Putting the ‘Warp’ into Warp Drive

Comments (4)

• 1 Iain R White Jul 18, 2008 2:36 AM

  Surely it should be Trekker rather than Trekie? (And The Physics of Star Trek was, sorry is, great!)

• 2 spock Jul 18, 2008 5:42 AM

  If you calculate the mass required to build a Dyson sphere its roughly equal to the mass of planet Jupiter. Horses for courses. I don't think that anyone is actually seriously planning on dismantling one of our planets. Obousy and Cleaver probably just wanted to give a sense of the energy scales involved in problem.

  Nasa is currently involved in a search for Earth like-size planets orbiting other solar systems (http://kepler.nasa.gov/). If we do in fact find them I think that it's wonderfully inspiring to think that one day we might actually try and go there. Reaching other solar systems in timeslaces on the order of a human lifespan will require some major breakthroughs in propulsion and I find it somewhat comforting to know that some people out there are in fact thinking about the problem.

  Not only that, but space travel has a remarkable capacity to inspire the next generation of scientists. I am a physicist myself and I have to say that science fiction was a huge factor in motivating me to learn more about physics. If you take a look at Obousy and Cleavers first arXiv paper they state, "Warp drives provide an unique and inspiring opportunity to ask the question ?what constraints do the laws of physics place on the abilities of an arbitrarily advanced civilization?. They also serve as a tool for teaching general relativity, as well as an exciting way to attract young students to the field by stimulating their imagination." I would like to place emphasis on the last part of their statement and also bring Hamish Johnstons attention to the rather serious decline in the number of UK students taking an interest in physics, see for example http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4782969.stm. Or the 'funding crisis' in physics research leeding to the UK being an "unreliable and incompetent partner for international science." Certainly this crisis will not be solved if bright young minds are not attracted to the field, and so I for one applaude Obousy and Cleaver for their noble imperative.

  Finally I would also like to respond to the comment about "Physicists want to annihilate Jupiter to reach Rigel 7" - as doing the physics community no good. I really think that "Physicists plan to create black hole at the LHC" does far more damage to the physics community.

  Hamish, I read a lot of your blog articles and for the most part have a lot of respect for your points of view. But I am sorry to say I am opposed to this somewhat cynical reflection to what I see as quite an exciting idea.

• 3 Jenga Jul 18, 2008 3:49 PM

  I have to agree with Spock (haha.. never thought I'd say that!) - it was science fiction that made me want to learn more about physics too. I'm now studying it as a PhD student. I found physics at school boring, while articles like "Physicists want to annihilate Jupiter to reach Rigel 7" made me want to learn more about space science, general relativity and quantum mechanics. The stuff they teach in schools is what gives physics a bad reputation, not exciting new ideas (whether or not it's realistic is another discussion which I won't go into!)

• 4 Lee Castleton, BSCE, EIT May 12, 2009 5:32 PM

  The general impression of other writers who have read the relevant paper is that the mass conversion allegedly required is for that needed to transport a ship the size of 'Enterprise'. Is that the volume of enterprise or its mass? Or both? Can those be minimized by new physics involving translation of that mass/volume into different reality sets. Here I will allege that our three dimensions are a reality set. The associated time unidimension completes this reality set. Physicists propose ten to eleven 'dimensions' but do not differentiate whether those are all time, space or some combination, or if they really know them ALL. Or anything about any other than our own set! Symmetry would seem to demand a reality cube of so called 'spatial' dimensions at the cube of three since we live in a cubic reality. This would mean no more or less than 27 spatial dimensions. Now time may have dimensions as well, and Thomas Wolfe may yet be right and time travel be right as well and Pauli be right too. If an infinite number of timelines could pass through a single reality set three dimensional point, then one could travel backward, forward or obliquely in time but could not go back on their own original timeline as that one and only that one would violate causality. Having said that, the popular assumption is that all the other dimensions are 'rolled up small', which grossly violates the perception of common sense. Suppose some of the reality sets are larger? Suppose we can translate a piece of our reality into one of these larger sets if only for an instant before going back to our original set...at another place? Suppose this can be integrated a bit with Alcubierre's thesis into using a smaller ship, with the idea that there may be higher power/energy relationships involved here akin to the ones for 'radius of gyration' which operates at the fourth power; and a smaller ship may require far less energy to 'warp' or inter reality translate which may be a newer and/or better term for this. Somebody solves all the multivariable higher power partial differential math for even some of this may come into the sights of the Nobel Committee, 'Star Trek' or not!