Does peace occur before real space travel ?

[DaveC426913]

we have evidence of the impossibility of some issues such as accelerating greater than the speed of light.

Except "acceleration" is not the only way to achieve superluminal travel (wormholes and the hypothetical Alcubierre drive are candidates).

I am not suggesting we are ready to go build them, I am suggesting you are not able to rule out the principle of superluminal travel in one swell foop of Einsteinian hand-waving.

Since this thread is not about how we might get there, but is about the implicationsof it, it is fair to posit that we can take advantage of these hypotheses that do not violate known physics.

 

[DaveC426913]

We still have no idea how exactly a brain creates mind. To replicate the effect you would have to simulate the brain down to the fundamental level required to create a mind, I would be very surprised as a biologist to learn that it would be possible to upload a brain without also uploading a body. Biology is very messy and without the appropriate interaction with the body (which could only be simulated by simulating a body to the fundamental level required) I don't think a simulated brain could work.

Unless you are suggesting that the mind is somehow "supernatural" - beyond the reach of rational study, there is no reason in principle why we will not, if given sufficient time, be able to replicate it artificially.

Heck, given enough advancement in technology, we could artifiically create one by manufacturing enzymes, proteins and neurons so that we have a virtual duplicate.

 

[Physics-Learner]

jared,

you claim to have evidence, and that others before you only had wild claims.

if we both lived 100 years ago, you would be saying the same thing. what you purport today to be wild claims, you would have purported to be evidence, if you lived back then. this is your mindset - you have displayed strong inclinations in every thread that i have seen you participate, towards what seems proven and that goes along with the typical current mindset of today.

we think, based upon our evidence, that we can't go faster than light. we don't know this for sure. and we certainly don't know what we don't know.

i look at the accelerating rate at which we are making technological advances. i suspect that a millennium from now, our technology today will look like child's play in comparison. that is a 1000 years.

Newton had "evidence" that gravity was some sort of natural attraction that matter had toward other matter. einstein had "evidence" that gravity was matter warping space-time, such that objects followed the path of least resistance, so to speak.

i suspect that neither is correct.

i don't think this forum requires physics proofs in order to have an opinion. and we are talking about the future.

i will once again ask you to go back in time, where there was no physics proofs or evidence of probably most things that we "know" today.

i will once again caution you as to the typical arrogance of many physicists who seem to think that mankind has reached close to its pinnacle of knowledge, today. i guess we must live in the select time frame in which we have learned all there is to know.

i wouldn't even give you one penny on a hundred dollars that this is true. i only wish we could both be around 1000 years from now to see you telling everyone about how things are based upon our knowledge of today. i suspect you would look absolutely ridiculous.

but go ahead and reply with another dozen "no basis, pointless discussion" remarks.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Unless you are suggesting that the mind is somehow "supernatural" - beyond the reach of rational study, there is no reason in principle why we will not, if given sufficient time, be able to replicate it artificially.

Heck, given enough advancement in technology, we could artifiically create one by manufacturing enzymes, proteins and neurons so that we have a virtual duplicate.

Oh yeah I wasn't saying we couldn't do it. I was objecting to the flippant statement that mind uploading is a mere extension of what we have now. There seem to be a lot of assumptions floating around on this thread that these magic technologies are just round the corner.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

jared,

you claim to have evidence, and that others before you only had wild claims.

if we both lived 100 years ago, you would be saying the same thing. what you purport today to be wild claims, you would have purported to be evidence, if you lived back then. this is your mindset - you have displayed strong inclinations in every thread that i have seen you participate, towards what seems proven and that goes along with the typical current mindset of today.

we think, based upon our evidence, that we can't go faster than light. we don't know this for sure. and we certainly don't know what we don't know.

i look at the accelerating rate at which we are making technological advances. i suspect that a millennium from now, our technology today will look like child's play in comparison. that is a 1000 years.

Newton had "evidence" that gravity was some sort of natural attraction that matter had toward other matter. einstein had "evidence" that gravity was matter warping space-time, such that objects followed the path of least resistance, so to speak.

i suspect that neither is correct.

i don't think this forum requires physics proofs in order to have an opinion. and we are talking about the future.

i will once again ask you to go back in time, where there was no physics proofs or evidence of probably most things that we "know" today.

i will once again caution you as to the typical arrogance of many physicists who seem to think that mankind has reached close to its pinnacle of knowledge, today. i guess we must live in the select time frame in which we have learned all there is to know.

i wouldn't even give you one penny on a hundred dollars that this is true. i only wish we could both be around 1000 years from now to see you telling everyone about how things are based upon our knowledge of today. i suspect you would look absolutely ridiculous.

but go ahead and reply with another dozen "no basis, pointless discussion" remarks.

You can't say "once someone was wrong" as evidence that people are wrong now. You are also talking about proof and certainty which do not belong in science. Jared is completely right in what he is saying about accelerating to superluminal speeds, all the evidence (both theoretical and experimental) shows that to accelerate mass to light speed would require infinite time or infinite energy.

As for the two hypotheticals on wormholes and Alcubeirre both have severe problems. Wormholes require the construction of exotic matter, assuming we do that we would still have to then transport one of the mouths to where ever we want to go, this means transporting it at sub-light speed using a rocket. An Alcubeirre warp drive requires faster than light particles to steer the ship and turn it off. A bigger problem is that the energy requirements are massive.

