# The problem of warp drive

• Whitestar

#### Whitestar

Einstein predicted that all matter distorts spacetime, the greater the size in matter, the greater the distortion. In the science fictional world of Star Trek, the starship Enterprise can travel vast distances by warping space with its warp nacelles. Dr. Michio Kaku's excellent book, "Hyperspace" explains that the the key to warp drive is by harnessing an enormous amount of energy like that of an entire star, with the aid of negative energy. Let's say that you wanted to get from one side of a rug to the other, and instead of walking across, you used a big hook to pull the other side of the rug close to you. Then you just stepped over. Sort of like those walking treadmill panels you see at the airport. Hence, to warp spacetime, you will need gravitational forces equal to the masses of many, many solar systems.

1) But one major problem with the warp drive is, how can a starship weighing only several tons generate a mass several times its own magnitude, when objects such as the Earth and the sun warps space with very little results?

And even if it were possible, one runs into the very severe risk of generating a singularity in spacetime, i.e. a black hole. For this to work negative energy is required for the warp drive. Thereby from a physical point of view this makes the warp drive look even more unrealistic.

2) Perhaps the jump gates of Babylon 5 is the best way to go?

Whitestar

You can use field distortion rather than negative energy for both warp drive and jump gates.

juju

juju said:
You can use field distortion rather than negative energy for both warp drive and jump gates.

juju

How?

Whitestar

Hi Whitestar,

This is just my opinion, but I believe that you can use a combination of dynamic electric, magnetic and gravitational fields/waves to change the local properties of the vacuum field. This would allow the generator of such field distortions to move FTL.

I believe that a similar solution exists for wormhole gates.

juju

Whitestar said:
Einstein predicted that all matter distorts spacetime, the greater the size in matter, the greater the distortion. In the science fictional world of Star Trek, the starship Enterprise can travel vast distances by warping space with its warp nacelles. Dr. Michio Kaku's excellent book, "Hyperspace" explains that the the key to warp drive is by harnessing an enormous amount of energy like that of an entire star, with the aid of negative energy. Let's say that you wanted to get from one side of a rug to the other, and instead of walking across, you used a big hook to pull the other side of the rug close to you. Then you just stepped over. Sort of like those walking treadmill panels you see at the airport. Hence, to warp spacetime, you will need gravitational forces equal to the masses of many, many solar systems.

1) But one major problem with the warp drive is, how can a starship weighing only several tons generate a mass several times its own magnitude, when objects such as the Earth and the sun warps space with very little results?

And even if it were possible, one runs into the very severe risk of generating a singularity in spacetime, i.e. a black hole. For this to work negative energy is required for the warp drive. Thereby from a physical point of view this makes the warp drive look even more unrealistic.

2) Perhaps the jump gates of Babylon 5 is the best way to go?

Whitestar

Whitestar,

Star Trek makes no reference to so-called "negative energy". Their
writers didn't fall for that bit of contemporary nonsense. Their
starships derived their energy from matter / anti-matter reactors.

The jump gates of Babylon 5 have just as many scientific problems as
do warp engines.

That's why it's called science FICTION.

I'm a science fiction fan too - but I don't look for the solutions of
scientific problems in the fantasies of science fiction writers.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

Morbius said:
Whitestar,

Star Trek makes no reference to so-called "negative energy". Their
writers didn't fall for that bit of contemporary nonsense.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

In what way nonsense?

Morbius said:
Whitestar,

Star Trek makes no reference to so-called "negative energy". Their
writers didn't fall for that bit of contemporary nonsense. Their
starships derived their energy from matter / anti-matter reactors.

The jump gates of Babylon 5 have just as many scientific problems as
do warp engines.

That's why it's called science FICTION.

I'm a science fiction fan too - but I don't look for the solutions of
scientific problems in the fantasies of science fiction writers.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
:grumpy: That's right, go on and dash all their dreams. That'll convince them to become the next generation astrophysicists. Nothing wrong with a little flight of fancy once in a while. Beats the tedium of real physics any day.

In sci fi, the answer lies with "gravity generators". Something that can turn energy into gravity and possibly direct it in a given direction.

There is nothing in physics that prevents one form of energy from being converted into another form of energy, or into any form of matter, for that matter. We just don't know how to do it yet.

Whitestar said:
And even if it were possible, one runs into the very severe risk of generating a singularity in spacetime, i.e. a black hole.
I believe that the singularity that physicists describe within black holes is merely their lack of understanding of natural physics. It is said that the singularity is a point of infinite energy and density, thus infinite warping of space and time. But infinities are nonsensical. In real life, infinities most likely do not occur. It is more probable that the singularity simply cannot be explained right now by relativity or quantum mechanics because they in themselves are incomplete. Until a unified picture is given, then physicists can start giving solid, discrete depictions of what's really inside a black hole. This is why in the glossary of Kip Thorne's book, Black Holes & Time Warps, Kip Thorne describes the singularity as:

A region of spacetime where spacetime becomes so strong that the general relativistic laws break down and the laws of quantum gravity take over. If one tries to describe a singularity using general relativity alone, one finds (incorrectly) that tidal gravity and spacetime curvature are infinitely strong there. Quantum gravity probably replaces these infinities by quantum foam.

Whitestar said:
And even if it were possible, one runs into the very severe risk of generating a singularity in spacetime, i.e. a black hole.

According to relativity the only way to create a wormhole (i.e., passage used in the process of hyperspatial travel) is to create a black hole. A black hole is necessary in order to create what is know as the "traversable wormhole." Then, according to quantum mechanics, there may be numerous microscopic wormholes opening and closing all the time within the fabric of spacetime, just that they are too small to see or do much with. I think that the utilization of a spinning black hole would be the best route to take. Quantum gravity would probably give a better take on the issue.

Whitestar said:
how can a starship weighing only several tons generate a mass several times its own magnitude, when objects such as the Earth and the sun warps space with very little results

A highly advanced civilization would probably know how to create high-energy outputs using some form of technology (such as using naturally-occurring antimatter with matter). Since mass is the same as condensed energy, they would only need to concentrate an exceedingly high energy output into a small space.

Morbius said:
Star Trek makes no reference to so-called "negative energy". Their
writers didn't fall for that bit of contemporary nonsense. Their
starships derived their energy from matter / anti-matter reactors.
How is negative energy (i.e., "exotic matter") contemporary nonsense? In Black Holes & Time Warps by Kip Thorne, Thorn explains that exotic matter is required to keep a wormhole open, any wormhole. Kip Thorne further explains that negative energy may be found from "vacuum fluctuations near a hole's horizon" in quantum foam.

When one tries to remove all electric and magnetic fields from some region of space, that is, when one tries to create a perfect vacuum, there always remain a plethora of random, unpredictable electromagnetic oscillations--oscillations caused by a tug-of-war between the fields in adjacent regions of space. The fields "here" borrow energy from the fields "there," leaving the fields there with a deficit of energy, that is, leaving them momentarily with negative energy.

It's also noted in Hyperspace that this "exotic matter" may also be found between two parallel metal plates due to the Casimir effect.

jdlech said:
In sci fi, the answer lies with "gravity generators". Something that can turn energy into gravity and possibly direct it in a given direction.
I've been wondering about that. How would a gravity generator be created? Since matter is the same thing as "energy," does the term "energy" apply to all types of "energy," including electromagnetic energy, gravitational energy, and even neutrinos? Would it be correct to say that electromagnetic energy has the ability to "warp" spacetime, since matter “warps“ spacetime and matter is the same thing as electromagnetic energy? Or is this question simply flawed?

Perhaps the question is based upon a flawed premise. Energy is energy no matter what form it happens to be in. Energy can be manipulated, directed, transformed from one form to another. We do it all the time with toasters, engines, steam, hydraulics, and nuclear reactors. Chemical reactions are just another form of energy manipulation, shaped charges and guns are merely a crude method of directing energy; as is internal combustion, hydraulics, pneumatics, etc..

