Do you think FTL travel will ever be possible?

[Biomega]

Completely missing the point. And i'm not arguing anything....

I was asking, in response to Zethras' post, that if all particles in an area suddenly became massless any solid objects inside would simply fall apart at the atomic or subatomic level.

It doesnt matter if that scenario is impossible, it was a hypothetical question.

But the answer could be ANYTHING. Things could fall apart. Things could cease to exist. The universe could turn into a ball of yarn.

A question being hypothetical doesn't mean it has actual merit. You can phrase anything as a hypothetical question, and usually you can come up with an answer that is basically useless, except for comedic or entertainment value.

If you want any meaningful answer, you have to stick to the facts and the rules you've set for your premises. Or, if you want to be experimental, you can follow a hypothesis through meticulously - that is how scientific progress is made, but it's usually not made without cause, and is in any case a fairly laborious, complex process.

[Adam Jensen]

There's 5 pages of replies, I didn't read them all, if someone else mentioned this then consider this post redundant.

The problem here is that the Higgs Boson giving particles mass is one of those "I don't think that means what you think it means" situations.

First, the Higgs Boson itself gives nothing mass. Instead, what gives SOME particles mass is the interaction with the Higgs Field (called the Higgs Mechanism). Essentially think of it in this simple analogy: As the particle moves through space, it interacts with the Higgs Field which provides something like drag on the particle which slows it down and prevents it from moving at the speed of light. That drag-analogue is what we call mass. The problem is, of all of the particles in your body, of all of the particles in the chair your ass is firmly planted to, of all of the particles that make up most of the universe only the electrons are effected by the Higgs Mechanism. Go back and reread that last sentence, it's important. All of the electrons in your body weight somewhere between 20 and 30 grams depending on how big you are. Yes, only 20-30 grams of your TOTAL MASS (about 0.03% of your total mass) comes from the Higgs Mechanism. Neutralizing the Higgs Mechanism would do nothing to facilitate faster-than-light travel unless all you were moving were electrons.

The other 99.97% of your mass is being provided by protons and neutrons. What you need to understand is that electrons are fundamental particles. They aren't made of anything smaller. Protons and neutrons are NOT fundamental particles. They are instead made up of quarks and quarks are NOT affected by the Higgs Mechanism.

The quarks interact with what's known as the Gluon Field. This interaction causes the same drag-analogue as in the Higgs Field, but it only affects quarks, and in turn, protons and neutrons. But the quarks themselves are only responsible for about 1% of the total mass of a proton so where does the rest of the mass come from? Well, something to know about quarks is that they require a massive amount of energy to bind together, and in fact you can never separate quarks. You'll never be able to have a single quark by itself, but that's another topic all together. Long story short, E=mc^2 here means that all of that energy in the system creates yet more mass.

So, there's no way to ever neutralize the mass of an object because 1) There's no way to make E=/=mc^2 and 2) if you neutralized the effects of the Gluon Field (somehow) you would then cause all of the quarks in the area to cease to exist and without the quarks there's no protons or neutrons and you'd suddenly be left with a cloud of electrons.

I'm a sucker for quantum physics and read, watch, and absorb all I can on the subject.

Sources for reference:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3xLuZNKhlY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ztc6QPNUqls

You sir just dashed my dreams of one day being a powerful biotic like Urdnot Wrex . . .

No seriously though, good post. I thought the Higgs affected all particles.

[ComputerNerd]

Any "proof" is only that as long as it fits what we know.
Einstein, Newton or anyone else can only work with what we know.
Therefore a proof even if it turns out to no longer fit with new evidence it was never wrong, just based on what was available at the time.

[Adam Jensen]

But the answer could be ANYTHING. Things could fall apart. Things could cease to exist. The universe could turn into a ball of yarn.

A question being hypothetical doesn't mean it has actual merit. You can phrase anything as a hypothetical question, and usually you can come up with an answer that is basically useless, except for comedic or entertainment value.

If you want any meaningful answer, you have to stick to the facts and the rules you've set for your premises. Or, if you want to be experimental, you can follow a hypothesis through meticulously - that is how scientific progress is made, but it's usually not made without cause, and is in any case a fairly laborious, complex process.

Thing is though science is predictive. We use inferences to make assumptions, just like I used inferences to assume that mass is not necessary to keep atoms from occupying the same space, and assumed that the electromagnetic charges would be sufficient.

Granted, my assumption remains only an assumption until I can test it, then it becomes a hypothesis. And once tested, I can start to formulate a theory based on what the results were.

But the point is, science is developed by making assumptions based on what we know, and then testing those assumptions.

[Biomega]

That is why science doesn't operate in absolutes (as really nobody should; hey there Religions!). Anything is assumed falsifiable, and only true for as long as it hasn't been disproved. Note that the key there is FALSIFIABLE, i.e. it can't by definition be without even the possibility of being disproved (like, say, God).

But to stay on topic, or rather, steer back to it: while FTL may not be within reach in the foreseeable future, I think that this doesn't necessarily mean there can be no interstellar travel. There are some very interesting concepts for low-acceleration propulsion systems that can operate over extended periods of time; theoretically, one can achieve significant velocities through such a mechanism, even relativistic speeds.

Given that there are several star systems within 10ly of Sol, I think that a long-term mission could be quite possible. A mere 20 years at say 0.5c! Not easy by any means, but also far from impossible. The question of course is what to find there; without an at least remotely habitable planet, such a mission would be quite... empty. A 40-year round trip for some data and samples, well, that's probably not going to convince anyone is it...

Luckily the search for "Goldilocks" planets is quite ongoing, and many are being discovered. Could very well be there's one close by!

---------- Post added 2013-05-18 at 03:25 AM ----------

Zero mass mean zero energy.

Photons would like a word with you!

[Adam Jensen]

That is why science doesn't operate in absolutes (as really nobody should; hey there Religions!). Anything is assumed falsifiable, and only true for as long as it hasn't been disproved. Note that the key there is FALSIFIABLE, i.e. it can't by definition be without even the possibility of being disproved (like, say, God).

But to stay on topic, or rather, steer back to it: while FTL may not be within reach in the foreseeable future, I think that this doesn't necessarily mean there can be no interstellar travel. There are some very interesting concepts for low-acceleration propulsion systems that can operate over extended periods of time; theoretically, one can achieve significant velocities through such a mechanism, even relativistic speeds.

Given that there are several star systems within 10ly of Sol, I think that a long-term mission could be quite possible. A mere 20 years at say 0.5c! Not easy by any means, but also far from impossible. The question of course is what to find there; without an at least remotely habitable planet, such a mission would be quite... empty. A 40-year round trip for some data and samples, well, that's probably not going to convince anyone is it...

Luckily the search for "Goldilocks" planets is quite ongoing, and many are being discovered. Could very well be there's one close by!

I still think finding a way to make an Alcubierre drive work is our best hope for circumventing FTL.

It's that or opening a wormhole, or something no one yet has thought of. I'll probably be long dead before such technologies exist, but I'll be damned if I'll stop believing that our future will resemble Star Wars or Star Trek.

[Tychus]

Einstein said we can't, and people (as far as I know) tend to trust his equations as if it were the absolute truth.

Actually... out of his body of work some things have been ousted, but many things have been beaten on and are quite sturdy, having withstood tremendous scrutiny over many years.

The disinterested Joe Schmoe might just shrug about it, but scientists and physics enthusiasts are generally quite happy to challenge any theory... for many, it's half the fun of being in the field. Hell, they potentially can get rich and famous if they succeed (or at least gain some community esteem and maybe a book deal or two).

[Biomega]

Again with the random events!

You can't just "remove" the Higgs Field; if that were possible, the properties of the Higgs Field would be different (in such a way as to allow it being switched off), which in turn would mean the properties of everything else would be different; which in turn meant that you have no idea what would happen, because all your conclusions are based on how we think things are now, and that INCLUDES the Higgs Field not just randomly disappearing.

[Hooky]

hate to burst the no-such-thing-as-faster-than-light bubble: quantum entanglement.

Theoretically, teleportation using these principles would lead to a faster than light travel.

[Adam Jensen]

Again with the random events!

You can't just "remove" the Higgs Field; if that were possible, the properties of the Higgs Field would be different (in such a way as to allow it being switched off), which in turn would mean the properties of everything else would be different; which in turn meant that you have no idea what would happen, because all your conclusions are based on how we think things are now, and that INCLUDES the Higgs Field not just randomly disappearing.

But we can assume what would happen. We can't test it, we don't know with certainty, but we can assume what will happen if the Higgs is removed, through inference.

It doesn't prove anything, its entirely theoretical and its entirely possible that something incredibly different will happen, depending on how right (or wrong) we are.

But without being able to test it, (after all, we have no knowledge of how to actually turn off the Higgs field, or if that's even possible) we can make assumptions based on what we do know. You're right that's not proof though.

[Biomega]

Quantum entanglement and quantum teleportation do not transmit classical information; they cannot be used to send data (or matter) at superluminal speeds.

[Barana]

I'm not sure, but I don't think mass is required to keep atoms separate. Atoms repel each other because every atom has an electron shell with a negative charge. Every atom, as you're aware, has a positively charged nucleus (protons and neutrons) and a series of electron "shells" that are negatively charged. These electrons are constantly moving in their shell, not in an orbit as old models described but randomly. Anyways, what this means is that the exterior of an atom, which is comprised of these shells, has a negative charge thus repels other atoms.

There's an interesting VSauce video about it.

Anyways, I don't think this has anything to do with mass. I'd assume that even massless electrons would repel other electrons.

If atoms were massless, they'd cease to exist. Even though electrons are held on with magnetism, they can't hold on to particles which don't exist. Protons and neutrons are held together in the core of an atom by the strong nuclear force, which itself is just interactions between the quarks that make up the individual particles. These interactions are carried over smaller particles called gluons (no, really, that's what they're called), using photons to exchange energy.

That's what happens in a nonzero Higgs field universe (ours). In a zero-field universe, everything's pretty much inverted. Massive particles are massless, and their spins and charges are all completely different. This also causes a weird phenomenon to pop up. In this type of universe, for every elementary particle (that means quarks and smaller, not protons and neutrons) in ours, there would be two particles in the zero-field universe.

Technically, particles in our universe are just these two "separate but equal" particles converting back and forth between each other about 100 trillion trillion times per second. This is how the Higgs Field gives particles mass. The energy generated from the flipping of particles is the same energy that every particle has according to E=mc^2. If you zero out the Higgs Field, then you're just left with the two separate massless particles. For instance, if a top quark was inserted into a zero-field area, it would break down into what are essentially two massless top quarks.

Here's the article I got this from: http://profmattstrassler.com/article...eld-were-zero/


tl;dr: Electromagnetism doesn't work if there's no mass, because the quarks that make up the particles in atoms would have too much energy to form bonds.

[Deleted]

It will most likely be possible in the future. The real question is if the human body will be able to handle it?

[Biomega]

But we can assume what would happen. We can't test it, we don't know with certainty, but we can assume what will happen if the Higgs is removed, through inference.

It doesn't prove anything, its entirely theoretical and its entirely possible that something incredibly different will happen, depending on how right (or wrong) we are.

But without being able to test it, (after all, we have no knowledge of how to actually turn off the Higgs field, or if that's even possible) we can make assumptions based on what we do know. You're right that's not proof though.