Now even accepting the fact that we can't know anything for certain and who knows what the future might bring it is still a logical fallacy to ignore evidence in favour of an unevidenced idea purely on the basis that you hope that your impossible idea will be true in the future.

 

[JaredJames]

I'm disappointed Dave, this isn't like you.

Except "acceleration" is not the only way to achieve superluminal travel (wormholes and the hypothetical Alcubierre drive are candidates).

Didn't say it was, but then I was under the impression that the alternatives (such as the above) weren't actually FTL because you never actually traveled FTL. They are a way of circumventing the known laws of physics to travel long distances. This is without even considering the technologies required for such 'alternative' devices don't exist and we have no way of knowing if they will (as per ryan's post).

I am not suggesting we are ready to go build them, I am suggesting you are not able to rule out the principle of superluminal travel in one swell foop of Einsteinian hand-waving.

Since this thread is not about how we might get there, but is about the implicationsof it, it is fair to posit that we can take advantage of these hypotheses that do not violate known physics.

I agree, but that isn't what my response was given to. I was responding to someone saying "science is currently wrong, in the future we will prove that and have FTL travel". Note that they aren't saying the alternatives are possible (wormholes etc), just that science will be proved wrong. Under such a context, my statement is perfectly acceptable given this is a science site and the evidence supports me (heck the rules say as much).

Unless you are suggesting that the mind is somehow "supernatural" - beyond the reach of rational study, there is no reason in principle why we will not, if given sufficient time, be able to replicate it artificially.

Heck, given enough advancement in technology, we could artifiically create one by manufacturing enzymes, proteins and neurons so that we have a virtual duplicate.

Again, under the context of what was stated here it is perfectly acceptable what ryan said. He didn't say it wasn't possible, only that people are claiming it either will be very soon or that it will follow previous technological advancement. Such statements are ridiculous because their assumptions are baseless.

In both cases above, you are correct but then it's the context which matters. Your responses seem to have ignored the context they were given in.

 

[JaredJames]

if we both lived 100 years ago, you would be saying the same thing. what you purport today to be wild claims, you would have purported to be evidence, if you lived back then. this is your mindset - you have displayed strong inclinations in every thread that i have seen you participate, towards what seems proven and that goes along with the typical current mindset of today.

Don't confuse my mindset with the rules of this site (which you agreed to - mainstream published science only).

Regardless, science says "to the best of our knowledge, X holds true" and it continues to say that until new evidence comes out. This does not mean we can go around saying "ah well, science says it's impossible now, but it's wrong (because I want them to be) and we'll see it proved possible in the future".

we think, based upon our evidence, that we can't go faster than light. we don't know this for sure. and we certainly don't know what we don't know.

We can't get a single particle FTL...

Again, regardless the rules of this site don't allow hand waiving and proclaiming science is wrong.

i look at the accelerating rate at which we are making technological advances. i suspect that a millennium from now, our technology today will look like child's play in comparison. that is a 1000 years.

A baseless claim. The assumption that we will continue developing at such a rate and breakthroughs will keep coming at such a rate is complete nonsense.

Even Moore's Law isn't really applicable any more. They are quickly reaching a point where they simply cannot make things any smaller. So things won't keep following the pattern.

i suspect that neither is correct.

Well that's up to you, but it doesn't belong on this site unless you're going to support it as per the rules with mainstream published science.

i don't think this forum requires physics proofs in order to have an opinion. and we are talking about the future.

You certainly don't need to prove an opinion, but if you cannot then the current science holds true whether you like it or not and no amount of proclaiming "I believe science is wrong" will change that. So what if it's the future? I'm amazed how people say "but it's the future" as if that means something. Wild speculation means absolutely nothing - for example, I believe that in the future we will wipe ourselves out - no less valid than your own view on the matter, but still worthless.

i will once again caution you as to the typical arrogance of many physicists who seem to think that mankind has reached close to its pinnacle of knowledge, today. i guess we must live in the select time frame in which we have learned all there is to know.

I don't know many, if any, physicists who believe this. The scientists I know are all very much aware of what science is actually about - specifically that it is only true based on current evidence and that we aren't even close to understanding everything.

i wouldn't even give you one penny on a hundred dollars that this is true. i only wish we could both be around 1000 years from now to see you telling everyone about how things are based upon our knowledge of today. i suspect you would look absolutely ridiculous.

You see here's the thing. I work with science. Science doesn't mind being wrong, neither do I. What science knows now is based on evidence and if something comes out in the future that proves it incorrect then science (and myself) amend my view on the matter as appropriate. So no, I wouldn't look ridiculous. I would show that I work with the scientific procedure and don't just hand wave "science is wrong now, in the future it will prove this" which certainly isn't science and is nothing more than your own hopes and dreams.

but go ahead and reply with another dozen "no basis, pointless discussion" remarks.

Again, please read the rules of this site. Your posts aren't about the effect of FTL travel, you are simply stating that science is wrong. As such the above statement is perfectly correct.

 

[Drakkith]

Jared, I understand you completely. I cannot stand when people accuse scientists of being arrogant know it alls that think that we can't possibly know anything else...the whole idea of that is counter to the scientific method AND to history.

Edit: And before someone gets uppity, I am NOT saying anyone in this thread is doing that. Unless you are. Then you should stop.

Anyways, our current understanding of science let's us easily make statements such as "Nothing can travel at or greater than c". Why? Because not only can we NOT accelerate anything to that point, every observed action and reaction agrees with it. We can easily see this in things like the LHC where accelerating the protons requires more and more energy, and the amount accelerated per unit of energy is less and less. Every law and equation that we have observed to be correct supports this. This isn't the early 1800's when they didn't even know how a steam engine really works.

The only possible way I could see us traveling faster than c is if we discover some fifth fundamental force or something that caused the other forces to not work properly.

 

[JaredJames]

Jared, I understand you completely. I cannot stand when people accuse scientists of being arrogant know it alls that think that we can't possibly know anything else...the whole idea of that is counter to the scientific method AND to history.

Exactly. You have people who are saying science will do X, Y and Z in the future yet everything it knows now is complete horse s***. I just don't understand the mind set.

Everything we know now is completely valid, until such a time (and only if) it is proven false. To proclaim that it's all BS now and that we'll really know in the future is ridiculous.

The whole basis of science is we observe and report. If it fits, we keep it until such a time it no longer does so. You can't say something is wrong just because you want it to be.

Edit: And before someone gets uppity, I am NOT saying anyone in this thread is doing that. Unless you are. Then you should stop.

i will once again caution you as to the typical arrogance of many physicists who seem to think that mankind has reached close to its pinnacle of knowledge, today. i guess we must live in the select time frame in which we have learned all there is to know.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Drakkith and Jared, you both speak a lot of sense. I completely agree!

It's so frustrating that in school science lessons people aren't taught the scientific method. Perhaps if they were we wouldn't have such a problem with people assuming that science is pretentious absolute statements.

 

[Dmytry]

That's analogous to saying "paintings are getting better so it's a mere continuation until we can build forests".

We still have no idea how exactly a brain creates mind. To replicate the effect you would have to simulate the brain down to the fundamental level required to create a mind, I would be very surprised as a biologist to learn that it would be possible to upload a brain without also uploading a body. Biology is very messy and without the appropriate interaction with the body (which could only be simulated by simulating a body to the fundamental level required) I don't think a simulated brain could work.

If you are going to make simplistic and extraordinary claims you are going to have to have some serious evidence to back it up. Pointing to the past trend of increased scan resolution or Moore's law is a complete fallacy.

So you disagree that this is much more plausible than a spaceship with a crew of millions, moving at a sizable fraction of speed of light, or what? It is a very extraordinary claim that mind uploading, for which at least there is some plausible scenario of progress, is closer than starships with population of millions, when you'd be very hard pressed to even imagine a society structure that would build and send such ships?

What makes you think that intelligence, especially tool using intelligence could evolve without a social species.

what makes you think it can't?
There's a lot of tool-using species on Earth, actually. It's not the tool use that sets us apart, and not even tool making, but ability to invent things like a stone firmly attached to the stick, things that you can't arrive at by gradual small improvements. The tool invention is hard; if you look for mere tool use you'll mostly find social animals that can communicate the tools invented by the few.

And no matter how intelligent an individual is I highly doubt that one individual working alone can build an interstellar vehicle.

It is false dichotomy. There's a plenty of shades of gray between pack animals such as humans, and totally asocial animals that can't cooperate. Plenty of intermediates. Humans are very good at passing along technologies with very little loss; it does not take a lot of improvement each time to counter the losses. Something that's not so great at communicating the improvements would have to counter larger losses before sustained progress.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

So you disagree that this is much more immediate possibility than a spaceship with a crew of millions, moving at a sizable fraction of speed of light, or what?

I was disagreeing with your use of the term "merely an extension". But whilst we're on the topic I disagree with the notion that one could say whether one was more "immediate" than the other. We have no idea how to do either nor is it sensible to try an extrapolate a linear, teleological progression of technology to determine what comes first. How to do them and when we could do them are unknowns, we cannot bandy around statements of "this is easier than that" when we have no firm idea.

what makes you think it can't?
There's a lot of tool-using species on Earth, actually. It's not the tool use that sets us apart, and not even tool making, but ability to invent things like a stone firmly attached to the stick, things that you can't arrive at by gradual small improvements. The tool invention is hard; if you look for mere tool use you'll mostly find social animals that can communicate the tools invented by the few.

If they are communicating then they are social. You used the term asocial suggesting no social behaviour. If they cannot communicate their tools then everybody is doomed to reinvent the wheel.

It is false dichotomy. There's a plenty of shades of gray between pack animals such as humans, and totally asocial animals that can't cooperate. Plenty of intermediates. Humans are very good at passing along technologies with very little loss; it does not take a lot of improvement each time to counter the losses. Something that's not so great at communicating the improvements would have to counter larger losses before sustained progress.

Which is different to your claim that aliens would need to be asocial so that they evolve to higher intelligence (and there is a big difference between copying each others tool using and co-operating to get work done) to travel through space.

 

[Dmytry]

I was disagreeing with your use of the term "merely an extension". But whilst we're on the topic I disagree with the notion that one could say whether one was more "immediate" than the other. We have no idea how to do either nor is it sensible to try an extrapolate a linear, teleological progression of technology to determine what comes first. How to do them and when we could do them are unknowns, we cannot bandy around statements of "this is easier than that" when we have no firm idea.

Well I wouldn't say that we have no idea how to do either. We can scan tiny pieces of tissue to extremely high accuracy. We can make extremely tiny basic gates (much smaller than those in your CPU), at molecular level, it's just that we can't make billions of those at once in a cost effective way, when competing with photolithography.

If they are communicating then they are social. You used the term asocial suggesting no social behaviour. If they cannot communicate their tools then everybody is doomed to reinvent the wheel.

Again I sense false dichotomy. There is a continuum of quality of communication. We humans have such a high quality communication that those who would never invent the wheel, nor even be able to copy other's wheel, get taught to be wheel-makers.

Which is different to your claim that aliens would need to be asocial so that they evolve to higher intelligence (and there is a big difference between copying each others tool using and co-operating to get work done) to travel through space.

well, the point is that less social aliens would have to be more individually capable of invention to, as species, match inventiveness of humans. And would need smaller crew.

 

[Drakkith]

Well I wouldn't say that we have no idea how to do either. We can scan tiny pieces of tissue to extremely high accuracy. We can make extremely tiny basic gates (much smaller than those in your CPU), at molecular level, it's just that we can't make billions of those at once in a cost effective way, when competing with photolithography.

Again I sense false dichotomy. There is a continuum of quality of communication. We humans have such a high quality communication that those who would never invent the wheel, nor even be able to copy other's wheel, get taught to be wheel-makers.

well, the point is that less social aliens would have to be more individually capable of invention to, as species, match inventiveness of humans. And would need smaller crew.

I agree that a less social species would probably need to be more individually capable than humanity is. Though I can't see a species with a large difference in how social they are compared to us building a full civilization. But I guess it depends. If they didn't ever care to chat about the weather and the Mavs game, but they were crazy dependant on the exchange of technological and scientific ideas, then I could see it.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Well I wouldn't say that we have no idea how to do either. We can scan tiny pieces of tissue to extremely high accuracy. We can make extremely tiny basic gates (much smaller than those in your CPU), at molecular level, it's just that we can't make billions of those at once in a cost effective way, when competing with photolithography.

The ability to make a high resolution scan and a good computer doesn't mean mind uploading will just naturally fall out of the combination. You need to know how to run a simulation, need to discover what the fundamentals are, what the processes are etc. The latter is a far more complicated endeavour than the first two.

Again I sense false dichotomy. There is a continuum of quality of communication. We humans have such a high quality communication that those who would never invent the wheel, nor even be able to copy other's wheel, get taught to be wheel-makers.

I'm aware of that but it was you who used the word asocial meaning without socialisation. I also fail to see why less social tool users would have to evolve to be more intelligent rather than being more social. The ability to work co-operatively doesn't just boost your productivity in a linear fashion, most of the time the effect is synergistic i.e. 10 individuals don't necessarily do the work of 1 individual 10x faster. Groups of organisms can specialise and achieve far more than an equal number of generalists.

well, the point is that less social aliens would have to be more individually capable of invention to, as species, match inventiveness of humans. And would need smaller crew.

A few points here; firstly less social aliens would not necessarily be more individually capable. Secondly being more "inventive" does not mean that you can do more work. 10 geniuses can no more maintain a system needing 100 pairs of hand than 10 tradesmen.

 

[Physics-Learner]

while i do think we will find our understanding of the universe extremely expanded from what it is now, i did not say that this will be true, as some certainty principle.

i am very aware, and very fond of the scientific method.

if talk about the future is allowed, then it follows that speculation on the future must also be allowed. unless one of you is proclaiming to know the future.

if we learn something from history, we may not repeat those same mistakes.

doing so, it can be demonstrated how very incomplete our understanding was at prior instances.

so we can make one of two conclusions. either our current understanding is also very incomplete, or it is not.

it is my opinion that the former holds a much higher probability of being true. this opinion comes from rational and logical thinking, not some magic wand waving based upon the number of angels on the head of a pin.

speculation on the future is not a scientific experiment. we can not use evidence from scientific events to prove speculation about the future. but we can use some inductive reasoning and logic to help form an opinion of what seems likely.

this thread was posted in the scepticism forum, not the relativity forum.

to jared - you sure like to be melodramatic. perhaps you should have been an actor in the theater ? i did not say that everything we know today is complete BS, and we will know everything in the future. i don't doubt that there are many topics of today that are explained quite well.

i would not include the universe, quantum mechanics, relativity, space, time, light, etc. in these topics.

i would include mechanics, etc.

 

[JaredJames]

if talk about the future is allowed, then it follows that speculation on the future must also be allowed. unless one of you is proclaiming to know the future.

Feel free to speculate a bit, based on current knowledge. But you can't say our current understanding of X is wrong as far as your concerned and as such you don't accept Y is impossible because of it.

so we can make one of two conclusions. either our current understanding is also very incomplete, or it is not.

Our understanding is very incomplete - there isn't a scientist around that would deny that.

speculation on the future is not a scientific experiment. we can not use evidence from scientific events to prove speculation about the future. but we can use some inductive reasoning and logic to help form an opinion of what seems likely.

Saying we know X now and so in the future it is likely Y will be possible/impossible is forward thinking based on current knowledge, and certainly within the realms of science.

Saying we were wrong in the past and therefore chances are we are wrong now is not logical, nor is it scientific.

you sure like to be melodramatic.

Coming from the person who proclaimed many scientists are arrogant and you believe Newton/Einstein are wrong on gravity (again a topic we don't know much about, but none-the-less something which you can't proclaim false without evidence against the current evidence for), that really doesn't mean much.

Perhaps this should get back on topic now.

 

[Physics-Learner]

i was going to reply, read your last sentence, and will honor your request.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

There's a huge difference between speculating based on current knowledge and ignoring all current evidence. As I posted earlier the only hypothetical ways known to us for how to achieve FTL travel have huge difficulties;

Wormholes must be physically taken to the location you need to get to i.e you must transport one end STL

Warp drives require FTL signalling to steer/turn off, would be filled with radiation and would require energy on the order of several solar masses to work.

 

[Physics-Learner]

if ftl is possible, i think we are many, many milestones away from it, such that speculating about how we would achieve it is probably somewhat moot.

if ftl is not possible, i think it is unlikely that we will ever see aliens or get seen by them. the distances are just too great.

i was playing around with a warp speed calculator on the net. warp 9 is 1500c. even at that speed, it would take 65 years to traverse the milky way galaxy, and 1300 years to reach the andromeda galaxy, which is still pretty close compared to the universe.

the largeness of the universe, and the smallness of atomic particles boggles my mind.

 

[JaredJames]

i was playing around with a warp speed calculator on the net. warp 9 is 1500c. even at that speed, it would take 65 years to traverse the milky way galaxy, and 1300 years to reach the andromeda galaxy, which is still pretty close compared to the universe.

I agree with what you're saying, but I must ask, do you not believe there is enough to keep us occupied in the Milky Way?

As nice as reaching other galaxies would be, there must be [hundreds of?] thousands of years worth of research that could be done in our galaxy alone.

 

[Physics-Learner]

you think so ? while i do suspect there is alien life, i am not that confident of it being real plentiful.

i can't quote you any sources, but from various scientific findings, it does not seem like we have an over-abundance of habitable planets ?

if you are also referring to non-people research, i guess it would depend how different various areas of space are from our own ?

star trek does keep in tune with that. they get hurled to the edge of the galaxy by the Q, but the federation is just a small portion of the milky way.

i thought maybe they were zipping around the entire universe - LOL.

 

[JaredJames]

while i do suspect there is alien life, i am not that confident of it being real plentiful.

My thoughts exactly.

i can't quote you any sources, but from various scientific findings, it does not seem like we have an over-abundance of habitable planets ?

I think that if we had that sort of technology, it would be interesting to research all reachable planets, habitable or otherwise.

star trek does keep in tune with that. they get hurled to the edge of the galaxy by the Q, but the federation is just a small portion of the milky way.

i thought maybe they were zipping around the entire universe - LOL.

If it's Voyager, it was the Caretaker who dragged them to the other side of the galaxy (yep, I'm a trek nerd - Voyager anyway). The Federation is about 1/16th of the galaxy. I'm not sure we could maintain such an 'empire' but we could certainly spread our wings.

I'd expect aliens with such technology to do the same. Given that simply having tech to reach relativistic speeds would give you the ability to devastate worlds, I'd expect it to also have a similar setup to our MAD nuclear arrangement (everyone's got it so no one uses it for such purposes).

 

[Physics-Learner]

i think that we would start out by visiting every place within our grasp.

as our speed and reach increased, we might need to be more selective. i think a lot would depend upon what we had previously discovered.

when i was a kid, i used to think it would be great, because we might discover a new mineral that might help in a lot of new discoveries. but according to what we know, supernovas produce all of our elements. i am not real hopeful that different planets would reveal all that much to us.

i am more interested in aliens, if we had peaceful contact (either them or us visiting), because i think it is more likely that knowledge could be shared about something that might be helpful to both races.

 

[JaredJames]

Alien life =/= intelligent life.

I firmly believe there is some life out there somewhere (purely based on number of planets), but I just think it is some form of life and not necessarily intelligent / sentient.

 

[Physics-Learner]

we are using the terms differently. i am referring to intelligent life. i should have been more clear.

i think lots and lots and lots of planets will have microbial life.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I'm sorry but this thread is still ripe with overspeculation. The only methods of FTL travel that physics has theorized are warp and wormhole, if we are going to discuss FTL we should at least stick to published research on the subject.

Where did you find that warp speed calculator? Sounds like a star trek thing rather than anything real.

As for alien life and habitable planets; we've got no idea the frequency of planets with Earth like conditions, on top of that we have no idea the likeliness of life and on top of that we can't even define intelligence let alone wonder how many intelligent aliens there are.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm sorry but this thread is still ripe with overspeculation. The only methods of FTL travel that physics has theorized are warp and wormhole, if we are going to discuss FTL we should at least stick to published research on the subject.

Where did you find that warp speed calculator? Sounds like a star trek thing rather than anything real.

As for alien life and habitable planets; we've got no idea the frequency of planets with Earth like conditions, on top of that we have no idea the likeliness of life and on top of that we can't even define intelligence let alone wonder how many intelligent aliens there are.

All true, though we do not need to define intelligence in order to study and learn from any complex life we encounter.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

True Dave true, we could just look for behaviour that we would class as belonging to intelligence.

On the subject of warp drives for those who are interested this paper which is further discussed in this paper proposes ways of getting around the horrendous energy requirements outlined in this paper. The "trick" is to change the warp bubble so that it's exterior radius is microscopic yet the interior radius is large enough to accommodate your vehicle (essentially making a warp bubble that's bigger on the inside than on the out). Apparently this would greatly shrink the amount of energy needed to manageable levels. They don't outline how exactly a shell could be build around a ship in such a fashion nor how the ship could leave.

However neither of these approaches fixes the other problems of a warp bubble such as requiring the construction of an exotic matter shell, superluminal signalling to steer/control the bubble and the huge amount of radiation a warp drive subjects you to. There are some interesting (but technical) objections in this paper that apparently show that a warp drive would only be capable of very low velocities as well as highlighting other problems.

 

[DaveC426913]

True Dave true, we could just look for behaviour that we would class as belonging to intelligence.

On the subject of warp drives for those w

Well, long before we got to the stage of assessing its intelligence, we would find ourselves standing knee-deep in a rich ecology and face-to-face with a complex, macroscopic life form. Whether it's intelligent or not would be gravy.

I am at a loss to imagine a scenario where we would discover life in a figurative vacuum of complexity, such that its own complexity by comparison would not be apparent.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Well, long before we got to the stage of assessing its intelligence, we would find ourselves standing knee-deep in a rich ecology and face-to-face with a complex, macroscopic life form. Whether it's intelligent or not would be gravy.

I am at a loss to imagine a scenario where we would discover life in a figurative vacuum of complexity, such that its own complexity by comparison would not be apparent.

What do you mean by complexity?

As for intelligence some sort of superorganism capable of performing intelligent actions even though the individual units are unintelligent might give us some confusion for a while (especially as to what we are classifying as intelligent)

 

[Physics-Learner]

yes, warp speed calculator came from star trek. the idea of warp speed was pretty much popularized by star trek. however, i wasnt trying to get bogged down in warp speed mechanics - just theorizing that ftl may be somewhat necessary to really get anywhere.

yesterday i was contemplating something i learned in college when we studied relativity, which i hadnt thought about. i may be wrong, but it is my recall that someone traveling at c, would measure 0 distance traveled, and 0 time taken, regardless of his final destination, IN THE MOTION OF TRAVEL.

AND that while he was traveling at c, he would age very slowly. which means he could go many, many times the number of light years than the actual years it would take. the problem is that he may age just a few years when he got back. but when he did arrive, it might be 1000 years into his future.

if this is correct, it is still a decent step, such that our future could get some very good information. and once we started the process, if we kept sending someone once a year, then they would continue coming back on a consistent basis, such that our future could become much better informed.

 

[Physics-Learner]

to clarify, he would be traveling slower than c. but as we continued to find ways to increase our speed, we could continue to go further and get back. this scheme does not require ftl.

i realize that the crew would need to make the sacrifice of losing their present, and returning to a future. but i think there would be some people who would actually want to do this.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

yes, warp speed calculator came from star trek. the idea of warp speed was pretty much popularized by star trek. however, i wasnt trying to get bogged down in warp speed mechanics - just theorizing that ftl may be somewhat necessary to really get anywhere.

yesterday i was contemplating something i learned in college when we studied relativity, which i hadnt thought about. i may be wrong, but it is my recall that someone traveling at c, would measure 0 distance traveled, and 0 time taken, regardless of his final destination, IN THE MOTION OF TRAVEL.

AND that while he was traveling at c, he would age very slowly. which means he could go many, many times the number of light years than the actual years it would take. the problem is that he may age just a few years when he got back. but when he did arrive, it might be 1000 years into his future.

if this is correct, it is still a decent step, such that our future could get some very good information. and once we started the process, if we kept sending someone once a year, then they would continue coming back on a consistent basis, such that our future could become much better informed.

I'd shy away from internet calculators based on Star Trek, the numbers you get back are pure fiction. For relativistic STL travel first you get up to speeds close to c. This requires a horrendous amount of fuel and a high specific impulse. A hypothetical antimatter rocket is the best that has ever been envisioned by scientists and it would only be able to burn at 1g for 10.5 days (if there was a 1:1 ratio of ship to fuel). To get up to .9c you would need 30 times this and to be able to decelerate at the end you would need 60 times, antimatter is awfully dangerous and a ship like that exploding near Earth would probably sterilise the portion facing it.

You still then have to fix the problem of how to build a ship with a sustainable ecology inside, enough industry to take care of itself etc etc. It begs the question why on Earth would you want to?

If you are interested in calculators here's one for http://www.fotoeffekt.ch/net/simulation/relativitaet/app2/ws/srcalc.htm etc

 

[Physics-Learner]

they are numbers for star trek. i was curious how fast they were going !

the real shrink is not that much. even at 1/2 c, the shrinkage is only 14 %. at 90%, the shrinkage is a bit over 50. that doesn't buy us that much. you got to get dang near c, before the shrinkage gets phenomenal.

of course, if we ever get to travel at those speeds, i suspect we will begin re-writing relativity - LOL.

we have too many loopholes in those areas for me to really think we are at all close. qm and relativity contradict each other. duality throws a sandy koufax curve and fastball at us at the same time, regarding light as it really is. special relativity peters out at long distances, such that we need to invoke general relativity. we got so many bandaids on our theories at present, that big change over the next millenium seems like a sure bet.

 

[Physics-Learner]

meeting aliens (if peaceful) is intriguing to me, because it may be a way for us to better ourselves and our understanding more quickly.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

they are numbers for star trek. i was curious how fast they were going !

They weren't going at all, it's fiction they also never stuck to their speed calculations and would vary how fast they could go based on the need of the plot.

the real shrink is not that much. even at 1/2 c, the shrinkage is only 14 %. at 90%, the shrinkage is a bit over 50. that doesn't buy us that much. you got to get dang near c, before the shrinkage gets phenomenal.

At .9c for every year the traveller experiences 7 go by on Earth. If you had an economical propulsion system capable of getting to that and a vehicle capable of keeping the occupants alive for extended periods of time then that's a fair speed to explore the local neighbourhood. That's doubly true if you have the propulsion and just want to send probes.

of course, if we ever get to travel at those speeds, i suspect we will begin re-writing relativity - LOL.

Er...What? What does that speed have to do with re-writing relativity?

qm and relativity contradict each other

Are you talking about special or general relativity? How do they "contradict"? As far as I am aware SR and QM work fine together and the problem with GR is that it doesn't reconcile with QM (hence the requirement for a theory of quantum gravity)

duality throws a sandy koufax curve and fastball at us at the same time, regarding light as it really is.

I'm not seeing what you are getting at here regarding W/P duality (Hint: country specific sporting references don't translate well when talking to people from across the planet)

special relativity peters out at long distances, such that we need to invoke general relativity.

Er...What??

we got so many bandaids on our theories at present, that big change over the next millenium seems like a sure bet.

The fact that there are unexplained principles in physics does not mean that there is anything wrong with current theories. It's also illogical to state a time and suggest that we will overcome these problems within that time. It is extra illogical to suggest that because we don't know X in the future space travel may be possible.

meeting aliens (if peaceful) is intriguing to me, because it may be a way for us to better ourselves and our understanding more quickly.

I don't see the relevance. I presume you mean sentient aliens, the chances of meeting sentient aliens whose technology, society and psychology were anything close to us seems astronomical. Meeting sentient life of any sort is likely to have a massive destabilising effect on our society.

 

[Physics-Learner]

It's also illogical to state a time and suggest that we will overcome these problems within that time. It is extra illogical to suggest that because we don't know X in the future space travel may be possible.



I don't see the relevance. I presume you mean sentient aliens, the chances of meeting sentient aliens whose technology, society and psychology were anything close to us seems astronomical. Meeting sentient life of any sort is likely to have a massive destabilising effect on our society.

making big inroads is not the same as "overcome". when i see something that looks like it still has a lot of holes in it, and the rate at which we learn, i don't see that being a big leap.

we don't know x in the future, space travel may be possible - to what are you referring ?

i don't think it would have all that much destabilizing effect (again, if they are peaceful). i think the masses already suspect there is intelligent life out there. if i recall, our sun is not old, when compared to all the stars, which means there are many planets in the universe older than earth. so we could have older, wiser, more advanced life than us.

even most religious groups, except for the extreme - i don't think would have much effect.

the biggest problem would be for the bigwigs, trying to figure out how to continue their control over us.

 

[JaredJames]

i don't think it would have all that much destabilizing effect (again, if they are peaceful). i think the masses already suspect there is intelligent life out there. if i recall, our sun is not old, when compared to all the stars, which means there are many planets in the universe older than earth. so we could have older, wiser, more advanced life than us.

That has to be the worst example of attempted logic I have ever seen.

the biggest problem would be for the bigwigs, trying to figure out how to continue their control over us.

Yes, because the moment aliens arrive the governments will lose control and the people of Earth will stop with their everyday lives.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

making big inroads is not the same as "overcome". when i see something that looks like it still has a lot of holes in it, and the rate at which we learn, i don't see that being a big leap.

This is a logical fallacy. The fact that something is unknown in a particular field and the fact that we have made discoveries in the past is no indication as to whether or not we will ever uncover those unknowns.

we don't know x in the future, space travel may be possible - to what are you referring ?

You are implying that because there are gaps in our knowledge Captain Kirk style space travel might be possible. Its a fallacy to say either way what unknown knowledge could or could not give. It is only logical to talk about what we know.

i don't think it would have all that much destabilizing effect (again, if they are peaceful).

I'll take peaceful to mean that they don't actively wipe us out. The destabilizing effect will be the knowledge that there are things unseen beyond our sight, that's been a terrifying concept for all of man's history.

The destabilization doesn't necessarily mean an apocalypse but society (IMO) would change drastically. A lot of what we do would change to fit in with the fact that we are not alone, this could result in more interest in space, more fear of the unknown and depending on how we observe these aliens any number of changes. Human societies in history do not have a good track record of staying the same once they meet a more technologically advanced society.

i think the masses already suspect there is intelligent life out there.

Irrelevant on two counts; firstly the number of people believing something doesn't make it true. Secondly billions of people believe in a God but it would still be pretty destabilizing if that God appeared in the sky for all to see.

if i recall, our sun is not old, when compared to all the stars, which means there are many planets in the universe older than earth. so we could have older, wiser, more advanced life than us.

Evolution isn't teleological. If a sentient species did evolve elsewhere there is no guarantee (in fact I think it's extremely unlikely) that they will progress socially, psychologically and technologically at the same rate and in the same directions than us. One day we could find a sentient species that has spent 100 million years living in a stone age, far older but any more advanced? "Wiser" is a very anthropic term and I highly doubt that it would apply to aliens.

even most religious groups, except for the extreme - i don't think would have much effect.

See above. Also for religious groups like the Raelian movement it could go a step towards confirming their faith.

the biggest problem would be for the bigwigs, trying to figure out how to continue their control over us.

Without politicians there would be no society, in some countries there are dictators and in others there are honest leaders.

 

[Physics-Learner]

i think the masses already suspect there is intelligent life out there.

