Faster-than-Light Travel is Impossible (Revised 2nd Edition)
303 replies, posted
In flat spacetime, yes. But the spacetime is not flat anymore. If you shine a beam of light along the path you take with an Alcubierre drive, a light beam will still beat you because the warped spacetime affects it as well.
So what? youve still found a way to beat the light speed barrier(relative to the 'bubble') no matter what YOU call it, it is interstellar travel that works
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;32344308]youve still found a way to beat the light speed barrier(relative to the 'bubble')[/QUOTE]
No you haven't
[editline]17th September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;32344308]no matter what YOU call it, it is interstellar travel that works[/QUOTE]
And no it isn't.
Did you read the OP? Their are limitations to the Alcubierre drive that make it just as feasible as FTL travel in flat spacetime, which is to say not at all.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;32344481]No you haven't
[editline]17th September 2011[/editline]
And no it isn't.
Did you read the OP? Their are limitations to the Alcubierre drive that make it just as feasible as FTL travel in flat spacetime, which is to say not at all.[/QUOTE]
okay then... wormholes
What about them
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;32344644]okay then... wormholes[/QUOTE]
I like how you get your argument butchered, and your only response is yelling "WORMHOLES!"
[editline]17th September 2011[/editline]
this isnt stargate sg1 we're talking about FTL not timey wimey bullshit
wormholes =/= FTL travel, they theoretically have the effect of relative FTL travel without breaking the lightspeed barrier.
Furthermore, as far as I'm aware, wormholes are only a theoretical construct known to be possible, but with no reason to think they are even remotely plausible as a realistic, cost-effective and safe means of transportation. Singularities do not like matter. Singularities will fuck matter up and then gag its mother with a spoon.
[QUOTE=Lankist;32345155]I like how you get your argument butchered, and your only response is yelling "WORMHOLES!"
[editline]17th September 2011[/editline]
this isnt stargate sg1 we're talking about FTL not timey wimey bullshit
wormholes =/= FTL travel, they theoretically have the effect of relative FTL travel without breaking the lightspeed barrier.
Furthermore, as far as I'm aware, wormholes are only a theoretical construct known to be possible, but with no reason to think they are even remotely plausible as a realistic, cost-effective and safe means of transportation. Singularities do not like matter. Singularities will fuck matter up and then gag its mother with a spoon.[/QUOTE]i still think the very possibility of wormholes as effective travel heralds more research.
That's not the point. The point is that they aren't FTL travel. They only have the relative effect and appearance of FTL travel from a stationary observer's viewpoint. They're a loophole, not a solution.
[editline]17th September 2011[/editline]
That may seem like nit-picking but it's a very important distinction if you ever want that sort of thing to become a practicable reality.
Guys I figurwed it out!!
Since all motion is relative if you get to spaceshipes to travel in opposite directions at 0.6c that means both are 1.2c relative to the other!!
[QUOTE=a2h;32346314]Guys I figurwed it out!!
Since all motion is relative if you get to spaceshipes to travel in opposite directions at 0.6c that means both are 1.2c relative to the other!![/QUOTE]
yes this is how it works you should spend a long time writing a comprehensive paper on this and then try to publish it good luck
Yeah there really needs to be an 'asshole' rating
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;32348857]Yeah there really needs to be an 'asshole' rating[/QUOTE]
i dont see how assholes are relevant to wormholes
[editline]17th September 2011[/editline]
i rated you autistic
[QUOTE=Lankist;32349135]i dont see how assholes are relevant to wormholes
[editline]17th September 2011[/editline]
i rated you autistic[/QUOTE]
wasn't talking about wormholes so i rated you likewise
[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]
Thank you for making up a hypothesis based off research with no basis that you did yourself, which doesn't take into account the discovery of new and more powerful energy sources/methods of obtaining energy and has no factual basis and wasting everyone's time who clicked this thread under the impression that it would actually be worth reading.
[editline]18th September 2011[/editline]
By the way, you're contradicting yourself, which doesn't exactly give the impression that you know what you're talking about. First you say it's impossible(Thread title) and then at the end of the post, you say "Might still be science fiction for a very long time." Which implies you actually still think its a possibility.
