Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again

[KellySt@aol.com]

In a message dated 10/19/98 12:18:43 PM, stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu wrote:

>KellySt@aol.com writes:
> > The Alberquen (sp) warp drive (see the NASA site WARP drive when?) is a
design
> > for a warp drive by a physist of the same name.  (He realized the Star
Trek
> > technobable actually made sence.  The ship isn't moving, it shoves a
bubble
>of
> > 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
>communicate information.

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
say
> > you can't go AT the speed of light.  How you get from slower then to
faster
> > 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.
(The
> > 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
physically impossible.

Kelly