What do you think about the Alcubierre drive? Is it worth to research?

Everything is worth it to research.
Even if you find out you can't do what you set out to there's a chance something else might get uncovered.

>>8849841
I ask because many claim that warp drive is a dead end.

>>8849821
>>8849854
People claim the warp drive is a dead end because the prerequisite is negative mass.

Negative mass doesn't violate our current theory of how the universe works, but it hasn't been observed either. Only very recently was "effective negative mass" observed.

It is worth it to research? Yes, but if you want to go by the model presented, you need to research how to find or create negative mass first. It's a dead end now because we have no idea how to make that required exotic material.

>LOL NOTHING CAN EXCEED THE SPEED OF LIGHT IT'S FYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!11!!!1

Is this logic flawed?

>>8850010
The universe expands faster than light can be generated. "Outspeeding" it.

File: a10.png (288KB, 800x2000px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 800x2000px

What if position is virtual and all you need to do is change what it points to

>>8850010
Without special relativity, quantum physics doesn't work at all. Since quantum physics is one of the best models in all of science, and along with the mountain of evidence for other implications of relativity, its safe to say that nothing with mass can travel faster than c.

>>8850010
>>8850142
Out of curiosity, if we somehow could acquire nearly infinite amounts of energy what would prevent us to acclerete a relatively small object over the speed of light? What happens with the said object between c=0.999 and c=1?

>>8849821
The alcubierre drive is basically engineering fiction, or a ready-made design for something that could work IF the prerequisite negative mass stuff could be generated. It's not something to be researched in itself, it's something to try building if we generate negative mass.

File: MoreEnergy.png (6KB, 808x476px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 808x476px

>>8850172
Made a graph for you anon, this is speed as a function of energy when approaching lightspeed according to special relativity

>>8850203
Thanks anon.

>>8850203
most autistic way to make this graph

>>8850203
>>8850225
>>8850332
One quick google for this graph that shows it way better. An object with mass traveling at the speed of light would have infinite kinetic energy.
fuck here is the pic

File: quickgoogle.jpg (82KB, 557x441px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 557x441px

fuck how do computers work

>>8850010
the velocity of effect distribution is exactly lightspeed.

>>8850203
Shouldn't that y-axis say 10^8 ?
Seems like you're going with a speed 100 times higher

>>8850405
*10 times higher

>>8850410
fuck, can't even get the correcting right

>>8850405
Yup, got the c constant wrong.

>>8850172
>what would prevent us to acclerete a relatively small object over the speed of light?
As you reach close to the speed of light the energy needed to accelerate even a infinitesimally small amount increases to infinity, basically eventually you would need more energy than could ever exist to move faster at all, also you would be experiencing such an enormous amount of time dilation that the universe would end in front of you.

>>8850338

>One quick google for this graph that shows it way better. An object with mass traveling at the speed of light would have infinite kinetic energy.

So what would observers outside of the FTL-traveling spacecraft see as the spacecraft approaches c?

Would the spacecraft explode with a tremendous amount of energy, potentially enough to destroy an entire planet?

>>8849854
It's a dead end because tiny particles become bullets all aimed at your testicles and forehead.

>>8854157
nah they'd see multiple past images of it, kinda neat

>>8854157
>So what would observers outside of the FTL-traveling spacecraft see as the spacecraft approaches c?

It would shrink along the direction of travel. At c, it would have zero length.

>>8850172
Well, for one, the object would be destroyed at the subatomic level hypothetically speaking since many of the fundamental forces responsible for holding particles together operate at the speed of light... Of course, this is a hypothetical since the graph of energy required to accelerate the object is asymptotic.

>>8850058
>The universe expands faster than light can be generated
>be generated

Are you dumb?

>>8854174
You don't understand how it works if you think that.

>>8850010

>a dead guy wrote an equation 100 years ago which said so it must be immutable don't bother looking