Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 108

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    I like SF. SF is cool. Steven L Jordan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Germantown, Md.
    Posts
    456

    Replacing the hated “warp drive”

    It's been a pet peeve of mine for years. I researched for years to find a way around it, and wrote two books based on my solution. It's one of the things that threatens to turn a perfectly good science fiction story to fantasy in an instant. It's warp drive. And I hate it.

    Warp drive was a concept created by writers of science fiction who knew that the distances between stars were too immense to allow humans to travel about and actually live to reach the other side. It provided for romantic stories about traveling from star to star as easily as we sail from shore to shore, in great and powerful ships run by military discipline much like their seafaring ancestors. It gave us Forbidden Planet, which begat Star Trek, and the "new planet every week" television show.

    And yes, I've done it myself. One of my most popular series, The Kestral Voyages, applies a warp drive system much like that featured on Star Trek, giving me a Galarchy of planets and a commercial network for my heroes to ply the stars. Lots of room for romantic adventure. Easy. Familiar. Understandable.

    The problem is, it's a crock. It won't work. Why? Because, however you plan to do it, it would require more power than any human-built construct could ever hold, or any engine could ever process. We're talking on the order of stellar energy outputs every second... except that, wait, even that's not enough. And you wouldn't be able to see ahead of you... or detect and move unexpected obstacles before you run right into them. It's suicidal as well as impossible.

    Most SF writers know this... or they choose to ignore it. Some of them may believe that, like the sound barrier, we just have to push hard enough to "break through" it and the rest is cake. Others like to believe that yes, we can commandeer the power required to move faster than light, once we figure out how to control anti-matter or zero-point energy. Some think we can gain the ability to control time, or to insert our ships into "hyperspace," another dimension that allows you to travel to other planets but by a shorter route (because, in hyperspace, everything is apparently much closer together). Some delight in filling pages with jargon that pretends to solve the inherent impossibilities of the task. And some just like to say "Ah, what the hell... warp speed, Scotty!" and ignore the contradictions and impossibilities inherent in what they're doing. (In terms of the Kestral books, that last writer is me.)

    It's a cheap literary shortcut, as cliché as the cavalry coming over the hill in the nick of time and the detective who never gets hit by a fusillade of bullets, but hits his mark and downs his crook with one shot every time. And readers who wouldn't accept elves and unicorns in their stories open wide and swallow warp drives whole, then mumble "Thank you sir, may I have another?" through jargon-stuffed mouths.

    So why do we do it? Is it impossible to write science fiction without resorting to that stereotypically-impossible trope? And is it impossible for readers to appreciate a story without it? I don't think so; it's just that it's been with us for so long, we don't really see it anymore. It's become a sort of blind spot, the ever-present cowboy hat on the hero's head, part of the landscape.

    And it self-supports a certain type of story, like a tree on a hill that can threaten the hero with a hanging—how can you threaten to hang the hero if there are no trees? If we want to write a story in which the hero is threatened with hanging, it's just too easy to write in some trees somewhere.

    When I decided to write a realistic SF story taking place in space, I researched possibilities of traveling among the stars that didn't involved fictional alternate dimensions and impossible amounts of power; something that actually seemed plausible.

    As a long-time reader of Scientific American, I struggle my way through most of the articles involving one aspect or another of quantum physics on a regular basis. To be honest, not a few of them left me in the dust, and many others left as many questions as they answered (assuming I even knew what the questions were!). But I managed to slog through most every article that tied quantum physics into the makeup of our universe… and suddenly, certain things started to add up. I went back through my magazines, re-read articles, started taking notes, and Lo and Behold, a possible method of intergalactic travel suitable for believable science fiction began to suggest itself!

    The concept that the universe has a “quantum frequency,” unique at every distance from the center of the universe, is borrowed from the Scientific American June 2005 article entitled “Inconstant Constants.” It identifies a Fine Structure Constant (alpha), which defines the strengths of the interactions of elementary particles, and which suggests different interactions at different degrees of alpha… in other words, a unique frequency at any specific radius from universal center. This is a function (one among many) of the expanding universe around us.

