General > Discussion

Wormhole travel vs. FTL engines

<< < (4/5) > >>

vedrit:
I never said they would be THAT large. Thats just rediculous. But yes, I must agree that it would take thousands of years to make, if even possible, a bridge.
While, yes, my theory is based on nothing, arent most wormhole theories? Arent most of them based on "what we think is there, but cant prove is there."
At any rate, seeing as how this game is sci-fi, where anything is possible, it was all just a suggestion, whether to be accepted or not.

GopherLemming:

--- Quote from: vedrit on February 19, 2009, 11:02:43 pm ---While, yes, my theory is based on nothing, arent most wormhole theories?
--- End quote ---

No. The way spacetime is distorted by a mass is well described by Einstein's theory of general relativity which is very well tested.
Using that base of "fact" you can then formulate a mathematical "simulation." As this simulation has a foundation of "fact" (a theory that completely fits the available evidence) equations derived from it can be considered reliable, until proven wrong.
Wormholes are not impossible with general relativity, and they should be possible with quantum gravity.


--- Quote from: vedrit on February 19, 2009, 11:02:43 pm ---Arent most of them based on "what we think is there, but cant prove is there."
--- End quote ---

I wouldn't say "think." More like "It's possible it's there according to the current science, but we don't (and may never) have the technology to prove it one hundred percent."


--- Quote from: vedrit on February 19, 2009, 11:02:43 pm ---At any rate, seeing as how this game is sci-fi, where anything is possible, it was all just a suggestion, whether to be accepted or not.
--- End quote ---

I never suggested a change to the game's ultimately unrealistic science background. But If you were you should be aware that the game doesn't change unless there is an overwhelming demand for the change, or you provide replacement code, descriptions or models which are better then what is currently available.

vedrit:
Considering the change Im proposing is just changing text (I could be wrong. I have no idea whats going on in that department), I dont see the issue.

keybounce:

--- Quote from: vedrit on February 17, 2009, 02:52:17 am ---I that everyone wishes that FTL were possible, but I agree with Einstein when he basically said that light was the unsiversal speed limit.
--- End quote ---
Completely offtopic for the game, but one of Einstein's assumptions was that the speed of light was constant from (almost any) reference frame. ("Guassian", I believe, is the actual term, but don't ask me to explain the difference between that and "any"). That, along with the assumption that the laws of physics are the same churns out a bunch of odd results that match experimentations.

"Cannot travel faster than light" is NOT one of the conclusions.
"Cannot accelerate up to the speed of light" is.

Space itself can, and does, "move" faster than light -- see the superluminal expansion of space itself.

The idea that you can move a bubble of space around faster than light, while nothing in that bubble has to move "fast" (don't ask relative to what) is both theoretically possible under G.R., and under (or at least was) research.

So it doesn't take a wormhole (and last I heard, the research into wormholes was indicating that they were most likely unstable and collapsing, and certainly not common.)

GopherLemming:
I wasn't going to post again since I would probably just be repeating myself, but I felt the need to correct several points.


--- Quote from: keybounce on March 08, 2009, 08:26:16 pm ---but one of Einstein's assumptions was that the speed of light was constant from (almost any) reference frame.
--- End quote ---

Actually Einstein theorized that the speed of light through a vacuum was an average. Some photons travel slower then c and some travel faster but dividing the photon count by the net speed will always result in 186,282.4 miles per second (rounded up). You need to specify that it is a vacuum as in many cases light can propagate through a medium at very slow speeds which is why some nuclear reactors emit cerenkov radiation.


--- Quote from: keybounce on March 08, 2009, 08:26:16 pm ---That, along with the assumption that the laws of physics are the same churns out a bunch of odd results that match experimentations.
--- End quote ---

Some ideas are hard to picture but the vast majority of experiment results make complete sense in physics. Try to imagine the problem in an abstract way, without applying assumptions that we formulate in everyday life.


--- Quote from: keybounce on March 08, 2009, 08:26:16 pm ---"Cannot travel faster than light" is NOT one of the conclusions.
"Cannot accelerate up to the speed of light" is.

Space itself can, and does, "move" faster than light -- see the superluminal expansion of space itself.
--- End quote ---

Woah. Stop right there. Cannot travel faster then light IS a conclusion of special relativity. If you can't accelerate too c how would you get faster then c? You may be talking about relative to a stationary observer watching a FTL drive, but that is erroneous. Special relativity is LOCAL. LOCALLY c cannot be reached and cannot be exceeded (by mass).

Space-time can distort at a speed higher the 186,282.4 miles per second but it isn't expanding at that rate. Our knowledge of the expanding universe is based on how much space is occupied by matter and energy. It is entirely possible that space is finite or infinite but it's all guessing. Since S-T is immaterial and has no "mass" or even physical body of it's own (in our perspective), it was a silly thing to bring up in this context.


--- Quote from: keybounce on March 08, 2009, 08:26:16 pm ---The idea that you can move a bubble of space around faster than light, while nothing in that bubble has to move "fast" (don't ask relative to what) is both theoretically possible under G.R., and under (or at least was) research.
--- End quote ---

Ha ha! Good ol' warp drive eh? In theory it is possible. Manipulate space-time to contract ahead of an object and expand behind it. The travel time / distance would resolve as a speed higher then c while local speed never approached even relativistic velocities.

But our mate special relativity still plays a part. An observer outside the bubble would see the object going at a lower speed then c and the object would see the universe traveling at a speed of less then c yet the D/T= >c so it's a paradox right? Well no it isn't, but it's a little hard to explain so I'll give an analogy. If two people, named A and B could see each other and started walking in opposite directions, A sees B getting smaller and B sees A getting smaller. An apparent paradox that makes perfect sense in everyday situations.

In practice this warp is impossible though. The "bow-wave" would have to be created with very dense matter or energy and this matter or energy cannot exceed c so the bubble behind it is limited to c as well, meaning it isn't FTL travel.
The other theory for this uses S-T disturbing objects, such as a quickly rotating singularity to distort space time to propel the object. This would require a network of these S-T disturbing objects in the same fashion as a train requires track. The track would be placed by a slower then c ship meaning the initial journey would be at normal speeds. Oh, and each track object would need it's own star for power.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page