Faster than light travel

[Dr Jekyll]

Suppose someone (NASA, aliens, mad scientist, Musk, whoever) eventually manages to achieve faster than light travel. What's the least implausible method to use?

[Einion Yrth]

"Einstein was wrong" is the sub-text to all of them, why single out #1?

[Dr Jekyll]

Not really, if you warp space or take some kind of extra dimensional shortcut you might get there in less time than light would take but are not actually going faster than light. It would mean Einstein didn't have the whole picture but wouldn't exactly be wrong.

[p1stonhead]

Only one I have heard of which even remotely is theoretically possible within our understanding of things is the Alcubierre Drive? I dont know much about the issue however.

Everything I have read in practical terms says no chance.

[Einion Yrth]

Dr Jekyll said:

Not really, if you warp space or take some kind of extra dimensional shortcut you might get there in less time than light would take but are not actually going faster than light. It would mean Einstein didn't have the whole picture but wouldn't exactly be wrong.

Still has issues WRT simultaneity and FTL comms, which implies time travel, and thoroughly knackers causality. I'm not saying it's necessarily impossible, but it does require relativity to be fairly substantially wrong.

[Dr Jekyll]

p1stonhead said:

Only one I have heard of which even remotely is theoretically possible within our understanding of things is the Alcubierre Drive? I dont know much about the issue however.

Everything I have read in practical terms says no chance.

+1 and I think the Alcubierre drive is the one where you measure your energy consumption in galaxies per light year.

[Moonhawk]

Do we actually need to achieve faster than light travel to make interstellar travel possible (for the passengers at least)

As you approach the speed of light - time dilation effects take hold and distances shrink in the direction of movement.

If you were to travel to a star 10 light years away at 99% the speed of light - the journey would only take 1.4 years as measured from your frame of reference. At 99.999999% the speed of light - the journey would take about 12 hours.

At 99.99999999999999% the speed of light you could travel to the Andromeda galaxy in 4 hours.

Of course, if you did travel to the Andromeda galaxy and back - a round trip of 8 hours from your frame of reference, the Earth would have aged 5 million years from it's frame of reference.

Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 18th May 16:18

[Yipper]

Almost all scientific theories get disproved and replaced at some point. History is littered with fancy theories that were not right. It will defo be possible to go faster than light. Perhaps via a graviton tunnel or similar. An AI robot will probably crack it in the 22nd century.

[Moonhawk]

Yipper said:

Almost all scientific theories get disproved and replaced at some point. History is littered with fancy theories that were not right. It will defo be possible to go faster than light. Perhaps via a graviton tunnel or similar. An AI robot will probably crack it in the 22nd century.

I suppose we have to make the distinction between accelerating a mass to a speed greater than the speed of light - and moving an object from one point in the universe to another point, in a time that is shorter than it would take for light to traverse the distance between them.

The two are not necessarily the same thing.

[Einion Yrth]

Yipper said:

It will defo be possible to go faster than light.

Really? I'll not rule it out at this point, despite issues that would necessarily be seen with respect to causality; but "defo"?, really?

[qube_TA]

Moonhawk said:

At 99.99999999999999% the speed of light you could travel to the Andromeda galaxy in 4 hours.

years not hours

[Einion Yrth]

qube_TA said:

Moonhawk said:

At 99.99999999999999% the speed of light you could travel to the Andromeda galaxy in 4 hours.

years not hours

add a few more 9's after the decimal point. Of course the universe would probably be quite hostile to anything with rest-mass travelling that quickly; a grain of dust, or even a molecule of hydrogen could be quite energetic.

[Yipper]

Einion Yrth said:

Yipper said:

It will defo be possible to go faster than light.

Really? I'll not rule it out at this point, despite issues that would necessarily be seen with respect to causality; but "defo"?, really?

For sure. Consensus theories rarely stay consensusal forever. People once believed going faster than sound was impossible. Traveling faster than light is a bit tougher and taking somewhat longer. But it will defo be broken. Possibly not by a human, due to its complexity, but probably by a self-learning machine that does nothing but FTL analysis 24hrs a day for decades until it finds the answer. Whether it is achieved by ultra magnetic fields or graviton tunnels or whatever, who knows. But history shows most (if not all) theories eventually get disproved or improved by something newer and better.

[Einion Yrth]

Yipper said:

Einion Yrth said:

Yipper said:

It will defo be possible to go faster than light.

Really? I'll not rule it out at this point, despite issues that would necessarily be seen with respect to causality; but "defo"?, really?

For sure. Consensus theories rarely stay consensusal forever. People once believed going faster than sound was impossible. Traveling faster than light is a bit tougher and taking somewhat longer. But it will defo be broken. Possibly not by a human, due to its complexity, but probably by a self-learning machine that does nothing but FTL analysis 24hrs a day for decades until it finds the answer. Whether it is achieved by ultra magnetic fields or graviton tunnels or whatever, who knows. But history shows most (if not all) theories eventually get disproved or improved by something newer and better.

It may actually be physically impossible, and no amount of waffle can get past that. Equally, well probably somewhat less than "equally", it may be possible. Do you have an hypothesis with supporting mathematics? Or are you prepared to accept that "defo" ( an abbreviation for "definitely" I believe) is just a tad, charitably, optimistic.

[Vipers]

The speed of light isnt the fastest thing in the universe.

Three guys discussing the fastest thing in the universe.

First one said it's a thought, you think of something it's instanious.

Second said it's when you blink, it takes milliseconds.

Third said, its light, when you flick a switch the light comes on straight away.

A guy listening to this, turned to them and said your all wrong is diarrhoea.

They asked why.

He said last night I woke up, before I could think, blink or flick a switch,I st myself.

[Einion Yrth]

Vipers said:

st

Wrong thread, Sean Connery is over --------> there.
Whether or not I heard the shot.

[Moonhawk]

qube_TA said:

years not hours

Sorry - my conversion from years was a little off - it's actually 16 days.

I used the calculation on this website:

http://www.emc2-explained.info/Dilation-Calc/#.WR4...

Try it yourself.

Enter 99.99999999999999 in the "percentage of c" box
Enter 2500000 light years in the "distance" box (the distance to Andromeda)

Hit calculate.

The result is 0.04562530187486072 years

365 * 0.0456 = 16.64 days

[Vipers]

Einion Yrth said:

Vipers said:

st

Wrong thread, Sean Connery is over --------> there.
Whether or not I heard the shot.

I know but just bringing some humour, carry on chaps.

[Dr Jekyll]

Yipper said:

For sure. Consensus theories rarely stay consensusal forever. People once believed going faster than sound was impossible.

No they didn't.

There was some dispute as to whether a controllable aircraft that could survive passing mach 1 could be built. But this arose when bullets and rockets were already exceeding it quite happily.

Speed of light is a physics problem not just an engineering one.

The idea that it can't be exceeded MIGHT be wrong, just as gravity MIGHT not exist. But we can be pretty confident both are right.

[xjay1337]

Moonhawk said:

Do we actually need to achieve faster than light travel to make interstellar travel possible (for the passengers at least)

As you approach the speed of light - time dilation effects take hold and distances shrink in the direction of movement.

If you were to travel to a star 10 light years away at 99% the speed of light - the journey would only take 1.4 years as measured from your frame of reference. At 99.999999% the speed of light - the journey would take about 12 hours.

At 99.99999999999999% the speed of light you could travel to the Andromeda galaxy in 4 hours.

Of course, if you did travel to the Andromeda galaxy and back - a round trip of 8 hours from your frame of reference, the Earth would have aged 5 million years from it's frame of reference.

Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 18th May 16:18

Eh?

Surely if you travelled at 99.99999999999999% the speed of light, and back again (assuming you could) you'd end up 8 hours ahead from where you started?

(having since read your math is wrong, but the question remains the same?)