Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 84

Thread: Does anyone think FTL travel is scientifically feasible?

  1. #46
    Originally Posted by Archduke View Post (Source)
    Please stop with arguments such as "current physics".Unlike the inability to the speed of light is not the speed of light - (well, it is in effective vacuum state - but that's only a result of photons as massless perturbations of a photon field) instead it should be considered the causal arbiter.Unlike, say, how humans flight or speeds greater than some 330mph were by many considered impossible due to the contemporary understanding of physical process - the celeritic causal limit CANNOT be 'broken. It's not simply difficult or a lapse of technology, nor its it even a case of requiring infinite energies >(Which is of course impossible) but it is meaningless to consider travel through space at a greater speed. Just as you don't plan ahead what you will decide to do yesterday, you do not travel in space faster than this limit. Special (non-accelerating) case expresses that objects have trajectory in spacetime, unchanging at that limit. Motion through space decreases the spacetimeinterval temporal parameter - motion through time decreases the position parameter. The spacetime interval remains fixed for all observers.-There will never be a means to break the speed of light..At b3est, mankind may hope to circumvent this limitation, though this would understandably require certain caveats preventing transmission of information non-locally.Any spacecraft that uses such technology would necessarily be unable to return or communicate with a reference frame that was not similarly affected. Effectively, there would be a causal horizon formed.I'm not going to bother reading the article.Tachyons are a model, based on the concept that there is nothing in physics to prevent their existence, and they represent a mathematical curiosity. There has never been ANY reliable evidence for their existence. "Massive"* cannot be accelerated to the speed of light or across this 'barrier'. Therefore objects slower than light will always be slower than light. However, this then suggests that SHOULD any massive entity just happen to be faster than light, it will ALWAYS be faster than light. Such entities are named "tachyons".NON-MASSIVE ENTITIES (such as AS PHOTONS) Alweays travel at the speed of light - there is no paradox here. *Although mass is a stress contribution observer-dependant, if any observer agrees on a non-zero value, all will agree on non-zero values. If one observer agrees zero value, all observers will agree zero value - (EFE and GR).
    Now that I can actually reply... what''s wrong with the paper listed. It's also in https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstrac...RevD.79.124017

    Phys Rev D is a peer-reviewed journal. Why do you find it hard to believe that this process regarding hawking radiation is true?
    Only 4 images. ; )

  2. #47
    Originally Posted by Archduke View Post (Source)
    It's also nonsens. Not sure how it can be a "known problem".The only remotely associated publication is the posting here: https://arxiv.org/abs/0904.0141 which is laughably on ArXiv and no such references are cited on accepted reviewed journals.What most people seem to conveniently ignore with Hawking radiation is that it radiates. Radiation occurs from thermodynamically entropic increase - that is, from hot bodies in a colder environment..Given that Hawking Radiation originates from the Event Horizon boundary region of a Black Hole, especially such a small, localised one from Alcubierre drive, there is necessarily a steep gradient of the gravitational potential. At the Event Horizon, typically light is near infinitely redshifted to a distant observer.As the Hawking Radiation admittedly is originated in a high frequency state, the immense red shift as it escapes the gravity well would result in being extremely low (
    And why is it nonsense? It's a known problem because this drive, which has been theorised, has this issue which has been thought about. It's a problem with the theory, hence, its a known problem.
    Only 4 images. ; )

  3. #48
    Originally Posted by Archduke View Post (Source)
    Please stop posting nonsense.
    Why is my opinion nonsense and yours is not? You think attacking the poster is more scientific than debating the post?
    Originally Posted by Archduke View Post (Source)
    .Again, with regards to Dark Matter, it's well established that it can be observed through its gravitational (the oinly klnown interactions it has)
    Correct, we are observing its effects, in no way are we observing dark matter itself. I stand by my statement that we can not observe it.

    Caliber_az
    [Python] High Plains Drifter, [Asp X] Forest Grump, [Fer-De-Lance] The Wary Weasel, [Orca] The Bullit , [Anaconda] The Cutty Sark, [Keelback] Lil' Badger, [Eagle] Day Dreamer, [Viper MK III] Little Hornet, [Sidewinder] Atom Ant, [Cobra Mk. III] The Wee Viking [Dolphin] The Pony Express, [Type-9 Heavy] Big Bad John [Hauler] Mini Me, [Adder]The Squirrel, [Viper MK IV] Hardy Hornet, [Diamondback Scout] Lil Dragonfly

  4. #49
    Originally Posted by Caliber_az View Post (Source)
    Why is my opinion nonsense and yours is not? You think attacking the poster is more scientific than debating the post?


    Correct, we are observing its effects, in no way are we observing dark matter itself. I stand by my statement that we can not observe it.

    Caliber_az
    I agree. Also, although direct observation is not possible, indirect observation would still be classed as observation, just as measurements of the motions of galaxies can infer the effect of gravity.
    Only 4 images. ; )

  5. #50
    It's rather philosophical as to what is direct and indirect. Humans directly observe very little, arguably nothing as your brain merely interprets nerve impulses, and a lot of other accepted detections have more technical intermediate stages.

    Better to just recognise and understand the method and it's potential false signals in my opinion and the 'direct/indirect' disctinction is largely unimportant.

  6. #51
    Whenever I hear the term "dark matter", particularly in the context of "it must exist, because we can observe its effects" I cannot help but think of the plogiston theory. It was reasonable in as much as it explained a great deal, its effects could be readily observed, and experiments appeared to support it - yet it was completely and utterly wrong.

  7. #52
    Originally Posted by Sepp View Post (Source)
    Whenever I hear the term "dark matter", particularly in the context of "it must exist, because we can observe its effects" I cannot help but think of the plogiston theory. It was reasonable in as much as it explained a great deal, its effects could be readily observed, and experiments appeared to support it - yet it was completely and utterly wrong.
    Here is a present : h

    Only teasing - phlogiston should be in your spell-checker if it is any good.

    ohhhh - BURN .....

  8. #53
    Originally Posted by MalcYorks View Post (Source)
    Here is a present : h

    Only teasing - phlogiston should be in your spell-checker if it is any good.

    ohhhh - BURN .....
    lol

    Some days I have problems spelling my own name.

  9. #54
    As a lifelong scientist, engineer and mechanical tinkerer I do not believe it to be possible with our current theories.

    But if you look at how much things have changed in the last hundred years, I hope the uncovering of new theories continues at a similar pace in the future. And keep my fingers crossed for the ability to travel to new star systems at above apparent FTL speed.

  10. #55
    Originally Posted by racer1 View Post (Source)
    ........... I hope the uncovering of new theories continues at a similar pace in the future. ................
    ... Although it seems that maybe some of the younger generation are not quite on track for that ....




    (Katie Perry for those who don't recognise the "pop star".)


  11. #56
    Originally Posted by Sepp View Post (Source)
    Whenever I hear the term "dark matter", particularly in the context of "it must exist, because we can observe its effects" I cannot help but think of the plogiston theory. It was reasonable in as much as it explained a great deal, its effects could be readily observed, and experiments appeared to support it - yet it was completely and utterly wrong.
    Of course - that's why MOND theories have been studied. Unfortunately none have been found as far as I know that are relativistic and work well for all observations. It looks like dark matter is the only game in town at the moment. That said, you should never rule out a better idea coming along.

    And there's a very good analogy to neutrinos. They were postulated so you wouldn't have to violate the conservation of energy, momentum, and angular momentum in some interactions, and it took a bit of time to then go and actually detect them. In fact neutrinos qualify as dark matter, but the wrong kind to do the job of holding galaxies together and all that.

  12. #57
    I'm not sure why this thread has diverged, but dark matter is nothing to do with FTL travel. I think we should stay on topic.
    Only 4 images. ; )

  13. #58
    Originally Posted by Archduke View Post (Source)
    It's also nonsens. Not sure how it can be a "known problem".The only remotely associated publication is the posting here: https://arxiv.org/abs/0904.0141 which is laughably on ArXiv and no such references are cited on accepted reviewed journals.What most people seem to conveniently ignore with Hawking radiation is that it radiates. Radiation occurs from thermodynamically entropic increase - that is, from hot bodies in a colder environment..Given that Hawking Radiation originates from the Event Horizon boundary region of a Black Hole, especially such a small, localised one from Alcubierre drive, there is necessarily a steep gradient of the gravitational potential. At the Event Horizon, typically light is near infinitely redshifted to a distant observer.As the Hawking Radiation admittedly is originated in a high frequency state, the immense red shift as it escapes the gravity well would result in being extremely low (
    Aghh, don't be too shallow. The Poincaré Conjecture was proven there.

    Originally Posted by Rob At Work View Post (Source)
    Didn't the LHC get something to travel faster than light recently?

    Update: just checked and they thought they did but on reflection their equipment was wonky
    It wasn't the LHC.

  14. #59
    Originally Posted by Un1k0rn View Post (Source)
    I ended up discussing this with my grandfather today after he asked me about my gaming.

    I won't lie, the science confuses me. So I see you guys here like your science.

    What do you think, and could you try to put it simply for this here guy who only fluked a C in his science GCSE's by sheer dumb luck?
    Alcubierre drive is probably the closes we have come to actually developing a viable FTL drive on paper and even that still require stuff we don't know even exist or is even possible to make and it use could potentially be rather destructive.

  15. #60
    Originally Posted by MalcYorks View Post (Source)
    ... Although it seems that maybe some of the younger generation are not quite on track for that ....

    http://i.imgur.com/wgOgT1S.jpg


    (Katie Perry for those who don't recognise the "pop star".)

    Maths is related to science but I guess it isn't a science, at least if you take the general description of what science is or how it works.

    Originally Posted by knowles2 View Post (Source)
    Alcubierre drive is probably the closes we have come to actually developing a viable FTL drive on paper and even that still require stuff we don't know even exist or is even possible to make and it use could potentially be rather destructive.
    ANDDD, even if it was possible, we have many problems to overcome and likely wouldn't see it for the next 3 centuries.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast