The difficulties of interstellar travel and the implausibility of the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis.

Again the Fermi paradox doesn't mean anything, because there is no paradox, because we don't have the tools to even detect all the massive objects in our solar system or microbes on Mars yet so how would we know what is even out there?

Notice that giant rock enter our atmosphere a while back? Anybody know about that?

A more plausible explanation for why lifeforms do not make contact is because interstellar travel is truly impossible. This is consistent with the current school of thought that there may be many civilizations out there in the galaxy, but they are all "trapped" in their respective solar systems. This is also the most considered solution to Fermi's paradox based on current knowledge. It would explain why we have yet to see any shred of evidence of an "interstellar empire".

Why would they be trapped? There is no reason in conventional physics for a given civilisation to be trapped. Even one of our earliest major space probes, Voyager, is exiting the solar system as we speak. This paragraph simply makes no sense.

Civlisations could simply keep on expanding from solar system to solar system, why would they be trapped?

Originally posted by Astyanax
No, it is wrong because of a principle known as Occam's Razor.

Occam's Razor then would say they don't want to contact us, not that they can't travel here or don't exist. Period.

If you put yourself into proximity with ants and fish, you will see that they do indeed know you exist and will take whatever steps are necessary to avoid or attack you.

That's the thing, we can make ourselves unknown to any fish or ants if we wish to, and still be able to observe them. Same with extraterrestrials. They most likely keep their distance, nobody said they have to be in our proximity either.

That said, no-one is making the assumption you suppose. Diablos has given some very solid, physics-based reasons for his views. I have a physics background myself, and what he writes makes sense to me.

I don't care about your physics background, or that of Diablos. It doesn't matter. Even if you are right (and you are not) about FTL travel, that still doesn't dictate that extraterrestrials can't reach us or don't even know about us.

Is this another sample of your 'logic'? If I don't like the amount of characters you use, I wouldn't read you, let alone reply to you. Thanks for keeping your reply below 1,000 characters anyway.

Well, that's the kind of impression you left. "Write less, don't have time to read you".

I guess my big problem with explaining something as impossible based on current scientific advancement as the perspective. Imagine a scientist in the 1800's proclaiming the impoosiblity of going 60 mph that it could kill you or that it would be impossible to go into space or travel deep into the ocean. All of that comes to pass once we achieve technological levels. But when science proclaims something impossible it's only based on what we currently know...push us another 1000 ot 10,000 years from now and if we do not kill ourselves all of these scientist will look like idiots.

Look at Davinci's inventions who is clearly one of the brightest men to ever live up until Einstein..but his inventions don't even work in todays world and are still impossible to work..for example his helicoptor made from the materials he knew of at his time will not even work today it's too heavy and just not scientifically feasable to fly.

Imagine a civilization 10,000, 100,000 500,000, a million or a billion years more advanced than us. Most everyone agrees that there is intelligent life out there somewhere. If the Milky way is guessed to be 13 billion years old and the Universe is guessed by some to be 13.77 billion or older, it doesn't take a big leap to imagine that there could be a planet that evolved much like ours, except a million or a billion years faster for some reason or another. If you can imagine that, and just allow for that possibility of "billions upon billions" of planets that could support life... it makes interstellar travel seem very possible. No? Radios, Airplanes, Rockets, Machine Guns, Lasers, Computers, Television, Helicoptors, a round earth, an earth that wasn't the center of our solar system? None of these were deemed possible not too long ago. In fact, we're only talking hundreds and thousands of years ago...now think hundreds of thousands, millions and billions. It's not a big stretch.

Originally posted by Darkstar12
I guess my big problem with explaining something as impossible based on current scientific advancement as the perspective. Imagine a scientist in the 1800's proclaiming the impoosiblity of going 60 mph that it could kill you or that it would be impossible to go into space or travel deep into the ocean. All of that comes to pass once we achieve technological levels. But when science proclaims something impossible it's only based on what we currently know...push us another 1000 ot 10,000 years from now and if we do not kill ourselves all of these scientist will look like idiots.

Scientists always love to prove current paradigms wrong, but after more than a 100 years since special relativity was first introduced, not a single particle has been accelerated to the speed of light let alone faster than it. This is why the overwhelming majority of scientists heavily doubt the possibility of faster than light travel, independent of how advanced a society is.

Originally posted by MathematicalPhysicist

Originally posted by Darkstar12
I guess my big problem with explaining something as impossible based on current scientific advancement as the perspective. Imagine a scientist in the 1800's proclaiming the impoosiblity of going 60 mph that it could kill you or that it would be impossible to go into space or travel deep into the ocean. All of that comes to pass once we achieve technological levels. But when science proclaims something impossible it's only based on what we currently know...push us another 1000 ot 10,000 years from now and if we do not kill ourselves all of these scientist will look like idiots.

Scientists always love to prove current paradigms wrong, but after more than a 100 years since special relativity was first introduced, not a single particle has been accelerated to the speed of light let alone faster than it. This is why the overwhelming majority of scientists heavily doubt the possibility of faster than light travel, independent of how advanced a society is.

If you asked Chris Columbus to build a craft that could go 25 knots 1,000 ft underwater, that can fire rockets that can devastate cities w 1 shot and was 200 yds long, he'd've laughed you out of Europe, would have claimed that would never be done, and went on his way. Approx 500 yrs later the OH class subs do just that.

Before we went to the Moon there were plenty of scientists who stated it couldn't be done, had reason after reason that we'd never do it. We did it.

C'mon, under constant 1 g accleration you'd hit the speed of light in how long?

A little less than a year.

The greatest hindrance to the pursuit of knowledge is the presumption of intelligence.

Derek

Originally posted by MathematicalPhysicist

Originally posted by Darkstar12
I guess my big problem with explaining something as impossible based on current scientific advancement as the perspective. Imagine a scientist in the 1800's proclaiming the impoosiblity of going 60 mph that it could kill you or that it would be impossible to go into space or travel deep into the ocean. All of that comes to pass once we achieve technological levels. But when science proclaims something impossible it's only based on what we currently know...push us another 1000 ot 10,000 years from now and if we do not kill ourselves all of these scientist will look like idiots.

Scientists always love to prove current paradigms wrong, but after more than a 100 years since special relativity was first introduced, not a single particle has been accelerated to the speed of light let alone faster than it. This is why the overwhelming majority of scientists heavily doubt the possibility of faster than light travel, independent of how advanced a society is.

WTF does the speed of light limit matter? If it takes a million years to get somewhere, you just make an intelligent machine that can live a million years. That's easily possible.

We could travel through the universe at 1 mile an hour, and eventually get through all of it. With 1960s rockets, we could have easily populated the entire galaxy in just a few million years.

Which raises the question then -- where is everyone, since they should be here, as it's easily possible?

And if just by some weird reason, we're a rare spot that hasn't been visited.. why are there no large visible structures in space the size of stars of someone built by someone, just someone somewhere as a beacon? The universe is vast enough that that should have happened also.

A challenge it is to reach for the stars,
On one load of fuel you can't get very far,
But to eat your way through the fabric of space,
Using Einstein's speed bumps to feed your face,
Gives you moves that to humans must look bizarre.

Originally posted by Viesczy

If you asked Chris Columbus to build a craft that could go 25 knots 1,000 ft underwater, that can fire rockets that can devastate cities w 1 shot and was 200 yds long, he'd've laughed you out of Europe, would have claimed that would never be done, and went on his way. Approx 500 yrs later the OH class subs do just that.

Before we went to the Moon there were plenty of scientists who stated it couldn't be done, had reason after reason that we'd never do it. We did it.

C'mon, under constant 1 g accleration you'd hit the speed of light in how long?

You never would reach the speed of light, that's how long.

With increased velocity comes increased mass. You'd have to have an infinitely powerful engine to beat that.

Harte

Originally posted by RedDragon
We could travel through the universe at 1 mile an hour, and eventually get through all of it. With 1960s rockets, we could have easily populated the entire galaxy in just a few million years.

