|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Faster Than Light travel the wrong question? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
kbertsche writes:
And this is where the creativity of man comes in. Yes, but it's not possible to accelerate hard enough and safely enough to reduce this to a few days. Jet pilots in pressurized suits can endure a few Gs (less than 10?) for very short periods. Imagine yourself and an object with a gravitational pull of 5 G pulling you toward it. Now, we accelerate you and the object at 6 G. You will only feel 1 G. Suppose the object is pulling you at 7 G and you both are accelerated at 8 G. You will still only feel 1 G. Dwelling on this thought, suppose we possess neutron matter. The neutron matter is put in front of the ship. The more the ship accelerates, the closer you are automatically put toward the neutron mass. When you decelerate, the ship automatically pulls you away from the neutron matter. Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Michamus Member (Idle past 5157 days) Posts: 230 From: Ft Hood, TX Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aware Wolf Member (Idle past 1419 days) Posts: 156 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
Are you actually in orbit around this object, or are you falling directly towards it? If the latter, doesn't this limit the amount of time this scheme would work for?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3237 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Stephen Hawking, in a famous exchange when he guest-starred on Star Trek The Next Generation, pointed at the Warp Drive and said "I'm working on that."
I have a book by Michio Kaku, I'm not sure which one, I'm at work right now, that talks about warping space by contracting it in front of you while expanding it behind you to generate the illusion of faster than light travel. In a book called "The Physics of Star Trek" they say much the same thing, and reference a few scientists who have said this is a possibility, but currently beyond our ability. So, when I said, there are scientists working on this, I meant only in the theoretical sense, since it would be very costly to build a device before we have a sound theory in place. But by claiming that we must travel through space the same way we do now is short-sighted and mired in the thinking of the past/present without considering new advances and discoveries that may be just over the horizon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3237 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Agreeing as we always do (on most things) it pains me to have to interject - lol. Actually, the speed of light as a constant is a fact of nature; in fact, one could say a law of physics. I agree, it probably is a constant and an absolute barrier on speed in "future direction" though it may hint at being able to travel in the "past direction", i.e. time travel. But I'm always loathe to say we understand it completely and can say with 100% certainty that there is absolutely no way at all possible to over come this. Beyond that, my main thrust is that we might be to get the illusion of faster than light travel without actually doing it, perhaps by a space warping technology or a wormhole.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3237 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
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. That's the crux. Anything, even neutronium, that would gravitationally attract you at 1G would have the mass of the earth. Anything that gravitationally attracts you at 7Gs would have 7 earth masses. Trying to accelerate anything with that much mass to any significant speed would require an immense amount of power. Even assuming that we can overcome the power limitations, I think we could use that amount of power in a better way than actual linear travel...space warping or wormholes. Besides, anything with the mass to gravitationally attract you at any multiple Gs would also attract everything else around it at the same amount, making it something that would have to be built, used, and left, in interstellar space, lest you destroy the Earth and/or the planet/space station/etc you are attempting to get to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2950 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
I agree, it probably is a constant and an absolute barrier on speed in "future direction" though it may hint at being able to travel in the "past direction", i.e. time travel. Err, if I'm understanding relativity correctly, there is no "absolute" time (universal time) from which to travel back or forward in time from.
But I'm always loathe to say we understand it completely and can say with 100% certainty that there is absolutely no way at all possible to over come this. I think what Einstein's theory does, is do away with absolute time and space - which does away with the human notion of forward and backwrads in "time". I may be wrong in my understanding though. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2131 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
I wrote:
Transporting matter at relativistic velocities requires energy.
quote:My approach is not closed minded; rather, it is grounded in reality. Einstein theorized an equivalence between matter and energy and this has been experimentally verified. Hence my original comment. If you wish to transport matter at relativistic velocities without using a tremendous amount of energy, you would have to disprove Einstein's E=mc^2 relation and to explain why all of the experimental evidence of it is wrong. You are free to theorize about such fantasies as much as you wish.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3237 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
I think what Einstein's theory does, is do away with absolute time and space - which does away with the -->human --> notion of forward and backwrads in "time". I may be wrong in my understanding though. As I understand it, there's no absolute speed at which time passes, however, there is an absolute direction. And based on the ruler explanation that cavediver has given, and you've also repeated, it would appear that if the ruler kept rotating so that it pointed diagonally downward, you would be moving in space and in time, however, you would be moving backwards in time. Positrons and anti-protons behave the same way as electrons and protons that are travelling backwards in time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2950 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
As I understand it, there's no absolute speed at which time passes, however, there is an absolute direction. Not at (c) - which is to say, not for anything with 0 rest mass.
And based on the ruler explanation that cavediver has given, and you've also repeated, it would appear that if the ruler kept rotating so that it pointed diagonally downward, you would be moving in space -->and --> in time, however, you would be moving backwards in time. Yes, but that's just an analogy. What must be remembered in that analogy is that the speed of light is the constant (or limit) that prevents the ruler from pointing downward. Once you reach the limit, you are not experiencing time (think of a photon). To a photon emittied from the Big Bang, time has not passed at all. So it makes no sense to think that something at (c) can go backward in time when something at (c) isn't really going forward in time. Time is an irrelevant factor.
Positrons and anti-protons behave the same way as electrons and protons that are travelling backwards in time. But how could that be if they don't experience time past at all? - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3237 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Yes, but that's just an analogy. What must be remembered in that analogy is that the speed of light is the constant (or limit) that prevents the ruler from pointing downward. I thought the speed of light was the length of the ruler, and it's angle indicated it's "time movement" and it's "space movement" showing that as you increase one, you decrease the other. WHen you reach the limit of all space movement and no time movement, it would seem that decreasing speed should bring you back to experiencing time, but the analogy doesn't show that the time movement has to be in the same direction as we currently experience it. I'm not sure if this is just an artifact of the analogy and not a real problem at all...but I have often heard that antimatter is the same as normal matter that is travelling backwards in time.
But how could that be if they don't experience time past at all? I don't know...perhaps I should wait until cavediver sets me straight before I dig myself any deeper.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2950 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
I thought the speed of light was the length of the ruler, and it's angle indicated it's "time movement" and it's "space movement" showing that as you increase one, you decrease the other. Hmm, I don't know how you're conceptualizing it. When the ruler is straight up, which means you are not moving in space, you are still at the speed of light (temporally) - which means that you are experiencing time at 300,000 m/s. When you speed up spacially, the fastest you can go (imagining that you had no mass) is 300,000 m/s. So the ruler pointing straight up is at the speed of light (temporally), and as the ruler goes down (speeding up spacially) in our analogy you are increasing your spacial speed to the limit of 300,000 m/s. So the speed of light limit is both temporal and spacial.
Oni writes: But how could that be if they don't experience time past at all?
Perdition writes: I don't know Well, if I could attempt to explain - my point was that backward and forward in time are only relevant concepts to things that have mass, and its only an intuative concept to us at that. What relativity explains is that that intuative notion is done away with because there is no absolute space, speed, direction, size or time. It's only relative to the observer. If you can picture the future as a road (think a long never ending road that has everything a normal road has - houses on the sides, street lights, people, etc.) - What you consider the future is all of the houses and street lights and people who are already ahead on that road, you are travelling towards them. IOW, there is no universal future, only a future relative to where you are standing and about to begin your journey from. I'd like cavediver to chime in, but I think I'm correct for the most part as far as I understand it. If not, I'm sure I'll get the *bullocks* stamp, LOL. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3237 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
So the speed of light limit is both temporal and spacial. I know. When the ruler is straight up, you're experiencing time at light speed, and no spatial movement. WHen it's flat, you're experiencing space at light speed (actual spatial movement) and no time. If you keep rotating the ruler, however, you bring time back into the equation and make your speed less, however, the time is now on the negative axis rather than the positive one...backwards time travel.
Well, if I could attempt to explain - my point was that backward and forward in time are only relevant concepts to things that have mass, and its only an intuative concept to us at that. And protons, electrons, positrons and anti-protons have mass, so they experience time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ZenMonkey Member (Idle past 4510 days) Posts: 428 From: Portland, OR USA Joined: |
If I remember correctly, it's taking an object the same amount of energy to move its mass through time at the speed of light while standing still as it would take to accelerate its mass through space. If time is simply another direction, then mass requires the same amount of energy, so to speak, no matter which direction or combination of directions in spacetime you're going.
Or I could be remembering all this in the most confused way possible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2950 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
If you keep rotating the ruler, That's just the thing, you cannot. Conceptually it seems like you can, but once you reach the spacial constant of (c) you don't experience time anymore (hypothetically if you could reach "c"). Its the same as the notion of time and space at the quantum level being irrelevant.
backwards time travel. Yes, but think about it - backwards in time relative to what?
And protons, electrons, positrons and anti-protons have mass, so they experience time. Right, but the notion of universal time is done away with in Einsteins theory, which does away with the intuative notion of forward and backward in time. Time is a dimension - past, present, future, has always existed. Think about it this way, in a spacial dimension sense: If you walk toward me here in Miami, you wouldn't say that I haven't happened yet, right? I'm here and you are travelling toward me. Likewise, if you consider time a dimension, then there is no future that you're going towards, nor a past that you are moving away from. All moments in "time" exist. - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024