Warp Drive Plausibility - Star Trek vs Science
What's your favourite episode? How is romulan ale brewed? - Star Trek in general :-)
posted on December 6th, 2012, 4:40 pm
Warp 1 = 1 c (c = the speed of light)
Warp 2 = 8 c
Warp 3 = 27 c
Warp 4 = 64 c
Warp 5 = 125 c
Warp 6 = 216 c
Warp 7 = 343 c
Warp 8 = 512 c
Warp 9 = 729 c
Warp 10 = 1,000 c (actually, supposedly infinite speeds)
First off, infinity is impossible to achieve. You cannot go from a state of finity to a state of infinity and you cannot go from a state of infinity to a state of finity. It is logically and mathematically absurd! But how realistic is it that one can even achieve 0.1 c?
(I think these calculations are correct, please correct me if I'm wrong.)
Well, for starters, I'm sure you're aware of the formula E=mc^2. There's another formula to calculate how much energy is required to propel something to such high speeds. E=1/2mv^2. Where m = the mass of the object and v = the velocity of the object. Actually, it may be the case that both formulas are required. So let's see how much energy it would take to propel a 1-gram object to 0.1 c (1/10 the speed of light).
E = 1 * 299,792,458^2 = 89,875,517,873,681,764 Jules. That's 89.9 quadrillion Jules. Now, for the energy of the object itself.
E = 1/2 * 29,979,245.8^2 = 1/2 * 898,755,178,736,817.64 = 449,377,589,368,408.82 Jules. That's 449.4 trillion Jules. That's how much energy the object would have traveling at 1/10 the speed of light. It might ruin your day if it hit you. But that's also how much mass the object would have at 1/10 the speed of light.
So, we'll take 449,377,589,368,408.82 Jules, equate that to grams, and now we have:
E = 449,377,589,368,408.82 * 299,792,458^2 = 449,377,589,368,408.82 * 89,875,517,873,681,764 = 40,388,043,565,312,451,146,319,003,730,758 Jules required to propel the object to 1/10 the speed of light. To put it into scientific notation, that's 4.0 * 10^31 Jules to propel this 1 gram object to 1/10 the speed of light.
Now Star Trek has something called a warp drive which bends the fabric of space. In front of the ship the bend is equivalent to that of a gravity well, while behind the ship, the bend is equivalent to an inverted gravity well. So, you've got a bunch of gravity in front of the ship pulling on the ship, and a bunch of "negative" gravity behind the ship pushing on the ship.
But there's another problem. How to keep your clocks synchronized. Or moving for that matter. When you reach the speed of light, time stops in your reference frame. And depending on ones beliefs, time may or may not go backwards in your reference frame if you exceed the speed of light. However, it logically follows that if time stops in your reference frame, then you cannot do anything. Not even exceeding the speed of light.
Now, how do they propose to warp space? You can't do it with magnets because magnetic and gravitational forces work independently of each other. And it would take the mass of a black hole at the front of the ship with the ship physically attached to the black hole in order to get such a gravitational field. On top of that, it is impossible to achieve a negative mass for the corresponding negative gravity that's supposed to be behind the ship. There is something called a "warp particle" that can supposedly do this job, but no such particle exists. There are 12 particles that make up protons, neutrons, and electrons. None of which can warp space in the required manner. And the particles that do have mass end up creating a standard (but weak) gravitational field.
Warp 2 = 8 c
Warp 3 = 27 c
Warp 4 = 64 c
Warp 5 = 125 c
Warp 6 = 216 c
Warp 7 = 343 c
Warp 8 = 512 c
Warp 9 = 729 c
Warp 10 = 1,000 c (actually, supposedly infinite speeds)
First off, infinity is impossible to achieve. You cannot go from a state of finity to a state of infinity and you cannot go from a state of infinity to a state of finity. It is logically and mathematically absurd! But how realistic is it that one can even achieve 0.1 c?
(I think these calculations are correct, please correct me if I'm wrong.)
Well, for starters, I'm sure you're aware of the formula E=mc^2. There's another formula to calculate how much energy is required to propel something to such high speeds. E=1/2mv^2. Where m = the mass of the object and v = the velocity of the object. Actually, it may be the case that both formulas are required. So let's see how much energy it would take to propel a 1-gram object to 0.1 c (1/10 the speed of light).
E = 1 * 299,792,458^2 = 89,875,517,873,681,764 Jules. That's 89.9 quadrillion Jules. Now, for the energy of the object itself.
E = 1/2 * 29,979,245.8^2 = 1/2 * 898,755,178,736,817.64 = 449,377,589,368,408.82 Jules. That's 449.4 trillion Jules. That's how much energy the object would have traveling at 1/10 the speed of light. It might ruin your day if it hit you. But that's also how much mass the object would have at 1/10 the speed of light.
So, we'll take 449,377,589,368,408.82 Jules, equate that to grams, and now we have:
E = 449,377,589,368,408.82 * 299,792,458^2 = 449,377,589,368,408.82 * 89,875,517,873,681,764 = 40,388,043,565,312,451,146,319,003,730,758 Jules required to propel the object to 1/10 the speed of light. To put it into scientific notation, that's 4.0 * 10^31 Jules to propel this 1 gram object to 1/10 the speed of light.
Now Star Trek has something called a warp drive which bends the fabric of space. In front of the ship the bend is equivalent to that of a gravity well, while behind the ship, the bend is equivalent to an inverted gravity well. So, you've got a bunch of gravity in front of the ship pulling on the ship, and a bunch of "negative" gravity behind the ship pushing on the ship.
But there's another problem. How to keep your clocks synchronized. Or moving for that matter. When you reach the speed of light, time stops in your reference frame. And depending on ones beliefs, time may or may not go backwards in your reference frame if you exceed the speed of light. However, it logically follows that if time stops in your reference frame, then you cannot do anything. Not even exceeding the speed of light.
Now, how do they propose to warp space? You can't do it with magnets because magnetic and gravitational forces work independently of each other. And it would take the mass of a black hole at the front of the ship with the ship physically attached to the black hole in order to get such a gravitational field. On top of that, it is impossible to achieve a negative mass for the corresponding negative gravity that's supposed to be behind the ship. There is something called a "warp particle" that can supposedly do this job, but no such particle exists. There are 12 particles that make up protons, neutrons, and electrons. None of which can warp space in the required manner. And the particles that do have mass end up creating a standard (but weak) gravitational field.
posted on December 6th, 2012, 5:22 pm
1) warp drive isn't based on the principle of accelerating matter to fast speeds. it's based on intentionally vague principles. we know it involves creating a warp filed, which involves fictional "subspace". real word physics can therefore be conveniently binned, in order to allow the writers to get away with limited research (and the fact that science advances, a tv show is constant once made).
the word subspace has a real meaning in mathematics, it's a lot more boring than the fictional one.
2) I stopped reading when you misspelled "Joules".
the word subspace has a real meaning in mathematics, it's a lot more boring than the fictional one.
2) I stopped reading when you misspelled "Joules".
posted on December 6th, 2012, 6:48 pm
Whilst not directly related to the topic in hand, I think the first thing that we need to determine is exactly how fast a propulsion system would need to be to make interstellar exploration, exploitation and colonisation a feasible reality. I mean, the speed of light is all well and good but it would still take 4 years to reach the nearest star system. Most journeys then would be well over half a human life time for a return trip. A little unwieldy to truly have an interstellar society.
Realistically speaking you'd need something that would be 8 times the speed of light (i.e an approximate flight time of 6 months to Alpha Centauri, between a year and 18 months to more distant 'local' systems) as a minimum in order to make colonisation and such a feasible proposition. If you think back to Colonial Times, the average sea voyage from Britain to America was 2 to 3 months depending on the wind and tide. Unless we could make a communication system (such as Treks Subspace Radio) that would be faster than a ship, then if a starship took any more than a year to get from a colony back to Earth, by the time we knew of an emergency, invasion, uprising etc, it would be too late to respond.
So is "Warp 8" and beyond travel feasible? Personally, I think it's far more realistic that we will find a way to "hyperjump" rather than a true FTL drive. Going that fast for that long is not really going to work. Think of it like airliners. Really anything past Mach 2 is inefficient, but if we use a different approach and use sub-orbital craft, we can hop to Australia in 3 hours. Rather than going screamingly fast through 'normal' space, I think with the way science is headed we are far more likely to discover and harness a sort of "shortcut" system through space whether they be induced by a drive system (like a hyperdrive) or if we have to navigate through naturally occurring folds in space, such as wormholes, singularities etc. (like Freelancer or Star Wars, there are only certain 'lanes' that are useable)
Realistically speaking you'd need something that would be 8 times the speed of light (i.e an approximate flight time of 6 months to Alpha Centauri, between a year and 18 months to more distant 'local' systems) as a minimum in order to make colonisation and such a feasible proposition. If you think back to Colonial Times, the average sea voyage from Britain to America was 2 to 3 months depending on the wind and tide. Unless we could make a communication system (such as Treks Subspace Radio) that would be faster than a ship, then if a starship took any more than a year to get from a colony back to Earth, by the time we knew of an emergency, invasion, uprising etc, it would be too late to respond.
So is "Warp 8" and beyond travel feasible? Personally, I think it's far more realistic that we will find a way to "hyperjump" rather than a true FTL drive. Going that fast for that long is not really going to work. Think of it like airliners. Really anything past Mach 2 is inefficient, but if we use a different approach and use sub-orbital craft, we can hop to Australia in 3 hours. Rather than going screamingly fast through 'normal' space, I think with the way science is headed we are far more likely to discover and harness a sort of "shortcut" system through space whether they be induced by a drive system (like a hyperdrive) or if we have to navigate through naturally occurring folds in space, such as wormholes, singularities etc. (like Freelancer or Star Wars, there are only certain 'lanes' that are useable)
posted on December 6th, 2012, 8:11 pm
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. by Albert Einstein
posted on December 6th, 2012, 8:49 pm
Just a note on the warp speed formula:
In the TOS era, the speed factor is WF^3 as a multiple of 'c', for all warp factors.
In TNG, this was changed to WF^(10/3) as a multiple of 'c' up to Warp 9. After warp 9, the graph is a hard-drawn asymptote tending to Infinity at Warp 10 (ie, there is no hard-and-fast formula from there on up). This was done to fit with Roddenberry's insistence that warp speeds be kept simple and the maximum to be Warp 10. Yes, there was a Warp 13 in the episode All Good Things, but Q was involved there, so all rules are in abeyance.
In the TOS era, the speed factor is WF^3 as a multiple of 'c', for all warp factors.
In TNG, this was changed to WF^(10/3) as a multiple of 'c' up to Warp 9. After warp 9, the graph is a hard-drawn asymptote tending to Infinity at Warp 10 (ie, there is no hard-and-fast formula from there on up). This was done to fit with Roddenberry's insistence that warp speeds be kept simple and the maximum to be Warp 10. Yes, there was a Warp 13 in the episode All Good Things, but Q was involved there, so all rules are in abeyance.
posted on December 6th, 2012, 9:15 pm
If he wanted it to be 10 at the max, does that mean he was kicked off of TOS before they added speeds of Warp 11-14?
posted on December 7th, 2012, 12:48 am
Well, there are a few problems with that scale.
- It is impossible for a ship to accelerate to or from an infinite speed.
- Anything past warp 9 would require infinite acceleration, even if the warp factor does not change. And that is impossible.
- If you can't graph it past warp 9, then warp 9 becomes the maximum speed.
posted on December 11th, 2012, 11:45 pm
Tyler wrote:If he wanted it to be 10 at the max, does that mean he was kicked off of TOS before they added speeds of Warp 11-14?
Nope, because the scale was open-ended in TOS. The scale was rejigged for TNG to avoid warp-factor inflation.
TChapman500 wrote:Well, there are a few problems with that scale.
- It is impossible for a ship to accelerate to or from an infinite speed.
- Anything past warp 9 would require infinite acceleration, even if the warp factor does not change. And that is impossible.
- If you can't graph it past warp 9, then warp 9 becomes the maximum speed.
I think you have misread or misunderstood the description of the TNG scale past warp 9. Let me put it more simply:
Before warp 9, the TNG scale is a simple exponent of the warp factor, although the power is slightly higher than the TOS scale (warp factor 8 in TNG is twice as fast as warp factor 8 in TOS).
After warp 9 (or 9.9; I really need to find my TNG Technical Manual), speed starts to increase sharply. As the warp factor approaches 10, this increase becomes even steeper, with warp factor 10 being defined as infinite speed. There is no formal formula for the shape of the curve in this region.
posted on December 11th, 2012, 11:57 pm
Oh I get it. The warp curve exponent increases exponentially 
posted on December 12th, 2012, 1:21 am
Forget Warp......Hyperspace is the way to go.
posted on December 12th, 2012, 10:59 am
nathanj wrote:Forget Warp......Hyperspace is the way to go.
forget hyperspace...................................the infinite improbability drive is the real future.
posted on December 12th, 2012, 3:44 pm
Naah, Bistromaths is the way to go. Makes ships equipped with infinite improbability drives look like electric prams.
posted on December 12th, 2012, 6:51 pm
i will put forward "holly hop drive" from red dwarf..
posted on December 12th, 2012, 9:12 pm
It's fairly straightforward. If you want to start it you press "START," and you can work out the rest of the controls for yourself
posted on December 12th, 2012, 10:51 pm
Here's the warp 9 scale based on a power of (10/3)^(w-9). Where w = warp factor.
Warp 9 = 1,516 c
Warp 9.1 = 4,035 c
Warp 9.2 = 12,226 c
Warp 9.3 = 42,924 c
Warp 9.4 = 178,030 c
Capt. Janeway: Tom, set a course for Earth. Warp 9.4, engage!
4 months later:
Lt. Paris: We're home captain!
Capt. Janeway: Good work Tom.
Warp 9 = 1,516 c
Warp 9.1 = 4,035 c
Warp 9.2 = 12,226 c
Warp 9.3 = 42,924 c
Warp 9.4 = 178,030 c
Capt. Janeway: Tom, set a course for Earth. Warp 9.4, engage!
4 months later:
Lt. Paris: We're home captain!
Capt. Janeway: Good work Tom.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests