digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Scientists: Star Trek's Warp Drive is Actually Possible

telegraph.co.uk — Two physicists have boldly gone where no reputable scientists should go and devised a new scheme to travel faster than the speed of light. The advance could mean that Star Trek fantasies of interstellar civilisations and voyages powered by warp drive are now no longer the exclusive domain of science fiction writers.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Ooddiey, on 08/15/2008, -3/+64Hmmmm I think we should have this technology around 2063 just my estimate.
    • jgzman, on 08/16/2008, -1/+19Preceded immediately by an attack by some steampunk cosplayers gone terribly wrong.
    • ExRe, on 08/16/2008, -1/+13But we'll have BREAKING NEWS about a new breakthrough in warp drive every few months until then. A breakthrough that is certain to allow you to purchase a space ship with warp drive in less than a year!
    • AndrewDS, on 08/16/2008, -1/+4If the "cybernetic beings from the future" don't stop them first.
    • gquaglia, on 08/16/2008, -1/+7Right, just about the same time we have flying cars that run on hydrogen. We can't even build an electric car that will go for more then 100 miles without a recharge, do you really think we can come anywhere near the power requirements needed to manipulate space/time for this to work. Maybe in few hundred years, but nowhere in the foreseeable future.
      • mnky9800n, on 08/16/2008, -1/+1We can, it is just very expensive to do so. That is, build a car that gets 300 miles to the charge. Automakers can't make cars that go 300 miles to the gallon and say, oh by the way that will be 200,000$. Nobody would buy them.
    • cowsgonemadd3, on 08/16/2008, -1/+1I at least hope for my flying car by then that pollutes little,is quiet and uses little fuel.
    • TheRealDeuce, on 08/16/2008, -0/+15April 5th, 2063
    • modifiedbears, on 08/16/2008, -3/+7This will never happen.

      FTA: "The energy to kick start the drive turned out to be equivalent to turning the entire mass of Jupiter into energy, by Einstein's famous E equals Mc squared equation, where c is the speed of light. Given the mass of Jupiter is around 2000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms, that is a big number."
      • TheMachine1, on 08/16/2008, -0/+21All that means is Jupiter's days are now numbered.
      • freshgrease, on 08/16/2008, -2/+1Because man will first use that amount of energy to kill other men. With that much energy, we will destroy ourselves in one bought. Such was with nuclear weapons.
      • EmperorAwesome, on 08/16/2008, -0/+5***** Jupiter.
    • Camaroman, on 08/16/2008, -0/+5I'll be old as hell. *****
  • syxxness, on 08/15/2008, -0/+31Pretty sure that this idea has been around for years. This guy isn't the first to think about this. In fact, I would say that the general concept of this probably was thought of sometime shortly after Einstein published his Relativity papers. Not to mention that Kaku and other rockstar physicists like to talk about this stuff all the time to get hype going in physics.
    • MacEnvy, on 08/16/2008, -0/+6Alcubierre has had warp drive worked out mathematically for decades.
  • syxxness, on 08/15/2008, -2/+15Actually. It's not much different, if any, than wormhole. The problem is mainly getting an energy/mass source powerful enough to actually manipulate that stuff. We are most likely very very far off from achieving this. And the mass of Jupiter as an energy estimate is is probably a bit to modest. My guess is probably the mass of the solar system or more. We can't even harness the power output of our sun's fusion reactions, let alone the entire mass of it combined. Unless the LHC makes some VERY startling breakthroughs, it's unlikely that this could be achieved (assuming GR is even correct) even in the next several hundred years.

    Not to mention the fact that the so called Dark Matter/Energy thing brings at least some doubt to the accuracy of relativity and the actual shape of the universe, but I won't go there.
    • Niightwitch, on 08/16/2008, -1/+6"it's unlikely that this could be achieved...even in the next several hundred years."

      That's actually fortunate because, as a species, we're nowhere near being able to handle all that moving through the universe like that entails.....maybe in five or six hundred years we'll be more mature, better able to handle that level of responsibility.
  • rawg, on 08/15/2008, -0/+34Wasn't this how the warp drive was explained in the Star Trek Technical Manual?
  • MacSuxWindozSux, on 08/16/2008, -2/+6If you saw something like this actually happen. The ship would appear to stretch forward into the far distance and then the tail end would follow.

    Would take 3h43mins to reach the nearest star.
    • transmothra, on 08/16/2008, -8/+5Down to the minute! Excellent, Ensign T'Poo.

      Btw, anything moving that ***** fast wouldn't be visible, at least not to normal goddamn human beings who cannot detect zillions of frames per second.
      • landshrk, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2...?
      • overridemymind, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2*sigh* transmothra... what MacSux is saying is that when the spacecraft "jumped to warp" IE accelerated to c, As it was accelerating, it would give the optical illusion of stretching, because light is still travelling to the eye, even though the object is no longer present -- basically an optical version of a sonic boom.
  • piglet1350, on 08/16/2008, -9/+5...And the geeks shall rise to rule the world...
    • MacEnvy, on 08/16/2008, -0/+8Yeah, we've been working on that since the 70s. Nice to see it come to fruition though.
  • JimmySpaza, on 08/16/2008, -23/+2FTA:
    "All this extraordinary feat requires, says the new study, is for scientists to harness a mysterious and poorly understood cosmic antigravity force, called dark energy.

    Dark energy is thought responsible for speeding up the expansion rate of our universe as time moves on, just like it did after the Big Bang, when the universe expanded much faster than the speed of light for a very brief time."

    This is pure junk science based on imagination and speculation. Dark Energy is nothing more than the construct of some human minds who are trying desperately to keep the Big Bang Theory alive in the face of contradictory science.

    See, if the Big Bang Theory is accurate, then there is less of a need for a Cause to the universe. THAT seems to be the big push to create one theory out of thin air to keep another fledgling theory alive.
    • transmothra, on 08/16/2008, -1/+19Why would there be ANY need for a cause? And what science contradicts the big bang? The big bang is accepted by just about every legitimate researcher out there. Most other plausible theories are just offshoots that still involve a big goddamn explosion. Even a lot of thoughtful theologians accept it.
      • B1663r, on 08/16/2008, -3/+2Except... The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. A discovery that is precisely opposite what BB theory predicted(lets just leave the law of thermodynamics out of it for now, that that is the reason that BB proponents say there has to be dark energy).

        Anyhow, there are an abundance of problems with BB cosmology before you get to the expansion problem.

        But never mind the greatest physicists of all time predicted eternal inflation initally, however that possibility was so abhorant to him that he called it his greatest mistake. Since then many physicists have tried to grapple with the eternal inflation problem. Yet there it is, we have observed it. It was predicted.

        Recently there has been some back sliding among cosmologists who (stating that BB is wrong is the end of your career as a main stream physicists btw) are starting to allow for the possibility of something they call "quantum fluctuations" where basically at random over the extreme time periods of the universe, quadrilions of years from now long after black holes have decayed and protons ceased to exist effectivly ending time(as we know it), a new universe can pop into existence spontaniously.

        But yeah, the philosophers and theologians would have a hard time accepting that. I know I do.

      • JimmySpaza, on 08/16/2008, -7/+1"Why would there be ANY need for a cause?"

        Oh, only that science has never shown one example of something coming into existence (or doing anything) without a cause.

        "And what science contradicts the big bang?"

        The Big Bang theory says that the universe should be slowing down due to gravity pulling everything towards the "center" of the universe.

        "The big bang is accepted by just about every legitimate researcher out there."

        No, actually there are only a relatively few people who actually work on such things. The rest simply accept what they are told because...they are being told by other scientists. Really. This stuff happens all the time.

        "Most other plausible theories are just offshoots that still involve a big goddamn explosion. Even a lot of thoughtful theologians accept it."

        So what? Show me the evidence. I don't care if every scientist on the planet says one thing. Without scientific evidence, they are all speculating.
      • skeez86, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2"No, actually there are only a relatively few people who actually work on such things. The rest simply accept what they are told because...they are being told by other scientists."

        Welcome to the definition of science.
        You accept what they say because they have sound scientific explanation. If you can't believe something you haven't worked on yourself, there would be absolutely no progress in any field.

        It's not like there's some master book telling everyone the way things are so they can blindly follow it. (ie. bible)

        It is very evident that you are amercian because you display an utter lack of scientific understanding. Go go invisible man in the sky.
      • riskybeats, on 08/18/2008, -0/+1I don't know why people get baited into these arguments. A simple counter is, okay, if all the scientists are wrong, please give me a better, more logical answer than this. Oh what? A man in a robe made us 9000 years ago? Okay, well, good luck with that.

        I don't know what model of the universe you are looking at Jimmy, but I haven't seen one yet, especially one with a 'center' to it where things would gravitate towards. And for someone who asks for evidence, it seems more like a formality for you, since you disregard whatever evidence is presented infront of you anyways.
  • whazdown, on 08/16/2008, -1/+11''All this extraordinary feat requires, says the new study, is for scientists to harness a mysterious and poorly understood cosmic antigravity force called dark matter..''

    Oh, is that it?
    • DDION, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2Actually, they said it was dark energy, not dark matter.

      Wake me up when we even have a handle on dark matter, let alone the other....
  • sjbdallas, on 08/16/2008, -0/+15Engage!
  • digitallysick, on 08/16/2008, -2/+15Its called a "flux capacitor" and it takes 1.21 gigawatts to work.
    • digency, on 08/16/2008, -1/+2Um not really. Thats time travel, this is travelling faster than the speed of light.
      • credence, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2Actually, he's right. If the car in bttf didn't travel through space too, then he's damned lucky to keep winding up where he started since the earth rotates constantly. If you jump back 12 hours forward/backwards in time, you should be in the ocean or asia if you aren't moving when this happens.
      • Clocked, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1well if you want to get really technical.

        The earth is rotating around the sun, hence the car would appear in space...

        that spoils the fun though...
  • S2000, on 08/16/2008, -0/+22FTA: "All this extraordinary feat requires, says the new study, is for scientists to harness a mysterious and poorly understood cosmic antigravity force, called dark energy."

    Well, glad to hear it won't be too difficult.
    • jp12380, on 08/16/2008, -0/+3Which by the way it is doubted if that "dark energy" even exists.
  • transmothra, on 08/16/2008, -18/+1God damn you are all nerds.
    • gamerzworld, on 08/16/2008, -0/+3Thanks for the complement!
    • KingGorilla, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1what does that make you? Mister "I too have a digg account"
  • Pedestrian101, on 08/16/2008, -5/+4Already been a topic on this: http://digg.com/space/Spaceship_Could_Fly_Faster_T ...
  • cnot3, on 08/16/2008, -0/+23Well its a hell of a lot easier when Geordi LaForge comes back in time and helps you work out the kinks.
    • BossKey, on 08/16/2008, -0/+5We shoulda asked Scotty about it back when they landed in San Francisco that one time.
  • raydeen, on 08/16/2008, -0/+4Sheldon and Leonard should have no problem working this out. Oh wait...different Big Bang Theory.
  • m3sm3r, on 08/16/2008, -0/+6"Richard Obousy computed the amount of energy required to start up a "warp" process (but not the total energy required to travel a specific distance) around a 10x10x10 metre-cube ship..."

    So his plans are to assimilate the needed technology?
  • Alex2, on 08/16/2008, -5/+1replace the word 'possible' with 'abstractly theoretical', ok, now that's an accurate title.

    Science is about testing theories. Theories by themselves are just that, theories.

    • temsi, on 08/16/2008, -2/+4Actually, you are confusing the word theory with the word hypothesis.
      Confusion like that is what the Intelligent Design morons rely on in order to dismiss the observed fact of biological evolution as "just a theory."

      A theory is not just an idea someone pulled out of their ass, nor is it an empty speculation.
      A theory is a carefully thought out set of rules designed to explain a natural phenomenon; a set of rules which can be tested.
      In this case, there's a hypothetical explanation of how this might work. There's no practical way to test this, nor is this based on observation of any kind of natural behavior. This is simply a couple of scientists speculating within the guidelines of what we know about physics, on how this might be possible in real life.

      In daily usage of the word, "theory" has taken on the meaning of conjecture or speculation, which has nothing to do with the scientific meaning of the word.
      Here, you are throwing about the word "theory" in a scientific context, but your use of it indicates the "daily usage" meaning of the word - which is not applicable here.

      Since this isn't testable until we harness the power of anti-matter, this is hypothetical, and not a theory.

      Science is about testing hypotheses. Once tested and a predictable outcome is achieved, then a theory is formed on how it works. Peer review doesn't technically test the theory itself, it tests the same hypothesis, and the outcome either supports the existing theory or challenges it.

      Now, this is my understanding of it - but as an amateur, not a professional.
      If someone here actually is a physicist or a scientist who deals with hypotheses and theories regularly, please correct me if I'm wrong.
      • Alex2, on 08/16/2008, -3/+1Nope.. pretty sure I used the word theory correctly.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

        You've made an incorrect assumption in my usage of the word.
      • temsi, on 08/16/2008, -1/+4Actually, the link you provided proves my point.
        This is how you used the word:
        "In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality."

        and not this way:
        "In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation."

        You've made an incorrect assumption in your own understanding of the word.
        Whenever someone says "it's just a theory" that implies "it's just speculation, and not based on evidence".
        That's essentially what you said - it may not have been what you meant, but it is what you said...
      • Alex2, on 08/16/2008, -5/+1Know what. ***** you.
        You're an idiot.
  • BrentDPayne, on 08/16/2008, -1/+3Umm doesn't the sun have the amount of energy that's needed to jumpstart this rusty 10x10x10 pile of bricks? Surely they thought about figuring out a way to propel this cube into the sun and use it's energy to create the necessary jumpstart right?

    But what do I know. I'm a cold fusion believer. Yes, that's right. Call me nuts, but then again I held the cathodes and the heavy water at Marvin Hawkins house in Trementon, UT.
    • Tallon29, on 08/16/2008, -0/+3Oh yeah? Well I helped John Titor load some stuff into his trunk.
    • PurpleSfinx, on 08/16/2008, -1/+3"Surely they thought about figuring out a way to propel this cube into the sun and use it's energy to create the necessary jumpstart right?"

      I know! How could they not think of something as easy and intelligent as destroying the Sun! Those idiots!
      • Culyt, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2"Since the beginning of time man has yearned to destroy the sun..."
  • Lucifugerising, on 08/16/2008, -0/+12Make it so...
    • Dreamfiend, on 08/16/2008, -0/+7THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!
      • BossKey, on 08/16/2008, -3/+1Now now, this thread isn't about Guantanamo Bay politics.....
      • cnot3, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1The most disturbing thing is, he really had me believing there were five lights.
  • TheIguana, on 08/16/2008, -0/+4Would be amazing if it were actually possible, but I am going to take the stance that most other scientists will. Skepticism. Yes warp drive, very cool, but please guys show some experimentally repeatable results before clamoring over to journalism majors who have likely never touched a physics textbook in their lives.
    • AresDiggs, on 08/16/2008, -2/+1"but I am going to take the stance that most other scientists will." most other scientists? scan your degree into the computer and post it... i want to see that you are really a scientist... other wise... stop talking out of your ass....
      • floejoe, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1If someone is not a scientist it does not preclude him or her from being skeptical.

        Seeing pseudoscience and crackpot physics does not require a physics major, it just requires common sense and a healthy sense of questioning information and people who are claiming things that contradict our current understanding of the universe.

        Go digg some more Bigfoot stories.
  • copypastry, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2Hey guys no problem, all we need is to losslessy convert a the mass equivalent of Jupiter into energy.
  • ussoldier, on 08/16/2008, -2/+1As if HUMVEES and SUVs werent' bad enough, someones trying to come up with a way to waste gobs of energy at a time.
    • Lucifugerising, on 08/16/2008, -0/+6If only we could turn jerk off sauce into a conveinent form of renewable energy...
  • LilRabbitFooFoo, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1TABLOID site...dugg down.
  • palehorse864, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2Unfortunately, even if we develop this, traveling faster than warp 5 will cause damage to the space time continuum. :(
  • Trekky0623, on 08/16/2008, -1/+0My car was advertised at Warp 7.3 cruising velocity. Still can't find the "engage" button...
  • Palaceguard, on 08/16/2008, -6/+1Everything on Star Trek is possible. The producer is a Jew
  • bobbknight, on 08/16/2008, -1/+3Just fire up the old Zed PM and get this thing moving.
  • TaintBrush, on 08/16/2008, -0/+4Oh! So all we have to do is harness dark energy? Piece of cake!
  • ASSASSYN360, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2I am going to go find my physics professor from my old university and kick him in the ass. I typed a paper on warp drive and he said it wasn't possible at all.
    • kingvik, on 08/16/2008, -1/+3Everything is impossible until it's possible.
  • krAzykrAkr01, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2"Two physicists have boldly gone where no reputable scientists should go and devised a new scheme to travel faster than the speed of light."

    WTF does that mean? Why shouldn't we be trying to figure out a way to explore the solar system and eventually the galaxy?
  • landshrk, on 08/16/2008, -6/+2We are, BY FAR, much too immature a species to handle such an overwhelming responsibility. We can't even be responsible enough to keep our own planet tidy enough to live on (the only species here who, to quote someone much wiser than myself, '*****'s where they sleep'), much less be allowed out into the great unknown of deeper space.

    Unfortunately, I'd have to (albeit grudgingly) disagree with "...even in the next several hundred years." We, as a species, have a tendency to overdo things. And, as evidenced throughout history, Nature not only abhors a vacuum, it would also seem it abhors those who grow to live beyond their means (Romans, the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire, and now, it would appear, humanity as a whole, unless we wake the ***** up). But, looking at our track record, we may yet only be a few decades, even (dare I say it? I dare!) a few years from discovering that hidden knowledge which would allow us to escape the confines of this earth. Science, and the discoveries from science, are exponential. Even 25 years ago, no one would have thought that communication between opposite ends of the globe would be as instantaneous as it is today; that we would render scientific theory 'obsolete' (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/ ... by having such a mass of information available at all times; that many of the things we take for granted these days would even be possible. So, thinking along those lines, the idea of making a discovery such as this within the foreseeable future is not out of the question, and that's REALLY ***** SCARY.

    Of course, these are just the mumblings of yet another layperson who happens to have access to the internet.
  • Hot4Geeks, on 08/16/2008, -4/+1Uh huh so.... 2000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 x 299,792,458 m/s is all the energy they'll need to fuel this thing... ??? Good Lord, they're going to blow up our planet trying.

    Plus, the study comes out of England. Enough said.
    • Majink, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1"Plus, the study comes out of England. Enough said."

      Just what are you trying to say, exactly?
      • Hot4Geeks, on 08/17/2008, -0/+0I'm trying to say all I've ever had the ill-opportunity to date is Englishmen and no logic comes out of their mouths.

        I have no quarrel with the Scots.
  • Hurricane, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2This nothing but math, no real way of implementing it, just a way to prove that it does not violate previously set rules.
  • sdubois92, on 08/16/2008, -0/+4Now if only Stargates were real...
    • Borgcube636, on 08/16/2008, -1/+3Actually, if you look deep into conspiracy theories, a form of 'stargates' is real and in use by our own government (among other aliens). This is what has led us to have a base on Mars already, according to certain whistleblowers.
  • WaterDragon, on 08/16/2008, -1/+1"All this extraordinary feat requires, says the new study, is for scientists to harness a mysterious and poorly understood cosmic antigravity force, called dark energy."

    Oh...is that all? So get back to me when you can fly!

    KTHXBAI
  • WaterDragon, on 08/16/2008, -1/+1All right. Fire up the old DeLorean!
  • moduc, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1I can say that this is a stupid idea, even theoretically possible.
  • lordwow, on 08/16/2008, -0/+3Now all we need are the damn inertial dampers.
  • hadak, on 08/16/2008, -0/+6I've solved it! A windmill near a black hole will give us enough energy!
  • grneye53, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1When your traveling faster then the speed of light it's easy to get burned,with this idea they're going to need one hell of a guidance system too.You'd have come up with extreme Garmin !♠
  • psi0nicgh0st, on 08/16/2008, -0/+0Id rather use my .5 hyperdrive motivator thank you....
  • Dwarfthemike, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1Part of this description ( a bubble sitting there while space moves around it) is exactly how the Planet Express ship moves. Sadly this didn't come to them in a dream....
  • bandar77, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1A good read:
    The Physics of the Impossible by Michio Kaku
  • crossmr, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2"This may come as a surprise since, according to relativity theory, matter cannot move through space faster than the speed of light," I'd say it is a surprise..
    I'm shocked that someone is giving a random hypothesis the time of day..
    let alone a ***** news story.
  • jayrodnoonan, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1Superluminal velocities have already been acheived.

    http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/07/20/spee ...

    The article fails to mention that the cesium gas has an index of refraction lower than 1, thus increasing the speed of light. I also recall hearing that the gas may have been charged but I can't seem to source that.

    Eventually we should be able to harness that kind of efficiency, right?
  • liuite, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1sure, it is like folding up space like a sheet of paper...so when will they build USS Enterprise?
  • lincoln54, on 08/16/2008, -0/+0wow. cool =)
  • honeybrass, on 08/16/2008, -1/+0Ok, so we need to use a 'poorly' understood force (read as: proposed force to cover a gap in our understanding), an unproven theory, and an amount of energy MUCH greater then used by human civilization over all of time. And, this is before breaking a law of physics!
    hmm.... not holding out a lot of hope.
    I still believe we will find a way to do this but it ain't going to be this way, besides it has been floating around for years anyway, as was mentioned in many posts before.
    This is not news it is tabloid! BURIED
    • Majink, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1They're not breaking any laws, read the article and you'll see why.
    • honeybrass, on 08/17/2008, -0/+0"The problem with this and previous schemes (including my own) is that part of the exotic matter would have to travel faster than the *local* speed of light (roughly speaking, it would need to go faster than the speed of light with respect to the portion of space it occupies), and that's not allowed by any established physical theory." Obviously I read the article more carefully than you!
  • McHoffa, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1I have always wondered something about super fast travel/"warp speed"... how do you avoid hitting an asteroid at that speed? If you are traveling faster than light, then you wouldn't actually see things in real time right?

    has star trek ever answered this?
  • Myztry, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1If they want to use dark matter/energy to manipulate dimensions, what about a few things more practical and realistic things like:
    A compressed space box I could use to get a Grand Piano between the bars on a window.
    A compressed time cube that I could use to get a couple of hours sleep during my coffee break.

    Anyway, I'm hopping back in my Tardis to get away from all this fantasical theory.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 54 of 54 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.