Warp Drives Probably Impossible After All

by Ian O'Neill on April 3, 2009

Want to stay on top of all the space news? Follow @universetoday on Twitter

No warp speed ahead

No warp speed ahead

Just when I was getting excited about the possibility of travelling to distant worlds, scientists have uncovered a deep flaw with faster-than-light-speed travel. There appears to be a quantum limit on how fast an object can travel through space-time, regardless of whether we are able to create a bubble in space-time or not…

First off, we have no clue about how to generate enough energy to create a “bubble” in space-time. This idea was first put on a scientific grounding Michael Alcubierre from the University of Mexico in 1994, but before that was only popularized by science fiction universes such as Star Trek. However, to create this bubble we need some form of exotic matter fuel some hypothetical energy generator to output 1045 Joules (according to calculations by Richard K. Obousy and Gerald Cleaver in the paper “Putting the Warp into Warp Drive“). Physicists are not afraid of big numbers, and we are not afraid of words like “hypothetical” and “exotic”, but to put this energy in perspective, we would need to turn all of Jupiter’s mass into energy to even hope to distort space-time around an object.

This is a lot of energy.

If a sufficiently advanced human race could generate this much energy, I would argue that we would be masters of our Universe anyway, who would need warp drive when we could just as well create wormholes, star gates or access parallel universes. Yes, warp drive is science fiction, but it’s interesting to investigate this possibility and open up physical scenarios where warp drive might work. Let’s face it, anything less than light-speed travel is a real downer for our potential to travel to other star systems, so we need to keep our options open, not matter how futuristic.

The space-time bubble. Unfortunately, quantum physics may have the final word (Michael Alcubierre)

The space-time bubble. Unfortunately, quantum physics may have the final word (Richard K Obousy & Gerald Cleaver, 2008)

Although warp speed is highly theoretical, at least it is based on some real physics. It’s a mix of superstring and multi-dimensional theory, but warp speed seems to be possible, assuming a vast supply of energy. If we can “simply” squash the tightly curled extra-dimensions (greater than the “normal” four we live in) in front of a futuristic spacecraft and expand them behind, a bubble of stationary space will be created for the spacecraft to reside in. This way, the spaceship isn’t travelling faster than light inside the bubble, the bubble itself is zipping through the fabric of space-time, facilitating faster-than-light-speed travel. Easy.

Not so fast.

According to new research on the subject, quantum physics has something to say about our dreams of zipping through space-time faster than c. What’s more, Hawking radiation would most likely cook anything inside this theoretical space-time bubble anyway. The Universe does not want us to travel faster than the speed of light.

On one side, an observer located at the center of a superluminal warp-drive bubble would generically experience a thermal flux of Hawking particles,” says Stefano Finazzi and co-authors from the International School for Advanced Studies in Trieste, Italy. “On the other side, such Hawking flux will be generically extremely high if the exotic matter supporting the warp drive has its origin in a quantum field satisfying some form of Quantum Inequalities.”

In short, Hawking radiation (usually associated with the radiation of energy and therefore loss of mass of evaporating black holes) will be generated, irradiating the occupants of the bubble to unimaginably high temperatures. The Hawking radiation will be generated as horizons will form at the front and rear of the bubble. Remember those big numbers physicists aren’t afraid of? Hawking radiation is predicted to roast anything inside the bubble to a possible 1030K (the maximum possible temperature, the Planck temperature, is 1032K).

Even if we could overcome this obstacle, Hawking radiation appears to be symptomatic of an even bigger problem; the space-time bubble would be unstable, on a quantum level.

Most of all, we find that the RSET [renormalized stress-energy tensor] will exponentially grow in time close to, and on, the front wall of the superluminal bubble. Consequently, one is led to conclude that the warp-drive geometries are unstable against semiclassical back-reaction,” Finazzi adds.

However, if you wanted to create a space-time bubble for subluminal (less-than light speed) travel, no horizons form, and therefore no Hawking radiation is generated. In this case, you might not be beating the speed of light, but you do have a fast, and stable way of getting around the Universe. Unfortunately we still need “exotic” matter to create the space-time bubble in the first place…

Sources: “Semiclassical instability of dynamical warp drives,” Stefano Finazzi, Stefano Liberati, Carlos Barceló, 2009, arXiv:0904.0141v1 [gr-qc], “Investigation into Compactified Dimensions: Casimir Energies and Phenomenological Aspects,” Richard K. Obousy, 2009, arXiv:0901.3640v1 [gr-qc]

Via: The Physics arXiv Blog

About

[Follow me on Twitter (@astroengine)]

[Check out my space blog: Astroengine.com]

[Check out my radio show: Astroengine Live!]

Hello! My name is Ian O'Neill and I've been writing for the Universe Today since December 2007. I am a solar physics doctor, but my space interests are wide-ranging. Since becoming a science writer I have been drawn to the more extreme astrophysics concepts (like black hole dynamics), high energy physics (getting excited about the LHC!) and general space colonization efforts. I am also heavily involved with the Mars Homestead project (run by the Mars Foundation), an international organization to advance our settlement concepts on Mars. I also run my own space physics blog: Astroengine.com, be sure to check it out!

  • richard

    come on even space goes faster than the speed of light-don’t give me this bullsh*t. and if this is true we should be seeing this hawking sh*t happen everywhere because there are gravitanol waves going through all of space and that space is moving faster than light(the inflation and also dark energy effect ) .he must have forgot that one.go over it again buddy.

