General / Off-Topic Ftl travel, 5 to 10 years?

[Bryan K]

I remember hearing Dr. Michio Kaku stating that it'll be closer to around the 500 year mark. Warp bubbles are mathematically possible, and experiments are being developed as we speak to test the possibility of warping space in a controlled setting, but we're a ways off from actually making something go somewhere with it.

Personally, I'm betting on 200 years. Maybe less, if someone can solve the issue of the energy requirement, or if we have some sort of breakthrough regarding dark energy.

Frankly, I'm hoping that they perfect cryo-stasis technology first, so I can be put on ice here on Earth and woken up when they've developed proper FTL propulsion. Sublight interstellar travel is just too dull a prospect for our species.

 

[Erasmus Boone]

Well, it seems impossible now, but so did supersonic travel a hundred years ago.

To be fair the whilst there were lots of arguments about the feasabilty of controlled supersonic flight physcists weren't arguing that it was impossible due to contravining a well established (and tested) corner stone of physics.
Unlike with FTL and special relativity.
Basically out of causality, FTL and special relativity you can only have 2.

 

[Bryan K]

To be fair the whilst there were lots of arguments about the feasabilty of controlled supersonic flight physcists weren't arguing that it was impossible due to contravining a well established (and tested) corner stone of physics.
Unlike with FTL and special relativity.
Basically out of causality, FTL and special relativity you can only have 2.

Warp bubbles don't break the laws of physics. Nothing can move THROUGH space faster than light, but an object can move WITH space however fast it wants.

According to what I've heard, the current mathematics suggest that an object suspended in a warp bubble can reach up to 10 times the speed of light by contracting space in front of it and expanding space behind it, and leaving space normal in the middle. In essence, the spacecraft would not actually be moving at all relative to the normal space around it.

The problem is the energy requirement. That, and we don't really have a concrete idea how to build a device that can bend space.

 

[Lanceor]

To be fair the whilst there were lots of arguments about the feasabilty of controlled supersonic flight physcists weren't arguing that it was impossible due to contravining a well established (and tested) corner stone of physics.
Unlike with FTL and special relativity.
Basically out of causality, FTL and special relativity you can only have 2.

Fair point - the physics was there, but solving the engineering challenges was still a fair way off. I think a better analogy might be "talking to someone on the other side of the world through a wire would have seemed impossible until somebody discovered electricity."

 

[Soon(TM)]

That guy is.. very optimistic. We don't even have faster than sound airline travel. (Yes, I know, Concorde, but it's dead, and no one seems interested in replacing it).

I doubt we'll have even close to light speed within the next 50-100 years, let alone 5-10.

Z...

Concord was a bunch of accidents waiting to happen. It's design was flawed and they were very lucky only a few went bad.

 

[Bryan K]

Concord was a bunch of accidents waiting to happen. It's design was flawed and they were very lucky only a few went bad.

For the record, the incident that caused the crash had little to do with the Concorde itself and a lot to do with the DC-10 that took off in front of it and dropped a wear strip on the runway, which caused the Concorde's tire to burst, throwing high-speed fragments into the fuel tank, causing it to burst and spill fuel on the hot engine. It was rising costs that killed it off.

 

[Erasmus Boone]

Warp bubbles don't break the laws of physics. Nothing can move THROUGH space faster than light, but an object can move WITH space however fast it wants.

According to what I've heard, the current mathematics suggest that an object suspended in a warp bubble can reach up to 10 times the speed of light by contracting space in front of it and expanding space behind it, and leaving space normal in the middle. In essence, the spacecraft would not actually be moving at all relative to the normal space around it.

The problem is the energy requirement. That, and we don't really have a concrete idea how to build a device that can bend space.

Yes and no, whilst this kind of drive does get around the infinite energy, due to infinite mass, accelerating to c problem for the reasons you state it does not get around the problem that you will be able to escape your own light cone and violate global causality. So yes it absolutly does break the laws of physics (as we know them).

 

[Macy]

Sometimes we discover stuff that changes our whole understanding of things. People in the past couldn't understand why the tide goes in and out, they had no idea of what force could cause it, so they decided "god does it". Now its common knowledge why the sea goes in and out because we understand gravity and orbits etc.
So who knows what things we'll discover and learn in the future. Maybe in 500 years, high school students will say "fusion power is so simple, why couldn't they understand that in 2017"?
There's millions of things we have yet to discover and understand.

 

[krylite]

The Elite timeline shows hyperspace discovered at the dawn of the 22nd century although you have WWIII and global devastation in 2040 and dark years for a couple of decades after.
http://wiki.alioth.net/index.php/Timeline

The Alien and Prometheus world is far more near term optimistic with FTL invented in 2034, although pilots have to deal with the Alien xenomorph horror through the latter 21st to the 22nd century.
https://www.weylandindustries.com/timeline

 

[cptdavep]

Personally I think if FTL was possible we'd have encountered alien life by now or have evidence we've already been visited. The lack of such evidence suggests to me that its impossible as any alien race capable would colonise the entire galaxy in just a few hundreds or thousand of years.

 

[drzdeano]

lol ftl drives get invented before ED's "ten year plan" has finished

 

[Leadfoot]

Jet engines and flying a huge 747 type of aircraft was possible 1,000 years ago.

The problem back in them thar' days: We didn't have the materials to build such a thing, didn't have the tools necessary to build such a thing to the tolerances needed to make it work, didn't have the fuel necessary to make it happen.

But we dreamed that it was possible.

So, we have a science-fiction idea of how it would work (Star Trek-ish), but we don't have the materials to build it or the fuel to power it. It was thought impossible break the sound barrier because we didn't fully understand what was happening. We eventually caught up and found a way past it. We just have to find the cheat-code that'll let us circumvent the law concerning the speed of light. Eventually, we'll find it. Then there's the finding materials we probably don't have yet (and need to invent) and finding a way to power it. Eventually it'll happen. I'm not expecting it to happen in my lifetime, either.

"Imagination is greater than knowledge."

---- Albert Einstein​

 

[Shadowdancer]

So, we have a science-fiction idea of how it would work (Star Trek-ish), but we don't have the materials to build it or the fuel to power it.

That needs a bit more qualification. In case of this particular FTL trope, we don't know if the materials to build it or the fuel to power it could possibly exist within the boundaries of the rather advanced knowledge about the universe that we've achieved. That's a rather big gap to handwave over in all that pie-in-the-sky "FTL within a few years" babble. And that's before the part where everyone in and in front of those ships instantly dies.

To put it into a bit of perspective: in the last decade, there have been repeated "break-throughs" in making rechargeable batteries oh-so-great, having them charge near-instantaneously, improve capacity by factors from two to ten, that kind of stuff. We are talking simple batteries here. When you ask anyone qualified, i.e., people working for manufacturers with huge R&D budgets, they will tell you that practical products using those break-throughs are still decades away. Again, that's for household items using readily available materials (except the graphene maybe).

 

[Kyennamo]

It may or may not EVER be possible.

But IF it is, we MIGHT have a better understanding of it if 50-100 years. Not 5 or 10

Things to consider though guys, since the dawn of computers, knowledge is growing at an Exponential rate. The internet has sped up the sharing of ideas and things like 3d printers have made personal prototyping a reality. If we dont destroy ourselves in the next 50-100 years we may very well develope a greater understating of the laws of the universe.

 

[Enderby]

I hope it'll mean I can get into bed before it gets dark after turning the wall light-switch off.

 

[Pyrotiger]

I'm washing my hair the day they recruit test pilots.

 

[Butorka]

It's not impossible because it's not breaking the laws of physics. It's more like a loophole. You're not moving faster than light, space around you is since space can do whatever the hell it wants as evidenced by the rapid expansion that happened in a fraction of a second called the "Big Bang". But 5 to 10 years is just pure optimism. I'd say 50 at the bare minimum.

 

[Leadfoot]

So, we have a science-fiction idea of how it would work (Star Trek-ish), but we don't have the materials to build it or the fuel to power it.

That needs a bit more qualification. In case of this particular FTL trope, we don't know if the materials to build it or the fuel to power it could possibly exist within the boundaries of the rather advanced knowledge about the universe that we've achieved. That's a rather big gap to handwave over in all that pie-in-the-sky "FTL within a few years" babble. And that's before the part where everyone in and in front of those ships instantly dies.

To put it into a bit of perspective: in the last decade, there have been repeated "break-throughs" in making rechargeable batteries oh-so-great, having them charge near-instantaneously, improve capacity by factors from two to ten, that kind of stuff. We are talking simple batteries here. When you ask anyone qualified, i.e., people working for manufacturers with huge R&D budgets, they will tell you that practical products using those break-throughs are still decades away. Again, that's for household items using readily available materials (except the graphene maybe).

Agreed: we couldn't possibly have known about aluminum back in the 1800's. Try building a 747 of out iron and see if that works.

I think my point was that as new "things" are discovered, new applications for them come about. We have the "idea" of what we are trying to do (go faster than light) but not exactly sure how to go about it. Once the materials are discovered and the means to power this whole idea is made possible, well its all going to sit in the "Maybe, One Day Department." They're just down the hall and to the right, straight on till morning.

Oh, and I'm with others on this point: probably not within the next 50-100 years.

Unless aliens come here and give us the technology in return for all of our ammonia. Or all of our cats. Or a link to our kitten videos.

 

[Panticus]

Sadly that thing requires a purely conjectural concept called "negative energy" which may or may not even exist. They're trying to get around having to use negative energy to achieve the same effect, but until they do I wont be holding my breath.

No problem with negative energy. A simple concept. Gravitational potential energy is always negative or, at best, equal to zero in empty space.

 

[Erasmus Boone]

It's not impossible because it's not breaking the laws of physics. It's more like a loophole. You're not moving faster than light, space around you is since space can do whatever the hell it wants as evidenced by the rapid expansion that happened in a fraction of a second called the "Big Bang". But 5 to 10 years is just pure optimism. I'd say 50 at the bare minimum.

Sadly not, whilst yes within your little warp 'bubble' you are not moving faster then c and so not 'breaking the laws of physics' you will still be able to leave your own light cone and violate global causality, remember the rest of the universe is not in your 'bubble'.
If special relativity is correct, and its passed every test so far, then you can not have both FTL (no matter how achieved) and causality.
Now maybe causality isn't a thing but it seems more likly that it is FTL that isn't.

In the end its all about light cones.

I know its wikipedia but you can start here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone

The fact that some proposed FTLs don't involve going faster than c locally is irelevent to this point.