Live data from Hacker News

Warp Drive May Be More Feasible Than Thought, Scientists Say

news.yahoo.com

71–80 of 186 posts

Re: Warp Drive May Be More Feasible Than Thought, Scientists Say

#71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Causality, though, is a postulate in the system. If you start with the assumption that faster-than-light is impossible and build a system around that, the system you build around that assumption will always prove that it's impossible -- until something else proves otherwise.

Causality it NOT a postulate of the system. General Relativity fully allows for universes in which causality does not hold. Such universes would either turn out to be either very strange, or actual use of FTL drives would have to be extremely rare.

Pick two: relativity, causality, FTL travel.

Re: Warp Drive May Be More Feasible Than Thought, Scientists Say

#72
post #42
post #10

As much as it pains me to say this, but I think we have to invent some more advanced weapons before we start poking our heads out of our galaxy. Don't get me wrong, this is fantastic and I'm all tingly from excitement (this is the first time I've read about warp drives in the context of real science) ... but like I said, taking a stroll trough the galaxy with our bombs and finding a hostile alien world. Well we'd be…

For anyone interested in the (just for fun) topic of technological advancement, weaponry, and encounters with other civilizations, you should check out Vernor Vinge's Zone of Thought novels, a Fire Upon the Deep and A Deepness in the Sky . I can't recommend them enough. In particular, he assumes that all civilizations will follow roughly the same arc of technological discovery, and that once they hit their informatio…

Was AI accounted for at all? If super-intelligence can be achieved then technological advancement becomes more or less an issue of logistics, not time.

Re: Warp Drive May Be More Feasible Than Thought, Scientists Say

#73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>You are not correct. If anything with information travels faster than the speed of light, then there are frames of reference in which that information arrived at the destination before it left the origin. No. If you send a radio signal to Mars, and then warp to Mars to find yourself there 0.1 seconds later, you are still 0.1 seconds after the moment on which you sent the signal from the point of origin. You are tra…

Nothing you just said contradicts my statement, which was, "there are frames of reference in which that information arrived at the destination before it left the origin." I suspect that you don't know anything at all about Special Relativity, in which case, there's not much more I can tell you except to go educate yourself.

This is as good a place to start as any:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

Re: Warp Drive May Be More Feasible Than Thought, Scientists Say

#74

You can't have faster than light travel without violations of causality. And while the equations of General Relatively allow for universes where causality is routinely violated, the probability that we are in such a universe seems vanishingly small. E.g., just because you can violate causality does not mean that you can go back in time and kill your grandfather. If you were to try, something would stop you, as a univ…

[deleted]

Re: Warp Drive May Be More Feasible Than Thought, Scientists Say

#75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems more likely to me, and at least hypothetically possible, that they've been in space as long or longer than us. Statistically, that's a near certainty. In the timeframes of galaxies and evolution, the chances that all the other intelligent species are also just a few hundred years into the industrial revolution is essentially zero.

There is of course the (admittedly astonishingly unlikely) chance that we're first. I mean someone has to be the first ones up, and since life on other planets is looking more and more factual other intelligent life should be around and other intellegent life if it was more advanced than us should be MUCH more advanced and we'd see evidence of them changing the galaxy. Since we don't well, maybe we're first.

One thing that doesn't really get brought up enough is the transition from intelligent life to advanced civilization. Due to our sample size, it is impossible for us to even make a rough guess at the odds of a successful transformation from one to the other. It is possible that we are significantly overestimating the odds of intelligent life successfully making the transition.

And keep in mind we are only part way there as well. It is possible that something like climate change (or some other natural/man-made disaster) ends our society before we ever achieve sustainable colonization.

Re: Warp Drive May Be More Feasible Than Thought, Scientists Say

#77

You can't have faster than light travel without violations of causality. And while the equations of General Relatively allow for universes where causality is routinely violated, the probability that we are in such a universe seems vanishingly small. E.g., just because you can violate causality does not mean that you can go back in time and kill your grandfather. If you were to try, something would stop you, as a univ…

Since QED and relativity aren't consistent, and QED says that can photons travel at speeds less than and greater than c, isn't it possible that relativity is just probabilistically true but not "enforced" to be true?

Re: Warp Drive May Be More Feasible Than Thought, Scientists Say

#78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume travelling near speed of light with conventional physics is impossible, since the ship's mass would crush itself as it increased infinitely. Warp drives, on the other hand, seem to work by moving space-time, not the ship. So in theory the ship is left intact, without the people inside feeling any acceleration whatsoever.

I'm fairly certain that wouldn't be an issue. Relativity means that any (let's say non-accelerating, to keep us within the context of special relativity) reference frame is just as good as another. In the spacecraft's reference frame, it's chilling out, and a bunch of stars off a ways are moving really fast, but they don't really affect it. It is an interesting problem though; I'm not really sure why it can't crush i…

Aside from the light from stars directly in front of them that becomes hard gamma rays at high speeds.

Re: Warp Drive May Be More Feasible Than Thought, Scientists Say

#79

You can't have faster than light travel without violations of causality. And while the equations of General Relatively allow for universes where causality is routinely violated, the probability that we are in such a universe seems vanishingly small. E.g., just because you can violate causality does not mean that you can go back in time and kill your grandfather. If you were to try, something would stop you, as a univ…

Since QED and relativity aren't consistent, and QED says that can photons travel at speeds less than and greater than c, isn't it possible that relativity is just probabilistically true but not "enforced" to be true?

Since I don't know anything about QED, I'm not equipped to answer this question. What I can say, however, is that much of what we consider to be "causality" is just a matter of probability. There's nothing in the fundamental laws of physics that says that a flower pot that fell off the window sill and broke into a million pieces an hour ago, can't now suddenly put itself back together and then fly back onto the sill, just as if nothing had ever gone awry. The fact that flower pots don't typically tend to do so, is that this turn of events is extremely unlikely.

In fact, as far as fundamental physics goes, the forward arrow of time and the backward arrow of time are indistinguishable. I.e., if you were to look at a movie of subatomic particles interacting, you wouldn't be able to tell, if you didn't already know, if the film were being played forwards or being played backwards. (As a slight caveat to this--a caveat that does not detract from what I am saying, but should be mentioned for the sake of completeness--there is one tiny aspect of fundamental particle physics that breaks this time symmetry, but it is a rather subtle one. The physicists who discovered this won a Nobel prize, and as I understand it, why this symmetry should be broken--no matter how subtle the effect--is still a deep mystery.)

What we consider to be the forward arrow of time comes completely from thermodynamics, not from fundamental law. E.g., if the Big Bang occurred at the end of time, rather than the beginning of time, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference, because from our point of view, that would end up being the beginning of time anyway.

Re: Warp Drive May Be More Feasible Than Thought, Scientists Say

#80
post #72
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For anyone interested in the (just for fun) topic of technological advancement, weaponry, and encounters with other civilizations, you should check out Vernor Vinge's Zone of Thought novels, a Fire Upon the Deep and A Deepness in the Sky . I can't recommend them enough. In particular, he assumes that all civilizations will follow roughly the same arc of technological discovery, and that once they hit their informatio…

Was AI accounted for at all? If super-intelligence can be achieved then technological advancement becomes more or less an issue of logistics, not time.

Yes, in fact AI of super-human intelligence plays a central role. To go into much detail would spoil one of the books, but needless to say Vinge supposes that exponential improvements in computing power will inevitably lead to that happening, and he does as good a job as I've seen anywhere in exploring the ramifications.
Post reply on HN