Do you think FTL travel will ever be possible?

[Garnier Fructis]

Space-warpin' ships could be exactly like what smartphones would be to people living in the 30's.

Imagine the insurance claims when two ships collide.

[Shakadam]

As far as I know, nothing has ever been recorded as traveling faster than the spee of light in vacuum, and I tend to believe Einstein's theories in this field. So no I don't think travelling faster than light itself is possible.

There are however some loopholes that theoretically allow FTL travel without actually exceeding the speed of light. Wormholes, bending (warping) space etc.

[Deleted]

Eggheads already have theories on how to overcome this: http://techland.time.com/2012/09/19/...ht-warp-drive/

the space you would occupy would still be bound to the normal laws of physics, so within the "Warp Bubble" for a better word of it does not actually move, rather the space in front and behind it is distorted. Whilst technically you could say your traveling FTL, your not actually moving at all.

[Keex]

If Einstein was wrong he was very precisely wrong. The predictions have been experimentally measured more precisely than suggested by the theories (slowing of rotating neutron stars by gravitational waves, if i remember correctly).
sure it would be great..at first. but i personally would hate to be bombarded by gamma radiation from every freaking radio source in the universe due to the doppler effect when nearing the speed of light

[Deleted]

I believe the opposite. In 500 years, if the human race is still around, and we continue at out current tech advancement rate - I think his theories will only be funny footnotes in history books.

Not until provaen false, since they have fundamental meaning and other more complex theories need to build on this. It's like saying that addition or multiplication will be footnotes in history books. It may become trivial but not less meaningful or unimportant.

[herpecin]

my electric toothbrush uses quantum physics to get recharged from it's charging station while never having direct metal to metal contact with it.

a $15 dollar appliance that i bought at walmart 2 years ago makes trivial use of a concept that was unknown 100 years ago.

there is no telling what we will be able to do in the next 50-100 years(assuming we don't all get eaten by zombies)

[MMKing]

1 - bend space.

The traditional ''Warp Drive'', create a warp field around the object you wish to travel faster than the speed of light. The warp field is formed in such a way that space in front of the object is being dragged towards the object, while space behind is being pushed away. Thus the object may reach the other end of the solar system faster than light, by moving space instead of the object itself.

2 - Remove mass.

The term ''light speed'' is somewhat misleading, ''mass less particle speed'' is better IMO. There exist other mass less particles, and there exist mass less particles whom can travel faster than the speed of light under some circumstances. For example, protons can create a photonic boom (sonic boom, but with light instead) inside astronauts helmets simply by passing through it, because inside the helm of the astronaut, protons are moving faster than light.

By removing the mass of an object, you should be able to achieve the speed of mass less particles. How G forces would interact i cannot say, as any acceleration would instantly bring the mass less object to max speed.

[Milmo]

I thought I'd ask and since I couldn't find another thread on the matter... well yeah.. here we go.

I've always wondered if it's possible for humans to travel faster than the speed of light.
Einstein said we can't, and people (as far as I know) tend to trust his equations as if it were the absolute truth.

Are we still doing research in this? Or do we simply rely on equations made decades ago?
As much as I've looked around, for as long as I can remember, nobody ever casts any doubt on whether or not
Einstein was wrong. He could have been, and probably was in a few areas. What do you think?


*According to Einstein, nothing with mass can travel faster than the speed of light (Photons)*

If FTL travel is in fact impossible, do you think we'll find a way to go around it? Think Wormholes, Warping space etc.

We actually know Einstein was right, both his general and special theory of relativity. Not only have his theories been verified through observations, but a common day piece of technology would not work properly if relativity was wrong, the GPS. Satellites in orbit are constantly synchronizing with receivers on the Earth surface to compensate for time flowing at different rates due to varying gravitational densities (general relativity) and motion (special relativity).

Travelling faster than light within spacetime is impossible, "light speed" is the universal speed limit. Warping of space is of course happening all around us, it is what we perceive as gravity. So the idea that we one day will have the technology to fold spacetime in order to traverse great distances is surely not impossible, not in theory at least.

[Garnier Fructis]

The term ''light speed'' is somewhat misleading, ''mass less particle speed'' is better IMO. There exist other mass less particles, and there exist mass less particles whom can travel faster than the speed of light under some circumstances. For example, protons can create a photonic boom (sonic boom, but with light instead) inside astronauts helmets simply by passing through it, because inside the helm of the astronaut, protons are moving faster than light.

It moves faster than the speed of light in that material, but still does not travel faster than the speed of light in vacuum.

[Adam Jensen]

2 - Remove mass.

The term ''light speed'' is somewhat misleading, ''mass less particle speed'' is better IMO. There exist other mass less particles, and there exist mass less particles whom can travel faster than the speed of light under some circumstances. For example, protons can create a photonic boom (sonic boom, but with light instead) inside astronauts helmets simply by passing through it, because inside the helm of the astronaut, protons are moving faster than light.

By removing the mass of an object, you should be able to achieve the speed of mass less particles. How G forces would interact i cannot say, as any acceleration would instantly bring the mass less object to max speed.