  • David S

    “he must have forgot that one”

    *You* are forgetting that the stuff you are mentioning doesn’t have any mass. Photons move at the speed of light because they have no mass. If something has mass, the mass increases with speed, thus requiring more energy to go faster, and then you attain more mass, and need more energy, and so on.

    And how does “space” travel faster than light when space is nothing? Nothing has speed?

  • Lawrence B. Crowell

    Believe me, I don’t know it all by any stretch! I do know a thing or two about general relativity. I also think on a broader basis that nature can only exist if it is self-organized according to principles which don’t lead to contradictions, or 0 = 1. The problem with warp drives and related spacetimes is that if they are possible then time travel is also possible. This leads to causality paradoxes, such as the old conundrum of going back in time and killing your parents before you are conceived.

    Lawrence B. Crowell

  • http://www.freewebs.com/principleuniverse/ Todd Coolen

    I think a good place to start is right here at home with time travel. One big obstacle is defining the space that must be used and I say that we don’t have to go right to light speed to do this. Our galaxy does speed through space. The first problem is to define the time without disturbing the space…. like a timeless bubble that can remain in a given space. It would be very hard initially to define a future space that the galaxy will travel to, in order for your body (or whatever object) to ‘catch up’ with the given space. In the former idea, future travel will be possible — a one-way mission. HG WELLs right?

    The second small step.

    Todd

  • Icecycle

    The Universe does not care what I think.
    (Referencing pathetic fallacy)

    So, you know, said Universe probably won’t stop me from FTL or time travel.

    This form of (warp drive(1)) might well be impossible, time travel might be beyond impossible(2) but I do think that FTL will be possible some day.

    Personally, I would re investigate the speed of gravity paying particular attention to the idea that since gravity waves do not have an EM component then they should not be constrained by the speed limits applied to photons(3).

    I would then take a closer look at dark matter and Brane/M theory.

    (1)warp drive and wormhole are two phrases that annoy me; but no one else seems to care.

    (2)Really, there is more evidence for UFOs and Psychic fruitloop foolishness than the possibility of time travel; what is wrong with people?

    (3) Maxwell’s equations, damnit. Whenever anyone mentions universal policeman in my presence I am tempted to hit them; see first paragraph.

  • http://www.dalaman.org.uk Dalaman

    Great stuff. Nice to read some well written posts that have some relevancy !

  • David Marjanovi?

    OilIsMastery, what point is it supposed to have to quote philosophers on physics? Especially philosophers who died before the physics we’re talking about was worked out?

    So, radiation would cook our fragile biological bodies?. If we do at some point in the future become a spacefaring species, I doubt we will still be biological entities.
    Always did wonder about the human desire to create robots in our likeness. :-)

    Do you have any idea what 1030 K means…? Hint: everything becomes a plasma at 104 K, and somewhere around 1012 K, IIRC, everything becomes a quark-gluon plasma.

    And I am old enough to remember when physicists conclusively proved that:
    1. Bumblebees could not fly.

    They showed that bumblebees can’t fly the way an airplane or most birds do.

    Guess what, they were right. Bumblebees don’t fly that way. They fly more like how hummingbirds hover.

    So what would happen if we came upon a technology that allows quantum scale physics to effectively scale up to the macroscopic?

    How is that supposed to work? Particles interact with each other. That’s the “observation” that makes the wavefunction collapse. Yes, it works with C70 molecules, but the bigger an object, the more difficult it gets.

    Unless perhaps if we cool stuff down till it forms a Bose-Einstein condensate. Ha, ha.

    There is an infinite transcendental level and it underlies the relative.

    Show us. Put up or shut up. Publish.

    And yes! I have the proof of RH

    Then why didn’t you publish long ago!?!

    As for exotic fuel needed for this venture why can’t someone use nuclear waste that sits under Nevada and other places to develop this?

    That’s ordinary matter, not exotic matter. Exotic matter is what the LHC will maybe produce – one particle at a time…

    It’s like the Darwin version of elemental evolution.

    As an evolutionary biologist, I can’t fathom what you might mean.

    The history of the Earth shows that the planet appears to allow speices to grow and prosper.
    Right when they feel that they are MASTERS of the Universe Nature steps in and puts them in their place, which is called EXTINCTION.

    Complete nonsense.

    Television and radio work this way, by transferring virtual images and sounds as pure energy waves

    …which move at the speed of light.

    Besides, have you got any evidence for those “vibrations or emanations of matter”?

    Why do we speculate, or bother questing, when we have Lawrence B. to set us straight?
    SInce he has all the answers, why don’t we just hand the universe to him and sit back and sip our sodas?

    How dare anyone know more than you.

    Go study quantum physics, and then come back to explain why he’s wrong. I wish you good-afternoon. See you in 10 years. <wave>

    since gravity waves do not have an EM component then they should not be constrained by the speed limits applied to photons

    Not to photons. To massless particles (such as gravitons) in general. To information in general even.

  • David Marjanović

    So <b> and <blockquote> are allowed, but <sup> and <sub> aren’t… of course “104″, “1012″ and “1030″ are supposed to mean 10^4, 10^12 and 10^30, and “C70″ is C with subscript 70…

    Go study quantum physics

    And relativity, obviously. Could still be feasible in 10 years, though.

Previous post:

Next post: