DIGIT-ARC read-only archive · snapshot: July 23, 2026

Spaceship Could Fly Faster Than Light

44 posts · originally from https://geek.digit.in/community/threads/spaceship-could-fly-faster-than-light.95618/

naveen_reloaded
naveen_reloaded Original post #1
Aug 14, 2008 at 5:33 PM
Travel by bubble might seem more appropriate for witches in Oz, but two physicists suggest that a future spaceship could fold a space-time bubble around itself to travel faster than the speed of light.
We're talking about the very distant future, of course.
The idea involves manipulating dark energy – the mysterious force behind the universe's ongoing expansion – to propel a spaceship forward without breaking the laws of physics.
"Think of it like a surfer riding a wave," said Gerald Cleaver, a physicist at Baylor University. "The ship would be pushed by the spatial bubble and the bubble would be traveling faster than the speed of light."
In theory, the universe grew faster than the speed of light for a very short time after the Big Bang, driven by the dark energy that represents about 74 percent of the total mass-energy budget in the universe. Dark matter constitutes 22 percent of the budget, and normal matter (stars, planets and everything you see) makes up the remaining 4 percent or so.
Strange as it sounds, current evidence supports the notion that the fabric of space-time can expand faster than the speed of light, because the reality in which light travels is itself expanding.
Cleaver and Richard Obousy, a Baylor graduate student, tapped the latest idea in string theory to devise how to manipulate dark energy and accelerate a spaceship. Their notion is based on the Alcubierre drive, which proposes expanding space-time behind the spaceship while also shrinking space-time in front.
String theorists had believed that a total of 10 dimensions exist, including height, width, length and time. The other six dimensions exist largely as unknowns, but everything is based on hypothetical one-dimensional strings. A newer theory, called M-theory, suggests that those strings all vibrate in yet another dimension.
Manipulating that additional dimension would alter dark energy in terms of height, width, and length, Cleaver and Obousy theorize. Such a capability would permit the altering of space-time for a spaceship, taking advantage of dark energy's effect on the universe.
"The dark energy is simultaneously decreased just in front of the ship to decrease (and bring to a stop) the expansion rate of the universe in front of the ship," Cleaver told SPACE.com. "If the dark energy can be made negative directly in front of the ship, then space in front of the ship would locally contract."
This loophole means that the spaceship would not conflict with Einstein's Theory of Relativity, which states that objects accelerating to the speed of light require an infinite amount of energy.
However, the Baylor physicists estimate that manipulating dark energy through the extra dimension requires energy equivalent to the converting the entire mass of Jupiter into pure energy — enough to move a ship measuring roughly 33 feet (10 meters) by 33 feet by 33 feet.
"That is an enormous amount of energy," Cleaver said. "We are still a very long ways off before we could create something to harness that type of energy."
The workaround solution may leave fans of Einstein pleased. But for now, faster-than-light travel remains, like Oz, a pleasant fantasy.


[FONT=&quot]*www.livescience.com/space/080813-tw-warp-speed.html
[/FONT]
Faun
Faun #2
Aug 14, 2008 at 5:48 PM
so the laws are changed now...lolz
Unknown is infinite
Gigacore
Aug 14, 2008 at 6:12 PM
This is something similar to "Ion Drive" or the "Ion Thurst" theory. But it's way too complicated and difficult to achieve.
IronManForever
Aug 14, 2008 at 6:46 PM
Of course; its evident that to have negetive energy to cause a space-time compression infront of the spaceship would require tremendous amount of energy, so much so that it would be enough for a trillion earths' energy needs till the time universe collapses.
Trust me; Buzz lightyear cartoons are less fiction than this. :)
And I'd bet that Stephen Hawking's book 'A Brief History of Time' gives you an experience of wilder fantasies than this. :D
chesss
chesss #6
Aug 14, 2008 at 8:08 PM
^dimag ki dahi kardo :mad: :p

abt the topic, its just a theory.
naveen_reloaded
Aug 14, 2008 at 9:01 PM
Todays theory are tom facts! And proofs...
chesss
chesss #8
Aug 15, 2008 at 12:18 AM
^True , but there are prolly 1000 different theories contradicting each other.
x3060
x3060 #9
Aug 18, 2008 at 2:34 AM
hope these dreams come true ONCE.
MetalheadGautham
Aug 18, 2008 at 7:51 AM
seems impossible. C = max possible velocity. period.
IronManForever
Aug 18, 2008 at 8:45 AM
seems impossible. C = max possible velocity. period.

According to what we have studied till 12th class? Isnt it?

FYI It is assumed that the maximum velocity attainable is C.
Beyond that it's unchartered territory.

Analogy: Classical mechanics vs Quantum mechanics. Classical mechanics does not explain the motion, etc of very small particles. To explain that; quantum mechanics evolved.
Which means; there still needs to come a law which undertakes the fact that
velocity can be greater than C.

What that means; current laws are applicable only to objects have velocity less than or equal to C. The current laws do not enter the scenarios where velocity>C. Period. :)
Faun
Faun #12
Aug 18, 2008 at 11:59 AM
seems impossible. C = max possible velocity. period.
metaaaaaaal anything is possible. You didn't know science's shortcomings. Its all about approximation most of the time
MetalheadGautham
Aug 18, 2008 at 5:27 PM
According to what we have studied till 12th class? Isnt it?

FYI It is assumed that the maximum velocity attainable is C.
Beyond that it's unchartered territory.

Analogy: Classical mechanics vs Quantum mechanics. Classical mechanics does not explain the motion, etc of very small particles. To explain that; quantum mechanics evolved.
Which means; there still needs to come a law which undertakes the fact that
velocity can be greater than C.

What that means; current laws are applicable only to objects have velocity less than or equal to C. The current laws do not enter the scenarios where velocity>C. Period. :)
actually, classical mechanics was for velocities much below C. It was relativity if I remember right, which dealt with velocities close to C.

Anyway, I remembered that there DO exist particles (I forgot the name) which go faster than light. But its supposed to be for extremely short distances or something.
eggman
eggman #14
Aug 18, 2008 at 6:40 PM
actually, classical mechanics was for velocities much below C. It was relativity if I remember right, which dealt with velocities close to C.
Yeah, classic mechanics start breaking up as soon as particle reaches 1% of light speed.
But its still pretty fast!!!!

Anyway, I remembered that there DO exist particles (I forgot the name) which go faster than light. But its supposed to be for extremely short distances or something.

The particles that can travel faster than light as called Tachyons. And yes they do exist , but only in theory!! It's an hypothetical particle.

FYI It is assumed that the maximum velocity attainable is C.
Beyond that it's unchartered territory.

Wrong!! It is not assumed.It's a fact. In fact we can go back into the past if we can travel faster than light. But it is impossible since the mass of object , as we approach the infinity, will keep on increasing and so will the energy required. If a object has to reach c, it'll have to be supplied by infinity amount of energy since it's mass , at c will be infinity . :)
chesss
chesss #15
Aug 18, 2008 at 7:18 PM
wow ..... physics is changing ......
physics has always been changing :) , that is the pure awesomeness of science.
Just wait for LHC now..
IronManForever
Aug 18, 2008 at 9:41 PM
MetalheadGautham said:
actually, classical mechanics was for velocities much below C. It was relativity if I remember right, which dealt with velocities close to C.

Yes; I know that. Im not telling that classical mechanics are for object with velocity upto C; infact much lesser than that.
I just gave an analogy to tell you that there are still laws to evolve which undertake velocity greater than C. Like; once very-small particles were found not-obeying the classical mechanics; quantum mechanics evolved. Similarly; todays laws are for velocity less than or equal to C; and we will definitely get a law for objects moving faster than light, once we come across any such object and study it in detail. Hope Im clear with my 'two-cents'. :)
Faun
Faun #17
Aug 18, 2008 at 11:41 PM
But it is impossible
yolks do use brain but its however again yolks

Who gave you the proof for impossible ?
The_Devil_Himself
Aug 19, 2008 at 12:12 AM
bleh it is very much possible.

for all you naabs:)P),I,for a fact,know that wave velocity(and not the propagation velocity) exceeds the velocity of light under some conditions.I can dig out more details if you guys insist,or maybe not cus that would mean a lot of hard work.
IronManForever
Aug 19, 2008 at 12:25 AM
The_Devil_Himself said:
wave velocity(and not the propagation velocity) exceeds the velocity of light

Do you mean to say that; the wave which is infact energy moving in a curved path, is traversing more distance? than it's linear propagation? in the same time?
amitava82
amitava82 #20
Aug 19, 2008 at 12:31 AM
Is it something new? I still remember an article I read in sometime around 1998 about some laser beam that travels faster than light. I don't remember how they did it (10 years old news wtf). I faintly remember something about diamond, laser beam, refractions and sh!T.. >.<
iMav
iMav #21
Aug 19, 2008 at 12:34 AM
Have you guys never seen the ultra legendary show called - Star Trek?
The_Devil_Himself
Aug 19, 2008 at 12:42 AM
Do you mean to say that; the wave which is infact energy moving in a curved path, is traversing more distance? than it's linear propagation? in the same time?

not exactly,you see the wave of energy which is moving along the strings making up time and space is actually transversing more distance along a hyperbolic curved path at different time instances,these events mostly occur in two or more parallel universes connected by some loose strings.
Faun
Faun #23
Aug 19, 2008 at 12:44 AM
^^yep Devil talks some serious sh!t, appreciable post of yours (duh why does every other post a troll)
iMav
iMav #24
Aug 19, 2008 at 12:47 AM
What rubbish, some loose strings! C'mon man there is nothing called as loose strings. Guys watch Deja Vu, all your Time traveling concepts will be cleared. Denzel Washington movie.
amitava82
amitava82 #25
Aug 19, 2008 at 1:11 AM
not exactly,you see the wave of energy which is moving along the strings making up time and space is actually transversing more distance along a hyperbolic curved path at different time instances,these events mostly occur in two or more parallel universes connected by some loose strings.
He does not know anything what he just told. Anyone wanna bet? >.<
Faun
Faun #26
Aug 19, 2008 at 1:19 AM
^^atleast near to what i read that hyperbolic thing is same when i was a physics geek

but me too dont know nothing about it now
The_Devil_Himself
Aug 19, 2008 at 5:05 PM
What rubbish, some loose strings!.

heh,another string theory naab.Lose strings or complete strings are the only way for time-travel and parallel universes to be possible in string theory,which is in fact the central theme of string theory.Gravitons are supposedly made up of these complete strings.A lot of scientists and theories spectulated their existence,never been seen as of now.Gravitons are the holy grail of GUT physicsts right atm.

He does not know anything what he just told. Anyone wanna bet? >.<
Of course I do.
YOU LOOSE,and since I don't like US currency much,you can send me your bloody PSP instead.

IronManForever said:
Do you mean to say that; the wave which is infact energy moving in a curved path, is traversing more distance? than it's linear propagation? in the same time?
not exactly,you see the wave of energy which is moving along the strings making up time and space is actually transversing more distance along a hyperbolic curved path at different time instances,these events mostly occur in two or more parallel universes connected by some loose strings.

Of course this sh!t was meant not to mean anything.:X.
Abhishek Dwivedi
Aug 19, 2008 at 5:36 PM
That called "Warp Drive" as in Star Trek and "Jump Drive" as in BattleStar Galactica
The_Devil_Himself
Aug 19, 2008 at 5:42 PM
too much TV makes Johnny a dull boi.xD.
Faun
Faun #30
Aug 19, 2008 at 5:56 PM
That called "Warp Drive" as in Star Trek and "Jump Drive" as in BattleStar Galactica
Windows Live Drive ? *s269.photobucket.com/albums/jj44/visio159/Unismilies/79.png
eggman
eggman #31
Aug 19, 2008 at 7:13 PM
^^Since you certainly don't have anything useful to contribute here, it's not necessary for you to post your poor jokes!!!

As for people saying that There has been some thing /laser that moved faster than light or people underestimating the power of yokes, get it straight :that it's not me who is saying that traveling faster than light is impossible!!It's Albert Einstein who said it. Of course, citing that as a proof would be an insult to science. After all, the father of classic physics, Newton had been wrong too. But before jumping to conclusion just understand why Einstein said that.

Now , to understand why it's not possible first take a note that there are two type of mass:
1)Rest Mass( let's consider it m0).
2)relativistic mass(let's consider it m).

That is to say, a parked car(at rest) and an identical car (moving at some velocity ,v) will have different mass, not the same!!!

The relation between these two masses can be given as(sorry for crappy fig):

*img375.imageshack.us/img375/1653/23924811cf8.jpg

See, as the velocity , v increases , m increases too. And if v=c, the mass will be infinity , meaning infinite amount of energy will be required to move / accelerate it.Forget about passing speed of light, even attaining speed of light is not possible.
The reason photons do so , is because they do not have any rest mass!!!.

If , however something travels faster than light it'll actually be time traveling!!!For an observer it will be like watching a object reach its destination even before it left its original place!!! There are other ways to time travel, but that offtopic!!!

Now the only particle that can move faster than light are Tachyons!!! But they are hypothetical. They are yet to be observed , and many believe that they don't exist!!!

And when I say faster than light, I mean it's speed in vacuum!!!!You can actually travel faster than light by reducing light's speed(by say, passing it through water) or something!! It's called Cherenkov Effect!!!But it will be cheating!!!

I will love to hear some arguments against what I said, but please say something with good content!!! Just don't say some thing like "lol!!! Laws are changing now, so all you said was crap" or "Shadows move faster than light!! lol lol lol!! pwn you, omigwad". I probably won't even reply to it!!!
Faun
Faun #32
Aug 19, 2008 at 7:57 PM
^^lolz

I knew that religiously when I was a physics geek. But there was something more I read which I don't remember. Probably someone else will quote it well.

Lolz...its always impossible for strict science followers.
eggman
eggman #33
Aug 19, 2008 at 7:59 PM
^^Damn!!! Never thought of lolz!!! How did I miss that??? Thanks for opening my eyes!!!
Faun
Faun #34
Aug 19, 2008 at 8:02 PM
^^Lol you nub

To quote Richard Feynman "...there is also an amplitude for light to go faster (or slower) than the conventional speed of light
eggman
eggman #35
Aug 19, 2008 at 8:09 PM
^^lolz!!! ha ha.......
Faun
Faun #36
Aug 19, 2008 at 8:11 PM
^^me surrenders, am no physics major *s269.photobucket.com/albums/jj44/visio159/Unismilies/103.png
chesss
chesss #37
Aug 19, 2008 at 8:13 PM
that it's not me who is saying that traveling faster than light is impossible!!It's Albert Einstein who said it.
speed of light has indeed been broken for a few decades now. - the interesting thing is that this happens without breaking relativity!!
How?
AfAIK relativity, is more like 'information' cannot travel faster than the speed of light.
A very interesting article, which talks about it..
summary: they send a laser faster than the speed of light, which means..(bang head on wall warning)
that the laser arrives before beginnning :D :lol:
but this laser cannot transfer 'information'(whatever that means), which apparently is all that matters, and what einstein said
eggman
eggman #38
Aug 19, 2008 at 8:19 PM
@t159:Neither am I!!

But just a little clarification about your quote. What Feynman was saying was related to individual photons,regarding Uncertainty Principle!! However if you consider a non-quantum distance, this fluctuation of more or less speed than c, will eventually even out i.e. on an avg, light will travel at the speed of c.

I have no idea why you bought that quote into picture....
iMav
iMav #39
Aug 19, 2008 at 8:20 PM
OK before I start reporting your posts for off-topic abusing and insults and spreading FUD like aliens exist. Stop it.
eggman
eggman #40
Aug 19, 2008 at 8:23 PM
Just don't say some thing like "Shadows move faster than light
I already said that!!!! Every one knows what you have just said!!!!
speed of light has indeed been broken for a few decades now. - the interesting thing is that this happens without breaking relativity!!
How?
AfAIK relativity, is more like 'information' cannot travel faster than the speed of light.
A very interesting article, which talks about it..
summary: they send a laser faster than the speed of light, which means..(bang head on wall warning)
that the laser arrives before beginnning
but this laser cannot transfer 'information'(whatever that means), which apparently is all that matters, and what einstein said

A great link:*physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/482

Please read it!!
chesss
chesss #41
Aug 19, 2008 at 8:49 PM
^well it seemed to say the same thing that it is 'information' that cannot beat 'c' :confused:
What Feynman was saying was related to individual photons,regarding Uncertainty Principle!! However if you consider a non-quantum distance, this fluctuation of more or less speed than c, will eventually even out i.e. on an avg, light will travel at the speed of c.
over-my-head
Goodday! :)
eggman
eggman #42
Aug 19, 2008 at 9:02 PM
^^Yup!!! When it is said that "Nothing can go faster than light", people don't realize the meaning of "Nothing". :)

And the second part was just my reply to t159's quote!!!
T
The Conqueror #44
Aug 19, 2008 at 9:46 PM
So u mean that these exists just in theory and not in practical? I have just begun in physics world (I am in 9th std), so i am a complete beginner in Physics.