How would I create gravity without using mass as my source? I would find a way of producing gravitons artificially, if indeed they exist. Let's assume that string theory is on the right track. It claims mass and gravity is purely a matter of geometry. Perhaps there is a hypergeometric shape that produces gravitons without producing mass (which are supposed to be two different things anyway). If there is, then producing gravitons is merely a matter of changing the hypergeometry of a small volume of space. Obviously, the energy requirement of changing the geometry of an ever larger volume of space would increase by the cube+n dimentions. 11 dimensional space would cause the energy required to increase by the 11th degree; a pretty steep curve. Fortunately, we don't need to change the geometry of that much space if we can direct the gravitons; which, if they really are a subatomic particle, is theoretically possible. Consider it a gaser.
So we shoot our newly created, and quite economical, gaser ahead of ourselves. The diameter of the gazer need only be as large as the volumetric cross section of the object we are trying to move and the energy put into it would determine how far ahead of ourselves we shall warp space toward us. Once we've warped the next million or so meters ahead of us into a few meters, it's a simple matter of standard propulsion to get us there.

And it all seems so simple...

Now the question remains, should we be behind it when we fire it off or in front of it?
lol.

Last edited:
jdlech said:
Perhaps there is a hypergeometric shape that produces gravitons without producing mass (which are supposed to be two different things anyway). If there is, then producing gravitons is merely a matter of changing the hypergeometry of a small volume of space.
How would someone go about actually changing the geometry of a small volume of space in such a manner? Manipulating the geometry of gravity isn't the same as manipulating the geometry of electromagnetism.

The problem of warp drive - metric distortion

When once we needed a magnet, it was necessary to find a large piece of lodestone - which exhibited a weak static magnetic field. To vary the amount of magnetism available within an experiment, one could move the lodestone closer or farther away, or break the stone apart and remove a portion thereof. It was only when it was discovered that a moving current could generate a magnetic field (without all that pesky lodestone) that the field of electronics and its kin could evolve.

Currently, if one wishes to distort the spaciotemporal metric, it is necessary to locate a large mass. To vary the amount of metric distortion available within an experiment, one could move the mass closer or farther away, or break the mass apart and remove a portion thereof. We need only discover the proper device configuration to turn on/off the desired gradient without all that pesky mass, in order to create a similar revolutionary field.

Once we develop the technology to distort the local metric, a gradient established in front of an object (front meaning the direction of desired motion). Acceleration can then be derived by allowing the object to "fall towards" this gradient, while the apparatus attached to the object then continues to move the locus of this distortion to remain the same distance ahead. This does not require the science fiction singularity level metric change, as a very minute level of constant acceleration can add up over time to a tremendous rate of travel.

Just a few personal thoughts on the matter.

K Hausman

Sempiternity said:
How would someone go about actually changing the geometry of a small volume of space in such a manner? Manipulating the geometry of gravity isn't the same as manipulating the geometry of electromagnetism.
I have no idea.

I found a couple quotes from Parallel Worlds concerning gravity and electromagnetism:

The light beam becomes blue-shifted--that is, it becomes more energetic until it reaches infinite energy, which is impossible. Or, the light beam becomes so energetic that it creates a monstrous gravitational field of its own which collapses the bedroom/wormhole.
Because mass and energy can be converted into each other, black holes can also be created by compresisng energy.

Might this indicate that gravity can be formed from the condensation and compression of energy?

I have an idea.

Now I have 2 !

gravity control

This reminds me of a post I was reading about gravity control at http:// talking about the modulation of energy to increase and decrease gravitational and electromagnetic potential that might be of interest.
.

Last edited by a moderator:
Would any of you be interested in looking at an idea I have for a propulsion system?
Send an email.

Morbius said:
Whitestar,

Star Trek makes no reference to so-called "negative energy". Their
writers didn't fall for that bit of contemporary nonsense.
Their
starships derived their energy from matter / anti-matter reactors.

The jump gates of Babylon 5 have just as many scientific problems as
do warp engines.

That's why it's called science FICTION.

I'm a science fiction fan too - but I don't look for the solutions of
scientific problems in the fantasies of science fiction writers.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

Are you saying there is no such thing as negative energy?
In 1948 the Dutch physicist Hendrik Casimir showed that 2 closely facing electrically conducting silver plates produced a negative energy field in the vacuum between them.
This is not science fiction..

That gap between 2 plane mirrors looks like hez about to diliver a stern lecture. And in my opinion, A well deserved one!

sys

JO 753 said:
Would any of you be interested in looking at an idea I have for a propulsion system?
Send an email.

I know who would!
Try www.gravitycontrol.org .

Get in touch with them. They're interested in looking at systems and different options.

Let me remind you all that this site is not intended for the discussion or dessimination of personal theories.

- Warren

chroot said:
Let me remind you all that this site is not intended for the discussion or dessimination of personal theories.

- Warren

Isn't that a contradiction of terms considering that whether people discuss gravity control, warp drive, or something else which hasn't become an accepted and proven science, it's a personal theory.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Are we all out of order? How can this be?

Warren,

You make me laugh, however it has been shown that laughter is healthy for people, so thanks. If physics theorems were not allowed, physics would no longer exist, as much of physics is based upon such to begin with. Show me dark matter and/or dark energy that I can hold in my hand. Gravitational lensing is still a theory is it not? So much still remains unknown to the so-called experts in this field that it is idiosyncratic to call them experts in anything. The fact is that if we were not allowed to think/theorize about things, there would surely be little if any progress particularly in the areas of physics. Also, a great many of the technologies which we have today were not invented by physicist's, but by humble folk who were not under the yolk of their peer's or the current residing laws of physics at the time. Listen to Dr. Kaku and take his advice. Teach when there is a lesson to be taught, but promote free thinking and do not discourage it.

Kindest Regards,

Bush-Wacker

BushWacker said:
Warren,

If physics theorems were not allowed, physics would no longer exist, as much of physics is based upon such to begin with.

Gravitational lensing is still a theory is it not? So much still remains unknown to the so-called experts in this field that it is idiosyncratic to call them experts in anything. The fact is that if we were not allowed to think/theorize about things, there would surely be little if any progress particularly in the areas of physics.

Also, a great many of the technologies which we have today were not invented by physicist's, but by humble folk who were not under the yolk of their peer's or the current residing laws of physics at the time. Listen to Dr. Kaku and take his advice. Teach when there is a lesson to be taught, but promote free thinking and do not discourage it.

Kindest Regards,

Bush-Wacker

I agree with Bush-Wacker!

If this site is not for "the discussion or dessimination of personal theories", then is it for only discussing the proven and accepted? Is big brother watching?

I thank you for the hearty laugh sir, as do my arteries that have cleared as a result from my enormous chortle.

Anywho, I believe to control gravity may require a field frquency modulator capable of modulating the underlying force in a controlled manner.

Hey, sry, I just saw this and had to comment on it:
"I'm a science fiction fan too - but I don't look for the solutions of
scientific problems in the fantasies of science fiction writers."

Hey, Dr. you've heard of Jewels Verne right?

BushWhacker said:
Gravitational lensing is still a theory is it not?

No it has been observed.

Also, a great many of the technologies which we have today were not invented by physicist's, but by humble folk who were not under the yolk of their peer's or the current residing laws of physics at the time.

It's been a long time since anybody not highly trained made a significant discovery in physics. Alas, democracy in hard stuff does not work.

*edited

A question I posed some time before was, would it be correct to say that electromagnetic energy has the ability to "warp" spacetime, since matter “warps“ spacetime and matter is the same thing as a highly condensed state of electromagnetic energy? (What other types of energy does relativity's statement mean when it says it's a condensed state of energy?)

Although jdlech responded with the consideration that the premise of what electromagnetic energy is was incorrect, I responded with a quote from Parallel Worlds which used electromagnetic energy in an example to depict the warping of spacetime. In The Fabric of the Cosmos, this is also emphasized:
Matter and energy, like the sun, cause space (and spacetime*) to warp and curve...

It's as if matter and energy imprint a network of chutes and valleys along which objects are guided by the invisible hand of the spacetime fabric.
Following this, would it then be possible to create a 'gravity' generator through concentrating high amounts of electromagnetic energy?

Sempiternity said:
Following this, would it then be possible to create a 'gravity' generator through concentrating high amounts of electromagnetic energy?
I think you will find the recent update at http://www.gravitycontrol.org/" [Broken] very interesting and also answer some of your questions regarding electromagnetic energy. See the link 'antigravity' to visit Project Unity.

Last edited by a moderator: