NationStates Jolt Archive

Assuming it is possible to travel faster than light, which is the most likely method we would use?

(I know we can't simply move at a faster velocity than light. Note that all of the options in the poll reflect ways of getting around that.

Assuming it is possible to travel faster than light, which is the most likely method we would use?

Probably when we learn all the laws of physics we'll start cheating...

Assuming it is possible to travel faster than light, which is the most likely method we would use?
Wingèd swines.

Technically we will not break it. Not in a straight line point a to point b way. However, I believe the speed of light will be exceeded using the "folding of space" concept. Or would have, if an asteroid didn't obliterate the earth in 2032.

By folding space and taking a quick jaunt through a hell dimension where Sam Neil shoves his hand through your face then sets himself on fire.

I think to break the barrier of light, we would need to become pure energy, therefore the only way to break the speed of light would be through a higher consciousness. Meaning, we need to understand more than just physics. We need to unfold the mysteries of metaphysics.

Miniaturization will allow us to attach mini-rocket boosters to all light particles. We won't be going faster than light, but light will.

I think to break the barrier of light, we would need to become pure energy, therefore the only way to break the speed of light would be through a higher consciousness.

Well, no. Becoming pure energy would enable us to achieve the speed of light, not to break it. There is no way to break the speed of light within Einstein's mechanics, except maybe the theorical tachyons which have a complex (imaginary) mass, but it's much much more weird than pure energy, and we have no idea if such things could exist. Sure Einstein could be wrong...

"Folding space"-like technology sounds much more plausible to me.

I believe more in a "folding space"/"wormhole"/"stargate" device than on actually travelling faster than light.

Just my feeling on the question ;)

Google Miguel Alcubierre. As close to Star Trek as you can get.

Its never going to happen

I agree with folding space, which is how I understand stargates to work. to me, wormholes is just a subset of the idea of spacefolding.

Lets say you point a laser pointer at the moon and that you would be able to observe the dot. If you quickly adjust the laser pointer to point at a different spot on the moon, that dot moved faster than the speed of light.

Alternatively, if you were to spin around, the moon revolved around your head (relative to you) faster than the speed of light.

A 3rd option is to slow light down...

Your asking how it will be really done, and yet your methods are all taken from sci-fi?

Basically, you don't "break the light barrier" - the speed of light isn't like the speed of sound. You have to manipulate space itself to get somewhere quicker than simple motion will take you.

There is an article on this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supraluminal
NASA page: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/research/warp/warpstat.html

Well, no. Becoming pure energy would enable us to achieve the speed of light, not to break it. There is no way to break the speed of light within Einstein's mechanics, except maybe the theorical tachyons which have a complex (imaginary) mass, but it's much much more weird than pure energy, and we have no idea if such things could exist. Sure Einstein could be wrong...

"Folding space"-like technology sounds much more plausible to me.

I don' think folding space sounds more plausible than transfering yourself using a concept of metaphysical transportation. Being able to pull your consciousness out of the physical world allows for things that can not be supported physically, and therefore, Einstien's mechanics would not apply.

Your asking how it will be really done, and yet your methods are all taken from sci-fi?


Of course, since the only easy examples come from Sci-Fi.

Take a deep breath, and relax.

Thanks for the links, by the way. Very good reading!:)

Alcubierre Drive, best idea I've seen so far. The Event Horizon method wouldn't be plausible. Even if we knew how to manipulate space like that to fold such a massive amount as to enable instant travel would take more energy than is generated by an entire galaxy.

Sci Fi or Fact? How will we break the light barrier?

With a really BIG hammer

Part of me thinks we'll discover the Perils of the Warp, but I have a hunch that we'll learn how to Go to Plaid instead. Ludicrous Speed, GO!

Alcubierre Drive, best idea I've seen so far. The Event Horizon method wouldn't be plausible. Even if we knew how to manipulate space like that to fold such a massive amount as to enable instant travel would take more energy than is generated by an entire galaxy.

Alcubierre Drive has similar problems. In my stories I just assume a method where zero-point energy exactly balances the energy use of the inflation-effect. Fun and easy, and only a little more pseudo-science.

I do honestly think we'll eventually break the light barrier. And even more: I hope so.

Lets say you point a laser pointer at the moon and that you would be able to observe the dot. If you quickly adjust the laser pointer to point at a different spot on the moon, that dot moved faster than the speed of light.

Alternatively, if you were to spin around, the moon revolved around your head (relative to you) faster than the speed of light.

A 3rd option is to slow light down...

That's not quite how it works... That laser dot is nothing more than reflected photons coming back to you from the surface of the Moon. Nothing is actually moving faster than light, since the only moving things in your example are the photons themselves. We might perceive an object, the dot, as moving at some velocity, but it's only imaginary. Technically, there is no dot.

The spinning example doesn't work either, because all that's changing is your angle of observation. Consider another example. One way to measure the distance from here to a given star is to observe its position from two perspectives, diametrically oppsite points in Earth's orbit around the Sun. The apparent change in position is then used, along with a little geometry, to estimate its distance. Does that mean that relative to us, the star has traveled the observed distance? No. It only means that relative to us, the star has traveled the diameter of our own orbit.

(That would be so much easier to illustrate using a diagram, but hopefully my point is clear enough.)

Part of me thinks we'll discover the Perils of the Warp, but I have a hunch that we'll learn how to Go to Plaid instead. Ludicrous Speed, GO!

Woof Drive all the way!

I have the primitive basics of a science fiction universe floating around my head and in a few word documents on the computer I am using, and the technique used in that is thus:
1) Firstly is it based on the assumption that the quarks that exist within sub-atomic particles serve as a sort of genetic code which sets the laws by which the particles govern themselves (scientific nonsense I know, but I made that up before I knew any science and I'm not going to change it now).
2) The technique itself is based on bombarding space-borne particles with special particles with engineered "quark-codes", the special particles collide with indigenous particles and their quarks are displaced, thereby changing the laws by which that particle is governed.
3) The special particles change the indigenous particle into what is essential a straight tube through space, constisting of a funnel end on each side with a diametre of exactly 56.8m (as a consequence, no starship is ever found to be wider than 113.6m). The funnel particle squeezes any object that enters it into an infintessimally small beam which is colloquially known as a 'slip'. Within the slip, the normal laws of physics are abandoned, as the normal laws are not included within the quark-code of the slip-particles, allowing any ship to reach collossal speeds* of up to 1,000x the speed of light. A slip beam is formed instantaneously because it is impossible for the displaced quarks to exist anywhere but in the particle directly in front of them.
4) The technology of slip particles is hundreds of thousands of years old, and as such is lost to time. In order to maintain FTL travel particles had to be recycled. However, gradual wastage and no means of reproduction, the particles became an increasingly valuable commodity (eventually getting to the point where entire unaccessable cubic lightyears of space were traded for mere nanocalories of slip-particles, a situation that led to proxy-wars and eventually the Galactic Dark Age).

Anyway... I seem to have gone off topic. In answer to the poll question, its definately not going to be anything that a science fiction writer has predicted...

*within a slip, matter is defined by its velocity much more than it is by its mass, to this end it is impossible to reverse direction in a slip as by reversing direction one's velocity is momentarily zero, and a zero-velocity within a slip would equate to zero matter, i.e. annihilation, that is why if a ship is travelling slower than light in a slip it is impossible to look forward, as photons are destroyed by attempting to go in the opposite direction of the slipping vessel.

Assuming it is possible to travel faster than light, which is the most likely method we would use?

(I know we can't simply move at a faster velocity than light. Note that all of the options in the poll reflect ways of getting around that.

Building a system of artificial wormholes, most likely.

to me, the idea of folding space is more feasable as a scientific concept than travelling through some region of parallel, alternate-dimension space as per hyperspace theory, although i do think extreme gravity is a more likely method than a "warp field". this is mostly because the plane of spacetime is bent considerably by large objects and black holes, for example. if a smaller object could artificially make a large bend in spacetime then perhaps that object could pass through a black-hole/white-hole style gateway in space?

i have no idea if its at all likely or feasable, but to me of the two concepts it is the most real-sounding based on what i know to be true in RL and the little i know of physics

The barrier is unbreakable. If you understand the nature of the barrier, you'll realize that it takes infinite energy to surpass it.

However, there may be ways to circumvent the barrier. Wormholes were mentioned.

Personally, I think the easiest way would be to move the barrier. If the Lightspeed Barrier were say, twice as high, we could travel faster than the original barrier without breaking the new one. :)

We wont.

We wont.

ANd man will never fly. :)

Just a little pickiness...

There is hyperspace technology in Stargate also. That's how the Asgard get around. I think the Ghuould (sp?) and Tokrah (sp?) use it also.

Harnessing sources of enormous gravity, thus manipulating space to travel faster than light.

We will use negative energy to warp the space around our starships. We won't move faster than light, but the space we warp will. This is an old theory (a year or more I think. I'm not going to dig out my old SciAm issues to find out.)

Here is something NASA might be good for...they need more money!!!

NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/)

Let's go already!

I was planning on a family reunion in 2010 on Procyon 3, and I would rather not have to call for a ride...

Just a little pickiness...

There is hyperspace technology in Stargate also. That's how the Asgard get around. I think the Ghuould (sp?) and Tokrah (sp?) use it also.

Goa'uld and Tok'ra both use Hyperdrive, as do the Ori, Wraith, and Asgard. Humans also do, but it's Asgard tech.

Part of me thinks we'll discover the Perils of the Warp,

Double 6...

Richard Dean Anderson!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I read somewhere that we put a few things into 'hyperspace', or something...Forget it, I can't remember shit about it. Something to do with hyperspce and scientists, and coolness...

There was an expiremtn last year that used a lot of electromagnetic force to bend space, creating something that might have been a small 'hyperspace' window. Not sure about how far that got.

Also, recently, some scientists at the Je Propulsion Lab found a way to actually create gravitic fields, which seems to to me the best way to circumvent the light speed barrier.

Wormholes is a nother really good idea for a realistic FTL system.

As for the way we will REALLY use to break the sound barrier, obviously we will use Starslip drives (http://www.starslipcrisis.com/index.shtml)
Using the Parralel universe theory, the Starslip drive uses a powerful computer to search through the infinite number of parralel universes to find one exactly the same as the one you are in, except that you are already where you want to go. And then it switches you with the you in that alternate universe.
Some have asked 'but what happens tot he parralel usses?' to which the answer is "Who Cares."

here's what we do. We build super brilliant super computers. We map the human mind. We develop a super sophisticated high resolution mind scanning device. We scan a few genius' brains and rebuild them as programs in the super computer. We put the super computer onto a space ship bound for Alpha Centauri, doesn't have to be that fast, just one that will eventually get there. We make sure the computer is turned off, but that it will activate upon arrival. We launch the ship. Several thousand/million years later the simunaut's wake up and start exploring the Centauri system through the ship's sensors. The journey took no time at all to them. Maybe, if the ship is advanced enough, they'll even be able to manufacture new computing material from the raw matter in the solar system and use that to reproduce and expand, creating a new human civilization. THAT'S the easiest (and only) way to get somewhere very fast - turn off your brain for the bit inbetween. Anything else is just science fiction, unfortunately.

“Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it.”
-Terry Pratchett

As you know, to achieve light speed (and exceed it), we need (according to Einstein) a near infinite amount of energy the closer to light speed that we get.

We also know that a buttered piece of toast lands dry side up.
We further know that cats land on their feet.
In theory, we just tie a piece of toast to the back of a cat, drop from about 4 meters, and let it gently somersault a meter or so off the ground.

http://www.buddhamind.info/riteside/zazafraz/cat2a.gif


All we need is to build a REALLY big "toasty kitty" array, harness the power, and off we go!!!

We can travel at light speed by scanning ourselves transmitting that infomation at light speed and having a copy of you made at the destination. Now people might say that there is an awful lot of infomation in the human body, but we can use wicked compression techniques provided people at the destination already know who to make a basic human body. For example, Arthur Dent could be transmitted by sending the following sentence - Says, "What?" a lot and also, "Where's the tea?"

If we combine this method with paired particles that can send infomation instantaneouly, (not against laws of physics just no idea how to do it at the moment) then we have faster than light travel.

We can travel at light speed by scanning ourselves transmitting that infomation at light speed and having a copy of you made at the destination. Now people might say that there is an awful lot of infomation in the human body, but we can use wicked compression techniques provided people at the destination already know who to make a basic human body. For example, Arthur Dent could be transmitted by sending the following sentence - Says, "What?" a lot and also, "Where's the tea?"

If we combine this method with paired particles that can send infomation instantaneouly, (not against laws of physics just no idea how to do it at the moment) then we have faster than light travel.
Wouldn't that require us to know both the momentum and direction of the particles in our body?:eek:

If we combine this method with paired particles that can send infomation instantaneouly, (not against laws of physics just no idea how to do it at the moment) then we have faster than light travel.

I believe you're referring to quantum entanglement. Which has been done.

I think we'll eventually achieve it without need of technology. No, really - I do.

Technically we will not break it. Not in a straight line point a to point b way. However, I believe the speed of light will be exceeded using the "folding of space" concept. Or would have, if an asteroid didn't obliterate the earth in 2032.

Ha!

Wouldn't that require us to know both the momentum and direction of the particles in our body?

No, for some people all we need to do is program a stock body with a few phrases such as "What?" and "Where's the tea?" Dye its hair the right colour and wrap it in a bathrobe. Simple. No need for picky little details no one ever pays attention to. I mean when was the last time you paid attention to the momentum and direction of the particle on the end of someone's nose?

Well, I think some guy will come up with it and call it, for example: The Bob Vampenpompenshire FTL (Faster Than Light) Jump, using a place in space without stars, called Slipspace!:cool:

I believe you're referring to quantum entanglement. Which has been done.

But I thought we couldn't effectively communicate with it yet. Otherwise the CIA would have an untappable communications device. And I could link my phone to a friend's with a partical pair and have instant, perfect, free communication with that phone at all times.

There must be a way to go faster than light. How something not go a tad faster than light? But, I think Star Wars is the most likely and will evolve like computers did: first huge and inefficent, but gradually getting very small.

Assuming it is possible to travel faster than light, which is the most likely method we would use?

(I know we can't simply move at a faster velocity than light. Note that all of the options in the poll reflect ways of getting around that.
I disagree with the idea that the speed of light serves as a real barrier at all. So many of the ideas about physics we got from Einstein proved incorrect, that I personally feel that as a species we'll one day look back and laugh at the myths surrounding the speed of light the same way we look at the myths surrounding the speed of sound.

It's already been proven that faster than light communication is indeed possible, both by firing a laser through cesium gas (potentially offering faster than light fibre optics) and through observing twin-particle systems. The later of which was something Einstein himself observed.

Even if light does prove a barrier, one of these two methods of information transmission (probably the second) will allow us to one day enter a machine on earth, be disasebled and made into a data stream, and transmitted across the interstellar distances to be reasembled by a station already assembled by robots. (Sure, we'd have to slow-boat the robots, but once there, transportation becomes quick and easy.)

I'm sure the other methods will all be used to one degree or another, but I honestly think we'll find out that convential means (with rediculus power requirements) will be able to get a space ship to break the light speed barrier.

Other.

We won’t ever, at least not practically. Humanity has reached its peak energy usage. How long we can maintain it, I don’t know, but the average person won’t see much drastic technological change over the course of the next twenty years.

By going very, very, very fast.

The ship that eventually does it will be, in effect a giant fuel tank with motors at one end and a tiny (im talking sputnik here) computer brain at the other end. It's simple logic that if you have enough fuel, there is no speed that you cannot reach in a frictionless environment like space.

