project-navigation
Personal tools

Author Topic: Wormhole travel vs. FTL engines  (Read 13017 times)

Offline vedrit

  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 438
    • View Profile
Wormhole travel vs. FTL engines
« 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.
Having said this, I suggest that Alien Origin be changed to say something like "We decided it wasnt cloaking technology they were using, but rather that they had discovered a way to manipulate space to create wormholes with such precision to appear so close to Earth."
The theory is entirely plausible, even for the real world. Wormholes are, in lamemans terms, tunnels in space. Who's to say that they have any particular signature? That they emit radiation or some particle? And, as some theories go, wormholes can even go through time (As cool as it seems, I disagree with these. Power to String Theory!)

Just something to stew in the ol cooking pot

Offline Winter

  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 829
    • View Profile
    • Street of Eyes: The Writing of Ryan A. Span
Re: Wormhole travel vs. FTL engines
« Reply #1 on: February 17, 2009, 01:37:15 pm »
I that everyone wishes that FTL were possible, but I agree with Einstein when he basically said that light was the unsiversal speed limit.
Having said this, I suggest that Alien Origin be changed to say something like "We decided it wasnt cloaking technology they were using, but rather that they had discovered a way to manipulate space to create wormholes with such precision to appear so close to Earth."
The theory is entirely plausible, even for the real world. Wormholes are, in lamemans terms, tunnels in space. Who's to say that they have any particular signature? That they emit radiation or some particle? And, as some theories go, wormholes can even go through time (As cool as it seems, I disagree with these. Power to String Theory!)

Just something to stew in the ol cooking pot

. . . Yes, the alien FTL engines are actually wormhole-based, and have been from the start.

Regards,
Ryan

Offline vedrit

  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 438
    • View Profile
Re: Wormhole travel vs. FTL engines
« Reply #2 on: February 17, 2009, 10:32:19 pm »
Ah. Well. I suppose that, in-game, we dont find that out till later on, long after Alien Origin research is done. Makes sense.

Offline Destructavator

  • Combination Multiple Specialty Developer
  • Administrator
  • PHALANX Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 1908
  • Creater of Scorchcrafter, knows the zarakites...
    • View Profile
Re: Wormhole travel vs. FTL engines
« Reply #3 on: February 17, 2009, 11:16:33 pm »
I think it is unknown in today's world if Superphotonic travel will ever be possible for things other than some particles on the atomic scale (and I admit I'm not a science major), but I will say that there was once a time when people thought we'd never break the sound barrier and safely travel faster than the speed of sound, as well as a time when people thought we'd never have working aircraft of any kind.

Offline Duke

  • Administrator
  • PHALANX veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 1037
    • View Profile
Re: Wormhole travel vs. FTL engines
« Reply #4 on: February 18, 2009, 01:09:29 am »
@vedrit:
Afaik according to Einstein, creating an artificial wormhole requires the energy of a 'black hole'.
So wormhole travel is pretty much as 'realistic' as FTL-drives.

C'mon guys, this is a *game*. SciFi is not so far away from orcs, trolls and elves.
Luke, Adama and Kirk had FTL-drives, so why shouldn't our little aliens have them ?

Offline BTAxis

  • Administrator
  • PHALANX Commander
  • *******
  • Posts: 2607
    • View Profile
Re: Wormhole travel vs. FTL engines
« Reply #5 on: February 18, 2009, 01:37:41 am »
He was never arguing against FTL (in the sense of wormholes, at least). What's your point?

Offline GopherLemming

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
Re: Wormhole travel vs. FTL engines
« Reply #6 on: February 18, 2009, 01:54:40 am »
I think it is unknown in today's world if Superphotonic travel will ever be possible for things other than some particles on the atomic scale (and I admit I'm not a science major)

Wormholes are not superluminal travel in a strict sense, since special relativity is a local effect, and locally the speed of light is not exceeded.

As for FTL... It is entirely possible that the foundation of modern physics is false, but currently there are many reasons why matter with mass/information cannot reach c (and why massless matter must travel at c, but i won't go into that). The easiest to explain are time dilation and length contraction.
As an object accelerates, an outside observer views it's time slowing and it's length, contracting. At 0.86 c (relative to the observer) the object is aging at half the speed and it's length is half it's length at a standstill. At c the object would not age, and it has no length. This is bad. Any faster and the object's demensions (both space and time) would be negative. This is really bad.

The theory is entirely plausible, even for the real world. Wormholes are, in lamemans terms, tunnels in space

I really dislike this analogy. Unfortunately, I can't think of one that is as easy to understand and more accurate. And It isn't entirely plausible, since the amount of energy required to create and manipulate a stable wormhole would be much higher then all the energy generation by powerstations on the earth in the last hundred years.

there was once a time when people thought we'd never break the sound barrier and safely travel faster than the speed of sound, as well as a time when people thought we'd never have working aircraft of any kind.

And I continue my efforts in proving them right!

Edit: As always, i'm arguing for the sake of arguing, not suggesting a change in the game.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2009, 02:43:58 am by GopherLemming »

Offline vedrit

  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 438
    • View Profile
Re: Wormhole travel vs. FTL engines
« Reply #7 on: February 18, 2009, 04:08:49 am »
The argument against FTL, again according to theories, is that mass X requiers exponentially more energy to reach the speed of light.
And I must have missed an article somewhere, as last I heard, wormholes were natural phenomenon. I know, I know, we in the real world cant even contain lightning, but its on its way. Is it not possible that aliens with their advanced knowledge have managed to contain the univers's wonder? At any rate, a wormhole certanly seems a whole lot energy-cheaper than FTL, or even near light speeds. How many tons are spacecraft?
Perhaps we could use both. FTL for small ships, like scouts, and wormholes for larger ships, like harvesters or motherships?

Offline BTAxis

  • Administrator
  • PHALANX Commander
  • *******
  • Posts: 2607
    • View Profile
Re: Wormhole travel vs. FTL engines
« Reply #8 on: February 18, 2009, 11:59:36 am »
All FTL in the game is wormhole based. Small craft don't have FTL at all; they are dependent on a FTL capable carrier ship to take them to and fro.

Offline GopherLemming

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
Re: Wormhole travel vs. FTL engines
« Reply #9 on: February 18, 2009, 02:00:33 pm »
The argument against FTL, again according to theories, is that mass X requiers exponentially more energy to reach the speed of light.

It is impossible for a mass to reach the speed of light at all, because at c the mass would have infinite kinetic energy. There is no limit how close to c a mass can get, but energy increases exponentially as you accelerate...

And I must have missed an article somewhere, as last I heard, wormholes were natural phenomenon

It's very unlikely, with all the conditions required for a wormhole, that they or a natural occurance, and they have never been detected. Can't rule it out, but they would never be as common as any other stellar object
« Last Edit: February 18, 2009, 02:20:30 pm by GopherLemming »

Offline BTAxis

  • Administrator
  • PHALANX Commander
  • *******
  • Posts: 2607
    • View Profile
Re: Wormhole travel vs. FTL engines
« Reply #10 on: February 18, 2009, 02:06:01 pm »
It's very unlikely, with all the conditions required for a wormhole, that they or a natural occurance, and they have never been detected. Can't rule it out, but they would never be as common as any other stellar object

Well, but dark matter has also not been detected, and it's theorized to be around in huge quantities.

Offline GopherLemming

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
Re: Wormhole travel vs. FTL engines
« Reply #11 on: February 18, 2009, 02:27:54 pm »
Well, but dark matter has also not been detected, and it's theorized to be around in huge quantities.

Dark matter has been detected (some scientists think it has anyway) as the gravitational anomalies that help galaxies form, and maintain the structure eg: there are many large stellar structures that don't have the gravitational force to exist hold together without dark matter, and since they do exist so must dark matter.

The the theory is exactly my point, wormholes haven't been detected and they are theorized to be rare or non-existant naturally.

All FTL in the game is wormhole based. Small craft don't have FTL at all; they are dependent on a FTL capable carrier ship to take them to and fro.

If that's a comment on how realistic the FTL is in the game, it should be said that it isn't very realistic at all (I stress that it isn't a complaint). For example, the theory for traversable Einstein-Rosen bridges suggests a huge (and I mean, astronomically huge) amount of "exotic" or negative energy and matter required to stop the wormhole from instantly collapsing, the moment the two mouths become connected. It's alot more energy then the rest energy of the (ton?) antimatter fuel tank on a carrier.

Offline BTAxis

  • Administrator
  • PHALANX Commander
  • *******
  • Posts: 2607
    • View Profile
Re: Wormhole travel vs. FTL engines
« Reply #12 on: February 18, 2009, 03:10:52 pm »
I think this is the point where I put my fingers in my ears.

Offline vedrit

  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 438
    • View Profile
Re: Wormhole travel vs. FTL engines
« Reply #13 on: February 19, 2009, 02:06:02 am »
I think this is the point where I put my fingers in my ears.
lol
I theorize that the reason that we havent found wormholes is because they do not differ from the rest of space unless one end is not in "regular" space.
Its like trying to find a paper circle set on a peice of paper that is the same color and type

Offline GopherLemming

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
Re: Wormhole travel vs. FTL engines
« Reply #14 on: February 19, 2009, 09:59:05 am »
I theorize that the reason that we havent found wormholes is because they do not differ from the rest of space unless one end is not in "regular" space.
Its like trying to find a paper circle set on a peice of paper that is the same color and type

To Theorize requires a base of experimental fact (which is why string theory has been criticized so badly within the scientific community), I feel like there is some conjecture going on here but I'll humor you. You're obviously imagining a wormhole the size of a planet or star but detection of such wormholes would be easy! They would be invisible themselves (I'm ignoring the negative support interior) but they would show a change as they move like a paper circle set on a piece of paper, both of which have a picture of hundreds of stars in "random" positions, as the circle moves, it blocks out some stars and unblocks some and even if that doesn't detect the wormhole the negative energy and density in a stable wormhole would repel light, an effect opposite to gravity lensing, which is "easy" to detect.

The problem is that they wouldn't exist on that scale, and they are very hard to make stable. It's thought by some that tiny bridges are created on the same scale as vacuum energy, and that they are then annihilated in the same fashion. But they annihilate because they are untraversable and when matter (or even light) approaches, they become unstable.

At this moment, we either wait for another thousand years for the technology to create our own stable bridges (if it's even possible), or we meet an advance civilization and they give us the technology. (I'm laughing at myself for saying this)
« Last Edit: February 19, 2009, 11:01:44 am by GopherLemming »