# Thread: Travelling into the future

1. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...rs-future.html

In that article Steven Hawking makes the claim that one day inside of a space vessel travelling at 98% of the speed of light (apparently 650 million MPH) is the equivalent of spending one year on Earth.

I'm going to assume that one day in the vessel is not just a year on Earth, but for everything else outside of the vessel, right?

On a side note: we've all seen Star Trek episodes where they jump to warp speed to cover enormous distances in short times... so wouldn't those few hours in warp speed on the Enterprise ship mean that months have passed for every other ship not also in warp in the universe at that time?[/u]

2.

3. you know star trek isn't real

4. Originally Posted by couchSports
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...rs-future.html

In that article Steven Hawking makes the claim that one day inside of a space vessel travelling at 98% of the speed of light (apparently 650 million MPH) is the equivalent of spending one year on Earth.

I'm going to assume that one day in the vessel is not just a year on Earth, but for everything else outside of the vessel, right?

On a side note: we've all seen Star Trek episodes where they jump to warp speed to cover enormous distances in short times... so wouldn't those few hours in warp speed on the Enterprise ship mean that months have passed for every other ship not also in warp in the universe at that time?[/u]
What you are dealing with, and what Hawking was talking about, is an effect of special relativity, called time dilation. Clocks that are moving rapidly with respect to one another record different times. Google the "twin paradox" or look at any of several threads that have discussed it. It is real, and it is valid physics. As one approaches the speed of light( relative to some reference frame) time dilation can become arbitrarily large (relative to that same reference frame)

Warp speed is not real, and it is not possible with our understanding of physics. The theory of relativity forbids any spaceship from traveling at or in excess of the speed of light. Since you are talking about violations of basic physics in the first place, there is no way to sensibly talk about what effect such a violation would have on time. If you apply relativity naively then you get imaginary time at speeds in excess of light speed, and that makes no sense at all.

5.

6. I'm going to assume that one day in the vessel is not just a year on Earth, but for everything else outside of the vessel, right?
Only for the thing it is flying away from or anything that is on the line made between the planet and the spaceship and that is at rest with respect to the planet. It is about relative speeds.

It will be moving slower relative to anything else that is not moving both towards it and the planet and that are also in front of a line drawn through it and perpendicular to the line between it and the planet (I think). :?

7. Funy thing, I travel into the future everyday.
Time is only a concept.

8. Warp speed is not real, and it is not possible with our understanding of physics. The theory of relativity forbids any spaceship from traveling at or in excess of the speed of light. Since you are talking about violations of basic physics in the first place, there is no way to sensibly talk about what effect such a violation would have on time. If you apply relativity naively then you get imaginary time at speeds in excess of light speed, and that makes no sense at all.
Is the mathematical formulation of the Alcubieree Drive pretty much the same thing as Warp Drive?

9. I think the Alcubieree drive falls under "theoretically possible, but completely impractical" due to numerous reasons. You can't turn it off once you turn it on (last I heard), and you need huge amounts of exotic stuff that we don't even know how to get minute amounts of.

10. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
I think the Alcubieree drive falls under "theoretically possible, but completely impractical" due to numerous reasons. You can't turn it off once you turn it on (last I heard), and you need huge amounts of exotic stuff that we don't even know how to get minute amounts of.
I remember reading a little while back that it has more problems than that. Apparently, it is a purely classical construct which doesn't take QM into account. Once you do factor in QM, it becomes unstable.

11. I remember reading a little while back that it has more problems than that. Apparently, it is a purely classical construct which doesn't take QM into account. Once you do factor in QM, it becomes unstable.
yes the equation was a complete geometrical approach, and it did not violate any principles of GR. But, when considering QM is a different story, i also heard that alcubierre drive fails completely due to the fact that inside this "Bubble", it will be filled with Hawking Radiation.

But im not quite sure about the part where in the front wall of Alcubierre's bubble travelling at superluminal speeds, the renormalised stress-energy tensor grows exponentially.

Can anyone explain this??

thanks.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement