Does space travel work, like how it does in sci-fi movies?

Page 2 of 4 [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,750
Location: Stendec

05 Feb 2021, 9:03 am

Gaffer Gragz wrote:
True as far as i know, but there is something called spacetime, and warping it to achieve nonlocally faster than lightspeed is possible if somewhat expensive on the energy front.
Evidence, please?
Gaffer Gragz wrote:
As a mater of fact, far away in the universe whole galaxies are moving away from us faster than light.
Evidence, please?
Gaffer Gragz wrote:
Bc spacetime is expanding. As long the spacetime locally is moving below lightspeed, that part of spacetime can move as fast it want relative to the rest of the universe, spacetime doesn't care, at this scale even conservation of energy fail.
Evidence, please?
Gaffer Gragz wrote:
This is hard to grasp i know, its a preposterous universe we exist in. And i cant claim i tell it correctly, so watch ustubbies from real Cosmologists.
I, for one, do not let the Internet do my thinking for me.


_________________
 
No love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.


Gaffer Gragz
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2021
Gender: Male
Posts: 250
Location: Hadeland, Norway

05 Feb 2021, 10:14 am

Fnord wrote:
Gaffer Gragz wrote:
True as far as i know, but there is something called spacetime, and warping it to achieve nonlocally faster than lightspeed is possible if somewhat expensive on the energy front.
Evidence, please?
Gaffer Gragz wrote:
As a mater of fact, far away in the universe whole galaxies are moving away from us faster than light.
Evidence, please?
Gaffer Gragz wrote:
Bc spacetime is expanding. As long the spacetime locally is moving below lightspeed, that part of spacetime can move as fast it want relative to the rest of the universe, spacetime doesn't care, at this scale even conservation of energy fail.
Evidence, please?
Gaffer Gragz wrote:
This is hard to grasp i know, its a preposterous universe we exist in. And i cant claim i tell it correctly, so watch ustubbies from real Cosmologists.
I, for one, do not let the Internet do my thinking for me.


Well, if you dont think this is in the ballpark of true, and it doesn't make you curious to find the evidence yourself, loss for you. And yes, the internet is full of trolling and fraud etc, but if you with some thought into it seek out givers of information at PhD level and confirm that other real people with real PhDs confirm the information given, I say its good enough for everyday conversation.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,750
Location: Stendec

05 Feb 2021, 10:35 am

I have looked for supporting evidence for FTL travel, and found only speculative reports requiring "exotic" matter and "negative" energy -- things that are only suggested by complex mathematical theories; but that have not been proven to exist in reality.

JPL is just up the road, and I spent most of yesterday with Raytheon scientists.  These are people at the cutting-edge of engineering.  I used to do contract work for Fermilab in Batavia, Illinois, and a few universities in the Midwest.  I still keep in touch with some of their engineers and scientists, who are at the cutting-edge of physics research.  When I have questions regarding esoteric physics, I go to them.  Sometimes, they come to me first.

There is no reason to let the Internet do my thinking for me when I can consult real scientists directly and do my own thinking instead.

Hence, I think that just because some tinfoil-hat wearing clown in a YouTube video says that FTL travel is possible, that does not mean he is telling the truth (no matter what the voices in his own head may say).


_________________
 
No love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.


QuantumChemist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Oct 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,910
Location: Midwest

05 Feb 2021, 10:43 am

Here is an upcoming experiment that could explain the cause of some spacetime issues:

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/scie ... 00054.html

It all centers around neutrinos and anti-neutrinos. They rarely interact with matter itself, yet flow though space as if part of the wind. They constantly undergo annihilation events when they come into contact with their corresponding opposite and two photons of blue wavelength electromagnetic radiation are released in the process.

On the surface of the Earth, we do not notice these blue flashes due to the large amount of excess light that is constantly around us. The only place where they can be accurately seen are at the bottom of the polar ice caps.

