Traveling faster then the speed of light?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

kotss

Senior member
Oct 29, 2004
267
0
0
Originally posted by: plastick
This is the same thing that Albert Einstein pondered.

Now I don?t know much about his theory of relativity, or the more intricate properties of the universe for that matter...
But in my own time thinking about this stuff, I have developed the idea that since speed is relative. Fast is only fast compared to something slower... etc...

So, on one hand, I think that no matter how fast your going, you can always go faster. Your train analogy was good for that point. Mathematically: Infinity plus one is still infinity isn?t it? But then, on the other hand, no matter how slow you are going, can you go slower? Could there be an absolute point where you are not moving? Is there and absolute point where you can not go any faster? What would be the thing keeping you from moving faster then? Maybe the fabric of the universe can only "handle" so much.

Take into account that speed is not the only factor here. I say this because you are measuring an object's movement through space, and there is a time produced from that movement. However, your measurements are only relative to others, and not absolute, because if you try to imagine a fundamental unit of matter moving from one fundamental "point" to another in this grid/universe, you can not do it.

Take this for example: You can divide any number (xcept zero) in half for infinity and still never reach 0. So Its all relative since you can not divide down a piece of matter into an absolute portion, otherwise you would have nothing(no matter), because that nothing would be an absolute measurement; nothing. This is a relative universe, not an absolute one.

So lets see... Speed of light plus one is still a relative number, not an absolute one, therefore you are not going the absolute fastest as possible.

What does everyone else think?

In regards to the bolded statement, that is off base. Time is part of space-time, it is not created by an
object travelling through space. Time is just as existent as space is. You can "warp" space-time causing
the time and distance to travel shorter, relative to others. IF Time were not affected by this then it would
not be linked to space.

As far as zeno's law in regards to matter, its application breaks down at the atomic level. When you reach
one "atom" you can not divide that atom in half but it could go through nuclear transformation into
(an)other atom(s), thereby leaving no trace of the original "matter" other than in the form of converted
matter.

As far as the speed of light having to be infinite, is there a reason the ultimate speed in the universe should be infinite?

As much as I have read about these things and I still have quite a few books to go, The thinking that
is prevalent today, makes sense in its own quirky ways.
 

plastick

Golden Member
Sep 29, 2003
1,400
1
81
Kotss:

Thanks for clearing that up a little. I didnt know that much about how mater works and how small you can get to before it looses its "physical" properties. I didnt know much about time either.

I recently watched Elegant Univers on Nova channel and it was really quite interesting. Went over this stuff alot. Too bad it was at like 3 am when I watched it... couldnt pay attention that well.

I have it on e-book if anyone wants it...
 

RossGr

Diamond Member
Jan 11, 2000
3,383
1
0
Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
Is it mathematically impossible to travel faster than the speed of light? I'm not sure what proof Einstein formed to come to this conclusion. Or is it an assumption?

It is a derived result. The 2 postulates of relativity are
1. The speed of light is constant to all observers
2. The laws of Physics are universal.

The first postulate is a result derived from Maxwell's equations in the 1860s. It was verified experimentally by (among others) the Michelson-Morley experiments in 1887 and was an excepted fact at the time of Einstein's first paper on relativity.

Using the first postulate Einstein was able to derive a Differential Equation whose solution was the Lorentz Transforms. Lorentz had derived these equations in the late 1800s but his derivation was specific to electromagnetic energy. Einstein was able to prove that they applied to all objects with mass. One of the more significant results of Einstein?s early work was to show that the Electric field and Magnetic field are one and the same when viewed through the equations of Relativity
.
 

V00D00

Golden Member
May 25, 2003
1,834
0
0
K... so like... if you were running... and you had a flashlight.. would that light be going faster than the speed of light because you accelerated it by running? If not.. why?
 

kotss

Senior member
Oct 29, 2004
267
0
0
Originally posted by: RossGr

It is a derived result. The 2 postulates of relativity are
1. The speed of light is constant to all observers
2. The laws of Physics are universal.

The first postulate is a result derived from Maxwell's equations in the 1860s. It was verified experimentally by (among others) the Michelson-Morley experiments in 1887 and was an excepted fact at the time of Einstein's first paper on relativity.

Using the first postulate Einstein was able to derive a Differential Equation whose solution was the Lorentz Transforms. Lorentz had derived these equations in the late 1800s but his derivation was specific to electromagnetic energy. Einstein was able to prove that they applied to all objects with mass. One of the more significant results of Einstein?s early work was to show that the Electric field and Magnetic field are one and the same when viewed through the equations of Relativity
.


Actually it was Maxwell who utlimately developed Electricity and Magnetism into
Electromagnetism.
 

Cha0s

Banned
Nov 30, 2004
725
0
0
Originally posted by: jhu
Originally posted by: AbsoluteParadigm
Not sure about matter, but quantum states have been transmitted faster than light. Actually it's "teleported", as in traveling distance in zero time. I would assume that's faster than the speed of light. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

you're referring to quantum entanglement. however, i don't think we can pass information this way.

matter=no , information yes
 

f95toli

Golden Member
Nov 21, 2002
1,547
0
0
No, you can not pass information faster than light using quantum entaglement.

Or, to be more specific; you can pass "data" (or whatever you would call it) but you will also have to transmitt some other information at a speed slower than c in order to be able to know what to do with that data.
 

RossGr

Diamond Member
Jan 11, 2000
3,383
1
0
Originally posted by: kotss
Originally posted by: RossGr

It is a derived result. The 2 postulates of relativity are
1. The speed of light is constant to all observers
2. The laws of Physics are universal.

The first postulate is a result derived from Maxwell's equations in the 1860s. It was verified experimentally by (among others) the Michelson-Morley experiments in 1887 and was an excepted fact at the time of Einstein's first paper on relativity.

Using the first postulate Einstein was able to derive a Differential Equation whose solution was the Lorentz Transforms. Lorentz had derived these equations in the late 1800s but his derivation was specific to electromagnetic energy. Einstein was able to prove that they applied to all objects with mass. One of the more significant results of Einstein?s early work was to show that the Electric field and Magnetic field are one and the same when viewed through the equations of Relativity
.


Actually it was Maxwell who combined Electricity and Magnetism into
Electromagnetism.


Then Einstein found that they are the same. Consider that an observer moving with an eletron observes only an electric field. While a stationary observer watching the same electron move past sees Electric and Magnetic fields. The Special Theory of Relativity unifies the 2 phnomena.

 

kotss

Senior member
Oct 29, 2004
267
0
0
Originally posted by: RossGr

Then Einstein found that they are the same.

They are not actually the same just interdependent properties.

Originally posted by: RossGr
Consider that an observer moving with an eletron observes only an electric field. While a stationary observer watching the same electron move past sees Electric and Magnetic fields. The Special Theory of Relativity unifies the 2 phnomena.

Actually it was Lorentz who noticed this but Einstein's solution was more refined and did not include
the ether. The 2 forces were already merged prior to STR.

Read the Link noted in my prior post. It gives the details better than I can.
 

RossGr

Diamond Member
Jan 11, 2000
3,383
1
0
Originally posted by: kotss
Originally posted by: RossGr

Then Einstein found that they are the same.

They are not actually the same just interdependent properties.

Originally posted by: RossGr
Consider that an observer moving with an eletron observes only an electric field. While a stationary observer watching the same electron move past sees Electric and Magnetic fields. The Special Theory of Relativity unifies the 2 phnomena.

Actually it was Lorentz who noticed this but Einstein's solution was more refined and did not include
the ether. The 2 forces were already merged prior to STR.

Read the Link noted in my prior post. It gives the details better than I can.

