Alien life could be found within 40 years - really?

Duggys Housemate

Helix wrote: »

they could leave a bloody massive footprint and we still may never find it

why not?

Cú Giobach

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

I think everybody on this thread knows the size of the universe.

The guy I was responding to said there would be Type I civilisations out there, Type 1 civilisations would probable leave some footprint we could measure.

Please dont speculate about aliens using faster than light technology for communication. That can't happen.

Wow, you really are stuck in "the present".
I can imagine you having a conversation 500 years ago.

"But man will never be able to travel faster than a galloping horse, do you think we could put a saddle on a cheetah or something, stop talking nonsense"

"Sure how could we talk to someone beyond shouting distance, don't be daft it's just not possible"

The merest glance at history shows us that we can have no inkling of what might or might not be possible in the future.
Definitive statements such as yours litter the pages of history and are today considered amusing, quaint and a touch naive.

Mickeroo

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Wow, you really are stuck in "the present".
I can imagine you having a conversation 500 years ago.

"But man will never be able to travel faster than a galloping horse, do you think we could put a saddle on a cheetah or something, stop talking nonsense"

"Sure how could we talk to someone beyond shouting distance, don't be daft it's just not possible"

The merest glance at history shows us that we can have no inkling of what might or might not be possible in the future.
Definitive statements such as yours litter the pages of history and are today is considered amusing, quaint and a touch naive.

Nah he's just saying there's no point speculating about stuff that defies the laws of physics.

Duggys Housemate

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Wow, you really are stuck in "the present".
I can imagine you having a conversation 500 years ago.

"But man will never be able to travel faster than a galloping horse, do you think we could put a saddle on a cheetah or something, stop talking nonsense"

"Sure how could we talk to someone beyond shouting distance, don't be daft it's just not possible"

The merest glance at history shows us that we can have no inkling of what might or might not be possible in the future.
Definitive statements such as yours litter the pages of history and are today considered amusing, quaint and a touch naive.

The speed of light restriction is fundamental to the understanding of the galaxy and is integral to any understanding of the universe as it is. It is not going to be superseded. Nothing can now, or ever will, go faster than the speed of light. This isnt a technical limitiation, it is a real physical limitation of the universe.

crazy cabbage

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Because they would use so much energy for their civilization we could see it - a dyson sphere for instance would cause stars to change luminosity. In any case if the galaxy is teeming with intelligent life you would expect something to turn up.

I thought we said that they were more intelegent

More intelegent doesn't equle more energy. Maby it does up until a point but after which i would think it is the exact opposite.

And even if they were used vasts amounts of energy who is to say that we would know about it. Space is a massive place.
To put it in context if you were to travel at the speed of light from our star you would reach us in 8 min, Reach the end of our solorsystem in a day, reach our next nearest star in about 2 years. Imiganine how far you would travel in 2billion years at the speed of light. Now imigane that in every direction.

Cú Giobach

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

The speed of light restriction is fundamental to the understanding of the galaxy and is integral to any understanding of the universe as it is. It is not going to be superseded. Nothing can now, or ever will, go faster than the speed of light. This isnt a technical limitiation, it is a real physical limitation of the universe.

We don't understand the nature of this universe yet, let alone others that might be out there. What is Dark matter? What is Dark energy? Is the universe "stringy", "lumpy" or something else? What is time? We know and understand nothing yet and you are just making definitive statements based on this tiny knowledge we have so far, and as I said such things are looked at by future peoples as amusing and naive.

Getting around* the light speed barrier could be no harder in 500 years than popping up to the ISS is today, relativity actually allows for faster than light travel, the difficulty is getting around the barrier and the technology.

*Difference between going around something and going through it.

3ndahalfof6

is it not strange that we have done so much in such a short space of time, considering how long we have been on the planet yet done so much in the last 150 years,

I just find it odd why now, all of a sudden.

crazy cabbage

To those who say that it is impossible for anything to travel faster than light i will prove otherwise.

Lets take the fact that when we shine a tourch that the light travel from it at the speed of light. Now take the fact that the moon is 400000 kilometers away.
Now shine your light at one end of the moon and flick your wrist.
Each photon of light (that are still only traveling at the speed of light) creat an image traveling across the moon that could be traveling at 20 times the speed of light.

