For every paper published that denounces Alcubierre as impossible, I seem to see another paper that denounces the previous paper. It's a nearly endless circle of "Yes, it's possible if we do X!" "No, X cannot be done because of Y!" "Ah, but if we do Z to account for Y, X is possible!" Not wanting to get too deep into the rammifications of such a circle, I would like to post the following papers, and then pose a few follow-up questions:
- # Alcubierre, Miguel. The warp drive: hyper-fast travel within general relativity. 1994.
# Baird, Eric. Warp drives, wavefronts and superluminality. 1999.
# Baird, Eric. Hyper-fast travel without negative energy. 1999.
# Hart, C.B., et. al. On the Problems of Hazardous Matter and Radiation at Faster than Light Speeds in the Warp Drive Space-Time. 2002.
# Krasnikov, S.V. Hyperfast Interstellar Travel in General Relativity. 1998.
# Loup, F., et. al. A causally connected superluminal Warp Drive spacetime. 2002.
# Van den Broeck, Chris. A 'warp drive' with more reasonable total energy. 1999.
Is it possible to unify all of the solutions proposed in the preceding papers into a single, coherent metric?I lack the mathematical training to attempt to do something like this myself (I'm still wholly perplexed when I run into words like "geodesics" and "tensors"), a fact which I find myself perpetually bemoaning each time I want to.
Here are a few follow-up questions:
Assuming that a unified metric can be established, how might one compute the energy requirement to create such a "warp field?" This question necessitates accounting for the Baird paper that discusses achieving Alcubierre drives without negative energy. Is the energy requirement to generate a warp field dependent on the volume of the field in which the vessel resides, the outer volume, or both? Is it dependent on the desired velocity? Is there a realistic limit on the desired velocity (other than fuel)?Any help would be muchly appreciated.
