From: hinson@bohr.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Trans Warp Drive
Date: 10 Nov 92 15:09:04 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Physics Department

bpita@ctp.com (Bob Pitas) writes:
>mrh0631@sigma.tamu.edu (Mark Hesidence) writes:
>>
>>   Please explain how you *exceed* an infinite speed?  At infinite speed
>>   you can get anywhere in zero time.  The only way to exceed that is
>>   with negative time.  Yet you said TransWarp doesn't exactly do the
>>   time travel bit.  What *exactly* does it do?
>>
>>   The explanation below side steps these questions.
>>> 
>>>Because, if the speed of the light is the normal space speed limit ('cause
>>>infinite energy would be needed to move a relativistic-altered mass) is
>>>akin to Warp 10 versus sub-space.  Warp is still warp in OST or TNG.  It
>>>is always operating in sub-space/normal space.  Considering the recalibrated
>>>warp 10 is suppose to be infinitely fast (or as the manual puts it being
>>>everywhere at the same time) it still leaves out other dimensions which does
>>>not necessarily follow these rules.  That's why I call Warp 10 (TNG) a speed
>>>limit.  Transwarp doesn't operate exactly in sub-space so it doesn't have
>>>to have that Warp 10 penalty imposed.  Whatever limit Transwarp may have had
>>>of course, is up for conjecture in my opinion.
>>> 
>>
>>    So either:
>>    a) Explain how to exceed infinity
>>    b) Or admit your mistake
>>
>
>Isn't this a little strange to say that he needs to explain how to exceed
>infinity???  By current theory, you can't exceed the speed of light, and
>yet the writers of ST explain it by saying that spacecraft can be suspended
>in a sub-space bubble.  You believe this without question, even though
>it's currently impossible.  And yet you won't believe that by suspending
>a ship in a 'transwarp bubble' or somesuch, that you can exceed the limits
>of warp speeds.  Give the guy a break!  If the writers of ST can say the
>warp-bubble can skirt the laws of physics as we currently know them, then
>the guy from UH can explain transwarp as a new dimensional technology,
>or a deeper subspace where warp-bubble physics don't apply, or whatever!
>Remember, it's ALL fiction, until someone crosses the light-barrier!
>


Conceptually, it isn't impossible to imagine something that leaves from
Earth and gets to some other star faster than light would.  However, it
is impossible to imagine something getting to that star faster than 
infinitely fast (without getting there before it left).  This is because
infinitely fast is defined as being as fast as you can imagine going.  
Warp 10 is not simply a physical speed limit that the universe won't allow
you to exceed; it is a conceptual speed limit that is placed above any
speed that anything could ever go.

Saying that you can go faster than Warp 10 is sort of like saying that 
you can count higher than infinity.  This statement is ridiculous, because
infinity is not a number, it is a concept.

(All of this assumes that you want to start your journey and end it in our )
(own universe.  Perhaps going infinitely fast in our universe is not going )
(to make you go infinitely fast in some other universe/dimension.  But if  )
(you want to end up back in our universe, you will not get anywhere faster )
(than warp 10 would have gotten you there.                                 )



Something to add to the discussion: Frames of reference

As I have gone to great lengths to explain in the past, in order to say
that warp can go faster than the speed of light without messing with
causality, subspace (or whatever it is you warp) must have a specific frame
of reference, and while you are in subspace (no matter what your speed is)
you must have the frame of reference of subspace.  This will stop any 
causality problems.

NOTE:  For those of you saying that this is based on what we know today,
and that in trek fiction they can say that sometime in the future we have
found other ways around it, let me explain why I have a valid point.  As
long as _anyone_ or _anything_ can travel at normal velocities with respect
to anything else, then we know that their frame of reference depends on 
their speed. (So far this has nothing to do with any special warped fields,
so no matter what fiction you come up with, the above must be true for 
someone/thing that is not using your fictional travel).
       Now, if you first consider two observers (one traveling at normal,
relativistic speeds with the other one), and then add to that the ability
to communicate at FTL speeds (without the special frame of reference I
mentioned above), then no matter how neat your fictional explanation is
for doing this, you can still create causality problems.  This is because
the two observers have different frames of reference (ie. different ideas
of when and where events are happening).
       So, to preserve causality, we can simply say that the messages
they send do NOT travel in their frames of reference, but MUST travel in
the frame of reference of subspace itself.


So _WHY_ go into all of this?  Well, since Warped space would have ONE 
given frame of reference, Warp 10 would be infinitely fast IN THAT FRAME
OF REFERENCE ONLY. (Interesting, no?)  Someone might want to argue that
Transwarp used another frame of reference relative to warp's F.O.R.; 
however, that would mean that there are two different frames in which
FTL travel and communication were possible.  This would bring back the
possibility of violating causality.

I for one would like to keep causality appeased.  This requires that there
be only one frame of reference in which traveling infinitely fast is 
possible.  So phrases such as "10 times the speed of light" or "infinitely
fast" always have the understood, tacked-on ending of "in the frame of
reference of subspace."


Well, there's some food for thought, I guess.



-Jay

Xref: sparky rec.arts.startrek.tech:6194 rec.arts.startrek.current:18297