foolish humans.You`ll never acheive more than you are.

It's a really good point - the problem with extremely high speeds is that when you're moving at exceptionally high velocities, colliding with anything else, even if it's near stationary, is like being still when a bullet passes through you - even small particles can be deadly.

Now let's be clear while we're geeking out, the Star Trek "fix" for this was the "deflector shield," which also has its basis in some manner of scientific pseudo-fact; that is, if you create a magnetic field strong enough it can sweep particles out of your path of travel. Whether or not that's even mathematically feasible considering the massive energy demands required for the type of "black-hole drive" discussed in the previous article is a whole other story.

I have to say though, my favorite type of faster than light travel doesn't involve the black-hole style method of shooting across space, but instead a black-hole style drive that pulls spacetime together to make slower than light travel seem much faster because the distance has been changed. They're very similar concepts; just that one uses the nature of the black hole to travel great distances and the other uses the gravity of the black hole to "warp" spacetime so your origin point and your destination point are in proximity to one another, or mathematically the same place. Then you wouldn't need to worry about stray atoms!

Isn't this the same basic argument when it came to breaking the sound berrior?

While traveling as fast as or faster than light would certainly cause the types collisions with hydrogen as mentioned, the notion that traveling at "warp speed" would kill you is a stupid thing to say. The entire concept of warp travel is that you bend space around you, moving the universe around you, which can (theoretically) allow faster than light travel, without having to actually move through space. And without moving through space, and by bending it around you, you avoid hitting anything at all. I'm not going to say that warp travel is even possible, but when discussing science you should try to keep in mind what you're actually talking about. And I'd really like to stop seeing scientists go on about bullshit, and if they gave any actual thought to the concept they were trying to disprove, they might go about criticizing it in areas actually applicable to it, not something like smashing into atoms, which the concept of the travel actually proves it would avoid.

I believe that is what the main deflector shield is for.

Chris does your mommy know you are up this late?

Its called a deflector dish...

What do you think SHIELDS are for , idiot egghead "scientists?"

"tired of reading bullshit" beat me to it.
Read her/his post. He understands the concept.

You know, I didn't think I'd be posting another comment on here, but this is too good. First of all, I'd like to agree with Mike, chris, i think that you should either provide a counterargument against alan, or evidence that he is indeed a fag, a picture of him crying will be enough, we dont really need to see any harder proof than that. Secondly, how in the fuck did people as dumb as sulu and brian even learn to use the internet, let alone get on it and start typing posts on boards discussing science? Nice work though brian, your post was almost poetic in its simple minded nature. (all the names that start with lower case letters are because you're lower class people.)

You're all pretentious dorks who clearly learned your science from The USS Enterprise User Guide.

There is clearly no danger from hitting "stray Hydrogen atoms" - it's the Space Mosquitoes hitting the windshield that will kill you.

Morons.

I likey to fly really fast. Likey the speedy light.

Again, i think what this gentleman has forgotten is that the makers of star trek are well aware of these limitations. He may think of them as nothing more than nerds, but they have indeed figured out ways around this.

Warp speed is acheived by moving a bubble of spacetime. thus the ship itself isnt moving, relative to space ( thereby not violating special relativity ). Also, there are very specific mentions of deflector shields in ever major ST series designed to overcome this issue. Using a highly magnetised field would create a lorentz force to 'push' particles away before they could damage ships.

Warp speed is the wrong way to go. We need to look into bending space time. Like Event Horizon, without the scariness and death. Why go there when you can bring it to here.

Carl Sagan addresses this issue in his 30+ year old program, Cosmos.

Don't let a few stray atoms in relatively empty space destroy an amazing dream that could very well be possible for humanity to achieve, given enough willpower, brainpower, and time.

As Karthik mentioned in an earlier comment, it's important to remember that most of the science and technology on Star Trek is based on known scientific theories by many prominent scientists, authors and forward-thinkers who have thought deeply on these issues.

But in this case, in a Star Trek universe starship, the ship's shields, particle deflector dish and the as yet unmentioned "Bussard Ramscoops" (which sit at the front of the nacelles) would work in conjunction to both collect stray hydrogen atoms to power the ship, AND deflect interstellar dust and unfriendly particles.

And yes, most of these issues are indeed dealt with in the various Technical Guides. That's one of the reasons they were made.

"Edelstein went on to say that it would feel like getting struck by the high-energy proton beam from the Large Hadron Collider particle accelerator at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland. The audience at the talk wasn't thrilled with this, apparently, as it caused a minor stir and some good back and forth, the report said."

Considering that the LHC accelerates some atoms to the point where they have the total kinetic energy of a mosquito (a big deal when you consider how many trillion times bigger than an atom a mosquito is), I'm not overly worried.

