Finding A Way To The Stars , Time ?

[Rider]

I would like to know the time you guys think about our own human race will take to find a way of reaching the stars faster than the speed of light or to find something like the wormhole were one person just goes through it and reaches through the otherside within a few seconds and somehow reach the star system. So when do you guys think it will be found.
I have thought of 4 choices .

1) Within 10 years

2) Within 30 years

3) Around 60 years

4) Or atleast in 200 years

 

[Ghost]

Never

 

[Fishbone]

hmm...not 'never'...maybe we'll once find a way to travel faster than light, but I also don't think that wormholes exist.
But you were very optimistic with your choices...I'd additionally say 200+ 1000 years. *g* Then it *could* be possible.... but concerning such things I am usually optimistic...travelling faster than light seems impossible because of the physical rules in general, but who knows. I also know it is utopic, but dreaming must be allowed *g*

 

[Dark Tower]

FTL is possible if you can figure out how to survive the time distortion problem. ps the speed of light is not constant, just some fuel to the fire.

 

[Shooter]

Considering the advances the human race has made in the last 100 years, I think that in the period of the next 200 years space flight will be a very normal thing. Wormholes are not proven to exist, yet.

 

[Lynx]

I believe Stephen Hawking said if wormholes exist and you have the right technolgy a thing can enter them but nothing can get out of the event horizon. You would be trapped inside.

 

[Ladiesman^]

I think it's too hard to call.

1) We don't even know if they exist

2) We could stumble upon one next week, or in 900 years.

I think we will have FTL drives in the future. How far I can't tell you. They say FTL is impossible...but they said breaking the sound barrier was impossible....but we did that. I don't think it's impossible. If we put our mind to it, we can do it.

From what I understand, there are two good theories on ways to go FTL, or near FTL. One is Matter/Antimatter, which they think would work but they can't get enough antimatter. The other invovled a nuclear explosion to sort of push the ship.

 

[Wulf]

Stephen Hawking and PM magazine

I read in 'Scientific American' that he already had a strong theory about warp tech, and proved it was possible (about 3 years ago). Also, Popular Mechanics released NASA designs of future engines for sub-light and warp speeds recently. It will be more like 80-85 years b4 we have anything like that for a prototype, though.

 

[Napoleon]

we do know that wormholes exist, if einstien's reletivity exists so do wormholes, but they are smaller than atoms, and we need about the mass of jupiter worth of "exotic" matter (matter that gives off negative energy) to hold one that is 1 meter in diameter open. as such it isn't that easy a thing to do. but we could go to alpha centauri in 20 years, figure about 10 to make enough antimatter for a 2 way trip (by far the best powersource for such a journey) then send a small crew on the ship figure traveling at about .5 c (since it could have an AIM ion engine and could accelerate there and then decelerate) then they spend like a few months to a year there then return in another 10 years, having been gone for 20 years on the outside but most likely only 10 for them.

To make FTL work the most likely theory involves moving the space surounding an object at FTL speeds rather than the object itself. To make that work a huge amount of negative energy is necessary (yet less than the amount to make a wormhole exist) the amount that is necessary is doable in the forseeable future but would be quite difficult and would be very positive energy intensive to do.

 

[Unforgiven]

First off: Lynx, that's black holes, not wormholes. And you needn't worry about getting trapped inside, since time dilution would get near infinite when approaching the event horizon, so from your perspective, you'll never enter it. And you'd be dead anyway.
If the theory of General Relativity is valid, then wormholes do exist and FTL is possible. The problem is that you can't get the energy balance working for these situations, and since you can't create or 'lose' energie, you'd need aforementioned 'exotic' matter, and it's existence isn't proven yet.
Natural wormholes likely also exist. It would be two places that can be lightyears apart in the 3rd dimension that happen to have extreme gravity distortions (image a 4D whirlpool) meet and the gravity distortions connect. Those are not very practical: the gravity distortion makes it almost impossible to pass through, they would only be large enough for a few atoms and would never exist more than a few nanoseconds.
For those of you still uncertain what a wormhole exactly is: imagine a 2 dimensional being. This being is not aware that the 3rd dimension we know so well exists. This being lives in a world that is for him two-dimensional, let's say a piece of paper. Extraordinary things are possible here. If we connect the edges of the paper together, our 2d being could walk a while in one direction and end up on the same place, never comprehending how that happened. Two beings could be on opposite sides of the paper, only a few millimeters away in 3D space, but never realise it. Now we fold the paper, and stick a pensil through it. Now we've created a bridge from one place on the paper to another that according to the 2D beings could never exist. Now extent this principle to a possible 4th dimension, for us only perceptible as gravity, and you know how a wormhole would work.
FTL drives usually are based on some principle like contracting the space in front of you (in the 4th dimension, so you're not actually making the 3D distance shorter) whilst expanding the space behind you. Warp drive in Star Trek is based on doing that locally and thus creating a 'wave' of expanding space behind you that you can ride until your local pocket of unaffected space has reached it's destination.

 

[Chameleon102]

Fair enough, wormholes exist, but nothing bigger than an atomic nucleus can go through it.

And light's the speed limit for the universe....wierd, alieny things would happen @ light speed.

However, as soon as I find out that someone called Shari Akwende is looking into the field, my faith'll be restored (Akwende Drive a.k.a Jump Drive)!

 

[Lynx]

I 've read about another theory that wormholes could be born when two black holes crash into another at high speed. But the tunnel would be very unstable, if you try to enter it it would cease to exist.

 

[Bhaktadil]

I'm afraid not all of this is entirely correct, to some degree.Actually, we humans do know the amount of energy it would take to rip a hole in the space-time continuum(using it to travel is something entirely different).It is the Plank Energy or 10-to the 19th power -billion electron volts.That is,charging an electron with that amount mentioned.That is roughly one quadrillion times the ammount of energy which would have been produced by the SSC supercollider which was going to be produced in Dallas.Unfortunately,it was canned.

We do not realy know what will happen if we could attain that energy, however.Negative energy is to missunderstood ,at the moment, to make it practical for FTL.Plus,nothing has been definitely theorized that negative energy could open wormholes.Negative energy has been theorized to alow time travel,however.Natural wormholes could exist,but they are subatomic in scale.The warp drive, such as in Star Trek, does not exactly work by using another dimension.It operates by actually warping the space around it.Think of it this way,think of yourself on a rug and you want to get to a table,so you use a rope and and pull yourself to the table. In the process, the rug folds together bringing you to the table.Wormholes do operate on a principle like unforgiven stated.But,this principle is related closely to SuperString theory.If superstrings turn out to be correct then the chances of wormholes grow as well.While superstrings predicts the exisence of 6 and sometimes 7 extra spatial dimensions unfortunately they are to small.They are at the Planck length which is ten to the exponet of 33cm.Thus,it would not be practical.Some have even theoized that wormholes could lead to other parts of the multiverse or even time.Multiple universes have since become a fairly credible theory(this would also fit right in with art director Mark Vearrier's idea of the Nephilim coming from the an aquatic like universe.This was stated by him in an preview of Prophecy by Next Generation magazine).

So when will we have FTL,I do not know.It is just so unpredictable.Probably not in the forseeable 200 years.But,who knows, we might discover a revolution which could give us this,or we could find that wormholes realy do not exist and that we are doomed to STL travel forever.

On a side note,I have studied quite a bit of physics,but if I'm wrong I'm sure Meson could correct me if he is still around.

 

[Dark Tower]

Originally posted by Unforgiven
The problem is that you can't get the energy balance working for these situations, and since you can't create or 'lose' energie, you'd need aforementioned 'exotic' matter, and it's existence isn't proven yet.

IIRC at the quatium level energy does appear and dissapear without a known reason.

The major question is how do you do it without any temporial problems. Also unimited energy has is surgested to exists if you slow a particle going faster than light to near light speed conceverably emiting never limitless energy.
PS Does anyone know what the final speed of deep space is exspected to be?

 

[Ladiesman^]

Originally posted by Dark Tower


IIRC at the quatium level energy does appear and dissapear without a known reason.

The major question is how do you do it without any temporial problems. Also unimited energy has is surgested to exists if you slow a particle going faster than light to near light speed conceverably emiting never limitless energy.
PS Does anyone know what the final speed of deep space is exspected to be?

I still don't understand why there would be temporal problems. I mean, going faster than light is going faster than light...not time. I think Einstein said something along the lines of going faster than light would cause time problems, but how did he really know? No one knows if there would be temporal problems with FTL travel. You would just be moving really really fast. Can someone explain WHY there would be temporal problems to me?

 

[Mekt-Hakkikt]

Originally posted by Ladiesman^
I think it's too hard to call.
(...)
2) We could stumble upon one next week, or in 900 years.

That's my main problem too. Someone could just stumble over sth really important that could bring us a major step forward next week or not. I believe many phenomenons were discovered by accident/coincidence/chance or "try-and-error".

 

[BibbDoo]

I still don't understand why there would be temporal problems. I mean, going faster than light is going faster than light...not time

According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, the faster an object travels, the slower time will pass for it.

Einstein said something along the lines of going faster than light would cause time problems, but how did he really know?

This has been proven many many times always with the same result. The first such time was sometime in the 50s I believe: Physicists synchronized two atmoic clocks. One was then taken aboard a jet airplane and flown around the world while the other remained stationary on the ground. After the voyage was completed, the two were brought back together and the time each measured was compared. The clock which was on the airplane was behind the one that stayed on the ground. Time passed slower for the clock on the plane, thus making it register less time passing and putting it behind the other clock. It was only something like a billionth of a nanosecond, but there was definately a measurable difference. At current speeds, approx. 500-600knots, the time difference is so low that there really is no difference, however at the speed of light and beyond, this difference could be very large, depending on how long you were traveling. This experiment has been done many times since then using faster planes and more accurate clocks and every time the same result has been observed.

 

[Ladiesman^]

It certainly makes more sense now. Thanks Bibbdoo.

so then taking that, if I understand correctly, let's say something is moving at 100x the speed of light. So at that speed, the marvel of science would say there is a big slowdown of time. So if the time is slower on the ship going this speed....the ship could get to point A in a year. But to the crew of the ship, and instruments and everything, would actually take more than a year to get there.

That's very odd. Looks like there's more in store for us to tackle than just the speed thing. Wouldn't it suck to be on a ship to Rigel VII for a 2 year trip, but your there for 4 years on the ship.

So then pretty much, we're screwed. It apparently doesn't matter how fast we can make the ship go...the people will still take forver to get there.

Stupid physics.

 

[Eder]

Actually, I believe the crew of the ship would "notice" less time passing than anything that's not on the ship, and thus, after 2 years of travel, that crew would be only one year older than when they departed, and any onboard clocks or calendars would be 1 year late. (like the clock on the jet plane registered less time passing than the one outside the jet plane)

Now someone with more knowledge please tell me... am I wrong again?

--Eder

 

[Wulf]

: Physicists synchronized two atmoic clocks. One was then taken aboard a jet airplane and flown around the world while the other remained stationary on the ground. After the voyage was completed, the two were brought back together and the time each measured was compared. The clock which was on the airplane was behind the one that stayed on the ground. Time passed slower for the clock on the plane, thus making it register less time passing and putting it behind the other clock.

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but that could have been fixed. This could be argued forever but I might as well put my chips in .
I still believe that if I called someone and told them that by using faster-than-light propulsion I would be there in 30 seconds after I hung up, then it would be 30 seconds regardless. After all, speed (or Velocity)=Distance/Time (V=D/T). If Y distance/30 sec., I would end up with X (in this case, faster than light speed). I believe that time cannot be altered on ANY side because then the equation would not be an equation after all. REMEMBER, you cannot take away from one side W/O THE OTHER. Thank you.....I will now accept written thrashings.