I'm not sure if simply removing mass like Mass Effect suggests, will cut it. Massless objects like photons (yeah yeah, they *might* have a minute amount of mass, but that's not confirmed yet) don't go faster than C, they go at C. Nothing goes faster than C, that we know of. So we might have to even produce negative mass and who knows how we can do that or if that's even possible with the Higgs Field or some exotic matter.

[Elim Garak]

Yes of course we certainly will.

P.S.
FTL has nothing to do with reaching speeds higher than light speed. It even doesn't have anything to do with the speed of light itself. It only refers to it.
FTL is about going from point A to point B in less time than it would take the light to go from A to B in a straight line.
No it's not required to reach an absolute speed higher than speed of light to accomplish that.

[Nekosom]

I've always held to the basic tenet that the universe is "not only stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we CAN imagine." Do I think we can violate the laws of physics in the traditional sense? Of course not. I do, however, believe that somewhere within the vastness of the cosmos (or the tiniest recesses of our atoms) is the key to allow us to overcome those limits. I just refuse to believe that such a massive and beautiful universe is designed to prevent exploration by beings with the intellectual capacity to appreciate it. That would be such a terrible waste.

One could call that faith...I prefer to call it an educated guess.

[MMKing]

I'm not sure if simply removing mass like Mass Effect suggests, will cut it. Massless objects like photons (yeah yeah, they *might* have a minute amount of mass, but that's not confirmed yet) don't go faster than C, they go at C. Nothing goes faster than C, that we know of. So we might have to even produce negative mass and who knows how we can do that or if that's even possible with the Higgs Field or some exotic matter.

More science is required!

[Merite]

I remember seeing something a while ago about scientists being able to slow down the speed of light; so with terrible logic, if we were able to travel at the speed of light, we would be going faster than the speed of light that we've slowed down!

Other than that, space and time are super relative, I have no issue accepting the possibility of a wormhole or something that bends space / time, allowing for a "faster than light" travel in an absolute sense.

Everything is a theory though, there's a distinct possibility that something goes faster than the speed of light right now, we're discovering new things every day, likely there's things we do not know exist.

[Deleted]

We recently discovered the Higgs Boson, which gives all particles mass.

So what if we find a way to temporarily neutralize the Higgs Bosons within a certain area of space? Everything would be mass-less, and therefor wouldn't be bound to Einsteins equations.

If we can imagine it, we can most certainly achieve it, it's human nature to adapt, achieve, and overcome.

Wouldn't it be totally empty in that area if there was no Higgsfield?. It's not like you just turn invisible.

I think we will manage to warp space or maybe build a wormhole in a very very distant future.

[Sorrior]

Faith based?

First off, i'm an atheist, so no, it's not faith based, humans by our nature find ways to make things work. This is a fact.

Second, of course there are limits to what can actually be achieved, I was referring to things that are proven to not be impossible/theoretically impossible.

Actually I'd say alot of older scientists gad "faith" in themselves as well as science and possibility.

I also feel it'd a trait we're losing.

As for the OP as I love to point out "nothing is impossible merely improbable"

And I'd honestly put FTL in the probable category.


now excuse me as I await hate from those who have a hard time with my perspective.

---------- Post added 2013-05-17 at 11:36 PM ----------

I've always held to the basic tenet that the universe is "not only stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we CAN imagine." Do I think we can violate the laws of physics in the traditional sense? Of course not. I do, however, believe that somewhere within the vastness of the cosmos (or the tiniest recesses of our atoms) is the key to allow us to overcome those limits. I just refuse to believe that such a massive and beautiful universe is designed to prevent exploration by beings with the intellectual capacity to appreciate it. That would be such a terrible waste.

One could call that faith...I prefer to call it an educated guess.

I'd say a nice mix of both LOL.

[Garnier Fructis]

now excuse me as I await hate from those who have a hard time with my perspective.

I shall happily oblige.

As for the OP as I love to point out "nothing is impossible merely improbable"

This cannot be stated with any certainty. At most it is simply your belief.

[Elegiac]

Wouldn't it be totally empty in that area if there was no Higgsfield?. It's not like you just turn invisible.

I think we will manage to warp space or maybe build a wormhole in a very very distant future.

Not necessarily.

If the current models concerning the Higgs reaction are true, objects acquire mass by how much they interact with the Higgs Field. Theoretically speaking, if one could find a way to reduce or neutralize an object's reaction with the Higgs field it would have no interactional mass and be able to approach or exceed light speed; the object would still be there.

Which is a vast oversimplification and probably not practically possible within the next few millennia.

[Tierbook]

I shall happily oblige.



This cannot be stated with any certainty. At most it is simply your belief.

my physics teacher said that any scientist that says something is impossible is not to be trusted

[Elegiac]

my physics teacher said that any scientist that says something is impossible is not to be trusted

Really? So if a scientist said that it's impossible for energy to flow from an area of low concentration to high concentration under normal circumstances, you shouldn't trust them?