I know we have a lot of really smart people here. And I was just wondering about your opinions on this.

Do you think humans will ever achieve speed that is similar to what they have in science fiction like star trek or star wars?

By this question, I mean, speeds faster than light that will enable us to travel within moments between one planet system to the next?

Or do you think it's pretty much impossible?

I've heard Einstein had a theory that faster-than-light travel was possible, but I'm not 100% sure.

I think it's possible. But I don't think mankind will live long enough to get there.

I don't think we could ever go faster than light confined to the physics of our universe, but we may be able to get around it with things similar to hyper or warp drives, which would bend space, or traverse it on another level. I believe NASA is currently researching such technology, though don't expect anything revolutionary very soon.

Of course it's possible. It's just a matter of when.

No, it's not possible.

As you gain more energy, your mass increases. This isn't noticable for normal day-to-day velocities (but you can calculate it), but as you reach very high speeds, nearing the speed of light, the increase in mass is significant. This has been done in particule accelerators. As you approach the speed of light, mass increases rapidly. If you did theoretically reach the speed of light, you'd have infinite mass, which would require infinite energy to accelerate. This is impossible.

The speed of light is the fastest speed anything in the Universe with mass can travel at. Linear motion isn't going to get you anywhere fast.

I can see two options for intergalactic travel.. Firstly, a wormhole - two black holes connected at their singularities. Despite probably being impossible to artificially 'create', they're also supposed to be very unstable, and likely to collapse in on eachother.

Secondly, exploiting quantum entanglement for quantum teleportation. This is probably the most immediately possible option, but it hasn't been done with any more than one atom at a time.

Wouldn't these two things actually require you first get some equipment also to the other end? Possibly some random occurrence might allow black hole travel to unknown locations, but the last method certainly requires machines at both ends.

Actually, the mass is only observed to increase. Observation is very much different then what's actually happening especially when discussing relativistic speeds. Without going into to much detail, the bottom line is that it is impossible to accurately observe an event unless you exist in the same inertial frame of reference as the event. The Theory of Relativity was meant to allow an explanation outside the frame of reference of the event, but it simply doesn't work because it still assumes that the observer is the only person in an inertial frame of reference (which isn't true). If you, the observer, are not moving, you have a constant velocity of 0c. Thus, you reside in an inertial frame of reference. If you are observing a particle traveling at a constant 0.98c, it too resides in it's own inertial frame of reference in which the physics applied anywhere within that frame act as though it had a constant velocity of 0c. As long as both frames of reference remain inertial, they are relative to each other in that the physics applied is directly proportional to their relative velocities to one another. The problem with particle accelerators is the fact that the particles never achieve a constant speed, thus never maintaining a true inertial frame of reference (actually, without getting into detail, accerlaration is a series of increasing or decreasing inertial frames, but for simplicity sake, and for all intent and purposes, we can simplify it to mearly acceleration and ignore those ever-changing relative inertial frames). Without maintaining a true inertial frame of reference, it is impossible to calculate the relative physics applied to the observed event (unless we existed on the particle witin each instantanious inertial frame, then it would be a matter of simplly taking acceleration into account as normal).

Meh, anyhow, I'm sure Mort or someone will come back with "that's not true, show me where it's published." It hasn't been published yet, it's a theory i've been working on dubed the Theory of Velocital Physics. Which explains the non-existance of Time, Energy, and Forces as we are accustomed to understanding it with classical and modern physics. You'd be surprised how, with my theory, so many of the strange things "observed" in relativity can be explained using this theory (such as the observed "time-dilation" effect & the muon experiments).

We will have warp drives, eventually. Once we have a means of controlling gravity and a strong enough power source. The way I see it, this is the best option for interstellar travel. Quantum teleportation and wormholes are nice, but they do require pre-existing equipment at your destination.

If we never do achieve faster-than-light travel, sublight speeds are actually not too bad. With the material from a small asteroid, one could easily build a linear accelerator that would accelerate spacecraft to >99% of C. Fast enough, anyways, that the time dilation would be extremely noticeable. The acceleration would take weeks, even months, and the same goes for the deceleration at the other end of your trip (in an identical linear accelerator). Whereas the journey itself would only appear to take seconds (as recorded by those inside the ship). Of course, you then run into the same problem of needing pre-existing equipment at the other end. But if we sent out some robots once we figure out fusion drives, we could have a working transportation system to Alpha Centauri in 100 years or less. (Assuming fusion drives can achieve <10% of C) and it takes a while for the robots to construct a second accelerator.

