[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 107 KB, 1920x800, USS_Enterprise_(alternate_reality)_at_warp.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8914332 No.8914332 [Reply] [Original]

What are the more or less accepted theoretical methods for faster than light travel? I know about warp drive and wormholes but is there any other?

>inb4 it's impossible

I know that it's very unlikely that we will achieve it in the foreseeable future and I'm willing to accept that it's not even possible however I'm interested in the somewhat more realistic approaches.

>> No.8914350

>>8914332
>accepted theoretical methods for faster than light travel

None that I am aware of.

>> No.8914377

>>8914332
Any other methods requires you to make up shit that doesnt exist.

Like using an underspace that doesnt obey the laws of physics to move faster than light then exit back into ordinary space.

As for how FTL can be achieved, all you have to do is find a way to stop mass from increasing as your speed increases which is impossible.

The way this universe works seems like whatever made it intended for only the brightest organisms to travel in space.

>> No.8914423

>>8914350
What is the status for tachyons?

>> No.8914532

>>8914332
None. All require negative mass-energy or new physics.

>> No.8914562

>>8914332


Establish contact with the administrators of our simulation.

Ask to be teleported, probably copy and paste or some shit.

>> No.8914703

>>8914377
>As for how FTL can be achieved, all you have to do is find a way to stop mass from increasing as your speed increases which is impossible.

What about a ship without mass?

>> No.8914712
File: 1.76 MB, 235x150, 1476236896483.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8914712

>>8914703
go on

>> No.8914721

oh my so the faster I throw a baseball the baseball gains mass? Thts some phd level shit right there.

They used to say you would die if you went faster than the speed of sound too!

>> No.8914722

>>8914703
Can only travel at the speed of light aka light.
You need NEGATIVE mass. Either way, all FTL is either bs, or relies on sticking ad hoc conjecture into existing equations. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it likely is.

>> No.8914738

>>8914721
It's an artifact of assuming lightspeed is constant in all reference frames (which so far it does indeed seem to be). Regardless of how fast they are going. So you have to start fudging other quantities such as time, distance and mass to make the equations check out (and experimentally this is true, so far).

>> No.8914740

>>8914722

remember when you were a hunter wearing skins and the cellphone was the laughing stock of impossible, or was it so impossible so as to not even be a dream?

I do

>> No.8914747

>>8914738
How can gravitational collapse prevent light from getting out? Pls no bully.

>> No.8914760

>>8914747
it hasn't got anything to do with "gravitational collapse".

when you put enough mass together in a small enough space it creates a gravitational field so intense that even photons of light can not escape its pull.

>> No.8914762

>>8914740
>I'm not saying it's impossible, but it likely is.
The same paleolitic man also must have figured that it's impossible to cook and eat sand, and gain sustenance that way. Well, guess what, we still can't do it.

The problem is, the more we learn, the LESS likely FTL appears. The workarounds to known theory get ever more convoluted. Every new theory must produce the same results to the same experiments within the same margins of error as the one it replaces.

>> No.8914766

>>8914747
when space is curved to such an extreme that the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light

>> No.8914778

>>8914766
Basically, there is no trajectory even with a speed c an object can take that does not lead back into the black hole

>> No.8914786

>>8914747
every direction past the event horizon points inwards

>> No.8914791

>>8914760
>"gravitational collapse"
>""
As far as I know black holes are in a constant gravitational collapse.

>>8914762
Wouldn't an Alcubierre drive make the trick in theory?

>>8914760
>>8914786
So in a way that might indicates that FTL is possible. (?)

>> No.8914849

>>8914791
>So in a way that might indicates that FTL is possible. (?)
light having insufficient energy to escape extreme space-time curvature does not imply FTL travel being possible.

>> No.8914860

>>8914791
>Wouldn't an Alcubierre drive make the trick in theory?
It would require negative mass, and a rather insane amount of it. As I have stated before in this thread, it's an ad hoc conjecture slammed into an existing equation. It MIGHT be possible, but we don't know yet. And there is nothing to suggest that it is.

>> No.8914883

>>8914860

Hi I am Matt. I am nothing. Therefore I not only suggest, but I am telling you absolutely, faster than light velocities are not only possible they are guaranteed.

>> No.8914894

>>8914423
tachyons are literaly just a thought experiment and nothing more. Its akin to saying "what if we just create a wormhole!". All of FTL crap is nothing more than bad conjecture and science fiction.

>> No.8914904

>>8914883
>hi, im a moron, I talk out my ass about things I don't understand.

dude. it might be possible someday, but, right now not only is there no known theoretical way to do it but we don't have any idea how it would be possible.

>> No.8914906

>>8914747
Gravity isnt an actual "force". Its a curvature of geodesics which then requires force to then alter. When a black hole curves the geodesic of a light particle so much that its only direction points inwards, then you have an event horizon.

>> No.8914917

>>8914883
This is the equivalent of just going "REEEEEE". Get out fuck face.