[QUOTE=Strongbad;32349559]Thank you for making up a hypothesis based off research with no basis that you did yourself, which doesn't take into account the discovery of new and more powerful energy sources/methods of obtaining energy and has no factual basis and wasting everyone's time who clicked this thread under the impression that it would actually be worth reading.
[editline]18th September 2011[/editline]
By the way, you're contradicting yourself, which doesn't exactly give the impression that you know what you're talking about. First you say it's impossible(Thread title) and then at the end of the post, you say "Might still be science fiction for a very long time." Which implies you actually still think its a possibility.[/QUOTE]
this
[QUOTE=Strongbad;32349559]Thank you for making up a hypothesis based off research with no basis that you did yourself, which doesn't take into account the discovery of new and more powerful energy sources/methods of obtaining energy and has no factual basis and wasting everyone's time who clicked this thread under the impression that it would actually be worth reading.
[editline]18th September 2011[/editline]
By the way, you're contradicting yourself, which doesn't exactly give the impression that you know what you're talking about. First you say it's impossible(Thread title) and then at the end of the post, you say "Might still be science fiction for a very long time." Which implies you actually still think its a possibility.[/QUOTE]
You're never going to have a power source that can produce infinite amounts of energy. Even if you convert all the mass in the universe to energy, you'll never hit the light barrier.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;32350384]You're never going to have a power source that can produce infinite amounts of energy. Even if you convert all the mass in the universe to energy, you'll never hit the light barrier.[/QUOTE]
i think he was talking about an alcubierre drive
or even other ways not yet thought of.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;32350408]i think he was talking about an alcubierre drive
or even other ways not yet thought of.[/QUOTE]
We've already been through how that isn't FTL travel.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;32350408]i think he was talking about an alcubierre drive
or even other ways not yet thought of.[/QUOTE]
Even with the Alcubierre Drive, there's a huge possibility you'll need more energy than contained in the entire universe.
Also, as Lankist said, it's not FTL.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;32346731]yes this is how it works you should spend a long time writing a comprehensive paper on this and then try to publish it good luck[/QUOTE]
Don't owrry I'll publish it on the Ammazon and it'll sell a lot!!
[QUOTE=sltungle;32332101]Looks like you didn't listen to a word I said.
I said that the energy requirements for a WARP drive are exorbitant. Don't tell me to pay attention in science class, mate. I'm doing a fucking degree in physics and nanotechnology at university; I know what I'm talking about when I talk physics.
Technically FTL travel is impossible, yes, but that's why I surrounded FTL in my post with two little apostrophes, they're like little air-finger quotes if you will. APPARENT faster than light travel is possible (as in wormholes let you cut across a shorter area of space to get to a destination faster than light could otherwise get there, warp drives allow you to move space ITSELF faster than light (which is totally allowable according to our current physical laws and HAS in fact happened in the past (Inflation).
Neither of these methods lets you travel locally faster than light with relation to space itself around you, but you still end up reaching your destination faster than light itself if it took the 'normal' path, hence why I decided to call it 'FTL' travel: because it's a shit load easier simply to say that than to post what I just posted.[/QUOTE]
My apologies for misunderstanding, it wasn't clear that you meant anything other than the conventional use of the term FTL.
Nonetheless, 'we're humanity, fuck the rules' is a pretty odd way to go about studying the universe, when everything we know shows that the rules are rock-solid and unbreakable. Not to mention when it comes to teleportation or warp drives, while we can theorize as to the energy requirement, there's no mechanism by which it could be accomplished, and there is still a host of associated problems. The universe isn't going to simply open up and let us do what we want- we need to establish limitations and work with them.
[QUOTE=a2h;32350479]Don't owrry I'll publish it on the Ammazon and it'll sell a lot!![/QUOTE]
take it to history channel and they'll give you an hour timeslot
[QUOTE=Strongbad;32349559]Thank you for making up a hypothesis based off research with no basis that you did yourself, which doesn't take into account the discovery of new and more powerful energy sources/methods of obtaining energy and has no factual basis and wasting everyone's time who clicked this thread under the impression that it would actually be worth reading.
