Would it be a bad idea to travel the speed of light?

[AngelLestat]

Sorry again for the delay.

I read a lot of insults this time, dont be bad.

If I put you in some hard spots with some of my questions, dont blame me...

Big bang is a special case, and we don't know anything about it. All we know is that it produced the initial matter fields and began the inflation. Physics as we know it can only take over from there.

But if we have a theory of everything since 60th like you said, how is possible that we dont know nothing about how the big bang began?

Energy in vacuum does not produce particles. You need particle interaction for that. To put it simply, you need matter (and energy) to make more matter. Now you can ask, what happens if a particle does strike a warp bubble? And it will likely turn into a shower of particles which will make your radiation that much worse, But the energy holding the bubble is still just energy.

Ok agree. but what we know about negative energy properties?

You wouldn't enter a ship with a running bubble. You'd enter the ship, then the bubble forms and you travel. Then the bubble dissolves, and you are at the destination. The ship itself undergoes no motion. Space containing the ship moves, for the lack of better term. And like I said, there is no kinetic energy involved. (Other than kinetic energy of the bubble, which you do have to invest in.)

So you need to generate all the energy again for each travel, in this case, at least from the point of view of my objections it would not violate the thermodynamics laws.

Ok. But you well know that this is not the last word about thermodynamics. A lot other questions arise of how to create the bubble, how to maintain the bubble, it is said that make this with negative energy is similar to try to sustain a worm hole. That it will be highly unstable and it would violate some energy conditions.

You've missed the point. Read up on MWI and see if you can follow this experiment. Or, maybe, you can find a more detailed treatment of entanglement in MWI somewhere. I just can't type pages and pages of text on it. The short version is that the state of particles p1 and p2 does not change. So you know the state of the other particle, because it is in same superposition it started out with. What you can know in advance are measurement results made by O2, and that's only because O1 and O2 become ultimately entangled.

Why I need to choose the MWI interpretation instead any other? Or you need this to remove certain paradoxes that would arise from your FTL fantasy?

Then QM is exactly the same as it is now. It only makes a difference on the level of matter fields.

You have a tendency to forget that we actually do not have any proven theory to merge GR with QM.

So we can not said nothing for sure about the frames of reference where both theories needs to be had into account.

A M-theory would also explain all of it about all doubts that scientist had about causality effect, themordynamics violations, possible paradoxes and the true shape of the universe. And maybe a not probabilistic descriptions of particle physsics.

What you just said makes no sense. I suspect that you are mis-using a few terms. I recommend that you at least familiarize yourself with the basics of topology and get the feeling for what local properties and global properties of a topology might be.

I am still trying to find why has no sense. I was reading this page hoping see your point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe

I guess what you want to said, that the global properties does not matter in the surf-motion of your warp drive ship, my point is that even if your ship use the local geometry, all particles involve may use the global geometry.

You understand basic Newtonian Gravity, right? Ok, I have a bouncy ball in my hand, and I'm going to drop it. How fast does it strike the floor? And I'm not giving you any more information about it. You know the theory, you should be able to tell me exact number without any other inputs. Ok, ok. I'll give you one. The bouncy ball is red. Now you have plenty of data to give me exact number.

Perfect, now you need to prove why this example is relevant with the things that you are talking about.

As for parameters of the theory we do know, I've already stated them in this thread. Four spacial degrees of freedom associated with pseudo-Riemannian manifold, additional degrees of freedom that transform according to QCD symmetries for some of the fields, and the most general Lagrangian that satisfies these constraints.

For the rest of it, I'd have to ask you what you mean by time, because people use the word to describe several different things. Oh, and you are very confused on what holographic interpretation is all about. You might want to look up AdS QCD correspondence. AdS is about as simple as holographic interpretation get.

Well maybe I am stupid, becouse I could not understand your point defending the fact that we actually had a theory of everything.

I guess I know what you want to said.. We have Einsteinian GR to explain all the macroscopic things, and then Quamtum Mechanic to explain all microscopic things. And with different approachs and math tools, we dont need any merging theory to prove warp drive. That is what you want to said?

Ok. but I am not sure if I can find another information source to be 100% agree with this point.

Also when I mention some post back the Maldacena Conjecture, you knew that I was talking about AdS QCD correspondence right?

Warp drive is a prediction. It's a prediction of General Relativity. And there is no theory with better support.

The problem that warp drive seems to have one foot over General Relativity and the other foot on Quamtum Mechanic.

For start, where all this negative energy is comming? From a quamtum mechanic prediction?

There is also the point that general theory of relativity it does not invalidated much of the special theory of relativity, where this would not be possible.

Is better explain in this note.

Quantum Gravity is a direct consequence of Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity. Both verified to more than 12 orders of magnitude. It's an absolute certainty compared to a host of things you take as truths.

Yeah, both theories are very well understood, but this it does not said nothing about quamtum gravity.

Is far to be prove it, there are also some critics to quantum gravity that still is not clear when you make the general relativity convertion to quamtum mechanic, in fact you are end it with the same general relativity.

I found this note, that summarize our postures very well. Try to read it all.

It does not takes any side. Also points that the most useful discussions are those that are completely opposite. That is what I call it a win-win.

Don't hold your breath. We might never have universal QCs that are anything more than toys. Specialized QCs already exist, but they are designed for very specific tasks.

LOL, do not tell me that you are using the same uncertainty points that are commonly used against any kind of FTL but this time against Quantum Turing machine?

Haha, this is hilarious..

Feel free to point to peer-reviewed publications confirming your theory. Oh, wait. But I guess, you just have no idea what theory means. Or holographic interpretation, again. You really ought to stop using words you don't understand. It makes it very difficult to understand your questions.

So your hard strikes against me are all about vocabularity and english?

You know, I will take a lot more to responce each of these post if I need to search how to translate each word instead to just remplace them with something that I know.

Information and knowledge are two completely different things. As much information as you've tried to absorb, you don't know anything about these subjects. And you won't know anything until you try to actually understand the underlying principles. And for that you need to start with a good course in classical physics, actually learn some quantum mechanics, get a mathematical background to keep going, and start actually learning what's going on with the science that's been established for a better part of a century. Then you can start to actually understand something.

Yup... maybe you should keep your responces focus in physsics.

I know that light speed can not be broken. So to know all the demonstration of einstein theories will not change the fact that light speed can not be broken. Learn all the demostration will help me to understand other implications that the theory must have, but I also can read about all the other implications and still know them without make a single calculation. Of course my knowledge would be discrete and meanwhile I dint adventure out of my discrete frame of topics, I will be fine. In case I do, I always can search for the results that I am looking for.

And about what I tell you earlier:

"More information is always equal to "less chance to be wrong"

Use information instead knowledge is the correct approach.

We can never know if the information that we receive is true or not, we can only measure its source and attach a level of trust to that information.

So more information you have, it will reduce your chance to be wrong. Is like drop 100 coins to the floor, you can estimate that close to the 50% of the coins will be face it head, If you drop 100000 coins that estimate accuracy increase.

Nonsense. Details of their experiments are matter of public knowledge.

You need to go to the page 2, but the whole interview is good enoght. It also propose some critics in page 3.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-03/warp-factor?page=0%2C2

This is another note:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/08/harold_sonny_white_warp_drive_faster_than_light_secret_physics_debunked.html

There are some other critics to its experiment and papers here.

http://excursionset.com/blog/2013/7/23/dump-the-warp-core

It does not. You are arguing from ignorance again.

I am not. First, point me the source of White´s papers that show how thin is this bubble, for the 700kg example of negative energy, also I would like to know how big this bubble is and what speed reach.

Second, try to find a source where it said that all quamtum effects does not represent any obstable trying to make a negative energy bubble that travel faster than light.

There are no laws of physics requiring global causality to hold. Again, you are just making stuff up. All causality requirements are local and they are valid for any prediction of GR.

THe fact that causality in GR is still not very well detailed or understood, it does not give you the chance to ignore or avoid all implications that possible carry.

And lets get something completely straight. Warp Drive as a principle is absolutely solid. Alcubierre Drive is mathematically precise and physical. In that exact formulation, it is not feasible to construct, but it violates no principles. All of your arguments on that are complete and total ignorance from lack of understanding of GR or any physics beyond the very basics.

Then we go into other Warp Drive models that try to make them more feasible. The best result to date is by Dr White. That involves approximations and might not work as predicted. It is, in any case, the best idea we have so far and certainly a step in the right direction. Again, the questions aren't about whether or not such geometry works, but whether or not it is stable. A distinction which, again, would be lost on someone who has no concept of how GR works. His experiments might or might not confirm the effect. None of that matters. If Dr. White's drive proves to be unstable, it simply means we have to look for other configurations to reduce energy requirements. There are no physical reasons for them to be that high, and there are no physical reasons for the device not to work at all.

We might never find a configuration which we can build with resources we can reasonably get. That's always a possibility. But you seem to be under the impression that the underlying principles are less than solid, and that's just completely false. This has nothing to do with work by Dr. White or any one other physicist who worked on warp drives. We have the basic model. We know it is solid. We know it works. Feasibility of construction is the only unknown.

Ok, I will accept that before start this discussion, my level of skepticism about the warp drive idea, was very high.

Now I am pondering possible scenarios where this become true.

I change my way to see it, NO. I remain sceptic until new conclusive data come from this.

This video encloses very well my previous idea of how this is beneficial for NASA.

This does not remove the fact that the Q-Thruster technology might reach some practical implementation and that Harold White reasearch about warp drives may help us to understand more about our universe.

[K^2]

If I put you in some hard spots with some of my questions, dont blame me...

You don't. You just ask stupid questions just to be difficult. That's not winning you any arguments, and only highlights how little you know about the subject. To be honest, I'm starting to grow tired of it.

But if we have a theory of everything since 60th like you said, how is possible that we dont know nothing about how the big bang began?

Covered at least three times in this topic.

Ok agree. but what we know about negative energy properties?

Same as we do about positive energy.

So you need to generate all the energy again for each travel, in this case, at least from the point of view of my objections it would not violate the thermodynamics laws.

Ok. But you well know that this is not the last word about thermodynamics. A lot other questions arise of how to create the bubble, how to maintain the bubble, it is said that make this with negative energy is similar to try to sustain a worm hole. That it will be highly unstable and it would violate some energy conditions.

How about you estimate stability. Or energy required. Or anything. You just make empty claims again.

Why I need to choose the MWI interpretation instead any other? Or you need this to remove certain paradoxes that would arise from your FTL fantasy?

How about you learn a few things about interpretations before going off to make stuff up again. Like, the fact that all interpretations are equivalent for starters. This isn't like interpreting bible. There is math, and theorems, and a lot of other stuff you didn't bother to even get the basic idea about before jumping to conclusion and start throwing accusations.

You have a tendency to forget that we actually do not have any proven theory to merge GR with QM.

We do. You are still living in fantasy land.

A M-theory would also explain all of it about all doubts that scientist had about causality effect, themordynamics violations, possible paradoxes and the true shape of the universe. And maybe a not probabilistic descriptions of particle physsics.

Bwahahahaha. Sorry. Come back when you actually know what M-theory is about and how it relates to standard model.

I am still trying to find why has no sense. I was reading this page hoping see your point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe

I guess what you want to said, that the global properties does not matter in the surf-motion of your warp drive ship, my point is that even if your ship use the local geometry, all particles involve may use the global geometry.

And you're making more stuff up. No, keep going. We're having an excellent and very productive discussion here. Why don't you tell me what local symmetries are, which ones are available to which fields, and how they actually relate to any physical particles.

Perfect, now you need to prove why this example is relevant with the things that you are talking about.

You first. How is anything you've asked relevant to what we are talking about?

Well maybe I am stupid, becouse I could not understand your point defending the fact that we actually had a theory of everything.

I guess I know what you want to said.. We have Einsteinian GR to explain all the macroscopic things, and then Quamtum Mechanic to explain all microscopic things.

We had these in 1930s. And since then, greatest minds of the century, starting from Einstein himself, to Dirac, Pauli, Feynman, Fermi, Bohr, Noether, and many less known, but still incredibly talented physicists just sat on their rears doing nothing.

Also when I mention some post back the Maldacena Conjecture, you knew that I was talking about AdS QCD correspondence right?

Nope. Haven't seen it by that name. I'll keep it in mind. Of course, that only makes it more funny that you don't have a clue what holographic interpretation means. You've read something about them, and you still didn't realize that they have to have more dimensions than observable universe, and not fewer.

The problem that warp drive seems to have one foot over General Relativity and the other foot on Quamtum Mechanic.

For start, where all this negative energy is comming? From a quamtum mechanic prediction?

I've addressed that a number of times. You are arguing purely from your ignorance of how QM and GR work together. We know how this stuff works on every relevant scale.

There is also the point that general theory of relativity it does not invalidated much of the special theory of relativity, where this would not be possible.

Is better explain in this note.

SR also says that light always travels in a perfectly straight line. According to SR, gravitational lensing is impossible. Now, I could try and explain why SR applies to Warp Drive only locally, but these sort of things have been like talking to a wall so far, so why don't you explain to me how SR is supposed to hold in a space-time that's not Minkowski.

Yeah, both theories are very well understood, but this it does not said nothing about quamtum gravity.

That's because you don't have a first clue what any of these things are.

I found this note, that summarize our postures very well. Try to read it all.

It does not takes any side. Also points that the most useful discussions are those that are completely opposite. That is what I call it a win-win.

We've already covered all of these points. Fact that there are other people on internet just as confused as you are doesn't mean that you're right.

LOL, do not tell me that you are using the same uncertainty points that are commonly used against any kind of FTL but this time against Quantum Turing machine?

Haha, this is hilarious..

Oh, good sir, why don't you tell me about the difficulties in quantum computation. Like, why we have a quantum algorithm that breaks factorization problems in poly time, and yet public keys are perfectly secure. Or why we have quantum teleportation, but I still have to drive to work. Maybe you'd like to learn a few things about QM before you start saying stuff?

So your hard strikes against me are all about vocabularity and english?

These aren't vocab problems. They are problems with you understanding concepts you are trying to discuss.

Yup... maybe you should keep your responces focus in physsics.

That'd be nice. You just don't know any. How am I supposed to talk physics with you if you don't know first thing about it? Please, tell me.

I know that light speed can not be broken.

And you are wrong. There are already objects in this universe that are traveling faster than light relative to each other.

While special relativity constrains objects in the universe from moving faster than the speed of light with respect to each other, it places no theoretical constraint on changes to the scale of space itself. It is thus possible for two objects to be stationary or moving at speeds below that of light, and yet to become separated in space by more than the distance light could have travelled, which can suggest the objects travelled faster than light. For example there are stars which may be expanding away from us (or each other) faster than the speed of light, and this is true for any object that is more than approximately 4.5 gigaparsecs away from us. We can still see such objects because the universe in the past was expanding more slowly than it is today, so the ancient light being received from these objects is still able to reach us, though if the expansion continues unabated there will come a time that we will never see the light from such objects being produced today (on a so-called "space-like slice of spacetime") because space itself is expanding between Earth and the source faster than their light can reach us.

So can you please stop talking out of your posterior?

So to know all the demonstration of einstein theories will not change the fact that light speed can not be broken.

In other words, you have your opinion, founded in nothing but fantasy, and you refuse to learn any actual science, or acknowledge observations that contradict it. Good to know. I'll let you work out what I'd say that makes you, because I'd probably get banned for typing it out.

Use information instead knowledge is the correct approach.

You're hopeless. If you don't even understand difference between knowledge and information, there is just no helping you. I've been continuing to answer questions I've figured might be useful for someone else, if they are reading by chance, but I honestly give up with you.

I am not. First, point me the source of White´s papers that show how thin is this bubble, for the 700kg example of negative energy, also I would like to know how big this bubble is and what speed reach.

Second, try to find a source where it said that all quamtum effects does not represent any obstable trying to make a negative energy bubble that travel faster than light.

Thickness of the bubble varies. Variations depend on particular parameters which also vary. You're asking pointless questions, and you don't even seem to have understanding to realize why they are pointless.

So lets try it the other way, explain which part of the theory suggests that QM effects are going to be unpredictable. Something? Anything? No. Because you don't know QM even at undergraduate level. Let alone have any idea what QFT even is or how it applies here. Yet you have the gall to argue with somebody who does QFT for the living. Fantastic.

THe fact that causality in GR is still not very well detailed or understood, it does not give you the chance to ignore or avoid all implications that possible carry.

More arguments from ignorance.

Ok, I will accept that before start this discussion, my level of skepticism about the warp drive idea, was very high.

Now I am pondering possible scenarios where this become true.

I change my way to see it, NO. I remain sceptic until new conclusive data come from this.

Awesome. You keep on going with life like that. You know what would help, though? If you didn't disrupt discussion where other people are talking about actual science of it.

This does not remove the fact that the Q-Thruster technology

You keep wanting to drag in unrelated topics which you don't understand anything about. Q-Thruster is just a rocket. It's a type of a photon drive. It does not help you at all in crossing interstellar space. It is absolutely useless if you don't have a matter-antimatter reactor with high efficiency. Even with a nuclear reactor, you are much better off using an ion drive, because Quantum Thruster is such a horrible energy hog, and you'll have better net I_SP using actual reaction mass than burning through massive reactors for no good reason.

Again, learn some freagin' theory. Start with classical mechanics. You really don't need much to understand why Q-Thruster is useless without all the other technology for which we don't even have a starting point yet, and even with one, you're still limited to fractions of light speed, which is completely pointless on interstellar level.

[AngelLestat]

You don't. You just ask stupid questions just to be difficult. That's not winning you any arguments, and only highlights how little you know about the subject. To be honest, I'm starting to grow tired of it.

They are not stupid questions, are just questions that you can not answer, so you invent silly excuses or insults just to avoid them.

Covered at least three times in this topic.

In your imagination.... you said that we have a theory of everything since 60th, but non scientist in the whole world would claim the same stupid thing.

Same as we do about positive energy.

WHAT?? we know """"NOTHING"""" about negative energy, but you said that it has the same properties than positive energy like you were reading only the "word negative" and to you is just a matter of "signs".. OMG.. AGAIN, YOU ARE THE ONLY GUY IN THE WORLD WHO MAKE THIS CRAZY CLAIMS.

It does not disturb you the fact that you are ALONE in your claims, that you can not post a single source agree with you??

How about you estimate stability. Or energy required. Or anything. You just make empty claims again.

You have brain damage? I am not the one making claims!! YOU ARE MAKING THE CLAIMS!

So is your job prove the things that you are saying.. If you said that unicorns exist, is your job present some evidence or a demostration to prove that. Is not my job try to find a demostration that said unicorns cant exist.. Becoz nobody can find such demostration.

Are you really a science person??

How about you learn a few things about interpretations before going off to make stuff up again. Like, the fact that all interpretations are equivalent for starters. This isn't like interpreting bible. There is math, and theorems, and a lot of other stuff you didn't bother to even get the basic idea about before jumping to conclusion and start throwing accusations.

Again, empty answers. This will be the same from now until your last responce.

The perfect way to avoid them? yes.. said that the other guy is just ignorant and change the curse of the discussion.

We do. You are still living in fantasy land.

"we do" is not enought; you need to present some evidence you know?? If you dont wanna spend time typing I guess you can find many sources that support your claim. I will ask again: "we actually do not have any proven theory to merge GR with QM."

Bwahahahaha. Sorry. Come back when you actually know what M-theory is about and how it relates to standard model.

Look, I will post again my answer so you know what are you answering.

I SAID: "A M-theory would also explain all of it about all doubts that scientist had about causality effect, themordynamics violations, possible paradoxes and the true shape of the universe. And maybe a not probabilistic descriptions of particle physsics."

Here Brian Greene said the same thing that I do.. Maybe when its finish. Becouse he understand like I understand, that the thoery is not even close to be finish.

http://worldsciencefestival.com/blog/ask_brian_greene_quantum_mechanics_and_string_theory

And you're making more stuff up. No, keep going. We're having an excellent and very productive discussion here. Why don't you tell me what local symmetries are, which ones are available to which fields, and how they actually relate to any physical particles.

You keep talking about yang mills aproximations. But I remember you that this has not point until you tell me how thin needs to be the bubble in its densest part.

We had these in 1930s. And since then, greatest minds of the century, starting from Einstein himself, to Dirac, Pauli, Feynman, Fermi, Bohr, Noether, and many less known, but still incredibly talented physicists just sat on their rears doing nothing.

Ok, then it will be easier for you to just point me the theory of everything. Where is it? come on!, you cant hide in your yang mllls aproximation all day..

Nope. Haven't seen it by that name. I'll keep it in mind. Of course, that only makes it more funny that you don't have a clue what holographic interpretation means. You've read something about them, and you still didn't realize that they have to have more dimensions than observable universe, and not fewer.

In case you are right, I dint know that, But I was searching in internet and I could not find nothing to support your vision. (I dint search much, not much free time here)

Maybe you can explain me. The hard of science is to interpret math equations with its relevance with the reality.

But sometimes, what it may look like we are using infinite dimentions in some equation, maybe is just an algebraic tool that we need to look closer to interpret it correctly.

SR also says that light always travels in a perfectly straight line. According to SR, gravitational lensing is impossible. Now, I could try and explain why SR applies to Warp Drive only locally, but these sort of things have been like talking to a wall so far, so why don't you explain to me how SR is supposed to hold in a space-time that's not Minkowski.

Ehh? SR it does not said nothing about that light travels in a straight line.. In fact, it does not touch the subject becouse is out of the frame reference of the theory.

And SR is based in Minkowski space, that it does not mean that there is not more dimentions. All depends in what frame of reference the theory is working.

That's because you don't have a first clue what any of these things are.

So you are saying that quantum loop gravity is already prove it? Or there is some sigma 2 or 4 that the theory is correct?

Stop avoid answering, if you dont know.. Just said.. I DONT KNOW. Nobody will burn you for that.

We've already covered all of these points. Fact that there are other people on internet just as confused as you are doesn't mean that you're right.

Yeah, this only prove that 99,9% of sciencist over the whole world, thinks like me.

But maybe you know something that every else does not.

Oh, good sir, why don't you tell me about the difficulties in quantum computation. Like, why we have a quantum algorithm that breaks factorization problems in poly time, and yet public keys are perfectly secure. Or why we have quantum teleportation, but I still have to drive to work. Maybe you'd like to learn a few things about QM before you start saying stuff?

Lol, you really dint understand the joke or sacarms of my last responce? I thought that how you know so much you would understand what I was saying. But I guess I need to explain it.

You said that we may never see a Quantum Turing machine. If you know what are the theorical or phylosofical points against this, you will know that are almost the same theorical or phylosofical points against why a warp drive cant exist. And I was agree. I can not prove that a Quantum Turing machine may exist. But its hilarious that you use this arguments when at the same time you defend your warp drive with blindness.

Is not fun? XD

That'd be nice. You just don't know any. How am I supposed to talk physics with you if you don't know first thing about it? Please, tell me.

Tell me about physsics. Make some calculations, be my guess, If I can not understand them, I know people who can. But dont make me waste time of those people. Just prove the things that you said that you can prove.

You know what things we are talking about.

Or just post some source that proves the things that I am asking since the begining of this discussion. Or what? More excuses?

And you are wrong. There are already objects in this universe that are traveling faster than light relative to each other.

yeah, duuh! becouse space is expanding, But this does not mean that light speed can be overseed. Becouse light travels over this net of space time fabric. But all the space that is emerging between 2 distant points so their "seems to have superior relative velocities" it does not violates any causality effect or any other effect.

The problems arrives if you have information traveling "over this net" faster than light.

The problems of your question is "according to what". You need to take the same space time fabric, becouse that is what limits the light speed. Is the whole universe structure. And that is what I am saying when I said that the limit of the universe is the light speed. If you overseed it you out of here. At least that is my opinion until I found stronger evidence who point in a different path.

Like some QFT aproximations said, that the bubble would be unstable at velocities close to C.

In other words, you have your opinion, founded in nothing but fantasy, and you refuse to learn any actual science, or acknowledge observations that contradict it. Good to know. I'll let you work out what I'd say that makes you, because I'd probably get banned for typing it out.

I refuse? I am open to information. And I stand in the fact that light speed can not be overseed.

You're hopeless. If you don't even understand difference between knowledge and information, there is just no helping you. I've been continuing to answer questions I've figured might be useful for someone else, if they are reading by chance, but I honestly give up with you.

Well I will explain you again, this time slow so you understand.

There is not knowledge from the strong point of the word, we can be more sure or less sure about something. But we can never be 100% sure or 0% sure.

So when you receive certain information (lets said Quantum Loop Gravity) you attach to that information a knowledge level (lets call it that way so you are happy, I call it a level of trust), so now we can said that we have some idea with certain lv of trust or knowledge. But this can change, more information can arrive that would change that. How can be knowledge if is wrong?

We can not even be sure with 100% of trust that some day in the future we discover that the laws of theormodynamics may be different of what we now thoght.

Thickness of the bubble varies. Variations depend on particular parameters which also vary. You're asking pointless questions, and you don't even seem to have understanding to realize why they are pointless.

So lets try it the other way, explain which part of the theory suggests that QM effects are going to be unpredictable. Something? Anything? No. Because you don't know QM even at undergraduate level. Let alone have any idea what QFT even is or how it applies here. Yet you have the gall to argue with somebody who does QFT for the living. Fantastic.

I am making the correct questions, you are just evade them in the same way that Harold White does.