>> No.8914923

>>8914883
>namefagging in the name section
tolerable if you're the OP
>namefagging in a post
Kill yourself and stop posting on 4chan

>> No.8914929

>>8914904

Yes I am a moron, thats a fine opinion. But Objects moving faster than light is an absolute fact, regardless of your superiority

>> No.8914936

>>8914929
drown yourself in semen, goon

>> No.8914937
File: 21 KB, 229x343, 1494796187950.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8914937

>>8914929
>objects moving faster than light is an absolute fact
Holy shit is this bait? Can someone be this stupid?

>> No.8914939

>>8914923

Oh wow I didnt know you made the rules. Congrats, and please inform the site coders of your demands so I may not offend you with my stupidity

>> No.8914944

>>8914929
>objects moving faster than light is a fact
>provides no evidence to support his assertion

>> No.8914946

>>8914937

Yep Im that stupid. And you are Brilliant! I would say you are the winner of todays internet

but the man who says usernames are for suicide already declared himself victor.

>> No.8914949

>>8914946
>not realizing multiple people are calling out your idiotic trolling.
Wew lad. im not the one shitting on names.
Objects with mass cant move faster than light. Not by standard means atleast. Everything that says otherwise like Memeholes and subspace and dakrshit is all conjecture and thought experiment.

>> No.8914951

>>8914929
>Objects moving faster than light is an absolute fact
well as we like to say here in the land of the not retarded, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" so... feel free to come back with some evidence to back up that claim of yours.

All you'll do spouting off un-provable garbage like you did is convince people you're stupid.

>> No.8914959

>>8914936

ANGRY science who demand that the flawed chain of case law of right now is knowledge perfected. Why so mad anon?

>> No.8914967
File: 971 KB, 500x300, 1487428313593.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8914967

>>8914946
Are we going to get that example of objects moving faster than C or not?

>> No.8914969

>>8914959
>i have nothing to support my assertion of FTL.
>FUCK YOU REEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!.
nice bait post. Why shit all over the thread?

>> No.8914972

>>8914967
no, he just felt like taking a shit all over the thread

>> No.8914979

>>8914959
>>8914946
>>8914939
>>8914929
>>8914883
>>8914740
>>8914721
This is why people hate namefags. FTL is not possible by any standard means. Maybe someday we will figure out some stange loophole to it all but for the long future we will have to abide by the laws of our universe.
Id love for there to be any shred of evidence that FTL is possible just to shit on modern physics, but there is none.

>> No.8914981

Its a thread about ftl. I say absolute ftl is real. therefore I am fagget moron stupid who should suicide, Good discussion!!!

>> No.8914991

>>8914981
all opinions aren't equally worthy of time, attention, and consideration anon... I know you might have heard they are but in the real world they aren't.

>> No.8914992

>>8914981
Because there is no evidence for your claim and you follow it up with REEEEEEEE. You're a brainlet highschooler who likes popsci crap. If you want to make a massivr claim like "FTL is absolutly real" then back it up with even the SMALLEST shred of evidence or shut the fuck up.

>> No.8914993

>>8914981
I'm almost positive you're drunk as a British slag on a Friday evening, at this point.

>> No.8915002

>>8914350
What if we converted our bodies to light? Or perhaps, were able to raise our bodies natural operating velocity and resistance to said speeds?

>> No.8915008

>>8914722
If light travels at a specific speed that we can accurately measure it down to, doesn't the question simply become how do we attain that velocity or surpass it?

>> No.8915020

>>8914979
Doesn't the question simply boil down to how achieve a speed of 300,000,000m/s? If we figured out how to travel at even 1 million m/s, wouldn't it be a walk in the park from there?

>> No.8915024

>>8915002
>What if we converted our bodies to light?
Disregarding other implications of that, light is still bound by the speed of light, remember?

>Or perhaps, were able to raise our bodies natural operating velocity and resistance to said speeds?
forget physical movement, acceleration, velocity and all that other shit
you are not going to reach speed of light conventional way, you need literally infinite energy for that
so this is meaningless to contemplate

>> No.8915034

>>8915020
no. Mass exponentially increases as velocity increases therefore it takes exponentially more energy to accelerate with the boundry being 0 and c. By all of our modern understand of physics, it would take an infinate amount of energy to accelerate a massive particle to a speed of c. And thats not even talking about going beyond c, which would take "negative energy" to go beyond c.

>> No.8915037
File: 3.03 MB, 359x202, 1486486849069.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8915037

>>8915008
>>8915020
I don't know if you're one person or not, but I'm gonna ask you to stop.
No it's not easy "once you make a magic fairy dust rocket fuel"
You are NOT reaching speed of light by pushing something forward really hard. Ever.

>> No.8915040

>>8914906
But if perversions like this can and do occur naturally in the Universe isn't this a very slight clue that with some tricky and yet unknown mechanics we will be able to reproduce them for our needs? Like 'modifying' space via gravity.

>> No.8915046

>>8915008
The problem is that no matter how much you accelerate, light is always gonna go at lightspeed relative to you. FTL travel is actually quite trivial, if impractical, if all you want is to get faster from point A to point B than what it would take at lightspeed in your current reference frame. You can go so fast that entire galaxies fly by your ship in an instant. The problem is, when you finally slow down again, much much more time will have passed, since to them light will also be moving at c, even though they're moving much more slowly themselves.

You're used to thinking of time as the constant thing. In our current understanding of physics, it's the speed of light that is constant, time and distance actually depend on it rather than the other way around.

>> No.8915048

>>8915008

Hooray!!!

point two lasers at each other and consider the speed of particles passing in opposite vector. the light points are moving away from each other much ftl. you can do this sitting in your bed with no measurements or calculations.

FTL is real, and I am possibly a moron stupid fagget namefag hated son of a bitch

>> No.8915052

>>8915034
If mass increases as velocity increases, does that make velocity mass per se? Or is light not bound by that logic? And also, light is simply particles acting as waves is it not? How exactly does the speed of sound factor into the speed of light?

>> No.8915056

>>8915034
I've never quite understood how it takes infinite energy; wouldn't getting anything of finite mass accelerated to a finite speed take finite energy? That number may be more energy than we have available in the universe, even, but how does any number times any number equal infinity?

>> No.8915057

Find an infinite source of energy.

>> No.8915061

>>8915046
So wouldn't the real question at that point be achieving a distance of 3 million in a relatively short time in our perspective? Not factoring in light?

>> No.8915065

>>8914981
OP here, it's not necessarily a thread about FTL. More like the current theories or even thought experiments that are bit more grounded scientifically than your average sci-fi space magic FTL. Please don't shit in my thread any further.

>> No.8915073

>>8915061
It will take an insane amount of energy. But yes, in your own personal reference frame it will indeed look like accelerating past lightspeed. But if you travel 25'000 light years at 0.9999999999999c, and then slow down, everyone you ever knew and loved will be long dead, because to them, roughly 25'000 years will have passed.

>> No.8915079

>>8915052
>If mass increases as velocity increases, does that make velocity mass per se?
the word you're looking for is acceleration
to go faster you need to put in energy, the faster you wanna go, the more energy you need
it's not about the target speed, ti's about getting there
>Or is light not bound by that logic?
Photons don't have mass.
>light is simply particles acting as waves is it not?
eh, sure
>How exactly does the speed of sound factor into the speed of light?
in no way whatsoever

>> No.8915082

>>8915073
>it will indeed look like accelerating past lightspeed
sort of...

to put a finer point on it what actually happens it that the distance between where you are and where you're going shortens in order for, from your perspective, the speed of light to remain the absolute limit.

>> No.8915083
File: 8 KB, 300x240, Rel-Newton-Kinetic.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8915083

>>8915040
No. light is still moving at a velocity of c. Its just that its path has been bent inwarda towords the center of the blackhole. The geodesics are what we see as "bending" of space. All blackholes are is a bending so greate that light is bent into it. By all our modern knowledge, spacetime does not "rip" or "break".
>>8915052
Well techincally more velocity=more energy and mass is just highly concentrated pockets of energy. Light is bound by that logic but light has no mass but its energy can be concentraited enough to create mass in Pair Production. The speed of sound is just how fast a mechanical wave can travel through a medium. The speed of light can be "broken" sort of when light is psuedo slowed down and highspeed particles travel out faster than it. Look up cherenkov radiation. I work in a facility that deals with this subject. Cool shit.
>>8915056
Thats by newtonian physics which is a heavy simplification of velocity and mass because the lorentz factor is about =1 at very low velocity. But by the correct general relativity equations we can see how mass/length change as velocity increases. This is due to the speed of light being the same in all reference frames so the other factors start to change as you pump in more energy. The graph is Newtonian equatioms vs general relativity as velocity is increased where it is in units of c. As you can see they are identical at low energies but exponentialy get off as they approach c.

>> No.8915085

>harvest antimatter from star with bigass space constructs, probably doubling up as shades for venus or pluto or something
>stick antimatter on big rocket
>boom your way to 0.99c and make sure to keep some fuel for stopping bro cause you gonna need it i'm serious

Explain why science says this is impossible, /sci/. Seems fairly straightforward to me.

>> No.8915087

>>8915085
well that is possible. Youre not moving faster than c. It would just take absurd amounts of energy to do. More than our suns worth.

>> No.8915092

>>8915073
Or we 'just' need a time machine. However I find it more likely that our knowledge about spacetime is incomplete. Time is strange.

>>8915079
>Photons don't have mass.
*rest mass

>> No.8915096

>>8915087
Assuming you could harvest the max extent or the sun's radiated energy and store tons of it, would it be possible to release it all at once to create that amount of energy?

>> No.8915100

>>8915096
Well... Maybe.... But youd need a large place to store all that energy or your fuel would turn into a black hole inadvertantly

>> No.8915103

>>8915092
no rest mass for the wicked

>> No.8915104

>>8915100
How much do we know about storing energy exactly? How far are we technologically in terms of storing and compacting energy?

>> No.8915106

>>8915087
More like more energy than the entire galaxy...or even the observable universe.

>> No.8915108

>>8915104
incredibly terrible. Our current tech is just spewing electrons at atoms that like to half hold onto electrons and then give them up when a potential great enough is given. Its super inefficient and breaks down fast. Battery tech is terrible.

>> No.8915111

>>8915083
>By all our modern knowledge, spacetime does not "rip" or "break".

I don't say spacetime is breaking there but consider that our theories not yet work with singularities.

>> No.8915113

>>8915100
A black hole is a very good way of storing energy.

>> No.8915115

"Speed of light" is a bit misleading. It has nothing to do with light. It's just that light travels at this speed because you cannot travel any faster. If you are traveling at the speed of light, time will be frozen for you. You will reach any point of your path instantly.

>> No.8915119

>>8915108
I know we use electrons as our main source of energy, but why is it we don't attempt to utilize electrons or neutrons in a manner akin to how we use electrons to produce energy?

Also, how efficient is using fat to store energy?

>> No.8915121

>>8915104
Energy storing in my opinion is one of the most crucial problems that is waiting to be solved. Batteries suck that's why your average laptop lasts only a few hours.

>> No.8915124

Alcubierre drive is totally feasible. I was going to read Alcubierre's paper and write a response to it this year, but now I don't know if I'll get to it.

>> No.8915125

>>8915119
I meant protons not electrons for that second part.

>> No.8915140

>>8915113
Except there is no way to fuel it.

>>8915115
Yes, it's a much better way to put it.

>> No.8915141

>>8915121
Hydrocarbons are quite a nice way of storing power.
Assuming fusion or mass solar collection it would be plausible to collect CO2 from the atmosphere and use that...

>> No.8915146

>>8915140
No, but once you've stored a couple of hundred megatons of mass into a small black hole, you'll have enough Hawking radiation to play with for an incredibly long time.

>> No.8915147

>>8915106
no. The sun is about 1.3 x10^44 J. By my calculations thatd be enough to propel a small standard spaceship to about 99c.
>>8915113
No its not. Black holes radiate out energy at such an absurdly slow pace. And there isnt any other way to get the energy out of it other than its own evaporation.
>>8915119
Not sure what you mean by use electrons or nuetrons in a similar way to protons? Fat is actually a really good store of energy. The main problem is getting that energy out in a timely manner. Fat takes alot of effort to extract and thats why it is mainly long term storage in the body while the smaller sugars are used up first.

>> No.8915148

>>8915140
>Except there is no way to fuel it.
what did he mean by this?

>> No.8915154

>>8915140
Also Kugelblitz black holes are theoretically formed by dumping masses of photons into a single point.

>> No.8915155

>>8915121
Sounds like the next billion dollar industry to me. Wouldn't you say?

>> No.8915158

>>8915146
even the smallest blackhole would take longer than the current age of the universe to evaporate so its not really a good option. Plus how do you plan on moving your energy storage unit? thow a lasso around a black hole?

>> No.8915161

>>8915147
I meant using protons and neutrons like how we use electrons to produce energy and power everything else.

>> No.8915168

>>8915147
If time is one of the main hurdles there, could you see any way in which the time could be decreased?

>> No.8915170

>>8915161
because protons and nuetrons are in the nucleus and incredibly harder to move around and control due to their large masses and in the nuetrons case, no charge at all. electrons have such a tiny mass with a very large relative electromagnetic force so they can be easily controlled and directed. Plus they are in the electron cloud.

>> No.8915177

>>8915168
i assume you are talking about the time for blackholes to radiate out and evaporate? If so, i and everyone in modern physics has no idea. Increasing the mass of the blackhole would increase the radiation amount but its still at such a low pace that it wouldnt be feasable.

>> No.8915185

>>8915177
I was referring to the issue with fat as a storage method of energy.

>> No.8915187

>>8915170
Is there any way to utilize energy in the nucleus?

>> No.8915189

>everyone in this thread is like REEEEEEEE Information cant travel faster than light because thats what some patent office worker said a hundred years ago
What is quantum entanglement?

>> No.8915194
File: 73 KB, 1280x720, 1HVa3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8915194

>>8915124
I tend to agree. It's a pretty good solution already and GR is merely a hundred years old. We will get those asari babes.

>> No.8915202

>>8915158
Not talking about black holes formed by collapsing stars here, we're talking hypothetical micro black holes or kugelblitz black holes.
The smaller the black hole the faster it evaporates due to hawking radiation.

As for tethering - gravity tractors is one option. Place a reflector at a distance from the black hole so its gravitational attraction to the craft is balanced by the radiation it's emitting.

Depending on how the universe collapses, larger black holes may well be the last refuge for life in the dark future - slowly but reliably emitting energy for trillions of years.

>> No.8915207

>>8915189
>What is quantum entanglement?

No one knows.

>> No.8915212

>>8915185
Not really. There certainly are enzymes that help speed up the biological process but the main reason why long hydrocarbons are so good at storage is because it is wrapped in so many steps. It wouldnt be a good fuel source to burn up either.
>>8915187
Absolutly. Fission is just breaking apart the nucleus to turn the bidning energy of the nucleons into velocity of the resultant products ( AKA heat). And fusion just goes the opposite direction to product heat.
>>8915189
Spins are likely determined at the action and not when observed. Its all fucky but to say information travels instantaniously or atleast 12,000 times c is even more fucky.

>> No.8915214

>>8915202
If you stored energy in a black hole, is there any way to retrieve information from it?

>> No.8915217

>>8915212
Is fission/fusion or our current method of using electrons for energy more efficient or useful?

>> No.8915218

>>8914703
>What about a ship without mass?
How would you even enter a ship that has zero mass? It would be intangible for starters.

>> No.8915225

>>8915218
Is it possible to transport mass as particles to the destination you desire?

>> No.8915226

>>8915189
You cannot send information through quantum entanglement.

>> No.8915229

>>8915214
information is sent out by how the blackhole radiates. Thats one of the main things hawking is famous for discovering.
>>8915202
Again it just is such a low rate that it isnt a very good option for quick yield energy sources.
>>8915217
fission/fusion are the most efficient ways we know of so far.

>> No.8915237

>>8915229
>Again it just is such a low rate that it isnt a very good option for quick yield energy sources.

No...black holes of the megaton mass range woule emit energy at a startling rate.

>> No.8915239

>>8915189
You can tell what the other guy's box will contain when you open your own, but you can't know if he's opened his already

>> No.8915240

>>8915229
Assuming we could could compact fission/fusion into a battery or compact storage of sorts, would it be better to use fission/fusion or electricity due to safety risks?

And if the information is leaked out by the black hole's radiation, would it be wise to prioritize finding a way to convert said information into the form we desire?

>> No.8915244

>>8915225
Well subatomic particles can also bypass distance via quantum entanglement but macroscopic matter is a whole new ball game.

>> No.8915256

>>8915237
are you joking? a blackhole of 30 of our suns would emit 10^-31 watts. I dont think you kniw what youre talking about. Have fun trying to power a ship off of 10^-40 watts or worse.
>>8915240
fission/fusion risks are lagrly memes because people just ignore safety standards. Fusion is the most compact form of energy production we have. Using both battery tech with standard electrons and a torus fusion reactor may bethe best option.

>> No.8915263

>>8915256
Not stellar mass black holes...
Much, much smaller.
Megatons.

>> No.8915274

>>8915256
10^-20*
>>8915263
still applies. Its absurdly small. And how would you deal with the massive amounts of gamma rays coming from it at such a close distance? they would cause significant damage. And also how would you deal with the collapse at the end of its life? An explosion of multiple tons would destroy anything close to it, even for the smallest of blackholes.

>> No.8915276

>>8915274
Is there a size limit for blackholes?

>> No.8915281

>>8915276
on the low side they can be as small as the planck mass, and on the upper side ive read that its about 52 billion suns worth because at that point it cant get a stable feed of matter to keep growing as its gas cloud is either pushed away or sucked in, thus detroying its own foodsource

>> No.8915289

>>8915274
>massive amounts of gamma rays coming from it at such a close distance
That would be the useful energy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_starship
>A black hole weighing 606,000 metric tons (6.06 × 108 kg), or roughly the mass of the Seawise Giant (the longest sea-going ship ever built) would have a Schwarzschild radius of 0.9 attometers (0.9 × 10–18 m, or 9 × 10–19 m), a power output of 160 petawatts (160 × 1015 W, or 1.6 × 1017 W), and a 3.5-year lifespan
Tell me again how little energy small black holes emit?

Also fuck dude, this is a seriously hypothetical thing - who knows whether this sort of thing would ever be practical, but at least it's even slightly possible unlike hyperdrive...

>> No.8915291

>>8915281
Thanks.

>> No.8916391

>>8914860
haven't we created negative matter?
i read something about it some time ago
it had something to do with superfluids i think
although maybe they just proved it could exist rather than create it

>> No.8916401

You don't even need to travel faster than c to reach any star within your lifetime, do you? Thanks to time dilation and length contraction, you'll reach any target in as short an amount of proper time as you want.

Of course, an observer waiting at Earth would still see you take distance/c years at minimum.

>> No.8916411
File: 3.67 MB, 700x298, 1491170547711.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8916411

>>8916401

>> No.8916491

>>8916391
it didn't truly have negative mass

>> No.8916575

>>8916411
Do feel free to elaborate if I said something wrong.

Or, you know, post laughingdude.gif again.

>> No.8916576

aliens are faggots who cant move faster than light.

>> No.8916593

>>8914332
Harness dark energy for propulsion somehow

>> No.8916595

>>8914332
It breaks the fundamental theory of LOGIC and CAUSALITY. There are no possible theoretical methods for faster than light travel, because they defy all mathematically logical results. The only way FTL could happen is if we stumble upon it by chance.

>> No.8916600

>>8916401
>>8916575
Don't worry about the brainlets. You said nothing wrong.

>> No.8916603

>>8914423

Hypothetical. yes they're predicted by GR, but we know GR is incomplete and we also know that even tho the equations suggest time works the same as other dimensions, the fact is that time DOES have a direction, we just don't understand WHY.

>> No.8916607

>>8914791
>Wouldn't an Alcubierre drive make the trick in theory?

Yes, magic would allow you to do anything. As far as we know, magic doesn't exist.

>> No.8916610

>>8915002
>What if we converted our bodies to light?

Light isn't matter, it can't form complex structures.

>> No.8916614

>>8915083
>By all our modern knowledge, spacetime does not "rip" or "break".

You can destroy the entanglement between one bit of space and another by pumping enough energy into it, this would in effect "rip" spacetime, but the piece you "broke off" would no longer be accessible from our Universe.

>> No.8916617

>>8915085

You don;t need antimatter, you could do this with modern technology. It would take only about a year of constant acceleration at 1g to reach a significant fraction of c, and the same to decelerate at the other end.

>> No.8916619

>>8915092
>However I find it more likely that our knowledge about spacetime is incomplete

This is well-known. Why do you think people are looking for a theory to unify Relativity and Quantum Mechanics? It's because we know our theories are incomplete.

>> No.8916621

>>8915115

This. It's really the "speed of causality".

>> No.8916622

>>8916391
thats just forces acting in strange ways to act like it has less than it does. Not actually negative metter
>>8916401
yeah youre correct here.
>>8916614
thats a gross exaggeration and a misuse of terms at best.

>> No.8916635

>>8915240
>And if the information is leaked out by the black hole's radiation

It isn't, not in the way you're imagining. Anything you throw into a black hole is gone, what comes back out (incredibly slowly) is just the entropy.

>> No.8916640

>>8916622
>t.brainlet

>> No.8916646

>>8916640
feel free to post facts about why im wrong dipshit. Or just keep shitposting about things you don't understand.

>> No.8916652

>>8916614
>>8916635
This is what happens when brainlet scifi fans talk about science. If you can't be bothered to understand it then fuck off and kys

>> No.8916653

>>8916646

Whatever you say, dumb bastard.

>> No.8916655

>>8916652
>I'm a moron but I think it is others who are the morons!

Dunning-Kruger in effect, everyone.

>> No.8916659

>>8916653
>i dont have any argument so i have to resort to just insults REEEEEEEE
Nice bait. Id say post facts but you have none to support you.
>>>>/b/ is that way

>> No.8916660

>>8916659
>implying I'd waste my time arguing with a moron

Just go back to wherever you came from, simpleton.

>> No.8916664

>>8916655
>waaaaahhhhhhh! waaaahhhhhh!!

>> No.8916669

>>8916660
Lol. You dont have facts to back up your misinformation so you just resort to insults. Nice. You're factually incorrect and if you'd read the literature you'd know this. Only problem with morons like you who spread misinformation is that you refuse to read nor learn

>> No.8916671

>>8916664

About on par with your other """contributions""" ITT

>> No.8916672

>>8916669

You don't even know what my post was, you thick cunt.

>> No.8916677

>>8916672
then post about it so i cna show you how moronicly wrong you are. Or just continue to shitpost and complain when you fail to understand basic concepts

>> No.8916687

>>8916677

I know what I'm talking about, which is why I know it's a waste of effort trying to educate someone as obviously stupid as you. That leaves ignoring you, or insulting you, and since I'm not the "bigger man" it's going to be insulting you.

>> No.8916695

>>8916687
Lol. you have nothing to say so all you can do is spew insults. That's sad. Prove me wrong or fuck off. This board is 18+ not to protect you kid but to keep the rest of us away from you. Even just post a shred of evidence.

>> No.8916702

>>8916607
Computers would be magic for someone from the 19th century.

>> No.8916705

>>8916575
Seriously wanted to go with option B, but Hiroshimoot didn't pay the server bills again and you can't post images ATM.

0.99C produces just 7x time dilation.

>> No.8916706

>>8916687
>>8916672
>>8916664
>>8916660
>>8916655
>>8916653
>>8916640
>>8916411
>>8916702
I love it when a decent thread get shit all over by morons. No saving this shit now so might as well continue the shitposts. REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>> No.8916708

>>8916702

You could explain how a computer worked, in arbitrary detail. You can't explain how the Alcubierre drive works, because it requires magic (negative mass).

>> No.8916715

>>8916622
>thats a gross exaggeration and a misuse of terms at best.

Not according to Susskind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Eeuqh9QfNI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtBRKw1Ab7E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaTF4QZ94Fk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vfo512fvlE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlLsTaJn9AQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXBx8_19nyw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1erB9p5414

>> No.8916716

>>8916705
this. Its so simple to check to with just t'=gamma*t. Two seconds for these guys to see how it isnt really feasable.

>> No.8916722

>>8916715
I think you need to watch some of those again. You're deliberatly misunderstanding what is being said.

>> No.8916725

>>8916722

You need to watch them at least once, because no, i'm not. Breaking the entanglement between "bits" of spacetime is exactly what Susskind thinks is going on inside a singularity.

>> No.8916726

>>8916702
Just because the warp drive has a valid solution in GR doesn't mean it is possible. Especially since GR isn't even a complete theory.

>> No.8916731

>>8916725
Ive seen then before and i've heard it. Reread my original post and then try and understand the actual videos you posted. Some of it even directly contradicts what you've stated here.

>> No.8916739

>>8916731

You claim spacetime can't rip, Susskind says it can and does. Forgive me for talking his word over yours.

>> No.8916774

>>8914332
cbf reading the thread, but FTL may as well already be possible, in the sense that anywhere you want to get, you can get there as quickly as you want, according to your own measurement of time. By your own changing measurements of distance, you'll never seem to be going faster than light simply because the space is compressed to hell in the direction you're moving.

>> No.8916779

>>8916774

That's obviously not what FTL means you nonce, and if you'd bothered to read the thread you'd know that people have already raised this. So thanks for the completely useless contribution, and go fuck yourself.

>> No.8916807

>>8915048
You need to be over 18 to use this website.

>> No.8916836

No theory of faster that light travel has unphysical complications.

Wormholes require 'exotic' matter with negative mass-energy to keep it from collapsing, as does warp drive.

So to answer your question, no such theory is really "accepted" because no theory exists that doesn't require something that either doesn't exist or is not likely to exist.

>> No.8916838

>>8916836
Sorry, no theory of FTL DOESN'T have unphysical complications.

>> No.8916841

>>8916836

Wormholes also can't be used to travel, not usefully anyway. People forget that they're formed out of linked black holes, sure you can leap into hole A and hit the singularity at hole B, but you're still hitting a singularity which is game over, and even if you could somehow avoid this, you'd still be inside a black hole, which you could only get out of with FTL travel anyway.

>> No.8916853

>>8914332
Are photons not moving FTL at the event horizon?

>> No.8916865

>>8916853

nope. Just can't angle outwards.

I think you guys are looking at this all wrong.

we just need to enlarge ot shrink objects.
>enlarge astronaut
>small step to galaxies light years away
>shrink back to original size

>> No.8916871

>>8916865

Now I'm not a physicist, as they say, but I'm fairly sure that would be at least as difficult as FTL.

>> No.8916881

>>8916865
Why are people giving space and time characteristics and values when gravity could just have an effect on the light itself and not space? Retards are saying Einstein circles are caused by dark matter, but it could be as simple as the mass' gravitational field only reaches that far. It's a lot more simple and makes more sense than relativity.

>> No.8916885

>>8916881

Gravity doesn't have a range, if it did galaxies wouldn't exist.

>> No.8916897

>>8914332

Alcubierre drive is theoretical possible.
Maybe if we big some huge version of the hadron collider in high orbit so you can accelerate around the earth and then be launched at 99c, but faster than light is hard, not impossible though.

>> No.8916900

>>8916610
You can code the information contained in your body in a light signal and send it to be recreated somewhere else.

>> No.8916906

>>8916900

Possibly, but then you're not talking about turning yourself into light, you're talking about annihilating yourself and sending a coded message that can be used to create a copy of you.

>> No.8916907

>>8916900

Still wont go faster than light?

>> No.8916916

>>8916885
The range may be directly correlating with the mass of the object. If gravity doesn't have a range, then wed have one giant galaxy because the first object in the universe to have more mass than anything else would draw the rest in.

>> No.8916920

>>8916916
>The range may be directly correlating with the mass of the object.

It kind of is, gravity follows the inverse square law, like electromagnetism but unlike the other two forces.

>If gravity doesn't have a range, then wed have one giant galaxy because the first object in the universe to have more mass than anything else would draw the rest in.

Indeed we would, but for the fact that the "big bang" imparted sufficient force to separate matter, and the inflation of spacetime ensures that most of it (matter) will continue to move apart despite gravity's tug.

>> No.8917167

>>8916705
>0.99C produces just 7x time dilation

All right. What does that matter?

Of course, you need a huge amount of energy to get to relativistic speeds, but that wasn't the argument. The point is, it is physically possible, even in the frame of current physics, for you to get to an object that's 500 light years away within your lifetime. Whether it's practically doable is another question.

I brought this up because what often seems to be people's understanding in these threads is that getting to another star is literally impossible for a human (that wasn't born on the way), and that FTL would be required.

>> No.8917248

>>8916739
That's not what Susskind is saying. Please watch the videos before you try and speak on his position on the matter. I'm a big fan of susskind and have read nearly the entirety of his works on black holes and you clearly do not understand Susskinds assertion made in the videos or even what i said in my first post.

>> No.8917252

>>8914423
subatomic penetration rapid fire through your skull

>> No.8917254

>>8917167
By all intents and purposes, it is impossible.... thats what people are saying. Can it technically be done according to the laws of physics? yes, but is it any way achievable? no.

>> No.8917263

>>8916916
gravity doesnt have a range.... we can see and study this quite clearly with gravitational waves. The expansion of spacetime by "dark energy" means that the expansion is speeding up, nothing to do with gravity having some sort of range.
>>8916920
>current year
>still saying gravity is a force
Sorry to be an asshoke stickler. i just hate it.

>> No.8917292

The no-communication theorem has pretty much convinced me that FTL anything is a "hardcoded" impossibility.

>> No.8917337

God wouldn't create a universe so huge without some way of getting around it.

>> No.8917346

>>8917337

Thus proving that God didn't create our universe.

>> No.8917349

>>8917346
Or that we just haven't discovered the physics behind FTL yet.
Atheism is juvenile and illogical.

>> No.8917356

>>8917337
You can get around it. Just not FTL.

>> No.8917365

>>8917356
*some way of getting around it in a reasonable time span

>> No.8917371

by going 99.99999999999999999999% of the speed of light you can get anywhere in the universe almost instantly from your own perspective so why would you ever need to go any faster?

>> No.8917378

>>8917349
>Atheism is juvenile and illogical
Choosing not to believe in a thing for which there is no evidence is not juvenile or illogical, quite the opposite actually.

>> No.8917381

>>8917371

because accelerating to that speed thats an incredible amount of energy. Traveling to other worlds or stars isnt really feasable by standard GR physics, even if it is technically possible.
>>8917378
>>8917346
>taking the bait this hard.

>> No.8917387

>>8917381
>taking the bait
I'm 100% serious.

>> No.8917392

>>8917381
>Traveling to other worlds or stars isnt really feasable by standard GR physics
there is nothing wrong with the GR physics of it, like you said its just an absurd amount of energy.

>> No.8917396
File: 63 KB, 640x352, 1406786548648.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8917396

>>8914332
>What are the more or less accepted theoretical methods for faster than light travel?
I got you senpai, look no further:
>>>/x/

>> No.8917397

>>8917371
>by going 99.99999999999999999999% of the speed of light you can get anywhere in the universe almost instantly from your own perspective so why would you ever need to go any faster?

yeah but by the time you got to wherever you wanted to go billions of years might have passed and the place might not even exist anymore. Billions of years passing but to you the trip took the blink of an eye. General relativity is weird shit.

>> No.8917413
File: 52 KB, 699x449, emdrive.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8917413

this is the key
conservation of momentum BTFO

>> No.8917427

>>8917413
>memedrive

>> No.8917663

>>8917413
lol implying that bullshit will ever work. Hint hint it wont work

>> No.8917701
File: 52 KB, 757x422, heart of gold.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8917701

>>8914332
>"The Infinite Improbability Drive is a wonderful new method of crossing interstellar distances in a few seconds; without all that tedious mucking about in hyperspace. As the Improbability Drive reaches infinite improbability, it passes through every conceivable point in every conceivable universe almost simultaneously. In other words, you're never sure where you'll end up or even what species you'll be when you get there. It's therefore important to dress accordingly. The Infinite Improbability Drive was invented following research into finite improbability which was often used to break the ice at parties by making all the molecules in the hostess' undergarments leap one foot simultaneously to the left in accordance with the theory of indeterminacy. Many respectable physicists said they weren't going to stand for that sort of thing, partly because it was a debasement of science, but mostly because they didn't get invited to those sort of parties."

>> No.8917704

>>8914332
Dude just use really big rockets, not hard

>> No.8917711

>>8917701
But how does the improbability drive actually transport you? What energy does it use? What kind of multiverse can it traverse?

>> No.8917715

>>8917371
Instantly from your own perspective yes, but have fun knowing millions of years would have passed and everyone not on the same ship as you has died. Plus the location you go to might not even exist anymore.

>> No.8917722

>>8917715
>everyone not on the same ship as you has died.
this is why a civilization capable of this would be cruising around in self sustaining colony ships that care not about the rest of the universe when it comes to interstellar travel relativistic effects.

spot a promising stellar nursery a few thousand light years away, kick on the near light speed drive, show up just in time to check out the newly formed potentially habitable worlds. Maybe even stop off for a few hundred years and modify the genetics of the native life forms and mine up some important raw materials from the planet before heading off to the next interesting looking corner the universe.

>> No.8917724

>>8917711
I imagine it's some kind of large scale exploitation of uncertainty. In the same way that a particle can randomly appear anywhere at any moment, but is substantially more likely to appear in some places than others - the IID *somehow* makes it more probable for the ship to be somewhere else at that moment.

>> No.8917729

>>8917722
This actually reminds me of a great story, the title escapes me at the moment, but the gist is a crew travelling in ship at some fraction of the speed of light to form a colony somewhere, only to arrive and find out that in the decades/centuries they'd been travelling, better and faster modes of transportation had been invented and they'd been beaten to the punch by a few centuries.

>> No.8918516

>>8917722
>advanced space faring locusts

That makes me uncomfortable.

>> No.8918678

FTL being impossibly according to our current scientific knowledge is a really sad reality. We will never explore other galaxies. Even if we did, the distances would be so big communication is impossible and due to the different environments they wouldn't even be human anymore so it's all pointless.

>> No.8921089

>>8915274
>absurdly small
>massive amounts