Talk:Warp drive (Star Trek)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Warp Drive

The Warp Reactor or Warp Core or matter-antimatter reactor (with dilithium crystals and all) is the massive energy source needed by the Warp Drive (which have warp coils. Warp coils are some kind of specialized energy conduit that convert energy into a warp field, much like an electrically conductive coil generates a magnetic field when a current is passed through it). The Warp engine is the entire system of reactor, conduits, and drive. The Warp Core is another name for the matter-antimatter reactor (or simply the Warp Reactor). I say this in response to the above section and the Battery section below.

Faster-than-light travel was made possible (In Star Trek) when a benchmark in technological advancement was achieved: cheap abundant energy, and high-energy sources. It is interesting to note terms such as volts, amperes, and gauss are never referenced in star trek world, only energy and power which are more abstract ideas (power is the measure of the transfer of energy.) Since we do not entirely understand what energy actually is, only what it does and how to do things with it, perhaps the original idea behind the warp engine was that it is an 'energy source' in that it generates pure energy which is directed through energy conduits. Perhaps the designers of the Star Trek technology believed that some day we would be able to better understand, harness, and generate energy rather than its (theoretical) subcomponents: electric and magnetic fields.

It is interesting to note the mention of magnetic constrictors and regulators during various episodes and other applications of magnetic fields used to direct energy to and through the engines and other ship-wide systems. Somehow the computers and other systems on-board the starships are able to directly or indirectly use this energy.

Yes it is curious the mention of batteries and reserves when the warp core are not present or functional. It is also interesting that the impulse drives are functional but the warp drives are not functional without the warp core. The only exception where the warp drives are functional without the core is when Wesley Crusher came up with a science experiment that was capable of delivering enough power to the warp drive for a fraction of a second. I wonder why the batteries or reserves aren't capable of this. I also wonder why they never mention electricity (amperes or volts) in relation to the batteries. Of course the word battery is really a generic term for an array of something that can be used in a series or parallel fashion such as soldiers (and may be related to the word battalion) and is not necessarily reserved for an array of electro-chemical cells.

Even though its difficult to envision technology progressing in the direction of 'bigger and heftier' power sources since today technology has been moving in the direction of 'smaller and more efficient'. Back in the late 1960's, the era of ICBMs and astronauts, engineers and scientists were thinking in terms of 'how do we generate more power?' Star trek's warp engine was conceived under this presumption since Roddenbury was consulting with NASA scientists in order to make his science fiction more realistic and reasonable. If Star Trek began today, perhaps everyone would be traveling around the universe using lithium batteries supplying power to complex element and dark-matter gravity lense amalgams strapped to their wrists and hidden beneath a compact digital chronometer (a wrist watch), and everyone would be a member of an 'international team' and would meet by hovering in an on-demand 'space bubble' for weekly meetings while they perform as intergalactic and interplanetary ambassadors and good-will technological missionaries.

Perhaps we should reconsider our approach to technology and revisit the mission to create compact high-energy sources such as star trek's warp core rather than focus on compact low-energy devices and thus provide a path to find ways to manipulate matter and space in curious ways such as force fields, teleportation, and intergalactic travel. -KirkWolff (Talk) 16:46, 24 September 2009 (CDT)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Warp drive (Star Trek) → Warp drive — I have no opinion on this, but I reverted a cut-and-paste move a couple of days back, and there have been a couple more since. Please discuss this and come to a consensus on the move before doing it. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 05:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Strong Support This is by far the most common use of Star Trek and it's safe to assume that most people would be looking for the Star Trek concept. TJ Spyke 07:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Support - most common meaning. But page should have a dab to Faster than light. Patstuart^talk·edits 01:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed from Warp drive (Star Trek) to Warp drive as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 08:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)k

Massive cleanup needed

Sorry to say it, but this article needs a massive pruning and cleanup to bring it to Wikipedia standards. There's a lot of non-scientific material, and a whole lot of original research (the calculations etc.) that really have no place here. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be stubified and built upon from there... might be drastic, but it works much better in the long run to create a quality article. Matthew 23:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've begun the cleanup. Might take a while, though, as I'll be doing it on a section-by-section basis. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Spelling, grammar and punctuation have all been improved - the inconsistency of the article's style has also been rectified, to an extent; I have removed a few irrelevant or repeated sections. I will continue to search for citations where necessary. .RA9609 —Preceding undated comment added 13:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC).

Addendum: Perhaps it might be better to move some of the calculations to an additional section discussing the inconsistency in warp velocities between Star Trek series -- or perhaps this topic should be purely to this section of the main Star Trek article.

To that end, I have removed that which seemed most trivial whilst leaving in a couple of comments regarding general consistency of warp factor velocities, purely to demonstrate - through the occurrence of those inconsistencies - the Star Trek warp drive's low scientific viability as a system of FTL propulsion. .RA9609

Fair use rationale for Image:Ent Warp.jpg

Image:Ent Warp.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Infinite improbability drive

Should this be here ? The hitchhikers guide to the galaxy is ScFi parodie after all :)

parody? at least it makes a bit more sense getting between stars in less than weeks of travel time.

rodenbury said he got the idea from wagon train.. i never remember wagontrain gettin cross country in under 3 months or so. but there was new people formin up every few weeks for another journey.

rodenburry said somethin about running outa galaxy if he made warpspeed too fast. with warp 10 max it takes about 20 hours to get between close stars this IS very like loveboat, or wagon train but only new york to paris or new york to la, not new york to philly to cincinnati to stlouis to salt lake to la theres no stops along the wagon train...

72.49.255.19 17:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Warp drive damages space

Something should probably be added about this as per TNG cannon (Can't remember the episode name) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.174.216 (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

What a B.S. episode that was! Oohhh, pollution of open space! Give me a break. Then they break all accepted science regarding warp drive and make the ship "coast" by turning off the warp engines after getting going. HELLO!! Warp drive is NOT Newtonian propulsion! Are any of you science-impaired TNG/DS9/VOY writers listening??? Brianjcavanaugh (talk) 10:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

To quote a directive from the Federation Council:

„Until we can find a way to counter-act the warp field effect, the council feels our best course is to slow the damage as much as possible. Therefore areas of space found susceptible to warp fields will be restricted to essential travel only and effective immediately all federation vessels will be limited to a speed of warp 5 except in cases of extreme emergency.” (STTNG Episode “Force of Nature”)

Areas of space that are “exposed to warp field energy” will eventually “rupture. Subspace will extrude into normal space forming a rift.” The effect is cumulative.

Sources (http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Warp_drive) suggest that a solution was found quickly.

In a subsequent episode „The Pegasus” Admiral Blackwell authorises Captain Picard to exceed Warp Speed limitations for the duration of the assignment which is another reference to the Council’s directive.

This is too important to be left out from the article.Rpd2 (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Error of preposition

I have changed the following: travel from the Earth to its Moon in July, 1969.

To the following: travel from the Earth to the Moon in July, 1969.

The Moon is not "Earth's Moon", it is the "Moon". It is Earth's "natural satellite", that happens to be named "Moon". Using the term "Moon" as a catch-all for natural satellites promotes ignorance and scientific inaccuracy. No one would call other planets "Earths", so why should other natural satellites be referred to "Moons"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.171.225 (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, when referring to Human space travel, it's perfectly acceptable to write "travel to the Moon" or "travel to Earth's moon." They are both scientifically accurate. "The Moon" is the colloquial name and everyone knows what you mean. If you were standing on another planet that had only one moon, it would be perfectly acceptable to say "let's go to the moon." Every moon-like natural sattelite of any planet is called "a" moon regardless of how many there are. The formal name for Earth's moon is "Luna." When in a scenario of interstellar travel & settlements and you mention a moon or even "the" moon, you would confuse people and would be asked for which moon you're talking about. Beginning with "TNG" and/or "DS9," Earth's moon is referred to as "Luna" when in regards to a specific place, such as "I'm from the Luna colony." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianjcavanaugh (talk • contribs) 01:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

A few tweaks to the above... the Moon's proper name, in English, is "Moon" (capital-M). "Luna" is the Latin word, not the proper English name - although it is frequently used as a name in science fiction. Lower-case "moon" can mean any natural satellite, although prior to the mid-1600s it referred exclusively to ours. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Earth's moon is not named "Moon." It is "a" moon, "the" moon, or "our" moon, but it's formal name is "Luna." Latin words are used frequently in science to provide formal names for things, even if we call them something else in English during everyday conversation. Just like our sun is not named "Sun," it's "Sol." Even though no English speaking people refer to it that way in everyday conversation. When speaking of the moons of our solar system, we don't list them as Titan, Io, Miranda, Moon, Calisto, etc. That's ridiculous.Brianjcavanaugh (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, with regards to the Earth's satellite, it is named "Moon" (capital-M) in the English language. Luna is the Latin name, not the formal name. Similarly, the name of the Sun is the "Sun", capital-S. "Sol" is the Latin name, not the formal name. This question comes up frequently, but can be verified through NASA and the IAU (among others). ("Sol" and "Luna" are used in science fiction, not science; "moon" (small-m) refers to a natural satellite, and "sun" (small-s) isn't used as "Sun" refers only to the star Earth orbits. Likewise, "Solar System" or "solar system" refers only to the Sun and associated planets; it is not a generic term.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

So again, you're suggesting that, when listing the natural sattelites of our solar system, the list would go Metis, Mimas, Miranda, Moon, Naiad...? No, I don't think so. "Moon" may be the official English language name, but when considering this scenario, I'd say most scientists, and those working in science fiction, would agree that Luna is the default proper name.Brianjcavanaugh (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you'd say Metis, Mimas, Miranda, the Moon, Naiad. Honestly, we could discuss this forever, but the Astronomy pages resolved it a long time ago and we sourced it to NASA and the IAU. "Luna" and "Sol" are used primarily in science fiction, not science fact. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter, what matters is that calling something "a moon" or even "the Moon" is confusing when you're dealing with interstellar civilization in which there are hundreds of thousands of moons. Earth's moon is probably the most correct term in this situation.

Real warp drive invented

In reference to the paragraph: The concept of using spatial warping... no concrete technological approach has ever been proposed, nor is there any known way of inducing the effect described by Alcubierre.

A warp drive exists, but it is not proposed to be a FTL device.

This is by Roger Shawyer and his emdrive, using the relativistic effects of bouncing microwaves around a closed waveguide, amplified by a resonating effect, as reported in NewsScientist:

http://technology.newscientist.com/article/mg19125681.400

http://emdrive.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.169.179 (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not a "warp drive." It's more like an ion engine, which was launched a few years ago. They both employ Newtonian propulsion; action/reaction, thrust this way, movement the other. A "warp drive" is a system that bends space to move an object without any Newtonian propulsion.Brianjcavanaugh (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Traveling Faster Than the Speed of Light http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Traveling_Faster_Than_the_Speed_of_Light_999.html Two Baylor University scientists have come up with a new method to cause a spaceship to effectively travel faster than the speed of light, without breaking the laws of physics. The method is based on the Alcubierre drive, which proposes expanding the fabric of space behind a ship and shrinking space-time in front of the ship. The ship would not actually move, rather the ship would sit in a bubble between the expanding and shrinking space-time dimensions. --92.230.132.81 (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Caid

Error

The Enterprise NX-01 didn't go to warp 5 until the episode "Fallen Hero". The highest stated speed they went in "Broken Bow" was 4.4 (4.5 in a deleted scene). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.106.15.247 (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

NASA Link

The NASA link in the External Link section - http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/research/warp/warp.html - no longer exists. I searched the NASA site but did not find a valid url to point at, can someone please remove ? Scotthan (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. Scotthan (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Warp drive and causality

Some discussion about the causality issues of the warp drive could be added. Allen E. Everett at "Warp drive and causality" argued that in some frames the warp drive will produce closed causal loops. The spaceship will appear at the beginning of the trip at some time in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.154.98.131 (talk) 12:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

Was part of this article copied from here: http://www.indopedia.org/Warp_drive.html --DavidMarsh (talk) 23:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Specifically this part While thought experiments on the wilder shores of theoretical physics continue to be formed --DavidMarsh (talk) 23:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Premise of Voyager

I have a question about the premise of Voyager related to warp speed. According to Wikipedia, the Milky Way is 100k light years in diameter. According to this article, and Tom Paris's declaration of warp 9.9 as 4 billion miles per second which is equivelant to 21500 times the speed of light, which again is equivalent to about 2.4 lightyears per hour. At a rate of 2.4 lightyears per hour, or 21500 light-years per year, the Spaceship Voyager could travel from one edge of the milky way to the other in less than 5 years. Supposedly, according to this main article, Warp 9.9 is the sustained speed of Voyager. Why is there such a crisis over 'getting home?' I could imagine a true crisis if Voyager were somehow slung into the Andromeda galexy instead of the Delta Quadrant. Either the warp charts are incorrect, or the entire premise of Voyager is a huge blunder on the part of the star trek writers. -KirkWolff (Talk) 16:46, 24 September 2009 (CDT)

Agreed. According to the Tom Paris statement in The '37s, Voyager could make it home in just over three years at a continuously sustained "warp 9.9". Presumably the point is that the ship only manages to sustain that speed over short bursts, and has a real struggle to get there. So I assume the issue for them is what speed can they sustain continuously, and how often do they run out of fuel.CecilWard (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

split article

I think the article should be split between warp drive in real life and the fictional versions of it. This way both the fact and fiction can be developed better with obvious links to each other. MrMurph101 (talk) 04:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur. We have Alcubierre drive, but there are models as well. Zazaban (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I also agree we should do this and I have added a {{split2}} banner to the article to instigate a formal round of feedback on this proposal. __meco (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this article should be replaced with the disambiguation page currently at Warp drive (disambiguation), the material about warp drives in the context of physics theories merged into Alcubierre drive and the Star Trek stuff extracted to Warp drive (Star Trek). Icalanise (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I also agree those that obviously want to know about star trek will use the term "warp" and the physicists such as myself will know about alcubierre and his work.

Yes, we should make it into two separate articles. Clearly Star Trek is science fiction. That should be separate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.217.179 (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure there is anything much that can be merged into Alcubierre drive and judging by the comments above that does not seem to be the proposal any longer. Can someone please remove the merge template from that article, unless you are really intending to merge something in, in which case can you identify the intended block of text. SpinningSpark 15:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced moved here

However, contrary to common misconceptions, these models are in no sense solutions to the Einstein field equation, and they give no knowledge as to how a warp bubble might actually be established.

I move the above statement here since it has stood challenged since May 2008. If a reference surfaces it can appropriately be reinserted. __meco (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Warping space

doesn't warping space mean that u have no speed? or am i confused with something else? time not being constant also means light isn't a constant, if a part of space had no time/space u couldn't warp trough it, as space without time is also space without substance to warp trough and thus unaccessible by anything which lives in spacetime (dark matter)is avoid of time/light. there is no light in a place without time, and no light in a place without time (best description of space? it's bonkers) Markthemac (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

basically you would be creating a black hole while ripping apart space/time, and thus u could collapse into nothingness (u can't beat time by bending light) Markthemac (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, warping space does mean that you have no linear speed, and what you create by using a warp propulsion system is a worm hole. A worm hole is technically a type of black hole, but it's one that continues beyond the singularity so as to have an exit event horizon as well as an entrance one. Thus, you and your ship would be let out somewhere else in the universe (at your chosen destination) rather than collapsing into a single geometric point.

The "speeds," which being greater than the speed of light can not be linear speeds, are the effective speed based on the end result of how far away you end up in a given amount of time (preferably after a whole series of worm holes that you generate, go through, and then seal up behind you).

Does that answer your question? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The first warp drive in fiction?

Was Star Trek the first fictional work to use the name warp drive for faster-than-light propulsion? If not, when was the term first used in science fiction? --Asakura Akira (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

No. Warp, for a kind of travel, was also used in the film Forbidden Planet, of course, which Gene Roddenberry mentions as an inspiration for Star Trek. (Forbidden Planet also mentioned dates for Men on the Moon, which in the 1950's could not have been known .... I forget the date they used, I think it was after the year 2000, whereas in reality it was 1969). There are quite a few concepts from Forbidden Planet which were later seen in Star Trek, but Warp Drive was one that I remember. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.201.164.39 (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

¶ I have been assured that references to "warp" transit appear in Einstein's work. Using Google-Books search, for pre-1965 mentions of "warp drive", there were several mentions in 1950s science fiction magazines (and one mention in Punch magazine for 1956). So the concept and the term clearly pre-dates StarTrek considerably. Sussmanbern (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Residual effects of warp traffic

I recall an episode where heavy warp traffic in a given sector was analogized to a carpet wearing thin, though it was creating bubbles. The outcome at the end of the episode was supposed to be new regulations over warp speeds and traffic. I would expect to see a reference to that here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.203.181.181 (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

According to my calculations after some conversions, the time it would take to go "home" for them if they helt the "4 billion mph" as said 21.000 times the speed of light it would take them 116,666719115999351 minutes if they were 70.000 lightyears away in the "delta quadrant" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.0.206 (talk) 01:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3