Perhaps it is YOU who needs to read your link, The following is a quote from the wiki site, speaking of Maxwells work:

Moreover, it laid the foundation for many future developments in physics, such as special relativity and its unification of electric and magnetic fields as a single tensor quantity, and Kaluza and Klein's unification of electromagnetism with gravity and general relativity.

Edit: From further down the same page.
The electromagnetic field equations have an intimate link with special relativity: the magnetic field equations can be derived from consideration of the transformation of the electric field equations under relativistic transformations at low velocities. (In relativity, the equations are written in an even more compact, "manifestly covariant" form, in terms of the rank-2 antisymmetric field-strength 4-tensor that unifies the electric and magnetic fields into a single object.)
 

cquark

Golden Member
Apr 4, 2004
1,741
0
0
Maxwell was responsible for unifying magnetic, electrical, and optical theory into a single framework. The four equations describing electromagnetism are still known today as Maxwell's equations.

However, there was an incompatibility between Maxwell's equations and classical mechanics. The equations of classical mechanics are invariant under Galilean transformations of inertial reference frames (i.e., changing your velocity doesn't change how the world looks), but Maxwell's equations are not invariant under Galilean transformations.

That incompatibility led physicists and mathematicians to search for what transformation would leave Maxwell's equations unchanged. Lorentz transformations, under which Maxwell's equations are invariant, were discovered (ironically by Voigt in 1887, several years before Lorentz), 18 years before Einstein wrote about Special Relativity.

The consequences of Lorentz transformations, such as time dilation and length contraction, were immediately discovered once the transformations were investigated. Others, such as lack of absolute simultaneity, were discovered later, but still before Einstein published his famous 1905 paper. Einstein's contribution was to offer a physical interpretation of the Lorentz transformations and their consequences.
 

kotss

Senior member
Oct 29, 2004
267
0
0
Originally posted by: RossGr
Originally posted by: kotss
Originally posted by: RossGr

Then Einstein found that they are the same.

They are not actually the same just interdependent properties.

Originally posted by: RossGr
Consider that an observer moving with an eletron observes only an electric field. While a stationary observer watching the same electron move past sees Electric and Magnetic fields. The Special Theory of Relativity unifies the 2 phnomena.

Actually it was Lorentz who noticed this but Einstein's solution was more refined and did not include
the ether. The 2 forces were already merged prior to STR.

Read the Link noted in my prior post. It gives the details better than I can.

Perhaps it is YOU who needs to read your link, The following is a quote from the wiki site, speaking of Maxwells work:

Moreover, it laid the foundation for many future developments in physics, such as special relativity and its unification of electric and magnetic fields as a single tensor quantity, and Kaluza and Klein's unification of electromagnetism with gravity and general relativity.

Edit: From further down the same page.
The electromagnetic field equations have an intimate link with special relativity: the magnetic field equations can be derived from consideration of the transformation of the electric field equations under relativistic transformations at low velocities. (In relativity, the equations are written in an even more compact, "manifestly covariant" form, in terms of the rank-2 antisymmetric field-strength 4-tensor that unifies the electric and magnetic fields into a single object.)

Perhaps this will satisfy both of us.

Maxwell united the 2 forces under one theory.
Einstein refined it to avoid the inconsistincies with classical mechanics.


Moreover, it laid the foundation for many future developments in physics, such as special relativity and its unification of electric and magnetic fields as a single tensor quantity, and Kaluza and Klein's unification of electromagnetism with gravity and general relativity.

This just states that it unifies it as a tensor quantity within special relativity.
But the actual unification of the forces was ultimately developed by Maxwell.

An accurate theory of electromagnetism, known as classical electromagnetism, was developed by various physicists over the course of the 19th century, culminating in the work of James Clerk Maxwell, who unified the preceding developments into a single theory and discovered the electromagnetic nature of light.

It appears to me that the actual unification of Electricity and Magnetism were unified by Maxwell and his
equations and that Einstein fixed up the problems resulting from Maxwells Equations. (One of the peculiarities of classical electromagnetism is that it is difficult to reconcile with classical mechanics, but it is compatible with special relativity.

It would seem to me that maybe we are discussing 2 sides of the coin and depends on what you are
actually trying to be specific about.
 

RossGr

Diamond Member
Jan 11, 2000
3,383
1
0
Actually it was Lorentz who noticed this but Einstein's solution was more refined and did not include
the ether. The 2 forces were already merged prior to STR.

Read the Link noted in my prior post. It gives the details better than I can.

Perhaps it is YOU who needs to read your link, The following is a quote from the wiki site, speaking of Maxwells work:

Moreover, it laid the foundation for many future developments in physics, such as special relativity and its unification of electric and magnetic fields as a single tensor quantity, and Kaluza and Klein's unification of electromagnetism with gravity and general relativity.

Edit: From further down the same page.
The electromagnetic field equations have an intimate link with special relativity: the magnetic field equations can be derived from consideration of the transformation of the electric field equations under relativistic transformations at low velocities. (In relativity, the equations are written in an even more compact, "manifestly covariant" form, in terms of the rank-2 antisymmetric field-strength 4-tensor that unifies the electric and magnetic fields into a single object.)
[/quote]

Perhaps this will satisfy both of us.

Maxwell united the 2 forces under one theory.
Einstein refined it to avoid the inconsistincies with classical mechanics.


Moreover, it laid the foundation for many future developments in physics, such as special relativity and its unification of electric and magnetic fields as a single tensor quantity, and Kaluza and Klein's unification of electromagnetism with gravity and general relativity.

This just states that it unifies it as a tensor quantity within special relativity.
But the actual unification of the forces was ultimately developed by Maxwell.

An accurate theory of electromagnetism, known as classical electromagnetism, was developed by various physicists over the course of the 19th century, culminating in the work of James Clerk Maxwell, who unified the preceding developments into a single theory and discovered the electromagnetic nature of light.

It appears to me that the actual unification of Electricity and Magnetism were unified by Maxwell and his
equations and that Einstein fixed up the problems resulting from Maxwells Equations. (One of the peculiarities of classical electromagnetism is that it is difficult to reconcile with classical mechanics, but it is compatible with special relativity.

It would seem to me that maybe we are discussing 2 sides of the coin and depends on what you are
actually trying to be specific about.[/quote]

You are getting closer. I am quite aware of Maxwell's eqations, their meaning and application. However Maxwell's equations treats the 2 fields as separate but related. A changing electric field generates a magnetic field. a changing magnetic field generates a changing electric field. But Maxwell's eqations always treats them as different but related quanities. With relativity Einstein removed that last distinction. I have bolded the last sentence of the second quote. It should be read just as it is stated. Relativity revels that the electric and magnetic fields are identical phnomena.

I am not sure where you are on the E&M education curve, but I believe that in depth disscussion of E&M at this level (the tensor) is reserved for graduate level courses.
 

cquark

Golden Member
Apr 4, 2004
1,741
0
0
Originally posted by: RossGr
You are getting closer. I am quite aware of Maxwell's eqations, their meaning and application. However Maxwell's equations treats the 2 fields as separate but related. A changing electric field generates a magnetic field. a changing magnetic field generates a changing electric field. But Maxwell's eqations always treats them as different but related quanities. With relativity Einstein removed that last distinction. I have bolded the last sentence of the second quote. It should be read just as it is stated. Relativity revels that the electric and magnetic fields are identical phnomena.

I am not sure where you are on the E&M education curve, but I believe that in depth disscussion of E&M at this level (the tensor) is reserved for graduate level courses.

I have a PhD in theoretical physics, so I'm well aquainted with tensor calculus. However, Maxwell's tying together of the separate experimental laws of electricity, magnetism, and connecting electromagnetic waves to light was a far more significant change in physics than Einstein's contribution. Interestingly, modern vector calculus notation for Maxwell's equations wasn't the notation Maxwell used. Maxwell's original equations used quaternions and were less symmetrical than the vector ones developed by later scientists. Electromagnetic unification was a process, not a single event.

The work of electromagnetic unification involved a number of scientists, including Maxwell, Heaviside, Voight, Lorentz, Fitzgerald, Einstein, and Poincare, but IMO, history points to the bulk of the contribution being Maxwell's. You seem to believe that Einstein deserves the credit for being the last and seeing electromagnetic unification most clearly, which I think is a reasonable position, though I disagree. I'm not sure that it really matters which of them deserves the most credit; like all science, electromagnetic unfication was a cumulative process built on the work of many scientists.
 

kotss

Senior member
Oct 29, 2004
267
0
0
Originally posted by: cquark
I have a PhD in theoretical physics, so I'm well aquainted with tensor calculus. However, Maxwell's tying together of the separate experimental laws of electricity, magnetism, and connecting electromagnetic waves to light was a far more significant change in physics than Einstein's contribution. Interestingly, modern vector calculus notation for Maxwell's equations wasn't the notation Maxwell used. Maxwell's original equations used quaternions and were less symmetrical than the vector ones developed by later scientists. Electromagnetic unification was a process, not a single event.

The work of electromagnetic unification involved a number of scientists, including Maxwell, Heaviside, Voight, Lorentz, Fitzgerald, Einstein, and Poincare, but IMO, history points to the bulk of the contribution being Maxwell's. You seem to believe that Einstein deserves the credit for being the last and seeing electromagnetic unification most clearly, which I think is a reasonable position, though I disagree. I'm not sure that it really matters which of them deserves the most credit; like all science, electromagnetic unfication was a cumulative process built on the work of many scientists.

Thank you for the clarification.
 

RossGr

Diamond Member
Jan 11, 2000
3,383
1
0
Originally posted by: cquark
Originally posted by: RossGr
You are getting closer. I am quite aware of Maxwell's eqations, their meaning and application. However Maxwell's equations treats the 2 fields as separate but related. A changing electric field generates a magnetic field. a changing magnetic field generates a changing electric field. But Maxwell's eqations always treats them as different but related quanities. With relativity Einstein removed that last distinction. I have bolded the last sentence of the second quote. It should be read just as it is stated. Relativity revels that the electric and magnetic fields are identical phnomena.

I am not sure where you are on the E&M education curve, but I believe that in depth disscussion of E&M at this level (the tensor) is reserved for graduate level courses.
I have a PhD in theoretical physics, so I'm well aquainted with tensor calculus. However, Maxwell's tying together of the separate experimental laws of electricity, magnetism, and connecting electromagnetic waves to light was a far more significant change in physics than Einstein's contribution.

I made no claims to realitive importance or impact, only the Einstein with relativity took another step in the understanding of E&M.

Interestingly, modern vector calculus notation for Maxwell's equations wasn't the notation Maxwell used. Maxwell's original equations used quaternions and were less symmetrical than the vector ones developed by later scientists. Electromagnetic unification was a process, not a single event.

The work of electromagnetic unification involved a number of scientists, including Maxwell, Heaviside, Voight, Lorentz, Fitzgerald, Einstein, and Poincare, but IMO, history points to the bulk of the contribution being Maxwell's.

Which is probably why Einsteins contributions are not as well known as Maxwell's No arguments from me.
You seem to believe that Einstein deserves the credit for being the last and seeing electromagnetic unification most clearly, which I think is a reasonable position, though I disagree. I'm not sure that it really matters which of them deserves the most credit; like all science, electromagnetic unfication was a cumulative process built on the work of many scientists.

