way.

    11. Re:"with astronomical amounts of energy" by roystgnr · · Score: 1

      The Earth of Roddenberry is VERY different than this one. Let us strive to achieve THAT before we strive for the fastest way off of here.

      Your philosophical ancestors might have felt the same way about achieving the best society they could around Olduvai Gorge. I hear they've finally got the median age in Tanzania over 18, too. I wish them the best of luck, but frankly I'm glad that my physical and philosophical ancestors just got up and left instead.

    12. Re:"with astronomical amounts of energy" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But we can't. I know this is a fun dream. But before you try to replicate the Federation, take a look at the world that they were based upon. The Earth of Roddenberry is VERY different than this one. Let us strive to achieve THAT before we strive for the fastest way off of here.

      Discounting that it is a work of fiction, Roddenberry's Earth in Star Trek wasn't built until after Zefram Cochrane built the first warp capable spaceship and made first contact with the Vulcans, the knowledge of alien civilisations led to the ending of wars on Earth and humanity uniting, creating the foundation to build that Earth of the future. So according to Gene Roddenberry, we need to build a warp (or FTL) capable ship first. So erm, what point were you trying to make by refering to "The Earth of Roddenberry"?

  22. Damned Romulans by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 1

    From TFA:

    To initiate the warp drive, however, vast amounts of energy would be required. Also, there will be some practical issues to overcome, such as preventing the creation of artificial black holes

    Apparently the Romulans threatened a patent infringement suit if our warp ships do that.

    --
    Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
  23. Much cooler than the Enterprise... by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    ...which is really rather tacky looking.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  24. I have a FTL space ship... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and if you believe that, I also have this wonderful bridge you can buy.

  25. William Shatner said it perfectly by peter303 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    William Shatner: "You know, before I answer any more questions there's something I wanted to say. Having received all your letters over the years, and I've spoken to many of you, and some of you have traveled... y'know... hundreds of miles to be here, I'd just like to say... GET A LIFE, will you people? I mean, for crying out loud, it's just a TV show! I mean, look at you, look at the way you're dressed! You've turned an enjoyable little job, that I did as a lark for a few years, into a COLOSSAL WASTE OF TIME!"

    1. Re:William Shatner said it perfectly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does God need with a Warpship?

    2. Re:William Shatner said it perfectly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A colossal waste of time... Unlike video games, music, fiction in general, sports, or recreation in general, right?

      Thanks for clearing that up, Shat.

    3. Re:William Shatner said it perfectly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who modded this "Interesting"? It wasn't an actual speech, it was a skit from Saturday Night Live.

  26. Futurama? by Fry-kun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The tricky part is that the ship wouldn't actually move; space itself would move underneath the stationary spacecraft. "
    FTA

    "I understand how the engines work now. It came to me in a dream. The engines don't move the ship at all. The ship stays where it is, and the engines move the universe around it."
    Cubert J. Farnsworth

    --
    Did you know that "FTW" ("for the win") is a direct translation of "Sieg Heil"?
    1. Re:Futurama? by greymond · · Score: 0

      hahaha I read that part in the article and had the same flashback of Futurama in my head.

    2. Re:Futurama? by canonymous · · Score: 2, Informative

      "The ship stays where it is, and the engines move the universe around it."

      That's preposterous!

    3. Re:Futurama? by Shikaku · · Score: 1

      If you bend space around the ship so that it "falls" like it's gravitating toward something it technically isn't moving.

      Yes the engines are moving the universe around it by bending space.

    4. Re:Futurama? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought of that quote too.

      I don't remember where I saw it first, it might have been hinted at in the Asimov series or maybe it was the Hitchhikers. Aw hell I can't remember. But I know that there was a fairly mainstream (probably more than one) sci-fi author who came up with the concept quite some time back.

        In fact, EVERYTHING in the story (umm sorry, "article") is pretty much ripped out of classic and pop sci-fi. They have just done a very piss-poor job of making it believable or interesting, and the characters are lacking in their development. And the dialog is pretty basic as well.

      Other than probably already securing a patent on this "warp drive", have they actually done ANYTHING beyond plagerize the Sci-Fi aisle at Barns&Noble for the press release? Didn't think so....

    5. Re:Futurama? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, when you remove the bubble from around the ship you snap back to the place you started?

      Or better yet, you could travel across space, turn around and watch yourself getting there?

      Inquiring minds want to know!

  27. Wormhole? by PapaSmurph · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This sounds somewhat like the way the "Stargate" works in Stargate SG-1 and Atlantis, the main difference is this is a bubble rather than a tube between locations that are generating the "extremely large amounts of energy". We just need to find a few Zero Point Modules. Problem solved!

    1. Re:Wormhole? by x78 · · Score: 2, Funny

      We should harness energy from our own universe instead!
      Wait that didn't go so well for Rodney did it...

      --
      Don't panic
  28. misread the title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did anyone else have to do a double take to make sure this article wasn't introducing a Wapship?

    1. Re:misread the title by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Did anyone else have to do a double take to make sure this article wasn't introducing a Wapship?

      I read "warship" and wondered what was so new about that.

  29. tsk tsk, editors by Eil · · Score: 3, Funny

    Dr. Richard Obousy

    Whoops, you spelled his name wrong, it should be "Zephram Cochrane".

  30. Re:first by imgumbydamnit · · Score: 2, Funny

    first

    Only if you mastered time travel.

    --
    To err is human. To arr is pirate.
  31. Saucer by davidc · · Score: 1

    That there's a flying saucer, if ever I saw one.

    1. Re:Saucer by kharri1073 · · Score: 1

      That's not a flying saucer, it's a weather balloon.

  32. Wait, what? by tnk1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ugh, every thing said in that article is basically a re-hash of the hit parade of technologies that "sounded really good at the time, but don't really work". Casmir effect, Alcuberre warp drive, extra spatial dimensions, etc. are just things that sound neat, but practical applications of them are impossible, misunderstood, or just plain useless.

    I want a warp drive as much as anyone, but I'm beginning to tire of hearing people keep spitting out the same concepts that anyone who can read the Wikipedia entries for them already knows are not practical or are probably not possible.

    Vacuum energy may exist in some form, but the apparatus to generate any significant amount of it would probably take orders of magnitude more energy to operate. No break even. Virtual particles are a hypothesis based on the logic of the Uncertainty Principle, but even if this logic is not simply explained away at a latter point, one needs to only look at what apparatus is needed to demonstrate the Casmir effect to get an idea how you would need to scale in order to get anything out of it.

    The warp drive not only requires us to somehow warp space time, but to actually survive in those conditions. There's only one known thing that combines significant warping of space time with a small area. We call those... black holes. Also, Alcuberre also acknowledged a number of problems with his drive including the fact that it wouldn't be able to see where it was going.

    As for extra dimensions, besides the fact that most places I have read indicate that those dimensions are probably extremely tiny, they would probably require the Planck energy to explore, which no one knows if it is even possible to attain. So, you would spend an incredible amount of energy to be able to go from one side of a quark to another, maybe even quickly.

    Or not at all, considering that a spatial dimension isn't just what's on the other side of a magic wardrobe. Either our 4 dimensions couldn't fit in the smaller ones, or we could, but we'd end up like 2-D Flatlanders walking around in a 3-D world. How could we interact with such a reality? How would it benefit us at all, even if we could survive the experience?

    In the matter of dimensions, there are benefits we can glean from trying to understand if they are real and learning about them, and maybe even the Casmir effect would be good for something like generating antimatter or something. Having said that, planning a spaceship based on these ideas is like planning a ship to sail the Phogiston. It's gibberish, and what's more, its stale gibberish.

    1. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's probably not a lot of benefit for being able to go to a higher dimension, but if we can put things in that higher dimension and retrieve them reliably then we can have infinite storage space. I can finally have that bag of holding!

    2. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's probably not a lot of benefit for being able to go to a higher dimension, but if we can put things in that higher dimension and retrieve them reliably then we can have infinite storage space. I can finally have that bag of holding!

      Of course that whole idea fails when a higher dimensional being accidently destroys the three dimensional objects you are storing. Of course, this being didn't mean to do any such thing, it was simply re-arranging the hyper-nick-knacks on its hyper-shelves and didn't precieve your stuff due to their orientation along a dimension they don't possess. I hope you have your stuff insured for that sort of thing.;)

    3. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, Alcuberre also acknowledged a number of problems with his drive including the fact that it wouldn't be able to see where it was going.

