Notices
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Travelling into the future

  1. #1 Travelling into the future 
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    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]


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Masters Degree organic god's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    567
    you know star trek isn't real


    everything is mathematical.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Travelling into the future 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote 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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    69
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,229
    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). :?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    951
    Funy thing, I travel into the future everyday.
    Time is only a concept.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D. Heinsbergrelatz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    994
    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?
    ------------------




    "Mathematicians stand on each other's shoulders."- Carl Friedrich Gauss


    -------------------
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,154
    Quote 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.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D. Heinsbergrelatz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    994
    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.
    ------------------




    "Mathematicians stand on each other's shoulders."- Carl Friedrich Gauss


    -------------------
    Reply With Quote  
     

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
  •