While true, you simply can't sustain a civilization on such speeds and that's not the point I was making or the apparent point of this thread. A generation ship will get you to Alpha Centauri, but the people who eventually get there will be completely cut-off from Earth, and that's the nearest star.

Also, you fail to address the fact that all the technology will eventually have decayed and no longer functional over centuries, let alone the millions of years you're talking about. We simply do not have technology that could last on such relatively extreme time scales.

Originally posted by RedDragonWhich raises the question then -- where is everyone, since they should be here, as it's easily possible?

I suggest you read the first post, as you're clearly clueless on this subject if you actually believe it is "easily possible" to colonize the galaxy at our current rocket speeds. Also, in the circumstances that you bring up, it isn't really colonization so much as it is migration.

I think our biggest issue as UFO believers is that skeptics accept the current and most accepted theories of relativity.

1,000 years ago a person living in Europe had no idea North America existed.
400 years ago traveling to North America was extremely dangerous. Over 50 days to make the trip.
200 years ago..see above. Just the same.
Today-Boston to London-5 hours on the safest way to travel (air travel).

100 years ago-Fastest speed to travel-60 miles an hour
Today-600 miles an hour.

reply to post by Harte


You don't need to reach the speed of light.
Also a photon is a particle and a wave at the same time. We can transmit photons at the speed of light.

Protons have been accelerated to 4 TEV which is only 3 meters per second slower than the speed of light.

reply to post by JKF1897


Rockets to low earth orbit travel at 15,000 miles an hour.

As for technological limitations, there are no technological limitations to spreading through the universe, none. Once you get the ability to take off into space and intelligently mine and process whatever they come across I don't see what's stopping anything from populating the galaxy.

These intelligent entities would communicate at the minimum of the speed of light, and possibly upgrade themselves through similar speed of light networks distributed over vast distances.

To classify 'migration' as different than 'civilisation spreading' is splitting hairs and being childish.

There would also not be one civilisation but probably many civilisations and independent creatures moving around.

There is a powerful force called evolution at work, nothing stays static and the same.

The stuff of the universe doesn't fundamentally differ from star to star or planet to planet. It's the same 100 odd elements distributed together in different concentrations.

Stop with the magic reasons why it wouldn't be possible to travel around, even bacteria can survive vacuums of space and massive doses of radiation.

People as we know them will not be migrating anywhere. That doesn't make any sense.

It is intelligent immortal entities (post people entities in terms of Earth) that will be moving around.

Forget battlestar galactica .

Originally posted by ManInAsia
reply to post by Harte

 

You don't need to reach the speed of light.
Also a photon is a particle and a wave at the same time. We can transmit photons at the speed of light.

Protons have been accelerated to 4 TEV which is only 3 meters per second slower than the speed of light.

Apparently, you failed to notice the statement I was specifically responding to:

C'mon, under constant 1 g accleration you'd hit the speed of light in how long?

My response - never.

Charged particles are constantly being accelerated to such high velocities, and a photon can only travel at the speed of light (groups of photons, that is.)

I'm not a photon. Nor am I a charged particle.

BTW, protons are also both a wave and a particle.

Harte

I am posting a link to an article i have just been reading on Livescience regarding future space travel. The article is an interview with Marc G Millis, former head of NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project.

It is highly interesting in that it offers a realistic glimpse of where we are currently at and what is currently possible. Basically though, we are not that far developed yet - instead we are at the stage where we can now look to ask realistic questions and to possibly test some hypothesis (if i am reading this correctly, although in actual fact i may actually be slightly over egging our abilities there).

What is highly interesting is that he raises a serious issue and one that would be a huge technical achievement if we could solve it (doesn't sound hopeful anytime soon) in the section on Control of Gravitational and Inertial forces.

Anyhow, for those interested, the link is below.

Star Trek Warp Drive Physics and Future Space Travel

My opinion? Whilst i find the article highly interesting i have to admit i am now feeling a little underwhelmed about our prospects of proper inter stellar travel anytime soon (next 50 years). But then i guess it may only take one significant breakthrough and a lot could change......

reply to post by Diablos


You presuppose concrete four dimensionality as encompassing reality inside newtonion physics, this has been shown to be false, there are more dimensions. This is a hologram.

Originally posted by ManInAsia
reply to post by JKF1897

 

Rockets to low earth orbit travel at 15,000 miles an hour.

As for technological limitations, there are no technological limitations to spreading through the universe, none. Once you get the ability to take off into space and intelligently mine and process whatever they come across I don't see what's stopping anything from populating the galaxy.

Technological difficulties. What is going to provide the energy? Is it really reasonable to develop AI machines which can, from scratch, landing on an asteroid, create an entire manufacturing economy which can self-repair, mine and build a nuclear reactor, and then build a nuclear-reactor-powered rocket manufacturing factory.

That is really really difficult.

There is a powerful force called evolution at work, nothing stays static and the same.

True, but there aren't bacteria on the Sun.

And suppose the strong AI robots develop mutation which favors increased reproduction locally instead of long-distance travel?

Stop with the magic reasons why it wouldn't be possible to travel around, even bacteria can survive vacuums of space and massive doses of radiation.

Bacteria probably are the thing that is spreading throughout the galaxy. Perhaps the only thing.

I find it remarkable that Archea and other bacteria can survive vacuum and massive radiation, despite neither being an evolutionary environment on Earth. To me, that suggests panspermia, that they are reactivating very ancient genes when they find themselves in that environment.

I also favour the panspermia hypothesis, bacteria are extremely resilient and diverse. They appeared on Earth as soon as the crust cooled, 4.5 billion years ago. It's a bit of a coincidence!

Anyway..bacteria could be a type of passively spread but very efficient biological organism in terms of adapting to local environments.

It's thought that bacteria can survive 100,000s of years and possibly millions of years in hibernation. That's incredible. That some species can withstand vacuum and cosmic radiation to a high degree is definitely a big clue as to their possible origins. There is of course natural radiation in the crust but why withstand a vacuum?

Even without a directed spread of a civlisation bacteria could seed huge numbers of localised civilisations throughout the galaxy. Surely some of these civilisations develop a thirst for spreading beyond their local area.

Then to go back to Von Neumann type probes, these are essentially intelligent bacteria, in terms of they adapt to the resources and circumstance they find themselves in. Certainly evolutionary effects could cause them to lose their original programming, and YET evolution, in terms of Darwin, always favours survival of the fittest and spreading into new territories. So why would they just stay in the local area? Remember Von Neumann probes are adapted to travelling through interstellar space in the same manner that a tuna travels through the vast ocean. They don't have limits and there is no friction in space, so it's merely TIME that is the major constraint (in terms of our outside perspective, if they can get close to the speed of light, time for them will be very short, however what is time to an essentially immortal organism?).

On Earth we can find animals and microbes spread through the entire crust, on the surface of the craft and even in the air itself. They spread out to occupy the niches that they could. Microbes may have made it further to other parts of the solar system.

reply to post by Flavian

Faster-than-light engines Compared to the distances between stars, lightspeed is slow The neighboring star system nearest to us (Alpha Centauri) is more than four years away at light speed (as measured from the perspective of an external observer). The nearest habitable planet might be anywhere from 25 light-years to 200 light-years away. And, to consider meeting new aliens for each week's episode, our ship would need a naive cruise speed of at least 25,000 times light speed. The word "naive" is used to remind us that we don't really know what happens to time and space beyond lightspeed.

The part in bold confuses a lot of people.
Why choose to measure time from the outside observer?
Why not choose to measure time with respect to the participant?

In the case of the pilot of the spaceship flying at 3/4 light speed they will be able to get to the next star in a few months (their time).

You see time and space REALLY are relative. You don't need to force YOUR time on MY time. MY time as a participant is just as valid as YOUR time as an observer. This was the crux of the Einstein's argument, both are valid and both are real. Neither is incorrect because time is RELATIVE. There is no trick, there is no obfuscation (look up your dictionaries), time is RELATIVE.

Why do we stick to the obsession with the observer's viewpoint of time now? Simply because we cannot travel at speeds whereby relativistic time becomes important. That's all.

When we do make long distances at significant fractions of light speed society itself will change it's viewpoint of time.