Grand Ship Builder

Why can't we go faster than light? Can't we technically do so?

Recommended Posts

But fictional characters and story plots of repetitive tv-series, salted with tightly dressed women and boys full of muscles aren't exactly science ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we were able to fly faster than light, we would already have arrived.

Edited by kerbiloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2017 at 4:09 AM, mikegarrison said:

Why is there a universe?

Well when a Planck scale bubble of quantum foam and a gauge-invariant scalar field love each other very much...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, KSK said:

Well when a Planck scale bubble of quantum foam and a gauge-invariant scalar field love each other very much...

Yeeeees ... ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Green Baron said:

Yeeeees ... ?

Then probably nothing at all happens because I'm spouting random physics that probably don't make any actual sense. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Bisbeejim said:

I have wished to say this for a long time but so far I could not hold anybody's attention long enough to completely be comprehended.

Star Trek gets around going faster than the speed of light based on the mathematics of Energy = Space (operand) (unknown components and variables). The complete formula is supposed to be the work of Zephram Cochrane. Albert Einstein simple formula of E=mc2 is supposed to be the guide to the fictional character of Cochrane's E=S(space) plus some unknown operands and variables. The concept is to use energy to create space and encircle a starship with it (the fictional name is subspace), the second thing to do is to draw space tightly in then suddenly release it behind the ship. Space will then expand back to its original position and the ship rides the wave. A wave is not a particle and as such space is drawn in tight and suddenly released against the artificial space (subspace). This subspace does not exist in normal space and so is not subject to normal space physical laws. The key to Star Trek's mathematic lies in the unknown formula that energy can create space if all the ingredients are there. In the real-world we don't know if this is possible. I notice some talk about Relativity, I'll have to read up on that again to enter into that discussion. One thing I wanted to clarify was this unknown mathematical formula that Star Trek uses to justify there faster-than-light starships. In theory it might work. The warpfield word used in Star Trek sounds like in means both the subspace field surround the starship and the compressing and expanding of space to create the wave.

I've been wanting to say this for a long time.

Well, according to my Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual, the warp drive works in another manner. The warp field supposedly negates the mass of the ship, along with any increase in relativistic mass caused by motion. The warp field also manipulates....stuff....in a way that provides thrust. Ergo, next-to-zero mass plus no relativistic increase plus thrust equals warp travel. Fancy handwavium is used to prevent any weird time dilation effects and intracacies of the physics provide a "warp speed limit" (although during their journey, the Voyager crew managed to achieve warp 10, infinite speed. But naturally this caused the crew to hyper-evolve into lizards so it was mothballed [even though the hyper evolution was, naturally, totally reversible]).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Star Trek applies misunderstood newtonian physics (a ray "impact" shakes the whole ship but "acceleration" to light speed doesn't cause anything) to a changing (from episode to episode) set of fantasy "physics", written down by a plot writer who might be less educated in the stuff than we are. Since a lot of people (including me) find it nice (until voyager) a lot of money is involved and so a lot of merchandising can be generated, including books explaining the fantasy world's "physics".

Btw., the simple phrases and repetitive dialogues of the series make them ideal for becoming accustomed to the sound of a new language ;-)

Edit: i don't mean Klingon by that :-))

Edited by Green Baron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the matter is not to go faster than light, it's to live longer than a photon to see if there is something faster or slower

Edited by WinkAllKerb''

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speed limits just hold monkeys in their enclosures, keeping Galaxy safe.
Orbital speed holds them on their native planet.
Light speed holds them at their native star.
Adult civilizations live for millions years and don't care.
First Ones live for billions and use blue giants as flashlights.

Edited by kerbiloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Green Baron said:

Star Trek applies misunderstood newtonian physics (a ray "impact" shakes the whole ship but "acceleration" to light speed doesn't cause anything) to a changing (from episode to episode) set of fantasy "physics", written down by a plot writer who might be less educated in the stuff than we are. Since a lot of people (including me) find it nice (until voyager) a lot of money is involved and so a lot of merchandising can be generated, including books explaining the fantasy world's "physics".

Btw., the simple phrases and repetitive dialogues of the series make them ideal for becoming accustomed to the sound of a new language ;-)

Edit: i don't mean Klingon by that :-))

Biggest mystery is why all starships are required to store dynamite inside control panels.

Also funny - multiple references in TNG to "tetrion particle" radiation.

Funny because

41KZd61zpDL._SX425_.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, p1t1o said:

Biggest mystery is why all starships are required to store dynamite inside control panels.

Also funny - multiple references in TNG to "tetrion particle" radiation.

Funny because

They [the dynamite] aren't required.  Engineering installs them (and cuts out the seat belts) to keep line officers from requiring too much abuse of the ship.  Either the Line officers haven't realized it, or they simply can't stop the continual insertion of dynamite included parts in the ship.  By TNG times, the tradition is so ingrained it might as well be required.

I'm pretty sure TNG was over before google existed (although maybe alta-vista popped it up and they stopped).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, wumpus said:

I'm pretty sure TNG was over before google existed (although maybe alta-vista popped it up and they stopped).