Yes I know that is not uniform, but we already talk about this. I am asking you how thin is the volume where this big energy densities needs to be confine. To see if my main argument it has some point or not. I AM ASKING THIS FROM THE STARTING OF THIS DISCUSSION AND YOU ALWAYS DODGE IT!

What happens with this bubble when is traveling close to the speed of light? I know, inside the bubble is all ok (from general relativity point of view), but what happens in the edges? This is not mean that the negative energy field in the edges are traveling faster than the speed of light? And all the fields are aply to this local symmetry that you mention, but this local symmetry is the one that fix the light speed. So how can other kinds of fields travel faster?

I dont know if I using the right words, I am just tired. But you know what I am asking. So you will answer the question or invent some other excuse?

More arguments from ignorance.

more arguments with not sustaint base. You dont have any prove to nothing.

Awesome. You keep on going with life like that. You know what would help, though? If you didn't disrupt discussion where other people are talking about actual science of it.

Actual science? You are the one who start talking about star treek.

You keep wanting to drag in unrelated topics which you don't understand anything about. Q-Thruster is just a rocket. It's a type of a photon drive. It does not help you at all in crossing interstellar space. It is absolutely useless if you don't have a matter-antimatter reactor with high efficiency. Even with a nuclear reactor, you are much better off using an ion drive, because Quantum Thruster is such a horrible energy hog, and you'll have better net I_SP using actual reaction mass than burning through massive reactors for no good reason.

I know that, for that reason Q-thurster can have in fact some practical use.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Resuming...

You are in a bubble that blinds you to see the flaws of the warp drive idea. This is becouse you really want to believe it to be true with full passion.

Somebody teach you the way to make some calculations using the standard physsics tools and now you believe that you have the key to understand the whole universe. How naive is that?

So to your passion problems, we need to add your proud and delusions of grandeur.

I make you some questions over and over, beacouse I read almost all Harold White papers, and I could not find any detail. I also know that in some interviews where he was, they asked the same questions, and he did not answer any of them.

So here is a prediction.

I hope you have a healthy live and live many many happy years. But in your whole live, you will see how this warp drive idea is disprove it, you will witness others FTL ideas arrive, but you would can not see any FTL idea being prove it.

Then you would be wonder how such ignorant common guy like me, knew this.

Of course, your proud would handle this.. -just luck.

[ZetaX]

You are writing so much nonsense, AngelLestat... I will try to only point out some more things K^2 didn't already:

a) You claim he applies wishful thinking in regard to warp bubbles. In reality, he just said that the math turns out right, and that it is currently still not feasable in the near future to be tested on the space ship scale, and didn't even say if it may ever be.

You definitely have no clue about science, especially physics. It's not his or my job to explain to you stuff beginning at the basics, while you still claim to know most of it already (hint: your behaviour shows you don't, and your statements on M-theory and a holographic universe are no better than what any random wtahcer of a TV show on pop sience would say).

If you truly want to know some serious physics, get a ton of books on the basics, i.e. mechanics, relativity (special and general), quantum mechanics, QED, QCD, string theory, and probably many more I just forgot (just ask again after you finish relativity), and read them; before doing that, reading up on linear algebra, multi-dimensional analysis, integration theory, functional analysis, topology, differential geometry and representation theory is strongly recommended.

You will probably spend years, as did others that studied it before. There is no short easy road, your (not-even-)half-knowledge is mostly dangerous. There is no easier way. Period. Anyone who claims otherwise despite thousands of professionals agreeing on that is a crank and actually has no clue.

c) Stop making claims and then deny to have claimed anything. A claim that a paper on warp drive is wrong is still a claim. A claim that we will never see any FTL of this or that kind is still a claim. A claim that you understand core physics is still a claim.

[peadar1987]

Thinking about this a little bit, if you're moving at FTL speeds in your wee warp bubble, you reach your destination, the bubble dissolves, but now you're in a completely different environment with regard to potential energy. So say I warped from earth orbit to a very low solar orbit, I would suddenly have a lot less potential energy. Where does that energy go? And what happens if I generate my bubble and accelerate when I'm already in motion? Presumably the bubble stays stationay with respect to whatever is generating it, so do I get all of my momentum back when the bubble dissolves?

Sorry for the awkward questions, I'm just very interested in this!

[K^2]

Ok, then it will be easier for you to just point me the theory of everything. Where is it? come on!, you cant hide in your yang mllls aproximation all day..

There is no approximation. Unified theory of Gravity and QCD is the Yang-Mills theory on R^1,3â‹ŠSO(1,3)⁺xU(1)xSU(2)_LxSU(3). That's it. That's the theory that brings all the forces together, and there have been papers on it since the 60s. People like Feynman have wrote papers on it. Hell, Feynman has a lecture series on Quantum Gravity where he talks about all of this stuff. This theory is non-renormalizable in its exact form, and so totally useless. But there is an Effective Theory that is renormalizable, and it only breaks down at plank scale. So again, if you don't go down to Plank scale or bellow, we have the theory of everything. The only reason people aren't happy about it is because they want to have description bellow Plank scale, because a lot of interesting questions lurk within it. Like, is there truly a singularity at the center of a black hole? If it's a singularity, it's smaller than Plank scale, and therefore, has to be described with a better theory.

But we are talking about Warp Drives. And one of the design parameter of absolutely every Warp Drive ever is that the bubble thickness is significantly thicker than Plank scale.

So now, how about you stop talking nonsense and listen to smart people for a change.

yeah, duuh! becouse space is expanding, But this does not mean that light speed can be overseed.

You'd think that this would be a light bulb moment. What, you've been arguing about Warp Drives all this time, and you haven't figured out that they have something to do with expanding space?

Thinking about this a little bit, if you're moving at FTL speeds in your wee warp bubble, you reach your destination, the bubble dissolves, but now you're in a completely different environment with regard to potential energy. So say I warped from earth orbit to a very low solar orbit, I would suddenly have a lot less potential energy. Where does that energy go? And what happens if I generate my bubble and accelerate when I'm already in motion? Presumably the bubble stays stationay with respect to whatever is generating it, so do I get all of my momentum back when the bubble dissolves?

Sorry for the awkward questions, I'm just very interested in this!

The Alcubierre Drive assumes that other than effects of the drive, space-time is flat. So there is no potential energy change. Of course, that's not realistic, but it's not a crucial requirement. Alcubierre Drive works so long as space-time is "reasonably" flat. That is, there is no significant curvature on the scale of the bubble size. You do, however, have to take global curvature into account when you are designing your logistic function. Choice of logistic function will determine energy density with which you need to "energize" the bubble. How this ends up working is entirely up to you. I would recognize three key options.

1) You can have the bubble completely compensate for the energy changes. However, that would require something to feed energy into the warp bubble, which is rather tricky to organize. So while this would be the simplest in terms of logistics, it's also probably the most technically complex, if not all together unfeasible.

2) You can have the bubble simply ignore the curvature. But then you're going to experience acceleration with respect to bubble. So throughout the journey, you'll have to use ship's engines do the work that compensates for the difference in energy. Given speeds, the required acceleration might be too high to be practical.

3) Probably the simplest thing you can do is simply have the bubble follow the geodesic. That's what you are going to get if you just carry over Alcubierre Drive as is to the curved space-time, so it's probably the easiest thing to do from all perspectives. The momentum vector of the ship will evolve as its supposed to along the geodesic, but since you're in effective free-fall both relative to the star and relative to the bubble, you will not experience any of it. This kind of warp, however, only makes sense if you travel along the direction that you'd be traveling either way.

So for example, suppose you are in the outer Solar System, and decide to come back to Earth. You'd first perform a normal sub-light burn to establish a transfer orbit to the inner Solar System. You would then Warp along that same trajectory you'd take either way, but at much higher speed. And once the bubble dissolves, you are near transfer to Earth's orbit, traveling at whatever velocity you would be traveling. So that'd work a lot like time-warping in KSP, except that it only affects your ship, and not positions of all the other bodies in the system, which makes it even more useful.

But like I said, that's up to Warp Drive design. That last option is what I'd go for simply out of simplicity. But if we figure out how to build a Warp Drive in the first place, all of the above might seem like equally easy in comparison.

[AngelLestat]

You are writing so much nonsense, AngelLestat... I will try to only point out some more things K^2 didn't already:

Read about psicology, I recomend John Watson. Then read about social mechanics, or something similar to improve your subterfuge skills.

Then studie all social behavior and try to follow each feeling or action until its roots (genetic). After some years thinking in these topics and with some talent, you would understand how funny your posture results to me.

You achieve something making a list of academic studies? You hope to get some friends point saying the same emptly things that he said?

He already bought you when he said that you have a better understanding in physsics?

Said that I am ignorant in this topic it does not make my question less important. And their remains unanswered.

The fact that there is not a single paper in internet that answer my questions and the fact that all sciencits that I read (even the most fascinated with this idea) non even one said that this theory is solid. (like our friends K2 here sustaint)

Some dont try to defend him with its claims. I am know very well what kind of claims he did.

But even if we dont reach a consensus, we can be sure that time will tell. And I dont know you.. but I am not muchs doubts how this would result.

Thinking about this a little bit, if you're moving at FTL speeds in your wee warp bubble, you reach your destination, the bubble dissolves, but now you're in a completely different environment with regard to potential energy. So say I warped from earth orbit to a very low solar orbit, I would suddenly have a lot less potential energy. Where does that energy go? And what happens if I generate my bubble and accelerate when I'm already in motion? Presumably the bubble stays stationay with respect to whatever is generating it, so do I get all of my momentum back when the bubble dissolves?

Is a nice question, from my several times mentioned (by my friends here) "ignorant" point of view. i would said that this has no effect. Becouse the bubble would travel by an already distorted gravity field. For example. If your warp drive ship travel close to a black hole, in that point its trajectory would curve by the effect of the black hole. So your are distorting the fabric of the space time that is already distorted.

So you dont escape from the potential energy.

Sorry for the awkward questions, I'm just very interested in this!

[ZetaX]

And again you ignore everything I said, with me even trying to be as friendly as reasonably possible despite your behaviour. That's not just a list, that's actually what you would need to learn (and I put it together from my memory, so a lot is probably still missing). That one isn't even meant to be impressive, its about the bare minimum (otherwise I would have added lots of secondary subjects as well); if you study physics, taking at least 6 full lectures per year for 3-5 years is expected even from the non-elite and non-PhDs; that's 18-30 lectures, at least!

I heard or read all of the mathematical lectures above and some (very few) of the physical ones, heck I am still not even close to being a physicist (and don't strife to be).

You are very rude to ignore all those advices while claiming to not needing them while trying to mock me (with a seriously dumb "joke"). Change your attitude, for god's sake.

Please also stop claiming you are "very interested" in things if you don't even take the time to read up the basics (and again, basics is a lot here). It hurts my scientific feelings.

Time won't tell who is right either, because not one of us two has made any absolute claim, not even on the paper being perfect, even less on it ever being real.

Your questions to be important would reuqire them to be adequate. Imagine a 3 year old child asking you to explain to him how radiation gives superpowers; the answer is not a paper or a scientific text,it is given by "it doesn't, but you will only able to understand why that is and what radiation does if you learn this and that".

[LLlAMnYP]

Since the thread has already been long ago derailed...

K^2, I was also surprised to hear, that we already have a "theory of everything" (unified field theory, or whatever you prefer to call it), so could you perhaps elaborate the fine points of not having a renormalizeable theory, but having an "Effective Theory" that is renormalizeable above the Planck scale? To avoid unnecessary embarrassment, I've got no background in cosmology, just a diploma in condensed matter physics :-)

[K^2]

K^2, I was also surprised to hear, that we already have a "theory of everything" (unified field theory, or whatever you prefer to call it), so could you perhaps elaborate the fine points of not having a renormalizeable theory, but having an "Effective Theory" that is renormalizeable above the Planck scale? To avoid unnecessary embarrassment, I've got no background in cosmology, just a diploma in condensed matter physics :-)

There is a pretty good overview paper on Arxiv. You should have no trouble following most, if not all of it, with a general QFT background. Alternatively, just read the first two introductory sections and the summary in the end just to get an idea of how Effective Field Theory fixes the problems at low energy scales, and what problems remain unpatched.

[LLlAMnYP]

Wow. Thanks. Makes for some nice bedtime reading.

[peadar1987]

<snip>

Thanks! I'm not able to give you reputation, but your posts are always an education!

[SlyReaper]

First of, it's not possible to travel *at* the speed of light. It's not advisable to do either, since at that kind of speeds, a grain of dust hits with the force of a large nuclear device.

But almost none of that energy would be imparted to the spacecraft itself, so it would do almost no damage. It would pass straight through, leaving a microscopic hole. It might be a good idea, if you're travelling at these speeds, to build the hull out of something that can slowly repair itself.

[K^2]

But almost none of that energy would be imparted to the spacecraft itself, so it would do almost no damage. It would pass straight through, leaving a microscopic hole. It might be a good idea, if you're travelling at these speeds, to build the hull out of something that can slowly repair itself.

Any charged particles that interact with your hull at these energies will result in a shower of particles, and you'll end up with enough of the total energy deposited in your ship to have a very serious problem.

[Holo]

You forgot relativity. A week passes for you, but millions if not billions of years may pass in "normal" time.

You're exaggerating relativity. A week passes for you, but only 75,000 years pass outside. When you're travelling at almost c, the galaxy does not take millions of years to cross, regardless of what a layman who thinks that things somehow slow down when travelling quickly thinks.

Quick way to show this is false:

Something travels to the moon at 99.9999% of the speed of light. How long does it take to get there, from someone on the surface?

a) 1.282 seconds

Thousands of years

Another way to disprove it is to just think logically. Something speeds up, so it must get there quicker. If it takes longer to get there as it approaches the speed of light, then it would slow down. It would then not be near the speed of light any more, so why is the ship still experiencing the magical nonsensical warped time outside?

Edited January 17, 2014 by Holo

[trekkie5249]

This is some very interesting science, K^2. This is actually the kind of job I want to have after (extensive) college. Is working as a researcher interesting?

Also, the amount of poo flinging going on around here is quite enormous.

[K^2]

Is working as a researcher interesting?

It can be. But I'm not the best person to ask. I'm planning to go into software once I finish up with dissertation and defense. It's not that I wouldn't like to keep studying physics, but things I'm interested in are difficult to get funding for. While in contrast, areas of research I can continue in, I find incredibly boring. I'm pretty sure it has to do with where we are as a civilization right now. Things that are really new and different are so far ahead of our current technology, that they are pretty much impossible to test. And things that can have practical use within the next half century are all built around tying up loose ends, which feels tedious to me. But your mileage can vary. There is a lot of very exciting stuff in materials and condensed matter in general. Not my thing, but it might appeal to you.

The good thing about getting a solid education in Physics is that you still have choices even when you're nearing the end of your Ph.D. track. You'll definitely find applications of physics that you find interesting. And if you can make it through the Ph.D. program, you'd definitely be capable enough to make a career out of whatever it is. It can be in academia, private research, or some other technical field. You would definitely have to put some effort into keeping yourself up to speed in appropriate related fields if you want to branch out, but physics is one of your best options for building your skill set around, simply because study of physics taps into so many other disciplines and skills.

It is tougher than most fields, though. If you are in any way not comfortable with mathematics or any of the sciences you've come across, have a backup plan.