Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A new model for faster-than-light travel that uses conventional physics

popularmechanics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 168 posts

Re: A new model for faster-than-light travel that uses conventional physics

#31

Post by kyriakos »

gruez wrote: post #27
papaf wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that human beings are very successful at breeding, I don't see the point of extending lifetimes so space can be explored by geriatric astronauts.

The problem with that is you don't know how willing the next generation is willing to continue carrying out the mission.

People are willing to follow religions because of society, family and peer pressure,I take it they will be willing to do so under the same pressure and for something that can at least be scientifically proved to exist.

Re: A new model for faster-than-light travel that uses conventional physics

#32

Post by jamesgreenleaf »

kyriakos wrote: post #30

What's your opinion on this? Do you believe we are ready for such technology? Imagine at our current state of global politics are we ready to start venturing into space and possibly into planets with life? And I'm not even considering possibilities of Intelligent life.

Have we truly been ready for any of humanity's technological developments? They tend to be very messy, and lead to all sorts of consequences few could predict.

Re: A new model for faster-than-light travel that uses conventional physics

#33

Post by zhengyi13 »

papaf wrote: post #25
rossjudson wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is easier? 1) Faster than light travel. 2) Extend lifetimes so 1) doesn't matter.

Given that human beings are very successful at breeding, I don't see the point of extending lifetimes so space can be explored by geriatric astronauts.

If we assume relatively slow travel, which do you think we'd be more successful at designing?

1) A psychological screening program to select those suited for long life, or

2) A whole society that manages to perpetuate itself long enough to reach the goal?

(Not that these are our only two options in a slow travel scenario)

Re: A new model for faster-than-light travel that uses conventional physics

#34

Post by throwaway_4253 »

phaemon wrote: post #24
pc86 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on the time of day.

Actually it doesn't. The difference between perihelion and aphelion is around 6 million km, and it takes approximately 6 months to cover. That means Earth is moving away or towards the sun at 1 million km per month. That's 33,000 km per day. So 1300 km/h or so? Basically unless you're really fast, climbing the stairs is overwhelmed by other effects. Haven't taken the Earth's rotation into account but it should be les…

I could be wrong, but I think the GP was commenting specifically about time of day? At idealized midnight the vector between you and the sun goes through the center of the Earth, indicating that increasing altitude takes you away from the Sun, instead of towards it. At idealized Noon, the opposite is true.

Re: A new model for faster-than-light travel that uses conventional physics

#35

Post by DennisP »

xyzzy21 wrote: post #10

Not when the system requires energy equivalent to many Jupiters. To create a useful system you'd need to consume a Sun-sized star of mass on a monthly basis. We aren't there and honestly I don't see us ever being there.

The article addresses this. The Alcubierre drive started out using immense amounts of (negative) energy, then people figured out how to reduce that amount by 60 orders of magnitude. The authors think similar techniques might be able to optimize this one.

Re: A new model for faster-than-light travel that uses conventional physics

#36

Post by willis936 »

xyzzy21 wrote: post #10

Not when the system requires energy equivalent to many Jupiters. To create a useful system you'd need to consume a Sun-sized star of mass on a monthly basis. We aren't there and honestly I don't see us ever being there.

Why do you need that much energy? The article claims that the proposed mechanism could lower the energy requirements by 60 orders of magnitude: reasonable to have a grid connected prototype.

I’m as skeptical about this as the next person, but the universe doesn’t make its rules based on my intuition.

Re: A new model for faster-than-light travel that uses conventional physics

#37

Post by giantrobot »

xupybd wrote: post #21
giantrobot wrote: post #18

No, it didn't. It got another paper about a magic doodad powered by unicorn farts.

I can imagine this type of reaction when people started to suggest time past at different rates for different observers.

That's something you can literally demonstrate with accurate clocks and a mountain. This is a mathematical construct that is interesting but it is zero percent closer to any sort of demonstration of the effect let alone an actual implementation. It's frictionless pullies and spherical cows in terms of actual demonstration.

Once something requires more energy than fusion reactions can provide you are at energy levels that transmutes or obliterates matter. That's the point your space ship can't exist anywhere near the reaction site.

Re: A new model for faster-than-light travel that uses conventional physics

#38

Post by jkaplowitz »

rossjudson wrote: post #23
papaf wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My feeling is that interstellar travel will be slow and require many generations of travelers -- or not done by human beings at all.

Which is easier? 1) Faster than light travel. 2) Extend lifetimes so 1) doesn't matter.

I'd rather predict 3) A spaceship large enough and self-sufficient enough that many generations of society can live and die on the spaceship at sub-light speeds. Not the flashy sci-fi solution, but the most likely.

Re: A new model for faster-than-light travel that uses conventional physics

#40

Post by papaf »

zhengyi13 wrote: post #33
papaf wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that human beings are very successful at breeding, I don't see the point of extending lifetimes so space can be explored by geriatric astronauts.

If we assume relatively slow travel, which do you think we'd be more successful at designing? 1) A psychological screening program to select those suited for long life, or 2) A whole society that manages to perpetuate itself long enough to reach the goal? (Not that these are our only two options in a slow travel scenario)

I am assuming that the nearest star is not reachable in a human lifetime (even given some breakthrough in longevity).

The big problem being fuel and how to carry it [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_travel#Required_e...

Post reply on HN