[editline]18th September 2011[/editline]
By the way, you're contradicting yourself, which doesn't exactly give the impression that you know what you're talking about. First you say it's impossible(Thread title) and then at the end of the post, you say "Might still be science fiction for a very long time." Which implies you actually still think its a possibility.[/QUOTE]
First of all: I said, "That'll be..." As in, THAT WILL BE. Not MIGHT be.
Second, infinite energy (speeds approaching c, Alcubierre drives).
Third, wormholes (create a causality paradox from an infinite number of frames of reference, unknown how wormholes effect matter, no known type of energy to stabilize a wormhole large enough to fit a large vessel through, infinite energy).
Like I said, none of the discoveries we've ever made in history ever [i]broke the laws of physics[/i]. Flying was never impossible. Space travel was never impossible. But now we need to realize that, in this thread, we are [i]brushing with the edge of the laws of our reality.[/i] Laws proven time, and time, and time again. Unless you can come up with a revolutionary physics paper yourself, no physicist will ever take your attempts to challenge relativity seriously. Scientific skepticism. And no, it's not pessimism. It's realism.
[QUOTE=catbarf;32350542]My apologies for misunderstanding, it wasn't clear that you meant anything other than the conventional use of the term FTL.
Nonetheless, 'we're humanity, fuck the rules' is a pretty odd way to go about studying the universe, when everything we know shows that the rules are rock-solid and unbreakable. Not to mention when it comes to teleportation or warp drives, while we can theorize as to the energy requirement, there's no mechanism by which it could be accomplished, and there is still a host of associated problems. The universe isn't going to simply open up and let us do what we want- we need to establish limitations and work with them.[/QUOTE]
Eh. That's assuming we're not going off of flawed logic. Or even that logic as we know it exists beyond our planet. Why, everything we know could be wrong.
[QUOTE]Besides, everything we're talking about could be bullshit anyway. For all we know, up is down, short is long, and cats can live with dogs. Humans are stupid like that. [/QUOTE]
And there's also a 30 something percent chance everything's a computer simulation anyways.
Man, this got real existential really quick.
And then you just get trumped by another scientist...That's scientific debate.
Then again, if you approach infinite energy when accelerating an object to the speed of light, then how is light unable to escape a Black-Hole?
If you start with the Chandrasekhar Limit, is if memory serves equals 1.4 solar masses to which a star collapses into a Neutron Star/Black Hole. Just going from basic logic, how would you be able to define a "set" limit for a Star to be able to collapse into a Black hole, does the mass-energy formula say contray to this limit?
Looking away from other theories about Black Hole effects on EM packets(Photons), how you be able to curve space-time to a point of infinite "depth" starting with finite mass, being able to allow nothing to escape? This compressing stars with such a density that gravity exponentially curves space-time to infinity?
So, looking at the Universal Grav Formula:
F=(G*m1*m2)/(r^2)
If you compress the atoms to approaching 0 distance between them, you would divide by zero. So it gives all the demotivationals a whole new meaning :v:
But in all seriousness, would that explain something to the mass-energy converstions of Black Holes, or am I missing something?
[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;32350698]And then you just get trumped by another scientist...That's scientific debate.
Then again, if you approach infinite energy when accelerating an object to the speed of light, then how is light unable to escape a Black-Hole?
If you start with the Chandrasekhar Limit, is if memory serves equals 1.4 solar masses to which a star collapses into a Neutron Star/Black Hole. Just going from basic logic, how would you be able to define a "set" limit for a Star to be able to collapse into a Black hole, does the mass-energy formula say contray to this limit?
Looking away from other theories about Black Hole effects on EM packets(Photons), how you be able to curve space-time to a point of infinite "depth" starting with finite mass, being able to allow nothing to escape? This compressing stars with such a density that gravity exponentially curves space-time to infinity?
So, looking at the Universal Grav Formula:
F=(G*m1*m2)/(r^2)
If you compress the atoms to approaching 0 distance between them, you would divide by zero. So it gives all the demotivationals a whole new meaning :v:
But in all seriousness, would that explain something to the mass-energy converstions of Black Holes, or am I missing something?[/QUOTE]
You approach infinite energy due to the object having mass. Only objects with mass must follow this rule. Photons are massless, and thus always travel at c in a vacuum.
However, gravity bends space-time together. The course of a massless particle is still effected by curving space-time. Light might normally escape, except the black hole's bending of space-time is infinite in slope and contains a singularity which "destroys matter," including massless particles.
[QUOTE=nERVEcenter;32350747]You approach infinite energy due to the object having mass. Only objects with mass must follow this rule. Photons are massless, and thus always travel at c in a vacuum.
However, gravity bends space-time together. The course of a massless particle is still effected by curving space-time. Light might normally escape, except the black hole's bending of space-time is infinite in slope and contains a singularity which "destroys matter," including massless particles.[/QUOTE]
singularities dont so much destroy matter as they molest matter's children while matter is at work
[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;32350698]And then you just get trumped by another scientist...That's scientific debate.
Then again, if you approach infinite energy when accelerating an object to the speed of light, then how is light unable to escape a Black-Hole?
If you start with the Chandrasekhar Limit, is if memory serves equals 1.4 solar masses to which a star collapses into a Neutron Star/Black Hole. Just going from basic logic, how would you be able to define a "set" limit for a Star to be able to collapse into a Black hole, does the mass-energy formula say contray to this limit?
Looking away from other theories about Black Hole effects on EM packets(Photons), how you be able to curve space-time to a point of infinite "depth" starting with finite mass, being able to allow nothing to escape? This compressing stars with such a density that gravity exponentially curves space-time to infinity?
So, looking at the Universal Grav Formula:
F=(G*m1*m2)/(r^2)
If you compress the atoms to approaching 0 distance between them, you would divide by zero. So it gives all the demotivationals a whole new meaning :v:
But in all seriousness, would that explain something to the mass-energy converstions of Black Holes, or am I missing something?[/QUOTE]
First, refer to this post: [url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1125339?p=32317343&highlight=#post32317343[/url]
Black holes don't curve space-time to a point of infinite "depth". The singularity of a black hole is said to have infinite density due to having no volume and finite mass (density is mass/volume, when volume -> 0, density approaches infinity). Usually when you get infinite values for actual physical values, it means that there's some issues with the theories you're using to calculate. With black holes, this issue is that dealing with gravity on a quantum level isn't understood that well yet.
EDIT
[QUOTE=nERVEcenter;32350747]Light might normally escape, except the black hole's bending of space-time is infinite in slope and contains a singularity which "destroys matter," including massless particles.[/QUOTE]
It's not infinite, it's just steep enough so that even light can't escape.
A black hole doesn't "destroy matter", it destroys information. A black hole sucks up things and slowly radiates due to hawking-radiation. Hawking radiation is caused by virtual particles (google for more info) just appearing close enough to the black hole, which happens randomly and thus doesn't have any connection to what the black hole has sucked up in the past, just the mass of it.
[QUOTE=catbarf;32350542]My apologies for misunderstanding, it wasn't clear that you meant anything other than the conventional use of the term FTL.
Nonetheless, 'we're humanity, fuck the rules' is a pretty odd way to go about studying the universe, when everything we know shows that the rules are rock-solid and unbreakable. Not to mention when it comes to teleportation or warp drives, while we can theorize as to the energy requirement, there's no mechanism by which it could be accomplished, and there is still a host of associated problems. The universe isn't going to simply open up and let us do what we want- we need to establish limitations and work with them.[/QUOTE]
We exploit little loop-holes in the universes physical laws all of the times to do things that otherwise can't be done. We exploit quantum effects and attempt to cheat probability in order to make faster and faster computer processors. We create meta materials with negative refractive indexes simply because we can. In a less rigorous sense we cheat energy requirements in chemical reactions by finding catalysts to lower the activation energy of certain reactions so that they're easy to achieve.
If there are loopholes to be exploited we will find them. And there are always loopholes (in the case of 'FTL' travel wormholes and Alcubierre Drive are those loopholes, however that said the energy requirements are still incredibly high in our present theoretical framework but I'm sure we'll be able to cheat the universe and find a way around those energy requirements too if we're persistent enough).
Thanks Block, that cleared some things up.
So, hypothetically speaking would Black Holes would go beyond classical conservation laws? (I'm only good with the basic Quantum mechanics..)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.