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

[K^2]

Easier? Dont tell me that you really believe that we are close to discover how to make an Alcubierre Drive transport..

Here is Harold´s paper , it seems less seriuos than any farie tale story.

I can not prove it.. But this is going nowhere.

That's two separate questions. First, Special Relativity makes travel to long distances easier. This has nothing to do with warp drive. Just simple physics. If there was no speed of light limit, or if it was really, really high, then it'd take you about 6.4 thousand years to make a round trip to Andromeda Galaxy at acceleration of 1G. You just can't accelerate to a speed at which this trip would be short without accelerating at a rate that human bodies cannot tolerate.

With the speed of light limit what it is, the round trip is less than 60 years at the same 1G acceleration. This has to do with the way proper velocity relates to proper acceleration. The closer you are to speed of light, the faster you can increase proper velocity while maintaining the same 1G acceleration. So your crew will feel comfortable while the ship cuts through the space exponentially faster from perspective of the same crew.

The drawback is that without speed of light limit, the round trip is the same 6.4 thousand years from Earth's perspective. With speed of light being what it is, the round trip will actually be over 5 million years from Earth's perspective.

Now onto the warp drive. We are missing a few crucial pieces of the puzzle, and technology is very, very far away. But the theory is absolutely solid. Warp drive just works. I can get into some details about why it works, what the problems are, and what is still remains to be seen. But it all gets very technical very fast.

I'm not going to insist that Human kind will ever build a warp drive, but everything we know says that it's at least theoretically possible. It'd be a shame not to try.

As for the paper, keep in mind that this was meant to be a popularization. He does have more technical papers on the subject, as well as a series of experiments conducted at NASA to prove the concept.

Assuming 1:1 mass:energy conversion, the first warp drive design needed roughly the mass of the universe (or was it just a galaxy? I don't remember) for fuel. Not useful.

This new version would only require Jupiter.

Significant reduction! But still a bit much.

Reduction to mass of Jupiter was done before Harold White's work. He claims a mass of just 700kg is enough. Of course, that has to be 700kg of negative energy density, which is, well, problematic. But at least the energy scale is now achievable, and we have some good leads on how to come up with negative energy densities. Like I said earlier, actual functional technology is a long way off, but we are getting close to the point where it stops becoming a theoretical problem and becomes a purely engineering one.

P.S. At a current rate, world-wide, we consume 700kg worth of energy in a little over a month. Just to put things into perspective.

Edited January 7, 2014 by K^2

[AngelLestat]

About the constant acceleration, relativity and propper acceleration. I still dint do any math respect to that.. But yes. I share your words. That seems right.

When I was talking about constant acceleration, I was thinking more in (constant energy propulsion) and their relation to propper acceleration.

That still elude me. How I said, I still dint do the math.

With regard to Warp drive being an "absolutely solid theory", I guess we have different definitions about what is solid.

Just to mention that we need a kind of matter that we dont know what it is, or if exist. Maybe is just regular matter of another universe or who knows.

Second, it violates all three energy conditions (strong, weak, and dominant), and the well stablish concervation of energy of thermodynamics.

Also casaulity and other not so well stablish laws.

If that is not enought, also ignores all possible effects due to quamtum mechanics.. After all, to reach that kind of energy reduction, it also make the bubble so thin like the prank scale.. So I guess quamtum mechanics had something to said abour that.

Then there is all the other issues like how to stop the ship, becouse we can not send any signal outside of the bubble, then radiation issues, and all practical nightmare of how can you make the whole thing.

Therefore I would not call that a solid theory.

But well, saying that, I have no trouble that someone want to spend time trying to understand a little more about the theory principles. We never know what amazing things we can discover of such experiments.

[K^2]

About the constant acceleration, relativity and propper acceleration. I still dint do any math respect to that.. But yes. I share your words. That seems right.

When I was talking about constant acceleration, I was thinking more in (constant energy propulsion) and their relation to propper acceleration.

That still elude me. How I said, I still dint do the math.

The differential equations involved are quite nasty, as they have hyper-trigonometric solutions. If you want, I can pull up the relevant solutions.

With regard to Warp drive being an "absolutely solid theory", I guess we have different definitions about what is solid.

Just to mention that we need a kind of matter that we dont know what it is, or if exist. Maybe is just regular matter of another universe or who knows.

It requires negative energy density. It does not have to come in form of matter of any kind. Standard model predicts that Casimir Effect involves region of negative energy density. So we have a good lead on this. There are questions there, but it's very far from, "We have no idea."

Second, it violates all three energy conditions (strong, weak, and dominant),

Violation of strong condition imply the rest. Strong condition is already violated in Casimir Effect.

and the well stablish concervation of energy of thermodynamics.

Warp drive cannot violate energy conservation laws. It's kosher under General Relativity, and GR has Stress Energy Tensor as a conserved charge under Noether's Theorem.

Also casaulity and other not so well stablish laws.

Causality is not violated by a warp drive in asymptotically flat space-time. Causality may be violated in certain types of curved space-time by allowing a ship under warp to traverse an otherwise non-traversable space-time loop, effectively violating causality. But General Relativity already allows for that, and modern particle field theory does not require global causality to hold. Only local causality must hold, and local causality always holds in GR, with or without a warp drive. I suspect other "violations" you are alluding to also overlook the big picture in similar ways.

If that is not enought, also ignores all possible effects due to quamtum mechanics.. After all, to reach that kind of energy reduction, it also make the bubble so thin like the prank scale.. So I guess quamtum mechanics had something to said abour that.

Wall thickness is not reduced to Plank Length in this warp drive. That's kind of the whole point. By reducing the wall thickness, you can create a warp bubble with arbitrarily small amount of energy. So all of the energy requirements quoted above assume a "macroscopic" bubble. Id est, large enough so that conventional QFT can be applied.

Quantum Field Theory in relevant space-time is well understood. It might require study to know what it will do to the incoming radiation, but there are no inherent problems with QM here.

Then there is all the other issues like how to stop the ship, becouse we can not send any signal outside of the bubble,

From Alcubierre's original proposal to Harrold White's version of the drive, the trajectory of the ship is pre-determined when the warp bubble is generated. In other words, if you are planning to traverse 1AU, you will exit the warp after traveling 1AU and no sooner. There is no emergency brake. That's unfortunate, but hardly deal-breaking in space travel.

It is also entirely possible to communicate with the ship under warp. There is a blind spot ahead of the ship to which it cannot send signal, and behind the ship, from which signal cannot be received. But it can communicate with other ships and planets in transit as it passes by. There are even directions in which red/blue shifts are minimal, making radio communications completely trivial.

I've actually read the article on null-geodesics of the Alcubierre Drive just recently. If you'd like, I can pull up some details. Harrold White's drive would have slightly different geodesics, but same general principles apply.

then radiation issues, and all practical nightmare of how can you make the whole thing.

And now we've gotten to engineering issues. I'm not denying that they are severe. But that's going to be the case with any method of interstellar travel. There are no easy ways. It's entirely possible that we'll never resolve these issues. It's possible that we'll never cross the interstellar void. But by this point, we aren't talking about something that's physically impossible. Just something we haven't figured out how to build.

If you have more questions regarding particular theoretical issues, I can probably answer most of them, or at least point you in the right direction. Theory itself is very solid. Nuclear Physics was on shakier ground when they built the nuke.

[architeuthis]

Causality is not violated by a warp drive in asymptotically flat space-time. Causality may be violated in certain types of curved space-time by allowing a ship under warp to traverse an otherwise non-traversable space-time loop, effectively violating causality. But General Relativity already allows for that, and modern particle field theory does not require global causality to hold. Only local causality must hold, and local causality always holds in GR, with or without a warp drive. I suspect other "violations" you are alluding to also overlook the big picture in similar ways.

Could you expand on what you mean by the big picture here? Perhaps with a practical example of a violation of local causality compared with a merely global violation? I'm curious about the distinction. Are you implying that a putative Alcubierre starship wouldn't also essentially be a time machine?

[K^2]

Sorry, I got a couple of things backwards there on causality. I was thinking about time-travel. Alcubierre Drive certainly can violate global causality. Anything FTL automatically does. But it doesn't result in time-travel by itself. You need something else going on. I'm trying to figure out if there is anything to prevent you from using two Alcubierre Drive ships for time travel, but you certainly can't time travel with one such ship in asymptotically flat space-time.

Local causality is never violated in GR, so I'm having hard time coming up with an example there. The main idea is that two "neighboring" events either have an objective order, or they are not casually related. That means you can construct history locally, and if you follow a particular worldline, there are no ambiguities or paradoxes. Two different worldlines, however, can have contradicting histories, in principle. Then you can get things like grandfather paradox, and so on. But these things can still be resolved through QM, because only local causality matters there.

[AngelLestat]

The differential equations involved are quite nasty, as they have hyper-trigonometric solutions. If you want, I can pull up the relevant solutions.

I know that you need differential equations, but I dont know if I follow you when you said "hyper-trigonometric solutions" LOL.. What?? XD

Here is a paper where is explained how to calculate ISP in relativistic rockets, all the math demostration, no just the final formula.

Also wikipedia explain very well how to calculate the differents variables. And like some guy said some post earlier, if you had into account the relativistic effect of the fuel consumption, then you can not use that variable to calculate other relativistic variable. So you just apply the relativistic effect once for each variable that you want to obtain.

So I dont understand where these hyper-tri... solutions appears.

It requires negative energy density. It does not have to come in form of matter of any kind. Standard model predicts that Casimir Effect involves region of negative energy density. So we have a good lead on this. There are questions there, but it's very far from, "We have no idea."

Energy and matter is related, so is not the same thing? If we dont know nothing about the negative matter, then we dont know nothing about negative energy too.

About the Casimir Effect is predicted by the quamtum theory, in my opinion has nothing to do with negative energy like the one that we are talking about. It produce something that we can call like a negative force, but I guess there are just similar words used to describe very different concepts.

Violation of strong condition imply the rest. Strong condition is already violated in Casimir Effect.

I am not sure about that, where it said that the violation of strong condition imply the rest?

About cassimir effect, we still do not understand very well the effect, so maybe there is something missing in the equation that it would balance it.

Warp drive cannot violate energy conservation laws. It's kosher under General Relativity, and GR has Stress Energy Tensor as a conserved charge under Noether's Theorem.

All about warp drive seems like a perpetual motion machine, so in that case would violates the law of conservation of energy.

Causality is not violated by a warp drive in asymptotically flat space-time. Causality may be violated in certain types of curved space-time by allowing a ship under warp to traverse an otherwise non-traversable space-time loop, effectively violating causality. But General Relativity already allows for that, and modern particle field theory does not require global causality to hold. Only local causality must hold, and local causality always holds in GR, with or without a warp drive. I suspect other "violations" you are alluding to also overlook the big picture in similar ways.

Causality is about information.. All the things we learn about quamtum experiments and the latest theories, locate the information like true concept, the only thing that matters. But this one, can not travel faster than light. Is like the whole universe was made to prevent this.

Inside of the bubble, you carry information. So the causalities effects needs to be had into account.

Also, if you had this, you could escape from inside of a black hole.. Or escape from this universe.. Is this correct?

Wall thickness is not reduced to Plank Length in this warp drive. That's kind of the whole point. By reducing the wall thickness, you can create a warp bubble with arbitrarily small amount of energy. So all of the energy requirements quoted above assume a "macroscopic" bubble. Id est, large enough so that conventional QFT can be applied.

I dont know. I dint read the whole Harold paper. So how thin it is then?

Quantum Field Theory in relevant space-time is well understood. It might require study to know what it will do to the incoming radiation, but there are no inherent problems with QM here.

The fact that any small scale is rule by quamtum mechanics and the fact that you have also a gravity force that in this case is so strong like other forces imply that we need a new science to said without shame what could happen there.

From Alcubierre's original proposal to Harrold White's version of the drive, the trajectory of the ship is pre-determined when the warp bubble is generated. In other words, if you are planning to traverse 1AU, you will exit the warp after traveling 1AU and no sooner. There is no emergency brake. That's unfortunate, but hardly deal-breaking in space travel.

How do you exit if that is the case? You open the window and jump out side? XD

It is also entirely possible to communicate with the ship under warp. There is a blind spot ahead of the ship to which it cannot send signal, and behind the ship, from which signal cannot be received. But it can communicate with other ships and planets in transit as it passes by. There are even directions in which red/blue shifts are minimal, making radio communications completely trivial.

Where do you read about this?

And now we've gotten to engineering issues. I'm not denying that they are severe. But that's going to be the case with any method of interstellar travel. There are no easy ways. It's entirely possible that we'll never resolve these issues. It's possible that we'll never cross the interstellar void. But by this point, we aren't talking about something that's physically impossible. Just something we haven't figured out how to build.

You really can not compare the technical difficulties of other interstellar methods with warp drive. I am agree with some of your thoughts, but I am tired of read each star trek fans talking about warp drive like a breakthrough that is around the corner becouse they read some sensational title in some publication or comment that imply this.

When we talk about real concepts of interstellar travel, we are talking about materials, models, designs, energy, know physsics, practical implications, acuracy limits, etc.

But when we talk about Warp Drive, what are we talking about? Really...

If you have more questions regarding particular theoretical issues, I can probably answer most of them, or at least point you in the right direction. Theory itself is very solid. Nuclear Physics was on shakier ground when they built the nuke.

You still need to convince me about the "solid theory".

Edited January 8, 2014 by AngelLestat

[DaveofDefeat]

I read about exotic matter, it hurt my head.

[ZetaX]

AngelLestat, please back up what you claim, or if you don't know stuff, just ask instead of making random guesses. For example:

All about warp drive seems like a perpetual motion machine, so in that case would violates the law of conservation of energy.

"All about computers seems like witchcraft, so in that case would violates the laws of gravity" is probably of equal scientific value than that sentence.

[DJEN]

Didn't you guys ever hear of a nasa scientist who made a theory of using negative mass to not got faster than the speed of light but to bring things closer to it.

My theory is that suns create negative mass when there about to turn into a black hole. Which is why black holes are dark and deflect light because the negative mass is messing with mass itself. Since even light has mass. Whats happening is its like air pressure on a spaceship. If theres a leak or a large hole. Everything would be pulled in. Which is how the warp drive would use negative mass to pull things towards itself.

Have you done observations and calculations?

[DJEN]

You have to read the energy values.

Assuming 1:1 mass:energy conversion, the first warp drive design needed roughly the mass of the universe (or was it just a galaxy? I don't remember) for fuel. Not useful.

This new version would only require Jupiter.

Significant reduction! But still a bit much.

They now say it only requires 800kg of antimatter.

Quite absurd, but may be possible.

Of course, this may be a well-done trick by NASA.

Edited January 8, 2014 by DJEN

[SargeRho]

Mass of Jupiter, and the equivalent in negative mass. But that was with Alcubierre's original calculations. Now they think it would be possible to send a football-shaped probe anywhere at 10 times the speed of light, with just 800kg of negative mass.

[Seret]

It's not as simple as just getting a ton of this stuff, you're talking about the total energy of that mass. What if your conversion efficiency was only half a percent? This is not something that humanity is going to be doing any time soon, if at all. The energy of 800kg is still an impractical large energy requirement in practical terms. We have no idea how to store or convert that quantity of energy in a device the size they're taking about.