    This detail meshes well with the Hubble constant, which indicates that the universe is expanding faster where it is further away from universal center than it is closer in. The differing expansion rates cause measurable changes in light frequencies, creating a seeming paradox of objects that, from our point of view, can travel “faster than light.” These observations are described in the Scientific American March 2005 article “Misconceptions About the Big Bang.”

    These, and lesser articles in SciAm and other sources, were my basis for the “quantum frequency” that a signal-broadcasting system could manipulate on a local level, essentially altering the frequency of anything within its influence.

    Couple this with many experiments in accelerating quantum particles, resulting in their “disappearance” from one position and “reappearance” in another position. In these experiments, the quantum particles seem to traverse a distance faster than light could travel. Don’t ask me how any scientist manages to tell one quantum particle from another, but they are certain these particles are one and the same… meaning that they are covering a distance faster than light. Most scientists believe they are traveling through another dimension, in an effect they call “quantum tunneling.”

    I tied “quantum frequency” and “quantum tunneling” together by suggesting that quantum particles, having a new quantum frequency forced upon them, will automatically “tunnel” to the distance from universal center that corresponds to that quantum frequency. The demonstrated effect of “quantum entanglement” suggests that, if the particles all “tunnel” at the same time, they will maintain position and state with each other, resulting in a collection of particles arriving in the same overall state as when they departed.

    The concept of a "jump drive" creates a very different dynamic for a space story: No longer do the characters sail a vast, black ocean between stars, like their ancestors did back on Earth; they now set some equipment, flip a switch and they're there. The tropes of long isolated voyages and vast distances common to stories in our past no longer apply. The old romance is gone.

    But that's okay: We know how to make new romances. Science fiction is about investigating and revealing the differences in our lives that science will one day bring upon us. In the same ways that we interact, communicate, work, play, learn and maintain ourselves differently with the help of scientific discoveries, so we can expect to travel differently through space. The rebooted Battlestar Galactica showed us a jump drive, and a way of life built around it, and it was not sterile or boring. It was different... the essence of science fiction.

    We can stop treating space stories as extensions of Horatio Hornblower, and imagine them in a new way, a world that doesn't depend on the old notions of travel, and invents brand new ones. It's time to leave the old centuries' notions behind, and see where the new centuries will take us.
    Last edited by Steven L Jordan; July 30th, 2012 at 12:21 PM. Reason: Entire post submitted.

  2. #2
    Registered User Pennarin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Rimouski, Canada
    Posts
    330
    Done, Steven!

  3. #3
    Live Long & Suffer psikeyhackr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Sol III
    Posts
    2,880
    Any system is a "crock" until we get it working.

    Whether you call it wormholes, folded space, stargates or quantum entanglement makes no difference.

    Even if we can get quantum entanglement to work with subatomic particles across the entire solar system it does not matter until it works with macroscopic objects over light years it is a "crock".

    Until the Moon landing happened it was a "crock".

    Lunar colonies are a "crock".

    Lots of good science fiction is a "crock". Expanding people's minds is a "crock" because it motivates some of them to turn things into non-crocks.

    psik

  4. #4
    Registered User JimF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post

    Until the Moon landing happened it was a "crock".

    Lunar colonies are a "crock".


    psik
    I would disagree on these points. Before we landed on the moon it was perfectly feasible according to the current science of the day. (well understood Newtonian Physics) All that was needed was the political will to make it possible.

    Similarly now we do not have lunar colonies, or a ship capable of a manned landing on mars for that matter. Both are easily within our technolgical grasp, but we do not have the political will to build them.

    Not being willing to do something is not the same as not being able to do something. We could pour our whole planet's treasure into building a warp drive have nothing to show because the science is not understood and may never be. We could be on the Moon or Mars in short order if there was the money available.

    Jim

  5. #5
    Registered User Werthead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colchester, Essex, United Kingdom
    Posts
    3,645
    Note that this board does not allow links to one's own personal blog. If a point is worth making, they ask that we make it on the board itself (and yes, this is in contradiction to every other message board ever, which allows it and it's fine, but that's how SFFWorld rolls).

    That said, any kind of FTL or lightspeed-circumventing device (both are effectively the same) is as much of a crock as another, whether it's done from a quantum perspective or not. In fact, for all of its crockness, the Star Trek warp drive (known in real theoretical physics, if you pardon the paradox, as the Alcubierre drive) is more plausible than most proposed solutions, which tend to rely on laws of physics that we do not yet understand or even know for sure exists. Warp drive requires bending all sorts of existing laws and more energy than exists in a supernova, but at least has some kind of (very) vague basis in reality.

    To be frank, if writers want to 'keep it real', they should do what Reynolds does in Pushing Ice and the Revelation Space trilogy by outlawing all FTL travel altogether and solely using relativity to get from star to star in a few weeks (from the traveller's point of view, whilst years pass outside the ship).

  6. #6
    I like SF. SF is cool. Steven L Jordan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Germantown, Md.
    Posts
    456
    Quote Originally Posted by Werthead View Post
    Note that this board does not allow links to one's own personal blog. If a point is worth making, they ask that we make it on the board itself (and yes, this is in contradiction to every other message board ever, which allows it and it's fine, but that's how SFFWorld rolls).
    Sorry. I looked and did not find that in the subject guidelines. If the moderators prefer, I'll be glad to paste the entire posting here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Werthead View Post
    Warp drive requires bending all sorts of existing laws and more energy than exists in a supernova, but at least has some kind of (very) vague basis in reality.
    It was the bending that always bothered me: For instance, creating the time-warp bubble wherein the ship would travel, and of course, the energy requirement. I always wanted something that sounded like something we could understand, and have a chance of pulling off, given today's physics knowledge. And quantum tunneling and entanglement have both been demonstrated in the lab.

  7. #7
    Live Long & Suffer psikeyhackr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Sol III
    Posts
    2,880
    Quote Originally Posted by JimF View Post
    I would disagree on these points. Before we landed on the moon it was perfectly feasible according to the current science of the day. (well understood Newtonian Physics) All that was needed was the political will to make it possible.
    Politicians do engineering. Now that is science fiction.

    You can BELIEVE it is possible until it is done, but you can't KNOW it's possible until it is done.

    Who knew about the Van Allen belts until an sensor pack was sent up to detect them? What if they had been so intense that people could not survive going through them. It would not be just a matter of Newtonian physics.

    psik

  8. #8
    Registered User JimF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
    Politicians do engineering. Now that is science fiction.

    You can BELIEVE it is possible until it is done, but you can't KNOW it's possible until it is done.

    Who knew about the Van Allen belts until an sensor pack was sent up to detect them? What if they had been so intense that people could not survive going through them. It would not be just a matter of Newtonian physics.

    psik
    I never said that politicians do engineering. But Politicians do the control the funding. The US Got to the moon because of will of John Kennedy and the desire to one up the Russians.

    Hypothetical aside, engineering is not science. Like I said Newtonian Physics got us to the moon. The science was understood long before the engineering made it possible. There currently is no scientific understanding of wormholes or warp drives and there will be no way to engineer a warp drive or wormhole ship until that understanding is achieved, if ever. I don't just believe that lunar or Martian colonies can exist, I know that they are scientifically possible.

    Jim
    Last edited by JimF; July 31st, 2012 at 02:09 PM.

  9. #9
    Fulgurous Moderator KatG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    In a Cloud
    Posts
    12,289
    Quote Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
    Any system is a "crock" until we get it working.

    Whether you call it wormholes, folded space, stargates or quantum entanglement makes no difference.

    Even if we can get quantum entanglement to work with subatomic particles across the entire solar system it does not matter until it works with macroscopic objects over light years it is a "crock".

    Until the Moon landing happened it was a "crock".

