[IMG]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/images/lega-emc2-l.jpg[/IMG]
The famous formula of Albert Einstein is a milestone in physics, but has one major drawback. It doesn’t allow people to travel faster than light. But to secure the survival of mankind, it will become necessary to do exactly that. So, Einstein maneuvered us in a quite uncomfortable position.
Einstein’s formula has proven itself right multiple times. In order to create a way to travel faster than light, we need to find a way which does not violate the rules set up by the formula.
First, we need to record two things
[LIST=1]
[*]Nothing (speaking of matter and energy) can move faster than light. This is proven with the formula E=mc^2
[*]Spacetime, the combination of space and time, can be bent by large energies (like mass, radiation or pressure). This is proven in the general theory of relativity.
[/LIST]
Enter the Mexican physicist Miguel Alcubierre. His idea is easy, yet very effective. Instead of moving a space ship (or any matter), why not move the start and end point closer together?
[IMG]http://www.daviddarling.info/images/warp_drive.gif[/IMG]
An easy explanation for this can be made with a single sheet of paper. Take one and draw two points on the sheet, one near the top and one near the bottom. The sheet of paper represents spacetime, the two points the start and end point of your journey. Now, try to bring them closer together, by bending the sheet. You’ll find out that this is actually possible.
We can use that method to bring two points closer together. But this method is not very effective right now. In order to travel with that method, we’d need to bend the entire universe, which isn’t possible. While doing so, you would destroy everything in the universe. And we’re not even speaking of the energy which would be needed to bend the whole universe.
We figured out, that we need another way of solving this problem. Instead of bending the whole universe at once, why not bend just a small part of it. Why not create a bubble of bent spacetime around your spaceship?
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/Alcubierre.png[/IMG]
This is where we travel in. It may looks strange at first but even here on earth we use a similar way to entertain ourselves: surfing.
[IMG]http://www.jaunted.com/files/admin/hawaii_surfing_nut.jpg[/IMG]
In theory it really works similar to a wave. We compress the spacetime which is in front of our spaceship and expand it behind it. While doing so, the space around us moves, yet the spaceship itself lies safely inside this artificial bubble (this also solves the problem of time traveling and all its related paradoxes).
[IMG]http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/PU/Star_Trek_Warp_Field.png[/IMG]
Let’s check this method against our requirements. The second is easily fulfilled, because we use it to achieve the desired effect. But what about the first one? As you can see in the above picture, the spaceship itself is in an unbent part of spacetime, thus not affected by the bent spacetime around it. A beam of light inside of the bubble is always faster than the ship itself.
As you see, this idea has a proper solution in the general theory of relativity (because it doesn’t violate its rules). It is theoretically possible to create a device that is able to create the effects we want. But in reality it’s a whole different story.
In order to create the effect, we’d need negative energy, something that is highly debated under physicists today. Certain solutions have showed that we’d need the equivalent of a few milligrams of negative energy to make the warp-drive work, but negative energy has yet to be proven/found. Until then, space exploration lies within the hands of astronomers and the imagination of the people.
Can we move faster than light? The answer shifted from a clear “No” to an unclear “Maybe”. Still it gives hopes, something that’s driving mankind since its earliest days.
That's it, I hope you enjoyed reading this and that you forgive me one or two errors I made :angel:
I point out that some of this stuff is simplified in order to make it more understandable, view the post of aVoN further below to get more information.
Sources
Spacetime: [url]http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Raum_und_Zeit_%28Minkowski%29[/url] – 17.12.2009
Warp drive: [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0009013[/url] - 17.12.2009 – 17.12.2009
Get back to me when this has a chance of being possible.
The beliefs of one fringe scientist do not a breakthrough make.
Heh, if you look at the bulge on the left, and scroll your screen up and down, keeping your eyes fixed on it's previous position, it'll look like it's expanding and contracting.
[IMG]http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/PU/Star_Trek_Warp_Field.png[/IMG]
I'm sorry, OP, what were you saying?
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;21644900]Heh, if you look at the bulge on the left, and scroll your screen up and down, keeping your eyes fixed on it's previous position, it'll look like it's expanding and contracting.
[IMG]http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/PU/Star_Trek_Warp_Field.png[/IMG]
I'm sorry, OP, what were you saying?[/QUOTE]
Press F11 to engage warp drive :v:
The OP is quite mixing too much science together, which are not connected.
E = mc^2 has nothing to do with FTL. It is a result of the Legendre transformation of the relativistic Lagrandian (which gives the energy).
E = mc^2 is only valid for particles [b]at rest[/b].
It also does not "forbid" FTL. Special relativity does, except you have an imaginary mass. And the correct formula is E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2). Only this one shows, FTL for real mass gives imaginary Energy. But energy has to be real, so you need imagninary mass cause i^2 = -1 makes the Energy again real.
And bending spacetime is a consequence of general relativity which allows pseudo-FTL travel, yes (like with the Alcubiere-Drive you have posted a few pictures about).
It was not really my intention to give a full solution of faster than light travel. Just to give an idea that it is possible (well, theoreticaly) to achieve such a speed within the laws of general relativity. In order to keep it simple I tried to releate everything to stuff we find in our daily life, such as the example with the paper or surfing. To do that I had to sacrifice some stuff, which you pointed out.
Everything you said is true and I am aware of that. I just wanted to keep it simple.
Funny is, this article was an essay I wrote in physics in my informatics study, and I got an A on that thing :v:
At this rate, Star Wars will be a historical documentary :v:
brb playing sins of a solar empire
Oh hey cool thread
[QUOTE=aVoN;21645411]The OP is quite mixing too much science together, which are not connected.
E = mc^2 has nothing to do with FTL. It is a result of the Legendre transformation of the relativistic Lagrandian (which gives the energy).
E = mc^2 is only valid for particles [b]at rest[/b].
It also does not "forbid" FTL. Special relativity does, except you have an imaginary mass. And the correct formula is E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2). Only this one shows, FTL for real mass gives imaginary Energy. But energy has to be real, so you need imagninary mass cause i^2 = -1 makes the Energy again real.
And bending spacetime is a consequence of general relativity which allows pseudo-FTL travel, yes (like with the Alcubiere-Drive you have posted a few pictures about).[/QUOTE]
Oh hey proper science
Fringe science is better :(((
That's why we have wormholes.
If we compress the matter in front of the spaceship, wouldnt that mean that that way of travelling is extremely dangerous for planets and lifeforms?
If we destroy the universe we could travel anywhere faster as long as we left sol alive... Just saying
[editline]10:48AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=BloodYScar;21645752]If we compress the matter in front of the spaceship, wouldnt that mean that that way of travelling is extremely dangerous for planets and lifeforms?[/QUOTE]
Space 9/11
I has a question here.
Einstein said nothing can move faster than light. But the argument was "The closer you get to c, the more mass you have, and it takes infinite energy to reach lightspeed, and more than infinite energy to go above".
Now, shouldn't this mean that nothing can [I]accelerate[/I] to FTL speeds, but that things that are already moving FTL would not be affected? Such as Tachyons and Superbradyons?
This has really fucked my mind.
Why have there been so many awesome threads about science lately?
[QUOTE=d3450;21655678]Why have there been so many awesome threads about science lately?[/QUOTE]
To many evil scientists use facepunch.
:tinfoil:
[QUOTE=BloodYScar;21645752]If we compress the matter in front of the spaceship, wouldnt that mean that that way of travelling is extremely dangerous for planets and lifeforms?[/QUOTE]
It's fine whatever's in that bubble is effectively in it's own mini universe.
Although on the outside...
"From the moon to the stars."
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;21655350]I has a question here.
Einstein said nothing can move faster than light. But the argument was "The closer you get to c, the more mass you have, and it takes infinite energy to reach lightspeed, and more than infinite energy to go above".
Now, shouldn't this mean that nothing can [I]accelerate[/I] to FTL speeds, but that things that are already moving FTL would not be affected? Such as Tachyons and Superbradyons?[/QUOTE]
Those are theoretical particles.
[QUOTE=bravehat;21656096]Those are theoretical particles.[/QUOTE]
I'm aware, but still. Would relativity forbid?
[QUOTE=aVoN;21645411]The OP is quite mixing too much science together, which are not connected.
E = mc^2 has nothing to do with FTL. It is a result of the Legendre transformation of the relativistic Lagrandian (which gives the energy).
E = mc^2 is only valid for particles [b]at rest[/b].
It also does not "forbid" FTL. Special relativity does, except you have an imaginary mass. And the correct formula is E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2). Only this one shows, FTL for real mass gives imaginary Energy. But energy has to be real, so you need imagninary mass cause i^2 = -1 makes the Energy again real.
And bending spacetime is a consequence of general relativity which allows pseudo-FTL travel, yes (like with the Alcubiere-Drive you have posted a few pictures about).[/QUOTE]
i love you
[editline]09:52PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;21656143]I'm aware, but still. Would relativity forbid?[/QUOTE]
no, go take high school physics
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;21656143]I'm aware, but still. Would relativity forbid?[/QUOTE]
Well if I remember correctly they are super luminal particles so I don't think they can go slower than light speed.
So just how could we go about bending the universe. How do you physically do it?
[QUOTE=Mudbone;21656290]So just how could we go about bending the universe. How do you physically do it?[/QUOTE]
AFAIK, nobody knows yet.
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;21656301]AFAIK, nobody knows yet.[/QUOTE]
Yes we do, we just need unthinkable amounts of negative energy (because wormholes, by nature, resist existence and need stabilization) and we're not positive it would work because it's hypothetical.
also exotic matter
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r70siUfEW-E[/media]
I want this.
[QUOTE=Quo Vadi;21656376]Yes we do, we just need unthinkable amounts of negative energy (because wormholes, by nature, resist existence and need stabilization) and we're not positive it would work because it's hypothetical.[/QUOTE]
That's why I said nobody knows yet, because negative energy adn such is still theoretical. Once we find it, we should know how.
There could be some unexpected things, like negative mass adn such not working because we assume it has negative inertia, but I think that's for a different kind of propulsion, not the Alcubierre drive.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
