It's not just the amount of energy that's prohibitive, but the type as well. The theory Alcubierre came up with calls for negative energy, something we have created in a lab. The energy required is not all the stars that exist it's a lot, but no where near that much. Again, it's all theory, but the math works out, in relation to Einstein's theories that is.
It's called ignoring the video and not reading the article, then you'd see how wrong that statement is, and how closed minded some people really are to the possibilities that we really could go faster than light.
Yet they are possible. There are objects moving away from us faster than the speed of light. The limit only applies to inertial frames, and there is no true absolute inertial frame in the universe (as far as we know). The speed of light is not constant either. In short, the rules can be bent depending on the situation and if you are willing to think outside the box.
According to best available evidence it is. Just because you can come up with some contrived theoretical ways does not mean it can be done in reality. Alcubierre drive requires negative mass which as far as we know does not exist. Quite the opposite, it is largely a problem of minds being so open that your brain falls out. Alcubierre drive is overhyped by the media and popular scientific culture, its true merits are much more dubious than those some people imply. EDIT: Read some criticism by a string theorist here: http://motls.blogspot.sk/2013/07/relativity-bans-faster-than-light-warp.html
What available evidence? I can take a normal brick, hold it up to the sun, and reduce the speed of light to zero from 299,792,458 meters per second (actually it's around 299,705,000 m/s in air...). If you don't like a brick, think about glass and water. The speed of light is hardly constant. This is what I mean about closed minds and scientific dogma. I don't mean that as a personal attack by any means, but it seems like many people, even scientists, fail to think outside the box. Look up Cherenkov radiation. It's an easily observable effect of particles traveling faster than light (not that it's easy to create the correct environment). Also, the speed of light limit is only valid in inertial frames. There are visible stars and galaxies moving away from us faster than the speed of light. In the future we won't be able to see them as eventually their light will never reach us. That is reality. Nature bends the rules, the question is, can we? Yes, unfortunately media hype and pop culture come up with all sorts of wacky ideas, but I still think there's some benefit in imagining what might be possible as long as we're careful to watch out for the snake oil salesmen. The Alcubeirre Drive will probably never come to realization, even Alcubeirre said so. However, that doesn't mean we can't build on those theories and solutions. I don't think Newton or Einstein were 100% correct in their theories, but they sure moved us forward from where we were, and even they mostly built upon others work. Einstein's equations are damn hard to solve, and Alcubeirre's solution may inspire another solution of those equations that isn't impossible to realize.
We are talking about speed of light in a vacuum. Speed of light in other environments can be lower but that doesnt violate relativistic limits in any way. Rules of relativity only say that it cannot be higher than c. Again, they only travels faster than light in that particular environment (water around reactor etc.). Not faster than light in vacuum. These two examples are useless to prove your point. Those galaxies are not really travelling, they are just being carried away by the universal expansion of space. This cannot be used to travel locally in the conventional sense. And it is in accordance with general relativity, heck, it was Einstein who first came up with it (cosmological constant). When it comes to the impossibility of faster-than-light travel, it does look like Einstein was 100% correct, and the evidence has only gotten stronger over the years, both theoretical and experimental. By all means, lets build on those theories and solutions, just dont expect much success.
Yet NASA IS making efforts to build a warp drive that can do just that: http://techland.time.com/2012/09/19/nasa-actually-working-on-faster-than-light-warp-drive/ But why bother. It's Plato's the cave all over again.
I think the reason why so many dispute the quantum physics law explaining that we cannot travel faster than the speed of light is because we as human beings WANT to believe we can. We WANT to be able to travel to the stars and visit new worlds and explore the galaxy. So when science backed by hard evidence and proven laws get in the way of that we tend to try to find reasons as to why they would be wrong. We all want to see a real life Star Trek Enterprise and when science just flat out says no we get a little sad. Bottom line is that with our current understanding of quantum physics (which has been proven as accurate) nothing can travel faster than the speed of light except for the expansion of the universe itself. Im glad that so many people are willing to continue believing rather than just accepting that fact. It very well may one day lead to an entire new study of quantum physics that really does prove everything we thought we knew was wrong. This isn't impossible but with our current understanding it is implausible.
It's not a quantum physics law, it's a relativity law. But I agree we should not limit our imaginations to physical laws. If Einstein did that we'd still consider ourselves in a Newtonian universe.
Thanks for the correction. I am by no means whatsoever an expert on this subject matter and I tend to get the different laws mixed up as you have seen. I personally believe that there is intelligent life out there somewhere. I study astronomy all the time as it is my number one favorite past time. However, I cannot in my rational brain accept the fact that we humans on this uninteresting planet in this uninteresting arm of this uninteresting galaxy be the only form of life in the entire universe. It just doesn't make rational sense to me. I could be 100% wrong I have no idea and neither does anyone else. I just look at logic the best way I know how. I am an Atheist but if God created the Universe then what the hell is the point of creating ALL OF THIS if we are the only thing here? I also believe in the natural order of things and again I say what is the point of nature creating all of this if we are the only things here? The Universe is mind boggling huge by any number of rational and/or mathematical calculations. Why is this tiny blue dot orbiting this normal class G2 star in a normal arm of a normal spiral galaxy the only form of life in the entire Universe? What is the point? I believe that the Universe is full of life but we are all just too far away from each other to contact one another. We are way too insignificant to believe that we matter in the grand scheme of the Universe. I just cannot in my rational brain believe that we are "it". Although I have ZERO evidence to back up my claim it still just doesnt make sense to me. And my rational human brain is all that i have to go by.
Actually, this only means you can't go AT the speed of light. Above the speed of light, mass is no longer infinite. The only problem is how to accelerate through the speed of light without actually going the speed of light.
We won't collide with the Andromeda Galaxy for another 4 billion years, so it will be a very, very long time coming. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/milky-way-collide.html
In any case we are talking of something which [as for we can know nowadays] would require an enormous amount of energy. Or mass .... in fact the most "easy" way to obtain such a modification of the space-time would be to concentrate a suitable mass to a density comparable with the one present in a black hole, that is to say ... to make a little portable black hole!
I think It will ultimately come down to economics,,How much will it cost to build a warp capable starship and where are we going to go with it if we do justify its expense?
The key is to travel outside of a vacuum so Einstein's theory does not apply. The universe (parts of it) are already expanding at faster than the speed of light and taking the objects with it but since it is space (which is nothing and does not exist) which is moving it does not affect the material going for a ride. The key for us is to find a way to "surf" space and use that energy to get where we want to go, outside of Einstein's theory.
"Vacuum" is a difficult word to contextualize. In quantum mechanic the vacuum is a field with expected value of the wave function equal to null. In fact it can be vanishing or not vanishing [when this value can be different of null]. Anyway, the idea is that: usually we hear the term "hyperspace" to indicate the super dimensions in which our space is expanding [curious question: space time is expanding .... in what? Towards what?].
His claims are substantiated by repeated and predictable experimental evidence. The claims in your video are not backed by any sort of evidence.
Except NASA has, or you didn't read any the article I posted to and you don't know they are building technology that can do that. A little bit of research and you could find out what's going on. There is actually quite a bit of information out there.
There is a lot of "information", however, none of it is experimentally demonstrable. Something better than a YouTube video without narration would be good, maybe Scientific American or Science?
no need to break speed of light. shorten the space infront of you...and lengthen it behind you...will do the trick.
