[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
In a message dated 10/19/98 12:18:43 PM, email@example.com wrote:
> > The Alberquen (sp) warp drive (see the NASA site WARP drive when?) is a
> > for a warp drive by a physist of the same name. (He realized the Star
> > technobable actually made sence. The ship isn't moving, it shoves a
> > space around the ship at hyper light speeds. No relativity effects).
>The Alcubierre drive requires some physically dubious stuff in
>order to actually work -- mainly a region of "negative energy
>density". Find me some negative energy and we'll talk then.
Well also enough energy to dwarf a small galaxy. Definately an idea that
needs further development. ;)
> > Certain quantum effects do work instently over measurable distences (hence
> > faster then light, thou most don't involve mass traveling).
>None involve mass traveling over macroscopic distances at all.
>"Quantum interconnectedness" is also proven to be unable to
Well there are quantum tunneling effects work at microscopic. You MIGHT be
able to make it work at macroscopic, but no solid clue how.
> > Also Einstines equations don't say you can't go faster then light. Then
> > you can't go AT the speed of light. How you get from slower then to
> > then is a big trick, but travel at eiather is 'legal'.
>You can plug values of v > c into special relativity equations,
>at the cost of ending up with things like time and mass values
>that are complex numbers. I don't know if I'd call that "legal."
>Find me some complex mass and we'll talk then. A quantum
>mechanical analysis also indicates that you can either have FTL
>particles that aren't localizable (i.e. observable) or you can't
>have FTL particles at all.
> > Good news: a lot of pysisist now see FTL and time travel as legal (thou if
> > they are possible a lot of the rest of physics could get run through a
> > blender). Bad news, no one has a clue how to build a machine to do it.
> > theories suggest power levels that would dwarf a stars output.)
>General relativity seems to offer the best potential for allowing
>FTL effects, but no one has proven (even theoretically) that FTL
>travel could be achieved using things that actually exist or
>could be made from things that exist in the universe. The
>implications are, though, that it would indeed take absolutely
>incredible amounts of energy to create anything like a wormhole
>or a "warp bubble".
But saying it would take incredable amounts of energy is a big difference from