The Alcubierre faster than light warp drive

arxiv.org...

A very interesting paper produced by Theoretical Physicist Miguel Alcubierre back in 1994.

You can find the entire paper in the above link and this is the abstract.

It is shown how, within the framework of general relativity and without the introduction of wormholes, it is possible to modify a spacetime in a way that allows a spaceship to travel with an arbitrarily large speed. By a purely local expansion of spacetime behind the spaceship and an opposite contraction in front of it, motion faster than the speed of light as seen by observers outside the disturbed region is possible. The resulting distortion is reminiscent of the ``warp drive'' of science fiction. However, just as it happens with wormholes, exotic matter will be needed in order to generate a distortion of spacetime like the one discussed here

The Alcubierre wrap drive considers the idea we can build up spacecraft that can travel faster than light by contracting the space in front of the spacecraft and expanding the space behind it. This way no physical laws are violated but there are issues with how we achieve this.

The Alcubierre metric is a solution of the Einstein's Field Equations and hence possible from a mathematical viewpoint. Other famous solutions are the Schwarzschild metric and Kerr metric describing respectively stationary and rotating black holes.

The problem with the Alcubierre drive is to do with the energy-density of the field which needs to be lower than the vacuum energy density. In a few words we require exotic matter to achieve this negative energy density. A property of exotic matter is to accelerate at the opposite direction of the applied force. Without exotic matter we can't achieve the Alcubierre drive. But Alcubierre argued that the Casimir vacuum between parallel plates could fulfill the negative-energy requirement for the Alcubierre drive.

en.wikipedia.org...

phys.org...

Can you imagine the energy required to create and harness a self-sustained , rotating at the speed of light black hole ?
I hope you can , because I am unable to .
Maybe , if the scientists would play Mass Effect they would come up with their own Element 0.
Or find it on Mars ......

a reply to: AlienBorg

I don't know why some people think it is so complicated to envision a faster than SOL drive. Maybe it is because of Einsteinian thinking that has so long dominated such thinking?

The simple truth is evidence in about every UFO shape that we see, whether it is a conventional "saucer," orb, cube, triangle or cigar" shape. Such objects are enveloped in a field that shields them from the effects of gravity, mass and inertia. We know what certain other fields are and how to generate them, so to image a null-mass field surrounding a ship is not, exactly rocket science for sure, but it is quite easy to imagine such a device.

I have many times on ATS over the years mentioned this concept but few people can allow themselves to venture beyond the limits that Carl Sagan emphatically stretched Einstein's theory for his own nefarious reasons.

Reciting the laws of pure physics is not the ultimate and final end to what is possible. Ten pounds alone of copper and iron cannot power your air conditioner, but assemble those components into complicated motors and "Viola." Add a few millions of years to any intelligent being and I'll bet they will eventually come up with their own devices, which, may resemble to us as saucer, orb, cube, triangle or cigar shape.

"Spooky action at a distance" is faster than light, but science dont know what it is yet, when they do and are able to harness it to entangle locations, well who knows, Just a thought.

All the best

originally posted by: Observer19
a reply to: AlienBorg

I don't know why some people think it is so complicated to envision a faster than SOL drive. Maybe it is because of Einsteinian thinking that has so long dominated such thinking?

The simple truth is evidence in about every UFO shape that we see, whether it is a conventional "saucer," orb, cube, triangle or cigar" shape. Such objects are enveloped in a field that shields them from the effects of gravity, mass and inertia. We know what certain other fields are and how to generate them, so to image a null-mass field surrounding a ship is not, exactly rocket science for sure, but it is quite easy to imagine such a device.

I have many times on ATS over the years mentioned this concept but few people can allow themselves to venture beyond the limits that Carl Sagan emphatically stretched Einstein's theory for his own nefarious reasons.

Reciting the laws of pure physics is not the ultimate and final end to what is possible. Ten pounds alone of copper and iron cannot power your air conditioner, but assemble those components into complicated motors and "Viola." Add a few millions of years to any intelligent being and I'll bet they will eventually come up with their own devices, which, may resemble to us as saucer, orb, cube, triangle or cigar shape.

One needs to be able to understand general relativity well to understand or even consider the possibility of speeds faster than the speed of light. The problem is the nature of general relativity which involves a lot of mathematics.

a reply to: AlienBorg

You posted to my post:

"One needs to be able to understand general relativity well to understand or even consider the possibility of speeds faster than the speed of light. The problem is the nature of general relativity which involves a lot of mathematics."

No. No! Don't pose that old chestnut about "you need to know science" to understand....
Just go outside a lot and look up. There is nothing complicated about it. Math and physics? Yeah. You would need that knowledge to design a null-mass emitter, but to simply talk about it, but to envision it? Naw! Back about 1900 most scientifically-trained people were saying that human flight was impossible until a couple of bicycle mechanics decided that if birds could do it they could too.

