WAS DR NATARIO RIGHT

By. Dr. Paul Karl Hoiland

Abstract: I will examine Dr. Natario’s geometric interpretation of the Warp Drive
Solution originally proposed by Dr. Alcubierre from a mathematic and geometric point
of view and show that his conclusions are limited and not an exact ruling out of the
warp drive subject.

Professor Stephen Hawking, when visiting the Enterprise-D engine room at

Paramount Pictures in 1993, said he was working on warp drive. He has also been
quoted as stating, even after the time of Dr. Natario’s article on Warp Drive A No-Go
(1)That such cannot be ruled out at this time.”

The question becomes then how could some in the scientific field make this statement
in light of that article by Dr. Natario that was published by the IOP?

To answer that question I am first going to state what is right about that article Dr.
Natario did.

In the article, “Warp Drive a No-Go” that appeared in the Institute of Physics journal,
Classical and Quantum Gravity Dr. Natario addressed the issue of the effect incoming
radiation would have upon a field of a similar nature to the one originally proposed by
Dr. Alcubierre. To understand the issues Natario was addressing one needs to understand
not only the structure of the field Alcubierre proposed, but also certain Cauchy surface
issues.

The field Dr. Alcubierre first proposed in “The Warp Drive: hyper-fast travel within
general relativity" in the journal Classical and Quantum Gravity was based upon a
distortion or bubble of space-time in which both regular matter or energy and something
often termed negative or exotic energy was used to generate a bi-polar distortion of
space-time. What Dr. Natario brought up was something that another, Dr. Ford, had
already raised as an objection to this original idea of warp drive, via another way of
looking at it. Ford had discussed in his own article that the negative energy required in
this original theory would violate certain quantum energy conditions and was thus,
unreal. What Dr. Natario did was actually show by his own article where that return
pulse of positive energy Dr. Ford wrote about comes from.

The source of that extra positive energy is something defined by Dr. Unruh known as
Unruh’s law. Basically the law states, that as an object accelerates it will experience a
heat bath of photons in the direction of motion that increases as the velocity of that
accelerated observer increases. So in essence, if you work through using the Unruh law
you find that any energy we can generate in the rear portion of a warp field that has a less
value than normal unaccelerated space-time would be automatically dampened out. This
effect means that any warp drive field that uses negative energy would automatically be a
No-Go. This part I have no disagreement on what so ever. However, there are a few
flaws in the article by Dr. Natario.

Flaw 1:

Natario only addressed and worked with the original field as proposed by Dr. Alcubierre.
This field, while showing it was possible under General Relativity to alter the frame of
reference and get around the speed limit imposed by Special Relativity, was never
proposed as a real working model for FTL travel. This point has been long known in the
field of physics so most of Dr. Natario’s article is addressing something already a known
fact “Dr. Alcubierre’s Warp Drive is a No-Go.”

Flaw 2:

Dr. Natario uses a very long way to explain something most any decent college student
could have used the simpler Unruh effect to explain and fails to examine the whole field
in its different Cauchy surfaces.

Let's explain the whole concept of relativistic mass in terms of EM radiation pressure.

Assume a particle with rest mass 'Mo' is moving at speed v. The wavelengths of all
frequency components of the background radiation forward to this mass will be
compressed with respect to the moving mass. The radiation as seen by an observer
moving forward through EM radiation is squeezed; its frequency appears to increase
and is therefore said to be blueshifted. In contrast, the radiation moving away behind
the observer is stretched or redshifted.

The formula to determine this heat bath effect was first proposed by Unruh(2)(3)
The temperature is the acceleration temperature given by the Davies-Unruh formula. The
formula is
tempature=a(h-cross/2PiC) and a= acceleration or velocity.
This becomes evident when you study photon motion through a warp field. The front of
the field, the ship’s region, and the rear of the field all display different local velocities
for C in this composite special frame of reference. In each region or slice of the
composite field you will find different local values for C that all stem from a varying
local Stress Energy Tensor. The effect is similar to that proposed by Dr. Puthoff with the
variable dielectric value. In the ship’s region C has the same value as we measure it in
normal space-time. In the forward region C is lower in value and in the rear region C
can take on the value of the maximum acceleration of the negative energy field in that
area. So warp drive is not describing a normal region of space-time and usage of
Unruh’s law to describe effects must take this into account.

Going back to the local, at rest region of the craft the value for C is normal. Now matter
how blue shifted those particles will appear across the warp field itself their entrance into
this region is going to affect the actual energy content of those particles. An Observer
there would see them highly blue shifted and measure a heat bath due to the Unruh effect.
But the actual energy involved would have been shifted downwards by the effect of
crossing from one Cauchy surface to another. The effect here is almost like a shield as
far as lowering energy levels.

The effect in the rest of the warp field takes on odd values when you actually plug in the
local value for C in each regions. An example is if C becomes say, 2C in the rear region
then even though an at rest observer views the particles as blue shifted towards cutoff
they really have no more energy than they contained in normal space-time for an object
moving at or near C.

So the issue here is that there are increases in the energy of incoming particles like
photons. But those increases due to the different local values of C and to a moving
frames effect are no different than those experienced by any object moving near C in
normal space-time. Since the actual velocity of the craft itself is always a product of the
front pull effect and the rear push effect it will always be less than the overall field
velocity or less than the local maximum value for C in a warp field. Put simply, the craft
always exists in a region with less heat bath than the overall field experiences.

Flaw 3:

The third flaw relates to the first one. Since Natario’s article and to a lesser extent Ford’s
article deals with field’s involving negative energy then any application of that article
cannot be used to eliminate warp drive ideas involving no energy less than that for a
normal vacuum state.

Secondly, I believe there exists a simply means of testing Natario’s own assumptions on
moving negative energy fields that any decent lab could conduct. Take a simple Casmir
effect with a set of close spaced plates displaying negative energy on the inside between
the plates. Have the experiment accelerated like onboard a fast moving jet. Here is
what should happen if Natario is right. The added incoming energy, which could be
calculated and measured by some very simple math should dampen the negative energy
present within the Casmir experiment if Natario is right.

However, there is a problem with the logic of Natario that will display itself in this
experiment. The problem is that as the outside positive energy increases across that gap
by already established experimental evidence the inside negative energy will increase. So
what defines a Casmir effect and what is it’s relation to warp fields. A Casmir effect
occurs between two boundaries when quantum waves are canceled on the inside in
relation to those on the outside. Look again at a warp bubble, even as proposed by Dr.
Alcubierre. Due to the outer event horizons formed by the field you have the same effect
coming into play in a much enlarged version, especially in those modifications that utilize
a shrunken bubble of warp space-time. Thus, I challenge anyone who has the lab to
conduct this experiment to try it out.

Why does the negative energy increase inside? Because you have increased the outside
energy and following the reverse logic of Ford’s own idea nature will answer to balance
the equation.

THE PHOTON PROBLEM

-THE CAUCHY PROBLEM & DR. NATARIO’S ARTICLE

A Cauchy surface is an equal-time surface. As a result there is a confusion between the

concept of "Cauchy surface" and "time". In solving the Cauchy problem, what you're
actually doing is providing a relation between the data {q(S)} which resides on one
Cauchy surface S to the data {q(T)} which resides on another T. So, when one talks about
evolution, one is talking about "evolving" quantities which are actually functionals q(S)
of Cauchy surfaces S, not functions q(t) of time t.
But in Newtonian Physics, you can get away with this confusion because the two
concepts coincide. Basically, you have the equivalence:
Historical Time = Coordinate Time
where
"Historical Time" = the arena in which evolution takes place = S
"Coordinate Time" = t
In Relativity this is not the case. So the issue invariably arises that when one generalizes
a theory from its Newtonian form to its Relativistic form: which concept of time applies,
"coordinate" or "historical"? Here, with the Warp Metric we actually have a static inner
region around the craft that is Newtonian, and an outer Bi-polar region that is relativistic;
it has an expanded Lorentz Invarient Frame. So, the concept of a shielded area is pre-built
into Warp Mechanics in the first place. However, this complicates the inherient Cauchy
Problem.
Natario’s basic mistake was he didn’t take into account the effects the expanded
Lorentz Invarient frame have upon the incoming photon’s blue shift. Yes, they are Blue
shifted. But, they are not as hot as he portrayed them in his article. Secondly, he didn’t
apply a proper Cauchy Evolution to the issue. He failed to consider even the simply
shielding that Newtonian frame could provide around the craft. Coming from a region
experiencing blue shifting and crossing into a freefall region marks the crossing of a
boundary. The evolution of those particles has now been changed. Going from a hyper
accelerated region into a region in total freefall is close to having a speeding car slam into
a brick wall. The photons are bound to bleed off energy fast.
In Relativity, the state W(S) (classical or quantum) is actually a functional of S. The state
W(S) is really nothing more than a summary of the Cauchy data
for S. When solving the evolution problem, all you're doing is providing a map:
E(T, S): W(S) |-> W(T)
that relates the state on T to the state on S. In Quantum Theory, for
instance, this map would be the (generalized) evolution operator U(T, S). Though it's not
widely recognized, this operator is well-defined even where S and T are overlapping or
intersecting Cauchy surfaces.
Now when making the transition from the Lagrangian formulation to the Hamiltonian
formulation in Newtonian space, one takes a space-time region V whose boundary dV has
the shape:
dV = VF - VI + V0
VI = Initial hypersurface
VF = Final hypersurface = the "same" 3-volume at a later time
V0 = The 2+1 dimensional "side" boundary
and the only way to get rid of the "boundary" terms is to push the side
boundary V0 off to spatial infinity.
In a Relativistic space, one has the rather unusual phenomenon whereby finite (compact)
space-time regions V exist which are bounded SOLELY by spacelike surfaces:
dV = VF - VI
V = compact N-region
VI = "initial" N-1 spacelike boundary
VF = "final" N-1 spacelike boundary
The space-like hypersurfaces intersect on a common N-2 boundary:
d(VI) = d(VF) = VA = N-2 Anchor
Here again a point Natario seems to have neglected.
Consider the case where you have a Minkowski space and you have two
Cauchy surfaces S, T which coincide up to the Anchor; but with surface
S following VI, and surface T following VF:
S = C + VI; T = C + VF
dC = VA = d(VI) = d(VF)
C goes out to spatial infinity
The basic principles underlying a purely local formulation of the Cauchy problem are:
(A) The evolution E(T, S): W(S) |-> W(T)
is a function only of the physics within region V.
(B) The state W factors such that
W(S) = W1(VI) x W2(C)
W(T) = W1(VF) x W2(C)
with
E(VF, VI): W1(VI) |-> W1(VF)
(C) The transition E(VF, VI) is independent of the
Lagrangian outside the region V
and most importantly:
(D) The transition E(VF, VI) is independent of the global
structure of space-time outside of V.
When one formulates the Lagrangian principle of least action over the
region V, the result is a local generalization of the Hamiltonian formulation
which applies soley to the region V.
It does not apply once the Boundary is crossed. And yet, Natario in his work assumes it
does. He never once treats the Warp region in its basic parts formed by the changes in the
Lorentz frame. Nor, does he properly treat the crossing of the internal shield boundary
around the ship itself.
Continuing on, we find:
The surfaces VI and VF are connected by a homotopy of surfaces all sharing
the common anchor VA
VI = V(0); VF = V(1)
d(V(t)) = VA, for t between 0 and 1
V = union of the V(t) as t ranges from 0 to 1
The homotopy parameter t is what plays the role of "historical" time and is the evolution
parameter in the generalized Hamiltonian formulation. Here again, the common anchor
issue was ignored in Natario’s work.
An Incoming Photon will enter a region in the forward area where the local limit on
C is less than one observes normally in space-time. While the photon will be entering
this region at the velocity of the overall field, it will lose energy as it enters this forward
region. An example being that if the overall field velocity is say 2C, yet this
compression region has an overall maximum of 1C in that region then the photons will
shed their excess energy as they pass through this region. Again when they cross into the
near region of the craft which is in free fall they will pass through a horizon. But since
the local velocity of light here is the same as that of the frontal region in this case they
will not shed energy again. However, once the photons pass through this region they
will again gain energy since the rear region of the field has a higher value of C. Dr.
Natario’s article never took this into account. He treats the whole field and its differing
regions as if the rear regions velocity was all that one needed to account for.
Secondly, Dr. Natario did not take into consideration what effects an expanded
Lorentz frame has upon the overall energy of those photon’s in question. When Einstein
wrote down his postulates for special relativity he did not include the statement that you
can not travel faster than light. There is a misconception that it is possible to derive it as a
consequence of the postulates he did give. Incidentally, it was Henri Poincare who said
"Perhaps we must construct a new mechanics, ... in which the speed of light would
become an impassable limit." That was in an address to the International Congress of Arts
and Science in 1904 before Einstein announced special relativity in 1905. It is a
consequence of relativity that the energy of a particle of rest mass m moving with speed v
is given by E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
As the speed approaches the speed of light the energy approaches infinity. Hence is
should be impossible to accelerate an object with rest mass to the speed of light and
particles with zero rest mass must always go at exactly the speed of light otherwise they
would have no energy. This is sometimes called the "light speed barrier" but it is very
different from the "sound speed barrier". As an aircraft approaches the speed of sound it
starts to feel pressure waves which indicate that it is getting close. With some more thrust
it can pass through. As the light speed barrier is approached (in a perfect vacuum) there is
no such effect according to relativity.
However, there is a logic flaw in this that is commonly missed. If you expand the C to a
higher value then what we now call light speed, 186300 miles per second, is no longer the
barrier. The new value of C becomes the barrier now. In this altered region one still
cannot travel faster than light. But one can travel faster than light does now. So, when
you view warp drive as FTL, it is really a drive with an altered space-time where the
upper limit on C has been changed so that we can travel faster than light in normal space-
time, yet slower than light in the new space-time region. One has simply changed the
barrier, not violated relativity. So in essence, even Warp Drive mechanics proves
relativity is correct.
In 1842, the Austrian physicist Christian Johann Doppler noted that the wavelength of
light, sound, or any other kind of propagating energy measured by a moving observer will
be shifted by a factor of:
V/C
where v is the velocity at which the observer is approaching or receding from the source
and c is the speed at which the wave propagates. But since C in a warp region has been
shifted higher then v/c has a different effect in a warped region. Examine the following:
If C=2C and v=1C then ½=.5
Now the Doppler shift of plane light waves in vacuum which arrive with an angle phi
with respect to the direction of travel is:
V=V((1-cosphiv/c)/(sqrt(1-V^2/c^2)))
However, in a hyperspace region the C unit has a different value. The value of a 2C warp
region would fall nearly on the classical line of a graph if one compared a classical one to
one done using SR and one using the modified Lorentz frame. In fact, as the lightcone
of the region is expanded the classical is more closer followed as long as our ship’s
velocity for each region remains at .5 of the regions total velocity range. So in reality
those incoming photons would not hit the ship with any more energy than a craft would
experience if it was traveling at .5C in normal space-time.

CONCLUSIONS

So, Dr. Natario’s examination of Warp Drive failed simply because he didn’t take into
account changes in the Lorentz Invarient frame. This does not imply that a Blue Shift of
Photons entering the field does not take place. Indead, the photons at the rear of such a
bi-polar region are highly blue shifted. But, in the front region coming at the craft they
are not shifted beyond a certain point. Basically, Dr. Natario didn't do his homework.
Recent, none other than Dr. Pfenning, who wrote against the original Warp Metric from
Alcubierre stated in his own published article that Natario was incorrect in assuming the
problem he posed rules out warp drive.

REFERENCES

1.) J Natario, “Warp drive with zero expansion”, 2002 Class. Quantum Grav. 19
1157-1165

2.) W.G. Unruh and R. Wald, "Time and the Interpretation of Canonical Quantum
Gravity", Phys. Rev. D40, 2598--2614 1989

3.) W.G. Unruh, "Notes on Black Hole Evaporation", Phys. Rev. D14, 870 1976