How is an Alcubierre drive FTL?

[Dispatcher]

What does Star Trek have anything to do with it?

In articles dealing with the subject, Star Trek is often mentioned. I'm sure that if a real warp drive is developed, the starship would look nothing like the USS Enterprise.

[Dispatcher]

As a note, in Star Trek their impulse engines were suped up ion engines...

Not according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impulse_drive

Also note how amazed "Scotty" is about ion power: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDUyvTZVHIw His comment is within the first 1.5 minutes.

[K^2]

K^2: As has been described to me, utilizing just the front half of a warp drive should (as far as the ship is concerned) be analogous to 'falling' towards a gravity well equal to the effect you are creating.

That is like pulling yourself by own hair. It should be noted that it is possible to build space-time geometry where this is the case. This might be one of these. They are not physical, however.

[KASASpace]

Not according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impulse_drive

Also note how amazed "Scotty" is about ion power: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDUyvTZVHIw His comment is within the first 1.5 minutes.

Impulse drive is actually a fusion drive.

Note the "bussard collectors"

Those collectors are the red spinny things on the TOS Enterprise

NOTE: I'm backing you up here

[Dispatcher]

I never knew about the bussard collectors. I actually had the book "Making of Star Trek" by Gene Roddenberry back in the day, and I think the bussard ramjet idea for the Enterprise must have developed later, around the time of the first ST movies or even as late as TNG, Voyager or Enterprise. You could probably shed more light on when that came about.

More on topic: I've thought of the Alcubierre drive as utilizing a single large warp field. Would there be any advantage (or disadvantage) in using multiple (but not overlapping) warp fields for propelling a single ship? What effect might this have on a ship if a portion of it is not enveloped in a warp field?

[KASASpace]

I never knew about the bussard collectors. I actually had the book "Making of Star Trek" by Gene Roddenberry back in the day, and I think the bussard ramjet idea for the Enterprise must have developed later, around the time of the first ST movies or even as late as TNG, Voyager or Enterprise. You could probably shed more light on when that came about.

More on topic: I've thought of the Alcubierre drive as utilizing a single large warp field. Would there be any advantage (or disadvantage) in using multiple (but not overlapping) warp fields for propelling a single ship? What effect might this have on a ship if a portion of it is not enveloped in a warp field?

Well, in an episode of Voyager they mention the collectors as they enter a Nebula which turns out to be alive.

So it stands to reason it is the sane for all.

Hmm, could you clarify that point? I don't understand it.

[*Aqua*]

More on topic: I've thought of the Alcubierre drive as utilizing a single large warp field. Would there be any advantage (or disadvantage) in using multiple (but not overlapping) warp fields for propelling a single ship? What effect might this have on a ship if a portion of it is not enveloped in a warp field?

Every part which is not within the warp bubble will disintegrate (when in front of the bubble) or be ripped apart (at the back of the bubble). In the front space is wrapped that means every ship part in this area will also be wrapped. Furthermore it will be bombarded by interstellar matter at lightspeed (or more) which will probably cause nuclear fusions all the time. At the back space is 'stretched out'. Every matter in this field will be distributed more or less evenly, probably ripping apart anything bigger that an atom.

Because of this it makes no sense having more than one warp bubble. Everything between the bubbles will be destroyed. And onion-like warp layers won't work except you find a way to manipulated spacetime in great distances.

[Dispatcher]

Hmm, could you clarify that point? I don't understand it.

Sure. Regardless of the final starship physical shape (the notion now is that it is similar in shape to a US football), what if a warp field were to encompass part of the front end and another field were to encompass part of the back end of the ship? For this discussion, let's assume that the center of the ship is not engulfed in a warp field. Would there be desirable consequences or ... unintended ones for the purpose of traveling safely from one place to another?

Edit: looks like Aqua has an answer.

[KASASpace]

Sure. Regardless of the final starship physical shape (the notion now is that it is similar in shape to a US football), what if a warp field were to encompass part of the front end and another field were to encompass part of the back end of the ship? For this discussion, let's assume that the center of the ship is not engulfed in a warp field. Would there be desirable consequences or ... unintended ones for the purpose of traveling safely from one place to another?

Edit: looks like Aqua has an answer.

Well as *Aqua* mentioned, the outside areas would be destroyed.

Assuming that wouldn't happen, the acceleration would destroy everything between the fields, as you immediately accelerate from zero (relative) to faster than light.

[Dispatcher]

So this would imply that we might want redundancy regarding the generation and maintaining of the warp field. This could justify the onion layering of multiple fields around the entire craft, assuming that this too does not introduce dire results.

[KASASpace]

So this would imply that we might want redundancy regarding the generation and maintaining of the warp field. This could justify the onion layering of multiple fields around the entire craft, assuming that this too does not introduce dire results.

Well, the "onion" field wouldn't really help, as it would essentially be the same magnitude, if not less, as you go out further. And because of the flatness of space it wouldn't add up.....

As far as I know.

[*Aqua*]

So this would imply that we might want redundancy regarding the generation and maintaining of the warp field.

Hm... I'm not sure.

The fusions in front of the ship will still have its inertia so it will probably fly away with lightspeed or more. I don't know if matter or energy, accelerated to > c, will brake on its own to < c. If it does deadly radiation will shower the ship.

A warp field won't help. The instance you activate it, the ship will fly with > c. It can't be active and not moving.

[K^2]

You should not think of it as a warp field. It is a bubble. It has walls, but space inside is just ordinary space.

[Scotius]

Is there even the need for "layering" bubbles? As i understand, there is no upper limit of speed for warp bubble. Its velicity depends only of amount of energy pumped into engine.

[Dispatcher]

I was looking at any layering from the stand point of redundancy for safety; like the layers of a spacesuit. A bubble makes sense in terms of its function. Perhaps "field" is not synonymous with "bubble".

As for energy and engine, I guess that's where the real questions lead to.

[Mazon Del]

So, on the theory of the multiple warp bubbles side of thing. It may be possible to do this to have several smaller engines work together as one larger engine. My assumption is that as the reason you have flat spacetime between the front and back is due to the two somewhat balancing each other out in that area, that you could possible arrange different warp bubble generators in a configuration that this provides one larger field that I would guess is less capable than simply making one engine that was 'large enough'. Mostly as a result of efficiencies of scale.