Space travel , Light Speed

This is one of those 'out there' questions that likely only has 'imagination' as an answer, but if anyone knows something it is likely to be here.

The speed of light.
Constant or not...doesnt matter

Is light propelled by something? Is there a force that makes it go at the speed it does? Is there a theory to somehow 'harness' light so that we can move at that speed?


Now , beyond the rim

Star Trek and Warp Speed.
My understanding of the science in the show is that the warp engines rapidly gather up space (picture space as a grid) , bunching it up like you would a blanket , and then letting go of the first half and letting space stretch back out while 'holding on' to the second half...thus moving the ship.

Since old imagination sometimes becomes modern practice...is that one even possible one day? I have doubts , not simply because we arent even close...that would be short sighted...but rather because anything near a device that could do such a thing would also be 'warped' with space and destroyed.

Is there anything like the above in actual science?
Or is it only science fiction?

if light speed travel were to be possible, how would we avoid objects like meteors, comets, and maybe small planets?

Originally posted by jake1997
Is light propelled by something? Is there a force that makes it go at the speed it does? Is there a theory to somehow 'harness' light so that we can move at that speed?

Not that I know of(other then the reaction that gave birth to the light in the first place), and no. The only reason light goes as fast as it does is because it's massless.

My understanding of the science in the show is that the warp engines rapidly gather up space (picture space as a grid) , bunching it up like you would a blanket , and then letting go of the first half and letting space stretch back out while 'holding on' to the second half...thus moving the ship.

Quite possible, only problem is the energy required and a suitable negative energy genorator to make the damn thing work.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 18-5-2005 by sardion2000]

Thanks for the link.
It will take more then a couple of readings

Depending who you talk to, FTL travel is a reality and a possibility in our near future. What I am talking about is Space/Time engineering. Given further advances in energy production(ZPE or Fusion) it will be possible to power these craft. You will never be able to push a craft faster than the speed of light, you have to think outside the box for that one.

yea maybe we can travel at light speed at some poitn but like pao said whta about the things we will run into. if your travelign at the speed of light you will not be able to steer out of anythings path. it will be going to fast to control. plus how will you stop

Add that to the fact that the light ship has to have a superb hull and a extreme g-suit to withstand the impossible amount of G's occuring at that rate of acceleration.

From my understanding of recent scientific developments warp drive
not totally out of the question I have a cool link to some interesting theories .www.npl.washington.edu...

First you can't get to the speed of light, let alone faster then the speed of light... using the current philosophy of more thrust equals a faster craft(and it is true to an extent). The only way we can travel faster then light is to get this idea out of our heads that we have to equip our craft with enormous amount of fuel and powerful engines, it just won't work that way! You have to go about manipulating the forces of natures, namely gravity. Gravity manipulation holds the key to FTL travel, and many other effects not presently understood by mainstream science. If we can control gravity, we can go anywhere!

if your looking for opinions on wether FTL travel is possible written more in laymans terms, i would recommend the dissertations Isaac asimov and Arthur C Clarke wrote to each other arguing wether this is possible or not. Asimovs rebuttal is printed in his book 'The Stars In Their Courses'. the Clarke dissertation was on the internet but i can't find a link. they explain the science of it all quite well.

Originally posted by jake1997

Is light propelled by something? Is there a force that makes it go at the speed it does? Is there a theory to somehow 'harness' light so that we can move at that speed?



Star Trek and Warp Speed.
My understanding of the science in the show is that the warp engines rapidly gather up space (picture space as a grid) , bunching it up like you would a blanket , and then letting go of the first half and letting space stretch back out while 'holding on' to the second half...thus moving the ship.

light isn't propelled by anything as such, but the reason it can travel so fast is because it has no mass. the crucial relationship in FTL travel is between Mass, Energy and Velocity. basically, if an object has Mass, it would require an infinite amount of Energy to travel with the same Velocity as something with no Mass, such as light and other waves. scientists have theorised a faster then light particle with infinte energy we might harness for travel; the Tachyon. the only problem is, the tachyon could only be stopped from FTL travel by an infinte amount of energy(because of the Energy, Mass and Velocity relationship) and so tachyons are probably travelling backwards through time towards a point of infinite energy, the Big Bang. we can not use them if this is so.

it would probably be easier to fold or warp space, like in star trek, as this is theoretically possible. warping space should not affect the craft or destroy it at all. all space is already being warped by mass and this produces gravity. the force thats holding you to the planets surface is space being warped and sqaushing you against the planet. this relationship means if we can master gravity, we can fold space as travel faster.

All the current equations which imply the impossiblity of FTL travel are based on the acceptance that time (little "t") is a true expression of Time (big "T") wherein "time" is in fact as we experience it: Linear. We then make the leap to the conclusion that since time/space are both linear they must be related, linked, causal; and therefore we conclude that Velocity is a function time in relation to Space, hence since nothing travels faster than light, in our limited experience, nothing can travel faster than light!

But as a recent essay in quantum physics ( by a Chemist! for gosh sakes!!!) pointed out, we cannot claim that our experience of time as a linear expression is in any real way related to Time, as a condition of the Universe,

We speak of time in linear terms: the passage of time, from past to present, etc. and we divvy up time in various "packets"; days, hours pico-seconds, etc. But Time, as a fundamental building block of the Universe, must be a single, indivisible unit, a "Glob", if you will. If Time were indeed "packet-able", then EVERY descriptible phenomenom occurring in the entire Universe, in Reality, down to the most fundamental, basic, elemental processes of the quanta would encounter instances of "No Time"; a state of 'Time-less-ness' which would, by definition be never-ending!

If Time were in fact the way we percieve it, nothing of what we know could exist! Time must therefore be, as some physicists are begining to realize: Globbular. That is to say, all time exists simultaineously in a seamless "NOW" without division or distinction.

What does this have to do with FTL?

Velocity (ie. Faster than Light) is an expression of Distance over....Time. But if all Time is NOW, velocity, and even distance become irrelevant. If there is no Time but NOW, I must be There NOW as I am Here NOW; it is only my inability shake the limits of my perception that cause me to postulate various "time to distance" constructs.

Read the classic "Flatland" to see how limiting one's perception of dimensdional constraints shapes one's physics.

I get the part of the globular time. (Basically what you're saying is that there would be an infinite amount of time-less-ness pieces that last infinite amount of time) and nothing could exist. But the last paragraph as kind of foggy and I didn't really get it...

Since nobody ever dares mention his name here, I am going to.

Jack Sarfatti.

There. I feel much better now.

Originally posted by BluePostman
I get the part of the globular time. (Basically what you're saying is that there would be an infinite amount of time-less-ness pieces that last infinite amount of time) and nothing could exist. But the last paragraph as kind of foggy and I didn't really get it...

I know, I Just HATE Temporal Mechanics (or is that Tempermental Mechanics?) myself!

Velocity equals Distance divided by time: V=D/t or, 60MPH= 120 miles/ 2 hours. Right?

BUT, the emerginging paradym for Time, as it must truely exist, would be expressed as follows, if only the NOW existed:

V=D/0

A meaningless expression. Velocity would be valueless since you would be trying to divide Distance by a null value, 0, since Time does not exist as a discrete-able quantity. And...

V0=D Therefore: 0=D Distance does not exist, since its value is 0.

Hence I am here NOW, AND I am also there, wherever in the Universe there is, NOW, as well.

Originally posted by Bhadhidar

Hence I am here NOW, AND I am also there, wherever in the Universe there is, NOW, as well.

So then where the hell am I?

Hence I am here NOW, AND I am also there, wherever in the Universe there is, NOW, as well.

Whoa deep duuude

I'm not so sure about the "light having no mass" statements. Since gravity can actually bend light, wouldn't that mean that light has mass? Black holes actually trap light with gravity correct?

Originally posted by jimragan
I'm not so sure about the "light having no mass" statements. Since gravity can actually bend light, wouldn't that mean that light has mass? Black holes actually trap light with gravity correct?

It's been tested and being testing at this moment. What is actually happening is the warping of the spacetime fabric. Light propogates across this fabric which planets, suns and black holes all distort. A black hole is alot like a whirlpool in spacetime. It's all Relativity

We have a very good knowledge base about Photons. What we are now trying to figure out is the medium in which it is confined to c. There are many theories as to what Space is actually made of at the subatomic level, none has been proven as of yet

[edit on 19-5-2005 by sardion2000]

Ok, it's been a few years since I've read any Hawking. So, how can a black hole suck something that has no mass? I can understand a bend in space fabric distorting light, i.e. bending it. But how does a black hole suck it up? I know at one time the theory was that light was made up of both particles and waves, but I assum that has changed. Looks like I need to drop the computer manuals and pick up a couple of good books on modern physics, astronomy and quantum mechanics. Any suggestions?

Think of it this way. A black hole is a huge sinkhole in the fabric of space time. Light travels in a straight line unless it is interupted by a gravity well. A black holes gravity well is so massive it would literally spiral into it because to the lonely photon it is still going in a straight line its space itself that is curved, contoured and utterly twisted(both literally and figuratively)


In this image it shows the Fabric of space being bent by the Earth. Now imagine how something a billion times more massive will affect the geometry of space itself relative to the earths effects. It's the Topography that makes Black Holes such hungry suckers.

Light IS both a Particle and a Wave, that has been demonstrated time and again.

Looks like I need to drop the computer manuals and pick up a couple of good books on modern physics, astronomy and quantum mechanics. Any suggestions?

Lot's of stuff on the internet. You might try wikipedia for a good starting point.

en.wikipedia.org...

This site is good for the bleeding edge in Science and Technology(has a Nanotech on the brain 2)

www.physorg.com...

Here is a modern day attempt at the Theory of Everything

superstringtheory.com...

www.pbs.org...

turing.wins.uva.nl...

www.sukidog.com...

Also some pages talking about Special and General Relativity(they are actively testing alot of Einstiens more harder to test predictions now with GravSat 1 & 2.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...


ALSO BE SURE TO WATCH THIS!

www.pbs.org...

You will love it. Requires Quicktime though.