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

41–50 of 168 posts

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

#41

Post by kyriakos »

jamesgreenleaf wrote: post #32
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.

We somehow managed to survive nuclear weapons (so far). But imagine things as simple as a pathogen or invasive species from space the kind of mess it will create when a year later covid is still not under control.

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

#42

Post by papaf »

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.

If they grow up and then turn around, my guess is that their chances of seeing Earth for the first time would be slim.

It does raise a moral argument though for only using robots.

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

#43

Post by kelnos »

giantrobot wrote: post #37
xupybd wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Pretty sure when relativity was worked out we didn't have clocks accurate enough. IIRC several of the predictions made by relativity were only able to be tested years later, the Michelson-Morley experiment being the only one performed prior to Einstein's work.

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

#44

Post by nine_k »

papaf wrote: post #16
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.

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

Hibernation is being forgotten here. Many mammals are capable of it, so it should be within a more probable reach than making humans actively live 500 years, to say nothing of superluminal travel.

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

#46

Post by 8note »

throwaway_4253 wrote: post #34
phaemon wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But the speed at which the earth is approaching the sun makes a biggers difference than your flight of stairs?

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

#47

Post by bribroder »

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.

Warp drives, maybe not, but multigenerational space travel at slow speeds might actually require a certain amount of social cohesion and cooperative tendency, as well as a pioneer's ambitious personality--the rigors of the journey combined with those of establishing civilization on a planet without any humans to enslave and manipulate will add up to significant selective pressure on settlers.

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

#48

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

willis936 wrote: post #39
valuearb wrote: post #22

How does this solve the causality paradox?

There is no causality paradox with warp drives.

Nope. Literally any method of getting from A to B faster than light would, has a causality paradox. it does not matter if you cover the miles between FTL, or pop out of a hypothetical wormhole gate: If you end up outside of your own light cone, no matter how, there's a causality paradox.

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

#50

Post by willis936 »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #48
willis936 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no causality paradox with warp drives.

Nope. Literally any method of getting from A to B faster than light would, has a causality paradox. it does not matter if you cover the miles between FTL, or pop out of a hypothetical wormhole gate: If you end up outside of your own light cone, no matter how, there's a causality paradox.

Warp drives do not violate the speed of causality; they change the geometry of causality.
Post reply on HN