I disagree with the idea that the speed of light serves as a real barrier at all. So many of the ideas about physics we got from Einstein proved incorrect, that I personally feel that as a species we'll one day look back and laugh at the myths surrounding the speed of light the same way we once looked at the myths surrounding the speed of sound.At the macroscopic scale (because I appreciate that Einstein did have trouble with the whole 'quantum scales have really strange things going on in them' concept) which of Einstien's ideas was incorrect? I'd be tempted to allow you the Cosmological Constant, which he first inserted, then removed and that may or may not be a (much more minor, but present) influence in the expansion of the universe, but to be honest all this dark matter pushing things apart and dark energy pulling things back together again (and whether it's there's 'megascopic' of the kasimir effect at all, etc, etc) isn't really understood enough yet to say whether Einstien was wrong to have thought of it/removed it from his calculatons.

It's already been proven that faster than light communication is indeed possible, both by firing a laser through celenium gas (potentially offering faster than light fibre optics) and through observing twin-particle systems. The later of which was something Einstein himself observed. Is this the superluminal efect, or quantum tunnelling? Neither of these are technically faster than the speed of light. At best, they are "faster than the speed of light is supposed to be in that medium" or even "how the heck did that particle get there at all", rather than faster-than-3x10^8 m/s communications. (If it's something else that I was unaware of, then please feel free to enlighten me...)

Even if light does prove a barrier, one of these two methods of information transmission (probably the second) will allow us to one day enter a machine on earth, be disasebled and made into a data stream, and transmitted across the interstellar distances to be reasembled by a station already assembled by robots. (Sure, we'd have to slow-boat the robots, but once there, transportation becomes quick and easy.) No arguments there. Practical "heisenburg compensator" mechanisms could involve entanglement/de-entanglement of information (at no time needing pesky measurements trying to tie down the location/velocity of any of the original particles and thus destroying the nature of said particles and disrupting who-knows-what). Except that there are energy considerations, and focussing (to avoid losing information) and the whole issue of "is the you that comes out of the device the same you as went into the device, and how could you tell". I don't think it's something that anyone will get working soon (for person-sized masses, as opposed to light particles that are perfectly capable of making their own way to a destination without the scientists nudging them through an entanglement/de-entanglement process ;)) and there'll be a lot of debate before fully-authorised personnel transport occurs...

I'm sure the other methods will all be used to one degree or another, but I honestly think we'll find out that convential means (with rediculus power requirements) will be able to get a space ship to break the light speed barrier.No, you'd need some exoticism... And (as has been said) none of the methods are technically breaking the light barrier, they're just changing the topology of space so that in travelling between A and B you are covering the gap in 'less distance', and thus while you remain sub-light all the time in the particular patch of space you occupy, someone on a parallel track, but not contained within the given jiggery-pokery you are emploing would have to be FTL through normal space to keep pace with you.


(And, as a follow-up to the prior debunking of the 'rotating laser pointer' idea, you may be causing a spot of light to effctively move FTL, but there's no way that information could be carried from where the spot initially is to its final destination, by the spot. You could have the information come back to you at 'laserlight central' (at the speed of light, as you see what the spot is reflecting back from) and then retransmit the reflection modulations back to the destination (again, at the speed of light) but this would be less efficient than the initial place just shining their own laser/radio-waves at the destination directly. (Or reflecting your laser, pointed at them, to the destination with an added modulation of some kind.)

If you set a laser-pointer spinning in space, you'd get a 'spiral ripple' transmitting out into space at only the speed of light, however fast you twisted it (which would just bunch up the coils of the spiral, the fast you spun it.) It would look good (if you could look at it edge on and 'see' the photons travelling outwards, which of course you can't, without some sort of gas cloud absorbing and reflecting a significant proportion) but not really any good for allowing FTL communication.


So.... I'm torn between warping space (bunching it up so that you go further w.r.t. external frames of reference for a given 'local' journey') and punching holes between two points via a wormhole (creating a time-like curve through the points of distortion that out-competes time-like curves across the standard fabric of space-time) but I think both of those require exotic matter with negative mass, or some-such, to create/maintain the effects sought after.

Humanity has reached its peak energy usage.

We have? I thought there was plenty of scope left for more wind power, solar hot water, nuclear power, and so on. There's even plenty of room left for buring coal and molesting oil sands and so on, although I think doing that wouldn't be too bright.

Anyway, those wind generators they are building in the desert near here will add to the power generated in this state and not suck it away from somewhere else.

And why don't we put solar cells on windmills while we're at it? No point in wasteing all that space.

By going very, very, very fast.

The ship that eventually does it will be, in effect a giant fuel tank with motors at one end and a tiny (im talking sputnik here) computer brain at the other end. It's simple logic that if you have enough fuel, there is no speed that you cannot reach in a frictionless environment like space.The trouble is that (as we currently understand it, which does allow you to be inadvertantly right if what is generally known isn't as right as everyone thinks it is) as you approach the speed of light, a given amount of energy won't increase you speed by the same fraction as before.

I'm not going to plug the figures into the equations, but it's something like:
X amount of energy applied from 'rest' gets you to 50% the speed of light (well done! only 50% to go!)
A further X amount of energy applied from 50% the speed of light gets you to 75% the speed of light. (25% to go!)
A further X amount of energy applied from 75% the speed of light gets you to 87.5% the speed of light. (12.5% to go!)
A further X amount of energy applied from 87.5% the speed of light gets you to 93.75% the speed of light. (6.25% to go!)
A further X amount of energy applied from 93.75% the speed of light gets you to 96.875% the speed of light. (3.125% to go!)

After an infinite number of Xs being applied (for which we might as well assume an infinite supply of energy for no change in mass) you'll reach the speed of light. Or as near as the maths of infinities allows. It will of course take an infinite amount of time (by anybody's frame of reference) to do that, but you will also have covered an infinite distance.

Needless to say, you'll 'never' excee the speed of light. But you can make your own personal journey times shorter through the amazing effects of time dilation.

Assuming you manage to dump that X amount of every hour, and you did that four ten hours straight, then coasted, you'd perceive that you'd be taking maybe 40-odd days to get to Alpha Centauri, which is a tad over 4 light years away. But you'd still have taken a tad over a tad over 4 years to get there from the POV of an impartial oberver (located at a point equidistant to your start/finish points so as to cancel out the inherant lag in seeing the light/hearing the signals from your respective launch and arrival events.

Also, you'd need just as hefty speed-reduction tactics if you're determined not to arrive at Alpha Centauri at a speed beyond that your average seat-belt can safely handle...:)

At the macroscopic scale (because I appreciate that Einstein did have trouble with the whole 'quantum scales have really strange things going on in them' concept) which of Einstien's ideas was incorrect? I'd be tempted to allow you the Cosmological Constant, which he first inserted, then removed and that may or may not be a (much more minor, but present) influence in the expansion of the universe, but to be honest all this dark matter pushing things apart and dark energy pulling things back together again (and whether it's there's 'megascopic' of the kasimir effect at all, etc, etc) isn't really understood enough yet to say whether Einstien was wrong to have thought of it/removed it from his calculatons.

Did I qualify my assertions with a specific area of research? Einstein's theories on the microscopic level are being picked appart constantly, and since the light speed barrier was largely a microscopic level effect (since it can only be observed at the micropic level due to the energy requirements of getting a macroscopic mass up to near light speed) I think it is quite relavent that many of those theories aren't holding up to scrutiny.

I don't blame Einstein for his theories proving incorrect, just as I don't blame the alchemists of yesteryear for their theory about the composition of matter proving incorrect. Neither was wrong to think these things based on their observations, but if we don't take into account the new observations we make over the years we aren't performing science at all.

Is this the superluminal efect, or quantum tunnelling? Neither of these are technically faster than the speed of light. At best, they are "faster than the speed of light is supposed to be in that medium" or even "how the heck did that particle get there at all", rather than faster-than-3x10^8 m/s communications. (If it's something else that I was unaware of, then please feel free to enlighten me...)

The twin particle system I was quatum entanglement, and I believe that the cesium gass issue involved the photons enjoying a kind of quantum tunneling through the particles of the gas, allowing the information to reach the other end of the tube faster than 8x10^8 m/s.

Both effects defy our current understanding of the nature of physics, but both have been observed in repeatable laboratory conditions.

No arguments there. Practical "heisenburg compensator" mechanisms could involve entanglement/de-entanglement of information (at no time needing pesky measurements trying to tie down the location/velocity of any of the original particles and thus destroying the nature of said particles and disrupting who-knows-what). Except that there are energy considerations, and focussing (to avoid losing information) and the whole issue of "is the you that comes out of the device the same you as went into the device, and how could you tell". I don't think it's something that anyone will get working soon (for person-sized masses, as opposed to light particles that are perfectly capable of making their own way to a destination without the scientists nudging them through an entanglement/de-entanglement process ;)) and there'll be a lot of debate before fully-authorised personnel transport occurs...

It doesn't have to be soon. In fact, the base technologies haven't been invented yet (particularly the data storage mediums needed to record a person). The point is that this particular technology is only a matter of time, rather than relying on some future breakthrough that may or may not happen.

No, you'd need some exoticism... And (as has been said) none of the methods are technically breaking the light barrier, they're just changing the topology of space so that in travelling between A and B you are covering the gap in 'less distance', and thus while you remain sub-light all the time in the particular patch of space you occupy, someone on a parallel track, but not contained within the given jiggery-pokery you are emploing would have to be FTL through normal space to keep pace with you.

I disagree. We have yet to observe this mass increase in macroscopic systems, and until we do, it's unproven theory. More to the point, the idea isn't so much that the mass actually increases (that's a simplification for lay people), but rather that the kinetic energy of a massive particle contributes to its enertia.

I don't think it's something that anyone will get working soon (for person-sized masses, as opposed to light particles that are perfectly capable of making their own way to a destination without the scientists nudging them through an entanglement/de-entanglement process ) and there'll be a lot of debate before fully-authorised personnel transport occurs...

No no no! Haven't you ever read a novel and ended up feeling like you've known a fictional character your entire life? This proves that people can be summed up in a few pages of text. Or just a sentence for Arthur Dent.

That's not quite how it works... That laser dot is nothing more than reflected photons coming back to you from the surface of the Moon. Nothing is actually moving faster than light, since the only moving things in your example are the photons themselves. We might perceive an object, the dot, as moving at some velocity, but it's only imaginary. Technically, there is no dot.

Actually its exactly how it works. If you have a pole that spans the distance between here and the moon, and on the other end you tie a person to it, change the angle a couple degrees and that person moves faster than the speed of light.

We won't.

Actually its exactly how it works. If you have a pole that spans the distance between here and the moon, and on the other end you tie a person to it, change the angle a couple degrees and that person moves faster than the speed of light.

That wouldn't work. As an object approaches the speed of light, its mass becomes infinitely high. The heavier the object, the more force it will take to accelerate it. Thus, you would need an infinite amount of energy to move the other end of the pole at the speed of light. Since it is impossible to generate an infinite amount of energy, you cannot accelerate the person to or beyond the speed of light.

Actually its exactly how it works. If you have a pole that spans the distance between here and the moon, and on the other end you tie a person to it, change the angle a couple degrees and that person moves faster than the speed of light.

Actually no, because the mechanical stress applied to the pole will only move at about 3 times the speed of sound. Much less than the speed of light.

However, if we could work out how to tie a person to a beam of light then we'd be onto something. I imagine it would be a very messy something for the person tied to it, but it would be something none the less.

Actually no, because the mechanical stress applied to the pole will only move at about 3 times the speed of sound. Much less than the speed of light.

However, if we could work out how to tie a person to a beam of light then we'd be onto something. I imagine it would be a very messy something for the person tied to it, but it would be something none the less.

Light is a wave. Can you imagine tying someone to a wireless cellphone signal? I can't.

Light is a wave. Can you imagine tying someone to a wireless cellphone signal? I can't.

I can.

Maybe you need to take more drugs?

Light is a wave. Can you imagine tying someone to a wireless cellphone signal? I can't.

If you wanna get technical about it, everything is simply energy condensed to a slow vibration.

A cookie for whoever understands where that quote's from.

If you wanna get technical about it, everything is simply energy condensed to a slow vibration.

A cookie for whoever understands where that quote's from.

Just because I can convert my own mass into energy, doesn't mean I want to.

Maybe we can convert humans and spaceships into energy, broadcast it to a far corner of the universe at the speed of light, and then reconvert the energy back into whatever they were originally.

Star Trek style... Yeah! :fluffle:

There must be a way to go faster than light. How something not go a tad faster than light? But, I think Star Wars is the most likely and will evolve like computers did: first huge and inefficent, but gradually getting very small.

Of course there's a way. At least if you believe in intelligent extraterrestrial life there's a way. Because visiting other planets is not something for the squeamish otherwise. :p

Assuming it is possible to travel faster than light, which is the most likely method we would use?

(I know we can't simply move at a faster velocity than light. Note that all of the options in the poll reflect ways of getting around that.In experiments light has already been slowed down to walking speed. So just taking the bicycle can let you go faster than light. Well, the light from that experiment, anyway. Different media, different speed..

But I suppose you mean faster than the speed of light in vacuum. In which case some theories with extra dimensions might be an answer. (There's an exotic brand of quantum mechanics which suggests a sort of hyperdrive is possible)

So many of the ideas about physics we got from Einstein proved incorrectReally? Like what?

It's already been proven that faster than light communication is indeed possible, both by firing a laser through cesium gas (potentially offering faster than light fibre optics)That experiment did not in fact allow information to travel faster than light. So it can not be used for communication at faster than light speed. The wavefront did travel faster than light though, but that doesn't really help any.

obligatory linkage http://www.spie.org/web/oer/july/jul00/lightlimit.html

and through observing twin-particle systems.Again, you can't use this to transfer information. The state of both particles will be the same once you've observed one of them. However you can't determine what you observe. You can't say "well, now let us observe an up spin". It'll still be chance what the observation yields.

If you wanna get technical about it, everything is simply energy condensed to a slow vibration.

A cookie for whoever understands where that quote's from.


Almighty Bill Hick. And yeah I've heard that it's true. Actually that guy was pretty smart and be in obligatory high school video lectures. :)

Do i get a cookie?

People believed that sound barrier couldn't be broken. People blieved that you would die if you went 100 mph. I don't think the light barrier is any different. While Einstein's relativity has enabled us to make advances and discoveries, you still have to take into account that his experiments was based on thought experiment from "Earth speed" observations. Our understanding of the workings of the universe is feeble at best. Modern science has had several centuries out of about 137,000,000 to observe the universe, and only one or two centuries have we begun to "get it right". I'm certain that within time scientists will look back on the 20th and 21st centuries the way we look back on the 17th century.

I'm certain that within time scientists will look back on the 20th and 21st centuries the way we look back on the 17th century.

Yes, but when we look back at the 17th century we find that people who thought we could fly thought we would do it by flapping big wings. We can't imagine what the future will be like because if we could it would already be here.

People believed that sound barrier couldn't be broken. People blieved that you would die if you went 100 mph. I don't think the light barrier is any different. While Einstein's relativity has enabled us to make advances and discoveries, you still have to take into account that his experiments was based on thought experiment from "Earth speed" observations. Our understanding of the workings of the universe is feeble at best. Modern science has had several centuries out of about 137,000,000 to observe the universe, and only one or two centuries have we begun to "get it right". I'm certain that within time scientists will look back on the 20th and 21st centuries the way we look back on the 17th century.

that's basicly my thought as well. if and when we can propell anything fast enough to approach the speed of light we will simply discouver that there is no light berrier, only a visual effect somewhat the photonic equivelant of the now familiar sonic boom. that is, no object APPEARS to be moving faster then 'light' because our observation of it's appearant possition depends upon the radiation of light to inform us of it. so an object exceeding the speed of light, to an observer outside of that object, will APPEAR to be moving no faster then light and in the possition where it would be were it not, when in reality that object may have moved far beyond where it thus appears to be.

whether or not some mechanism can be devised to push or pull an object to such speeds is another question entirely and remains to be seen.

but i believe it is possible. i belive there are people out there, and by people i hope you realize that doesn't mean they have to look anything like us or each other at all, who'se worlds already possess this capability.

untill we grow up a bit more culturaly, it is perhapse for the best that we are not yet amont them.

=^^=
.../\...

Did I qualify my assertions with a specific area of research? Einstein's theories on the microscopic level are being picked appart constantly, and since the light speed barrier was largely a microscopic level effect (since it can only be observed at the micropic level due to the energy requirements of getting a macroscopic mass up to near light speed) I think it is quite relavent that many of those theories aren't holding up to scrutiny.Practical transportation at 'FTL'-easque speeds is a definite macroscopic effect, and I don't believe that anyone has given any plausible method by which an 'mudulatable information wavefront' can propogate across any relevant length of space at greater than 'c', so Einstein's refusal to believe in "God throwing dice" really has no part in this argument.

Not that I'm saying he is Utterly And Completely Correct (TM) in all aspects. Just as Newtonian Physics are good enough at non-relativistic speeds, and Priestley's "Deflogisticated air" was an incorrect (though largely internally consistent) interpretation of the true nature of combustion, there's interpretation open. But it's Good Enough For Government Work at the moment and I'm sure there's plenty of wriggle-room for the next Einstien on (if indeed we haven't already seen such from Hawking or one of the many physisists that don't currently have a big enough quirk to get well-known).

The twin particle system I was quatum entanglement, and I believe that the cesium gass issue involved the photons enjoying a kind of quantum tunneling through the particles of the gas, allowing the information to reach the other end of the tube faster than 8x10^8 m/s.Unless I'm wrong (and I don't think I am, but allow for the possibility) information did not reach the other end. It was more like some special observer, either standing way out in space or looking at the situation from a privalidged position outside of time, simultaneously (by dint of his position) observing a person on earth and a person orbiting Alpha Centauri opening a parcel they'd each just received from their mother and finding that they had exactly the same (or exactly the opposite) present sent to them. The only thing they knew was what the other person was looking at. Neither could infer an FTL message from that action, and the sending of the parcel(s) the intervening distance from the place they were packed was done at not-greater-than-lightspeed.



No, you'd need some exoticism... And (as has been said) none of the methods are technically breaking the light barrier, they're just changing the topology of space so that in travelling between A and B you are covering the gap in 'less distance', and thus while you remain sub-light all the time in the particular patch of space you occupy, someone on a parallel track, but not contained within the given jiggery-pokery you are emploing would have to be FTL through normal space to keep pace with you.I disagree. We have yet to observe this mass increase in macroscopic systems, and until we do, it's unproven theory. More to the point, the idea isn't so much that the mass actually increases (that's a simplification for lay people), but rather that the kinetic energy of a massive particle contributes to its enertia.Relevance? I never mentioned mass increase in this post. I mentioned time-dilation in another, but that was an argument against the simplistic "push it harder, it will go faster than light" POV which you don't seem to subscribe to.

(Also, while I'm not immediately aware of macroscopic observations of relativistic mass-increase, relativistic time-dilation have certainly been confirmed at macroscopic (e.g. planetary) scales and the two are so well linked as to (at this moment) brook no doubt about the mass effects in the theory.

that's basicly my thought as well. if and when we can propell anything fast enough to approach the speed of light we will simply discouver that there is no light berrier, only a visual effect somewhat the photonic equivelant of the now familiar sonic boom. that is, no object APPEARS to be moving faster then 'light' because our observation of it's appearant possition depends upon the radiation of light to inform us of it. so an object exceeding the speed of light, to an observer outside of that object, will APPEAR to be moving no faster then light and in the possition where it would be were it not, when in reality that object may have moved far beyond where it thus appears to be.The difference between the Sound Barrier and the Light Barrier is that the former is a change of state between "bunching air up in front of you at speeds less than Mach 1" and "punching a hole through the medium at speeds greater than Mach 1", and dependant upon the density and other properties of the medium, whereas the 'Light Barrier' does not involve a medium (in the traditional sense of the term, certainly there is no Cosmic Aether, though maybe quantum foam has something to do with it in Strange Ways (TM)) and actually reaching the 'barrier' is effectively impossible with a positive, real, rest-mass...

If an objectwere going FTL, somehow (exotic masses involved, I would imagine), then you could see it sweeping across the sky like you could see the reflected 'faster than light' spot of laser light you were moving across the moon's surface. There'd be no reason why "having to push the light aside" would make the travel look slower than it is. (After all, in FTS travel, you are able to triangulate the plane's changing position through sound and show that it is going above Mach 1, albeit that what you hear is delayed by the time that the sound took to get to you from its various points in the trajectory.)

But I see that I'm being too much of a nay-sayer, so I'll disconnect myself from here and take a breather. But first I'll say it again, 'FTL' travel is most likely through the use of exotic (i.e. as yet unproven) varieties of matter and/or energy that allow the creation of a negative curvature of the fabric of space and thus (by either 'riding' a wave of distortion or creating/maintaining a topologically-sound wormhole-like feature) allows 'locally' less-than-lightspeed movement to outcompete photons that would take the traditional 'straight line' route' between origin and destination.

Externally, that would be observed as FTL, but it'd all be a cheat, one way or another.

Surely the only two ways to get around a cap to possible velocity (being m/s) are:

1) Lengthen the meters bit, so that say travelling one meter actually made you go ten;

or

2) Shorten the seconds bit, so that that those ten seconds it seemed to take you were actually one second.

Assuming it is possible to travel faster than light, which is the most likely method we would use?
Based on what little I know of M-Theory, I imagine it won't be too much longer before we discover a way to move between "branes," ( the membranes separating universes from eath other ) cutting short the distance from "here" to "there." It's an intriguing thought, anyway.

Other.

We won’t ever, at least not practically. Humanity has reached its peak energy usage. How long we can maintain it, I don’t know, but the average person won’t see much drastic technological change over the course of the next twenty years.

actually, the facts are quite the opposite.
In the next Five-Ten years, megawatt outputs are expected to be produced by powerplants small enough to fit in your car (well, maybe not your car, but an average sized vehicle anyway) and scientists have plenty of ideas of what to do with all that power too.

Based on what little I know of M-Theory, I imagine it won't be too much longer before we discover a way to move between "branes," ( the membranes separating universes from eath other ) cutting short the distance from "here" to "there." It's an intriguing thought, anyway.A friend of mine has been reading up on M-theory recently and has been wondering about the possibility that one can 'slip' to a parallel brane where the Elemental Constant(s) (the one or more values that distinguish the nature, and physics, of each brane) where the speed of light is higher, or space (as mapped 1->1 to our brane) is itself smaller, or something similar.

(For this thought experiment, imagine that all possible universes are represented by a stack of cards, the plane of the card representing the Universe As We Know It (TM) and according to which card it is, you have different values of the constants. Moving to another playing card, you get different conditions.)

The objection I put to this was that it is often argued that our Universe (this brane, if that is indeed what it is) only supports life because we have just the right value of electroweak forces[1] to allow atoms to exist in the form that they do, and thus another 'card' on the pile might not be too supportive of our matter, while temporarily transfered. But I do allow that if/when we have the ability to 'slip sideways' into another brane, we might as well also have the ability to maintain a 'bubble' of our own universe (keeping physics working in a manner we can survive in) as we travel there.

Of course, this theory is surprisingly compatible with the age old 'hyperspace' idea, that you essentially tunnel into a parallel realm that allows huge speeds/shorter distances for any given trip, then tunnel back out to our own universe. And c.f. Thirdspace (Babylon 5) with the fact[2] that there isn't just one parallel realm, and that there might be native inhabitants of these parallel realms...

[edit: And who is to say that we aren't a hyperspace for an even more restrictive Universe? But I'm sure that idea has been done to death in Science Fiction, etc...]


[1] Not that constants like 'e', 'G' and 'c' might indeed be the base 'Elemental Constants' that dictate the universe, but until a Grand Unified Theory comes along with something better, or we start poking our heads into other branes and seeing what they are like, we might as well use them for demonstration purposes. ;)
[2] For a given value of 'fact' equal to fiction, of course.

actually, the facts are quite the opposite.
In the next Five-Ten years, megawatt outputs are expected to be produced by powerplants small enough to fit in your car (well, maybe not your car, but an average sized vehicle anyway) and scientists have plenty of ideas of what to do with all that power too./me wonders how much extra global warming will occur (by the energy itself being released into the environment, even if it's emmission-neutral w.r.t. carbon-dioxide, etc) if every car is replaced by a vehicle capable of producing megawatts of excess power and actively doing so, even when idle, for minimal running costs?

We better use a few of them to power a heat pump to carry energy out into space (up space-elevators, perhaps?) and maintain a stable environment. (Ooh, that'd mean there'd be an area or three on the equator being cooled down drastically in order to leach away the excess heat, possible creating an 'equatorial arctic' zone and distorted weather patterns. If only I could write books, 'cos I can imagine one or two ways to use that as the basis of a SF novel.)

Other.

We won’t ever, at least not practically. Humanity has reached its peak energy usage. How long we can maintain it, I don’t know, but the average person won’t see much drastic technological change over the course of the next twenty years.

We're not near peak energy usage, we're still a Type 0 civilization. Now when we start building a Dyson swarm around the sun, that'll be approaching a Type II. We're not even close to tapping the maximum amount of energy we can draw out of this little rock and the solar exposure it gets. If one day we manage to get all, or a signifigant fraction of the energy on this planet we'd be a Type I


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

According to the special and general theories of Relativity, you can't beat lightspeed due to the mass and time indexing problem. Of course, we already know that something is intrinsically wrong with either Relativity or Quantum Mechanics, or more likely both, since the two are fundamentally incompatible.

But assuming Relativity has that bit right, it's just outright impossible to beat lightspeed. However, Relativity itself contains the secret to doing an end-run around the problem: The Einstein-Rosen Bridge, or wormhole.

So, if we're going to do it, it's going to be wormhole systems that enable the travel to the stars. Or we just give up on the problem and use slowboats.

I'm behind Warp technology.

I'm behind Warp technology.
are you zefram cochran? :eek:

/me wonders how much extra global warming will occur (by the energy itself being released into the environment, even if it's emmission-neutral w.r.t. carbon-dioxide, etc) if every car is replaced by a vehicle capable of producing megawatts of excess power and actively doing so, even when idle, for minimal running costs?

We better use a few of them to power a heat pump to carry energy out into space (up space-elevators, perhaps?) and maintain a stable environment. (Ooh, that'd mean there'd be an area or three on the equator being cooled down drastically in order to leach away the excess heat, possible creating an 'equatorial arctic' zone and distorted weather patterns. If only I could write books, 'cos I can imagine one or two ways to use that as the basis of a SF novel.)

why would you build a car with a megawatt powerplant? Becasue you can? Thats just silly. with the ability to pump out megawatts from small packages comes the ability to pump out kilowatts in even more efficient packages.