So when can we buy a replicator?

[Ron Scott]

In Star Trek a replicator was originally available for food and drinks, and later was able to manufacture breathable air, spare parts for ships and equipment, etc. Fun.

Now we have 3D printers that can do…something I guess. But this is just phase 1.

It is assumed that in the future replicators will manufacture at the atomic level and will be able to produce things that are staples of GDP, like food, clothing, materials for construction, electronics, etc. There’s AI money all up in this too.

I’m guessing most of us will have one in the house, and businesses will be buying the big toys.

I’m thinking some kind of kitchen appliance in the 2030s.

[GilesMM]

It is as simple as converting energy to matter.

[Ron Scott]

I think they will first use “matter” like we use ink.

[big_owl]

It is as simple as converting energy to matter.

Happened all on its own 13.8bn years ago, can't be that difficult...

[GilesMM]

It is as simple as converting energy to matter.

Happened all on its own 13.8bn years ago, can't be that difficult...

Exactly. If you can create a universe, a Swanson Salisbury steak dinner should be a dawdle.

[big_owl]

It is as simple as converting energy to matter.

Happened all on its own 13.8bn years ago, can't be that difficult...

Exactly. If you can create a universe, a Swanson Salisbury steak dinner should be a dawdle.

I'm just gonna print gold or maybe print a hard disk with bitcoin on it so I can be more rich.  Just gotta print the right combinations of protons, neutrons and electrons, easy enough. 

[spartana]

Am I the only one imagining "Stargate" replicators instead of "Star Trek" ones?

[Morning Glory]

Recycled food: good for the environment, ok for you.

[Luke Warm]

so the first person to buy a replicator will just replicate copies for his friends

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Extrapolating from "communicators exist" to "everything in Star Trek will exist" is a big leap.

In theory, pushing the Starship Enterprise up to the speed of light would take more energy than exists in the universe.  And traveling near the speed of light causes time dilation, where they should have returned to Earth long after they left.  If they traveled a couple years at 99.99% the speed of light (warp 0.9999), 450 years would have passed on Earth (according to the article "Understanding relativistic time", which mentions 224x dilation for 0.9999c).

I'm sure subatomic particles have been created and destroyed, but has anything larger been created from energy?  Even if that were possible, the energy required would be immense.  Each bomb dropped during WWII converted 0.7 grams of matter into energy.  The entire nuclear arsenal of every country on Earth (2500 MT) could create about a quarter bushel of apples (200g each), at that conversion rate.  And if anything goes wrong...

[MustacheAndaHalf]

I'm just gonna print gold or maybe print a hard disk with bitcoin on it so I can be more rich.  Just gotta print the right combinations of protons, neutrons and electrons, easy enough.

1 gram of gold is worth about $85.  I think you're going to use more than that in converting energy to matter.

You can create an empty Bitcoin wallet for free.  If you want to grab someone else's Bitcoin wallet, you need to crack their 256-bit password.

[sonofsven]

I had a Technics double cassette replicator that worked well for taking those sweet mix tapes.

[Ron Scott]

The Replicator (ongoing AI enhancements to today’s 3D printers) will more fully automate the production of tangible things—things we eat, wear, and live in. Related technologies will similarly affect other areas like healthcare and transportation. This is the continuous conversion of more goods and services into information technologies, a process that has been with us for decades but is accelerating very quickly now.

I see the importance of this in terms of what we experience in information technology now and the relationship between the newtech and productivity/inflation.

When we spend 4 hours a day engaging in online services like this forum, Google, text/mail, Wikipedia, Facebook, YouTube, etc., we are not paying for them out-of-pocket so their contribution to GDP is muted. But the Replicator and other newtech will be reducing costs for more tangibles and services we do pay for. When growing demand is easily and inexpensively managed by producers, inflation will be under control. And when inflation is no longer a problem the government can push much more money into circulation without fear of large increases in prices.

We certainly live in an era of abundance. But nothing like tomorrow.

[reeshau]

The near-term answer is a 3D printer.  While there are small niches where that is the most efficient mechanism, compliczted things in low quantities can be quite economical.  And in space, if you can bring a 3D printer and the right raw materials, you don't need spare parts.  Think about this in context with the Appllo 13 disaster, and the lengths they had to go through to jury rig a solution to get them home.  This could be quite key to long-term missions to the Moon or Mars.

And yes, there are 3D food printers already.

[BicycleB]

Recycled food: good for the environment, ok for you.

Soylent Green is people!!!

PS. When a general replicator goes on the market, my neighbor who 3D prints elements of his home projects on our apartment's front patio is going to quickly assess which device is better for the tasks that his current printer can accomplish. I suspect it will take a while though.

[Paul | pdgessler]

Am I the only one imagining "Stargate" replicators instead of "Star Trek" ones?

Not just you, Spartana!

[Herbert Derp]

Star Trek replicators are magic. None of our current technology is even close to behaving like that, nor do I see any clear path forward to achieving that level of technology.

I don’t see anything close to a Star Trek replicator being invented in my lifetime.

Stargate Replicators seem just as unlikely to me. You can’t just magically convert matter into whatever you want, and Stargate Replicators seem to possess the ability to eat matter and spit out more of themselves. Physics just doesn’t work that way…

[ChpBstrd]

The computers we are using to communicate right now are replicators of data.

But the issues are already becoming apparent. Replication allows for malicious actors to create and spread viruses, deepfakes, propaganda, and misinformation. Replication has depreciated the value of truthful information (i.e. essentially ended quality journalism) and replaced the interpersonal relationships of civil society with extremist information bubbles and dopamine-shot internet dependency.

We originally built these machines to solve the problem of replicating and disseminating information on paper, but the side effects may eventually include worldwide totalitarianism.

And that's before we even figure out how to make a machine that could be programmed mass-produce weapons, clones, nuclear materials, biological weapons, etc... to solve the problem of having to brew one's own Earl Grey tea.

[GuitarStv]

In theory, pushing the Starship Enterprise up to the speed of light would take more energy than exists in the universe.  And traveling near the speed of light causes time dilation, where they should have returned to Earth long after they left.  If they traveled a couple years at 99.99% the speed of light (warp 0.9999), 450 years would have passed on Earth (according to the article "Understanding relativistic time", which mentions 224x dilation for 0.9999c).

My understanding is that the Enterprise didn't travel faster than light when warping.  It was bending space (the way that gravity fields around planets bend it) and then travelling through the distortion created at sub-light speeds.  This article 'Spacetime Hypersurfing' seems to argue that it's at least theoretically plausible (https://www.jstor.org/stable/29775278?mag=is-star-treks-warp-drive-possible&seq=1) under very specific conditions with exotic matter.

[sixwings]

In theory, pushing the Starship Enterprise up to the speed of light would take more energy than exists in the universe.  And traveling near the speed of light causes time dilation, where they should have returned to Earth long after they left.  If they traveled a couple years at 99.99% the speed of light (warp 0.9999), 450 years would have passed on Earth (according to the article "Understanding relativistic time", which mentions 224x dilation for 0.9999c).

My understanding is that the Enterprise didn't travel faster than light when warping.  It was bending space (the way that gravity fields around planets bend it) and then travelling through the distortion created at sub-light speeds.  This article 'Spacetime Hypersurfing' seems to argue that it's at least theoretically plausible (https://www.jstor.org/stable/29775278?mag=is-star-treks-warp-drive-possible&seq=1) under very specific conditions with exotic matter.

Yes I believe thats what they are doing. It's the same as replicators, theoretically possible but not probable without some major energy and AI breakthroughs. I read once that the replicator is like if you were as tall from the earth to the moon, it would be like trying to build a sandcastle, one grain of sand at a time, using your hands. 

[Financial.Velociraptor]

BUY a replicator???

In that future, what use would money have?  How could the state justify using force to enforce property rights?  No one would "own" such a thing.  They would be public goods.

[sixwings]

BUY a replicator???

In that future, what use would money have?  How could the state justify using force to enforce property rights?  No one would "own" such a thing.  They would be public goods.

In star trek energy becomes the currency (except for latinum which cannot be replicated). For instance, people will give someone else an energy allotment for the day so they can use the transporter in exchange favor or a good. But generally it moves beyond our concept of capitalistic societies into a post-scarcity world, which would be very different.

I'm not optimistic that it would turn out like star trek, I think it would end up being controlled by a small number of individuals who rule over humanity, and there's not much that people can do about it. It's also possible that by the time we create replicators aging is solved (again just for the small number of rich individuals) so these people become the permanent rulers.

[Just Joe]

ST replicators are 24th century alchemy... Will that ever be possible?

[nereo]

ST replicators are 24th century alchemy... Will that ever be possible?

For humanity to make it to the 24th century? Outlook hazy…

[GuitarStv]

ST replicators are 24th century alchemy... Will that ever be possible?

For humanity to make it to the 24th century? Outlook hazy…

Hazy is very optimistic.

[GilesMM]

In theory, pushing the Starship Enterprise up to the speed of light would take more energy than exists in the universe.  And traveling near the speed of light causes time dilation, where they should have returned to Earth long after they left.  If they traveled a couple years at 99.99% the speed of light (warp 0.9999), 450 years would have passed on Earth (according to the article "Understanding relativistic time", which mentions 224x dilation for 0.9999c).

My understanding is that the Enterprise didn't travel faster than light when warping.  It was bending space (the way that gravity fields around planets bend it) and then travelling through the distortion created at sub-light speeds.  This article 'Spacetime Hypersurfing' seems to argue that it's at least theoretically plausible (https://www.jstor.org/stable/29775278?mag=is-star-treks-warp-drive-possible&seq=1) under very specific conditions with exotic matter.

We are arguing about how fast the Enterprise went?

[GuitarStv]

In theory, pushing the Starship Enterprise up to the speed of light would take more energy than exists in the universe.  And traveling near the speed of light causes time dilation, where they should have returned to Earth long after they left.  If they traveled a couple years at 99.99% the speed of light (warp 0.9999), 450 years would have passed on Earth (according to the article "Understanding relativistic time", which mentions 224x dilation for 0.9999c).

My understanding is that the Enterprise didn't travel faster than light when warping.  It was bending space (the way that gravity fields around planets bend it) and then travelling through the distortion created at sub-light speeds.  This article 'Spacetime Hypersurfing' seems to argue that it's at least theoretically plausible (https://www.jstor.org/stable/29775278?mag=is-star-treks-warp-drive-possible&seq=1) under very specific conditions with exotic matter.

We are arguing about how fast the Enterprise went?

The Flash is faster than Superman too.  Facts.

[nereo]

We are arguing about how fast the Enterprise went?

Not exactly. “Fast” is velocity, basically how quickly you can travel between two points in a straight line. Distance divided by time. Thing is, when using its warp engines the Enterprise wasn’t traveling very fast at all, at least in the manner we understand speed.  Instead of increasing speed to get to a distant location in less time, the warp bubble decreased the distance by bending space.

We know the ship itself wasn’t traveling very fast because it could go into and out of warp in a matter of seconds (“warp speed - engage!”  Or “Captain, we’re dropping out of warp!”). Had the ship actually been traveling near or even beyond the speed of light the acceleration would be several orders of magnitude greater than when a jet hits a mountain cliff dead on. Everyone aboard would go splat and (presumably) the ship would explode from the g-forces of going from ~300km/sec to 0 in just a fee seconds. Put another way, if you were traveling at the speed of light and wanted to quickly come to a stop but limit the acceleration to a still vomit-inducing 3Gs, it would take over two weeks to come to a full (relative stop). At which point I’m pretty sure the Klingons or Borg or whatever would have blasted the Enterprise to pieces while everyone aboard was trying not to black out.

There’s also the issue MustacheandaHalf brings up about time dilation. At warp 1 even a five year journey would barely get you to Sol’s nearest neighbor, Proxima Centauri with just a bit of time for exploring and some Kirk/Alien kinky encounters, but several centuries would pass at Star Fleet command back on Earth. No idea how that could even work for a society.

[maizefolk]

We know the ship itself wasn’t traveling very fast because it could go into and out of warp in a matter of seconds (“warp speed - engage!”  Or “Captain, we’re dropping out of warp!”). Had the ship actually been traveling near or even beyond the speed of light the acceleration would be several orders of magnitude greater than when a jet hits a mountain cliff dead on. Everyone aboard would go splat and (presumably) the ship would explode from the g-forces of going from ~300km/sec to 0 in just a fee seconds. Put another way, if you were traveling at the speed of light and wanted to quickly come to a stop but limit the acceleration to a still vomit-inducing 3Gs, it would take over two weeks to come to a full (relative stop).

There was a whole separate technology to explain the ability to accelerate or decelerate at speeds which would have squashed everyone on board: Inertial dampers.

[nereo]

We know the ship itself wasn’t traveling very fast because it could go into and out of warp in a matter of seconds (“warp speed - engage!”  Or “Captain, we’re dropping out of warp!”). Had the ship actually been traveling near or even beyond the speed of light the acceleration would be several orders of magnitude greater than when a jet hits a mountain cliff dead on. Everyone aboard would go splat and (presumably) the ship would explode from the g-forces of going from ~300km/sec to 0 in just a fee seconds. Put another way, if you were traveling at the speed of light and wanted to quickly come to a stop but limit the acceleration to a still vomit-inducing 3Gs, it would take over two weeks to come to a full (relative stop).

There was a whole separate technology to explain the ability to accelerate or decelerate at speeds which would have squashed everyone on board: Inertial dampers.

Inertial dampeners  offset the effect of the propulsion engines (“impulse drive”). Frankly I don’t accept the argument that inertial dampeners counteract acceleration effects of dropping out of warp simply because there are so many examples of ships unexpectedly dropping out of warp when there’s a power problem, and the crew spill their earl gray but otherwise are just fine. If there’s an engineering problem which knocks out the warp drive it stands to reason that it would also impact the inertial dampeners, which would require similarly insane levels of energy to compensate for shifts to/from near light speed. Plus, inertial dampeners wouldn’t address the issues of time dilation.

We also get a clue that warp drive isn’t accelerating beyond light speed because the propulsion drive and warp are completely different systems. And impulse was always way below light speed, perhaps intentionally limited to prevent time dilation.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

GuitarStv & nereo - In the original series, and even the Star Trek movies, the phase "warp speed" is used repeatedly.  The ship blurs with motion, and stars blur with motion.  I interpret that as velocity, but perhaps the original series doesn't spell it out in enough detail.

Taking your interpretation, that the warp engines are warping without moving, there's still a problem.  The ship would warp spacetime - both space and time.  The ship is traveling faster through space, and faster through time.  The ship could experience a journey of a couple years, while back on Earth hundreds of years have elapsed.  Much like traveling near the speed of light, when they warp space, they warp time.

[GuitarStv]

GuitarStv & nereo - In the original series, and even the Star Trek movies, the phase "warp speed" is used repeatedly.  The ship blurs with motion, and stars blur with motion.  I interpret that as velocity, but perhaps the original series doesn't spell it out in enough detail.

Taking your interpretation, that the warp engines are warping without moving, there's still a problem.  The ship would warp spacetime - both space and time.  The ship is traveling faster through space, and faster through time.  The ship could experience a journey of a couple years, while back on Earth hundreds of years have elapsed.  Much like traveling near the speed of light, when they warp space, they warp time.

You're making an assumption that the warp engines are warping space in the same way that they warp time.  We're getting into the weeds here as far as human knowledge, but from my reading about other space/time distortions (wormholes) current theories are that the distortion doesn't necessarily effect time and space in the same way.  Depending on the wormhole it could just effect time, or just space, or somewhere in between.  So at least theoretically, the warp in Star Trek could only apply to the space part rather than the time part.

The warp drive creates a series of small distortions to space (only).  The ship then traverses the distortions.  The ship itself never approaches the speed of light.  Because he ship is moving slowly, time dilation doesn't come into play.  You might see a blur or stretching or something as the ship rapidly enters and exits this chain of distortions but time would remain constant between the ship and the universe pre-warp distortion.  The ship effectively moves faster than light because of the distortions without ever actually moving faster than light and triggering the dilation.

[RetiredAt63]

Worm holes are a lot easier.  Entry point in a star system (usually very far from the star, so the long travel times are within each system, travel between systems is almost instantaneous), exit point in another star system.  Trick is to find the entry point, hope the exit point is safe (see The Mote in God's Eye, also the Vorkosiverse).  Systems with lots of worm holes are the equivalent of major ports or airline hubs.

I'm still waiting for the uterine replicator from the Vorkosiverse, although how it is used varies wildly depending on the overall culture. 

[ChpBstrd]

Sigh... nerd mode triggered.

My understanding of "warp" is that the ship bends space around itself, creating an oblong bubble of space with the ship inside that bubble. The football-like bubble of space containing the ship slips through (or between) regular space due to a slight asymmetry in its shape creating more space/time/gravitational "pressure" behind the ship's bubble than in front of it. As the ship's bubble of space passes through regular space, the space ahead of it is cut open and then folds back together behind it.

The ship and its occupants are not subject to the inertial forces of acceleration/deceleration because those forces exist relative to the space bubble that the ship exists within. I.e. the ship does not move relative to the space that is in the bubble, and inertia is only relative to the space one is in.

Newtonian physics would have to be relative to the "ether" of the universe - the fabric of distance being distorted by a warp field. Relativity physics would be applicable within normal spacetime, not bent spacetime, just as Newtonian physics is only applicable at its scale. A unified theory of physics would account for Newtonian, relativistic, and warp environments/scales.

This explanation is also consistent with how spacecraft are not routinely destroyed by hitting grains of sand or molecules of gas. If they are bending space itself, the ship directly hitting a grain of sand or an asteroid would essentially split apart the space containing the matter and pass right through it. The matter would be left unchanged because its inertia is relative to the space in which it exists - i.e. not within the ship's bubble. Similarly the ship would be left unchanged because its inertia is relative to the space in which it exists, inside the bubble.

Left unexplained:

• How ships are not routinely destroyed by bullet-speed matter hitting them when they are not in warp. Can they rely on luck, like we do with the International Space Station?
• How crews are not always sickened and killed by cosmic radiation that it would take massive amounts of concrete or metal to insulate against. Perhaps "shields" to deflect the radiation, as the Earth's ionosphere does? But in a different way that can be done on the scale of a shuttlecraft?
• The streaks one sees while a ship is in warp - one would expect complete darkness aside from the ship's lights. One possibility is that these are small bits of matter "burning up" like meteors when the space they occupy is split by the warp field. However, that contradicts the concept that space can be split without affecting the matter that occupies space, a key assumption if ships can travel millions of AU through unavoidable amounts of matter. Other possibilities are that these simply represent frictions between the warp bubble and normal spacetime, leakages of photons across the bubble membrane, or thus waste energy from space distortion.
• How they communicate on "subspace frequencies" in real time across light years... implies the passage of signals through a currently unknown dimension in which space-time is not a factor.
• How does near-range "impulse" propulsion work? Perhaps through the acceleration of rapidly-self-annihilating inertia-sensitive sub-atomic particles to near the speed of light?
• Transporters and replicators disassembling and reassembling complex things at the atomic level.

[GuitarStv]

How they communicate on "subspace frequencies" in real time across light years... implies the passage of signals through a currently unknown dimension in which space-time is not a factor.

I always figured this was an extrapolation of quantum entanglement application.  We know that once entangled (regardless of the distance in space between them), two particles exhibit changes on each other instantaneously.  Fucked up, but makes faster than light communication pretty easy over any distance.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

GuitarStv & nereo - In the original series, and even the Star Trek movies, the phase "warp speed" is used repeatedly.  The ship blurs with motion, and stars blur with motion.  I interpret that as velocity, but perhaps the original series doesn't spell it out in enough detail.

Taking your interpretation, that the warp engines are warping without moving, there's still a problem.  The ship would warp spacetime - both space and time.  The ship is traveling faster through space, and faster through time.  The ship could experience a journey of a couple years, while back on Earth hundreds of years have elapsed.  Much like traveling near the speed of light, when they warp space, they warp time.

You're making an assumption that the warp engines are warping space in the same way that they warp time.  We're getting into the weeds here as far as human knowledge, but from my reading about other space/time distortions (wormholes) current theories are that the distortion doesn't necessarily effect time and space in the same way.  Depending on the wormhole it could just effect time, or just space, or somewhere in between.  So at least theoretically, the warp in Star Trek could only apply to the space part rather than the time part.

The warp drive creates a series of small distortions to space (only).  The ship then traverses the distortions.  The ship itself never approaches the speed of light.  Because he ship is moving slowly, time dilation doesn't come into play.  You might see a blur or stretching or something as the ship rapidly enters and exits this chain of distortions but time would remain constant between the ship and the universe pre-warp distortion.  The ship effectively moves faster than light because of the distortions without ever actually moving faster than light and triggering the dilation.

In the original series, I don't recall warp drives creating wormholes to travel.

An expert points to problems of space and time with wormholes.  Their predicted size of 10^-33 cm would be far larger than a proton.. let alone a human cell... let alone a starship.  And these predicted wormholes would collapse extremely quickly.  The use of "predicted" is because no wormhole has ever been confirmed.
https://www.space.com/20881-wormholes.html#section-wormhole-q-a-with-an-expert

Another point is that a warp drive doesn't just use an existing wormhole to travel - it needs to create its own wormholes.  The link above mentions a theory that two black holes could create a wormhole between them.  That would take an enormous bending of spacetime, while also making the wormholes useless.  They could exist in theory, and be unusable in practice.

[GuitarStv]

GuitarStv & nereo - In the original series, and even the Star Trek movies, the phase "warp speed" is used repeatedly.  The ship blurs with motion, and stars blur with motion.  I interpret that as velocity, but perhaps the original series doesn't spell it out in enough detail.

Taking your interpretation, that the warp engines are warping without moving, there's still a problem.  The ship would warp spacetime - both space and time.  The ship is traveling faster through space, and faster through time.  The ship could experience a journey of a couple years, while back on Earth hundreds of years have elapsed.  Much like traveling near the speed of light, when they warp space, they warp time.

You're making an assumption that the warp engines are warping space in the same way that they warp time.  We're getting into the weeds here as far as human knowledge, but from my reading about other space/time distortions (wormholes) current theories are that the distortion doesn't necessarily effect time and space in the same way.  Depending on the wormhole it could just effect time, or just space, or somewhere in between.  So at least theoretically, the warp in Star Trek could only apply to the space part rather than the time part.

The warp drive creates a series of small distortions to space (only).  The ship then traverses the distortions.  The ship itself never approaches the speed of light.  Because he ship is moving slowly, time dilation doesn't come into play.  You might see a blur or stretching or something as the ship rapidly enters and exits this chain of distortions but time would remain constant between the ship and the universe pre-warp distortion.  The ship effectively moves faster than light because of the distortions without ever actually moving faster than light and triggering the dilation.

In the original series, I don't recall warp drives creating wormholes to travel.

An expert points to problems of space and time with wormholes.  Their predicted size of 10^-33 cm would be far larger than a proton.. let alone a human cell... let alone a starship.  And these predicted wormholes would collapse extremely quickly.  The use of "predicted" is because no wormhole has ever been confirmed.
https://www.space.com/20881-wormholes.html#section-wormhole-q-a-with-an-expert

Another point is that a warp drive doesn't just use an existing wormhole to travel - it needs to create its own wormholes.  The link above mentions a theory that two black holes could create a wormhole between them.  That would take an enormous bending of spacetime, while also making the wormholes useless.  They could exist in theory, and be unusable in practice.

Yeah, I'm not saying the warp drive creates wormholes . . . just that it's space-time warping effect is in a similar vein which makes it easier to think about.

[Just Joe]

Now go watch Star Trek Discovery and explain their fast travel solution to us...

[Metalcat]

This thread went the best direction possible.

I frickin' love all you nerds.

[GilesMM]

Sigh... nerd mode triggered.

My understanding of "warp" is that the ship bends space around itself, creating an oblong bubble of space with the ship inside that bubble. The football-like bubble of space containing the ship slips through (or between) regular space due to a slight asymmetry in its shape creating more space/time/gravitational "pressure" behind the ship's bubble than in front of it. As the ship's bubble of space passes through regular space, the space ahead of it is cut open and then folds back together behind it.

The ship and its occupants are not subject to the inertial forces of acceleration/deceleration because those forces exist relative to the space bubble that the ship exists within. I.e. the ship does not move relative to the space that is in the bubble, and inertia is only relative to the space one is in.

Newtonian physics would have to be relative to the "ether" of the universe - the fabric of distance being distorted by a warp field. Relativity physics would be applicable within normal spacetime, not bent spacetime, just as Newtonian physics is only applicable at its scale. A unified theory of physics would account for Newtonian, relativistic, and warp environments/scales.

This explanation is also consistent with how spacecraft are not routinely destroyed by hitting grains of sand or molecules of gas. If they are bending space itself, the ship directly hitting a grain of sand or an asteroid would essentially split apart the space containing the matter and pass right through it. The matter would be left unchanged because its inertia is relative to the space in which it exists - i.e. not within the ship's bubble. Similarly the ship would be left unchanged because its inertia is relative to the space in which it exists, inside the bubble.

Left unexplained:

• How ships are not routinely destroyed by bullet-speed matter hitting them when they are not in warp. Can they rely on luck, like we do with the International Space Station?
• How crews are not always sickened and killed by cosmic radiation that it would take massive amounts of concrete or metal to insulate against. Perhaps "shields" to deflect the radiation, as the Earth's ionosphere does? But in a different way that can be done on the scale of a shuttlecraft?
• The streaks one sees while a ship is in warp - one would expect complete darkness aside from the ship's lights. One possibility is that these are small bits of matter "burning up" like meteors when the space they occupy is split by the warp field. However, that contradicts the concept that space can be split without affecting the matter that occupies space, a key assumption if ships can travel millions of AU through unavoidable amounts of matter. Other possibilities are that these simply represent frictions between the warp bubble and normal spacetime, leakages of photons across the bubble membrane, or thus waste energy from space distortion.
• How they communicate on "subspace frequencies" in real time across light years... implies the passage of signals through a currently unknown dimension in which space-time is not a factor.
• How does near-range "impulse" propulsion work? Perhaps through the acceleration of rapidly-self-annihilating inertia-sensitive sub-atomic particles to near the speed of light?
• Transporters and replicators disassembling and reassembling complex things at the atomic level.

All the tremendous interspatial sounds (phasers, torpedos, explosions) during battles with enemies, etc were also unexplained.

[ChpBstrd]

Sigh... nerd mode triggered.

My understanding of "warp" is that the ship bends space around itself, creating an oblong bubble of space with the ship inside that bubble. The football-like bubble of space containing the ship slips through (or between) regular space due to a slight asymmetry in its shape creating more space/time/gravitational "pressure" behind the ship's bubble than in front of it. As the ship's bubble of space passes through regular space, the space ahead of it is cut open and then folds back together behind it.

The ship and its occupants are not subject to the inertial forces of acceleration/deceleration because those forces exist relative to the space bubble that the ship exists within. I.e. the ship does not move relative to the space that is in the bubble, and inertia is only relative to the space one is in.

Newtonian physics would have to be relative to the "ether" of the universe - the fabric of distance being distorted by a warp field. Relativity physics would be applicable within normal spacetime, not bent spacetime, just as Newtonian physics is only applicable at its scale. A unified theory of physics would account for Newtonian, relativistic, and warp environments/scales.

This explanation is also consistent with how spacecraft are not routinely destroyed by hitting grains of sand or molecules of gas. If they are bending space itself, the ship directly hitting a grain of sand or an asteroid would essentially split apart the space containing the matter and pass right through it. The matter would be left unchanged because its inertia is relative to the space in which it exists - i.e. not within the ship's bubble. Similarly the ship would be left unchanged because its inertia is relative to the space in which it exists, inside the bubble.

Left unexplained:

• How ships are not routinely destroyed by bullet-speed matter hitting them when they are not in warp. Can they rely on luck, like we do with the International Space Station?
• How crews are not always sickened and killed by cosmic radiation that it would take massive amounts of concrete or metal to insulate against. Perhaps "shields" to deflect the radiation, as the Earth's ionosphere does? But in a different way that can be done on the scale of a shuttlecraft?
• The streaks one sees while a ship is in warp - one would expect complete darkness aside from the ship's lights. One possibility is that these are small bits of matter "burning up" like meteors when the space they occupy is split by the warp field. However, that contradicts the concept that space can be split without affecting the matter that occupies space, a key assumption if ships can travel millions of AU through unavoidable amounts of matter. Other possibilities are that these simply represent frictions between the warp bubble and normal spacetime, leakages of photons across the bubble membrane, or thus waste energy from space distortion.
• How they communicate on "subspace frequencies" in real time across light years... implies the passage of signals through a currently unknown dimension in which space-time is not a factor.
• How does near-range "impulse" propulsion work? Perhaps through the acceleration of rapidly-self-annihilating inertia-sensitive sub-atomic particles to near the speed of light?
• Transporters and replicators disassembling and reassembling complex things at the atomic level.

All the tremendous interspatial sounds (phasers, torpedos, explosions) during battles with enemies, etc were also unexplained.

That I can handle. Just assume the director is giving you the auditory experience from inside the ship and the visual experience from outside the ship to better explain what is happening. The director simply gives you a godlike 3rd party omniscient point of view with separate sensory locations.

The orchestral music also does not exist in space, but hey, we are being told a story, not a livestream.

My priority was always Make This Happen, and so understanding the physics assumptions was of more interest to me than the theatrics. A lot of the simpler stuff (radiation shielding, managing micrometeorite impacts while the ship is parked, transparent aluminum windows that don't freeze) seems harder to explain than the weird stuff (warp drive, "subspace frequencies").

[spartana]

Nerds! I just want my space ship to be capable of making decent cup of tea without, you know, like exploding.