*Actually, on second thought, we could just build two accelerators here, and use the acceleration capabilities of the second to send it to Alpha Centauri.

Of course, all of this is just speculation. What we really need is a network of Stargates.

Exactly how does the Theory of Relativity leave these unexplained? I'm not sure you have fully grasped what the theory is talking about if you think it doesn't [explain them]. Perhaps other things still need an explanation, but those two effects are very easily explained with Relativity.

I think we can rely on accepted scientific theory in this discussion, that's been backed up by experimental results, rather than your thought experiments.

Personally, no. I can't even imagine what kind of power source or engine could displace an object with that kind of speed, even for a second. Someone might detonate a nuclear bomb and funnel that force in the form of thrust (I would have no clue how), but even that wouldn't achieve c speed.

Okay, I wasn't actually going to pick apart your post, but I got bored


Inertial Frames of Reference aren't physical states you can exist "in". The point is that all measurements are relative to an observer, and that measurements from two different observers can't be compared without transforming between the Frames of Reference. It's not a case of "body x exists in frame a, whilst body y, because it's travelling at a different velocity, exists in frame b". It's a case of "body x is travelling at a velocity v in a's frame of reference, and travelling at velocity u in b's frame of reference".


It allows transformations between frames of reference. And you're right, it isn't true that the observer is the only person in an inertial frame of reference, but that's only because *everything* exists in *all* frames of reference [if you're going to think of things "existing" in frames of reference]. Your point about the assumption in Relativity though? That's wrong. For the reasons outlined above.


The observer is never moving in his own inertial frame of reference. However, when transformed to another frame of reference, he is moving. What is that supposed to prove?


Again, you're horribly misinterpreting the idea of frames of reference. What actually happens is that THE FRAME OF REFERENCE HAS NO BEARING ON THE PHYSICS. We can either taking the frame of reference of the initial state, where to start with neither the particle nor the accelerator are moving, and at the end of it the particle is moving very fast and the accelerator is moving very slowly backwards. Or we could take the frame of reference of the final state of the particle, in which case the accelerator and particle are moving very quickly to start with, and afterwards the particle is stationary and the accelerator is moving ever so slightly quicker. Or, in fact, any other frame of reference we want. The accelerator and particle can be moving sideways if you want.


Again you're thinking that there is one "true" frame of reference for each particle. This is just so WRONG. There is a frame of reference in which its velocity is zero. Then there is every other frame of reference in which it's velocity is non-zero. As long as you don't compare measurements of observers in two different frames of reference without transforming them, then there's no problem.


I really suggest you actually READ something on the subject, and then, before coming here and posting, also try DIGESTING what you've just read, and if you can get that far, try also UNDERSTANDING it. Then come back and post.

I'm more interested in your mathematics, actually. I'd like to see them applied to special relativity and integrated to the 10th (or 11th) dimension.

Other than that, I think Evil Giraffe said everything I was going to say, but with more CAPITALS.



You can't 'control gravity'. Gravity is a property of mass, so the only way to 'control gravity' is with a body with a very large mass (like yo momma). But gravity is an extremely weak force anyway, so you probably wouldn't use it for anything useful.



Well, the wormholes are supposed to occur 'naturally' - that is, we're not going to be able to 'move' black holes and make them interact. So, no, you probably can't say "I want to go there" and then 'use a wormhole' to get there. You'd have to 'use a wormhole', and then say "Where in the Universe am I?".

Also, yes, quantum entanglement requires the particles to interact first, and then they can be separated. Then they seem to 'copy eachother' seemingly instantenously. It's an odd phenomenon.

Hehe

I think we will be using hyper-sleep (long term hibernation as seen in the Alien movies) before we use lightspeed.

all we need is to find a way to negate the natural aging process while in hibernation.

Going off on a tangent, isn't there a theory that describes gravity as particles? Which perhaps could be controlled or repelled (I'm thinking airspeeders, not spacetravel. Because you know you want a hoverboard, too).

That would be assuming that you're required to stay in one Universe. The second point you made actually addressed my idea about parallel universe and quantum teleportation.

I don't believe I've ever had to carry out a single integral in physics. I've always been able to make a realization of the problem which genererally simplified the integral out of the problem all together. My physics professor stressed concept over math. And in that, he stressed understanding what the numbers were telling you rather then just digging straight into the math. Once you understand what the numbers represent you can get a good feel for what they are going to work themselves out to being. By simply looking at the equation, without doing any arthimetic what-so-ever, I estimate what the answer would be.

In this case, the fact that special relativity is dependent on the existance of time and energy and the fact that neither of these actually exist. Every solution to a special relativity problem is simply that the equations themselves are flawed.

You have to understand that ALL of relativity is based on Newton's discovery (and usage) of Force and Energy. Now, while these two things are great for simplifing the math, what has to be understood is that, like numbers, these things are only concepts. Einstein took them as things that actually exist in the universe and attempted to apply them to his Theory. Now, all in all, what Einstein was attempting to do with Relativity is explain the difference between what is observed between one inertial frame and the observed frame of reference. While this CAN be done, it CAN NOT be done using Einstein's method. That is to say, not without throwing in such simplicities such as "time-dialation". You see, since Einstein assumed that time was something that existed, he also assumed it could be manipulated. And thus, instead figuring out why these events were observed, he simply chalked it up to "time-dilation." Velocity Phyisics, conversely, using the understanding that time is a fixed concept, can explain "time-dilation" as what it truly is, rather then what it is observed to be.

Einstein's Relativity theory started out noblely in setting a basis for calculating the differences in what you observe and what is actually happening. Unfortunately, things apparently went astray and thus many new misconceptions of time and energry were born.

No, time is not something we can manipulate. Einstein's theory doesn't say it is. Time is simply another thing that varies between frames of reference. And it has to vary if light is to travel at the same speed in all frames of reference.


And what is that?
Time-dilation is not a "fudge". It is not something Einstein "threw in" to the equations to make the numbers come out right. It is something that follows from the theory. Einstein predicted time-dilation. Then, when we'd developed accurate enough clocks, we could actually measure it. Two atomic clocks were made. One was left where it was, the other was flown around the world in a fast plane. When the two clocks were brought back together, they showed different times.

Aye, they left it on Concorde.

Giraffe, it was obviously due to the velocital effect on the components inside the clock. Which of course didn't really exist.

I didn't say anything about Einstein's theory saying anything about us manipulating time, I was speaking of time manipulation in general or time differentials if you prefer.

Time does NOT vary between frames of reference. Although during observation of an event, it appears that way.



It's an observed event that occurs while observing an object moving at relativistic speeds.



In case you have never noticed, Einstein's theories have two little postulates that must be true in order for his Theory of Relativity to work. In that, he sugests that light always travels at the same speed regaurdless of it's frame of reference. Because of this, time-dilation must exist to compensate for the differential.

However, this is not needed. Light is not an exception to time. There is absolutely nothing special about Light or the speed in which it has been observed to travel (I've read documents of some scientist who theorize that light does not travel at the same speed, but it's speed is dependent on it's source. I would tend to agree but rather this is true or not has absolutely no baring on this discussion as it wouldn't make a difference either way).



I've been trying for a while now to get detailed reports of that experiment. It is my understanding that the test was first conducted by the US Military. You can't simply say okay, we have two atomic clocks, we put one on an airplane, when we returned and compared the two clocks it was different by 2.937 nano seconds (or however off it was). That's not how you conduct a scientific experiment. You need to know all the materials that were used in the atomic clock and on the plane. Where the clock was placed and what materials of the plane were is closest too. Where are the instrument panel readings that should of been taken throughout the entire flight? What were the dimensions of the clock unit and the plane. Where was the clock positioned inside the plane (on the floor, in a seat, on a stand, hung/mounted to the ceiling)? You must take into account all varibles.

At any rate, I've been searching the Internet and even made phone calls to try and obtain copies of detailed reports from these experiments. I have not been able to obtain one single copy as of yet.

(I'm not saying this is some kind of government conspiracy. It's my understanding that other independtant tests have been done but I have not been able to obtain detailed reports on those experiments either.)

Er just curious...do you know how an atomic clock works?

Cesium (133) atomic clocks (considered the most accurate) employ a beam of cesium atoms. The clock separates cesium atoms of different energy levels by magnetic field.

The oscillation frequencies within the atom are determined by the mass of the nucleus and the gravity and electrostatic "spring" between the positive charge on the nucleus and the electron cloud surrounding it.

The long-term accuracy achievable by modern cesium atomic clocks (the most common type) is better than one second per one million years. Hydrogen atomic clocks show a better short-term (one week) accuracy, approximately 10 times the accuracy of cesium atomic clocks. Therefore, the atomic clocks have increased the accuracy of time measurement about one million times in comparison with the measurements carried out by means of astronomical techniques.

However, these Oscilations hold stable in inertial frames only (any state in which the atomic clock is operating in a frame of reference that is moving with a constant velocity thus giving the atomic clock an inertial frame velocity of 0 (as far as the atomic clock is concerned, everything else is moving around it)). However, in a non-inertial frame (or accelerated frame of reference), it does not hold stable.

I asked if you knew how atomic clocks worked, I didn't ask if HowStuffWorks.com knows how atomic clocks work.

It was the quickest reference to the finer details that I don't keep up with (as it's not important) but know that you all would nit pick.

Not that it makes any difference because I fail to see where your tyring to go with this other then to try and some how discredit me. Espeically seeing as it only holds true for non-accelerated frames and riding on an airplane, the clock would most certainly exist in the accelerated frame of the airplane as it gets up to speed (and reduces/deccelerates to land).

Owned!

There's a new, thumbnail sized atomic clock that is moderately less accurate (i.e. a millisecond every thousand years or so).

If...

F = MA
1-v^2/c^2

Then yes, it's impossible because you would need an infinite amount of force. But who said that going in three dimensions was a requirement?

I know there's one watch that is, I think just quartz but synchronizes itself hourly or daily to a timeserver.

No flaming, please... -DSettahr

Edit: Well it was really more like stating the facts.

Friend14: I find it interesting that you lecture us on the importance of how to properly conduct an experiment, yet at the same time tell us that the "math isn't important" when conducting theories. Sure, you dont need to do any math to come up with an idea, but you do need to do the math to prove that idea, or at least give it some credit.

Wow. This is probably the smartest discussion Massassi's had in a long, long time.

I do think it's possible to travel at or faster than the speed of light. I can't remember in what material, but I remember a couple months back I was watching this thing on a Discovery channel offshoot where this guy said (I think it had something to do with Dark Matter) that at some points in the universe, light does not travel at the same speed (maybe something to do with black holes). Not to mention, the universe is supposedly finite, though continually expanding. Wouldn't that have some effect on the speed of light at the edges? And wouldn't that destroy the theory of relativity?

I'm just a physics I graduate, and my opinion probably shouldn't be taken seriously...at all. Just my two cents.

I never said the math isn't important. I only said that it's important to realize that the math is mearly a conceptual representation. The math is important for determining specifics in theory application. Conceptually speaking, if you have a feel for what the numbers tell you, doing the math isn't necessary (as I said before, numbers are themselve conceptual representations). You can work through any application type physics problem in your head, work the "general idea" of the math, in your head and you'll get a pretty close "idea" of what the asnwer is before you do the math. It's a good way to check your arthimetic when you get done with the problem. If it's pretty close to what your "educated guess" was, then the arthimetic was most likely correctly done.

Most Physics Equations are Varible based, not number based. The varibles are dependent on the concept of the Theory. The numbers are just pick, plug, & play.

If you don't understand the concept, then you won't understand what the numbers (choosen for the varibles) represent. Thus making the numbers meaningless (literally translated: without meaning).

For instance, you have a feel for gravity. What it is and how you react with it. You do not, however, have a feel for 9.81 m/s^2 (even though you know it's the accepted mathimatical representation for the acceleration due to gravity on Earth). See the difference?

We know what meaningless means...

depending on how you read the sentence you may of misconstrude or not picked up on that when I said 'meaningless' in that sentence I was talking about the numbers and not what they represented.

[edit: fixed above post to italisize 'numbers' so that it's clear where the emphasis is at]

If you say so.

It wouldn't be the first time someone did. Firefox was bad about that...

I did a research paper on the the theory of tachyons. Tachyons are particles that supposedly travel faster than light. It is said that what makes FTL possible in these particles is that their mass is imaginary (E=gamma*mc^2, where m^2 < 0).

Another hypothesis I read was the the effect of quantum barrier tunneling could be FTL. Basically you shoot two photons, one has a quantum barrier in the way. You have a photon detector on the other side. It said that the photons were detected simultaneously. One can theorize that the photon with the barrier traveled FTL. I think this hypothesis was disproven, I'm not sure.

Bottom line, it's a matter of finding a rich enough fuel source. Right now, it would take several oil tanker ships worth of fuel to accelerate a ship to light speed.

Element 115 might be a possible solution if they can ever stablize it. If they can ever make it stable long enough it would be a great fuel source. The only problem with this is it's kinda like anti-matter in the sense that it would take a very long time to produce enough of it to make it worthwhile to use.

Try an infinite amount of energy. Here's how.

E=gamma*mc^2

gamma = 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)

Notice what happens when v approaches c. The denominator appraches 0. OMG 1/0!