I have read and heard about the concepts of curved, stretched space and I have some questions. <B>First defining what I mean:</B> The theory about warp is based upon the ability to bend ("shrink") space and to stretch space. Creating a warp bubble for travel would require that one would "shrink" space in front of me and stretch space behind me, making it possible to get to a point in the universe faster that the light could get there without breaking the light speed barrier, ie traveling a shorter path between two points than the straight line. <B>The questions:</B> - Is it possible to create a warp bubble? - How much energy would be necessary? - Is there a possibility that one would hurt the space/time by implementing this theory? - Do someone have a good link to more information about the subject?
<<...Is it possible to create a warp bubble?...>> Perhaps, but not presently, nor in the foreseeable future. <<...How much energy would be necessary?..>> Way too much to be practicable anytime soon. <<...Is there a possibility that one would hurt the space/time by implementing this theory?..>> Um, no. Paper tiger. <<...Do someone have a good link to more information about the subject?..>> No, but there are many that would lead you to believe they are.
Mr G do you always contradict yourself? Example. The foreseeable future is unknown, in the 1960's they said by 2000 we would live on citys on the moon, that was the foreseeable future to them, so to say not in the foreseeable future means that you have no idea about what research is being done in this field. And you would know this how? You've created warp bubbles already? The reason there are many that would let you belive this is because theoretical work states this is possible, the action and consquent equal and opposite reaction are unmesurable, you can tell where the wood ends and the forest begins.
Benji, <<...Mr G do you always contradict yourself?...>> Never. Well, rarely. Probably not. <<...to say not in the foreseeable future means that you have no idea about what research is being done in this field...>> Do you know of anyone researching how to make a black hole massive enough to have a Schwarzchild radius inside of which a spaceship could be hidden? Or how to make a spaceship appear to surrounding spacetime as if it is so much more massive than it actually is that it fools spacetime into curving around it until it disappears, and then have enough energy left over to accelerate such a very great mass? Can you estimate how expensive such research would be and when in the future some nation(s) will decide that the cost of such experimentation is affordable? <<...And you would know this how? You've created warp bubbles already?...>> Nature already provides ample evidence of warp bubbles -- black holes -- that move through spacetime without leaving in their wakes great volumes of spacetime rended into tattered shreds <<...theoretical work states this is possible,...>> Anyone can theorize, fewer are able to quantize -- the latter step being necessary to the proof of concept trials that would follow (sort of like leaving the forest to go work in the wood shop).
Hi Mr. G. I beg to differ. More correct would be: Anyone can fantasize, fewer are able to theorize. I can personally assure you that the work being done on General Relativity and in elementary particles is top of the line mathematics, even today where computers can take over most of the work. Bye! Crisp
Hi, Crisp, RE: theorize vs. fantasize I wasn't feeling the need to abandon all generosity. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You seem a smart fellow you should know you can never win an argument with future tense implications, let me demonstrate. Not personally, but id bet there's research being done into duplicating a blackholes affect on spacetime without having to create a blackhole itself. Kind of like creating an omlet without breaking egg's, use an egg subsitiute insted. How long is a piece of string question? How much did it cost america to get man on the moon? How much did it cost to construct the first nuclear bomb? I could continue with this for quite some time but i wont bother as its irrelivent. And that is to say a method of creating such phenomina is not possible other then by means of backholes? You would know this how? Now if you come back with "nature say's its impossible" nature says a lot of things are impossible doesnt mean they are now does it? Truth is more then likely in the next 60 years we will stumble across a method a clue something that will anable us to travel through space in a mannor not currently available, either that or anihalate ourselfs with weapons of mass destruction, is your glass half full or half empty?
Benji, <<...you should know you can never win an argument with future tense implications...>> When opinions are what's being argued what does it matter in what tense things are phrased? There are very few facts being bantered about around here -- mostly wind mills. <<...id bet there's research being done into duplicating a blackholes affect on spacetime without having to create a blackhole itself...>> Let me ask you the question again, "Do you know of anyone researching....how to make a spaceship appear to surrounding spacetime as if it is so much more massive than it actually is that it fools spacetime into curving around it until it disappears, and then have enough energy left over to accelerate such a very great mass? A factual answer requires other than a betting tense. <<...And that is to say a method of creating such phenomina is not possible other then by means of backholes?..>> No. It is to say there exists already in Nature an observable analogue of the phemonenon able to be used to make the salient point. <<...nature says a lot of things are impossible doesnt mean they are now does it?..>> Perhaps Nature isn't open-minded enough to accept the existance of the Unnatural. <<...Truth is more then likely in the next 60 years we will stumble across a method a clue something that will anable us to travel through space in a mannor not currently available,..>> Um, there's that pesky future tense to which you previously alluded. What was it you were saying about "irrelivent" [sic]? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No. Go back to 1940 how many regular people knew about scientists working on neuclear weapons? Go back to 1970's how many people knew about stelth aircraft? Do you think people in these ere's were told about what companys/governments were researching? The way you raise points is rather arrogent nevertheless, Nature says "man made" fibres cant exist, they do. Nature says man cant fly, he does Nature says man cant go into the depths of th ocean, he does. Are these events unnatural or perhaps are you just wrong? Indeed i have a pesky future tense tone in this coverstaion, we actually are discusing future physic's and there possible implementations, while you sit there typing "no wont cant etc" you need an optimism injection perhaps Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. When talking about future technologys physical limitations are only obsticals we use to not bother trying, after every limitation we overcome another one apears and so on, the point being just because somthing might be difficult you dont just give up.
Please! Your discussion is beside the point. Could you please continue that discussion in private or another thread. The question about the possibility of a "warp" bubble/field still stands if you want to debate it, but please stick to the point. If you feel the technology is impossible to implement, please feel free to point that out, but try to think of ways to realize it anyway. I mean. When designing a new system or object, it is very often helpful to disregard from previous assumptions, hence forcing one to think of a way without previous information. Example: When designing a new mail client, it can be very useful to disregard the use of a keyboard when the user will type his/hers message. Thus forcing the design team to think about other possibilities. It may be impossible to bend space to make a journey shorter than the strait line, but what if its not? how will we do it then? what will the cost be? and so on.
<<...If you feel the technology is impossible to implement, please feel free to point that out, but try to think of ways to realize it anyway...>> To create a 'warp bubble' that folds you out of normal spacetime, without resorting to a singularity (a very messy thing with which to mess), you have to at least present to spacetime the appearence you and your spaceship are very much more massive than is actually real (in slowtime). General Relativity says a miniscule mass moving really, really fast behaves like its really, really massive and thereby requires really, really great amounts of energy to accelerate further. If you fool spacetime into thinking you're really, really massive (to fold spacetime around or near you), even though you aren't really, really massive, you still have to come up with more energy than is available to you just to get moving, let alone speed up. Maybe we can harness the unlimited power of "syntax/grammar-challenged, future tense, anything-is-possible-if-you-don't-look-too-closelyideas" to get us to the stars even slower.
Having just purchased from the anonymous guy down at the corner my daily optimism injection, I'm now willing to entertain anything not currently in evidence nor directly extrapolated from it. Catch me while I'm uncritically receptive. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
TV A while ago I saw a scientific TV-program where they interview a guy who claimed to know how to create a warp field. He said a lot of inaccurate stuff and then he made a reference as to how much energy it would take. "To form a warp field in which a vehicle of the same size as a regular bicycle can exist for only a second without actually moving anywhere, you require the same amount of energy as our sun produces during its total life span." That is actually very much energy. I believe I have one of those hamster wheels around here, better find it and hook it up to a dynamo and start collecting energy now. I don't know how he managed to calculate such a figure though. I'm sorry! I'm just a regular gullible guy with bad knowledge of the english language. But I do believe we should at least try to listen to strange ideas before we reject them.
Here's a thought. Given the recent connection between Einstein's theory of relativity and magnetic fields and the possibility that a magnetic field can "stiffen" space-time, which is in effect altering the effects of gravity and mass on space-time, would it not be possible to create an extremly large magnetic field that in effect "shields" any object within the field from the effects of gravity outside the field. This field would also shield the universe from the gravitational effects of the object. If you could do this, have you not just negated the E=MC^2 law from holding within the bubble? Is this not in essence a "warp" bubble and would it not be possible to move the bubble through space-time at velocities greater than C because the mass within the bubble would be "shielded" from the rest of the universe?
Possibilities This is what I like, ideas! That bubble would have to move across the space for itself. Since the mass inside it will have to stay inside the bubble and does not have to move at all, the bubble itself must move. But can the bubble exceed the speed C? I might be mistaken but doesn't a electromagnetic wave propagate at the speed of light (C)? If one could use that when constructing the bubble one could possibly direct the magnetic field to travel at the speed of C in a specific direction. Since the mass inside the bubble isnt showing to the outer space, and the bubble is a magnetic field (with no mass), the bubble might be able to travel at the speed of light. That would be a GREAT improvement for space travel. If the bubble actually makes the outside invisible to the inside and wise versa, that would negate the inertia exerted on the mass inside the bubble. But what happens when the magnetic field moves? is the object inside stationary with regard to the bubble or the outside system? Is the bubble a totally closed system? Ps. Where can I read more on the connection between Einstein's theory of relativity and magnetic fields? - Follow discussion on Electromagnetic fields and stiffening of space <A HREF="http://www.sciforums.com/t4429/s/thread.html" TARGET="_top">here</A>. - Follow discussion on The speed of force <A HREF="http://www.sciforums.com/t4349/s/thread.html" TARGET="_top">here.</A>
Holy, you might like to check this site <a href=http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/warp.htm>http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/warp.htm</a>
Holy, <<...This is what I like, ideas!..>> So how do you like the ideas to which Boris2 linked you? Certainly, brainstorming is about not considering limitations. But eventually, if you ever are to do something practical, you have to 'shift gears' and consider limitations. Manual transmissions are freedom you have to work at to achieve.
All right Mr. G, what if you could fool spacetime into thinking you had very little or no mass. What would be the effect then? Because the more complex form of the equation E=MC^2 actually has a velocity component in it, wouldn't it be possible to increase the velocity of the object in proportion to the reduction in apparent mass?
Again, a confusion between relativistic and restmass Hi SeekerOfTruth, I'm not entirely sure on this (suddenly I have some doubts about it - someone please back me up on this one), but it is not your energy (or equivalent relativistic mass from the formula E = MC<sup>2</sup>) that folds spacetime, but your restmass. Therefor the only ways to gain mass I can immediatelly think of are: - packing a lot of matter with you on the side --> more difficult to accelerate - generating matter on the fly through some high-energy collision scheme --> requires more energy, more difficult to accelerate, large, inefficient and takes ages to complete Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. Bye! Crisp
Crisp, You're spot on. Space-time curvatures are created by the restmass of an object. Cheers, Henrik
