Ask Science
Ask a science question, get a science answer.
Community Rules
Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.
Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.
Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.
Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.
Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.
Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.
Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.
Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.
Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.
Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.
Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.
Rule 7: Report violations.
Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.
Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.
Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.
Rule 9: Source required for answers.
Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.
By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.
We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.
view the rest of the comments
Not really. It would require negative mass which as far as we know does not exist. And it would generate so much radiation in front of the warp bubble that it would decimate anything nearby when you stopped. There are tons of other major issues with it but those are just 2 I remember off the top of my head.
Of course, if there weren't any problems people would already be trying to build that shit.
Negative gravitational mass is still a theoretical possibility: nothing's ever proven Einstein's equivalence principle. It could be broken for antimatter for example, which could even conveniently explain why there's so little of it (I remember reading that this hypothesis was investigated not long ago but we can't produce and conserve enough antimatter to reliably test that mg=mi)
The second problem isn't an issue if you use it in the vacuum and start and end your trip with classical propulsion.
In fact, the hardest hurdle I'd read on that subject was that with the most efficient warp metrics currently known, you'd still need something like 10^60J for a small spaceship or something ridiculous like that... Orders of magnitude more energy than the mass of the whole solar system.
Which is why I said it was kind of a fringe answer. The fact that physics don't just flat out say "no" is already kind of amazing, which isn't to say that it's definitely possible.