Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Faster Than Light travel the wrong question?
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5148 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 1 of 81 (533202)
10-29-2009 10:43 AM


I've been thinking (and discussing with a few friends) SR (Special Relativity) and it's predictions on FTL (Faster Than Light) or LS (Light Speed) Travel being impossible for anything with rest mass 0<.
From what I understand, this has a lot to do with the exponential increase in energy required for the work of propelling whatever it is you want to propel up to that speed. (This may be incorrect as I am FAR from an expert on this subject).
I also understand that no matter the velocity of your FoR (Frame of Reference), LS is constant, hence it's representation as "C". (For those not quite sure what I mean: If you are traveling in a super fast car at .999C and turn on your headlights, the beams will still be traveling at C away from you.)
So my question is this, is FTL or LS travel really what we are after? What prevents us from traveling at 600,000km/sec, seeing as from our FoR light is still traveling at light-speed?
Edited by Michamus, : Fixed: no matter the velocity your FoR
To Read: no matter the velocity of your FoR
Edited by Admin, : Minor edits for clarity.
Edited by Admin, : Define SR.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : "FTL" to "Faster Than Light" in topic title.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Perdition, posted 10-29-2009 12:19 PM Michamus has not replied
 Message 4 by Meldinoor, posted 10-29-2009 5:46 PM Michamus has not replied
 Message 5 by kbertsche, posted 10-29-2009 7:34 PM Michamus has replied
 Message 10 by onifre, posted 10-30-2009 12:12 PM Michamus has not replied
 Message 12 by Aware Wolf, posted 10-30-2009 12:25 PM Michamus has replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5148 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 18 of 81 (533473)
10-31-2009 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Aware Wolf
10-30-2009 12:25 PM


This is kind of a reply to everyone, but I picked Aware Wolf as his was the last post that I felt was in in line with my topic (precisely that is. The side discussion on Technology advancements, change in understanding of Physics, and worm-holes/ space dilation-contraction is fascinating) I do wish there was a type of multi-reply function so everyone I selected would receive a notification e-mail, but alas we are limited to what tools we have.
Aware Wolf writes:
Picture a meter stick pointing straight up. This represents an object "standing still" in space in a particular FOR.
This is how things have been explained to me as well. I do have a few statements in regard to it, that I wish Cavediver were here to discuss.
This statement seems to be true (and I will agree with it) but it is just as you said, from a particular FoR. We understand there to be no Universal FoR, as everything is relative. We also understand there to be no such thing as true rest.
With that, from an Earthly FoR, we are at rest, and light is traveling at 300,000km/sec (can't forget the k onifre). Regardless of what direction we point the light beam, it still travels at C, which is why it has that awesome abbreviation for "Constant".
Taking that into consideration we must ask ourselves a few questions.
1. If we point a light beam forward while traveling .999c, is that light beam going to travel back in time? I'd imagine the answer to be no.
2. If we are traveling .999c away from the Earth... and the Earth is traveling at .002c (I know a stretch) are we now really going 1.001c? I'd say no, we are still going .999c relative to the Earth, but at REST relative to ourselves, and light is still going LS.
3. Does time slow as we experience it? That is, do our internal time-keeping mechanisms suddenly experience time slower from our own FoR if we increase our velocity? Do clocks suddenly start ticking slower than before, as per traveler FoR? I'd say the answer is no, time still apparently drudges forward at the same speed to the traveler, regardless his velocity.
So what I see as perplexing is that the meter stick never really changes direction, as you are never really moving (from your FoR). You are constantly at rest (from your FoR), regardless your velocity.
With those taken into consideration, what is really keeping us from going from here to Alpha Centauri in one year, or sooner?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Aware Wolf, posted 10-30-2009 12:25 PM Aware Wolf has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by cavediver, posted 10-31-2009 8:09 AM Michamus has replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5148 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 19 of 81 (533474)
10-31-2009 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by kbertsche
10-29-2009 7:34 PM


I understand what you are saying, and it makes sense. My question kind of assumes that we would be at a Stage of Technological Understanding to where manipulating the energy of stars is about as amazing as plugging in a toaster. (That's not a statement of possibility or probability, just a given necessary to discuss the point further)
kbertsche writes:
An acceleration of 1G for 1 year would give a relative velocity of about 0.7 c, and you would age at about 70% the normal rate.
I'm not too sure on the precision of your numbers, but I'll take them on good faith. What exactly would be bad about traveling at 1G for 1 year? We experience 1G all the time for many years... In this scenario I would make the space-craft essentially accelerate floor side down, so you would have gravity in space.
I'd imagine though that kind of acceleration would require quite a bit of energy to be sustained...
kbertsche writes:
The energy expenditure for this would be enormous, of course. That's why sci-fi scenarios of sending people to colonize distant planets are complete fantasy.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I can't see us as being too qualified as to predicting what the future brings. It does seem like an impossible scenario, with the current questions and solutions we are providing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by kbertsche, posted 10-29-2009 7:34 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by kbertsche, posted 10-31-2009 12:49 PM Michamus has not replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5148 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 21 of 81 (533477)
10-31-2009 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by cavediver
10-31-2009 8:09 AM


WOW! You just completely answered all my questions in a couple sentences.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by cavediver, posted 10-31-2009 8:09 AM cavediver has not replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5148 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 32 of 81 (533680)
11-02-2009 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Taz
11-02-2009 1:06 AM


You know, that would work. The only issue though is the sheer mass of that neutron matter would be quite a burden to propel. With enough energy at our disposal though, it would indeed be possible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Taz, posted 11-02-2009 1:06 AM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Perdition, posted 11-02-2009 1:42 PM Michamus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024