That's exactly the problem with it: INFERENCE. How does inference work? By BEING BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW TO BE TRUE and its logical follow-ups. We do NOT know switching off the Higgs Field to be true; indeed, if we do ASSUME it to be true (for the argument) we have to modify certain variables to make it so. But these variables do not exist in vacuo, they are part of a system. Changing them for the Higgs Field would mean changing them for everything else that is based on these variables, and all of a sudden you find that electrons don't exist and atoms are really more like cookies than raisin buns.

You know what we call this? Reductio ad absurdum. It's actually more of a proof that your initial premise is FALSE rather than a "what-if" result of if it were true.

[Tychus]

hate to burst the no-such-thing-as-faster-than-light bubble: quantum entanglement.

Theoretically, teleportation using these principles would lead to a faster than light travel.

From what I gather this doesn't produce physical displacement.

[DEATHETERNAL]

Since relativity is not mathematically provable and has only been tested at VERY low speeds as well as our basic understanding of the mechanics of the universe being somewhat primitive at this point, it is not possible to say without stating a complete guess.

[Biomega]

From what I gather this doesn't produce physical displacement.

It assumes the possibility of teleportation, i.e. the reduction of mass to information, the transmission of said information, and the re-constitution of mass using that information at the target location.

A bazillion reasons why this doesn't work, really, including the alias problem (what happens to the original?), the Uncertainty Principle (you can't get accurate enough information for exact replication), and the fact the quantum teleportation does not transmit classical information and thus can't transmit data at superluminal speeds to begin with.

Pipe dream, for now.

---------- Post added 2013-05-18 at 03:44 AM ----------

Since relativity is not mathematically provable and has only been tested at VERY low speeds as well as our basic understanding of the mechanics of the universe being somewhat primitive at this point, it is not possible to say without stating a complete guess.

Not sure what you are refering to by "relativity"; there certainly are plenty of experimental results that confirm the Theory of Relativity (both Special and General). It is considered mathematically sound, until proven otherwise through observational data.

This isn't abstract math; there are no "mathematical" proofs for physical phenomena. You build a model using math, and seek to confirm or refute it using experimental/observational evidence.

[Biomega]

Finding ways to make things work? Cute.

While it's by no means certain that some things won't change fundamentally, I think it's pretty naive to assume that we can just make anything happen just because WE'RE HUMAN AND WE'RE TOUGH LIKE THAT, RAWR! Way too many SciFi series ruined by that self-righteous human-spirit bullshit.

[DEATHETERNAL]

Not sure what you are refering to by "relativity"; there certainly are plenty of experimental results that confirm the Theory of Relativity (both Special and General). It is considered mathematically sound, until proven otherwise through observational data.

This isn't abstract math; there are no "mathematical" proofs for physical phenomena. You build a model using math, and seek to confirm or refute it using experimental/observational evidence.

Testing whether a limit of the speed of light exists by traveling 0.05% of the speed of light really doesn't show anything. Without a greater understanding of the mechanics of the universe, the amount of energy needed to accelerate from 80% (random numbers) of the speed of light and higher may be essentially zero instead of infinity by some quark of the universe that we have no idea exists.

[Biomega]

Testing whether a limit of the speed of light exists by traveling 0.05% of the speed of light really doesn't show anything. Without a greater understanding of the mechanics of the universe, the amount of energy needed to accelerate from 80% (random numbers) of the speed of light and higher may be essentially zero instead of infinity by some quark of the universe that we have no idea exists.

That's not usually how these experiments work. You predict a certain behavior with mathematical models; but the assumptions you make in the course of it have far-reaching implications. Many of these you can test for. In this concrete example, the speed-limit of c has certain fundamental repercussions for our entire model of physics. Since these have (so far) found to be accurate representations of reality, it is assumed by inference and induction that the theory that led to them is also true.

Experiments are, of course, ongoing. It is not outside the realm of possibility that new evidence will call the veracity of the ToR into question in the future. But for now, everything we see confirms it. We don't need to jump to lightspeed to do it.