New Warp Drive Paper: Read the Co-Authored Journal Article

[robousy]

Hey folks. If anyones interested in warp drives I've co-written a new paper.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0712/0712.1649v2.pdf

Its being published inthe Journal of the British Interplanetary Society early 08.

Anyone else interested in warp drives/ wormholes etc?

 

[marcus]

Its being published inthe Journal of the British Interplanetary Society early 08.

Congratulations on the forthcoming publication of your article! I'll put the link to the abstract here in case anyone wants to glance at the summary.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.1649

 

[setAI]

I have always had a concern with any FTL- not that it isn't possible- rather that whatever Quantum Gravity is it should preserve the Superposition Principle- that elements not causally connected to a physical system [such as outside the light cone] are not resolved into a specific state or history [or are sum-over-histories]- this could have some strange implications for an observer who tries FTL from an MWI perspective- for instance if two separate observers FTL to Sirius- unitary quantum mechanics predicts that they may not end up in the same version of Sirius since they move outside each other's light cones and are no longer causally connected so the second observer's history would not be affected by the first observer's- and they may not be able to return to the same version of the earth-

we need to know more about Quantum Gravity -

 

[marcus]

SetAI, since you raise the issue of whether it is POSSIBLE, perhaps I should clarify something.

I don't think anything in Robousey's paper indicates that FTL travel is possible.
The paper is based on special assumptions about extra dimensions and the assumption that an advanced civilization might be able to manipulate the cosmological constant by deforming the extra dimensions.

I know that string thinking invokes the existence of extra rolled-up dimensions, but there might very well not BE any, and it might be just as impossible to change the cosmological constant as it is to change other constants like PLANCK'S or the charge of the electron or the speed of light itself. If you make ASSUMPTIONS that suchandsuch can be manipulated then you can derive conclusions. That's mathematics.

I'm all for people doing good interesting mathematics. I think this is the spirit of Robousey's paper. That is how i see it. I don't see that Robousey said anything that would make a reasonable person suspect FTL is real-world possible. Physical possibility is a different issue.

 

[ice109]

this kind of thing actually gets published? what's the point?

 

[marcus]

this kind of thing actually gets published? what's the point?

well maybe there ARE extra rolled-up dimensions to space that we don't see.
it's possible.
why shouldn't people do mathematics about it and, if they have ingenious proofs
based on clearly stated assumptions, publish?

in the past research in abstract mathematics has promoted mankind's intellectual development
and I don't see why abstract methods of space travel couldn't also contribute.
I think the particular research should be judged on its merits.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

this kind of thing actually gets published? what's the point?

Scientific exploration? Pushing the limits? I think this sort of paper is entirely the point.

Congratulations robousy. I look forward to reading this.

 

[Chronos]

I sympathize with setAI's objection, but, perhaps a time-like exclusionary principle would save the concept. The two observer's 'bubbles' could have unique histories without violating causality. There is no paradox providing you are forbidden to return to your current light cone once you depart from it [it's in your past].

 

[staf9]

Congratulations robousy! Reading this paper will really be a treat (and due to the scarcity of good papers on this subject, I suspect I'll be re-reading it before long).

I must have spent (wasted?) countless hours reading papers and just thinking about negative energy densities, exotic matter, stabilization, etc - so I probably should say, most of all, thank you for writing this.

Simple, yet abstract thought might not always get you where you expected to go, but it's gotten us places before and will do it again before long, I hope.

And hey, speculation is always fun.