      So, as well as needing astronomical amounts of energy to power the ship, we'll also need prescient navigators? Well at least we know how to solve that one, just find Arrakis to acquire some Spice and put the navigators in chambers of Spice gas.

  33. We dont need more horses by voss · · Score: 1, Interesting

    We use cars now...because some guy decided at some point to hook up an engine to a belt to turn a wheel to make a cart go without horses.

    At some point science has take the crap or get off the pot, stop endlessly theorising about doing and just try and do it.

    1. Re:We dont need more horses by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      At some point science has take the crap or get off the pot, stop endlessly theorizing about doing and just try and do it.

      Who modded this "Interesting"? This is vapid adolescent bluster. "Just try and do it?" Do what? "Get" 10^45 joules? "Use" or "put" them behind a "spaceship?" Grow up, kid.

    2. Re:We dont need more horses by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      So why haven't you done it?

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  34. Start Drawing by Woodengineer · · Score: 1

    I guess it's time for me to start drawing pictures of spaceships and claiming they are optimized for warp speed because I have just as much evidence as he does. I'm sure a meme is very applicable here and it involves PROFIT!

  35. FTL paradoxes for dummies? by steveha · · Score: 1

    Can anyone point me at a web site that explains why FTL travel violates causality? My understanding is that it doesn't matter what technique you posit for FTL travel ("warp drive", "hyperspace", teleportation, bloater drive, etc.), none of them are possible because FTL travel would allow causality paradoxes.

    As I understand it, the basic problem is that there isn't a single frame of reference for the whole universe, and for observers in different frames of reference, FTL travel would look like traveling back in time. But I don't quite grok it.

    I seem to recall that the physics permits a wormhole that connects two points in space and time, implying an instant travel from future to past; I think the handwavy explanation was that the math allows this but you would be destroyed by the wormhole if you tried to travel through it so there is no causality paradox.

    I have also heard people point out that, if you stand on a rotating planet, it appears to you that distant galaxies are whirling around you at many times the speed of light, and given relativity, isn't it valid to say that from your frame of reference those galaxies are moving FTL? As little as I know about physics, I'm not touching this.

    steveha

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    1. Re:FTL paradoxes for dummies? by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Problem is the definition of FTL is assumed. Faster than light travel and even scientists think that you are talking of a speed greater than C.

      it MEANS travelling to a point in space faster than travelling to it than you can at the speed of light.

      If I punch a hole through space via a wormhole and travel at 45mph on a moped through the wormhole to travel a normal space distance of 600 light-years... I just traveled FTL. and THAT does not violate causality.

       

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:FTL paradoxes for dummies? by steveha · · Score: 1

      If I punch a hole through space via a wormhole and travel at 45mph on a moped through the wormhole to travel a normal space distance of 600 light-years... I just traveled FTL. and THAT does not violate causality.

      Except that I have been told repeatedly that it does violate causality. Here are some references:

      http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/archives/000089.html

      http://stason.org/TULARC/education-books/startrek-relativity-FTL/8-2-How-FTL-Travel-Implies-Violation-of-Causality.html

      http://sheol.org/throopw/tachyon-pistols.html

      But I still don't grok it. Probably a good thing I'm not a physicist.

      steveha

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    3. Re:FTL paradoxes for dummies? by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      Can anyone point me at a web site that explains why FTL travel violates causality?

      I've tried to explain that here. Long story short: FTL travel can automatically be used as a time machine, which means you can kill your own grandfather.

    4. Re:FTL paradoxes for dummies? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      That argument is only correct if you assume causality cannot be violated. Quantum mechanics has made us give up some of our cherished assumptions. I don't see any particular reason why strict causality should be sacred.

    5. Re:FTL paradoxes for dummies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read this. If the physics is right, and all the physics guys agree that it is, then FTL stuff can cause time travel paradoxes.

      One thing could save FTL, though: if there were a "true" underlying frame of reference that FTL somehow invoked. The FTL paradoxes stuff rise up from the differing frames of reference. But so far the experiments don't show any universal frame of reference, they just show that SR is correct.

