Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 7th May 2009 22:24 UTC
Geek stuff, sci-fi... Today, the new Star Trek film has seen its official premiere here in The Netherlands tonight, and in honour of that, I figured an article on about the possibility of faster-than-light travel would make a good fit on OSNews. The article is quite technical, so bear with me on this one. I hope I get everything right.
E-mail Print r 2   · Read More · 38 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 362505
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

The idea outlined (and i agree it isn't much) would probably avert relativistic effects, since there is no movement within spacetime as the idea is to move a part of spacetime itself.

Any time you beat light-pulse somewhere (through a vacuum), you will have traveled in time. What clever trick you used to beat the light pulse does not change the fact that you have traveled between two events faster than a pulse of light could, which is an entirely sufficient fact to establish that you have potentially traveled in time.
Potentially because not everyone will agree about whether you have traveled in time or not: if it is not possible for a light-pulse to travel between two events - like if they are happening a light year apart, but only a second apart in time - then not all observers will agree on what order the events happen in (or, really, how far apart in time they're happening). Some people would say you arrived a long time before you left, others might say you took your sweet time making the trip.

Reply Parent Score: 1

fury Member since:

I'm not a physicist, but it *sounds* like parent is confusing the fact that it takes a long time for light to get around with actual time travel.

Yeah, if you told the guys at Hubble to watch Andromeda because something cool was going to happen, then instantly teleported there and as soon as you got there you turned on a massive lamp and pointed it at Earth, they aren't going to see it because the light is still travelling. Afaik, that doesn't mean you arrive at an earlier time than you left. But relativity is complicated and I don't think about it unless cool (mostly Star Trek related) articles like this one come along.

More generally (not just in reply to parent), I think it's hilarious how every commenter on this article thinks they know their shit, and each post differs so broadly. Yup, each person thinks they know exactly how things are, which clearly shows that they don't, because physics is a constantly changing field. Yeah, I'm sure many of you studied physics intensely at some point but that doesn't mean you get a lifetime license to think you're right about it. Throw some disclaimers in there so you don't look like asses.

That being said, I'll be the first to say, I am totally not a physicist.

Oh, and wtf Thom you basically just rewrote the article... and the article wasn't technical in any sense of the word either so it's not like you were simplifying or something (it's almost word for word...). Plus it's listed as a link article despite the fact there's a body beneath it.

Also, I don't think Star Trek introduced the space/time-moving bubble idea. That wasn't in the original article, and I'm pretty sure Thom made that up. If I remember correctly, travelling at 'warp speed' is the act of shifting the ship into 'subspace' so that relativity can be avoided. But, heh, IANAT (I am not a Trekkie), at least by the dictionary definition.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:

Also, I don't think Star Trek introduced the space/time-moving bubble idea. That wasn't in the original article, and I'm pretty sure Thom made that up.

Where did I claim Star Trek came up with it? I just used it "as an example of".

Reply Parent Score: 1