The source of these particles are in the byproducts of radioactive decay processes of much larger particles of matter. When a “free” neutrino undergoes beta- decay, it splits into two particle initially: a proton and a W- boson. The W-boson them quickly splits into an unbound electron (i.e. the beta-) and an electron anti-neutrino. Electron neutrinos can be produced in decay events when a W+ boson is formed, such as in positron emission. These neutrinos and anti-neutrinos travel pretty much uninhibited until they annihilate with each other.

I think I have a good grasp on why they do what they do in the universe. It all comes down to their substructure. Time will tell if the experiment can prove if one of my theories on them is correct.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,750
Location: Stendec

05 Feb 2021, 10:54 am

Yeah, I am waiting on those results too.  Sadly, most people will read of the experiment's mere existence, assume that the theory has already been proven, and that the principle is already being exploited.

It is like when my sister shared that she was going in for a biopsy.  People assumed that she had already been diagnosed with cancer and had one foot in the grave (it was a benign lipoma, by the way).


_________________
 
No love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.


Gaffer Gragz
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2021
Gender: Male
Posts: 250
Location: Hadeland, Norway

05 Feb 2021, 3:40 pm

Fnord wrote:
I have looked for supporting evidence for FTL travel, and found only speculative reports requiring "exotic" matter and "negative" energy -- things that are only suggested by complex mathematical theories; but that have not been proven to exist in reality.

JPL is just up the road, and I spent most of yesterday with Raytheon scientists.  These are people at the cutting-edge of engineering.  I used to do contract work for Fermilab in Batavia, Illinois, and a few universities in the Midwest.  I still keep in touch with some of their engineers and scientists, who are at the cutting-edge of physics research.  When I have questions regarding esoteric physics, I go to them.  Sometimes, they come to me first.

There is no reason to let the Internet do my thinking for me when I can consult real scientists directly and do my own thinking instead.

Hence, I think that just because some tinfoil-hat wearing clown in a YouTube video says that FTL travel is possible, that does not mean he is telling the truth (no matter what the voices in his own head may say).


Awesome, thank you for giving me real time and effort. I didn't try to promote FTL as much as direct attention towards the fact that the universe/spacetime is expanding exponentially (team got a nobel for it) and the edge of what we can observe seem to disappear, and the rest is correctly assumed to be from theoretical Physicists and Cosmologists (speculative within reason, mostly from Sean Carroll) trying to figure out wth is going on. And maybe I use your approach, just a little bit. Maybe that telescope, (cant remember the correct name atm, Kepler?), Nasa hopefully will send to the lagrange point in the shadow of earth can spot anything more. Both Theory and Observation my be at a dead end as it is!?

Well, I do actually try as hard as i can to think for myself, luckily for you your education and environment seem to give you a closer connection to stuff. Still I think the tinfoil hat is going to far. Have you notice how few public lectures and utube stubs are give by people with PhD background doing observational work? All i have found thus far is Levin connected to LIGO and Keating connected to that last CMB project, and a few others, mainly in black hole/matter/energy (the two last fields getting nowhere). There are theorists aplenty but so few of the really interesting givers of facts.

You are sharp, so I have no reason not to be a tad sharp too, and I hope you will share the stuff you find interesting and fascinating.

Regards
Gragzy



Gaffer Gragz
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2021
Gender: Male
Posts: 250
Location: Hadeland, Norway

05 Feb 2021, 4:34 pm

QuantumChemist wrote:
Here is an upcoming experiment that could explain the cause of some spacetime issues:

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/scie ... 00054.html

It all centers around neutrinos and anti-neutrinos. They rarely interact with matter itself, yet flow though space as if part of the wind. They constantly undergo annihilation events when they come into contact with their corresponding opposite and two photons of blue wavelength electromagnetic radiation are released in the process.

On the surface of the Earth, we do not notice these blue flashes due to the large amount of excess light that is constantly around us. The only place where they can be accurately seen are at the bottom of the polar ice caps.

The source of these particles are in the byproducts of radioactive decay processes of much larger particles of matter. When a “free” neutrino undergoes beta- decay, it splits into two particle initially: a proton and a W- boson. The W-boson them quickly splits into an unbound electron (i.e. the beta-) and an electron anti-neutrino. Electron neutrinos can be produced in decay events when a W+ boson is formed, such as in positron emission. These neutrinos and anti-neutrinos travel pretty much uninhibited until they annihilate with each other.

I think I have a good grasp on why they do what they do in the universe. It all comes down to their substructure. Time will tell if the experiment can prove if one of my theories on them is correct.


Neutrinos, my favourite particle (it's claimed one need lightyears of lead to have a fair shot at shielding from it '')
One of the scientists at SNOW lab said it was her pets '')
I have not found much on this, so the article was a nice surprise, mostly what i have seen about neutrinos has been related to the collapse of stars and the absurd amount of energy they take away from the core when the neutron star forms, and the prosses when proton looses energy to reorganise its makeup to work as a neutron, ejecting electron a photon and a anti-neutrino?
Thanks for linking the article. (btw I do not have a good grasp on this but interest)


_________________
Regards/ttfn/Cheers/Mvh/Heioghå
(pick the one suiting you)

Gaffer Gragz
Entity of our preposterous universe
Citizen of Earth


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 33,873
Location: temperate zone

06 Feb 2021, 10:25 am

The Universe started with the Big Bang at a single point 14 billion years ago. Today the Universe is 92 billion light years wide ( or 46 billion in radius).

Fourteen billion years in age, but somehow it has it expanded to 46 billion light years in radius in that time.

So obviously that means that the universe is indeed expanding faster than the speed of light.

So obviously there have to be galaxies moving away from us at faster than light speed.

The thing is this ...these galaxies are NOT really "moving" faster than light speed. They are being carried along by the expansion of space. Space can expand faster than the speed of light, and thus can carry material objects (like galaxies) away from us at faster than light speed, so thats why these galaxies dont violate Einstein's cosmic speed limit of the speed of light on the speed of material objects. It would take like all of the energy of the Universe to push a rocket, or your car, to light speed. So you wouldnt be able to do my headlight experiment.

But an alien's parked car, on a planet in a galaxy cluster far far away could indeed move away from you at faster than light speed (along with the rest of the galaxy) because of the expansion of space that started with the Big Bang.



Gaffer Gragz
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2021
Gender: Male
Posts: 250
Location: Hadeland, Norway

07 Feb 2021, 12:27 am

Exactly. I cant do the math, so I try to learn what there is to learn of these things with reason, logic and wonder, and I'm out of words to describe it properly with an IQ that is strained to its limit. I'm still learning and am not against the grain, just weeding out the muck and chaff. I can't say I enjoy the ppl that claim I do it badly or wrongly, but I do enjoy people that try to tell in a good manner how to think correctly.

power to you m8



QuantumChemist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Oct 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,910
Location: Midwest

07 Feb 2021, 11:51 am

naturalplastic wrote:
The Universe started with the Big Bang at a single point 14 billion years ago. Today the Universe is 92 billion light years wide ( or 46 billion in radius).

Fourteen billion years in age, but somehow it has it expanded to 46 billion light years in radius in that time.

So obviously that means that the universe is indeed expanding faster than the speed of light.

So obviously there have to be galaxies moving away from us at faster than light speed.

The thing is this ...these galaxies are NOT really "moving" faster than light speed. They are being carried along by the expansion of space. Space can expand faster than the speed of light, and thus can carry material objects (like galaxies) away from us at faster than light speed, so thats why these galaxies dont violate Einstein's cosmic speed limit of the speed of light on the speed of material objects. It would take like all of the energy of the Universe to push a rocket, or your car, to light speed. So you wouldnt be able to do my headlight experiment.

But an alien's parked car, on a planet in a galaxy cluster far far away could indeed move away from you at faster than light speed (along with the rest of the galaxy) because of the expansion of space that started with the Big Bang.


There exists another possibility for this issue. If part of the Big Bang explosion became shifted to a higher dimension and then reappeared back in our dimension, it would seem that it was moving faster than the speed of light. I say this because it could be related to how particles can have entanglement issues. Those particles tend to be tied to one another seemingly by a higher dimensionality. When one acts on one of the particles, the other will react, no matter the distance between them. The reaction between entangled particles is instantaneous. This can potentially be explained if the higher dimension was “temporarily folded” upon this dimension and then unfolded as the particles mover away from each other in our space. The vector relationship that was developed during the folding process will still exist after the unfolding has happened.



QuantumChemist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Oct 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,910
Location: Midwest

07 Feb 2021, 12:20 pm

Gaffer Gragz wrote:
QuantumChemist wrote:
Here is an upcoming experiment that could explain the cause of some spacetime issues:

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/scie ... 00054.html

It all centers around neutrinos and anti-neutrinos. They rarely interact with matter itself, yet flow though space as if part of the wind. They constantly undergo annihilation events when they come into contact with their corresponding opposite and two photons of blue wavelength electromagnetic radiation are released in the process.

On the surface of the Earth, we do not notice these blue flashes due to the large amount of excess light that is constantly around us. The only place where they can be accurately seen are at the bottom of the polar ice caps.

The source of these particles are in the byproducts of radioactive decay processes of much larger particles of matter. When a “free” neutrino undergoes beta- decay, it splits into two particle initially: a proton and a W- boson. The W-boson them quickly splits into an unbound electron (i.e. the beta-) and an electron anti-neutrino. Electron neutrinos can be produced in decay events when a W+ boson is formed, such as in positron emission. These neutrinos and anti-neutrinos travel pretty much uninhibited until they annihilate with each other.

I think I have a good grasp on why they do what they do in the universe. It all comes down to their substructure. Time will tell if the experiment can prove if one of my theories on them is correct.


Neutrinos, my favourite particle (it's claimed one need lightyears of lead to have a fair shot at shielding from it '')
One of the scientists at SNOW lab said it was her pets '')
I have not found much on this, so the article was a nice surprise, mostly what i have seen about neutrinos has been related to the collapse of stars and the absurd amount of energy they take away from the core when the neutron star forms, and the prosses when proton looses energy to reorganise its makeup to work as a neutron, ejecting electron a photon and a anti-neutrino?
Thanks for linking the article. (btw I do not have a good grasp on this but interest)


Neutrons have a larger mass than protons. Using Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, an neutron particle requires a larger amount of electromagnetic energy to create than a particle of proton. When an unbound neutron decays (unstable if not bound to a proton), it will form an proton and an W- boson. What that really means is there is a difference of energy of a W- boson between a neutron and a proton. Remember, an W- boson rapidly converts to an electron and an anti-neutrino within 0.000000000000003 of a second. Under positron emission processes, the W+ particle is generated instead of the W- boson. It becomes even more complicated whenever a Z boson is involved in a nuclear process, but thankfully that is extremely rare. It is it’s own anti-particle.

When a proton becomes a neutron, it must absorb energy equal to or greater than a W- boson. This process is called electron capture. It occurs when an inner shell electron falls from its orbit and becomes absorbed by a proton in the nucleus. It requires energy to do this transition, likely from an neutrino or anti-neutrino. Any left over energy from the transition would be given off as another anti-neutrino. I can get confused on which neutrino form is in which part, as that is often not considered in electron capture measurements. One has to have specialty instrumentation to be able to detect neutrinos/anti-neutrinos directly, if at all.

The key to the above nuclear radiation equations is similar to chemical equations. All sides of the equation must match up for both energy and mass. They can be converted between each other but must be conserved overall. It is almost as it they were in a chemical equilibrium equation sometimes.

Neutron stars form because the great gravity force pushes beta- decay process backwards. The free neutrons formed are relatively stable due to the gravity. Whether or not a black hole is present depends greatly upon the amount of gravity. It will form first at the center of the neutron star and expand from there. We would not know of it until it becomes large than the surface of the neutron star it was created from.



Gaffer Gragz
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2021
Gender: Male
Posts: 250
Location: Hadeland, Norway

08 Feb 2021, 4:53 am

QuantumChemist wrote:
Gaffer Gragz wrote:
QuantumChemist wrote:
Here is an upcoming experiment that could explain the cause of some spacetime issues:
'

'
Neutrons have a larger mass than protons. Using Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, an neutron particle requires a larger amount of electromagnetic energy to create than a particle of proton. When an unbound neutron decays (unstable if not bound to a proton), it will form an proton and an W- boson. What that really means is there is a difference of energy of a W- boson between a neutron and a proton. Remember, an W- boson rapidly converts to an electron and an anti-neutrino within 0.000000000000003 of a second. Under positron emission processes, the W+ particle is generated instead of the W- boson. It becomes even more complicated whenever a Z boson is involved in a nuclear process, but thankfully that is extremely rare. It is it’s own anti-particle.

When a proton becomes a neutron, it must absorb energy equal to or greater than a W- boson. This process is called electron capture. It occurs when an inner shell electron falls from its orbit and becomes absorbed by a proton in the nucleus. It requires energy to do this transition, likely from an neutrino or anti-neutrino. Any left over energy from the transition would be given off as another anti-neutrino. I can get confused on which neutrino form is in which part, as that is often not considered in electron capture measurements. One has to have specialty instrumentation to be able to detect neutrinos/anti-neutrinos directly, if at all.

The key to the above nuclear radiation equations is similar to chemical equations. All sides of the equation must match up for both energy and mass. They can be converted between each other but must be conserved overall. It is almost as it they were in a chemical equilibrium equation sometimes.

Neutron stars form because the great gravity force pushes beta- decay process backwards. The free neutrons formed are relatively stable due to the gravity. Whether or not a black hole is present depends greatly upon the amount of gravity. It will form first at the center of the neutron star and expand from there. We would not know of it until it becomes large than the surface of the neutron star it was created from.


Thank you for the effort, I see I have more work to do to get an understanding of the proton-neutron shift, my memory for names is poor, concepts is another thing altogether. I will study this today for sure '')

And I did get confused, what I've heard is that the generation of the neutron core releases enormous amounts of energy in the form of neutrinos, and what I did get of your text is that from proton -> neutron transition require more energy yet? I understand that there is something (or several) I dont get, but atm I cant comprehend where this energy is from? Electron capture maybe be more energetic than I'm able to see at the moment. I'll get it :D

Electron capture is exiting for another aspect, energy from the electromagnetic field seemingly jumps to another field and get embedded together to switch state of quarks that also requires shift if energy from one field to another field.
I haven't seen any information of this ever. Is my mind concluding wrongly? In case, what do happen?

In your text is say that neutrino beta-decay, I think that's a typo for neutron!?

Thank you again for the effort
Regareds
Gragzy



QuantumChemist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Oct 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,910
Location: Midwest

08 Feb 2021, 10:33 am

Gaffer Gragz wrote:
QuantumChemist wrote:
Gaffer Gragz wrote:
QuantumChemist wrote:
Here is an upcoming experiment that could explain the cause of some spacetime issues:
'

'
Neutrons have a larger mass than protons. Using Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, an neutron particle requires a larger amount of electromagnetic energy to create than a particle of proton. When an unbound neutron decays (unstable if not bound to a proton), it will form an proton and an W- boson. What that really means is there is a difference of energy of a W- boson between a neutron and a proton. Remember, an W- boson rapidly converts to an electron and an anti-neutrino within 0.000000000000003 of a second. Under positron emission processes, the W+ particle is generated instead of the W- boson. It becomes even more complicated whenever a Z boson is involved in a nuclear process, but thankfully that is extremely rare. It is it’s own anti-particle.