[K^2]

I know that you need differential equations, but I dont know if I follow you when you said "hyper-trigonometric solutions" LOL.. What?? XD

Hyperbolic functions turns out to be a more common name.

You start with definition of proper acceleration du/dt = a, where u = dx/dÄ is proper velocity. Because dÄ = dt/γ, we can write a = d(γdx/dt)/dt = γ³(d²x/dt²) when v is co-linear with a. (You have to take dγ/dt into account.)

So the differential equation describing motion of a sub-light ship traveling under constant proper acceleration is x'' = a/γ³ for some constant a. For x'(0)=x(0)=0, x(t) = (c sqrt(c²+a²t²) - c²)/a. But x(t) is boring. We are more interested in x(Ä), and that's where things get complicated.

Here is a paper where is explained how to calculate ISP in relativistic rockets, all the math demostration, no just the final formula.

Yeah, if you just want delta-V, and not how far you get in specific time with given fuel usage, it's much easier. That's a more elegant derivation than what I worked with, though. So thanks for that link.

Energy and matter is related, so is not the same thing? If we dont know nothing about the negative matter, then we dont know nothing about negative energy too.

No. Matter, by definition, is stuff with rest mass. In order to have matter, you must have some sort of wave packets that propagate as massive particles. This is a far more complicated topic. I'm a particle physicist, and I still don't like to think about it if I don't have to.

About the Casimir Effect is predicted by the quamtum theory, in my opinion has nothing to do with negative energy like the one that we are talking about. It produce something that we can call like a negative force, but I guess there are just similar words used to describe very different concepts.

Fortunately, your opinion is not decisive in the matter. QFT says that region of space between two plates has a lower energy than vacuum. Now, you can say that it's vacuum that has a non-zero energy, and CE energy is still positive, just lower than that of vacuum, but from perspective of GR, the distinction is moot. For an Alcubierre Drive, all you need is region of space with energy lower than that of vacuum. That will provide you with negative curvature in the bubble, and that's the only thing you really need. So for the purposes of warping space-time, CE does give you negative energy. Like I said, there are still some questions there, but as far as Standard Model is concerned, it's all cut and dry. Can you practically create sufficient amount of negative energy this way? That's a different question. But not a problem of theory.

I am not sure about that, where it said that the violation of strong condition imply the rest?

It does. That's why it's called a strong condition. Standard terminology in math.

About cassimir effect, we still do not understand very well the effect, so maybe there is something missing in the equation that it would balance it.

And maybe the entire world is just your hallucination, and none of the equations work. That's still not a problem of theory. Again, from perspective of SM, we know how this works. If SM is wrong, that's a different matter.

Keep in mind that Energy Conditions aren't fundamental principles. They would be nice to have, but we have not found any reason why they should be true.

All about warp drive seems like a perpetual motion machine, so in that case would violates the law of conservation of energy.

That's just because you don't understand something about the way warp drive works. It is not a PM by any measure. It does not produce energy and it cannot do work. It can move the ship from one location to another without using up any energy, other than what you waste in conversion, but that assumes that potential energy of the ship at origin and destination is the same. If it's not the case, you will have to expend energy to move "up hill".

And like I said, there are fundamental theorems that say that energy is conserved here, so if you feel that it is not the case, you're missing something. If the above doesn't clarify it, and you still have questions about it, feel free to ask.

Causality is about information.. All the things we learn about quamtum experiments and the latest theories, locate the information like true concept, the only thing that matters. But this one, can not travel faster than light. Is like the whole universe was made to prevent this.

Nope. Only local causality matters. There are laws to prevent anything from going faster than light locally. Quantum Mechanics is entirely ok with global causality violations.

Inside of the bubble, you carry information. So the causalities effects needs to be had into account.

Yes. That's why I had to correct myself in an earlier post. I've said that global causality is only violated if there is suitable curvature, which isn't the case. Global causality is always violated by an FTL ship. You are absolutely correct about that. It's just not a problem.

Also, if you had this, you could escape from inside of a black hole.. Or escape from this universe.. Is this correct?

Not from universe. That's topologically impossible. Maybe from observable universe. And yeah, if you have a really large black hole, so that you aren't ripped to shreds by tidal forces, a warp ship would be able to dip a bit bellow the event horizon. Not very far, but that's still a very exciting possibility.

Interesting thing to note, though, is that like for any object that would fall in, from perspective of observer on the ship, you'll never pass the event horizon. At some point, a Schwarzshild Bubble will form around the ship, somewhere outside of the warp bubble. This might prevent Cosmic Censor violations, but I'm not sure about it.

The fact that any small scale is rule by quamtum mechanics and the fact that you have also a gravity force that in this case is so strong like other forces imply that we need a new science to said without shame what could happen there.

No, not really. We know the underlying unified theory. It's a Yang-Mills theory on a U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3)xPoincare group. Unfortunately, it's non-renormalizable. But a renormalizable effective theory exists, which accounts for all quantum effects in curved space-time. It only breaks down near the plank scale. So long as the warp bubble walls are significantly thicker thank plank scale, we can model the whole thing.

How do you exit if that is the case? You open the window and jump out side? XD

Bubble "dissolves" when you reach the destination.

Where do you read about this?

Detailed Study of Null and Time-like Geodesics in the Alcubierre Warp Spacetime. Light and radio waves propagate along null geodesics. Matter propagates along time-like geodesics.

You really can not compare the technical difficulties of other interstellar methods with warp drive. I am agree with some of your thoughts, but I am tired of read each star trek fans talking about warp drive like a breakthrough that is around the corner becouse they read some sensational title in some publication or comment that imply this.

Complete understanding of warp drive mechanics is right around the corner. It's the work that we can finish within decades. What the engineering task of actually building something like this would be will only be clear then. If we don't find any unexpected loopholes, it's going to be an extremely difficult task. But it already seems comparable to any other way of achieving interstellar travel. There are no easy ways there. Unless we find a very serious and currently non-obvious loophole, we are not going to have an easy way to traverse interstellar space.

And while there might be things marginally easier than warp drive, warp drive is the only one that's going to be worth it at that sort of expense. If a ship you send to another star is going to take hundreds of years to do a round trip, there is very little point. And building something like a generation ship is not a task that any one planet can undertake. We'll have to have the entire system working on this. All just to send a bunch of people on a one-way trip. How much more practical would be the ship that can make a round trip in just a few years? Even if it's just as hard to build, it's going to be worth it.

When we talk about real concepts of interstellar travel, we are talking about materials, models, designs, energy, know physsics, practical implications, acuracy limits, etc.

But when we talk about Warp Drive, what are we talking about? Really...

Pretty much same exact things. We've just had people talk about sub-light interstellar travel for a few decades longer. Warp drive has to play catch-up here. But we're making solid progress.

You still need to convince me about the "solid theory".

Keep asking questions.

[AngelLestat]

Sorry by the delay in the responce. Not much free time this weak.

Hyperbolic functions turns out to be a more common name.

You start with definition of proper acceleration du/dt = a, where u = dx/dÄ is proper velocity. Because dÄ = dt/γ, we can write a = d(γdx/dt)/dt = γ³(d²x/dt²) when v is co-linear with a. (You have to take dγ/dt into account.)

So the differential equation describing motion of a sub-light ship traveling under constant proper acceleration is x'' = a/γ³ for some constant a. For x'(0)=x(0)=0, x(t) = (c sqrt(c²+a²t²) - c²)/a. But x(t) is boring. We are more interested in x(Ä), and that's where things get complicated.

Ok, that is a name that I can recognize

About the math, I can follow you by parts.. Some questions arrise, but with my lack of time right now.. I will just make you loose your time becouse I am not taking the moment that I need to see this with more attention.

No. Matter, by definition, is stuff with rest mass. In order to have matter, you must have some sort of wave packets that propagate as massive particles. This is a far more complicated topic. I'm a particle physicist, and I still don't like to think about it if I don't have to.