While we are speaking of humans, royshumpart, you are my favorite one ever. hahahaha

While it's true that these hydrogen atoms will be moving at relativistic speeds, from which they will have extremely high masses, we cant say what would be happening faster than light speed... Theres a singularity in our equations, and physics essentially breaks down.

The main issue I see, as a physicist, is the relativistic time consequences of breaking light speed. Nearing the speed of light, time simply slows... but at the speed of light, we'd essentially see the 'end' of time... unfortunately one possible consequence of the big bang is the big crunch... which is where you would be in a heartbeat at the speed of light. So it's quite a strange coincidence that at the speed of light we create a singularity, and one probable end for the universe is also a singularity.

On the other side, it's Star Trek! And I love Star Trek!

I am all rounder

Assume that our universe is contained within a larger multi-dimensional universe. In that case, you could achieve faster than light travel by finding a universe with a faster speed of light. e=mc2. With a higher speed of light, you might be able to get more energy out of the same fuel so that half the speed of light takes the same amount of fuel in either universe. If that universe has less stuff in it, then there is less to run into. Maybe that universe has galaxies elsewhere, but in the place you're at, it's a big empty void.

Oh seriously FFS DON'T STATE THE OBVIOUS.
There is nothing new in this article, if this point needed to be made to scientists then humanity is a long way further off reasoning and understanding that I though.

If anyone wants proof that this article is stating the bleeding obvious then you need look no further then the bit where it says we aren't going to be going between the stars unless we think of something really really different... No sh*t sherlock, want to explain where the food will come from too? Maybe how we're going to get something big enough into space? How will we assemble it? How will we prevent it becoming encased in ice on its interstellar journey? You know lets just solve all that with current thinking. Or maybe we can build a warp drive with current thinking, or get to the speed of light... No none of those.

Yet another person stating the obvious doesn't help.

As for Alan pointing out that the fella had a good point. You spotted that eh? Maybe you could explain how current thinking will get us to warp travel first.

As for those being nasty to Alan without proper comment - comment properly of shut it faggots.

Right now you can slag me off.

Edelstein's assertion is actually wrong. I imagine he is unfamiliar with the particular's of the Alcubierre metric, the theoretical warp drive proposed based on Star Trek tech. Essentially, the key to faster than light travel is to manipulate the faster than light expansion of space-time by creating a "warp bubble". This is accomplished by deforming space time in opposite directions at two ends of a region of space containing the ship or any massive object you wish to warp. There is no acceleration, the ship within this bubble is relatively still, and thus hydrogen atoms within this region would also behave relatively still with respect to the ship. Edelstein's hypothesis works for flat space-time, which we normally inhabit. Of course both the Alcubierre metric and warp speed in general are theoretical constructs, limited chiefly by energy demand, so I doubt either of us will ever be proven wrong.

Hmmm....

I'm more concerned about the microwave background. At near light speed this would be doppler shifted to gamma rays and fry us.

Only human arrogance would say that something like warp speed is impossible or would kill you. You know a little over 100 years ago they said manned flight was absolutely impossible, and before that they said the world was flat, and before that the sun revolved around the earth.

Sure they will say warp speed will kill you because they are basing ideas on warp speed around existing models. Eventually they will come up with a new model that will allow warp speed to work. Besides, who needs warp speed when you can just slip through a worm hole?

In some cases researchers have already shown the feasibility of some technologies like deflector shields - in some case catching the hydrogen molecules in a "ramp scoop" and then expelling them out the back to provide a sustained fuel over long distances, so long as a minimum "critical" velocity is held.

Traveling that fast, I'm sure a large magnetic field would whip the hydrogen out of the way. Don't forget in Star Trek, there's also a warp field bubble surrounding the ship which is actually supposed to distort space to allow these break-neck velocities.

I HATE when a bunch of ignorant whelps spout off about what they learned in grade school. Educated people did not think flight was impossible just not probable. They also did not think the earth was flat. I wish you trolls would go back to school and but down the bud light.

Reading all of these posts makes me seriously wonder the qualifications of those who wrote them. I am guessing that maybe one of you is actually qualified to make such statements. If you are qualified, then speak up. For instance, tell us your educational background.

It is those that are uneducated in such matters, spouting off about things they are ignorant about that are a disgrace to this field of research. You see, the public listens to and believes geeks like you because the pure science associated with the research is often presented in an inaccessible form to the general public.

So please stop pretending that you know what you are talking about unless you actually do. Also, please notice that I have said nothing about the topic at hand despite my BS in Physics because I am not afraid to admit that I can't make an educated comment on the subject, and that the general public, who unfortunately goes to places like this to get 'reliable' information, deserves better. So if you don't know what you are talking about, admit it so that people don't take what they read here to heart.

lol, man I love how theorizing about something that is currently unfeasible has you all up in arms.

nobody knows these answers, and everyone who says anything is basing it off theories and ideas.

until a warp drive is created, and many of these other ideas is implemented, I suggest you all STFU.

given the weak state of human science being suppressed by greedy business, I expect you will not see any of these things in your or your kids or your kids kids lifetime. so get a grip.

PhD candidate student here, working from Langley. I've also cured cancer, AIDS and put a whale on the moon so I know what I'm talking about.

The biggest issue with FTL isn't stray particles, deflectors or time.

It's inertia.

You're sitting at a red light when it turns green. You floor the gas and find yourself pushed back into your seat. Now take this concept put 'flooring the gas' instantly accelerates you to a few thousand times the speed of light.

The first thing that needs to be taken care of is Star Treks IDF (inertial dampening field) to counter these effects.

Pulling maximum g's, you will die of old age before attaining light speed.
Enjoy.

150 years ago, they believed anything faster than a horse would be fatal...then the locomotive broke that and 60 mph became the barrier...then 120, then the sound barrier...I, for one, am noticing a pattern here--We'll find a work-around...

Wow, some really hysterical comments here. I especially like the angry ones. Then there are the ones who assume the writer is wrong yet they know the problem can be surmounted (using Star Trek as a refernce of course). Sorry, there is no Tooth Fairy and there is no Santa Claus, Virginia.

Futureboy, it has nothing to do with "human arrogance". In fact it is arrogant to assume you can get around everything in nature.

PhD and Tim, what does inertia have to do with it? You can accelerate as slowly as you need to avoid the strain of acceleration. You can reach 65 mph in 5 secs or 5 minutes.

Inertial Damping is a Sci-Fi plot device, like transporters to get around the 30 min show time limit. You can't violate conservation of momemtum, it has to go somewhere.

Will, Edelstein is wrong based on an imaginary sci-fi device? Edelstein's idea is pretty simple, your response requires layers upon layers of imaginary ideas.

Mike, you obviously need a therapist.

Who dares underestimate a nerd's capacity to make dated Science Fiction dramas somewhat plausible? There's an unstoppable force.

Personally, I'm more interested in the technology behind other Star Trek tropes. Such as the Transporter, a device with a transmitter but no receiver. There's also the snazzy telecommunications available on those ships. They communicate across light years without perceptible delay.

The artificial gravity present on those ships is certainly humanity's greatest technical achievement.

Reminds me of a history article I once read when just prior to the advent of the steam locomotive the alarmists were up in arms because they were conviced that exceeding 35mph would be cause to burst into flames due to friction against the air. Funny how things don't change.

Mark, the Alcubierre metric is a mathematic model derived by Dr. Miguel Alcubierre, a theoretical physicist who has worked at the Max Planck Institution for Gravitational Physics. It is based on general relativity's explanation of gravity and space-time. This is only "imaginary" in as much as any widely accepted physical theory is. I will definitely concede this is perhaps not the most efficient means to achieve warp speed, but it is currently the most reasonable, scientifically supported method.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Improbability Drive yet.... It the only way to get to the restaurant at the end of the universe. XD

This makes me very sad

You're all nuts. Everyone knows that the only way travel great interstallar distances is Ludicrous Speed!

@The Tim Channel: 2 minutes of research into the subject proves you quite wrong.

The maximum sustainable g-force for pilots is listed as 9g, or 88 meters per second squared. At an inertial rate of 88 m/s² (that is, increasing your rate of speed by 88 meters per second each second), it would take a touch under 39 and a half days to hit light speed.

to wit: (299,792,458 m/s)/(88 m/s²) = 3406732.4 seconds = 56778.9 minutes = 946.3 hours = 39.4 days

Granted, it's not the Star Trek method of KERCHEEEWWWing into space, but it's far from impossible (as far as time constraints are concerned) to accelerate to light speed.

Oh yeah? Well what about all those people that went through the transporter to the planet surface and lived? It may have not been warp speed but they were moving on pretty fast.

@anyone with a calculator:

You're calculating how long it would take to accelerate to lightspeed using classical mechanics. However, as you approach the speed of light, your mass increases, thus you require more and more energy to maintain the same rate of acceleration, which means either you must have an ever-increasing supply of energy (actually infinite if you wish to "hit" the speed of light) or your acceleration will drop off as you approach lightspeed.

"Keep your comments on topic. Intelligent,..." On this thread? Kinda hard. Regardless, this is all nonsense. We wouldn't even need to develop a means to circumvent the limits imposed upon us by the speed of light if we could just find a way to extend the range of the transporters that we'll be making in the next couple of hundred years. And Bill? I think that I'm eminently qualified to be speaking to this subject. After all, I've probably seen every Star Trek movie at LEAST twice.