Does the warp drive would ever ever become real

[Red Iron Crown]

You can't say something is useless until you build it, and you can't gauge feasibility with just theorizing.

While we're on the subject of theory, who's to say the theory of relativity is true?

Supposedly, a theory is a hypothesis with some proof. Yet, the Theory of relativity say that nothing can reach the speed of light, while also saying that we can't see something traveling near that speed. It neatly contradicts itself: nothing can reach the speed of light, and since anything traveling near those speeds is unobservable, you can't prove that this theory is neither false nor true. Also, the theory of relativity was conjured to refute quantum physics, which has been proven to be true.

For all we know, ships approaching the light speed barrier don't experience time dilatation, or not as severely as we think. Since we can't observe these things, the Theory of relativity stands as a theory, though it should probably be called the Hypothesis of relativity, since the "proof" it stands on can't be verified as valid.

Stop using the word "proof", science is not in the business of proving things.

Relativity predates quantum mechanics, so it wasn't "conjured" to refute it.

A theory is not "a hypothesis with some kind of proof". A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still has to be rigorously tested. In contrast, a scientific theory has undergone extensive testing and is generally accepted to be the accurate explanation behind an observation.

Relativity has a mountain of observational evidence supporting it. That's not to say that it will never be shown to be incomplete, but it works very well for the evidence we have. Much like how Newtonian physics, which are demonstrably incomplete but provide a very useful approximation in most real-world situations.

So, while I agree that someday we may discover a new scientific theory that permits ftl travel, it won't make relativity "wrong" any more than relativity made Newtonian physics "wrong".

[orbital mechanic]

anything traveling near those speeds is unobservable

Not true and not what relativity says.

Also, the theory of relativity was conjured to refute quantum physics

Very wrong, as stated by others already.

For all we know, ships approaching the light speed barrier don't experience time dilatation, or not as severely as we think. Since we can't observe these things, the Theory of relativity stands as a theory, though it should probably be called the Hypothesis of relativity, since the "proof" it stands on can't be verified as valid.

Time dilation has been experimentally observed many times and works exactly as predicted by the Theory of Relativity.

[Stargate525]

Time dilation has been experimentally observed many times and works exactly as predicted by the Theory of Relativity.

But it hasn't been observed at very high speeds, has it? I mean, standard physics breaks down at super-small scale, and gravity doesn't really seem to work properly at massive scale (hence why there's an ever increasing amount of dark matter in rings around galaxies to get the maths right). Could it be that the dilation is a curve, and not linear?

[orbital mechanic]

But it hasn't been observed at very high speeds, has it?

Yes, it has. Particle accelerators move particles at speeds very close to the speed of light and the dilation observed in these particles agrees with the predictions of relativity perfectly.

I mean, standard physics breaks down at super-small scale,

If you are talking about special relativity, then no. Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity are perfectly compatible.

Could it be that the dilation is a curve, and not linear?

Time dilation is indeed not linear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Time_dilation_due_to_relative_velocity

[78stonewobble]

But it hasn't been observed at very high speeds, has it? I mean, standard physics breaks down at super-small scale, and gravity doesn't really seem to work properly at massive scale (hence why there's an ever increasing amount of dark matter in rings around galaxies to get the maths right). Could it be that the dilation is a curve, and not linear?

Afaik. it's eksponential?

[Seret]

You can't say something is useless until you build it

Don't be silly. Do you think someone has had to actually build a chocolate fireguard at some point?

[Wahgineer]

Don't be silly. Do you think someone has had to actually build a chocolate fireguard at some point?

But that has ample proof to back it: chocolate melts, therefore it makes a bad fireguard. A warp drive is something that we have no prior experience with. We've always had experience/knowledge of heat, states of matter, energy, movement, etc., yet no such experience with something that travels at such speeds via an almost magical means of propulsion. Therefore, it is ignorant to say that this thing is useless without actually making it and testing it to see if it works.

[Rakaydos]

Bear in mind, it WAS considered impractical and useless when it required the mass-energy of jupiter to work. There's no way to build something with that much power and fit it into the field area- by definiton, it would have taken a Jupiter of antimatter. This is a Class 3 Impossiblility... we can prove it doesnt work.

Now that that problem was fixed, it is now a Class 2 imposssibility: Something we havnt proven does not work.

A Class 1 Impossibility is simply an infrastructure problem. It works, but we cant build it yet. Space Elevators fall in this category.

[m4v]

And finding matter with negative mass or energy is what kind of impossibility?

[TheDarkStar]

And finding matter with negative mass or energy is what kind of impossibility?

It's not prohibited by any law we know. We haven't found it yet, but it took a while to find antimatter, too.

[Rakaydos]

And finding matter with negative mass or energy is what kind of impossibility?

Class 2. We dont know if it exists, but we cant prove it doesnt.

[Seret]

Therefore, it is ignorant to say that this thing is useless without actually making it and testing it to see if it works.

What point are you trying to make? Where have I said that a warp drive would be useless? I've said the exact opposite in fact: that even though it's unlikely to be possible, it would be so useful that it warrants investigation.

[Wahgineer]

What point are you trying to make? Where have I said that a warp drive would be useless? I've said the exact opposite in fact: that even though it's unlikely to be possible, it would be so useful that it warrants investigation.

thought you were someone else.

I thought about it, and I realized that the Alcubierre drive doesn't break the the laws of the theory of relativity: it uses them to its' advantage. Think of it I like this:

Every human can only swim oh so fast, that is, there is an upper speed limit to how fast a human can swim. Water, though, is not bound by these limitations: it can go as fast as it wants. Now, with this information in mind, imagine you, some friends and I are at a beach. You and your friends all swim at different speeds, but even if you were all in perfect physical condition, you could only swim up to a certain speed. Now, imagine I come by on a surfboard. Relative to you, I'm going faster than possible. Yet, relative to the board and the wave, I'm not moving at all, since we're all moving at the same speed. Now, replace you and your friends with STL ships of varying speeds, the water and the board with space time, and me with an FTL ship, and you get an idea of how the Alcubierre drive works. Relative to the universe, the ship is going faster than possible. Relative to the space time it's resting on, the ship isn't moving at all. The latter is all that matters: as long as the ship and the space time 'surfboard' it's riding on are traveling at the same speed, the ship is able to go as fast as it wants without experiencing time dilation.

[Red Iron Crown]

That whole negative mass thing does put a damper on having a working Alcubierre drive, even if it doesn't break relativity.

[Seret]

Awsumindyman, I'm aware of the principle of how the Alcubierre metric works. The problem is that it relies on a type of energy that has never been proven to exist. It's not quite the same as saying we'll run it on unicorn p*ss, but it's close.

[Wahgineer]

Awsumindyman, I'm aware of the principle of how the Alcubierre metric works. The problem is that it relies on a type of energy that has never been proven to exist. It's not quite the same as saying we'll run it on unicorn p*ss, but it's close.

So, we've established that it works (in principle), we just need to figure out how to build it.

[Seret]

No, we don't know that it works. It relies on unknown physics.

[Wahgineer]

No, we don't know that it works. It relies on unknown physics.

No, it relies on an unknown form of energy/matter to work. Which you already stated. I explained how the Alcubierre metric works, which relies on both the theory of relativity and quantum physics. The physics behind the drive are very well known (otherwise, how would we have the Alcubierre metric in the first place?), it's just the tool we need to manipulate these physics which is unknown.

[Seret]

The physics behind the drive are very well known (otherwise, how would we have the Alcubierre metric in the first place?)

Because the Alcubierre metric, as a purely mathematical construct, can be made to work by including stuff which isn't necessarily real. Just because the sums work doesn't mean that it'll work that way in reality. Just look at Einstein's famous cosmological constant; he included it to make the maths work the way he thought it should. It turns out reality is different. Experiment disproves mathematical models all the time (in fact that's the whole point...)

Now I'm not saying negative mass isn't real, just that it isn't necessarily real just because Alcubierre's idea requires it, which seems to be what you're suggesting.

[Wahgineer]

[quote name=Seret;1029236

Now I'm not saying negative mass isn't real' date=' just that it isn't necessarily real just because Alcubierre's idea requires it, which seems to be what you're suggesting.

I'm suggesting that the warp drive works, but requires negative mass/energy to do what it needs to get done. I never said that negative mass/energy existed because the metric required it. I said that we understand how the thing works, but we just don't have the proper tools yet to make it work.

[Seret]

we just don't have the proper tools yet to make it work.

Fine, just as long as you're aware that it's possible we never will, because there's no such thing as negative mass. It's predicted to exist, but not confirmed. We could be wrong.