Irrelevant on two counts; firstly the number of people believing something doesn't make it true. Secondly billions of people believe in a God but it would still be pretty destabilizing if that God appeared in the sky for all to see.

*****
hi ryan,

thank you for the thoughtful reply. i only have time to comment on this one, for now. i don't see my comment as being irrelevant on either count. i did not say that something is true because a large amount of people think something is true. i simply said it would not surprise them. if i think A is true, and i am shown proof that A is true, i would typically say "that's what i thought".

surely you must realize your mistake on your second count. of course the appearance of god could be destabilizing to even believers. that is because he would be the creator of everything and no doubt put us in complete awe. we would not have that same awe for an alien, in that sort of emotional sense. if, as i said, the alien was not trying to harm us, i don't think the population as a whole would be scared.

nor do i think we would become destabilized. hopefully we could become better informed about a lot of things, and if we are lucky, come away with some sort of "invention or process" by which our human condition could be bettered.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

i simply said it would not surprise them. if i think A is true, and i am shown proof that A is true, i would typically say "that's what i thought".

This really depends on what A is. If I quickly did a calculation in my head and came to 540 then someone with a calculator confirms it I get a far different reaction to if I think that there's a possibility space-faring aliens exist and then I witness a UFO outside my window.

surely you must realize your mistake on your second count. of course the appearance of god could be destabilizing to even believers. that is because he would be the creator of everything and no doubt put us in complete awe. we would not have that same awe for an alien, in that sort of emotional sense. if, as i said, the alien was not trying to harm us, i don't think the population as a whole would be scared.

Destabilising doesn't necessarily mean riots everywhere, destabilising as in it would force a radical change in how people see our position in the world. And of course people would be afraid! A few weeks ago there were people worldwide trying to commit suicide because they thought the world was going to end, people are not rational creatures. IMO people would have the same reaction to a huge ship suddenly spotted flying around the solar system as they would to finding a monster walking through their house, even if it isn't hurting them it is alien, unknowns with intelligence are a widespread fear amongst humans.

nor do i think we would become destabilized. hopefully we could become better informed about a lot of things, and if we are lucky, come away with some sort of "invention or process" by which our human condition could be bettered.

I don't know what to make of this. Why would you think we would learn anything about the human condition or invent something new purely because we observe other intelligent life?

No offence but thanks to the pervasion of star trek in your ideas throughout this thread I have a sinking feeling that you are envisioning first contact as an event where anthropic aliens with slightly pointed ears land on Earth and teach us how to live our lives better.

 

[Physics-Learner]

Originally Posted by Physics-Learner View Post

i simply said it would not surprise them. if i think A is true, and i am shown proof that A is true, i would typically say "that's what i thought".

This really depends on what A is. If I quickly did a calculation in my head and came to 540 then someone with a calculator confirms it I get a far different reaction to if I think that there's a possibility space-faring aliens exist and then I witness a UFO outside my window.

*****

the witnessing of an event is "exciting", for sure. but after it is over, and we are contemplating the same knowledge (in this case, that an alien is here), the wonderment of the actual sighting will go away. and then we are left with the knowledge that the alien is here.

 

[Physics-Learner]

surely you must realize your mistake on your second count. of course the appearance of god could be destabilizing to even believers. that is because he would be the creator of everything and no doubt put us in complete awe. we would not have that same awe for an alien, in that sort of emotional sense. if, as i said, the alien was not trying to harm us, i don't think the population as a whole would be scared.

Destabilising doesn't necessarily mean riots everywhere, destabilising as in it would force a radical change in how people see our position in the world. And of course people would be afraid! A few weeks ago there were people worldwide trying to commit suicide because they thought the world was going to end, people are not rational creatures. IMO people would have the same reaction to a huge ship suddenly spotted flying around the solar system as they would to finding a monster walking through their house, even if it isn't hurting them it is alien, unknowns with intelligence are a widespread fear amongst humans.

**
well, this was the main point of my original post. how apt would an alien race, capable of visiting us, be violent towards us ? and i am not convinced of their benevolent nature. so i would just as soon not have anyone visit, and not take the chance.

but once someone was here, my reaction would be different. i figure that i no longer have much say so, in that they probably could destroy us if they wanted to.

i certainly agree with you that we earthians would no longer be able to view ourselves as the "only ones". certainly, some people would be afraid. in fact, i think most of us would be, at first.

 

[Physics-Learner]

nor do i think we would become destabilized. hopefully we could become better informed about a lot of things, and if we are lucky, come away with some sort of "invention or process" by which our human condition could be bettered.

I don't know what to make of this. Why would you think we would learn anything about the human condition or invent something new purely because we observe other intelligent life?

No offence but thanks to the pervasion of star trek in your ideas throughout this thread I have a sinking feeling that you are envisioning first contact as an event where anthropic aliens with slightly pointed ears land on Earth and teach us how to live our lives better.

**

if it is us doing the observing, perhaps not. i was thinking of them visiting us, where they would more than likely have knowledge that we do not.

no offense taken. i don't know that i have an idea of what motives might be typical of a visiting alien ? again, the whole point of my original post.

fyi, i am charmed by star trek, but not because of the sci-fi aspect. that is just a basis for the show. the main aspect of the show is character development, and deep issues that we people have. how these characters handle such issues, and the relevance of these situations to our own human condition. at least with star trek, and tng - which were both gene roddenberry creations. i don't recall off-hand how much voyager, deep space nine, and enterprise followed along with that.

thanks for the discussions.