Talk:Warp drive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Star Trek Portal

Archive 1

---

Contents 1 Transwarp 2 Warp Speed Actually Told 3 9.999... = 10 4 I'd suggest simply redirecting this. 5 Relativity 6 Battery 7 Asymptotic peristaltic field manipulation 8 Question 9 The Borg and other aliens 10 Citations needed 11 Non-Trek Warp 12 The actual units of warp factor 13 What about the Traveler? 14 Zefram Cochrane using antimatter? 15 Warp drive vs. hyperdrive (non-adversarial discussions only) 16 Error 17 Coaxial Drive? 18 Requested move 18.1 Survey 18.1.1 Survey - in support of the move 18.1.2 Survey - in opposition to the move 18.2 Discussion

[edit] Transwarp

Should there be some mention here of the transwarp drive from the Original Series movies? What was the difference between that and conventional warp travel? Do the Next Generation-era ships all have "transwarp" drives and over time the distinction was ommited? (How often do we specify color television these days, for example? In a couple of years, we'll probably stop being specific about HDTV, also.) JRP 01:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The Star Trek website says that transwarp drive was tested on the USS Excelsior in the 2280's but failed and the idea was abandoned. The Next Generation ships use conventional warp drive.

---

[edit] Warp Speed Actually Told

The article says that the speed of warp is never told, in an epsiode it has.

In Voyager, Episode Name "The 37'S" Tom Paris tells the speed of Warp 9.9 at approximately 4,000,000,000 (4 Billion) Miles per Second.

So, Warp 1 would then in theory be: 400,400,400 (4,000,000,000 / 9.99) (400 Million, 400 Thousand, 400) Miles per Second.

Someone may want to write this into the article.

No, those warp speed numbers in Star Trek are logarithmic, I believe.

Warp 1 can't be 400,400,400 miles per second because warp 1 is exactly the speed of light, which is 186,000,000 miles per second.

No, that's impossible. In the star treck universe, they still can't achieve the speed of light. Maximum warp sill isn't light speed.--Mac Lover ^Talk 17:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

---

I removed some pretty obvious pseudoscientific crap (which didn't even have anything to do with the warp engines of the Star Trek universe) from the page. 130.233.243.228 07:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 9.999... = 10

Warp 10 is impossible but "The producers indicated that vessels could only reach warp 9.x with an infinite number of 9s" ... but 9.999... with an infinite number of 9s is equal to 10, isn't it? wr 18-oct-2005

See Limit (mathematics). No, 9.99999 is not equal to 10. -- Ec5618 13:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't find anything useful about that question on the Limit page. The sequence 9.9, 9.99, 9.999, ... approaches 10, ok, but how about the (definitely existing) real number that already has an infinite number of 9s after the dot? What's 10 minus 9.999...? The difference is smaller than any real number > 0, but it's >=0 (since 9.999... most certainly isn't > 10), so it must be 0. Also consider this: 1/9 is 0.111... (infite number of 1s), so 0.999... = 9 * 0.111... = 9 * 1/9 = 9/9 = 1, and 9.999... = 9 + 0.999... = 9+1 = 10. Also, for more advanced reasoning, check out http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.0.9999.html and http://www.uni-giessen.de/faq/archiv/sci-math-faq.0.999999/msg00000.html ... am I doing something wrong here? wr 19-oct-2005

We could argue all day about whether 9.999..... = 10 (which, incidentally, it does, since real numbers are formally defined as limits of sequences of rationals), but it's just as easy to change the phrasing and save the debate for math articles. --Ian Maxwell 00:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

In an episode or movie of TNG, the crew finds a singularity of anti-time while Picard (tormented by Q) travels into his past and future. In the future, they use warp 20...

No ,they use Warp 13. But the scaling system is different ,because of a futuristic new ninth's level of sub space that these drives can reach. Reagrding the 9.99... thing ,ONLY if there is an INFINITE amount of 9's is it 10. much like 1/x not ever reaching infinty when x-->0. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 20:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, 9.9... with an infinite number of 9s does equal 10. A recurring decimal is considered equal to the limit of that series, and the limit here is 10. Also see Proof that 0.999... equals 1. But I see the article's been changed to something which makes more sense now anyway. Mdwh 02:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, 9.99... with an infinite number of '9's does equal ten. However, since one can never reach an infinite number of nines, then one can never reach ten. It would be like trying to count to infinity; it's imposable, unless you're Chuck Norris.

By the way, where can I find where that new scaling works, the one with Warp 13? It has to be different, because in VOY they (impossibly) reach Warp 10, which is infinite speed, and the pilot was at every point in the universe at the same time. I don't understand how one can be faster than infinity.

[edit] I'd suggest simply redirecting this.

This article is neither well written, nor particularly informative. A simple redirect to warp drive, or a possible disambiguation to warp drive and antimatter reactor would be more useful.

Also, yes, 9.999...=10. They are simply different representations for the same number.

Yes I would also second this motion. Any information needed on the warp core can be easierly obtained from warp drive section. Tenchi Muyo 19:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Tenchi Muyo

I agree with the merging, but think the warp core should at least get a specific mention as it has become a common plot device in a number of episodes of the various shows and novels. Smeggysmeg 18:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

- But a warp core is a power center, it creates power for the ship, the warp drive only works to power the nacelles and create a warp bubble, the systems are not the same.

Well perheaps having a small section within the warp drive section for the warp core artical will comphensate. (Not for my spelling though!) Tenchi Muyo 17:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Tenchi Muyo

Agree. The warp core can be adequately detailed in the warp drive article. It doesn't really need an article of its own. Regarding the issue with warpcore and warp drive: warp drive is powered by the warpcore. Why else would it be called a warpcore? ▫ UrbaneLegend ^talk 19:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with merging. Much of the material on the "Warp Core" page (history and much of notable events) have to do with warp drive in general, and not the warp core in particular. The remaining material could easily be included in the warp drive article in a special section, and doesn't really merit its own page. Althai 12:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I did the merge from Warp core, but this article could still probably use some cleaning up, especially the parts about how fast a warp factor isLisamh 04:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relativity

I'd like to read some more about warp-speed/FTL-travel and relativity described by Einstein. The Startrek-series ignore the physical laws about relativity (for [obvious reasons]), but has there ever been an explanation, canocical or not?

- FB

This explains it perfectly --The reverend 06:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battery

The artical suggests that the warp core only powers the Warp Drive... I don't know about the show and movies, but as seen in Star Trek - Bridge Commender, the Warp Core acts as a reactor for the entire ship - all systems run on it. It is different to a warp drive. 202.173.161.135 11:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Is Bridge Commander Cannon anyway? If not, remember that in Insurrection, the Enterprise was able to fuction without one, also, in First Contact, the Phoenix actually had to "turn on" its warp core prior to engageing warp.

The warp core I belive is the most powerful "battery" on a starship. Ythey often redirect the warp core to the shields to boost them. Normally they dont do this becuase it would use up the warp power. This is why they cannot sustain high warp factors becuase they would run out of warp power. Chikensr0ck 20:58, 25 March 2006

[edit] Asymptotic peristaltic field manipulation

Jargon? Treknobabble? Peristalsis offers little insight into how this might work. I've linked to Longitudinal wave, but this might not be right. ~ UrbaneLegend 18:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I have a question. In Star Trek The Next Generation they are supposed to be exploring the universe and going light years away from earth yet they are able to get back to earth within about 3 hours. So i ask how did they manage that?

there's something even faster than Warp Speed, it is called plot speed. :) Procrastinating@^talk2me 11:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

In "The Paradise Syndrome", I was shocked at how much time McCoy said had passed - two weeks in what I thought must have been hours. May be similar in other episodes. --The reverend 06:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Borg and other aliens

The idle speculation here is uncalled for, and ignores previous cases of the Borg collective being able to withstand viral memes. Including impossible geometries and sense fo self (Hugh) in TNG.

--belg4mit 71.192.58.23 23:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations needed

Most of what is said in this article can be attributed to one of the many technical manuals that has been published over the years, such as Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual. I think it is safe to say that such references are acceptable. Please add citations and make it clear to the reader that this is where the information was collected. Said book also has subtextual commentary on why the producers 'designed' the science and technology the way they did and why they generally expect writers to use its 'rules' (but sometimes not) - basically for dramatical purposes. More on this subject would be good for the article.

[edit] Non-Trek Warp

It is usually forgotten that term "warp" for faster-than-life predates Trek. Maybe this should be covered.

Seeing as the title makes it explicit that this is in regards to the Star Trek device, I don't see why --The reverend 06:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The article does not need to be merely about Trek warp in the Trek fictional universe. Where the writers got their ideas is very much on-topic. Trek is not some kind of "island" in isolation from the rest of fiction and the rest of society. Trek used ideas that existed prior to Trek. And ideas in Trek have themselves been used elsewhere. And the article already includes non-Trek stuff by having a section on whether or not "warp" is possible. There are also issues of why the writers used warp, transporters, etc. This is all fair game for Trek articles. MichaelSH 00:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If a producer, creator, or writer directly referenced an inspiration, then sure, yes, but this is (Star Trek) right in the title, so let's not go about making this a list of all references to "warp" in all sci-fi ever, just because it might have POSSIBLY inspired some part of the star trek device. --The reverend 07:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The actual units of warp factor

"Warp factors must measure something for which our SI system does not have a unit" (from [1] )

(s is speed, w is warp factor, c is Speed of light)

s = w^(10/3) * c

for simplcity let x=w^(10/3), therefore:

s = xc

Since s and c are both speeds and have the same units, x must be unitless.

And since a unitless quanity to the power of a unitless number is still unitless, warp factor does NOT have any unit.

The stuff about the units "cochranes" is true, they mention it onscreen, but it doesn't refer to the actual warp factor in the true sense of the term.

