• Faster-than-Light Travel is Impossible (Revised 2nd Edition)
    303 replies, posted
[QUOTE=nERVEcenter;32298413]Second? Yeah, my first one was years ago. But, I digress, there is a very real reason that any type of faster-than-light travel simply cannot happen within or without our spiffy little universe. It's simply causality. So long as this law holds true as it is assumed, no event that would breach causality could ever hope to occur. For quite possibly the same reasons it's impossible to directly observe an object of infinite density (the theorized "local singularity" of a black hole), time dilation increases acutely the closer you get to the speed of light so that you can't arrive at your destination before the light proving your existence on Earth gets there (enjoy traveling to α Centauri in 50 years, human civilization might be extinct when you get there), and energy requirements to get there simply can't be obtained or don't exist (Alcubierre drives requiring magnitudes more energy than the combined mass of the universe, and there is of course the problem that there's no way to escape the warp field; also, exotic particles like tachyons which are largely theory and fiction). Hyperspace, the Empyrean, the Warp, Slipspace, these are all gods out of the machine, deftly allowing the creation of interstellar sagas of human exploration for our entertainment. But none of it is real. The multiverse might be real. The genesis singularity might not have been the absolute beginning for what lies beyond. Time might have more than one dimension, or all exist at once. There are various wondrous things to still be discovered about everything and nothing. But don't think too hard about FTL travel. That'll be science fiction for a very long time.[/QUOTE] what about this (easier to post video than to write):[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRWwI61so5Q[/media]
[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;32314460]i read books[/QUOTE] I watch stargate.
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;32316108]I watch stargate.[/QUOTE] I was mentally retarded until the age of ten. I guess I'm just making up for lost time.
[QUOTE=nERVEcenter;32298413]Hyperspace, the Empyrean, the Warp, Slipspace, these are all gods out of the machine, deftly allowing the creation of interstellar sagas of human exploration for our entertainment. But none of it is real.[/QUOTE] Nope I reject your reality and summon Cthulhu.
I'm not a scientist, but what if we made little rips in space (Not time!) and went through them? By making our own, would they be more predictable? Would we have to get to the destination first? what i'm trying to say, are wormholes viable means of travel?
I'm no scientist but couldn't we propel spaceships via atomic blast-OHWAIT.
[QUOTE=Test Card F;32316995]I'm no scientist but couldn't we propel spaceships via atomic blast-OHWAIT.[/QUOTE] There's a similar idea being ironed out - basically, a shitload of energy is released behind whatever you want to propel at the speed of light. Apparently it'd work, but there's two problems with it: 1, we have no idea how to create so much energy then release it, and 2, everything behind you would, more-or-less, stop existing. [QUOTE=The Aussie;32316575]I'm not a scientist, but what if we made little rips in space (Not time!) and went through them? By making our own, would they be more predictable? Would we have to get to the destination first? what i'm trying to say, are wormholes viable means of travel?[/QUOTE] Supposedly, whatever comes out the other side will resemble a baked potato due to the apparent singularity between the points of exit and entrance. So... for the moment, no it isn't.
[QUOTE=Cone;32317020]There's a similar idea being ironed out - basically, a shitload of energy is released behind whatever you want to propel at the speed of light. Apparently it'd work, but there's two problems with it: 1, we have no idea how to create so much energy then release it, and 2, everything behind you would, more-or-less, stop existing.[/QUOTE] No it wouldn't work. You can't just accelerate yourself into speed of light. The closer and closer you get to light speed, the more energy it takes accelerate (anything with mass) further. EDIT In classical mechanics we use E=1/2 * mv^2 for kinetic energy. But that's just a low-velocity approximation of the actual formula: [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/a/4/9a4cbc3faaaa536d8c82fa8921c5e096.png[/img] m is mass, v is velocity, c is speed of light When v approaches c, this whole thing approaches infinity. This means that to propel anything with mass at light speed, you need infinite energy...which is just not gonna work for us.
How about we all just live through life and let the professionals handle this whole "FTL" issue?
[QUOTE=Remscar;32309580]It seems like a lot of scientists based their results on the concept that something cannot exist unless it is being observed, and to observe it we ([B]as humans[/B]) need to see light (lights reflection off of it).[/QUOTE] not really basically all our theories of the subatomic scale were made in spite of the fact we couldn't see shit about what was going on and needed to observe it indirectly
[QUOTE=GlebGuy;32317765]How about we all just live through life and let the professionals handle this whole "FTL" issue?[/QUOTE] Well we [I]could[/I]... But then we'd need another reason the justify why everyone on Facepunch is great.
I believe the OP, I mean after all he obviously has a PhD so this stuff must be true. Just because things like wormholes and Tachyons are theories, that doesn't mean they can't exist, it means they haven't been proven. Stop being pessimistic for the future of humanity and grow an imagination or take some LSD, damn.
[QUOTE=LuaChobo;32318257]Did not read thread but at the title. No fucking duh. Physically it's not, theoretically it is.[/QUOTE] It's theoretically possible the same way it's theoretically possible a peice of toast I drop will go downwards. That is to say, it [I]should[/I] be possible - we just have no current means of doing so.
Speed of light travel-go to future Faster than speed of light travel-go to past Oh no,i gave people what they need to make a time machine.
Reminded me of this: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJPV31tu24E[/media]
As a hobbyist writer, this picture basically sums up my attitude towards pesky laws of science getting in the way of my fun: [IMG]http://www.23hq.com/3364503/4347447_63bc6c2c4c53d144fb751e5d4d5fffac_large.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;32313906]Me too. And so's aVoN. Which is probably why he said everyone on the internet is a physicist.[/QUOTE] Me too. And I did REALLY well in our Relativity and Quantum Mechanics course in semester 1 which fits right into this topic. Currently, as far as we know, the energy requirements for something like a 'warp drive' or to create wormholes are just too great to be feasible. But as a human I realise that fuck the universe. We'll do whatever we god damn well want to and we've never let the fucking laws get in our way before. We just work around them, manipulate loopholes and whatnot. I'm absolutely convinced that some clever, smart-ass motherfucker (hopefully it's me!) will find a bypass around the exorbitant energy requirements and make 'FTL' travel a possibility in the future, because, like I said, we're humanity: fuck the rules. Also, everyone seems to forget when mentioning wormholes that, while they are entirely possible in theory passing through them is made impossible again without having something like exotic matter with a negative mass to keep the 'throat' of the wormhole open.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Relativity say that there are ways to travel FTL, however they're practically impossible for us to achieve? And since c isn't a true constant, since the speed of light can be slowed, then wouldn't it be possible to move FTL?
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];32320140']Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Relativity say that there are ways to travel FTL, however they're practically impossible for us to achieve? And since c isn't a true constant, since the speed of light can be slowed, then wouldn't it be possible to move FTL?[/QUOTE] If I'm not mistaken in actuality the speed of light is constant EVERYWHERE. It's just that when you shine light through something like glass it's absorbed and remitted by atoms and bounces around generally taking a bullshit, zig-zaggy direction instead of a straight line from point A to B. That causes it to appear to slow down when in actuality if you tracked a single photon over a very small distance between atoms in the glass and found its speed it'd work out to be EXACTLY C (because the space between atoms is... well, just vacuum).
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];32320140']Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Relativity say that there are ways to travel FTL, however they're practically impossible for us to achieve? And since c isn't a true constant, since the speed of light can be slowed, then wouldn't it be possible to move FTL?[/QUOTE] No that is wrong "c" is a constant as it is the speed of light in a vacuum, the slowed light you're talking about is light propagating through a material, thereby slowing down due to friction, another way is just a low spectral range with high dispersion slowing light more like EIT [url]http://goo.gl/G5rEM[/url] .
[QUOTE=MasterFen007;32305938]We fucking knew this already.[/QUOTE] Take some time and read the rest of the thread. Nobody else did.
[QUOTE=GlebGuy;32317765]How about we all just live through life and let the professionals handle this whole "FTL" issue?[/QUOTE] What if we want to become one of those professionals? No better time to start than now I say!
Tell us something that used to be impossible but is now possible
[QUOTE=BCell;32321483]Tell us something that used to be impossible but is now possible[/QUOTE] Nothing we've done was ever impossible. Like I said, it's not a valid analogy, because none of our advances have ever [i]broken the laws of physics.[/i]
[QUOTE=sltungle;32320089]I'm absolutely convinced that some clever, smart-ass motherfucker (hopefully it's me!) will find a bypass around the exorbitant energy requirements and make 'FTL' travel a possibility in the future, because, like I said, we're humanity: fuck the rules.[/QUOTE] Some people need to pay more attention in science class. It's not 'exorbitant', it's [i]infinite[/i]. Meaning, it is not possible to have enough energy to reach the speed of light, let alone pass it, which relativity shows is impossible. Now, if you want to talk about wormholes or some other sci-fi technobabble, fine, but that's not faster-than-light because there is no movement involved, rather a teleportation of sorts. There are other problems with that. It is not theoretically possible to go faster than light. Every piece of available evidence shows it to be impossible. Any new theory that renders Einstein's obsolete will still have to account for those experiments, which makes it highly unlikely that relativity will be replaced with something that conveniently allows FTL. Tau Zero by Poul Anderson should be required reading for this thread. You don't need warp drive to have space travel or engaging, interesting fiction.
Anyway, if you went faster than light then how would you see where you were, as you are going faster than the particles you use to see, meaning they would never reach your retinas/spaceship cameras.
[QUOTE=Chubbs;32321956]Anyway, if you went faster than light then how would you see where you were, as you are going faster than the particles you use to see, meaning they would never reach your retinas/spaceship cameras.[/QUOTE] Um, no, light would still intercept you as long as it wasn't coming from directly behind you. But that's leaving aside that we might as well be discussing how you'd sense the world if you spontaneously metamorphosed into a tree, because it's impossible to begin with.
[QUOTE=Chubbs;32321956]Anyway, if you went faster than light then how would you see where you were, as you are going faster than the particles you use to see, meaning they would never reach your retinas/spaceship cameras.[/QUOTE] Light doesn't work like sound. NOTHING like sound. Most of what I've seen in this thread is conventional physical logic from a middle-to-high-school level of education applied to particle physics and relativity. Please. Stop.
is there an 'closed minded ass-hole' rating?
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;32331413]is there an 'closed minded ass-hole' rating?[/QUOTE] Uh, science is ABOUT being closed-minded. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.