Faster spacecraft and faster than light travel.

General physics and astronomy discussions not directly related to Celestia
Posts: 1709
Joined: 12.07.2003
With us: 17 years
Location: Colorado, USA (7000 ft)

Post #21by don » 22.08.2003, 18:18

Anonymous wrote:
don wrote:Oh, FTL travel is certainly possible, as tachyons do it all the time, if the theory behind their existence is correct.
"Things can travel FTL if particles defined to be able to travel FTL exist"? :)
No, I didn't say "things" (meaning a physical object of some sort to me), I just said that "travel" at FTL speeds is possible <smile>. Adding "mass" would make it a "thing". I suppose as long as a tachyon's mass remains "imaginary", then it would not be restricted to c speed. But, since it is classified as a "particle" and not something else (force, wave, etc.), then to me this means it *does* have mass. Confusing.

a) There's no reason to believe that they interact with tardyons (slower-than-light) particles, so there's no reason to believe that converting a ship into them or sending a message using them is possible.

b) Even if you could send a message or ship through converting it into tachyons, the message/ship would not travel FTL. ... Although the carrier particles (tachyons) are FTL, the modulated wave they carry (the message) is not.
Yes, this is absolutely correct.

Tachyons have imaginary mass (fittingly).
But of course. :lol:

In other words, it's completely arbitrary as to whether the tachyonic object is travelling forwards or backwards in time.

Good point.

Posts: 198
Joined: 28.07.2003
With us: 17 years
Location: Slartibartfast's Shed, London

Post #22by Cormoran » 22.08.2003, 20:38

As I said when I posted, I'm a layman. To be frank, I think FTL is an entertaining concept, even if science predicts that it is improbable.

As for my assertions in relation to past predictions, I would reply by saying that, the predictions were made based on the underlying scientific knowledge of the day (apart from that daft old sod who said spaceflight was impossible), just as the assertions that 'Guest' makes are based on the scientific knowledge of the present.

Present science is just that. Present. It will expand. Some ideas will be disproved, some reinforced, some broadened or modified. I did say I hoped I was wrong about FTL being unlikely. I stand by that. Its a hope, more emotional than strictly rational, and while some may think that it lacks validity, I'll just keep on hoping :)

That's my two cents, for what they are worth :)



PS: Maybe you should register, 'Guest'. Your knowledge of physics is undoubtedly better than mine, and there are LOTS of very knowledgeable people here. I'm sure you'd have some interesting discussions.
'...Gold planets, Platinum Planets, Soft rubber planets with lots of earthquakes....' The HitchHikers Guide to the Galaxy, Page 634784, Section 5a. Entry: Magrathea

Return to “Physics and Astronomy”

Who is online