--Stuart Morrow 17:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Cochranes, as I understand it, are measurements of how many warp particles the ship is outputting. You could accurately calculate the warp factor of a ship if you knew its cochrane output and its mass, but for larger ships more cochranes are required to achive higher warp speeds. NOTE: this is my interpretation as I have seen it on screen, there is no solid canonical evidence.

Also, it's clear that the measurements for calculating warp factors change over time. The USS Enterprise NCC-1701 often cruised at Warp Factor 1, when in reality that would be the speed of light and completely useless for interplanetary speeds. Scotty also occaisonaly claimed the ship had exceeded Warp 10, which was considered very high, but still not fast enough to make them all morph into amphibians. Also, it's clear breaking the Warp 10 "barrier" is extremely detrimental to biological systems (see: Tom Paris turning into a salamander) while Beverley Crusher ordered her ship in "All Good Things" to hit Warp 12. Some may argue this is because in the future of "All Good Things" they have found some counteractive measure to the massive warp factor damage, but that doesn't really account for the fact that Crusher's ship seemed to get from Earth to the Romulan neuteral zone in no amazing feat of time - nor does it have any bearing in the odd use of Warp Speed in the Original Series.

My own personal theory on why this shift in the unit of measurement for warp drive is sociopolitical shift. WARNING: total conjecture follows. It would appear to me that in the Original Series they measured it using some kind of human system, seeing as humans were the dominant species, with the only alien on board being half human anyway. This vs the system used on TNG would be akin to American Standard vs Metric - the first really makes no sense. The speed of light is put at some random number, as well as the speed limit. The "Metric" warp factor measure has warp one at speed of light and warp ten as the limit. This is probably a Vulcan system, because they're smarter than Humans, really. Now let's assume some Species X is accepted into the Federation later, and they have extremely efficient warp core designs, for very little money (resources, whatever). So they begin manufacturing all the warp cores for the Federation, but they have always had their own measurement for warp factors. All their cores have this measurement system in their processors and instruction booklets (but these are FUTURISTIC and easy to read! just kidding, they still read like the Wall Street Journal) so it's easier for Starfleet to reset its ships to this new measurement than to reset the hardwired processors in the Warp Cores. --The reverend 07:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What about the Traveler?

He, along with Weasley made a massive improvement to the warp engines that, upon the first try hurled them 3 galaxies away in onnly a few minutes (with a reletivly small ammount of power being used) and to the begining/end of the universe/another demention/whatever the second time, again, not using as much energy as they could. So what about that kind of warp? Is it some sort of Hyper-warp? 72.66.78.220 01:05, October 5, 2006 (UTC)

But it wasn't the warp drive that made that travel possible. It was the Traveler that did it. He let the "scientist" think that he did it so that he could tag along and observe. Wesley noticed that the warp drive modifications shouldn't have been doing anything and that it was really the Traveler that was making the fast travel possible. The Traveler said that Wesley had a talent for warp drive physics like Mozart had for music. In a later season, the Traveler was able to help Wesley to become like the Traveler. Val42 02:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"Weasley" Crusher, LMAO. Stuart Morrow 20:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zefram Cochrane using antimatter?

In Star Trek: First Contact there is no evidence that Cochrane's warpship is matter/antimatter powered. From which source comes the information mentioned in article then? I personaly think Zefram used "simple" fusion reactor. 18:36, 30 October 2006 (GMT)

I believe the dialogue refers to an "intermix chamber", which is generally considered to be the bit where the antimatter and the matter go asplode. Not entirely conclusive, mind. Morwen - Talk 07:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warp drive vs. hyperdrive (non-adversarial discussions only)

Is there any conversion rate for Warp Factors and Hyperdrive Classes? It would take Star Trek's Voyager something like 75 years to get a quarter of the way across the galaxy, while the Millennium Falcon can cross Star Wars' galaxy in about a month. Unless our galaxy is a HELL of a lot bigger than theirs, that translates into a huge imbalance in technological aptitude.

The creators of Star Trek can't agree on what speeds correspond to warp factors. In the original series, the Enterprise reached Warp 13. In TNG (and later series), Warp 10 is a maximum imposed by the "laws of physics" in the Star Trek universe. Even so, the first episode with the Traveller (an alien that can manipulate space/time), they greatly exceeded even Warp 10. Voyager exceeded Warp 10 by using transwarp corridors. If Star Trek can't agree on what a warp factor means, then how can we establish a correspondance between warp and a different technology. Val42 04:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Really, putting a standard speed on anything in Star Wars or Star Trek is meaningless. Everything moves at the speed of plot. If the script says they can travel 9 million lightyears by the end of an episode, by God they'll do it. Cyberia23 04:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Error

The "Broken Bow" episode of Star Trek: Enterprise did NOT say it was a "four DAY" voyage to the Klingon homeworld, they said a "four WEEK" voyage, which would be appropriate to what Warp 5 was supposed to be.

[edit] Coaxial Drive?

coaxial warp drive, a technology previously thought to be only hypothetical. A vessel equipped with such a system would be able to leap great distances almost instantaneously.

[edit] Requested move

This article has been renamed from Warp drive (Star Trek) to Warp drive as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 08:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)