Bungie Universe
This topic has moved here: Subject: How would you invent FTL travel?
  • Subject: How would you invent FTL travel?
Subject: How would you invent FTL travel?

We believe that the universe is unbounded: this is not the same as infinite: the 2-D surface of a sphere, wrapped around a 3rd dimension, has a finite size, but has no end. If you start off in a given direction on the surface of a sphere, you could return to your start point without having to turn around -- you simply go all the way around. But wouldn't that mean the universe has an escape velocity like the earth?

Posted by: Venator82

Posted by: tsassi2
I am always glad that someone corrects my mistakes with well thought out reasoning. You should be too.


But they're aren't correcting me; they're throwing me off like I'm another bug to squish.
Thank you for the advice, but when somebody actually looks at it and the logic and finds ways to make it better, then I will accept it.
Not if they stick their noses up at it like trash on the street and treat Einstein like Jesus Christ in comparison.


Well, looks like you are doing the same thing. Im yet to see these logical fallacies. You say you have logical issues, explain them. Tell me what they are, instead of saying you have them without trying to show how it doesn't work. The fact Im trying to understand your case while you simply say you have something and don't back it up doesn't help you at all. By the way, no religious fanfare here please.

~B2

  • 01.20.2011 2:22 AM PDT

We believe that the universe is unbounded: this is not the same as infinite: the 2-D surface of a sphere, wrapped around a 3rd dimension, has a finite size, but has no end. If you start off in a given direction on the surface of a sphere, you could return to your start point without having to turn around -- you simply go all the way around. But wouldn't that mean the universe has an escape velocity like the earth?

Posted by: tsassi2

Posted by: Venator82
Posted by: Bungie2
The research though, do elaborate, im curious.


I'm sorry, research was the wrong word; logic problems is better. But I did show you my problems and solutions in simple form. I'm a logic person, not a math person, meaning I look for common sense where there is none to be seen, unlike a math person who looks for ways to make something they didn't create, and make that make sense to the common person who can't understand it. If my theories don't make the slightest sense to you, they never will. If it did, Message me and I can try and make it make more sense; without math, which is a cowards way of making sense of something because math can say anything you want.

P.S. Just because you have a friend at CERN doesn't mean he's right nor does it mean you are. I had an uncle who was the Royal Guard. Does that make me royalty? Hell no, not even the slightest closer than anybody else I live around.

P.P.S. You make it sound like the way I do things differently than great minds like Einstein, but you do realize Einstein was a philosopher who did his theories like me, and did very, very little of his math; he asked friends to do the math for him. Did you know that?

If you try to use common sense with things like FTL travel and higher than 3 dimensional objects you are getting nowhere. I personally also use logic but only when my mathematics skills aren't good enough (My theory on this thread is a good example and I am happy to see that Bungie 2 took it forward. Thank you B2) The fact is that when you are trying to explain quantum mechanics with common sense you simply can't.

In my theory I tried to explain what it would be like to be in a 11 dimensional space but I couldn't because I wouldn't even know where to start as spacial dimensions are x, y, z but what comes after x?

You may invent a good theory with common sense but you will need mathematics to prove it. Otherwise it will be nothing.

I am always glad that someone corrects my mistakes with well thought out reasoning. You should be too.


Correct my friend :), Common Sense is fairly uncommon in the Quantum world, and Questions have yet to be understood, questions which would be answerable right now according to if Common Sense existed in the smallest of scales. Unfortunately this is not the case.

In fact, heres a quote from an Article

"In comparison to classical physics, quantum physics predicts that the properties of a quantum mechanical system depend on the measurement context, i.e. whether or not other system measurements are carried out. A team of physicists from Innsbruck, Austria, led by Christian Roos and Rainer Blatt, have for the first time proven in a comprehensive experiment that it is not possible to explain quantum phenomena in non-contextual terms."

Enough for you Venator? How about the fact Quantum mechanics is contradictory to common sense in every way? This is not Classical Newtonian Physics, this is Quantum, Einsteinian, Deep non-sensical physics, where unified forces are broken down, and common classic physics is rendered useless.

But lets put some points. There are 5 main points that are established in Classical Physics...

-Determinism
-Reality
-Continuity
-Causality (my favourite)
-Locality

Its all part of the Common Sense of Physics right? Lets break it down.

-Causality: The relationship between an event and a second event, where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first, as copied from another textbook. The theory of relativity destroys this in a way as it proves time dilation, where a ship constantly accelerates and circles the Milky Way. To the crew on the ship, its a steady 300 years or so, and to the people on the Earth, its a good 100,000+ years.

-Reality: An absolute reality independent of us is incorrect because we now know that fundamental properties of the world are not determined before they are observed. An unobserved reality is radically different than the one we see.

-Determinism: This Relies on Causality, Reality and definitely Certainty. So this breaks down on its own because the factors are useless in quantum physics.

-Continuity: At Quantum, extreme small scales, space-time itself is hardly as smooth as it looks, and no longer contiguous.

-Locality: Look up Quantum Entanglement, nothing is absolutely separate in the Quantum scale, rather Quantum objects, through spacetime are connected instantaneously.

This in turn proves six points, thanks to Quantum Mechanics:

-The future, most definitely uncertain.
-Matter is affected by consciousness, funnily enough
-Our common perception of reality is false.
-Free-will? Confirmed.
-Time Dilation and the effect of time individual to the observer? Correct.
-Probability theorem? Looks like "True" Probability exists after all.

With this, String theory, even parallel universes, all plausible. Even the energy required to plausibly create portals with the bubbling of spacetime has been calculated with Planck Energy, Represented by E(p) below.

E(p) = sqrt(planck constant*c^5)/G ~ 1.956*10^9J ~ 1.22*10^19 GeV ~ 0.5433 MWh

G=gravitational constant
c=2.99*10^8

Of course Ep can also equal (plancks constant)/t(p) where t(p) would be the corresponding Planck time.

Anyway, thats enough math for tonight. Reply if you have another questions and ill be on in 10 hrs or so.

~B2

  • 01.20.2011 2:50 AM PDT

Have you ever seen Event Horizon

I ain't never goin' in to slipspace!

  • 01.20.2011 3:05 AM PDT

I don't care. I really don't.

Posted by: Bungie2

[EDIT 1]
Take a look at this hole my step-father found:

E=mc^2, which can also be written as c=square root of e/m.
So, if m ----> 0, then c ----> infinite. If m e ----> infinite, then c ----> 0.
If speed=distance/time, and c--->infinite then c=(distance=constant /time ----> 0).
So, speed of light is not a constant, as the theoretical God Particle ---> 0 mass, and the very real black hole ----> infinite mass, meaning Einstein's own equation shows the speed of light is not a constant, and is as variable as our speed; this means the God Particle can move from one point in the universe to another in ---->0 time, and a black hole can be at absolute rest for ---->infinite time.

Everything you're throwing at me is showing that you are simply going in circles around yourselves.
If you want to show me I am wrong, show me using philosohpy, to make me understand in a way everyone can, especially as I am not fluent in the universal launguage of Mathematics.

I am not attempting to throw you away; I am simply trying to see why you believe something that was derived logic at that time of it's inception when that time was more than half a century ago.

[EDIT 1]

[Edited on 01.20.2011 4:14 PM PST]

  • 01.20.2011 12:22 PM PDT


Posted by: Venator82

Posted by: Bungie2

If you want math, I'll show you math.
Take a look at this hole my step-father found:

E=mc^2, which can also be written as c=square root of e/m.
So, if m equals 0, then c becomes infinite. If m e=infinite, then c becomes 0.
If speed=distance/time, and c=infinite then c=distance=constant/time=0.
So, speed of light is not possibly a constant,

You're fundamentally misusing that formula because you're misinterpreting what those symbols actually stand for and the restraints imposed upon them by their definitions. Let's rewrite it using proper english terminology as it is derived:
(Rest Energy)=("Newtonian" rest mass)*c^2

If rest mass m=0, then the rest energy E is also 0, and you do not wind up with c=infitinite but, rather, c=undefined (but it's defined and winds up being ~3*10^8m/s everywhere else, so it's really just a limits problem).

Basically, you're trying to apply a situation where E!=m*c^2 (in your case, {m=0,E!=0}) onto a formula which defines E as m*c^2. Of course it's going to get all wonky.



For a similar falacy, suppose that the density of some solid is given by P. Maybe P=1kg/m^3 or something. Suppose then that the mass of cubic objects of width x made up of that solid is given by m=P*x^3. So, by a little bit of algebra, P=m/(x^3). Would you then say that, because you may visualize an object of infinite size x=inf, the density of the substance is 0? And because you may visualize an object of x=0, the density is infinite? And thus this formula m=P*x^3 is wrong? Of course not, because you're making false assumptions about what the symbols are and how they're used; you're neglecting the fact that m and x^3 are proportional to and depend on each other.

as the theoretical God Particle=0 mass
Actually, the Higg's Boson is theorized to have nonzero rest mass. You want to throw an arbitrary m=0 particle out there, just pick something simple, like the photon, which is usually thought to have zero rest mass.

and the very real black hole=infinite mass meaning Einstein's equation has two very large holes
Black holes are sometimes theorized to have singularities of infinite density, but not infinite mass, as that would be a violation of energy conservation, and there's no reason for them to have infinite mass.

An infinitely massive object wouldn't cause E=mc^2 to break down either, though, because you would wind up with c=sqrt(inf/inf)=undefined, another limits problem (and one easy to manage, since the two infs grow proportionally to each other by a ratio of c^2, satisfying the formula).

When I use math to show a hole instead of logic to show a theory, does it make sense then?
Not if you apply the math incorrectly.

Or am I coming on as a raging lunatic.
No, simply as someone who has knowledge over a wide range but little depth, and who finds inconsistancies because of that little depth, and who concludes that those subjects are inconsistant without bothering to look into them and learning why the inconsistancy proofs are based on incorrect assumptions.

//====================

Posted by: Bungie2

-Causality: The relationship between an event and a second event, where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first, as copied from another textbook. The theory of relativity destroys this in a way as it proves time dilation, where a ship constantly accelerates and circles the Milky Way. To the crew on the ship, its a steady 300 years or so, and to the people on the Earth, its a good 100,000+ years.

Time dilation doesn't violate causality unless there exists a method for FTL travel of classical information. And even the FTL QM mechanisms have a surprising capacity for not allowing transmission of classical infortmation.

300 years for one group and 100,000 years for another doesn't mean an effect ever preceded a cause. The two groups may differ as to when and where certain events took place, but the causal ordering of things is always the same.

[Edited on 01.20.2011 1:21 PM PST]

  • 01.20.2011 1:16 PM PDT

Use worm holes so that you don't go faster than the speed of light but travel back in time, relative to the destination (time is relative), so that you seem to have covered more distance than light in the same amount of time relative to the destination.

  • 01.20.2011 1:20 PM PDT

We believe that the universe is unbounded: this is not the same as infinite: the 2-D surface of a sphere, wrapped around a 3rd dimension, has a finite size, but has no end. If you start off in a given direction on the surface of a sphere, you could return to your start point without having to turn around -- you simply go all the way around. But wouldn't that mean the universe has an escape velocity like the earth?

Posted by: Tupolev


Posted by: Bungie2

-Causality: The relationship between an event and a second event, where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first, as copied from another textbook. The theory of relativity destroys this in a way as it proves time dilation, where a ship constantly accelerates and circles the Milky Way. To the crew on the ship, its a steady 300 years or so, and to the people on the Earth, its a good 100,000+ years.

Time dilation doesn't violate causality unless there exists a method for FTL travel of classical information. And even the FTL QM mechanisms have a surprising capacity for not allowing transmission of classical infortmation.

300 years for one group and 100,000 years for another doesn't mean an effect ever preceded a cause. The two groups may differ as to when and where certain events took place, but the causal ordering of things is always the same.


Kinda my point bro, causality isn't a factor in deep, Planckian Quantum physics. I never said causality was violated once. When I said destroys, i meant causality isn't violated outside of classical "Newtonian Physics".

As for you Venator, You are vastly over-simplifying and misinterpreting.

~B2

  • 01.20.2011 5:38 PM PDT

One step closer... Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket

  • 01.20.2011 8:55 PM PDT

I don't care. I really don't.


Posted by: Bungie2
As for you Venator, You are vastly over-simplifying and misinterpreting.

~B2


Physics is a logic game; you cannot over-simplify logic, as there is no limit to logic; if physics weren't logical, then physicists would have never reached there conclusions.
I am neither misinterpreting: they used logic, I use logic. In fact, you seem to be the one misinterpreting, because instead of using logic in your argumeny, you are using axioms and set rules, which greatly limits both your possible knowledge and the possibilities you can use in your arguments.
Just because I am not fluent in the language of mathematics, doesn't mean I am not fluent in logic, which is philosophy, which is aslo what physics is as well.

As this is getting absolutely nowhere, this shall be my last post in this circulating thread.

  • 01.20.2011 10:46 PM PDT

We believe that the universe is unbounded: this is not the same as infinite: the 2-D surface of a sphere, wrapped around a 3rd dimension, has a finite size, but has no end. If you start off in a given direction on the surface of a sphere, you could return to your start point without having to turn around -- you simply go all the way around. But wouldn't that mean the universe has an escape velocity like the earth?

Posted by: Venator82

Posted by: Bungie2
As for you Venator, You are vastly over-simplifying and misinterpreting.

~B2


Physics is a logic game; you cannot over-simplify logic, as there is no limit to logic; if physics weren't logical, then physicists would have never reached there conclusions.
I am neither misinterpreting: they used logic, I use logic. In fact, you seem to be the one misinterpreting, because instead of using logic in your argumeny, you are using axioms and set rules, which greatly limits both your possible knowledge and the possibilities you can use in your arguments.
Just because I am not fluent in the language of mathematics, doesn't mean I am not fluent in logic, which is philosophy, which is aslo what physics is as well.

As this is getting absolutely nowhere, this shall be my last post in this circulating thread.


Classical Boolean Logic however is meaningless in the Quantum state. The rules are Completely different in Quantum logic, for instance.

Quantum logic has some properties which clearly distinguish it from classical logic, most notably, the failure of the distributive law of propositional logic:
p and (q or r) = (p and q) or (p and r),
where the symbols p, q and r are propositional variables. To illustrate why the distributive law fails, consider a particle moving on a line and let
p = "the particle is moving to the right"
q = "the particle is in the interval [-1,1]"
r = "the particle is not in the interval [-1,1]"
then the proposition "q or r" is true, so
p and (q or r) = p
On the other hand, the propositions "p and q" and "p and r" are both false, since they assert tighter restrictions on simultaneous values of position and momentum than is allowed by the uncertainty principle. So,
(p and q) or (p and r) = false
Thus the distributive law fails.