No, not so. Once again I am not making any statement about relative importance or assigning more credit to one over the other, only that relativity offers a slightly different view of the system. Clearly Maxwell's equations in standard vector form are the most frequently applied and prehaps most useful. I have never made any statement discrediting Maxwell or his contributions, to me that is obvious and does not even need to be stated.
 

wkwong

Banned
May 10, 2004
280
0
0
According to the current Big Bang theory, the universe expanded very rapidly for a few seconds after the explosion. This was called inflation and it is the only explanation for the universe's current shape and size. The whole universe was travelling at speeds much faster than the speed of light to achieve this inflation.

So... if travelling faster than the speed of light makes you go back in time, then wouldn't the matter move to a state before the big bang itself? So maybe that explains the amount of propulsion energy created because it simply moves back to the time of the explosion allow the same force to propel everything over and over.
 

MetalStorm

Member
Dec 22, 2004
148
0
0
Since when did anyone say that the early universe expanded faster than the speed of light? At least have a reference to backup your alleged claim.

Also, if you actually read about inflation you'd see where the energy came from.
 

cquark

Golden Member
Apr 4, 2004
1,741
0
0
Originally posted by: MetalStorm
Since when did anyone say that the early universe expanded faster than the speed of light? At least have a reference to backup your alleged claim.

Any cosomology book like Peeble's Principles of Physical Cosmology should mention this feature of inflation.

However, the universe expanding faster than the speed of light does not violate special relativity. Special relativity limits objects or information travelling from one point to another faster than the speed of light. Expanding space violates neither of those limits. What happens in layman's terms is that additional distance is added between two points, which is the opposite of what you would need to achieve superluminal communication or travel--you'd need distance to be removed between two points. See the message below for how to construct such a "warp drive" within the parameters of general relativity.
 

cquark

Golden Member
Apr 4, 2004
1,741
0
0
If you're interested in FTL travel, you should check out Miguel Alcubierre's warp drive paper from the 1990's. It's at http://www.astro.cf.ac.uk/grou...stracts/miguel94a.html. Here's the abstract:
It is shown how, within the framework of general relativity and without the introduction of wormholes, it is possible to modify a spacetime in a way that allows a spaceship to travel with an arbitrarily large speed. By a purely local expansion of spacetime behind the spaceship and an opposite contraction in front of it, motion faster than the speed of light as seen by observers outside the disturbed region is possible. The resulting distortion is reminiscent of the ``warp drive'' of science fiction. However, just as it happens with wormholes, exotic matter will be needed in order to generate a distortion of spacetime like the one discussed here.
For those unfamiliar with the term, exotic matter is matter that has negative mass. There is no evidence that exotic matter exists, but its existence is not forbidden by what we know of physics. Antimatter has the opposite charge but same mass as regular matter, so it's not exotic matter.

The paper's hard going if you're not familiar with general relativity, so here's UW physicist John Cramer's popular account of the article from http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw81.html (see the web site to get the associated image of the distorted spacetime):

The theoretical physicist Miguel Alcubierre was born in Mexico City, where he lived until 1990 when he traveled to Cardiff in the UK to enter graduate school at the University of Wales. He received his PhD from that institution in 1993 for research in numerical general relativity, solving Einstein's gravitational equations with fast computers. He continues to work in this field, devising numerical techniques for describing the physics of orbiting black holes that spin down to collision.

Two years ago Alcubierre published a remarkable paper which grew from his work in general relativity, the current "standard model" for space-time and gravitation. His paper describes a very unusual solution to Einstein's equations of general relativity, described in the title as a "warp drive", and in the abstract as "a modification of space time in a way that allows a space ship to travel at an arbitrarily large speed". In this Alternate View column, I want to explore Alcubierre's work and its implications.

Let's start by considering the well-known velocity-of-light speed limit, as viewed by special relativity and by general relativity. In the context of special relativity, the speed of light is the absolute speed limit of the universe for any object having a real mass (i.e., everything but the semi-mythical tachyon), for two reasons. First, giving a fast object even more kinetic energy has the main effect of causing an increase in mass-energy rather than speed, with mass-energy going infinite as speed snuggles up to the velocity of light. By this mechanism, relativistic mass increase limits massive objects to sub-light velocities.

There is also a second faster than light (FTL) prohibition supplied by special relativity. Suppose a device like the "ansible" of LeGuin and Card were discovered that permitted faster-than-light or instantaneous communication. Special relativity is based in the treatment of all reference frames (i.e., coordinate system moving at some constant velocity) with perfect even-handedness and democracy. Therefore, FTL communication is implicitly ruled out by special relativity because it could be used to perform "sumultaneity tests" of the readings of separated clocks which would reveal the preferred or "true" reference frame of the universe. The existence of such a preferred frame is in conflict with special relativity.

General relativity treats special relativity as a restricted sub-theory that applies locally to any region of space sufficiently small that its curvature can be neglected. General relativity does not forbid faster-than-light travel or communication, but it does require that the local restrictions of special relativity must apply . In other words, light speed is the local speed limit, but the broader considerations of general relativity may provide an end-run way of circumventing this local statute. One example of this is a wormhole [see my AV columns in Analog, June-1989 and May-1990] connecting two widely separated locations in space, say five light-years apart. An object might take a few minutes to move with at low speed through the neck of a wormhole, observing the local speed-limit laws all the way. However, by transiting the wormhole the object has traveled five light years in a few minutes, producing an effective speed of a million times the velocity of light.

Another example of FTL in general relativity is the expansion of the universe itself. As the universe expands, new space is being created between any two separated objects. The objects may be at rest with respect to their local environment and with respect to the cosmic microwave background, but the distance between them may grow at a rate greater than the velocity of light. According to the standard model of cosmology, parts of the universe are receding from us at FTL speeds, and therefore are completely isolated from us. As the rate of expansion of the universe diminishes due to the pull of gravity, remote parts of the universe that have been out of light-speed contact with us since the Big Bang are coming over the lightspeed horizon and becoming newly visible to our region of the universe.

Alcubierre has proposed a way of beating the FTL speed limit that is somewhat like the expansion of the universe, but on a more local scale. He has developed a "metric" for general relativity, a mathematical representation of the curvature of space, that describes a region of flat space surrounded by a "warp" that propels it forward at any arbitrary velocity, including FTL speeds. Alcubierre's warp is constructed of hyperbolic tangent functions which create a very peculiar distortion of space at the edges of the flat-space volume. In effect, new space is rapidly being created (like an expanding universe) at the back side of the moving volume, and existing space is being annihilated (like a universe collapsing to a Big Crunch) at the front side of the moving volume. Thus, a space ship within the volume of the Alcubierre warp (and the volume itself) would be pushed forward by the expansion of space at its rear and the contraction of space in front. Here's a figure from Alcubierre's paper showing the curvature of space in the region of the travelling warp.

Warp

For those familiar with usual rules of special relativity, with its Lorentz contraction, mass increase, and time dilation, the Alcubierre warp metric has some rather peculiar aspects. Since a ship at the center of the moving volume of the metric is at rest with respect to locally flat space, there are no relativistic mass increase or time dilation effects. The on-board spaceship clock runs at the same speed as the clock of an external observer, and that observer will detect no increase in the mass of the moving ship, even when it travels at FTL speeds. Moreover, Alcubierre has shown that even when the ship is accelerating, it travels on a free-fall geodesic. In other words, a ship using the warp to accelerate and decelerate is always in free fall, and the crew would experience no accelerational gee-forces. Enormous tidal forces would be present near the edges of the flat-space volume because of the large space curvature there, but by suitable specification of the metric, these would be made very small within the volume occupied by the ship.

All of this, for those of us who would like to go to the stars without the annoying limitations imposed by special relativity, appears to be too good to be true. "What's the catch?" we ask. As it turns out, there are two "catches" in the Alcubierre warp drive scheme. The first is that, while his warp metric is a valid solution of Einstein's equations of general relativity, we have no idea how to produce such a distortion of space-time. Its implementation would require the imposition of radical curvature on extended regions of space. Within our present state of knowledge, the only way of producing curved space is by using mass, and the masses we have available for works of engineering lead to negligible space curvature. Moreover, even if we could do engineering with mini black holes (which have lots of curved space near their surfaces) it is not clear how an Alcubierre warp could be produced.

Alcubierre has also pointed out a more fundamental problem with his warp drive. General relativity provides a procedure for determining how much energy density (energy per unit volume) is implicit in a given metric (or curvature of space-time). He shows that the energy density is negative, rather large, and proportional to the square of the velocity with which the warp moves forward. This means that the weak, strong, and dominant energy conditions of general relativity are violated, which can be taken as arguments against the possibility of creating a working Alcubierre drive. Alcubierre, following the lead of wormhole theorists, argues that quantum field theory permits the existence of regions of negative energy density under special circumstances, and cites the Casimir effect as an example. Thus, the situation for the Alcubierre drive is similar to that of stable wormholes: they are solutions to the equations of general relativity, but one would need "exotic matter" with negative mass-energy to actually produce them, and we have none at the moment.

The possibilities for FTL travel or communication implicit in the Alcubierre drive raise the possibility of causality violations and "timelike loops", i.e., back-in-time communication and time travel. Alcubierre points out that his metric contains no such closed causal loops, and so is free of their paradoxes. However, he speculates that it would probably be possible to construct a metric similar to the one he presented which would contain such loops.

A scheme for converting FTL signaling to back-in-time signaling requires some gymnastics with moving reference frames to invert the time sequence of the "send" event and the "receive" event in a signal transmission. I described such a scheme in a recent column on quantum tunneling and FTL signaling [Analog, December-1995]. In the case of the` Alcubierre drive, this would probably require either externally moving the warp generating mechanism at near lightspeed velocities or embedding one warp within the flat-space region of another.

The implications of the Alcubierre warp drive for science fiction are fairly clear. If the theoretical and engineering problems outlined above could be overcome, we would have FTL travel, fully consistent with general relativity, that is reminiscent of the warp drives of the good old-time space operas. Remember, however, that using such a drive would undoubtedly require the manipulation of planet-scale quantities of energy (positive or negative). The user would also have to be very careful to avoid the tidal forces of the distorted-space region at the edges of the flat-space region containing the ship.

And there is also the question of writing the environmental impact statement. What would happen to external objects (space dust, rocks, other ships, asteroids, planets, ...) that happened to lie in the path of an Alcubierre ship and entered the region of distorted space-time at the leading edge of the warp, where space is rapidly being collapsed? The nuclei of any matter transiting that region would first experience enormous compressional forces, probably form a quark-gluon plasma reminiscent of the first microsecond of the Big Bang, and then explode in a flood of pi mesons and other fundamental particles when the compression forces were released, stealing energy from the warp field in the process.

A ship traveling in an Alcubierre space warp should be equipped with plenty of radiation shielding. Perhaps that is not a problem, since the equations for the metric and the energy density of the warp do not seem to depend on how much mass is placed in the flat-space region which is given an FTL velocity.
 

SunSamurai

Diamond Member
Jan 16, 2005
3,914
0
0
Theoretically it is possible. Theoretically 1 = .999~.

But only if you apply simple logic that doesnt take into acount realistic goals.
 

wkwong

Banned
May 10, 2004
280
0
0
Originally posted by: MetalStorm
Since when did anyone say that the early universe expanded faster than the speed of light? At least have a reference to backup your alleged claim.

Also, if you actually read about inflation you'd see where the energy came from.

I am well aware where the energy came from and that it doesn't violate relativity. I am just throwing out other ideas. Maybe I should of specified that the expansion was "faster than light" and not "it was going faster than light". Maybe you should do some more reading.