Live data from Hacker News

Is Faster-Than-Light Travel or Communication Possible? (1997)

math.ucr.edu

31–40 of 88 posts

Re: Is Faster-Than-Light Travel or Communication Possible? (1997)

#31
post #14
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of interest, why ice and not (say) steel?

One thing which might be of (tangential) interest here is the novel The Songs of Distant Earth, by Arthur C. Clarke, where the replenishment of this sort of ice buffer plays a prominent role in the plot.

It is easy if you have antigravity.

On a side note, I was surprised at his attempt at a romance novel. I was pretty good, but too long.

Re: Is Faster-Than-Light Travel or Communication Possible? (1997)

#33
The consensus interpretation is that FTL is not possible in normal space, since the speed of something is just another way of looking at how "fast" it travels through time - FTL becomes impossible by definition.

However, there is reason to assume a lot of things may be going on that are not strictly speaking taking place in normal flat space.

The article mentions the expansion of the universe as an example, and that's actually a good point to start. By virtue of the universe expanding, the distance between points grows faster than the speed of light as long as those points are sufficiently far apart. This becomes more interesting when you realize that new space in between these points is being created. Sure, the galaxies traveling on this expanding medium are not actually speeding apart powered by classical movement, but they are nevertheless changing position relative to one another in an interesting way.

In fact, what we're interested in when we talk about FTL is not classical movement at all - what we want is to change positions instead. There are places in nature where we know this is happening right now, for example we do know space can "flow" faster than the speed of light on the far side of event horizons.

So if we abandon the idea that we need to accelerate towards a destination, FTL becomes a broader idea of manipulating spacetime in order to be somewhere in less time than if we had actually flown there at the speed of light. There exist proposals for propulsion systems that go in this direction, for example the "warp drive" ideas that cheat by simply shortening the amount of space a vessel has to travel through. Some of these concepts seem to work in theory, for some definition of work.

The trouble with all these ideas is they need impractical amounts of energy. Which is wasteful, since we only need to bend spacetime for a short while and then return it to its original state behind us, something that works analogous to a catalyst would be much better.

At the most fundamental level though, what we are missing is a way of hacking spacetime. Huge masses and energies are how nature bends it, but ideally we would need some other way of manipulating the fabric of existence directly. This is the reason why drive systems in science fiction all have some kind of yet-unknown mystery substance critical to their function. Given how little we actually know about the basic fabric of the universe, ways of doing these manipulations may well exist. They might not. We most likely won't find out for centuries, if ever.

Until then, we must answer the question so that yes, FTL is most likely possible in theory, but it's not even remotely within our grasp right now. It might never work in practice.

Another observation worth considering: cosmic travel times seem utterly problematic right now because we individually live for extremely short periods of time. Spending a few thousand years in transit is much less worrisome if you're, say, an autonomous machine carrying an AI through the galaxy.

Re: Is Faster-Than-Light Travel or Communication Possible? (1997)

#34

> But multiverses are entirely out of keeping with the Ockham's Razor approach to doing science, and constitute more of a popular interpretation of quantum mechanics than a serious physical theory. The multiverse is not a theory - it's a logical consequence of a simple theory. This claim is logically akin to claiming that the universe is identical to the observable universe, because to propose that matter exists outs…

remember, though that ockham's razor is not an axiom, it's a heuristic.

Re: Is Faster-Than-Light Travel or Communication Possible? (1997)

#35

> But multiverses are entirely out of keeping with the Ockham's Razor approach to doing science, and constitute more of a popular interpretation of quantum mechanics than a serious physical theory. The multiverse is not a theory - it's a logical consequence of a simple theory. This claim is logically akin to claiming that the universe is identical to the observable universe, because to propose that matter exists outs…

remember, though that ockham's razor is not an axiom, it's a heuristic.

Yea, but I feel it's a good heuristic, and I'd like to hold onto it. It seems like a crude, non-mathematical formulation of Solomonoff theory.

Also, Ockham's razor is the best argument in support of the Multiverse view.

Re: Is Faster-Than-Light Travel or Communication Possible? (1997)

#36
post #33

The consensus interpretation is that FTL is not possible in normal space, since the speed of something is just another way of looking at how "fast" it travels through time - FTL becomes impossible by definition. However, there is reason to assume a lot of things may be going on that are not strictly speaking taking place in normal flat space. The article mentions the expansion of the universe as an example, and that'…

"since the speed of something is just another way of looking at how "fast" it travels through time"

In what sense do you mean that? Can you elaborate?

Re: Is Faster-Than-Light Travel or Communication Possible? (1997)

#37
post #4

Is even near (but slower than) light travel possible? Doesn't your spaceship get destroyed the first time you hit some interstellar dust?

> Is even near (but slower than) light travel possible? Sure; send yourself as data. ;) Just don't use comcast. On a less flippant note, in addition to the interstellar dust issue, another fun engineering problem is providing the energy necessary. If you want to send a 50 kilogram person to .99c, you'll have to provide about 4 months worth of the United States current energy production (7 quadrillion btu per month or…

> antimatter engines are probably a prerequisite for relativistic space travel.

I think I'd prefer micro-blackholes as a source of energy. Seems um..."safer" than matter-antimatter, and (probably) a lot cheaper, too.

http://io9.com/5391989/a-black-hole-engine-that-could-power-...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_starship

Re: Is Faster-Than-Light Travel or Communication Possible? (1997)

#38
post #33

The consensus interpretation is that FTL is not possible in normal space, since the speed of something is just another way of looking at how "fast" it travels through time - FTL becomes impossible by definition. However, there is reason to assume a lot of things may be going on that are not strictly speaking taking place in normal flat space. The article mentions the expansion of the universe as an example, and that'…

We in the west are a bit too obsessed with moving fast.

What do we call a common trick in fantasy and SF that allows someone or something to move large distances in a short time? Teleportation. Spacetime stays the same, you just move through it very fast, whether physically or electronically.

By contrast, fantasy tales in China, Japan, and Korea, both modern and traditional, often show the protagonists practicing shukuchi [1], a trick that literally means "reduced earth" or "compressed land". Space is shrunk, and then you move through the shrunk space at a normal speed. It's basically warp drive, but imagined at least a thousand years before Star Trek. The guru's eyelashes don't even blow in the wind because, after all, he's just walking at his usual pace.

A change of paradigm indeed opens the door to a lot more possibilities, at least in theory if not in practice.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shukuchi

Re: Is Faster-Than-Light Travel or Communication Possible? (1997)

#39
post #33

The consensus interpretation is that FTL is not possible in normal space, since the speed of something is just another way of looking at how "fast" it travels through time - FTL becomes impossible by definition. However, there is reason to assume a lot of things may be going on that are not strictly speaking taking place in normal flat space. The article mentions the expansion of the universe as an example, and that'…

>Another observation worth considering: cosmic travel times seem utterly problematic right now because we individually live for extremely short periods of time.

Doesn't relativity "solve" this this problem if we can reach near lightspeed, and don't mind it being a one way trip?

Re: Is Faster-Than-Light Travel or Communication Possible? (1997)

#40
post #33

The consensus interpretation is that FTL is not possible in normal space, since the speed of something is just another way of looking at how "fast" it travels through time - FTL becomes impossible by definition. However, there is reason to assume a lot of things may be going on that are not strictly speaking taking place in normal flat space. The article mentions the expansion of the universe as an example, and that'…

"since the speed of something is just another way of looking at how "fast" it travels through time" In what sense do you mean that? Can you elaborate?

Whenever two objects are in relative motion to one another, they each perceive a time dilation taking place at the other object. The flow of time is directly linked to the relative speed of an object. On an object that moves at the speed of light, time stands still. For more information on the mathematics, I refer you to the Lorentz transformation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation), but it's actually enough if you imagine that increases in speed are causing a decrease in the flow of time, the limit of that process has to be the velocity at which the flow of time is zero.
Post reply on HN