FTL Drive?

Pcm979 · Post by **Pcm979** » 2003-04-18 05:46am

So... Wormholes are impossible too? Or do they just require a hella lot of energy?

Dooey Jo · Post by **Dooey Jo** » 2003-04-18 05:58am

What about tachyons? Tachyons are theoretically possible, right? But I heard that they should be unobservable so it be hard to find out if they occur naturally...

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2003-04-18 08:11am

For some good info and problems facing wormholes and space warping (both of which involve negative energy), you should really get a copy of the latest special edition of Scientific American ("The Edge of Physics" issue - vol 13 num 1). Basically, both require far too much energy or far too much control of negative energy to be feasable.

Tachyons are possible, and I believe they can have mass. However, if they exist, they are very weakly interacting with 'normal' matter, as we haven't detected them.

I want to see what happens with M-Theory. Because we don't know much about what goes on at this level of physics, its the perfect playground for sci-fi. Supposedly (and correct me if I'm wrong), all particles are just strings with different vibrations. So conceptally, you can play with these vibrations to transform particles (artifical gravity, anyone?).

paladin · Post by **paladin** » 2003-04-18 10:49am

Is an FTL drive possible? Maybe but beyond our current technology.

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/warp.htm

If it was totally impossible why would NASA waste money on researching it.

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 2003-04-18 02:16pm

paladin wrote:Is an FTL drive possible? Maybe but beyond our current technology.

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/warp.htm

If it was totally impossible why would NASA waste money on researching it.

Have you actually read it? Notice how every instance of FTL is in the "well, here's hoping, but our current physics doesn't support it" category.

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 2003-04-18 02:37pm

Arrow Mk84 wrote:Tachyons are possible, and I believe they can have mass. However, if they exist, they are very weakly interacting with 'normal' matter, as we haven't detected them.

According to special relativity, they cannot interact at all.

paladin · Post by **paladin** » 2003-04-18 03:25pm

Kuroneko wrote:
paladin wrote:Is an FTL drive possible? Maybe but beyond our current technology.

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/warp.htm

If it was totally impossible why would NASA waste money on researching it.

Have you actually read it?

Yes.

Notice how every instance of FTL is in the "well, here's hoping, but our current physics doesn't support it" category.

Already known since the site does clearly state FTL as speculation.

[BL]Phalanx · Post by **[BL]Phalanx** » 2003-04-18 03:34pm

I still say the giant spinning ring-world(s) would work... :p

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 2003-04-18 03:36pm

paladin wrote:
Kuroneko wrote:Notice how every instance of FTL is in the "well, here's hoping, but our current physics doesn't support it" category.
Already known since the site does clearly state FTL as speculation.

Precisely! Such proposals may be fun theoretical exercises, but if the current physics does not support it, how rational is it to take such proposals as even remotely viable?

paladin · Post by **paladin** » 2003-04-18 03:48pm

Kuroneko wrote:
paladin wrote:
Kuroneko wrote:Notice how every instance of FTL is in the "well, here's hoping, but our current physics doesn't support it" category.
Already known since the site does clearly state FTL as speculation.
Precisely! Such proposals may be fun theoretical exercises, but if the current physics does not support it, how rational is it to take such proposals as even remotely viable?

Because "current" physics does have all the answers. If it did, there would be no need for research into FTL! Since it would be established that FTL was BS.

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 2003-04-18 04:02pm

paladin wrote:
Kuroneko wrote:Precisely! Such proposals may be fun theoretical exercises, but if the current physics does not support it, how rational is it to take such proposals as even remotely viable?
Because "current" physics does have all the answers. If it did, there would be no need for research into FTL! Since it would be established that FTL was BS.

Of course it doesn't. That's why there's physics research. This speculation, however, is definetely not physics research; it is speculation on the applications of physics that are not known yet! Taking it as a serious proposal at this point is just plain silly.

paladin · Post by **paladin** » 2003-04-18 04:15pm

Kuroneko wrote:
paladin wrote:
Kuroneko wrote:Precisely! Such proposals may be fun theoretical exercises, but if the current physics does not support it, how rational is it to take such proposals as even remotely viable?
Because "current" physics does have all the answers. If it did, there would be no need for research into FTL! Since it would be established that FTL was BS.
Of course it doesn't. That's why there's physics research. This speculation, however, is definetely not physics research; it is speculation on the applications of physics that are not known yet! Taking it as a serious proposal at this point is just plain silly.

You just raised an interesting question. At which point would the speculation become a topic for serious research?

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 2003-04-18 04:43pm

paladin wrote:You just raised an interesting question. At which point would the speculation become a topic for serious research?

When the speculation proposes physics that are falsifiable to some degree, and not simply an expression of hope that someday physics might allow us to do it, which is what that site basically is.