    6. Re:FTL paradoxes for dummies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love how you just completely ignored the GP's point that no matter how you do it FTL travel causes paradoxes. And I love how you got modded +1 Insightful for ignoring it. Go Slashdot!

      Not only did you ignore the point, you are totally completely wrong. The scientists are NOT saying that FTL must mean flying in space at greater than C velocity.

    7. Re:FTL paradoxes for dummies? by MariusBoo · · Score: 1

      I find your physics interesting and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

      Are you sure about your claim? It would be very interesting if it were so. Any physicists around?

  36. Hrmph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think you're just stringing us along.

  37. Travel faster than light... by bagsta · · Score: 2, Funny

    Can you imagine that when we make our first travel faster than light, a Vulcan spaceship(or any other alien except Borgs :P) will passing by our neighborhood and make the first contact with aliens...?

    Noooo, I think I see too much science fiction

    --
    Until the skies turn blue...
    Until the air of freedom strikes us...
  38. Yeah go for it. Don't let *us* stop you. by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

    "These calculations are based on some arbitrary advance in technology or some alien technology that would let us manipulate the extra dimension," said Cleaver.
    What the scientists were able to estimate was the amount of energy necessary, if the technology was available, to change these dimensions: about 10^45 joules.


    This is somewhere between blue sky scientific speculation and plain old mental masturbation. I suspect that beer drinking played a key role somewhere.

  39. Sorry Obousy.... by brunes69 · · Score: 1

    You've got the wrong last name, and are thus detined to failure.

    Waiting for a Z. Cochrane to come forward.

  40. Practical Issues by maino82 · · Score: 1

    "...there will be some practical issues to overcome, such as preventing the creation of artificial black holes, as well as catastrophic warp bubble collapse when the power is switched off."

    Best practical issues to overcome EVER! Man, I wish my day job involved figuring out how to overcome the creation of artificial black holes.

  41. Warp Bubble by awarrenfells · · Score: 1

    I would like to know more about this supposed warp bubble, and what were to happen if the said warp bubble were to collapse in mid flight?

    1. Re:Warp Bubble by cashman73 · · Score: 1
      I would like to know more about this supposed warp bubble, and what were to happen if the said warp bubble were to collapse in mid flight?

      My guess is that would be extraordinarily bad. Kind of like crossing-the-streams-bad. Or shutting-off-the-power-supply-bad.

    2. Re:Warp Bubble by awarrenfells · · Score: 1

      Nice. Ghost Busters references FTW.

      But, yeah, probably so. =/

  42. Universal inflation by Neanderthal+Ninny · · Score: 1

    The words "Universal Inflation" sounds like what we are experiencing financially now.

    1. Re:Universal inflation by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      You're a few decades off. That was the Carter administration.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  43. Didn't this end up turning into a alternative real by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    Didn't this end up turning into a alternative reality drive and this trun in to a hard to shout down one that can draw power from the other side.

  44. Fabulous by xednieht · · Score: 0, Troll

    Man invented the wheel.... again.

    --

    Hope is the currency of fools
  45. But it looks just like a DC-8... by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 2, Funny

    and is piloted by L Ron himself! Probably full of Thetans, too.

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  46. How to create the bubble by istartedi · · Score: 1

    Just have the Federal Reserve keep the rate of the Universe's expansion artificially low for a few years.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  47. Not really a scientific idea by krakround · · Score: 1

    This is really no better fleshed out than any idea bandied about in your favorite sci-fi novel.

    1. Re:Not really a scientific idea by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      That's because journalists are idiots ... so is anyone who thinks a journalist has the whole story on anything science-related. Check out the peer-reviewed paper at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0712/0712.1649v6.pdf, which some other posters have helpfully pointed out.

  48. That's nice... but how exactly? by naasking · · Score: 1

    It'd be nice to have an explanation of exactly HOW the design is optimized to exploit dark energy, ie. how the geometry and/or features of the ship would contribute to harnessing and/or channeling dark energy. Without an explanation, it just looks like yet another science fiction space ship.

    1. Re:That's nice... but how exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The theory is well explained in the peer reviewed scientific publication:

      http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0712/0712.1649v6.pdf

    2. Re:That's nice... but how exactly? by naasking · · Score: 1

      While that's a great resource describing the PHYSICS, it tells me nothing about the ENGINEERING behind the design of this craft.

  49. This warpship will fly by nausea_malvarma · · Score: 3, Funny

    on the same day I play Duke Nukem Forever in HURD.

    1. Re:This warpship will fly by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      on the same day I play Duke Nukem Forever in HURD.

      You jest, but last month swine flu.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  50. Only solving half the shift. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if going faster than light equals going back in time? Then the Doppler shift one undergoes reaching light speed should reverse itself going faster than light. e.g. front is red, back is blue?

  51. Warp speed, Bah. by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Let me know when Lint Speed is available.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  52. Alternative energy? by Zarf · · Score: 1

    Uh, is dark energy the ultimate alternative energy? What happens when you use up all the dark energy in a region of space?

    --
    [signature]
  53. I always wondered... by Anachragnome · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I always wondered about Faster-then-light travel and all the muck in the universe getting in the way whilst zipping through space.

    Think about it.

    That galaxy might be well out of our path when that path is calculated, but where the hell will it be when we are actually passing through that area, and just how, exactly, does our mucking around with time effect our spatial relationship to other celestial bodies, especially since some of them display complex interactions with both time and space?

    Wouldn't that galaxy be in a different location in space since it is in a different location in time (assuming it was moving to begin with, as Big Bang Theory suggests)? One would think we would have to map all the trajectories, and not just locations, of damn near every celestial body simply to avoid crashing into them.

    But hey, since we could go forward in time, we should also be able to go backward as well, right? If that is the case, it might as well be "Full speed ahead...and pass the bong." Anything goes wrong, you just go back.

    But then, I could be wrong. Or could have been...or will be...man, my head hurts.

    1. Re:I always wondered... by imakemusic · · Score: 1

      I've thought that myself. Also with thime travel. The earth is always moving, so if you travel in time it's highly likely that the earth will have moved to a completely different position and you'll be left floating in space or inside one of the moons of jupiter...or something.

      What we need to invent is a device that keeps in you in position relative to the place you're standing.

      ...oh, and a time machine.

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
  54. Investors? by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    Is that what they call them? Wow.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  55. QM and causality by argent · · Score: 1

    The idea that FTL naturally makes time travel possible is tightly bound to the structure of relativity. Since time travel seems to lead to causality paradoxes (e.g., going back in time and killing yourself), the conclusion seems to be that FTL leads to paradoxes, and that makes physicists suspect that FTL isn't actually physically possible.

    Either that, or causality violations can happen. The problem with allowing causality violations, as I understand it, is that it causes problems for quantum mechanics. Something like the information required to describe the universe at time T1 can't be extracted from the universe at any later time T2.

    1. Re:QM and causality by bcrowell · · Score: 1

      The problem with allowing causality violations, as I understand it, is that it causes problems for quantum mechanics.

      No, there's nothing quantum-mechanical about the issue. The problem with causality violations is that they create paradoxes. What happens when you go back in time and kill yourself?

  56. Damn...Got the title wrong by neural.disruption · · Score: 1

    Damn I read it as "Introducing the Warship", that would be funnier who knows what lurks beyond the Kupier Belt

    Anyway the ship looks nice, its a shame that warp drives or something like a Holtzman Drive are not going to be a reality in any predictable near future... in despite of that I also recall that in the nineteen century humans flying was still something absurd for most people... so maybe not so unpredictable.

    Anyway I really would like to pay a visit to our Insect Overlords from outer space...
    So never wondered why there are thousands of insect species on earth? Insectoid Overlords That's Why!

  57. A strain on warp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what happens to the space that expands behind the warpship? Technically you would have a line of expanded space behind the spaceship as it travels the light years, and if you travel the same path multiple times, does warp drive stop working when you strain the expanded space-time to much??

    1. Re:A strain on warp by brock+bitumen · · Score: 1

      i believe that would result in having a wrinkle in space-time

  58. Reminds me of this song.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't want to set the world... on fire.....

    Now, for VATS

  59. Causality Violation by mdmkolbe · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't a Alcubierre drive violate causality? While locally you are not traveling FTL, IIRC globally traveling FTL is sufficient to violate causality and build a time machine.

    1. Re:Causality Violation by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      Violating causality is fine provided you don't mind breaking Lorentz symmetry (at high energies). While we know from experiment that Lorentz symmetry holds up at low energies, we have no experiments at energies higher than TeV scale, so lots of things are imaginable at high energies. Moreover, many people expect that a quantum gravity would break Lorentz symmetry at the Planck scale at least.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
  60. I want to see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pics or it didn't happen!

  61. hmm. by Nekomusume · · Score: 1

    I've got dibs on the Eldar Craftworlds!

  62. Credulity by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

    Slashdot editors: So credulous they manage to asound even 9/11 Troofers with with their gullability...

    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  63. If we... by MJMullinII · · Score: 1

    could somehow...harness this power...channel it,...into the Casimir Warp Drive...it just might work!

    --
    "Don't be a martyr -- BE THE ONE WHO GOT AWAY!"
  64. Discover Magazine covered this by IonOtter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It was several years ago, illustrated by Larry Gonick in his cartoon science series, "Light Elements". Same premise, same idea, but the biggest problem that was mentioned in the cartoon, has not been mentioned in this article?

    You can start the compression in front of the ship, and also start the expansion behind the ship, which will get it moving.

    However, once you've generated the compression/expansion wave, its self-sustaining. That brings up the problem, just how do you get the forward compression to stop??? What sort of "signal" do you send ahead of the compression wave to nullify it and allow you to stop? According to the Discover article, it "involved some sort of 'anti-gravity'.", which so far hasn't been invented yet.

    So what you've got is a one-way, warp-speed trip around existence for all of eternity.

    --
    [End Of Line]
    1. Re:Discover Magazine covered this by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      >>However, once you've generated the compression/expansion wave, its self-sustaining.

      So, what you're saying is, you're going straight to plaid?

    2. Re:Discover Magazine covered this by master_p · · Score: 1

      Apparently (according to the article), the cosmological constant can be altered at will.

  65. Obligatory Futurama Quote by baKanale · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Professor: Where's the device that lets to speed up or slow down the passage of time?
    Fry: [pulls out a bong] Under the seat.

  66. Gravity distortion field by crafty.munchkin · · Score: 1

    The 4th image reminds me of the description of the gravity distortion field generated by Edenist voidhawk and blackhawk space ships from the Night's Dawn trilogy...

    --
    ... wait, what?
  67. Time Travel by caller9 · · Score: 1

    If reverse time travel were possible it would have already happened in the future. Either we do not matter much to the inventors or they're too worried about changing their own past and vanishing, causing a global war, or preventing the invention of the sonic screwdriver.

    So what I am wondering is: If you change the past, does the current time continue to happen in an alternate universe, or would it just change all of the events and update the same reality. Alternate universes would require an entire universe worth of energy to fork right? That has me leaning toward single reality updates. Unless that universe already existed and ... oh I've gone crosseyed.

    Anyone read "The Dreaming Void?" Substitute universe with known-universe and you just need a gigantic simulator that eats galaxies when it needs to fork. They should've built in logrotate on that simulator BTW.

  68. Nope, Stefano Finazzi has shown that the bubbles c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23292/
    Quantum setback for warp drives
    Include quantum mechanics in the calculations and faster-than-light drives become unstable

    Bad news I'm afraid -- it looks as if faster-than-light travel isn't possible after all. That's the conclusion of a new study into how warp drives would behave when quantum mechanics is taken into account. "Warp drives would become rapidly unstable once superluminal speeds are reached," say Stefano Finazzi at the International School for Advanced Studies in Trieste, Italy, and a couple of friends...

  69. Sounds like ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... another one of those sales pitches at the Ferengi used starship lot.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  70. Get a basic tech right, then make a warp drive by woolio · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hey, I'm all for manipulating dark matter and delving into the 11th dimension as the next guy...

    But we can't even get operating systems to work as we want. And car gas mileage hasn't increased much in the past few decades. [No, I don't consider it to be an huge accomplishment that some tiny 1500lb car now gets ~33mpg on the highway when my 6 year old V6 Camry gets an actual 30mpg on the highway at 70mph. Should I be thrilled if you show me a car getting 40mpg? ].

    I think we have much more pressing (easier) issues to solve before making a warp drive...

    That said, given how people behave, it wouldn't quite surprise me if we have warp-drive spacecraft (including civilian inter-solar-system travel) before we have fuel-efficient transportation and decent operating systems.

  71. Man will never fly! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ha ha ha... the idea of a man flying is absurd!

    We'll never travel faster than 20 miles per hour... anything faster than that and our bodies will break apart.

    Ha... a man on the moon! Fantasy!!

  72. Riding the wave off of a pot whole of space by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

    A pot whole of good BC bud makes surfing those waves much easier as time slips into the future, into the future...

    Slip sliding away.... slip sliding away....

  73. Let's not put the negative time before the horse by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    I'm also not clear on what kind of radiation such a bubble would give off, but it's possible it would be intense enough to fry anything inside...

    Also there isn't much talk about acceleration rates, which is for my money, a little more important that maximum speeds, since humans start dying in droves around 10gs...

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  74. Re:Let's not put the negative time before the hors by Klintus+Fang · · Score: 1

    Actually, acceleration is not an issue at all. If a warp bubble was ever made to work, the acceleration for the people on the ship would be zero.

    Acceleration is a change in velocity. In a warp bubble, if you could make one, there is no change in velocity because the ship does not move. The space behind the ship is stretched and the space in front of the ship is contracted. The ship itself doesn't move.

    --
    In a minute there is time For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. -T.S. Eliot
  75. The author claims to have made actual calculations by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    I suspect the paper is much more mathematically in depth than this, since the conversation detailed a couple links in indicates actual energy calculations have been made, indicating much less energy would be required than previously thought.

    Keep in mind this has been simplified for the "average high school audience" for whom the major news outlets write.

    I'd love to see the actual writeup, but think that would be too far to the other extreme of the qualification spectrum for me to understand.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  76. Sorry.. saturday night live. by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    look more closely at this page it says in small print everywhere:

    "SNL transcripts"

    shatner never said it, it was a saturday night live sketch.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  77. Sad by jandersen · · Score: 1

    I think it is sad, really, and not so much something to laugh at. The guy is clearly intelligent, but deluded, is my guess - the other option being that he is simply a fraud, of course. I can't help wondering what makes a gifted person lose contact with relity like that; a large part of it is probably social isolation.

  78. Too Slow by daveime · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Warp Drive is soooo slow :-(

    Stargates FTW.

    (Sorry, just got a 14 day EVE trial and getting a bit too immersed).

  79. Don't you remember ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This:

    http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23292/

    and

    http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/05/27/1215204&tid=14

    So, warp travel IS possible, but, for the moment there is no way to stabilize the warpship. ;)

  80. Patent Issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Paramount already holds the patent on faster than light travel through warp drive propulsion as well as the patent on the warp drive itself.

    This guy had better have already built a functioning warp drive if he wants to stand a chance of raising enough money to fight off the lawyers.

  81. Re:The author claims to have made actual calculati by hardwarejunkie9 · · Score: 1

    But there's no real link to the actual paper or material. You're having to assume that it exists, which means it's poor scientific coverage. There are no references within the article which means no reliability.

    --
    I like losing arguments, it just means that I can take your point and make it my own.
  82. If you think rocket fuel's expensive... by Daemonic · · Score: 1

    So okay, we've got this FTL warpship design, yeah?
    We can send a spaceship to the far reaches of the universe...
    But we lose Jupiter?
    Maybe the environmental lobby will have something to say about that.
    Not to mention the practical difficulties of finding another spare Jupiter lying around for the second trip.

  83. By Neruos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry but fail. Most new sciences has to go thru alot of chalk or 3d modeling before anything is made up in the real world. Old science is much about emulating nature, new science is about creating or manipulating nature.

    Comparing the action of jumping up and down to warp drive is completely moronic.

  84. Warp? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds very Event Horizon to me.

  85. Re:Nope, Stefano Finazzi has shown that the bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why side with the guy who says it's not possible rather than the guy who says it might be possible?

    So Finazzi has some objections - the ship would be bathed in radiation....eh.. shields anyone??

    Anyways you pessimistic dooshbag, Finnazi's model is based on semi-classical physics, has only been formulated for a 1 dimensional model and is valid only during the acceleration period. ...pessimists...(roll-eyes)