And I'll repeat something I assumed would be clear: The various UFOs we see for over seven decades now are clear evidence that null-mass motions are available to many other civilizations. This is probably the biggest bugaboo in the whole dilemma: The ETs openly display this ability and we don't have it. What a fab weapon that would be for a earthly power, worth seven decades of denial just on that one feature.

originally posted by: Observer19
a reply to: AlienBorg

You posted to my post:

"One needs to be able to understand general relativity well to understand or even consider the possibility of speeds faster than the speed of light. The problem is the nature of general relativity which involves a lot of mathematics."

No. No! Don't pose that old chestnut about "you need to know science" to understand....
Just go outside a lot and look up. There is nothing complicated about it. Math and physics? Yeah. You would need that knowledge to design a null-mass emitter, but to simply talk about it, but to envision it? Naw! Back about 1900 most scientifically-trained people were saying that human flight was impossible until a couple of bicycle mechanics decided that if birds could do it they could too.

And I'll repeat something I assumed would be clear: The various UFOs we see for over seven decades now are clear evidence that null-mass motions are available to many other civilizations. This is probably the biggest bugaboo in the whole dilemma: The ETs openly display this ability and we don't have it. What a fab weapon that would be for a earthly power, worth seven decades of denial just on that one feature.

My comment was in relation to general relativity which is a mathematical theory.

It's true at that time scientists were arguing you can't really fly if the density of the object is higher than the density of air. But it was wrong.

But this is not related to my comment above .

Allegedly we have had such things for a long time. Ben Rich of Lockheed Skunkworks said we have the technology to take ET home. But will breakthroughs ever be announced and admitted, or are such things for a breakaway civilization we will never be invited to?

originally posted by: Kammlersgrdaughter77
Allegedly we have had such things for a long time. Ben Rich of Lockheed Skunkworks said we have the technology to take ET home. But will breakthroughs ever be announced and admitted, or are such things for a breakaway civilization we will never be invited to?

You can provide a link even if the source you use relies a lot on speculation.

originally posted by: Gothmog
Can you imagine the energy required to create and harness a self-sustained , rotating at the speed of light black hole ?
I hope you can , because I am unable to .
Maybe , if the scientists would play Mass Effect they would come up with their own Element 0.
Or find it on Mars ......

This comment gets all my stars just because Mass Effect!

Spacetime is only a mathmatical concept used to simplify models of parts of the universe. We must get beyond the limitations of this thinking to get anywhere. At least anywhere of significant distance.

originally posted by: Kammlersgrdaughter77
Allegedly we have had such things for a long time. Ben Rich of Lockheed Skunkworks said we have the technology to take ET home. But will breakthroughs ever be announced and admitted, or are such things for a breakaway civilization we will never be invited to?

The big issue with most of the statements made on this thread is that the assumption is that these apparent observations are indeed valid. Even with the latest information releases etc from the US achieves, i actually find much of it to be unconvincing because they do not really show what people claim they show. Best examples i can give is of things moving in non physical manner... half of the time we rely on eye witness... which is a known issue, then for recorded events or instrumental recordings, Camera work is often more believable to be someone themselves swaying, with no background in the videos for reference. AND poor filming conditions in which very well know optical effects can give you what people claim are somehow proof of Aliens.

So saying "We see Craft!" firstly just that statement i think is a hard sell, iv never seen any evidence that i could honestly say iv ever been convinced by at all. So... your evidence is less motivated than say... the evidence for dark matter, in my opinion.

Secondly some peoples statements, typically the old boys of the day such as with the skunkworks engineer... they did much of their work during the cold war were half of the information floating around at the time was misinformation in order to throw off russian spy activities. So him being involved in secret research, he would be aware of random stuff like this. The issue is, much like Nobel disease, if you think you are someone of importance, keeping secrets and as those secrets slowly become... not secret, egos try to keep people feeling relevant. Eventually something that you know is a bit of spy diversion misinformation, starts to become 'true' to that person.

Best example was the F1117A which that engineer worked on? i think. So at the time, the smoke screen was the F19, an aircraft that never existed... and yet, you could get airfix models of, in 2 different hull designs. Northorp even took out 2 page spreads in aviation magazines talking about it.

It was all a run around to keep the Russians chasing a ghost so that the REAL ghost, the F1117A could be kept secret.

originally posted by: Kammlersgrdaughter77
Allegedly we have had such things for a long time. Ben Rich of Lockheed Skunkworks said we have the technology to take ET home. But will breakthroughs ever be announced and admitted, or are such things for a breakaway civilization we will never be invited to?