Indeed, a short search showed that TNG was over 4 years before Google was founded :-)

Even Altavista didn't exist yet by then, and "Internet", what's that ?

Edited by Green Baron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Green Baron said:

Indeed, a short search showed that TNG was over 4 years before Google was founded :-)

Even Altavista didn't exist yet by then, and "Internet", what's that ?

Actually the "eternal September" started in September 1993 (mostly a coincidence, the name comes from the similarity to the wave of freshman discovering the internet each September), while "All Good Things" (last TNG episodes) aired May 1994.  Altavista would start the year after.

So the public was already discovering this "internet" thing, although plenty may have thought it part of AOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty soon we will need to travel faster than light to get back to the subject of this thread. Let's please get back on-topic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everybody talking about the speed of light while actually it's the speed of causality hence the c. The speed of light in vacuum just happens to be as fast as the speed of causality but if light travels through different mediums it can have different speeds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it, when photons travel through different mediums they are still always moving at c.  The apparent slowdown is from them being absorbed and then emitted by the atoms of the medium.  I am not a physicist though.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, SuperFastJellyfish said:

As I understand it, when photons travel through different mediums they are still always moving at c.  The apparent slowdown is from them being absorbed and then emitted by the atoms of the medium.  I am not a physicist though.  :)

I think that there are also some weird quantum mechanical things going on, since photons are not literally particles but field quanta (or somesuch), and they can interact with other fields in weird ways. But yes, I am also of this opinion, that "photons" never really travel through free space (something that there is plenty of in any material) at less than c, I think it is forbidden for them to do so. But because of the quantum weirdness it harder to make the distinction.

Edited by p1t1o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Vanamonde said:

Pretty soon we will need to travel faster than light to get back to the subject of this thread. Let's please get back on-topic. 

There's only so many ways to say "the laws of physics say so".  Admittedly, while the theory behind "speed of causality" largely depends on veneration of Maxwell's Equations*, experimental results keep pounding away that it really works that way.

* this made all kinds of sense when Special Relativity was published, but hasn't really been the supreme work of physics for quite some time.  Nevertheless, its complete indifference to frame of reference has been shown to be true even while quantum level electrodynamics had to be rewritten a number of times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well photon are a volume moving inside another volume, when a volume travel in another volume, then come the ratio of encountering others stuff on the way, and what's is inside each volume

so what happen when two photon in the exact same direction speed and caracteristic meet each others ? don't push the congestion behind and in front ?

emit/push & receive/transform mostly may be ... @ medium//friction//resistance//transparence//ignore well this is mostly geometry low scale (molecule & smaller ) related & uniformity of a medium // non uniformity of a medium ?

 

Edited by WinkAllKerb''

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, WinkAllKerb'' said:

well photon are a volume moving inside another volume, when a volume travel in another volume, then come the ratio of encountering others stuff on the way, and what's is inside each volume

so what happen when two photon in the exact same direction speed and caracteristic meet each others ? don't push the congestion behind and in front ?

emit/push & receive/transform mostly may be ... @ medium//friction//resistance//transparence//ignore well this is mostly geometry low scale (molecule & smaller ) related & uniformity of a medium // non uniformity of a medium ?

 

I'm sorry. I know there are many people in this forum for whom English is not a first language, and I respect your contributions. But I really can't understand what you are asking here at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2017 at 3:08 PM, WinkAllKerb'' said:

so what happen when two photon in the exact same direction speed and caracteristic meet each others ? 

Accordingly to the scientific consensus* it never, never, ever happens. 

Edit: As pointed by @KSK photons are Bosons. I was thinking about how Fermions behave and brainfarted.

*scientific consensus is when all scientists would love to tell something is wrong (but didn't found a convincing way) and at same time everyone is ready call anyone that say it an idiot. 

Edited by Spricigo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wave, flow,wind  ; same sometime = constant ; sometime = not constant ;;; change size and time scale

 

Edited by WinkAllKerb''
sorry to metaphorically describe it simple as a concept not a modelization

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i speak google, very slowly, mind you ?

wDMyq8e.jpg

well just sayin there some interesting similitude ... and scale difference

search meta engine / query= wave, flow,wind  ; same sometime = constant ; sometime = not constant ;;; change size and time scale

for the previous post as you can see i have a few littl very specific thing in mind and i just try to sum up at best:

 

Spoiler

1qhjHfS.jpg

 

Edited by WinkAllKerb''
i may explain that slowly to not my wife whenever she find me ; correct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, WinkAllKerb'' said:

i speak google, very slowly, mind you ?

well, the problem is: it becomes really difficult to undertand without some structure, at least make  an attempt to build sentences.  We may try to get a hint from the context, but a bunch of loose words offers us no context.

I mean: if  is important enough to post, you want people to undertand it. Correct?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope I am not speaking out of turn, but sometimes there are barriers other than language or effort to communication. Communication is one of the supreme challenges between entities and sometimes it is just difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.