This is confusing, becouse Harold mention 700kg of negative energy or matter. In case that is energy, why it use KG? I know that you can measure energy by kg of matter using E=mc2, but in that case... The amount of energy that you have plus the small scale where it needs to be confined. By pair production effect you had matter. In this case.. Negative matter?

Fortunately, your opinion is not decisive in the matter. QFT says that region of space between two plates has a lower energy than vacuum. Now, you can say that it's vacuum that has a non-zero energy, and CE energy is still positive, just lower than that of vacuum, but from perspective of GR, the distinction is moot. For an Alcubierre Drive, all you need is region of space with energy lower than that of vacuum. That will provide you with negative curvature in the bubble, and that's the only thing you really need. So for the purposes of warping space-time, CE does give you negative energy. Like I said, there are still some questions there, but as far as Standard Model is concerned, it's all cut and dry. Can you practically create sufficient amount of negative energy this way? That's a different question. But not a problem of theory.

So in this case then Harold is looking for something more related to the Zero Point Energy, that is different from Warp Drive or alcubierre Drive.

I guess he calls it Q-Thruster.. Is this correct?

I also remember a note where the interviewer made a question to some influential scientist related to scyfi technology; if they need to put their money in Warp Drive or ZPE, what they would choose.. I guess almost all (or all, not rememeber) choose ZPE.

So is the same or is not the same?

It does. That's why it's called a strong condition. Standard terminology in math.

Maybe you are right. But I knew that I was read in some place where the dominant condition was not mentioned.

In this paper is discussed if Cassimir effect in fact violate "or not" those conditions. And it only mention the weak and strong.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0510052.pdf

I learn in discrete mathematics, that many laws or properties that seems inclose some other, they always had some examples like exceptions.

Is called strong, becouse is the property which covers more, not just becouse the other properties are 100% included.

That's just because you don't understand something about the way warp drive works. It is not a PM by any measure. It does not produce energy and it cannot do work. It can move the ship from one location to another without using up any energy, other than what you waste in conversion, but that assumes that potential energy of the ship at origin and destination is the same. If it's not the case, you will have to expend energy to move "up hill".

And like I said, there are fundamental theorems that say that energy is conserved here, so if you feel that it is not the case, you're missing something. If the above doesn't clarify it, and you still have questions about it, feel free to ask.

Ok, if is like you describe, that you generate the bubble, then automatic gain a 10x light speed until you jump of the buble.. then... I would understand that is different from a PM machine.

But if you said that you can go from stand, to 10k light speed and then brake and accelerate again. IDK.. seems like a PM machine.

But you are right.. This topic is too complex for me (and I would said for almost everyone), maybe either White might not even know if what he is trying to do is a PM machine. Is difficult to see becouse there is so many physsics notions that we need to clarify first.

Nope. Only local causality matters. There are laws to prevent anything from going faster than light locally. Quantum Mechanics is entirely ok with global causality violations.

Ok, I would need more time to look into this and make a propper responce.

But you said like "very sure" that quantum mechanic is ok with global causality meanwhile we still do not understand much about quamtum mechanic.

We can predict and understand some quamtum effect. But we are in the same position that Newton was with gravity. He could measure and predict it. But he never understood what it was.

The same happen here, we have the entaglement effect, looks almost magic becouse we dont understand the topology or the real cause of what we are witness.

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."

Not from universe. That's topologically impossible. Maybe from observable universe. And yeah, if you have a really large black hole, so that you aren't ripped to shreds by tidal forces, a warp ship would be able to dip a bit bellow the event horizon. Not very far, but that's still a very exciting possibility.

Interesting thing to note, though, is that like for any object that would fall in, from perspective of observer on the ship, you'll never pass the event horizon. At some point, a Schwarzshild Bubble will form around the ship, somewhere outside of the warp bubble. This might prevent Cosmic Censor violations, but I'm not sure about it.

And what we know about the true topologic form of the universe?

Depending the theory or the approach that you choose, you will have a different shape.

Some people found a lot of similitudes between black holes and the universe using the "Maldacena Conjecture".

About your Schwarzshild Bubble, is an interesting idea. But still can not imagine that happens.

No, not really. We know the underlying unified theory. It's a Yang-Mills theory on a U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3)xPoincare group. Unfortunately, it's non-renormalizable. But a renormalizable effective theory exists, which accounts for all quantum effects in curved space-time. It only breaks down near the plank scale. So long as the warp bubble walls are significantly thicker thank plank scale, we can model the whole thing.

Bubble "dissolves" when you reach the destination.

Detailed Study of Null and Time-like Geodesics in the Alcubierre Warp Spacetime. Light and radio waves propagate along null geodesics. Matter propagates along time-like geodesics.

When I find time, I will put an eye into that.

I cant give you a good answer right now.

Complete understanding of warp drive mechanics is right around the corner. It's the work that we can finish within decades. What the engineering task of actually building something like this would be will only be clear then. If we don't find any unexpected loopholes, it's going to be an extremely difficult task. But it already seems comparable to any other way of achieving interstellar travel. There are no easy ways there. Unless we find a very serious and currently non-obvious loophole, we are not going to have an easy way to traverse interstellar space.

And while there might be things marginally easier than warp drive, warp drive is the only one that's going to be worth it at that sort of expense. If a ship you send to another star is going to take hundreds of years to do a round trip, there is very little point. And building something like a generation ship is not a task that any one planet can undertake. We'll have to have the entire system working on this. All just to send a bunch of people on a one-way trip. How much more practical would be the ship that can make a round trip in just a few years? Even if it's just as hard to build, it's going to be worth it.

If I could, I would make a bet with you to see if in 10 years like you said we would have a full understanding of warp drive.

Why Harold White is alone in all this between all the great scientist over the whole world?

If his reasearch would look so promises like you point, it would have a lot of other scientist following their steps. That is how science works.

What are the results of their experiments?

You said that warp drive is the only thing that will worth.

I can said that free energy is the only thing will worth. What I gain with that?

First we need to prove that it works. Like fusion engines, beamed sail or any other real concepts to said that "it will worth".

I see many theories try to attempt to break the light speed, just with particles or using some shortcuts that seems to work.

But they always find that the universe is manage to prevented. Is like a safe mechanism.

So the only that I can tell, if that in some moment we find a way to break that safe mechanism. It will not be easy.

By "not easy", I mean 500, 1000, or 10000 years. Maybe never, Who knows. (this is just my opinion, so is worthless in this discussion)

Keep asking questions.

I still need to read all the things that you send me. when that happens, I would be able to going on with this discussion.

Edited January 9, 2014 by AngelLestat

[K^2]

This is confusing, becouse Harold mention 700kg of negative energy or matter. In case that is energy, why it use KG? I know that you can measure energy by kg of matter using E=mc2, but in that case... The amount of energy that you have plus the small scale where it needs to be confined. By pair production effect you had matter. In this case.. Negative matter?

Use of kg is just a simple way to put it into perspective. What you need is 700kg * c² of energy. The exact form of that energy... Well, I can sit down and compute the relevant tensor for an Alcubierre Drive. I think, what you end up with is energy in a form of a field strength. Like energy of electric field. Except, it's negative. That's exactly the sort of thing you should be getting with Casimir Effect.

Know what, I'll make a check when I get home. I'm on a laptop right now, and I don't have Mathematica installed here, and I'm not doing 4x4 tensor calculus by hand. When I'm back at the computer with Mathematica, I'll check what stress energy tnesor for Alcubierre Metric looks like, and compare it to the CE stress energy. I can also show you what typical tensors for a beam of light and stream particles look like for comparison.

[crazyewok]

Who knows?

Tell me when you find out.

Though at the speed of light all time would stop for the person so if that happens you have the problem of all biochemical processes stoping in your body. Not a problem while at the speed of light as you wont age and nothing will decay as time would have frozen so in effect you would be in suspended animation. But woud the biochemical processes in your body restart when you exist the speed of light or would you exit dead?

[AngelLestat]

Use of kg is just a simple way to put it into perspective. What you need is 700kg * c² of energy. The exact form of that energy... Well, I can sit down and compute the relevant tensor for an Alcubierre Drive. I think, what you end up with is energy in a form of a field strength. Like energy of electric field. Except, it's negative. That's exactly the sort of thing you should be getting with Casimir Effect..

But you dint answer my question, when you have such amount of energy confined in a smal space, you end with matter due to pair production effect. So this will be negative matter?

I believe, Dr White is only working on Warp Drive theory. Not practical matter of generating required negative energy densities. There are people who are doing theoretical research on that. Whether you like to call that ZPE or not just depends on your interpretation of it. I never really liked the term myself. But saying, "regions of space with depleted zero-point fields," is a mouthful.

Call it like you want, the same happens with harold white´s work, some places is mentioned q-thruster, others warp drive.

Ah, I see. The thing is, the ship doesn't actually accelerate to any speed. It remains at rest in the center of the bubble. If you were to stand inside the ship with an accelerometer, it'd measure zero acceleration throughout the voyage. There is no kinetic energy associated with traveling under warp. Well, there is energy of the bubble, but that's accounted for in the way you generate the bubble. The ship itself has no kinetic energy. I know that's a bit counterintuitive, but that's how warp works

Really? you need to mention the basics principles of Alcubierre Drive? This is mock?

I guess I was clear enoght. It does not matter what effect produce.. You change your state many times, to make those changes you need to put some energy into the system.

How it brakes? You said that is free falling, but you need to stop the free falling. How you do that? Then you need to point to another direction and move again.. Another change of state. How do you move the "matter and negative energy" to produce one effect or the other?

Is not that a change of state? It does not need energy imput??

If that is not a PM machine.. Then I could not find any other example of a PMM.

That's actually way outdated. We really do understand Quantum Mechanics now. There are things we can't describe with QM, but limitations are purely in that we can't do sufficient computation. The underlying theory is extremely well understood. I can talk for hours about Quantum Field Theory, how Entanglement works, and Quantum Mechanics in general. But it's way off topic.

In that case, I am the "less wrong", becourse you believe that you understand more. Is not outdated.

So you can talk for hours? Explain quamtum entaglement effect, not just the formule that preddicts that. Explain why it happens.

Why to know the state of an entaglement particle said something about the other?

Becouse is the same particle? becouse they are connected?

I look in internet for those problems for years, nobody knows the answer. They just know that happens and it needs to be accepted. (is a propertie of the quamtum world. But all scientist said that they dont know why!

To answer this, we need to really know how the universe really is. Its topology, all of it.

We need a theory of everything, String Theory, if some day is prove it.

In a lower frame we have Quamtum Gravity. So dont tell me that we understand QM.

The same happen with gravity. What is their cause? what is their basic particle? The graviton? how it is?

The relevant bit is that we have Quantum Field Theory which we can apply to the warp drive, so long as thickness of the warp bubble is much greater than Plank Length. In terms of what we can do with it, we can make very good numerical estimates on what the bubble vacuum is going to be like, and how the bubble will interact with any sort of incoming radiation. Be it electromagnetic or particles. There can be very strange effects on condensed matter level, but since bubble is going to shred anything down to particles almost instantly, it shouldn't really matter.

You know.. Quamtum effects start to be notorious for a group of molecules.

"The equations of Yang–Mills remain unsolved at energy scales relevant for describing atomic nuclei."

That is a lot bigger than plank lenght.

Global topology? Absolutely nothing. But that's beside the point. Whatever it is, you can't leave it, because local topology prohibits it. Basically, it's another way of saying that you can bend and stretch "fabric" of space-time, but there is no known way of "ripping" it. So whatever you are going to do, you'll be contained within this space-time, and therefore, within this universe.

First, not me, or you, or nobody can said nothing about the universe topology, Because we dont know!

There are just theories, hundreds of them.

My theory, is that the limit of the universe is the light speed. If you press attention, all round about that.

Is the key of all answers.

Quamtum gravity already made some calculations about how it will look a black hole from that theory points of view.

There is not singularity. if you start to think, all the things close to the event horizon are freeze in time from an external observer.

After that point, in a way.. you can said that the time is reversed. Or not reversed, forwards in other plane. From the things inside the black hole, The begining may look like the singularity (big bang) making the whole time and space.

And what can produce all that? The speed of light with its cosmic censorship mechanic.

Is this the true or just another farie story? The answer is, "we still dont know."

10 years probably won't make enough of a difference. Make it 30 years, and I'd be prepared to take that bet. And there are a lot of people actually working on it. Most of them are almost pure mathematicians, though, doing purely theoretical computations which have very little practical impact. Dr. White's work just happens to have made the biggest breakthrough recently, and became popular. The other thing that makes Dr. White's work so special is that their methods allow for a sufficient warping of space-time to be actually measurable by modern techniques. Keep in mind that this isn't a direct test of warp-drive, but a test of mathematical model and of ways to enhance the effect. The energy densities used in experiment are still positive definite. But these are still some of the first confirmations of space-time warping done in the lab.

I have all that perfecty in mind.

the amount of money that NASA gave to White was very small.

White is a very weird scietist becouse he never show his data or reasearch to other people.

He said that is "classified", he make some talks once in a whilea, last one was in the starship symposium 2013.

Like always, he explain the same thing that every knows about warp drives, and then explain that he is trying to test that.

And that is it!

When they asked specific questions about his experiment, or his theory.. He said that he cant not give more details becouse is classified.

You know how weird is that behevior inside a scientific comunity?

What is Nasa winning with all this? Publicity. The Nasa name is mentioned in plenty of notes with this topic, so when they ask money to goverment, they had a little more support from the scyfi comunity who represent some voters.

Some years ago, I was very interested in new kind of 3d sounds. I did a really big reaseach (I read almost 600 pages of that), also I meet her niece. Some time after I exchange some emails with him.

Then I found their patent in europe of his invention, and it was very different from what he claims. In fact he just improve an old method.

I found many like him over the years, the same behavior arise, hide some things and talk about the same thing. Etc.

Preliminary results show some promise, but a lot of work still needs to be done. There is a Wikipedia article that gives some info.

That is the conference when I read that many made some particular question about its method, and he dint want to said.

If you are trying to test something, or werever, you want that as many people like you can repeat that process to see if their reach the same results. Nobody will remove your credits like inventor. But this is not happening here.

The other paper that you send about geodesics, explain the warp drive from the time reference, also calculates some other things, but it does nothing to do with quamtum mechanics or other stuff.

I also read a note in century dreams, that describe how a Warp Drive ship will look from one external observer on the docks.

First you will see the ship just appear from nothing, then you would see the ship arrive and going in reverse. Then again it disappears, an you see the ship go, also in reverse. I dont know if the universe will be ok with all that.

[ZetaX]

At least the part about 3d sounds seems to be gibberisch, did you forget a sentence there¿

Really? you need to mention the basics principles of Alcubierre Drive? This is mock?

This was an attempt in explain it to you, who instead of knowing details just knows some superficial things and then makes up his own "theories". You claim random things like "changing states", "free falling" and "breaking", all of which are not really what K^2 used or said, and show that you don't know what it is. So stop complaining about him trying to tell you. If you are so very good at this as you act, how about you give us some calculation that shows how it violates conservation of energy (note: inequalities suffice, exact calculations are not needed).

So you can talk for hours? Explain quamtum entaglement effect, not just the formule that preddicts that. Explain why it happens.

Why to know the state of an entaglement particle said something about the other?

How about you "explaining" any other effect, like e.g. gravity or electromagnetism¿ According to you, reducing it to formulas and descriptions isn't enough...

What you want is not science but philosophy, and has at least nothing to do with physics. The goal is to be able to accurately describe and predict things.

My theory, is that the limit of the universe is the light speed. If you press attention, all round about that.

Is the key of all answers.

It is, locally. It is not globally as this definition wouldn't even make sense in some cases. How do you define speed in your way¿

Please stop this crankery...

I dont know if the universe will be ok with all that.

That probably summarises your post very well: you just have an oppinion about something and expect that reality behaves that way, even at the many cases where we already know it doesn't.

[K^2]

when you have such amount of energy confined in a smal space, you end with matter due to pair production effect

That's completely false.

some places is mentioned q-thruster, others warp drive.

Two principles are not even related.

I guess I was clear enoght. It does not matter what effect produce.. You change your state many times, to make those changes you need to put some energy into the system.

How it brakes? You said that is free falling, but you need to stop the free falling. How you do that? Then you need to point to another direction and move again.. Another change of state. How do you move the "matter and negative energy" to produce one effect or the other?

Ship doesn't move. It never moves. There is no "stopping", or "braking", or "changing" of any kind. You have zero understanding of the way warp drive works, and you continue being upset that I'm trying to explain it to you. That won't work.

In that case, I am the "less wrong", becourse you believe that you understand more. Is not outdated.

And the fact that quantum physics is actually my job doesn't give you a pause even for a moment?

So you can talk for hours? Explain quamtum entaglement effect, not just the formule that preddicts that. Explain why it happens.

Why to know the state of an entaglement particle said something about the other?

There isn't really anything to explain. It only looks like "spooky action at a distance" because you keep trying to interpret it as some sort of communication. It works the same way across the interpretations, but the most clear way is to look at it from perspective of Many-Worlds Interpretation. Observer 1 looks at particle 1 and becomes entangled with it. In other words, O1 goes into superposition of having measured + and -, with particle remaining in superposition of + and -, but O1+ state corresponds with p1+ state, and vice versa. Observer 2 measures particle 2, and likewise, becomes entangled. Now you have an overall superposition state |O1+, O2+, p1+, p2+> + |O1-, O2-, p1-, p2->. Observer 1+ and Observer 1- might as well live in different worlds. Hence the name of the interpretation. But if O1 and O2 meet and compare notes, O1+ will be talking to O2+, while O1- is talking to O2-. So no matter what each of them measured, at what time, and how, they will have agreed that states of particle 1 and particle 2 were measured to be identical.

Becouse is the same particle? becouse they are connected?

You can entangle non-identical particles.

I look in internet for those problems for years, nobody knows the answer. They just know that happens and it needs to be accepted. (is a propertie of the quamtum world. But all scientist said that they dont know why!

Right. Internet "scientists".

To answer this, we need to really know how the universe really is. Its topology, all of it.

Do you understand what topology actually means? If local properties are the same everywhere, that's all we need to know.

We need a theory of everything

We've known it since the 60s. We're just only now learning to make it useful.

String Theory, if some day is prove it.

String theory makes no predictions that have been verified.

In a lower frame we have Quamtum Gravity. So dont tell me that we understand QM.

The same happen with gravity. What is their cause? what is their basic particle? The graviton? how it is?

Gravity is a consequence of a local Poincare symmetry. We understand it completely. Quantum Gravity is understood as a fundamental field theory, but can only be made practical use of as an effective field theory. I've pointed that out before.

You know.. Quamtum effects start to be notorious for a group of molecules.

"The equations of Yang–Mills remain unsolved at energy scales relevant for describing atomic nuclei."

That is a lot bigger than plank lenght.

That's non-perturbative QFT, and it's what I'm actually working with. The problems are purely computational. These systems get infinitely complex, and have to be analyzed with non-perturbative methods. Both Lattice and various Feynman techniques are being used to make huge amount of progress. Structures of simple nuclei have been resolved in both of these ways, and the only reason we can't touch heavy nuclei yet is because of limited computer power.

First, not me, or you, or nobody can said nothing about the universe topology, Because we dont know!

There are just theories, hundreds of them.

My theory, is that the limit of the universe is the light speed. If you press attention, all round about that.

That's not a theory. That's you making stuff up.

<More nonsense of the sort.>

I have all that perfecty in mind.

And the fact that you don't know any of the physics behind it doesn't bother you at all?

<Harold White stuff.>

He's making use of popularity of the subject. Nothing unusual about that. And he has not refused to give out information. His models are available. He is being a bit quiet about the experiment, but given information that has been released, that's also understandable. They are having serious problems with precision, and are worried about funding. What you are seeing is just media circus around the thing. From actual scientific perspective things are pretty clean. No claims have been made that aren't supported by models.

The other paper that you send about geodesics, explain the warp drive from the time reference, also calculates some other things, but it does nothing to do with quamtum mechanics or other stuff.

And why should it?

I also read a note in century dreams, that describe how a Warp Drive ship will look from one external observer on the docks.

First you will see the ship just appear from nothing, then you would see the ship arrive and going in reverse. Then again it disappears, an you see the ship go, also in reverse. I dont know if the universe will be ok with all that.

When a supersonic jet flies by you, at first, you hear absolutely nothing. Then suddenly sound appears, and you can hear it ahead and behind of you, and then the sound fades out in both directions. I don't know if universe would be ok with that.

Except I do. I've heard this exact thing at numerous air shows. Universe doesn't care in what order the waves carrying information hit you. In fact, it doesn't care about anything that has to do with your perception of the universe, or what you think is or is not possible. If you want to understand something about the universe, you first need to get over the idea that your impression of it is somehow important or relevant to how it actually woks.

You seem to be stuck in 90's media representation of what science is. That had nothing to do with state of science even in the 90's, and it has even less to do with it today.

[AngelLestat]

At least the part about 3d sounds seems to be gibberisch, did you forget a sentence there¿

I dint want to extend in that, but the inventor claims that he was found how the brain makes possible to locate songs using a sound of reference generated by the ears (that some times is audible)that use it to create interference with the outcomming sound, so its device generate this sound reference with some integrated circuit to help the 2 mipcrophones located in a binaural artificial head to record the sound in the same way that we listen.

If you hear some holophonic recorders with headphones you will find that the sound is amazing, he work with all biggest musicians, NASA and even the military department was interested in make some kind of helmet for troops.

After all those big oportunities he never get nothing concrete. He said that everyone want to steal their discovers, some conspiracies of Sony to protect their dolby stereo patent, etc.

He never want to show others how his device real works. But in his patent it does not mention nothing about an interference circuit. It was just a binaural head more realistic that the average.

Here is some old interview to him.

This was an attempt in explain it to you, who instead of knowing details just knows some superficial things and then makes up his own "theories". You claim random things like "changing states", "free falling" and "breaking", all of which are not really what K^2 used or said, and show that you don't know what it is. So stop complaining about him trying to tell you. If you are so very good at this as you act, how about you give us some calculation that shows how it violates conservation of energy (note: inequalities suffice, exact calculations are not needed).

Hey, we are discussing, not fighting, so if you had some important thing to add or you can answer my questions be my guess, you are welcome into the discussion. But nobody needs a bodyguard here.

I am just being skeptic. If we wanna talk about science we need a bit of that. Is the only way to discriminate information. If you dont, you are just another medium repeater.

And I dint make ANY CLAIM! that is my posture. I am not make a claim until I am 99,999% sure about the things that I am saying.

When I talk about things that I think, I use the word OPINION. So stop misrepresenting my comments.

In this case, the guy of "claims" it will be K2.

How about you "explaining" any other effect, like e.g. gravity or electromagnetism¿ According to you, reducing it to formulas and descriptions isn't enough...

What you want is not science but philosophy, and has at least nothing to do with physics. The goal is to be able to accurately describe and predict things.

Why I need to explain that? My postute always was "there is no consensus yet", nobody prove it, there are just theories. And I never said that reducing to formulas is not enoght.. PLEASE STOP SAID THINGS THAT I NEVER SAID.

But the formules that we have only make predictions about some stuff, not about what we really need to know if is possible or not. YET.

It is, locally. It is not globally as this definition wouldn't even make sense in some cases. How do you define speed in your way¿

Please stop this crankery...

???

That probably summarises your post very well: you just have an oppinion about something and expect that reality behaves that way, even at the many cases where we already know it doesn't.

Yeah, it doesn´t. Like I said, if you want you can add some usefull words or explanations to this discussion, in other case, just let us to keep this discussion in peace.

PD: Edit: I will answer you later K2.

[ZetaX]

I am not a bodyguard here, I simply wish to also contribute to the discussion. I added to the discussion, namely that you are claiming things that are wrong or show that you have no idea what you are talking about. You seem to consider everything you don't understand as wrong or incomplete or "just a theory", despite K^2 already having given details (and then you felt mocked for him doing that). You also dodged most of what I said, "there is no consensus yet" is just wrong and not even related to what I said. Formulas exist, anyway.

If "being sceptic" means to not believe things due to them sounding wrong to you despite shown the research, then "crankery" is really the better way to put it. You _did_ make claims, like that it is a PM, and ignored my request on you giving any calculations. You also claimed that this and that is wrong without evidence or reasons apart from "I don't believe it".

[sal_vager]

Guys, scientific theories are not just random ideas pulled out of thin air.

Theories are highly tested, backed up with mathematics and are able to made predictions which can be falsified/verified, this is how we know a theory is sound.

As there's always room for new data, no theory can be said to be 100% true, this is normal.

An example is the theory of gravity, we know what gravity does and can calculate what any given object will do in any strength gravity, the theory can be used to predict the locations of planets and satellites to a very high degree of accuracy for millions of years in the future or the past, it's how scientists can determine what the skies looked like when the dinosaurs were around.

But there's holes in the knowledge, for instance it's still not really known what gravity is.

The term I think some of you are looking for is "hypothesis", this is not yet a theory and requires a great deal of testing before it becomes a theory, these are the "ideas out of thin air" in some cases and most never get any further because testing cannot back them up.

Saying something is "just a theory" is missing the point of just how thoroughly these theories are tested, verified and known to be as close to "true" as is humanly possible to get.

[K^2]

But there's holes in the knowledge, for instance it's still not really known what gravity is.

We do. It's a gauge field of Poincare symmetry, whose conserved charge is the stress energy. That doesn't mean we don't have any questions about it. It's just what a lay person, or even just a scientist from an unrelated field, thinks are the things we don't know is very far from the things we actually don't know.

So your point stands, sal. But our current knowledge is far, far more detailed than you'd get the impression from popular media and most textbooks.

P.S. ZetaX has demonstrated both a good general understanding of core physics and an ability to deal with advanced topics in a responsible manner. If anything ZetaX is more skeptical than I am. So it would be in poor taste to accuse him of doing anything but contributing to discussion.

Edited January 11, 2014 by K^2

[AngelLestat]

That's completely false.

Ok, can you elaborate please?

In the big bang we had only high energy density, how we end with all visible matter?

Ship doesn't move. It never moves. There is no "stopping", or "braking", or "changing" of any kind. You have zero understanding of the way warp drive works, and you continue being upset that I'm trying to explain it to you. That won't work.

I understand that braking is not the correct word.. Help me here, You have a warp drive ship, you open the door, now you are inside the ship (bubble). Then you need to start "move" (is ok that word?) to go some where (that is the point dont you?). What I dont understand. Is how go through from static state, to move state, then to static state again.. If you want to change direction, then you have also a change of state. (Really sorry if I am not using the right words).

So my stupid brain, tells me that I need inject some kind of energy into the system to change those states..

If not, it will be like a PM machine? Is this correct, or my concern is just stupid?

And the fact that quantum physics is actually my job doesn't give you a pause even for a moment?

It really does, but like I tell you, I never hear such claims from nobody else.

There isn't really anything to explain. It only looks like "spooky action at a distance" because you keep trying to interpret it as some sort of communication. It works the same way across the interpretations, but the most clear way is to look at it from perspective of Many-Worlds Interpretation. Observer 1 looks at particle 1 and becomes entangled with it. In other words, O1 goes into superposition of having measured + and -, with particle remaining in superposition of + and -, but O1+ state corresponds with p1+ state, and vice versa. Observer 2 measures particle 2, and likewise, becomes entangled. Now you have an overall superposition state |O1+, O2+, p1+, p2+> + |O1-, O2-, p1-, p2->. Observer 1+ and Observer 1- might as well live in different worlds. Hence the name of the interpretation. But if O1 and O2 meet and compare notes, O1+ will be talking to O2+, while O1- is talking to O2-. So no matter what each of them measured, at what time, and how, they will have agreed that states of particle 1 and particle 2 were measured to be identical.

I never mention comunication, I said:

Why to know the state of an entaglement particle said something about the other?

If you were read that would save you the time to write the common experiment that is mention over all internet.

And from your first sentence seems like you are saying that the observer one is entanglment with the particle 1.

Also your last sentence said identical, but when you measuring you are changing the state of both, so if your O1 measure p1 and it see that its state is negative (just for saying) then if O2 measure p2 its state would be positive.

But how you explain this using the principle of locality? The fact that we know that is a propertie of quamtum mechanic well understood, it does not mean that we know why it happens or why is like that.

You can entangle non-identical particles.

I know, I was mention that we can not discard that maybe when you entanglement 2 particles, they become the same particle.

A particle can be in many places at the same time. This maybe is a clue about our basic understanding of the real shape of the universe.

What if string theory is correct? That there is other dimentions so small that we can not see it, but that particles can move enter in them and go out.

Right. Internet "scientists".

What are you? Why I need to take your word for granted when I dont do that for anyone else. If there is concense by the other hand, that is a different story.

Do you understand what topology actually means? If local properties are the same everywhere, that's all we need to know.

Inside from our frames of reference were our theories work.

Here you are in the edges of our frames of reference, where many theories collide. Where a deeper understanding of our universe is needed.

We've known it since the 60s. We're just only now learning to make it useful.

So in the 60s we had the theory of everything? wow, great. So you can explain me how the universe is form, what is out there, we have parallel universes? there is infinite universes? each one has their own properties? how many dimentions are? What is time? We live in a 2d universe and our existence is just an holographic representation?

Can I be the first to call all other scientist and tell them that we already discover the theory of everything?

String theory makes no predictions that have been verified.

So it is in the same status than warp drive then?

Gravity is a consequence of a local Poincare symmetry. We understand it completely. Quantum Gravity is understood as a fundamental field theory, but can only be made practical use of as an effective field theory. I've pointed that out before.

I am agree, but that is still a theory that was not be verified. So?

That's non-perturbative QFT, and it's what I'm actually working with. The problems are purely computational. These systems get infinitely complex, and have to be analyzed with non-perturbative methods. Both Lattice and various Feynman techniques are being used to make huge amount of progress. Structures of simple nuclei have been resolved in both of these ways, and the only reason we can't touch heavy nuclei yet is because of limited computer power.

Ok, I follow you, this is intriguing. I guess you could answer these questions also when the first "solid" quamtum computers arise, not only becouse their superior process power, but like they actually work using quamtum effect, they are perfect to emule them. So in this case you will not need mathematical tools like Feynman or yang-mills.

That's not a theory. That's you making stuff up.

<More nonsense of the sort.>

My theory is true, I will tell you more about this, but is "classified".

Regardless, if there are only some theories that are true (of course the ones that that you choose) what are your thought about the holographic principle, and their relation with the information.

And the fact that you don't know any of the physics behind it doesn't bother you at all?

I complement that reading a lot. If I am wrong, I recognize and I learn. What is the issue?

For that reason I like so much discuss, is a win win. More information is always equal to "less chance to be wrong".

He's making use of popularity of the subject. Nothing unusual about that. And he has not refused to give out information. His models are available. He is being a bit quiet about the experiment, but given information that has been released, that's also understandable. They are having serious problems with precision, and are worried about funding. What you are seeing is just media circus around the thing. From actual scientific perspective things are pretty clean. No claims have been made that aren't supported by models.

The key details of their experiments and theories are always "classified". So nobody can repeat the process or made their own calculations.

Make a research about this. Hear what critics has to said.

When I look for information I always try to hear both sides. The one who defend some idea, and the ones that attack them. Then I choose.

And why should it?

Becouse to confine energy is such densities at so low scale, demands it.

Or maybe I have the wrong idea of the scales from previous works, so send me the paper when it said how thin this burbles needs to be?

When a supersonic jet flies by you, at first, you hear absolutely nothing. Then suddenly sound appears, and you can hear it ahead and behind of you, and then the sound fades out in both directions. I don't know if universe would be ok with that.

Except I do. I've heard this exact thing at numerous air shows. Universe doesn't care in what order the waves carrying information hit you. In fact, it doesn't care about anything that has to do with your perception of the universe, or what you think is or is not possible. If you want to understand something about the universe, you first need to get over the idea that your impression of it is somehow important or relevant to how it actually woks.

Except that this would cause all kind of paradoxes. Also violates causality..

When the first vehicle break the sound speed, was not any physsic law prohibiting that.

You seem to be stuck in 90's media representation of what science is. That had nothing to do with state of science even in the 90's, and it has even less to do with it today.

It was not in the 90´s when the warp drive idea gain popullarity?

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

You seem to consider everything you don't understand as wrong or incomplete or "just a theory", despite K^2 already having given details (and then you felt mocked for him doing that). You also dodged most of what I said, "there is no consensus yet" is just wrong and not even related to what I said. Formulas exist, anyway.

I am still waiting the K2 details about my question over PM. What I dodge?

For example, You said now formulas exist.. There is consensus... How I need to responce to this? Really, I just dont find the words.

If "being sceptic" means to not believe things due to them sounding wrong to you despite shown the research, then "crankery" is really the better way to put it. You _did_ make claims, like that it is a PM, and ignored my request on you giving any calculations. You also claimed that this and that is wrong without evidence or reasons apart from "I don't believe it".

See, you make your own interpretations just to said something.. how we can discuss like this?

You invent your own definition of sceptic with your own level that correspond to me?.

You said that I made claims about PM. Where I did that? I understand that my english is bad. But I take very care of the words that I choose.

I said "seems" like PM.

And I am not defending this theory, so the guy that is making the claims is k2. And is ok. My job like critic of Warp Drive is to defy his ideas.

When I defend my posture about Beamed Sail Propulsion, I was the one that I need to prove the things that I was saying. And that is how it needs to be.

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

An example is the theory of gravity, we know what gravity does and can calculate what any given object will do in any strength gravity, the theory can be used to predict the locations of planets and satellites to a very high degree of accuracy for millions of years in the future or the past, it's how scientists can determine what the skies looked like when the dinosaurs were around.

But there's holes in the knowledge, for instance it's still not really known what gravity is.

Yeah, that is pretty much my posture.

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

We do. It's a gauge field of Poincare symmetry, whose conserved charge is the stress energy. That doesn't mean we don't have any questions about it. It's just what a lay person, or even just a scientist from an unrelated field, thinks are the things we don't know is very far from the things we actually don't know.

I am too tired to answer this.. XD It will be for the next post.

P.S. ZetaX has demonstrated both a good general understanding of core physics and an ability to deal with advanced topics in a responsible manner. If anything ZetaX is more skeptical than I am. So it would be in poor taste to accuse him of doing anything but contributing to discussion.

So he wons the k2 science medal? May I won one? Yes?? please.. please? May I? I read a lot.. I deserve one.. What you said?

I guess I need to be agree with you to gain one... Damm it. But there is still time to that.

Talking serius, I never accuse him to not contibuting to discussion, another misinterpretation, I acuse him to distort my words. And I encourage him to instead just taking side, to contribute to the discussion answering the thing that you dint do. Or maybe explain them in a way that I understand.

In some parts I make jokes, this is not to offend nobody.. is just to try to make this discussion more entertaining.

[K^2]

Ok, can you elaborate please?

In the big bang we had only high energy density, how we end with all visible matter?

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.

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.

I understand that braking is not the correct word.. Help me here, You have a warp drive ship, you open the door, now you are inside the ship (bubble). Then you need to start "move" (is ok that word?) to go some where (that is the point dont you?). What I dont understand. Is how go through from static state, to move state, then to static state again.. If you want to change direction, then you have also a change of state. (Really sorry if I am not using the right words).

So my stupid brain, tells me that I need inject some kind of energy into the system to change those states..

If not, it will be like a PM machine? Is this correct, or my concern is just stupid?

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.)

I never mention comunication, I said:

Why to know the state of an entaglement particle said something about the other?

If you were read that would save you the time to write the common experiment that is mention over all internet.

And from your first sentence seems like you are saying that the observer one is entanglment with the particle 1.

Also your last sentence said identical, but when you measuring you are changing the state of both, so if your O1 measure p1 and it see that its state is negative (just for saying) then if O2 measure p2 its state would be positive.

But how you explain this using the principle of locality? The fact that we know that is a propertie of quamtum mechanic well understood, it does not mean that we know why it happens or why is like that.

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.

I know, I was mention that we can not discard that maybe when you entanglement 2 particles, they become the same particle.

We can discard it.

What if string theory is correct?

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

What are you? Why I need to take your word for granted when I dont do that for anyone else. If there is concense by the other hand, that is a different story.

I don't ask you to take any of my words for granted.

Inside from our frames of reference were our theories work.

Here you are in the edges of our frames of reference, where many theories collide. Where a deeper understanding of our universe is needed.

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.

So in the 60s we had the theory of everything? wow, great. So you can explain me how the universe is form, what is out there, we have parallel universes? there is infinite universes? each one has their own properties? how many dimentions are? What is time? We live in a 2d universe and our existence is just an holographic representation?

Can I be the first to call all other scientist and tell them that we already discover the theory of everything?

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.

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.

So it is in the same status than warp drive then?

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

I am agree, but that is still a theory that was not be verified. So?

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.

Ok, I follow you, this is intriguing. I guess you could answer these questions also when the first "solid" quamtum computers arise, not only becouse their superior process power, but like they actually work using quamtum effect, they are perfect to emule them. So in this case you will not need mathematical tools like Feynman or yang-mills.

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.

My theory is true, I will tell you more about this, but is "classified".

Regardless, if there are only some theories that are true (of course the ones that that you choose) what are your thought about the holographic principle, and their relation with the information.

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.

I complement that reading a lot. If I am wrong, I recognize and I learn. What is the issue?

For that reason I like so much discuss, is a win win. More information is always equal to "less chance to be wrong".

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.

The key details of their experiments and theories are always "classified". So nobody can repeat the process or made their own calculations.

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

Becouse to confine energy is such densities at so low scale, demands it.

It does not. You are arguing from ignorance again.

Except that this would cause all kind of paradoxes. Also violates causality..

When the first vehicle break the sound speed, was not any physsic law prohibiting that.

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.

It was not in the 90´s when the warp drive idea gain popullarity?

Of course. Because that's when the first mathematically precise formulation, the Alcubierre Drive, was presented. But that changes my point how? You're still basing half of your assumptions on things that were mis-information already then.

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.