I win...

:rolleyes:

Cú Giobach

crazy cabbage wrote: »

To those who say that it is impossible for anything to travel faster than light i will prove otherwise.

Lets take the fact that when we shine a tourch that the light travel from it at the speed of light. Now take the fact that the moon is 400000 kilometers away.
Now shine your light at one end of the moon and flick your wrist.
The image created by each photon of light (that are still only traveling at the speed of light) creat an image traveling across the moon that could be traveling at 20 times the speed of light.

I win...

:rolleyes:

Your idea is covered here.

Think about how fast a shadow can move. If you project the shadow of your finger using a nearby lamp onto a distant wall and then wag your finger, the shadow will move much faster than your finger. If your finger moves parallel to the wall, the shadow's speed will be multiplied by a factor D/d where d is the distance from the lamp to your finger, and D is the distance from the lamp to the wall. The speed can even be much faster than this if the wall is at an angle to your finger's motion. If the wall is very far away, the movement of the shadow will be delayed because of the time it takes light to get there, but the shadow's speed is still increased by the same ratio. The speed of a shadow is therefore not restricted to be less than the speed of light.

Others things that can go FTL include the spot of a laser that has been aimed at the surface of the Moon. Given that the distance to the Moon is 385,000 km, try working out the speed of the spot if you wave the laser at a gentle speed. You might also like to think about a water wave arriving obliquely at a long straight beach. How fast can the point at which the wave is breaking travel along the beach?

This sort of thing can turn up in Nature; for example, the beam of light from a pulsar can sweep across a dust cloud. A bright explosion emits an expanding spherical shell of light or other radiation. When this shell intersects a surface, it creates a circle of light which expands faster than light. A natural example of this has been observed when an electromagnetic pulse from a lightning flash hits an upper layer of the atmosphere.

These are all examples of things that can go faster than light, but which are not physical objects. It is not possible to send information faster than light on a shadow or light spot, so FTL communication is not possible in this way. This is not what we mean by faster than light travel, although it shows how difficult it is to define what we really do mean by faster than light travel.

Mickeroo

I hope you aren't taking that seriously?

JONJO THE MISER

3ndahalfof6 wrote: »

is it not strange that we have done so much in such a short space of time, considering how long we have been on the planet yet done so much in the last 150 years,

I just find it odd why now, all of a sudden.

Well the Americans reversed engineered alien tech from the crash at Roswell, there are many accounts that most of the tech in the last 50 years came from Alien tech.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread59681/pg1

Muir

I'd love to be still alive if/when we find life on other planets.

I think it's possible that we could find, or some other species has already found, a way to travel faster than the speed of light. It's only a year since CERN thought they had found that neutrinos traveled faster than the speed of light, it was later disproved but scientists believed that it was possible. The laws of Physics as we know them may not be completely correct, most of the time it's just our understanding based on the information we have now. Also there could be worm holes or other things that we've never considered as means of traveling to other parts of the universe more quickly.

Cú Giobach

Mickeroo wrote: »

Nah he's just saying there's no point speculating about stuff that defies the laws of physics.

I just noticed this post.

If it wasn't for people speculating about the seeming impossible we wouldn't be where we are today, and speculating about getting from one part of the universe to another faster than a beam of light would is not speculating about stuff that breaks the laws of physics.

aidan24326

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

that terms means anything which can be carried on an electromagnetic frequency - and nothing can go faster than light.

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Please dont speculate about aliens using faster than light technology for communication. That can't happen.

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

This isnt a technical limitiation, it is a real physical limitation of the universe.

How can we be so sure though? There are loopholes for how we could get around that. Not technologically possible anytime soon but theoretically possible. People like Michio Kaku and Steven Weinberg have shown how bypassing the speed of light limitation could be possible. But it would require technology very far beyond anything we have now. Then again we're only an infant civilization so who knows what will be possible in the future (if we're still around)

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

1) Solar System has Earth like planet
2) Earth like planet in proper orbit.
3) Solar System has large Gas Planets to hover up debris.
4) Earth planet has similar sized moon.
5) Life begins on Earth Type planet.
6) Multicellular life begins on planet.
7) Life moves out of the sea
8) Intelligent life emerges - for most of Earths history that was unlikely to happen, the dinosaurs ruled the roost.
9) Intelligent life developes scientific society.

My purely arbitary guesss are

1/10 * 1/100 * 1/10 * 1/1000 * 1/100000 * 1/100000 * 1/100000 * 1/100000 * 1/100

= 10 ^ -29.

Why would a planet have to be earth-like? There is no reason at all to believe that life needs an earth-like planet with water, oxygen atmosphere etc. The fact is we have no idea what form alien life might take or what kind of planet they might live on. Maybe it'll be an earth-like planet with earth-like life but maybe it'll be something completely different. It begs the question of how exactly we define 'life' in the first place.

Primitive microbial life was really nothing more than a bunch of molecules that got a little smarter than your average molecule by somehow 'figuring out' how to self-replicate. And that really wouldn't be all that interesting if it wasn't for what came after, the complexity it led to.

zenno

Cú Giobach wrote: »

We don't understand the nature of this universe yet, let alone others that might be out there. What is Dark matter? What is Dark energy? Is the universe "stringy", "lumpy" or something else? What is time? We know and understand nothing yet and you are just making definitive statements based on this tiny knowledge we have so far, and as I said such things are looked at by future peoples as amusing and naive.

Getting around* the light speed barrier could be no harder in 500 years than popping up to the ISS is today, relativity actually allows for faster than light travel, the difficulty is getting around the barrier and the technology.

*Difference between going around something and going through it.

I have a feeling the faster than light barrier will be broken sometime in the future, maybe tachyons or something else but as usual we will progress and eventually find out that faster than light particles exist, i'm sure of that.

Cú Giobach

zenno wrote: »

I have a feeling the faster than light barrier will be broken sometime in the future, maybe tachyons or something else but as usual we will progress and eventually find out that faster than light particles exist, i'm sure of that.

If we are right so far in our understanding then moving anything up to that speed is impossible, and since you are practically travelling at infinite speed if you got there (because time would stop) going beyond it seemingly has no real meaning.
Getting around it however could indeed just be a matter of time and technology.

dttq

Anyone have Jim Corr's phone number?

zenno

Cú Giobach wrote: »

If we are right so far in our understanding then moving anything up to that speed is impossible, and since you are practically travelling at infinite speed if you got there (because time would stop) going beyond it seemingly has no real meaning.
Getting around it however could indeed just be a matter of time and technology.

Yep, well maybe the large hadron collider might find some new discoveries with this faster than light scenario in the future. Wormholes sounds nice but creating one would take a type 2 civilization i think or a type 3 one if you could somehow harness a suns energy in some way but that is way out there. Interesting times ahead though, it will be interesting to see what new discoveries they will find.

citrus burst

zenno wrote: »

I have a feeling the faster than light barrier will be broken sometime in the future, maybe tachyons or something else but as usual we will progress and eventually find out that faster than light particles exist, i'm sure of that.

lol and how do you plan on detecting them? Its not a barrier, its a limit. You can't reach it, let alone break it.

FTL particles would cause havoc on the universe.

Using a wormhole isn't FTL either

Lollers

Forgive me if I'm interrupting this thread, but it's about future theory, and I've heard some great replies so far. What does anyone think about time travel, is it a paradox too far ?.

zenno

citrus burst wrote: »

lol and how do you plan on detecting them? Its not a barrier, its a limit. You can't reach it, let alone break it.

FTL particles would cause havoc on the universe.

Using a wormhole isn't FTL either

Don't be so narrow-minded, new discoveries are already happening from research with the large hadron collider, just because we can't find it now doesn't mean we never will.

citrus burst

Lollers wrote: »

Forgive me if I'm interrupting this thread, but it's about future theory, and I've heard some great replies so far. What does anyone think about time travel, is it a paradox too far ?.

Time travel is mathematically possible from relativity but more then likely practically impossible. It may also be forbidden from quantum theory.

Sure aren't you travelling through time all the time?

Killer Wench

Algae is considered alive. A virus is considered alive. Alien life could just be a simple living bacteria.

zenno

I love the way some people assume that something is impossible from our standpoint in technology and wisdom.

We are still learning and we have not even touched the surface of any of this but we are progressing slowly and this is good, so just imagine what we will find and be capable of doing in another 500 years from now. Well that is if we don't eradicate ourselves in the process. Nothing is impossible, it's only impossible when you have not progressed far enough and if we could see what things could be like in technology in 500 years we would surely be astounded, just because we find things in theory hard now, it doesn't mean those theories won't come to fruition in our later future.

zenno

zenno wrote: »

I love the way some people assume that something is impossible from our standpoint in technology and wisdom.

We are still learning and we have not even touched the surface of any of this but we are progressing slowly and this is good, so just imagine what we will find and be capable of doing in another 500 years from now. Well that is if we don't eradicate ourselves in the process. Nothing is impossible, it's only impossible when you have not progressed far enough and if we could see what things could be like in technology in 500 years we would surely be astounded, just because we find things in theory hard now, it doesn't mean those theories won't come to fruition in our later future.

Reaching lightspeed is impossible in theory now, not hard, impossible.
mass approaches infinity as you approach lightspeed.

of course, the effects of quantum entanglement mean information travelling faster but again, physically moving things? still out of the question as far as i remember - totally different question to measuring spin up or spin down

Corkfeen

This topic has been fascinating and I've been reading the interesting posts in the voice of Carl Sagan......

zenno

bluewolf wrote: »

Reaching lightspeed is impossible in theory now, not hard, impossible.
mass approaches infinity as you approach lightspeed.

of course, the effects of quantum entanglement mean information travelling faster but again, physically moving things? still out of the question as far as i remember - totally different question to measuring spin up or spin down

Of course, but that's now, who knows in the future you could possibly move an object using some kind of anti-gravity shield and fly it into a wormhole which could combat this, but i'm way out of my league even contemplating such things but who knows. We are only at the basic stage learning now but unfortunately we will all be dead and buried by the time such things are possible.

Don't get me wrong, i'm just speculating but i see new advances ahead but the main problem is will human civilization make it to this future advancement without destroying ourselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X02WMNoHSm8

GoldenLight

Dr.Poca wrote: »

This.

I've no doubt that we will find evidence of life outside of Earth in the not too distant future. With the vastness of space it would be near impossible for life not to exist somewhere else in the universe.

Maybe, it won't be in the next 40 years, but I wouldn't be suprised if we found evidence of some form of extremely primitive life in that time.

I agree, have we not already found evidence of primitive life on Mars though?

KenSwee

godeas16 wrote: »

They were on earth for 165 million years

Depending on your definition of human we've been here 1/2 million.

Seriously how much time do they need?

As long as it takes.
Both time scales are minute in the line of the universe.

Cú Giobach

citrus burst wrote: »

lol and how do you plan on detecting them? Its not a barrier, its a limit. You can't reach it, let alone break it.

FTL particles would cause havoc on the universe.

Using a wormhole isn't FTL either

FTL travel just means getting somewhere faster than light would, not bringing a spaceship up to and beyond the speed of light.

GoldenLight wrote: »

I agree, have we not already found evidence of primitive life on Mars though?

Not yet.

zenno

I would put a very large bet on finding microbial life on Europa. Under all that ice there will be surely liquid water so nasa better hurry up and send a probe there instead of messing around on mars looking for life. Drill into that ice layer on Europa and dig deep and i'm positive they will find life in the liquid water beneath it.

Wibbs

zenno wrote: »

I would put a very large bet on finding microbial life on Europa.

Liquid water is all very well and likely one of the biggest if not the biggest requirements for life as we know it. However, one theory goes that at the very beginning some of the building block compounds for life required the presence of liquid water to form, whereas others needed to be dry. The theory goes that is was in the massive tidal zones of the early earth when the moon was much closer is where life kicked off. So biochemical compounds were alternately inundated by the ocean and baked in the sun twice daily. If this theory has legs then Europa may be seedable with life, but may never have gotten off the ground there in the first place.

Helix

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

why not?

because the universe is bloody huge

there could be a neon flashing planet sized sign with the words "LIFE HERE" and an arrow pointing to a nearby planet, and the chances are we'd still never find it

Reindeer

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

The speed of light restriction is fundamental to the understanding of the galaxy and is integral to any understanding of the universe as it is. It is not going to be superseded. Nothing can now, or ever will, go faster than the speed of light. This isnt a technical limitiation, it is a real physical limitation of the universe.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly

Nothing in science is set in stone. It is simply the report of all our evidence, proofs, and empirical knowledge. With the advent of better sensors and data gathering equipment, and a sprinkling of time, we are constantly updating our knowledge of the universe and how it works.

Bear in mind that nothing can travel faster than light is the current accepted model - except that there is now evidence that light can travel faster than light now. There is also evidence that spacetime can travel faster than light. I'm not sure one can rule out the possibility of FTL travel when many astrophysicists do not rule it out. I am not so sure many of us here can hold their own in a relativity discussion with Michio Kaku, one of the biggest fans of FTL, regardless of how agreeable the man comes across as.

Michio also maintains that many of our assumptions regarding other civilizations are deeply faulted in that we tend induce a human bias. A simple thing such as an alien that can withstand 4-10 G's VS the human being comfortable with 1G alone can change their ability to travel great distances via even a simple straight-forward anti matter drive(we currently have a limited ability to create anti-matter and contain it, btw), let alone FTL. And let's not forget that with even the capability of only near light speeds, the effects of time, and supplies needed for the crew members would be hugely reduced. There are 53 stars and at least 8 other known planets within 16.3 light years of earth. So I would imagine another civilization would likely have just as much of an opportunity to try to develop advanced space travel.

Enjoy playing with this:

http://www.cthreepo.com/lab/math1/

One of the smartest, and perhaps wisest amongst us, Steven Hawking, recently stated: "Alien contact is not a wise idea".

And maybe he's right. Any alien species capable of receiving our transmission, especially if by probes, is likely much further advanced from our own by definition of how long we've been sending out communications. Now, imagine if you were tens of thousands of years more advanced than us. Your society is incredibly advanced if it hasn't destroyed itself, and your values are likely quite a bit different from our own. You also would have reason to not contact any other advanced species if possible. And, if you did come in to contact with a lesser advanced species, you may not have reason to make it apparent to said species. Well, at least until you became their overlords.

Sponge25

Killer Wench wrote: »

Algae is considered alive. A virus is considered alive. Alien life could just be a simple living bacteria.

Virii aren't considered alive!

Reindeer

Wibbs wrote: »

Liquid water is all very well and likely one of the biggest if not the biggest requirements for life as we know it. However, one theory goes that at the very beginning some of the building block compounds for life required the presence of liquid water to form, whereas others needed to be dry. The theory goes that is was in the massive tidal zones of the early earth when the moon was much closer is where life kicked off. So biochemical compounds were alternately inundated by the ocean and baked in the sun twice daily. If this theory has legs then Europa may be seedable with life, but may never have gotten off the ground there in the first place.

Don't forget that energy can also effect how matter can form. The Sun's rays alone deposit huge amounts of energy into our ecosystem. The Sun's rays heat the water upon the earth and helps to make clouds. Electrical currents can form certain chemical bonds. With water come clouds, comes weather, comes lightning. As we all know, energy = entropy. Entropy rolls down hill - energy dissipates, changes, and spreads out. With the introduction of energy into an otherwise closed system, you now have the ability for that system to change, sometimes drastically.

Duggys Housemate

This thread has descended into fantastical ideas.

1) Just because people in the past couldn't have imagined practically going faster than 40 mph does not mean they are equivalent to those of us who know that the speed of light is an absolute limit, because there was no limiting theory then, just practical problems.
2) Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we don't know anything. Don't mistake 1012 with 2012, the scientists of today, and particularly of the early 20th century will be famous in millennia, at least I don't think the founders of relativity and quantum mechanics will be forgotten amongst the educated. In fact the future will bemoan the loss of such paradigm changing ideas, because - after all - you cant have that many.
3) YOu cant go faster than light. Mass tend to infinity, as does - of course - the energy required to reach that speed. All kinds of laws of causality are breached. It will never happen. Asking about mass exceeding light speed is like asking about the result of dividing by zero. Its not that we haven't or wont have the technology, nor that we aren't smart enough but that these are universal limitations imposed by how the universe works. Nobody can exceed them.
4) its pointless to speculate about other forms of life - i.e electrical, light based, or non-material beings etc. This is a bit religious to my mind, and saying we "cant understand how this would work" is also religious, similar to "we cant understand the mind of God". We have to assume that life originates as it has here - carbon, DNA etc. If some wants to posit electrical beings they should exaplin how that would even start.
5) So therefore we must stick to what we know, which is carbon based lifeforms, and I direct y'all back to my post on the denominators.

Cú Giobach

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

This thread has descended into fantastical ideas.

The most fantastical idea espoused here is your belief that we have practically reached some pinnacle of understanding regarding the nature of the universe.

1) Just because people in the past couldn't have imagined practically going faster than 40 mph does not mean they are equivalent to those of us who know that the speed of light is an absolute limit, because there was no limiting theory then, just practical problems.

3) YOu cant go faster than light. Mass tend to infinity, as does - of course - the energy required to reach that speed. All kinds of laws of causality are breached. It will never happen. Asking about mass exceeding light speed is like asking about the result of dividing by zero. Its not that we haven't or wont have the technology, nor that we aren't smart enough but that these are universal limitations imposed by how the universe works. Nobody can exceed them.

Relativity allows for circumventing the light speed problem, an "Einstein-Rosen Bridge" is named that because it was discovered to be allowed by two rather eminent physicists.

2) Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we don't know anything. Don't mistake 1012 with 2012, the scientists of today, and particularly of the early 20th century will be famous in millennia, at least I don't think the founders of relativity and quantum mechanics will be forgotten amongst the educated. In fact the future will bemoan the loss of such paradigm changing ideas, because - after all - you cant have that many.

Oh yes you can, we could be here for thousands (if not millions) more years and to think our knowledge of today is reaching some sort of pinnacle is naivety of the highest order, and such an idea would be laughed at out of hand by any physicist worthy of the name. That last bolded sentence is utter crap, christ we don't even know what most of this universe is even made of yet.
The founders are never forgotten, but that does not mean they knew or discovered everything, what we have to learn about QM and the nature of the Universe far exceeds what we know so far. QM has given us far more questions than answers.
One big difference between 1012 and 2012, is that we now realise how little we actually know (well the more educated do anyway).

Duggys Housemate

Firstly wormholes are theoretical and don't challenge the limitations of the speed of light. They are shorter distances. Secondly physicists wouldn't say we know everything but if you find one who thinks that the speed of light restriction is not a fundamental feature of the galaxy feel free to name him. None do.

Your argument is that a strong established theory will br thrown out because "we don't know everything yet" is an argument made by fans of intelligent design. Evolution can't explain absolutely everything, they say, so it will be overturned in a matter of years. You, and they, are wrong.

Cú Giobach

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Firstly wormholes are theoretical and don't challenge the limitations of the speed of light. They are shorter distances. Secondly physicists wouldn't say we know everything but if you find one who thinks that the speed of light restriction is not a fundamental feature of the galaxy feel free to name him. None do.

Of course it's theoretical all theoretical physics is, some is disproved some not.
The issue is getting from one part of the universe to another faster than light would, therefore making interstellar or intergalatic travel (or maybe even communication) possible, not travelling through space faster than light, what is it about this most basic of ideas that you don't understand?

Your argument is that a strong established theory will br thrown out because "we don't know everything yet" is an argument made by fans of intelligent design. Evolution can't explain absolutely everything, they say, so it will be overturned in a matter of years. You, and they, are wrong.

What theory am I saying will be thrown out?

Muir

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Firstly wormholes are theoretical and don't challenge the limitations of the speed of light. They are shorter distances. Secondly physicists wouldn't say we know everything but if you find one who thinks that the speed of light restriction is not a fundamental feature of the galaxy feel free to name him. None do.