The big issue with most of the statements made on this thread is that the assumption is that these apparent observations are indeed valid. Even with the latest information releases etc from the US achieves, i actually find much of it to be unconvincing because they do not really show what people claim they show. Best examples i can give is of things moving in non physical manner... half of the time we rely on eye witness... which is a known issue, then for recorded events or instrumental recordings, Camera work is often more believable to be someone themselves swaying, with no background in the videos for reference. AND poor filming conditions in which very well know optical effects can give you what people claim are somehow proof of Aliens.

So saying "We see Craft!" firstly just that statement i think is a hard sell, iv never seen any evidence that i could honestly say iv ever been convinced by at all. So... your evidence is less motivated than say... the evidence for dark matter, in my opinion.

Secondly some peoples statements, typically the old boys of the day such as with the skunkworks engineer... they did much of their work during the cold war were half of the information floating around at the time was misinformation in order to throw off russian spy activities. So him being involved in secret research, he would be aware of random stuff like this. The issue is, much like Nobel disease, if you think you are someone of importance, keeping secrets and as those secrets slowly become... not secret, egos try to keep people feeling relevant. Eventually something that you know is a bit of spy diversion misinformation, starts to become 'true' to that person.

Best example was the F1117A which that engineer worked on? i think. So at the time, the smoke screen was the F19, an aircraft that never existed... and yet, you could get airfix models of, in 2 different hull designs. Northorp even took out 2 page spreads in aviation magazines talking about it.

It was all a run around to keep the Russians chasing a ghost so that the REAL ghost, the F1117A could be kept secret.


So on the drive system... yeah the issue is the negative energy density, or, exotic negative mass material. which as far as we are aware, doesn't exist, or as yet, has not been observed or created.
It doesn't stop scientists trying to search for mechanisms by which to do it. Again, the fringes of physics have put forward theories and even experiments they say prove the existence of inertial damping or mass nullification, but, without fail thus far, everyone who has done a deep dive to recreate the tests... are never able to reproduce results.

a reply to: ErosA433

Just a comment about the reply you made above with respect to UFOs and how other members try to make connections between these objects/aircraft and wrap drive or any other exotic propulsion.

UFOs do exist, there is plenty of evidence of unidentified aircraft out there, photographic, video, radar, and plenty from the military (which is very important imo). But that doesn't mean all these type of aircraft are using exotic types of propulsion or that their pilots are aliens and the UFOs are coming from other solar systems.

But it is true some of the UFOs have unknown propulsion systems and the way they behave has attracted the attention of governments, scientists, ordinary people, organisations, for many decades now and that's not a surprise.

a reply to: AlienBorg

UFOs exist... it is however a stretch to go and say there is plenty of evidence of unidentified aircraft beyond maybe spy aircraft and experimental conventional aircraft.

Much of it makes zero logical sense and there are a lot of phenomena that can explain like... all of what evidence is put forward. Its ok, it doesn't have to make sense but there are more often than not very mundane explanation ranging from fraud, tricks of photography and videography to known environmental things such as radio reflections etc.

Example - Speed cameras, are not perfect, there are plenty of cases (its still rare) of people being ticketed when they know they are driving at very low speeds, the camera registering some insane speeds due to edge cases and specific weather conditions.

The connections however are not really solid so what i see is people often do this

UFOs are real ( Yes they are)
UFOs being real and some of them turn out to be aircraft (True also, some are aircraft, which can be identified, which means they are no longer UFOs)
THUS... UFOs must have unknown propulsion systems or be of alien origins.

There is no thus. Again As i said before, much of the media claiming aircraft move at rapid speeds or accelerations are often without context or background features against which the motion can be verified. Even the military aircraft videos with sensor locks, the sudden movement can be easily be explained by the following craft loosing the sensor lock briefly and the camera moving back to a default position and or the relative motion of the aircraft producing the same appearance.

What are those things they see? frankly they could be all sorts of things, the jump to "Alien/unknown aircraft" is in my opinion a big stretch.

light wrap drives? I've noticed the aluminum foil seems thinner. Will this make it faster somehow?? Will it stick better to the casserole dish before going in the oven?

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: AlienBorg

UFOs exist... it is however a stretch to go and say there is plenty of evidence of unidentified aircraft beyond maybe spy aircraft and experimental conventional aircraft.

Much of it makes zero logical sense and there are a lot of phenomena that can explain like... all of what evidence is put forward. Its ok, it doesn't have to make sense but there are more often than not very mundane explanation ranging from fraud, tricks of photography and videography to known environmental things such as radio reflections etc.

Example - Speed cameras, are not perfect, there are plenty of cases (its still rare) of people being ticketed when they know they are driving at very low speeds, the camera registering some insane speeds due to edge cases and specific weather conditions.

The connections however are not really solid so what i see is people often do this

UFOs are real ( Yes they are)
UFOs being real and some of them turn out to be aircraft (True also, some are aircraft, which can be identified, which means they are no longer UFOs)
THUS... UFOs must have unknown propulsion systems or be of alien origins.

There is no thus. Again As i said before, much of the media claiming aircraft move at rapid speeds or accelerations are often without context or background features against which the motion can be verified. Even the military aircraft videos with sensor locks, the sudden movement can be easily be explained by the following craft loosing the sensor lock briefly and the camera moving back to a default position and or the relative motion of the aircraft producing the same appearance.

What are those things they see? frankly they could be all sorts of things, the jump to "Alien/unknown aircraft" is in my opinion a big stretch.

Some UFOs have unknown propulsion systems. Already admitted by the US Navy Pilots who have been chasing them or the airline pilots who have seen them. The army has sophisticated equipment to measure or let's say estimate their speeds and they are nothing that we have (at least officially).

That doesn't imply they're alien or using warp drives to reach our planet.

The phenomenon seems to be widespread. It doesn't only happen in the US but all over the world. Other armies are involved as well as civilians.

A stationary observer btw can easily see the difference between conventional and non conventional speeds without the need of equipments..

Pilots are not only see through their equipment but also see with their own eyes. When you corroborated evidence from all sort of sources it doesn't leave you with much doubt about that speeds and capabilities of these objects.

originally posted by: AlienBorg
The problem with the Alcubierre drive is to do with the energy-density of the field which needs to be lower than the vacuum energy density. In a few words we require exotic matter to achieve this negative energy density.

That is certainly "A" problem since the type of exotic matter you discuss has never been observed and may not exist at all, but I wouldn't call it "The problem" which implies there aren't other, perhaps even bigger problems.

A bigger problem may be that even if we got some of this mythical magical exotic matter, it likely still would not work because it's based on a "warp bubble" of sorts (btw, it's warp, not wrap), and according to this paper, warp bubbles are unstable:

Semiclassical instability of dynamical warp drives

Warp drives are very interesting configurations in General Relativity: At least theoretically, they provide a way to travel at superluminal speeds, albeit at the cost of requiring exotic matter to exist as solutions of Einstein's equations. However, even if one succeeded in providing the necessary exotic matter to build them, it would still be necessary to check whether they would survive to the switching on of quantum effects. Semiclassical corrections to warp-drive geometries have been analyzed only for eternal warp-drive bubbles traveling at fixed superluminal speeds. Here, we investigate the more realistic case in which a superluminal warp drive is created out of an initially flat spacetime...
one is led to conclude that the warp-drive geometries are unstable against semiclassical back-reaction.

So if warp bubbles won't work, there are alternatives like wormholes, but they too seem to be unstable. Some think we might be able to send a signal (maybe EM radiation/radio) through a wormhole, but not matter, but until it's tested and demonstrated, it's very speculative.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: AlienBorg
The problem with the Alcubierre drive is to do with the energy-density of the field which needs to be lower than the vacuum energy density. In a few words we require exotic matter to achieve this negative energy density.

That is certainly "A" problem since the type of exotic matter you discuss has never been observed and may not exist at all, but I wouldn't call it "The problem" which implies there aren't other, perhaps even bigger problems.

A bigger problem may be that even if we got some of this mythical magical exotic matter, it likely still would not work because it's based on a "warp bubble" of sorts (btw, it's warp, not wrap), and according to this paper, warp bubbles are unstable:

Semiclassical instability of dynamical warp drives

Warp drives are very interesting configurations in General Relativity: At least theoretically, they provide a way to travel at superluminal speeds, albeit at the cost of requiring exotic matter to exist as solutions of Einstein's equations. However, even if one succeeded in providing the necessary exotic matter to build them, it would still be necessary to check whether they would survive to the switching on of quantum effects. Semiclassical corrections to warp-drive geometries have been analyzed only for eternal warp-drive bubbles traveling at fixed superluminal speeds. Here, we investigate the more realistic case in which a superluminal warp drive is created out of an initially flat spacetime...
one is led to conclude that the warp-drive geometries are unstable against semiclassical back-reaction.

So if warp bubbles won't work, there are alternatives like wormholes, but they too seem to be unstable. Some think we might be able to send a signal (maybe EM radiation/radio) through a wormhole, but not matter, but until it's tested and demonstrated, it's very speculative.

According to this paper. But everything so far is highly speculative and you can come up with a modification which can give you more stable warp drive geometries. We can't conclude that warp drives don't work at this point.

originally posted by: AlienBorg
According to this paper. But everything so far is highly speculative and you can come up with a modification which can give you more stable warp drive geometries. We can't conclude that warp drives don't work at this point.

Right, we can't predict new discoveries and insights, but what we can say is, they don't work, until they do.

Whether someday someone might make one or not in the future is unknown, but my guess is nobody alive today will ever see one.