Who thinks Faster Than Light travel is possible?

I think that most scientific advances are based around mathematics and numbers.
Except for those advances which are not primarily mathematical, which is most of science. For example: molecular biology, materials science, physical geography, etc. This should be obvious if you look at the research papers in a few issues of Nature or Science.

There is a bit of maths involved, for sure, but it is a tool, and the science itself is not by and large extrapolated from pure maths. Some clever boffin did not do some sums on the back of a napkin and come up with plate tectonics, the behaviour of social insects, penicillin, or with the Covid vaccine.
 
But doesn't this depend on the concept of the omniscient observer who can look at both objects at a single moment in time and say; "yes, they are now two light years apart having travelled at 1C for one year in opposite directions." The problem I have with this is that there is no single point in time that exists across multiple frames of reference. Time is inseparable from space. You have to pick a frame of reference and observe from that. And there is no frame of reference in which the two objects are two light years apart after one year.
I think you can say that two places that exist at similar velocity vectors are essentially in the same refernce plane, like us and Alpha Centauri. And you csn observe distant quasars to affirm that. So when our light beam hits Centauri, it does so in a reference frame that functions just like ours does to where we can say "This is happening there right now."
 
Less than 2 seconds.

Which way it would go would depend on time of month. At new moon it would drop into an orbit closer to the Sun. At full moon farther out.

In between gets more complicated. Maybe more elliptical orbits around the Sun.

Thanks. I’ve found it’s 1.3 seconds to be precise.

I thought that one of the things that made FTL travel a no no was that as an object speeds up it gains mass and as it approaches the speed of light it gains infinite mass. True or not?
 
There seems to be a logical disconnect here. The Big Bang wasn't an explosion of matter in an existing space - in fact the terminology of "Big Bang" is not a great descriptor.

The "Big Bang" is the metric scale expansion of spacetime, it is not expanding "into" anything because spacetime itself is part of the expansion.

Any other such "dollops" are actually parallel universes, because they are not part of our spacetime. The Big Bang was not an explosion in a pre-existing space, it was the expansion of all spacetime.

Now it is possible there are infinite "dollops" but they cannot operate in the same "space" because "space" is not nothingness, there are properties to spacetime - it is not the nothingness that existed before the Universe came into being (where even the term "before" has little value because there was no before, spacetime began at the Big Bang.) It would be like standing at the North Pole and asking which way is further North.

I hope that makes some sense.
You're being too "local". Why limit the extent of nothing?

If spacetime can expand from nothing and expand into the nothingness then why not twice or as many times as it likes.

Think bubbles in water, where the water here is nothingness. The bubbles can be far apart and might never know of each others existence.

Just because they can't be observed doesn't mean they don't exist.

Plus if there was a time zero, then there was a time - 1.

I.E. the time before time 0. Something must have happened before 0 - else why did anything happen at all?

As in

Effect < cause
 
You're being too "local". Why limit the extent of nothing?

If spacetime can expand from nothing and expand into the nothingness then why not twice or as many times as it likes.

Think bubbles in water, where the water here is nothingness. The bubbles can be far apart and might never know of each others existence.

Just because they can't be observed doesn't mean they don't exist.

Plus if there was a time zero, then there was a time - 1.

I.E. the time before time 0. Something must have happened before 0 - else why did anything happen at all?

As in

Effect < cause
Maybe time was one of the things to come out of the Big Bang, like light and matter.
 
Slipping in and out of a parallel universe where time didn't exist would make travel a whole lot easier.
 
Thanks. I’ve found it’s 1.3 seconds to be precise.

I thought that one of the things that made FTL travel a no no was that as an object speeds up it gains mass and as it approaches the speed of light it gains infinite mass. True or not?

Yes!

That is why we get stories with HYPERSPACE where physics works differently or some kind of wormhole technology.

With almost 300 years from Newton to Einstein I won't assume that something amazing might not be discovered/figured out by some bizarre genius in the next 1000 years. After that I will worry.
 
Thanks. I’ve found it’s 1.3 seconds to be precise.

I thought that one of the things that made FTL travel a no no was that as an object speeds up it gains mass and as it approaches the speed of light it gains infinite mass. True or not?
And yet we are told there are an almost infinite (can't be infinite - or can it) number of particles (you all know the names) whizzing around the universe willy nilly at near c and actual c at any moment in none time.

Oops just had a trillion neutrinos pass straight through my head and they didn't even ask permission but maybe they triggered this thought.

No that can't be right because to have triggered this thought they would have been travelling in negative time to get here now.
 
Except for those advances which are not primarily mathematical, which is most of science. For example: molecular biology, materials science, physical geography, etc. This should be obvious if you look at the research papers in a few issues of Nature or Science.

There is a bit of maths involved, for sure, but it is a tool, and the science itself is not by and large extrapolated from pure maths. Some clever boffin did not do some sums on the back of a napkin and come up with plate tectonics, the behaviour of social insects, penicillin, or with the Covid vaccine.


It's just that whenever the universe is discussed on tv, it's usually inm the form of numbers. Amount of galaxies, stars, age of the universe etc. And we all know what the chances of anything coming from Mars are. But the numbers are all so ridiculously huge that they largely become meaningless.
 
OY

I've warned you lot before.

If you don't stop tipping your rubbish up here on Mars there'll consequences.

The chances of that are low and make no mistake.

And don't think that whirly thing you left up here is going to survive much longer.

We'll be returning that with interest soon too.
 
Plus if there was a time zero, then there was a time - 1.
I suggest that there is a difference between Time 0 and having No Time. In my imagination, the minimal characteristics needed to produce time would be having three particles with some sort of interaction between them.

I suggest that the necessary characteristic of time is of relative change. With a single particle, there can be no motion, because there is no reference point. The only point in existence is the particle, so there is no way to identify movement.

If there are two particles, but they do not interact through some means, then essentially there are two isolated particles--two independent universes--and the situation is the same as in the single particle scenario. With two particles, the concept of distance becomes meaningful. One can compare the size of each particle to the void between particles. This distance may change, but I do not feel there a way to compare rate of change. There would be no concept of velocity or acceleration, thus no concept of time.

When there are three particles with some type of interaction between them, then change in distance between A and B can be compared to changes between A and C and B and C. The relative differences between these allow the definition of time.

Both Zero and Negative Numbers are abstract concepts and do not truly exist in the physical world. Distance and Time are relational concepts and need a baseline and something outside the baseline to compare against.

That said, this is only my personal thought experiment. Something about only having three particles still bothers me, as that only defines a plane and not a three dimensional space.
 
A short summary of the thread so far:

1. The Hard-science Hardliners assure the public that our current understanding of physics is good and complete enough to preclude any changes to our understanding that C is an absolute limit. (Despite current physics also telling us that the vast majority of the universe is made of matter and energy we can neither find nor define.)

2. The Dreamers head right off the deep end with soliloquys on physics ideas that didn't come from scientific theories, but would play well in the newest pages of Marvel comics.

3. The Maybes, who are probably dirty agnostics in their private lives as well.
 
Thanks. I’ve found it’s 1.3 seconds to be precise.

I thought that one of the things that made FTL travel a no no was that as an object speeds up it gains mass and as it approaches the speed of light it gains infinite mass. True or not?
Yes and no. If you define mass by its ability to be accelerated from an external viewer, than yes. But since time is dilating for that mass, acceleration doesn't predict mass accurately.

On the ship the acceleration is linear.
 
Plus if there was a time zero, then there was a time - 1.

I.E. the time before time 0. Something must have happened before 0 - else why did anything happen at all?

As in

Effect < cause

Not too sure about that. Time is a property of our universe. Therefore it has no context unless the universe exists. Cause and effect is also a concept that relies upon time for meaning.
 
A short summary of the thread so far:

1. The Hard-science Hardliners assure the public that our current understanding of physics is good and complete enough to preclude any changes to our understanding that C is an absolute limit. (Despite current physics also telling us that the vast majority of the universe is made of matter and energy we can neither find nor define.)

2. The Dreamers head right off the deep end with soliloquys on physics ideas that didn't come from scientific theories, but would play well in the newest pages of Marvel comics.

3. The Maybes, who are probably dirty agnostics in their private lives as well.
I generally accept that nothing can move faster than the speed of light, but I still get tripped up over the idea that the rate of expansion of the universe has galaxies moving apart from each other faster than the speed of light. The only explanation that I have seen appears to be a complete cop out, namely that the galaxies aren't moving, it's just that the distance between them is getting larger.

To me, this implies that there is some capability for items move faster than the speed of light.
 
I generally accept that nothing can move faster than the speed of light, but I still get tripped up over the idea that the rate of expansion of the universe has galaxies moving apart from each other faster than the speed of light. The only explanation that I have seen appears to be a complete cop out, namely that the galaxies aren't moving, it's just that the distance between them is getting larger.

To me, this implies that there is some capability for items move faster than the speed of light.
I wrote 3 posts about this. 60% C in one direction and 60% C in.the opposite direction is 120% C. But no one object is going faster than light.
 
The number of times something is written makes no difference to how correct (or otherwise) it is.
 

Back
Top