Your argument is that a strong established theory will br thrown out because "we don't know everything yet" is an argument made by fans of intelligent design. Evolution can't explain absolutely everything, they say, so it will be overturned in a matter of years. You, and they, are wrong.

Well last year in CERN they thought they had discovered that neutrinos traveled faster than the speed of light & were really excited by this. They wouldn't be doing experiments to prove it was possible if they didn't think it could be possible.

Duggys Housemate

The theory in question is special relativity.

squod

Muir wrote: »

Well last year in CERN they thought they had discovered that neutrinos traveled faster than the speed of light & were really excited by this. They wouldn't be doing experiments to prove it was possible if they didn't think it could be possible.

Boulby Underground Laboratory. Been looking for dark matter for years now.

I think this goes to show how some scienticians are clearly off their tiny little heads.

squod

squod wrote: »

Boulby Underground Laboratory. Been looking for dark matter for years now.

I think this goes to show how some scienticians are clearly off their tiny little heads.

Damn Illuminati has them under mind control.

Cú Giobach

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

The theory in question is special relativity.

Show where I said any such thing.
I think you will find I said it is impossible to travel through space faster than light, but it is theoretically possible to get around the barrier (here and here).
So stop with your crap.

Mickeroo

Cú Giobach wrote: »

The most fantastical idea espoused here is your belief that we have practically reached some pinnacle of understanding regarding the nature of the universe.


Relativity allows for circumventing the light speed problem, an "Einstein-Rosen Bridge" is named that because it was discovered to be allowed by two rather eminent physicists.

Oh yes you can, we could be here for thousands (if not millions) more years and to think our knowledge of today is reaching some sort of pinnacle is naivety of the highest order, and such an idea would be laughed at out of hand by any physicist worthy of the name. That last bolded sentence is utter crap, christ we don't even know what most of this universe is even made of yet.
The founders are never forgotten, but that does not mean they knew or discovered everything, what we have to learn about QM and the nature of the Universe far exceeds what we know so far. QM has given us far more questions than answers.
One big difference between 1012 and 2012, is that we now realise how little we actually know (well the more educated do anyway).

Physicists hate it when people try to use how complicated QM is to try and justify batty speculation about the nature of the universe, it's complicated but its perfectly understandable. Sure we don't know what's down the road in terms of what may be discovered in the future but that doesn't mean you can write off what we do know now. Also we know more about the universe now than anyone in the history of this rock ever has, it's irrelevant to the present how much humanity will know in another 1000 years.

EDIT: Just to be clear I don't disagree with you entirely but saying things along the lines of "well maybe it could be such and such, we don't know! Maybe <insert strongly held tenet of modern physics> is wrong!" is pretty pointless. The whole point of science is that the theory has to stand up to scrutiny and be compatible with what we know to be true.

Cú Giobach

Mickeroo wrote: »

Physicists hate it when people try to use how complicated QM is to try and justify batty speculation about the nature of the universe, it's complicated but its perfectly understandable.

QM perfectly understandable? Unless you know something the greatest physicists on the planet don't, you're either just having a laugh or you know nothing about the subject.
"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics" who said that?
Oh and if you think anything I have said here is "batty" then maybe you should take it up with the world renowned physicists who I have to thank for their work that I have learned from, or else actually read my posts.

Sure we don't know what's down the road in terms of what may be discovered in the future but that doesn't mean you can write off what we do know now.

In what way am I writing off what we know now?

Also we know more about the universe now than anyone in the history of this rock ever has, it's irrelevant to the present how much humanity will know in another 1000 years.

But it won't be in 1000 years and speculating about the future is considering things in 1000 years time.

EDIT: Just to be clear I don't disagree with you entirely but saying things along the lines of "well maybe it could be such and such, we don't know! Maybe <insert strongly held tenet of modern physics> is wrong!" is pretty pointless. The whole point of science is that the theory has to stand up to scrutiny and be compatible with what we know to be true.

I don't suppose you could point out somewhere I say something along the lines of the above to give some validity to your comment?

bluecode

Seeing as we have only sent a man to the moon which in terms of manned space exploration is the equivalent of getting off the sofa and looking out the window how do you figure this?

Love that comment. I'm a child of the space age, stayed up all night to watch the late lamented Neil Armstrong step on the moon. I love Star Trek and all that crap. But the reality is that Apollo 17 is pretty much the zenith of manned exploration in space. I very much doubt men will make it as far as Mars, maybe Chinese but they will die there.

But we won't be meeting aliens in forty years unless they've been hiding somewhere on Earth for the last few years and I bet there's a website claiming that.

The complex truth is that the laws of physics do not allow us any correspondance with intelligent aliens because they are too far away and it's impossible for any of them to make it to Earth given the latest laws of physics. No problem with the idea that aliens exist somewhere out there. By all logic there has to be some form of life out there in the universe. It is impossible that we are the only life in the universe. But they're not here and they don't flit around in spaceships somewhere in middle America feeding the UFO industry.

I wish it were otherwise. Life would be so much more interesting with aliens poking about. Ah well!

Mickeroo

Cú Giobach wrote: »

QM perfectly understandable? Unless you know something the greatest physicists on the planet don't, you're either just having a laugh or you know nothing about the subject.
"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics" who said that?

Yeah I've heard that quote before, I'm pretty sure its only meant to apply to laymen like myself not actual quantum physicists. I've only a basic understanding of the subject of course, i'm only going by what I've read or seen/heard physicists themselves say on the matter.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

But it won't be in 1000 years and speculating about the future is considering things in 1000 years time.

Stating the obvious a bit there. I was just referring to how you used the gap in knowledge between the present and 1000 years ago to try give less credence to what we know now. Not to mention the sly dig that anyone disagreeing with you isn't well educated

Cú Giobach wrote: »

In what way am I writing off what we know now?

I don't suppose you could point out somewhere I say something along the lines of the above to give some validity to your comment?

Well this post seemed that way to me:

We don't understand the nature of this universe yet, let alone others that might be out there. What is Dark matter? What is Dark energy? Is the universe "stringy", "lumpy" or something else? What is time? We know and understand nothing yet and you are just making definitive statements based on this tiny knowledge we have so far, and as I said such things are looked at by future peoples as amusing and naive.

Getting around* the light speed barrier could be no harder in 500 years than popping up to the ISS is today, relativity actually allows for faster than light travel, the difficulty is getting around the barrier and the technology.

Using our "tiny" knowledge to suggest we know and understand nothing is pretty silly. Saying definitive statements based on what is considered scientific fact will be looked at as amusing and naive in the future only rings true if the facts of the present are proven to be erronous which nobody in existence has any way of knowing, just seems like a load of hot air to me. You could literally rationalise (for want of a better word) anything with that kind of thinking.

MOC88

bluecode wrote: »

Love that comment. I'm a child of the space age, stayed up all night to watch the late lamented Neil Armstrong step on the moon. I love Star Trek and all that crap. But the reality is that Apollo 17 is pretty much the zenith of manned exploration in space. I very much doubt men will make it as far as Mars, maybe Chinese but they will die there.

But we won't be meeting aliens in forty years unless they've been hiding somewhere on Earth for the last few years and I bet there's a website claiming that.

The complex truth is that the laws of physics do not allow us any correspondance with intelligent aliens because they are too far away and it's impossible for any of them to make it to Earth given the latest laws of physics. No problem with the idea that aliens exist somewhere out there. By all logic there has to be some form of life out there in the universe. It is impossible that we are the only life in the universe. But they're not here and they don't flit around in spaceships somewhere in middle America feeding the UFO industry.

I wish it were otherwise. Life would be so much more interesting with aliens poking about. Ah well!

Have to agree with this - heres the question would they even recognise us as intelligent or would we be like a spider to them?- totally different aims logic etc.

As far as 40 years I think this is a ridicolous statement to make - we could see a planet tommorow that is teeming with life - or mankind could live for a million years and never come across anything - billions times billions for an infinite amount amount of space.

Aliens could make it to earth - it would just take a hell of a lot of time and be extremely risky ie. space dust at a fraction of light speed would require what kind of shield you can read my posts on what I think here- obviously from a point of us travelling http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056712738
would they be arsed coming here even if they found us?