When a proton becomes a neutron, it must absorb energy equal to or greater than a W- boson. This process is called electron capture. It occurs when an inner shell electron falls from its orbit and becomes absorbed by a proton in the nucleus. It requires energy to do this transition, likely from an neutrino or anti-neutrino. Any left over energy from the transition would be given off as another anti-neutrino. I can get confused on which neutrino form is in which part, as that is often not considered in electron capture measurements. One has to have specialty instrumentation to be able to detect neutrinos/anti-neutrinos directly, if at all.

The key to the above nuclear radiation equations is similar to chemical equations. All sides of the equation must match up for both energy and mass. They can be converted between each other but must be conserved overall. It is almost as it they were in a chemical equilibrium equation sometimes.

Neutron stars form because the great gravity force pushes beta- decay process backwards. The free neutrons formed are relatively stable due to the gravity. Whether or not a black hole is present depends greatly upon the amount of gravity. It will form first at the center of the neutron star and expand from there. We would not know of it until it becomes large than the surface of the neutron star it was created from.


Thank you for the effort, I see I have more work to do to get an understanding of the proton-neutron shift, my memory for names is poor, concepts is another thing altogether. I will study this today for sure '')

And I did get confused, what I've heard is that the generation of the neutron core releases enormous amounts of energy in the form of neutrinos, and what I did get of your text is that from proton -> neutron transition require more energy yet? I understand that there is something (or several) I dont get, but atm I cant comprehend where this energy is from? Electron capture maybe be more energetic than I'm able to see at the moment. I'll get it :D

Electron capture is exiting for another aspect, energy from the electromagnetic field seemingly jumps to another field and get embedded together to switch state of quarks that also requires shift if energy from one field to another field.
I haven't seen any information of this ever. Is my mind concluding wrongly? In case, what do happen?

In your text is say that neutrino beta-decay, I think that's a typo for neutron!?

Thank you again for the effort
Regareds
Gragzy


Yes, that was a typo. I can get the words mixed in typing when I am accessing those reactions in my head. During a typical beta - decay (n —> p + W-), one of the down quarks becomes transformed into an up quark and the W- boson. In electron capture (p + e- + energy —> n + anti-neutrino), an up quark becomes a down quark upon absorption of the inner electron under influence of extra energy. Most sources forget to include that extra energy in the equation, but it must be there or the process would violate E = mc^2. A proton and an electron together contain less energy overall than a lone neutron (as seen in beta - decay). I do not know why they do that. The STOR equation allows for the conversion back and forth between matter and energy. There is a finite amount of energy in the universe, so it has to be included in conversions at any level.



Fenn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Sep 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,403
Location: Pennsylvania

26 Feb 2021, 4:58 pm

As far as I know you cannot freeze a person and bring them back alive. This can sometimes be seen to happen with lower organisms. I have heard stories about fish that freeze solid on the deck of a fishing vessel and then start moving again when they thaw. I have never heard how it feels to be the fish. There is a kind of living thing called a tardigrade which can live on the outside of a rocket, go to space and come back and still be alive. I don't think this works with people. I wish it did.

Supposing there were some way to do it (if - someday - maybe), the physics of the thing does not keep you from going to the next nearest star. Some things can go faster than light - but a space ship is not one of them. Certain kinds of wave propagation can go faster than light - but you cannot ride on one - and you cannot use wave propagation to send a message faster-than-light. Nothing ever done experimentally on earth, or by earthlings in space, can make mass or information travel faster than light.

If I remember my school days correct it goes something like this: E = m c^2 and F = m a.
Energy = mass times the speed of light squared, and force = mass time acceleration.
To accelerate an object you need a force. Assuming something (a proton, or a spaceship) is now moving at below the speed of light - you would have to speed it up to get it nearer to the speed of light - say half the speed off light or three quarters of the speed of light. To do that you need force, and that takes energy - the energy added to the object to accelerate it also adds to the mass (because of E = m c^2) mass and energy are interchangeable and you can't have one without the other. The more speed you add the more energy you add and the more mass you add and the more energy it takes to add more speed. As the velocity increases near the speed of light, the mass nears infinity and the energy needed to make it go any faster also nears infinitely until you cannot ever get to the speed of light.
This means for massive particles they can go faster: .5 the speed of light or .9 the speed of light or .99 the speed of light or .999 the speed of light but never actually at the sped of light. On the other hand photons always go at the speed of light, and only a the speed of light and can never go faster OR slower than the speed of light. The math is more complicated than that but that is how it works out. This is based on experimental evidence and on trying to come up with math to match the experimental evidence. If we ever find evidence to the contrary the math will have to change. So far we haven't. (By we I mean scientists). Point: there are some things we don't know. Newton's laws had to change when experimental evidence showed they didn't always work - and along came Einstein with a new math. This happens in Science - most people don't realize this.

Einstein used "space-time" as a 4 dimensional framework to help the math work out. If space-time itself could bend then that would be one good way to describe acceleration AND gravity. Quantum gravity uses another way.

The idea of space-time means treating time as another dimension - this is where all the fictional "hyperspace" and "warpdrive" comes from - if you can have one more dimension - why not more? And if you have more dimensions why not dimensions where you can take a shortcut past space-time and get there without traveling through. It doesn't work experimentally now. It might some day but there is nothing I have heard of on the near horizon that says it will happen soon.

For most people you have two choices - learn the most complicated math and physics on the planet and do experiments to understand it all yourself - or trust scientists who can do math and physics that you cannot.
One example I read recently was that the GPS system has to account for Relativity in order to get time right, and it has to get time right to get position right. If relativity didn't work or was wrong the GPS wouldn't work either.

If you had a space ship traveling at 80% of the speed of light and if you were very patient you could get to the next nearest star in a lifetime - even without freezing. But if you did that in a movie you would have to hire a new actress for the "after" shots because she would be so old - so warp drive and hyperspace to the rescue - of the plot.

And time dilation works. Saw it tested with a supersonic jet and two atomic clocks on a PBS special once. (assuming I am not in the Matrix).



Double Retired
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2020
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,141
Location: U.S.A.         (Mid-Atlantic)

26 Feb 2021, 5:37 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
So when sci fi writers imagine future space travel it involves either (a) putting the astronauts into suspended animation in cryogenic pods, or (b) the space craft moving so fast that Einstein's relativity kicks in to slow down the passage of time itself for those astronauts relative to time for the back home folks, or (c) a combination of both.
or (d) Wormholes? For instance, Interstellar had time dilation and a wormhole.

P.S. Passengers made good use of (a).

Off Topic
QuantumChemist wrote:
Redd_Kross wrote:
If we knew how to make it work, we'd be doing it.

Not only are the distances huge, but weightlessness has some serious consequences for the human body.

The Sci-Fi solution is to "freeze" people for the decades of travel that would be needed, otherwise they'd die before they arrived. And it would make for a very boring film.

Ironically perhaps, the comedy show Red Dwarf has been more accurate in exploring the isolation, tedium and feelings of crushing inconsequence of living in deep space than some serious sci-fi books and films.


Ahh, smeg! (I have the first eight seasons on DVD.)
Season XII ties up a loose end from Season I. But if you want to do XII it is a good idea to do IX thru XI first. :)

Oh. Before you watch IX make sure you are familiar with Blade Runner. (Honest!)

And here's a fun "idea" for a crossover! :lol:


_________________
When diagnosed I bought champagne!
I finally knew why people were strange.


Last edited by Double Retired on 26 Feb 2021, 6:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,750
Location: Stendec

26 Feb 2021, 5:42 pm

Here are a couple of useful links that go into great detail in explaining why FTL is impossible/impractical:

 Faster Than Light Starships #1 

 Faster Than Light Starships #2 

:D


_________________
 
No love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.