    Lunar colonies are a "crock".

    Lots of good science fiction is a "crock". Expanding people's minds is a "crock" because it motivates some of them to turn things into non-crocks.

    psik
    What have you done with the real psikeyhackr?

  10. #10
    Live Long & Suffer psikeyhackr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Sol III
    Posts
    2,880
    Quote Originally Posted by KatG View Post
    What have you done with the real psikeyhackr?
    You mean, you never understood THE REAL psikeyhackr?

    psik

  11. #11
    I like SF. SF is cool. Steven L Jordan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Germantown, Md.
    Posts
    456
    I expected people to challenge the idea of dismissing faster-than-light travel, and even my solution to get around it. I didn't really expect comments that seem to dismiss what we do know in physics... for instance, the evidence that no particle can travel faster than light (or lack of evidence for any particle that can travel FTL). Believing that we just haven't yet discovered faeries and magic doesn't mean they exist. Believing we just haven't discovered time-warp fields doesn't mean we'll someday create one.

    Of course, my method uses elements we may never invent, as well. I just say my method is more likely and practical than FTL travel.

    My main point, of course, was actually the idea that it's the old, romantic conventions that we need to examine, and in many cases to recognize if we are keeping them, however impractical, simply because they are romantic.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
    Any system is a "crock" until we get it working.

    Whether you call it wormholes, folded space, stargates or quantum entanglement makes no difference.

    Even if we can get quantum entanglement to work with subatomic particles across the entire solar system it does not matter until it works with macroscopic objects over light years it is a "crock".

    Until the Moon landing happened it was a "crock".

    Lunar colonies are a "crock".

    Lots of good science fiction is a "crock". Expanding people's minds is a "crock" because it motivates some of them to turn things into non-crocks.

    psik
    I'm with you on this one, just because it hasn't been done yet doesn't mean it can't be done. People use to think the Sun revolved around the Earth at one time, until science figured out that wasn't the case. Maybe that's a bad example but my point is that just because we haven't figured it out yet does not mean we won't.

  13. #13
    I like SF. SF is cool. Steven L Jordan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Germantown, Md.
    Posts
    456
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Gray View Post
    I'm with you on this one, just because it hasn't been done yet doesn't mean it can't be done. People use to think the Sun revolved around the Earth at one time, until science figured out that wasn't the case. Maybe that's a bad example but my point is that just because we haven't figured it out yet does not mean we won't.
    But by contrast, just because we don't know everything doesn't mean that we don't know enough. There is no evidence of a faster-than-light anything out there, and our science is good enough to detect just about every kind of particle that exists. Our science has, however, managed to strike photons with lasers and trigger quantum tunneling, covering a distance faster than light. So, right now, there's more of a scientific likelihood of quantum tunneling than there is of FTL travel.

  14. #14
    aurea plectro goldhawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Great White North
    Posts
    566
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven L Jordan View Post
    There is no evidence of a faster-than-light anything out there...
    Sorry but entanglement seems to happens instantaneously. Of course, with Relativity, instantaneously may not have any meaning anymore but entanglement shows that our concept of time, and hence the speed of light, do not account for everything we know. In fact, IIRC, your drive involves entanglement, doesn't it?

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven L Jordan View Post
    But by contrast, just because we don't know everything doesn't mean that we don't know enough. There is no evidence of a faster-than-light anything out there, and our science is good enough to detect just about every kind of particle that exists. Our science has, however, managed to strike photons with lasers and trigger quantum tunneling, covering a distance faster than light. So, right now, there's more of a scientific likelihood of quantum tunneling than there is of FTL travel.
    If the results are the same, then what is the issue? If you're just being anal about FTL being in fiction my question is why can't you just suspend your beliefs for a moment to enjoy a good yarn? Just for example, adults who have read the Harry Potter series know that the magic in it is completely unrealistic but they can still appreciate the fun of the story.
    Last edited by Bob Gray; August 2nd, 2012 at 01:48 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •