<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Generic warp drives violate the null energy condition · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2105.03079/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2105.03079/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Generic warp drives violate the null energy condition — mentioned by eesmith</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32046002</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2105.03079:32046002</guid><pubDate>Sun, 10 Jul 2022 16:15:10 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;From 2021? Stick it into Google Scholar. 26 citations. Abstract from https://arxiv.org/pdf/2105.03079.pdf from Feb. 2022: &amp;gt; Three recent articles have claimed that it is possible to, at least in theory, either set up positive energy warp drives satisfying the weak energy condition (WEC), or at the very least, to minimize the WEC violations. These claims are at best incomplete, since the arguments as presented only assert but do not prove the existence of one set of timelike observers, the co-moving Eulerian observers, who see relatively “nice” physics. While these particular observers might…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2105.03079/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>gr-qc</category></item><item><title>Generic warp drives violate the null energy condition — mentioned by ctoth</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27816741</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2105.03079:27816741</guid><pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2021 00:58:08 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;I believe the answer to this is [0], and the answer to that is [1]. I&amp;#x27;m rather over my head here, and would love some analysis from people who know what the heck they&amp;#x27;re talking about. [0]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.03079 [1]: https://eriklentzphd.blogspot.com/2021/05/response-to-new-pa...&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2105.03079/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>gr-qc</category></item></channel></rss>