~B2

  • 01.20.2011 11:01 PM PDT

Eternal Refuge Remains Out Of Reach. (Reclaimercomic.com)
Join the Unmatched Photographers if you want help with your screenshots.
If you enjoy making maps, then Forever Forgers is for you!!!


Posted by: AngrydoG
Posted by: American Recoil
Can matter even travel faster than the speed of light? Light isn't matter, it is a form of energy. Since nothing can travel as fast as the speed of light, how can we even know? Matter would simply change to energy.

And according to Einstein, to get to the speed of light you must accelerate, or course. Acceleration requires energy. X amount of acceleration requires Y amount of energy or X=Y. The mass of an object moving the speed of light would be infinite and the infinite amount of energy needed to reach that speed is impossible.


Light has mass. Though very very very......... Very small, thats why black holes can nab light, so technically, it is possible to reach light speed, but no faster.


Well, technically, whether or not light has mass is not the reason that black holes can trap them. Light has the property of traveling in a straight line where possible. If you imagine space as a flat sheet of rubber and roll a marble across it, that marble will travel in a straight line.

However, if you drop a heavy weight in there, then try to roll the marble over it, the marble is still attempting to travel in a straight line, however it will be captured in the indentation caused by the weight. If the light passes far enough from the hole to retain escape velocity, it will curve around the cone caused by the hole and continue off in a straight line. This results in the effect known as gravitational lensing. If however the light travels too close it will be warped around the curvature in space until it ends up in a downwards spiral into the event horizon.

Now, onto my definition of FTL. As many people have already stated in this thread, FTL in 3D space is theoretically impossible due to the infinite power requirement to do so. It may not be necessary to do so however.

If humanity was to become space pioneers, in the sense that new colonies on discovered worlds were completely self sufficient, FTL would not be necessary. As it has also been stated in this thread, as relative velocity increases, time as viewed by a passenger slows down in comparison to an outside observer, in an effect known as Time Dilation.

As such, having ships capable of reaching relativistic speeds would result in passengers experiencing a shorter passage of time than those remaining on Earth. This would allow humanity to reach other planets within a single lifetime for the inhabitants, even if several generations pass on Earth. This would make it impractical to have a galactic economy or government as depicted by many books, movies and games of the sci-fi genre, as each would be required to be fully self sufficient.


However, this is a discussion about actual FTL travel. Borrowing from B2's theory of parallel dimensions, I visualised these dimensions as parallel stacked sheets of rubber like I used in the explanation above. Also as B2 said, intense gravity wells could stretch these dimensions so that the barrier separating the two was diminished, just like stretching the rubber sheets thins them. If an intense enough gravity well were to be generated, say by a series of micro-black holes, the instant burst of energy generated by the Hawking radiation from the black holes could tear a rip between the dimensions, allowing travel between the two, where we are assuming that physics as we know them are not the same.

There are major flaws with this system however.
First of all, we have know way of knowing when or how to exit this next dimension, or even if it's possible by the same method as entry.

Secondly, if we are banking on the fact that physically limits present in our dimension are different or non-existent in the next, how do we know our ships would not just disintegrate on entry? Or even if everything we take for granted in our dimension such as momentum and velocity don't hold true? Propulsion may not even work.

Thirdly, power requirements would be massive beyond belief. This problem however could be solved, and it potentially solves a major issue from the first one too. If gates were constructed around major gravitational wells such as stars or black holes, energy could be absorbed by the gates to facilitate the energy required to make a jump. As a bonus, this would also provide the jumps with a precise set of coordinates to make between, allowing safer and more precise travel.

Fourth is a major consideration that cannot be safely tested at all. Nobody possibly knows what might happen if a hole was torn between dimensions. I'm sure you can all work out some doomsday plans if you would like.



EDIT 1:
Hmm, I apologise. I was hoping to add something as constructive and interesting to this discussion like B2 (well, I'm interested anyway...), but this really just turned out to be a baseless fountain of sci-fi concepts. I've got some knowledge on astrophysics, but not quantum... Sorry everyone :'(

[Edited on 01.22.2011 6:54 AM PST]

  • 01.21.2011 3:12 AM PDT

We believe that the universe is unbounded: this is not the same as infinite: the 2-D surface of a sphere, wrapped around a 3rd dimension, has a finite size, but has no end. If you start off in a given direction on the surface of a sphere, you could return to your start point without having to turn around -- you simply go all the way around. But wouldn't that mean the universe has an escape velocity like the earth?

Posted by: Scarecrow118

Posted by: AngrydoG
Posted by: American Recoil
Can matter even travel faster than the speed of light? Light isn't matter, it is a form of energy. Since nothing can travel as fast as the speed of light, how can we even know? Matter would simply change to energy.

And according to Einstein, to get to the speed of light you must accelerate, or course. Acceleration requires energy. X amount of acceleration requires Y amount of energy or X=Y. The mass of an object moving the speed of light would be infinite and the infinite amount of energy needed to reach that speed is impossible.


Light has mass. Though very very very......... Very small, thats why black holes can nab light, so technically, it is possible to reach light speed, but no faster.


Well, technically, whether or not light has mass is not the reason that black holes can trap them. Light has the property of traveling in a straight line where possible. If you imagine space as a flat sheet of rubber and roll a marble across it, that marble will travel in a straight line.

However, if you drop a heavy weight in there, then try to roll the marble over it, the marble is still attempting to travel in a straight line, however it will be captured in the indentation caused by the weight. If the light passes far enough from the hole to retain escape velocity, it will curve around the cone caused by the hole and continue off in a straight line. This results in the effect known as gravitational lensing. If however the light travels too close it will be warped around the curvature in space until it ends up in a downwards spiral into the event horizon.

Now, onto my definition of FTL. As many people have already stated in this thread, FTL in 3D space is theoretically impossible due to the infinite power requirement to do so. It may not be necessary to do so however.

If humanity was to become space pioneers, in the sense that new colonies on discovered worlds were completely self sufficient, FTL would not be necessary. As it has also been stated in this thread, as relative velocity increases, time as viewed by a passenger slows down in comparison to an outside observer, in an effect known as Time Dilation.

As such, having ships capable of reaching relativistic speeds would result in passengers experiencing a shorter passage of time than those remaining on Earth. This would allow humanity to reach other planets within a single lifetime for the inhabitants, even if several generations pass on Earth. This would make it impractical to have a galactic economy or government as depicted by many books, movies and games of the sci-fi genre, as each would be required to be fully self sufficient.


However, this is a discussion about actual FTL travel. Borrowing from B2's theory of parallel dimensions, I visualised these dimensions as parallel stacked sheets of rubber like I used in the explanation above. Also as B2 said, intense gravity wells could stretch these dimensions so that the barrier separating the two was diminished, just like stretching the rubber sheets thins them. If an intense enough gravity well were to be generated, say by a series of micro-black holes, the instant burst of energy generated by the Hawking radiation from the black holes could tear a rip between the dimensions, allowing travel between the two, where we are assuming that physics as we know them are not the same.

There are major flaws with this system however.
First of all, we have know way of knowing when or how to exit this next dimension, or even if it's possible by the same method as entry.

Secondly, if we are banking on the fact that physically limits present in our dimension are different or non-existent in the next, how do we know our ships would not just disintegrate on entry? Or even if everything we take for granted in our dimension such as momentum and velocity don't hold true? Propulsion may not even work.

Thirdly, power requirements would be massive beyond belief. This problem however could be solved, and it potentially solves a major issue from the first one too. If gates were constructed around major gravitational wells such as stars or black holes, energy could be absorbed by the gates to facilitate the energy required to make a jump. As a bonus, this would also provide the jumps with a precise set of coordinates to make between, allowing safer and more precise travel.

Fourth is a major consideration that cannot be safely tested at all. Nobody possibly knows what might happen if a hole was torn between dimensions. I'm sure you can all work out some doomsday plans if you would like.



EDIT 1:
Hmm, I apologise. I was hoping to add something as constructive and interesting to this discussion like B2 (well, I'm interested anyway...), but this really just turned out to be a baseless fountain of sci-fi concepts. I've got some knowledge on astrophysics, but not quantum... Sorry everyone :'(

Actually, you've done good, because you are correct in the sense that parallel universes may have parallel laws. As for parallel dimensions in the same space but in a higher dimensional field, this is an unknown whether the rules are different, or tweaked. To Produce a microscopic black hole, one must anticipate mass energy requirements, to which fusion could be a part of the answer.

But let me try answer what your saying, which boilds down to 4 points,

-Navigation
-Dimensional Compatibility
-Power Function
-Threats to integrity.

Now all my theories have been based on entering the dimension. Getting out however is the issue, which requires extensive research, but can NOT be done unless penetration is done. It would be likely that for practical study, (if my theory works), a rift would have to be opened and sustained with an object held on a line to test current theorems on th differences on major laws of thermodynamics, quantum fundamentals, and physics, not to mention the countless tests on relativity and such. Planckian Energy seems to be our best bet, however the effects of bubbling spacetime in a different space entirely is a controversially debatable topic.

Integrity is another ood point, so let me help you. draw a dot ona piece of paper. now draw 2 dots and join them by a line. You have just transformed 0-D (the dot), into 1-D (the line). Now turn it into a square (2-D), now a cube (3-D), and if you wish, a tessaract (4-D), then a pentaract (5-D).....The Mathematical concept keeps growing, and well, direction becomes rather scary, but still plausible. we live in a 4-D universe, but only see 3, spatial (x,y,z) dimensions. Thanks to String Theory, we now know there are extra dimensions, all spatial, and therefore, simply invisible to us, but accessible from the quantum scale. This is why microscopic black holes, because manipulation of all dimensions is plausible via the black hole, and can be accessed by using the blackhole as the catalyst we use to rip a portal into 11-D space. Therefore, I say with 78% definity, that we will not disintegrate, but mass tests would need to be done if a portal is ripped open, in order to test 11-D spatial space before throwing a trillion dollar spacecraft in there.

Now, Power. Thats always the key word. How much energy is needed? About 1,000,000,000,000,000 times the energy of the protons at the LHC. That's a big number! So why are people talking about black holes at the LHC? Well, maybe our current understanding of gravity isn't right. Maybe our three dimensions of space are just some three dimensional membrane in some higher dimensional space with all forces except gravity confined to this membrane, so that gravity is a very weak force except when we get to the right energy scale, and maybe that energy scale is the one we are about to probe with the LHC, and maybe the parameters of this model turn out just right so that when the LHC collides protons, black holes will form. Anyway, thats a lot of maybes. Lets get honest. Fusion, more specifically, the harnessing of the sun to produce these extensive energies. Imagine 5,000 years from now, maybe even 500. You look at the sun, it looks the same, then you look from mercury, and weird stations become visible. Imagine if man used the power of the largest fusion reactor within lightyears to produce interstellar, or even Inter-Galactic travel. Thats how much we need. Black holes are also plausible, as the rips been done, however the Danger level is pretty damn high. I have another idea though, but until i finalise my development of it, I wont say it :P.

4th, well yes...interdimensional rips are tricky indeed. We indeed do not know the repercussions of an interdimensional rip, which is why I wouldnt test it near earth, to be safe. To me however, there is a much higher chance of the rift recollapsing shut, like space-time healing itself as soon as a space vehicle goes through the rift. There is an infinitesimal chance that the space-time continuum will be affected permanently, and there is a slightly larger, but quantumisably small odd that it recollapses into a black hole, which would wreck havoc for a few months before Hawking Radiation eliminates the problem, therefore meaning, do the rip at a plutonian distance :P.

Anyway, you have made a good contribution, just remember, the cell-phone and atomic bomb were sci-fi concepts a hundred or so years ago, and look now. 500 years ago, lots of the world believed Heaven, not space was above us, and 2000 years ago, the sun was a god chasing the moon. We evolve because of what creativity we have as a species, and that drive is what makes us human.

~B2

  • 01.23.2011 8:43 PM PDT

Tested by the promise of eternity
Yet they remain; these two as one.
This princess of light and reason.
This weapon of flesh and bone.

I know I'm coming in rather late here, and there is a lot of great information in this thread. I'm deeply impressed with the lack of "adaptordie" crap in here!

The way I understand the concept of FTL is this:

- Imagine a straight line between point A and point B
- Bend the line into a circle.
- Point A is now point B

Something about bending time, or rather, your relative perception of what we call time while traveling at subluminal speeds will generate the same results of what we're calling FTL. This requires the manipulation of a massive amount of gravity (black holes, for instance) as a means of bending space-time.

I'm more of a philosophical layman, so I have no clue as to the mathematics behind it.

But keep this thread alive! Love it!

[Edited on 01.23.2011 9:19 PM PST]

  • 01.23.2011 9:19 PM PDT

We believe that the universe is unbounded: this is not the same as infinite: the 2-D surface of a sphere, wrapped around a 3rd dimension, has a finite size, but has no end. If you start off in a given direction on the surface of a sphere, you could return to your start point without having to turn around -- you simply go all the way around. But wouldn't that mean the universe has an escape velocity like the earth?

Posted by: itsasmallboat2
I know I'm coming in rather late here, and there is a lot of great information in this thread. I'm deeply impressed with the lack of "adaptordie" crap in here!

The way I understand the concept of FTL is this:

- Imagine a straight line between point A and point B
- Bend the line into a circle.
- Point A is now point B

Something about bending time, or rather, your relative perception of what we call time while traveling at subluminal speeds will generate the same results of what we're calling FTL. This requires the manipulation of a massive amount of gravity (black holes, for instance) as a means of bending space-time.

I'm more of a philosophical layman, so I have no clue as to the mathematics behind it.

But keep this thread alive! Love it!


With that logic, it works very simply, but of course in other terms, that would mean wed go back to Earth eventually. Time isn't a major issue, because with speed, time dilation gives us substantial amount of time to work in then at a vast speed. (See my constant acceleration STL idea from previous posts.) The space itself and (c) is the issue. This is where we can take a shortcut, hit c, concede to c, or increase c to our liking.

~B2

EDIT: I feel like this post makes me sound like im sticking my nose to you, if so, sorry :(.

[Edited on 01.23.2011 9:30 PM PST]

  • 01.23.2011 9:24 PM PDT

In memory of those fallen in the defense of Earth and her colonies.

March 3, 2553

I would open a wormhole in normal space by pulsing large amount of energy into defined atomic structures (tiny wormholes are always being created inside and around atoms. A large energy introduction may increase the size of these holes or an indroduction of an element which widens the wormhole out much like like pole sides of a magnet. I would then use the wormhole to 'bend' normal space or 'compress' it to travel extremely long distances in minutes perhaps less.

This is an actual theory though much of it is just theory and going off what sceintists believe what is happening. Though 'warping' normal space is a very real theory.

Thats how i would do it. Though i hear what they do in the game isnt all fiction!

  • 01.24.2011 12:07 AM PDT

Eternal Refuge Remains Out Of Reach. (Reclaimercomic.com)
Join the Unmatched Photographers if you want help with your screenshots.
If you enjoy making maps, then Forever Forgers is for you!!!


Posted by: cameo_cream
I would open a wormhole in normal space by pulsing large amount of energy into defined atomic structures (tiny wormholes are always being created inside and around atoms. A large energy introduction may increase the size of these holes or an indroduction of an element which widens the wormhole out much like like pole sides of a magnet. I would then use the wormhole to 'bend' normal space or 'compress' it to travel extremely long distances in minutes perhaps less.

This is an actual theory though much of it is just theory and going off what sceintists believe what is happening. Though 'warping' normal space is a very real theory.

Thats how i would do it. Though i hear what they do in the game isnt all fiction!


That is mostly accurate, but the major issue here is that the theorised energy to develop something a wormhole would require exotic particles, or negative matter to open and sustain them. Anti-matter, by its very nature is unstable and incredibly difficult to artificially create. As such, most popular sci-fi concepts tend towards fusion as an energy source.

At B2, I'm incredibly interested by this theory about the black hole from the LHC. I've heard a lot of rumours about this, mostly pertaining to 2012 -_-, but I honestly thought it would be impossible as a black hole is created from the gravitational collapse of a supermassive object. Even if somehow protons generated enough mass through their velocity, they would only create a micro-black hole which would dissipate extremely quickly from the Hawkins radiation. IF it were to happen, my thoughts would be that the LHC would be destroyed, but there wouldn't be much of a danger to the rest of the world. Would I be right in that assumption?

  • 01.24.2011 6:34 AM PDT

Adepto In Meus Campester
Posted by: ParagonRenegade
You were totally and absolutely correct in every way, I don't know why we were arguing, you're so amazing I should never have doubted you.

EDIT: Link broke, disregard this.

[Edited on 01.24.2011 5:53 PM PST]

  • 01.24.2011 7:27 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

If you think nobody cares about you, miss some car payments.
Hard work never hurt anyone, but why take the chance.
The first sign of maturity is that the volume knob also turns to the left.

New Gamertag and profile: SHENANIGANS4780

Since it seems that the account didn't transfer, that's my new account everyone.

damn, some of these posts are nuts! keep it up, I love what I'm seeing here.

When are they firing the LHC? I thought they were supposed to already do it

  • 01.24.2011 10:41 AM PDT
  • gamertag: tsassi
  • user homepage:


Posted by: falconslayer93
damn, some of these posts are nuts! keep it up, I love what I'm seeing here.

When are they firing the LHC? I thought they were supposed to already do it

If I remember correctly they already fired it but it produced so much data that it's going to take a while to get anything out of that data.

  • 01.24.2011 11:05 AM PDT
  • gamertag: MGTrey
  • user homepage:

The Seventh Column demands it.

Tumblr|Twitter


Posted by: SatanKittyRAWR
take a rod that is longer than a light year long.... and push it


It would only move as fast as the speed of sound.

  • 01.24.2011 11:16 AM PDT

We believe that the universe is unbounded: this is not the same as infinite: the 2-D surface of a sphere, wrapped around a 3rd dimension, has a finite size, but has no end. If you start off in a given direction on the surface of a sphere, you could return to your start point without having to turn around -- you simply go all the way around. But wouldn't that mean the universe has an escape velocity like the earth?

Posted by: Scarecrow118

Posted by: cameo_cream
I would open a wormhole in normal space by pulsing large amount of energy into defined atomic structures (tiny wormholes are always being created inside and around atoms. A large energy introduction may increase the size of these holes or an indroduction of an element which widens the wormhole out much like like pole sides of a magnet. I would then use the wormhole to 'bend' normal space or 'compress' it to travel extremely long distances in minutes perhaps less.

This is an actual theory though much of it is just theory and going off what sceintists believe what is happening. Though 'warping' normal space is a very real theory.

Thats how i would do it. Though i hear what they do in the game isnt all fiction!


At B2, I'm incredibly interested by this theory about the black hole from the LHC. I've heard a lot of rumours about this, mostly pertaining to 2012 -_-, but I honestly thought it would be impossible as a black hole is created from the gravitational collapse of a supermassive object. Even if somehow protons generated enough mass through their velocity, they would only create a micro-black hole which would dissipate extremely quickly from the Hawkins radiation. IF it were to happen, my thoughts would be that the LHC would be destroyed, but there wouldn't be much of a danger to the rest of the world. Would I be right in that assumption?


Well thats the common misconception about the LHC, and we could talk for hours on the possibilities of strangelets and metastable black holes. Like you said though, Hawking Radiation is the key point people miss here. Because the LHC could at best produce macroscopic black holes due to many variables, the size would simply not be stable enough to survive, the most powerful variable being the vacuum its in, therefore preventing mass from entering the MBH. there is literally nothing but protons it could possibly take, and due to Hawking Radiation, there is no risk of global catastrophe with a certainty of 99.99999999%. In fact, that percentage is so tiny, we can disregard it all together.

If, however that extremely miniscule percentage happens due to the idiocy of a researcher, the black holes engulfing of the LHC wouldnt be good news for anyone, as a black hole with a circumference of 27 kilometers would surely cause extensive damage, to the point where earth could literally implode itself into the black hole. But as I said, it would take supreme idiocy from a scientist at CERN to produce a black hole and allow it to grow that much via mass. You will be safe.

Oh, to answer to your reply to cameo, Antimatter production could be done naturally, if we can harness it properly. Electrical storms on earth like thunder have been proven to produce trillions of positrons in beams that shoot away from the Earth, with that and its capture, we must be able to do something with it. Nature vs Artificial production is something to consider, and so far, billions of positrons/anti-electrons sound better than 13 anti-hydrogen atoms per extreme amounts of collisions.

~B2

  • 01.24.2011 1:59 PM PDT

So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us...

Bahh ! This is all garbage. The only way to "invent faster then light travel, would be to "invent" some kind of machine that could take you to another universe where the laws of physics of our universe don't apply...

  • 01.24.2011 2:04 PM PDT

In memory of those fallen in the defense of Earth and her colonies.

March 3, 2553


Posted by: Bungie2
Posted by: Scarecrow118

Posted by: cameo_cream
I would open a wormhole in normal space by pulsing large amount of energy into defined atomic structures (tiny wormholes are always being created inside and around atoms. A large energy introduction may increase the size of these holes or an indroduction of an element which widens the wormhole out much like like pole sides of a magnet. I would then use the wormhole to 'bend' normal space or 'compress' it to travel extremely long distances in minutes perhaps less.

This is an actual theory though much of it is just theory and going off what sceintists believe what is happening. Though 'warping' normal space is a very real theory.

Thats how i would do it. Though i hear what they do in the game isnt all fiction!


At B2, I'm incredibly interested by this theory about the black hole from the LHC. I've heard a lot of rumours about this, mostly pertaining to 2012 -_-, but I honestly thought it would be impossible as a black hole is created from the gravitational collapse of a supermassive object. Even if somehow protons generated enough mass through their velocity, they would only create a micro-black hole which would dissipate extremely quickly from the Hawkins radiation. IF it were to happen, my thoughts would be that the LHC would be destroyed, but there wouldn't be much of a danger to the rest of the world. Would I be right in that assumption?


Well thats the common misconception about the LHC, and we could talk for hours on the possibilities of strangelets and metastable black holes. Like you said though, Hawking Radiation is the key point people miss here. Because the LHC could at best produce macroscopic black holes due to many variables, the size would simply not be stable enough to survive, the most powerful variable being the vacuum its in, therefore preventing mass from entering the MBH. there is literally nothing but protons it could possibly take, and due to Hawking Radiation, there is no risk of global catastrophe with a certainty of 99.99999999%. In fact, that percentage is so tiny, we can disregard it all together.

If, however that extremely miniscule percentage happens due to the idiocy of a researcher, the black holes engulfing of the LHC wouldnt be good news for anyone, as a black hole with a circumference of 27 kilometers would surely cause extensive damage, to the point where earth could literally implode itself into the black hole. But as I said, it would take supreme idiocy from a scientist at CERN to produce a black hole and allow it to grow that much via mass. You will be safe.

Oh, to answer to your reply to cameo, Antimatter production could be done naturally, if we can harness it properly. Electrical storms on earth like thunder have been proven to produce trillions of positrons in beams that shoot away from the Earth, with that and its capture, we must be able to do something with it. Nature vs Artificial production is something to consider, and so far, billions of positrons/anti-electrons sound better than 13 anti-hydrogen atoms per extreme amounts of collisions.

~B2


Anti matter was what i was thinking of intially. But it is extremely expensivw to manufacture. For example-

One just one teaspoon of antimatter would cost billions even trillions of dollars. However, bear in mind that 'one teaspoon' has the potential energy to carry multiple NASA rockets inro space. Perhaps in yhe future a more cost effective solution will be produced, much like your idea with lightning, but there is hope! I hear that a few of the worlds top physians and or scientists are working on faster than light travel. How about this to tease you?

In 30 or so years we may have our own personal jetpacks, much like in Halo Reach.

In another 50 years we may be able to have our own lightsabres and hoverboards.

Not everything is fiction!

There are many many more genious creations by these people, like for example time travel, but i personally think that the idea for that is somewhat pointless. Other inventions i have forgotten.

You can be amazed by what you 'think' is fiction when it may actually be reality.

[Edited on 01.24.2011 3:52 PM PST]

  • 01.24.2011 3:51 PM PDT