No races that can travel intergalactically in star trek

seamus

Quantum computing is really still in the theoretical stage. There have been a number built, but these serve to prove hypotheses and to test the engineering, rather than actually "do" anything.

At the moment quantum computing is roughly where digital was just before the second world war using vaccuum tubes and such. There will be a number of breakthroughs needed in the theory and engineering before quantum computers get out of the theoretical physics labs at universities.

Inviere

AllForIt wrote: »

No. Our current understanding if final.

I think that's the most arrogant presumption a human being can actually make (no offence intended, but it's beyond arrogant to think we've all the answers to the physics of the universe). As a civilization, we've broken every limit & barrier ever put in front of us thus far, and while 'the speed of light' might seem like the ultimate limit (which is probably is), given enough time and will, humans will figure something out, as we always have. These are literally the earliest of early days when it comes to interstellar propulsion though, we've a loooooong way to go.

All the great thinkers seem to think out of the box. If the speed of sound is 343 meters per second, could we ever have a real time conversation with someone on the other side of the world? Of course not, sure that's insanity...basic physics dictates that a real time conversation is impossible given the distances. Queue the invention of the telephone, whereby sound was converted to electricity, electricity having a much higher speed limit, and then converted back to sound again on the other side of the world. Job done, all the naysayers left in a grumble.

I'm not saying humans could be converted to electricity (not that that'd solve the problem , electricity is also bound by the speed of light too), but who knows what's going to happen in 100, 500, 1000 years time? Some of the recent military patents for mass-reduction tech are interesting, and while they're too bound by the same limits, again, we're only at the start of the journey. Plus, whatever is filed for patent for publicly, the MIC with its black budget is certainly guaranteed to be decades ahead, if not more, in terms of tech.

Minime2.5

Theres a big difference between developing a probe that can travel the speed of light compared to a ship carrying humans and travelling that fast.Thats the biggest challenge

Minime2.5

Inviere wrote: »

but who knows what's going to happen in 100, 500, 1000 years time?

This

TheValeyard

Minime2.5 wrote: »

This

Even Shredder looks terrified

Inviere

Minime2.5 wrote: »

Theres a big difference between developing a probe that can travel the speed of light compared to a ship carrying humans and travelling that fast.Thats the biggest challenge

There's also a pretty big difference between sending smoke signals and making a video call. With enough time, mad stuff happens

Calibos

Alcubierre Drive. Google it.

pixelburp

Calibos wrote: »

Alcubierre Drive. Google it.

I've read of this before, and it's a fascinating concept; straight out of Futurama really, in terms of effectively hacking the universe to achieve FTL. Feels like the sort of thing that could have horrible, universe collapsing side-effects if it went wrong.

Last I heard though, its power requirements are so vast it's still not even provable on a conceptual basis - though I might have got the wrong end of the stick there. Certainly I've got the impression there are dissenting voices if it's even real.

AtomicHorror

pixelburp wrote: »

I've read of this before, and it's a fascinating concept; straight out of Futurama really, in terms of effectively hacking the universe to achieve FTL. Feels like the sort of thing that could have horrible, universe collapsing side-effects if it went wrong.

Last I heard though, its power requirements are so vast it's still not even provable on a conceptual basis - though I might have got the wrong end of the stick there. Certainly I've got the impression there are dissenting voices if it's even real.

There's a NASA-associated lab doing work on it, apparently. I gather they're seen as very fringe though. Possibly even borderline embarrassing/pitiable.

From my very limited understanding, the Alcubierre drive requires us to have a deeper understanding of the underlying mechanism of gravity, and the capability to manipulate it to warp spacetime, as well as a deep understanding of dark energy (or any understanding of it, for that matter) and the capability to manipulate that to cause localised inflation effects.

If any of that is even possible, it's hard to see us managing it in decades, or even in centuries.

TheValeyard

Everythings impossible until someone's goes and does it.

AMKC

TheValeyard wrote: »

Everythings impossible until someone's goes and does it.

Exactly.

Inviere

AtomicHorror wrote: »

If any of that is even possible, it's hard to see us managing it in decades, or even in centuries.

Decades? Highly unrealistic I would say. Centuries? Perhaps. The rate of innovation we have as a race is pretty staggering....from the first powered flight, to the moon, in 60 years. Who knows what the next five hundred years holds for us as a race.

AtomicHorror

Inviere wrote: »

Decades? Highly unrealistic I would say. Centuries? Perhaps. The rate of innovation we have as a race is pretty staggering....from the first powered flight, to the moon, in 60 years. Who knows what the next five hundred years holds for us as a race.

And yet those two milestones didn't rely on fundamentally different models in physics. You could do both without Einstein's help.

I agree though, that time will change a lot of what we understand.

TheValeyard wrote: »

Everythings impossible until someone's goes and does it.

Not really. Breaking the sound barrier was considered impossible by laypeople ignorant of physics, not by the scientists who hypothesized and theorized and who implemented the mechanisms by which that feat was achieved.

Similarly, circumnavigation of the world. Considered impossible by sailors who also had weird ideas about women, horseshoes and albatrosses. Not by the thinking people of the day.

So I think this saying conflates the dismissive stance of many laypeople with scientific skepticism, when they're really drastically different things.

Some things may genuinely be impossible, and the best minds in science consider FTL to be impossible, while laypeople generally assume otherwise. History teaches us that the scientists are not always right, but usually they are.

I'd be delighted if they were wrong, by the way, but they seem certain about it to a troubling extent.

Zulu

AtomicHorror wrote: »

History teaches us that the scientists are not always right, but usually they are.

I'd be delighted if they were wrong, by the way, but they seem certain about it to a troubling extent.

Good news, I think you are!

I think your being far too kind to "scientists*".

What the old adage - "all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares". Those who have been right, may have been scientists, but the majority of scientists across time? Not so much.


* scientist is a relativity modern term, whats a scientist but a person pursuing and developing on the common thought of the time

AtomicHorror

Zulu wrote: »

Good news, I think you are!

I think your being far too kind to "scientists*".

What the old adage - "all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares". Those who have been right, may have been scientists, but the majority of scientists across time? Not so much.

Across all of time? Absolutely yes. In rare instances when a scientific revolution occurs, of course there's an initial majority of skeptics. Evolution and relativity are good examples. But 99.999-whatever percent of science is not revolutionary but incremental.

And here's a really, really important point. Despite the fact that the skeptical majority were dead wrong about relativity and evolution, they were right to be skeptical the vast majority of times that someone proposed revolutionary theories.

That's as it should be. Einsteins and Darwins are rare.

A better adage for you would be Sagan on Bozo the Clown.

Zulu wrote: »

* scientist is a relativity modern term, whats a scientist but a person pursuing and developing on the common thought of the time

A scientist is one who builds and tests models using the scientific method to add to the body of human knowledge. Scientists have an overlap with the group you're describing, but they're not the same as them nor a subset of them.

ted1

AllForIt wrote: »

Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. No matter what inventions in the future for space travel it is proven to be impossible to travel faster than the speed of light.



So, if you had a star ship that could travel as fast as the speed of light, it would take 100,000 years to traverse it from one side to the other. That's a lot of Star Trek episodes.

So it makes sense the keep the Star Trek universe galaxy centric, rather then jumping from galaxy to galaxy. Star Wars was based in a different galaxy to ours.

This is one of sad things about space discovery and the search for life. The physics of the universe are such that it is so big that it is physically impossible to travel between galaxy's at any kind of speed that would be useful.

Fold space and you and can cover distances faster than light can travel

Inviere

AtomicHorror wrote: »

the best minds in science consider FTL to be impossible

The good-best minds in Science would go and say FTL is impossible "based on our current understanding". A lot of scientists will just flat out say "it's impossible". Big difference between the two for me.

FTL isn't just another barrier to be broke, like the sounds barrier was. This requires a fundamental shift in our understanding of the universe. It's impossible today, but again, who knows in 500/1000 years time.

AllForIt

Inviere wrote: »

I think that's the most arrogant presumption a human being can actually make (no offence intended, but it's beyond arrogant to think we've all the answers to the physics of the universe). As a civilization, we've broken every limit & barrier ever put in front of us thus far, and while 'the speed of light' might seem like the ultimate limit (which is probably is), given enough time and will, humans will figure something out, as we always have. These are literally the earliest of early days when it comes to interstellar propulsion though, we've a loooooong way to go.

No, we don't have all the answers but there are things we don't know for certain.
You say we've broken ever limit but we have not. We haven't for example live longer


All the great thinkers seem to think out of the box. If the speed of sound is 343 meters per second, could we ever have a real time conversation with someone on the other side of the world? Of course not, sure that's insanity...basic physics dictates that a real time conversation is impossible given the distances. Queue the invention of the telephone, whereby sound was converted to electricity, electricity having a much higher speed limit, and then converted back to sound again on the other side of the world. Job done, all the naysayers left in a grumble.

I'm not saying humans could be converted to electricity (not that that'd solve the problem , electricity is also bound by the speed of light too), but who knows what's going to happen in 100, 500, 1000 years time? Some of the recent military patents for mass-reduction tech are interesting, and while they're too bound by the same limits, again, we're only at the start of the journey. Plus, whatever is filed for patent for publicly, the MIC with its black budget is certainly guaranteed to be decades ahead, if not more, in terms of tech.

I think you misunderstood me somewhat. I never said there was no way around the problem but I do insist that to devise a way around the problem you have to understand and accept the facts first, otherwise you could never devise a way around it.

Inviere

AllForIt wrote: »

I think you misunderstood me somewhat. I never said there was no way around the problem but I do insist that to devise a way around the problem you have to understand and accept the facts first, otherwise you could never devise a way around it.

Oh definitely, otherwise we'd be a bunch of dreamers going nowhere Apologies if I misunderstood you!

uck51js9zml2yt

AllForIt wrote: »

No. Our current understanding if final. It is a definite certainty. Einstein proves there is no way to travel faster than the speed of light.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2JCoIGyGxc

And yet the speed of light does change!!

Evade

Dane Prickly Ratchet wrote: »

And yet the speed of light does change!!

Safe to say everyone here has just dropped "in a vacuum" because we all know that's what they mean. If we don't have that qualifier just about everyone in the world has traveled faster than light, not counting the movement of the Earth/solar system/galaxy/etc, a lot would even do it multiple times per day.

AtomicHorror

Inviere wrote: »

The good-best minds in Science would go and say FTL is impossible "based on our current understanding". A lot of scientists will just flat out say "it's impossible". Big difference between the two for me.

Well sure... but every statement by a scientist is based on our current understanding, and with the caveat that this understanding may change. If it isn't stated, it is absolutely implied. That's the nature of science. I wouldn't want to be staking my case on that.

Using the argument that science is never settled to justify improbable positions is well-beloved of creationists, flat-earthers and climate change deniers. Certainly not comparing you guys to those muppets, but that's where that rabbit hole leads.

Inviere

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Well sure... but every statement by a scientist is based on our current understanding, and with the caveat that this understanding may change. If it isn't stated, it is absolutely implied.

I don't agree, for instance some of the things DeGrasse Tyson has come out with made me think for all his intelligence, he seems incredibly closed minded and arrogant at times. A hugely smart and often right individual, but seemingly locked so deeply into established scientific models, he sometimes seems to shun possibilities that conflict with such models. Not always, but I've listened and read content from him that made me feel, well, he's a bit of a knob.

Using the argument that science is never settled to justify improbable positions is well-beloved of creationists, flat-earthers and climate change deniers. Certainly not comparing you guys to those muppets, but that's where that rabbit hole leads.

Don't forget plenty of scientists are also religious individuals at the same time, and they seem to have no issue shaking off their scientific beliefs when it comes to believing in creationism etc.

I'm not religious, but I also don't see it as a debate between religion versus science....then science just becomes just another model of faith doesn't it? No different to another religion. It should never been seen as that. Science in its strictest form is a provable-model for the things we currently know & understand, we expand on that knowledge all the time, and we're able to predict, prove, and disprove things based on science. However scientists are not universal in their opinions, beliefs, and approach - some are inspirational, some are arrogant, some have agendas, some are rational, some are not. Scientists ≠ Science - people are fallible, science is not. If the science of something is wrong, it is fixed, rewritten, and corrected, that's the beauty of it.

My point in all of this is, yes, FTL would appear to violate our most cherished and fundamental laws of physics. It seems unlikely we'll ever go beyond our solar system and that's damned sad to me. I like to look back on the advances we've made in the last say 300 years, from the beginnings of the industrial revolution, to having probes leave our own solar system - that's damned impressive, damned impressive. We've also gone from bows & arrows, to chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons too...so as our knowledge has grown, so has our flaws. I like to think that over the course of the next one thousand years, we'll continue to develop our understanding, our models, our knowledge at the same rate...and if we can't break the laws of physics, maybe we can get around them or bend them, explore the stars, and 'see what's out there'.

somuj

Omnipotent races. A lot of them. Nagilum, the Dowd, a lot of non-coperial individuals we've met. Do they count?

I dnt know if their inter-galaxtic? But worth a discussion.

Stark

FTL is possible depending on your frame of reference. I could go somewhere that's 400 light years away at a speed that's faster than light from my frame of reference in the sense that time would slow down as I approach the speed of light and I wouldn't age as quickly but to an outside observer I would be traveling at sublight speed. So I could reach that star in my lifetime but whoever I was planning to visit there would be long dead as well as everyone I knew back on Earth.

Battlestar Galactica actually covered that quite well during a marathon exposition sequence in season 4.

somuj

Omnipotent races. A lot of them. Nagilum, the Dowd, a lot of non-coperial individuals we've met. Do they count?

I dnt know if their inter-galaxtic? But worth a discussion.

somuj

Omnipotent races. A lot of them. Nagilum, the Dowd, a lot of non-coperial individuals we've met. Do they count?

I dnt know if their inter-galaxtic? But worth a discussion.

somuj

Stark wrote: »

FTL is possible depending on your frame of reference. I could go somewhere that's 400 light years away at a speed that's faster than light from my frame of reference in the sense that time would slow down as I approach the speed of light and I wouldn't age as quickly but to an outside observer I would be traveling at sublight speed. So I could reach that star in my lifetime but whoever I was planning to visit there would be long dead as well as everyone I knew back on Earth.

Battlestar Galactica actually costed that quite well during a marathon exposition sequence in season 4.

But... that's our physics. Is our physics the end all. Is our space and time everything?

How long ago was it that Huble changed things? The big bang was certain, its biggest advocate is part of a tink tank trying to figure out what came before it now.

Space and time, we're only babies.