Leading on from my other thread, faster than light travel?

[dzjepp]

Isn't one of the time travel paradoxes that you can't go back in time before the time machine was invented zomg

[xer0s]

Isn't one of the time travel paradoxes that you can't go back in time before the time machine was invented zomg

How does that make sense?

[dzjepp]

Well in the case it was possible, don't you think borg like motherfuckers would be coming through the warp gates in our times?

[tnf]

Well said. But I still don't see how the history of our pursuit of flying machines parallels our *current* pursuit of FTL travel as we've never observed said phenomena on the scale where relativity rules (for now) and do not have an explanatory model of the universe (string theory as an example of a candidate) that makes its possibility an undebatable, undeniable fact. Can't say its possible, can't say that its impossible...can't say one way or the other yet. That discusssion didn't exist in terms of flight. Flight was observed, its physics came to be understood long before the technology existed to allow us to utilize it.

I realize this is not quite what your getting at here, but just imagine E.T. came by, said "Booya!" and left again. Boom, we knew it's possible. Does that help us in any way? No it doesn't.

Since you can't prove a negative (I heard that somewhere), your point of view has absolutely no merit at all.

I didn't mean to poop on Splish's dream of intergalactic travel here, because I'm always qualifying statements when I teach regarding the possibility of changes in our fundamental understanding of the universe and how we have to be careful when we talk about what is and isn't possible and that you have to be careful about using absolutes. This is a bit like the time jules and I tried to explain that - from a purely pharmacokinetic standpoint, a drug like heroin isn't as hard on many body systems as several less insidiously addictive and life-wrecking drugs (tylenol for example.) For the life of me, I couldn't see where the debate was coming from because our point wasn't really one open for debate, it was just based on the biology of the drug and its metabolism, but maybe we were being too reductionist in our argument.

One could say that. Or one could say that you keep missing the point of a discussion.

When odium asked "Will FTL be possible?" or whatever he asked, I'm pretty sure he wasn't asking for the "But Einstein said it's impossible." answer.

Christ, this is laughable.
Yes, if ET showed up tomorrow it does help because we know there must be some means by which interstellar intergalactic travel can take place. Hence it MUST be possible.

And no fucking shit I can't prove its not possible, I've not tried to do that once. But you can't say, with anymore certainty, that it will be possible, no matter how hard we look at the situation.

We explain what is possible and what is not under the theoretical constructs that we've developed to explain the nature of what we see - relativity doesn't reign supreme over understanding and predictions of the movements of the galaxies, stars, etc..simply because "einstein said so." And the current theoretical models of the universe do not argue convincingly for the possibility of FTL travel, *yet*. I will at least be intellectually honest enough to qualify that statement, because nobody knows whether it will or not. And the fact that you can't see the difference between that and the flight analogy you use is dumbfounding. So I'll explain it one last time - we don't have any model wherein FTL travel is demonstrated as definite possibility - we did with flight. From the beginning. You seem to think that it is a foregone conclusion that FTL travel will be possible, we just haven't figured it out yet - a unified theory may indicate that it is, but it may just as easily indicate that it is not. And the cycle will repeat. Sure there's research being done to look into that possibility and some of the ideas are very interesting. I hope someone does figure it out - be it with an entirely new theory of everything, an existing candidate like string theory, or maybe through a sort of new interpretation of relativity...but until they do I'll continue to say that, as we understand the laws of physics right now, its not possible and nothing we have directly observed on the large scale (not quantum entanglement) indicates otherwise in a convincing fashion.

The possibilities are that the laws that govern the universe allow it or they don't. If they don't, it doesn't matter how hard we try or how many new theories we come up with, it won't happen.

Maybe o'dium was looking for you're 'GEE IT WILL BE POSSIBLE IF WE JUST REALLY WORK AT IT BECAUSE BY GOD WE CAN DO IT AND ANYONE WHO SAYS OTHERWISE NEEDS TO READ ABOUT THE WRIGHT BROTHERS!' If so, more power to him.

*edited for an addition and deletion.

[Tsakali_]

well I get where both sides are comming from...I just like to add that alot of the cool inventions came about from young dreamers who grow up dedicating their lives on something they believe in. Yes, ultimately the scientific approach is what gives us true gains but without the dreamers, questions that are not asked will not bother to be answered.


edit: TNF don't bother to explain I understand I'm just trying to lighten things up a bit

[Scourge]

Just out of curiosity, what would be the maximum speed that we could achieve without being able to add energy to accelerate beyond? Has anyone calculated this up yet? I'm saying just a human body, nothing else.

[Fender]

Just out of curiosity, what would be the maximum speed that we could achieve without being able to add energy to accelerate beyond? Has anyone calculated this up yet? I'm saying just a human body, nothing else.

I'm not sure I understand the question. I would guess that Olympic 100 meter runners would be pretty close to the maximum. 9.78 seconds is the record. That's almost 23 MPH.

[Scourge]

What I mean is, If you could keep adding energy to hurl someone through space, how close could you come to light speed with the current laws of physics. This is in reference to your original post on page one. You said it would take unlimited energy to go beyond the speed of light. My question is, what is the limit we currently understand to be theoretically possible.

I can see I'm not very good at explaining what I'm trying to ask. :icon30:

[Fender]

edit: this really made no sense after thinking about it for a while so I deleted my original post.

There really is no limit except for c itself. Of course there is a finite amount of mass and energy in the universe. You could convert all that mass (except 1 electron) to energy and apply that energy to the electron. That's as fast as you can go.

Of course, we are completely ignoring the idea of tachyons, which ALWAYS travel faster than light. As you take energy away from them, they slow down closer to c, but never going slower. The relativistic math works, no matter how mind-boggling the concept is.

[Tsakali_]

yeah there is no fine line between ftl and not, it's kind of an ever more steep graph curve...I would guess the term 'exponential' would describe it best.

[Scourge]

Ok, now try that one more time like you're talking to someone who doesn't understand that. I was thinking more like maybe estimated MPS or something. :icon32:

[Scourge]

yeah there is no fine line between ftl and not, it's kind of an ever more steep graph curve...I would guess the term 'exponential' would describe it best.

So, no real way to estimate it then. Fair enough.

edit: I've decided to look some of this up. Going ok so far.

[Tsakali_]

whatever it is, it will surely be a waste, seeing what you'd get in return is just a few thousand miles of travel, before you expend everything you could muster

[Scourge]

edit: this really made no sense after thinking about it for a while so I deleted my original post.

There really is no limit except for c itself. Of course there is a finite amount of mass and energy in the universe. You could convert all that mass (except 1 electron) to energy and apply that energy to the electron. That's as fast as you can go.

Of course, we are completely ignoring the idea of tachyons, which ALWAYS travel faster than light. As you take energy away from them, they slow down closer to c, but never going slower. The relativistic math works, no matter how mind-boggling the concept is.

The more I read on it, the more I'm getting it. From what I saw of your calculations, It seemed you could get almost there. But you said it looked wrong, so, maybe I don't get it. Either way, I'll have a better understanding of it soon.

edit: For now, I'll just keep quiet and do some reading.

[tnf]

yeah there is no fine line between ftl and not, it's kind of an ever more steep graph curve...I would guess the term 'exponential' would describe it best.

not exponential really..more like asymptotic...approaching c.

As for only going a few thousand miles...if i read the question right, if you were in deep space with no friction and out of any major gravitational fields, you would be accelerating so long as you were being pushed along by a force, no matter how small that force, but the only limit to how fast you could get going (save for c) is how long you could be pushed along for (i.e. a rocket engine burning fuel) and the mass of the object...once you hit a top speed, you'd keep that speed (ignoring minute friction and getting pulled into a gravitational field of some other object..)

And tachyons haven't been confirmed yet, as far as I know, have they?

[Fender]

And tachyons haven't been confirmed yet, as far as I know, have they?

Nope. I don't know if we ever will, at least by direct observation. I think the best we could hope for would be something that looks like it violates conservation of energy/mass. A photon pops out of nowhere, created by a tachyon particle changing state or something. Not sure, exactly.

[Tsakali_]

not exponential really..more like asymptotic...approaching c.

ohh, well then it's even worse than I thought, the extreme energy requirements will come into play alot sooner than later?

As for only going a few thousand miles...if i read the question right, if you were in deep space with no friction...

oops lol brain fart

[SplishSplash]

Christ, this is laughable.
Yes, if ET showed up tomorrow it does help because we know there must be some means by which interstellar intergalactic travel can take place. Hence it MUST be possible.

What you're saying is that you are not willing to invest any more thought into this until somebody shows you it will be rewarded in the end. You're a fucking coward, that's it.

And no fucking shit I can't prove its not possible, I've not tried to do that once. But you can't say, with anymore certainty, that it will be possible, no matter how hard we look at the situation.

*la di da*

Maybe o'dium was looking for you're 'GEE IT WILL BE POSSIBLE IF WE JUST REALLY WORK AT IT BECAUSE BY GOD WE CAN DO IT AND ANYONE WHO SAYS OTHERWISE NEEDS TO READ ABOUT THE WRIGHT BROTHERS!' If so, more power to him.

*edited for an addition and deletion.

Don't you see that this is all a matter of intellectual scale?

That flight (and a thousand other things) was a definite impossibility to man? Just like FTL is now?

Impossibility is irrelevant, because pretty much everything we thought would be impossible was proven to be possible in the end.

This has nothing to do with intellectual honesty, and everything with you trying to win an internet argument.

You suggest I'm not intellectually honest? Show me. Show me where I said "Yes, o'dium, I will take you to the stars."

I never made any promises, but I didn't take a big shit on people's dreams and endeavours.

[ek]

END OF TEST

[SplishSplash]

Oh look, it's Mr. Internet Nobody trying to gain some momentum by riding other people's waves again.

[plained]

i like ur style splish

[tnf]

Where did I take a shit on someone's dreams?

I guess the whole issue boils down to this one thing:

We understood that flight was possible, and
the physics of flight, long before we had the technology to do it. The laws of physics as we knew them at the time allowed for it.

We don't know if FTL travel is possible. That being the case, we certainly can't understand all of the physics that would make it possible. The laws of physics, as we know them now, don't imply that it is a 100% certain possibility. The laws are eternal, in one sense, while our understanding of them is not.

You look at those two scenarios as identical 'intellectual states.' I don't, because if I were to go outside and see a bird fly across the sky I could make the logical conclusion that the laws of physics must therefore allow for flight. That 'intellectual state' would be one of knowing it can be done, but not knowing exactly HOW I am going to do it yet.

And where in the hell do you get the idea that I'mn not willing to invest any time in something until someone tells me I'll be rewarded? I don't even know how to respond to that one - considering how many times I stated that the work towards unified theory, etc., may indeed indicate that FTL travel is possible. Science never works in the promise of a reward...we set up experiments, make observations, and support or discredit our hypothesis. When I was doing breast cancer research, it wasn't in the promise of a reward that my studies would prove that my protein did in fact alter the cellular signalling pathway I was looking at and that this did in fact have a role in the development of breast cancer. But I did the work anyway. Because that is how science works. Something you might want to review before you mistake explaining the reality of a situation with 'being a coward' or 'dumping on someone's dreams?' BTW, how does "Sure there's research being done to look into that possibility and some of the ideas are very interesting. I hope someone does figure it out - be it with an entirely new theory of everything, an existing candidate like string theory, or maybe through a sort of new interpretation of relativity" imply that I am crapping on dreams or someone trying to prove it isn't possible?

[Fender]

I don't know why you bother sometimes, tnf.

[tnf]

I don't know why you bother sometimes, tnf.

Sorry. Did I crap on your dream too? I thought I had made my point pretty clear, but I guess it wasn't if it looks like I'm an intellectual coward who thinks most research is a waste of time and tries to prove negatives and is hellbent on winning an argument with a person I said I mostly agree with from the beginning...those are apparently the messages that came across.

Ah well. Nobody died and life goes on just like it did before. No worries.

[SplishSplash]

I guess the whole issue boils down to this one thing:

We understood that flight was possible, and
the physics of flight, long before we had the technology to do it. The laws of physics as we knew them at the time allowed for it.

Haha, that's just great.

So I guess Wilbur just stumbled across an aerodynamics book once and went:

"Hey Orville, guess what! We can fly!"
"Shit, really? Then why have all who have tried before been complete nutters?"
"Man, I don't know. It's so obvious. I guess we're just lucky that the guy who wrote this never bothered to tell anyone."