The warp drive proposed by Alcubierre could achieve near light speeds and even faster-than-light speeds by distorting space-time. To accomplish this, a theoretical device would generate a field of negative energy that would squeeze or stretch space-time, creating the bubble. The bubble would ride the distortions like a surfer on a wave.

As evidenced by the uniformity of the Cosmic Microwave Background from the Big Bang, which is explained by inflationary cosmology, space-time can expand so quickly that objects can move faster than the speed of light.
Therefore the current models of physics generally allow for the existence of a warp field that can accelerate objects faster than the speed of light.

The real questions to ask is whether or not such a warp field can exist on macroscopic scales and if so can it remain stable for long enough to observe its effects, on light in a laser interferometer for example.

Moreover it is unknown how it is technologically possible. What do you think?

I think it will be possible, just not in my lifetime. As of today we don't have the tech or knowledge to make a conclusive statement on the subject. We are just started to tread on the field of bending light. Einstein made it known that light does in fact bend. Yet only today can we bend light ourselves. Since there have been recent tests that slow the speed of light. Before the speed of light was always seen as constant, but if we can change the speed of light what else can we change in the future? I believe we will be able to change the space-time and when that knowledge comes to light our way of thinking will change, just like it did with light.

Before actual testing the math and science behind it would have to be discovered, just like with the bending of light. So before putting into practice we must have prior knowledge in how to do it. Of course I don't think there enough knowledge on the subject to actually prove or disprove the possibility of, "warping," something.

>>2 but Einstein also said that we can't go beyond the speed of light. This contradicts to the principle of warp drives since it strives to go beyond the speed of light because even if we somehow manage to achieve the speed of light, the galaxies are still far apart for about billions of lightyears away.

>>3 Not necessarily a physical impossibility:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

It doesn't directly contradict the laws of physics as we currently understand them, so it's theoretically possible. That said it's far beyond our current capabilities, and it's always possible it'll turn out to be impossible as we learn more about the laws of the universe.

>>3
What if we slow the speed of light enough to have an object faster than it? As I said before the speed of light can be varied. If you don't believe that the speed can be varied just google it.

Why would it matter if the distance is great if we could bend the space and create something akin to a wormhole? Why would we need to travel really fast instead of bending the space?

Also what if light doesn't even need to be referenced for bending the space? The main reason why we use it today is it makes the most sense to us as of now. But what if we find out that light doesn't even need to be taken into account.

>>5 I also heard a concept similar to yours, bending the space for the great distance of the space to be shorter. The concept of this is to create 2 wormholes. The first in front would draw space time inward and create a very large space time gradient in front of you. The second in the back of you would be essentially the opposite of a black hole. Space time would be expanded.

Given that a high concentration of matter produces a black hole, I wonder if a high concentration of antimatter would produce a white hole.

>>5 Slowing down light would only impose a lower limit on all other moving object. You cannot exceed the speed of light. Period. However, INCREASING the speed of light will theoretically allow you to move "faster than light" (rather faster than light was moving before, anyway).

As for bending space, this is what an Alcubierre drive does. Wormholes are another valid solution, if it is possible to create one (no physics yet to prove it's not).

>>6 Antimatter is not actually different from regular matter in that way. A concentration of antimatter would STILL create a black hole.

>>7 But the problem is where could we find such energy to create wormholes. antimatter could create such energy, but antimatter particles is one of the most rare and expensive thing on earth. Nuclear energy just couldn't cut it.

>>8 This is...not exactly the problem. The problem is we don't have any known way of creating wormholes (or proof that they are feasible).

Antimatter certainly CAN create a lot of energy, but it takes more energy to create antimatter than it produces (unless we were to find, say, a huge antimatter asteroid or something).

>>9 So there isn't any convincing theories on how to create wormholes?

>>10 Probably magnets

Moore's Law!!

>>9 I don't think there is any convincing theories on how to create a wormhole yet.

The applications of such theories are nowhere near necessary or essential for learning about our known surroundings. Once we travel more through space I think the theories surrounding wormholes will expand. But as of today space travel is restricted to our known solar system. We have not attempted to thoroughly explore a planet further than Mars yet. Once we start exploring planets outside our solar system then warp drives will become a necessity.

we'll we should get ready for some first contact