Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Faster than light time travel through controlled, spatial distortion

  1. Nov 19, 2009 #1
    I have recently heard of a theory that states that faster than light time travel is possible by disrupting the fabric of space-time using tachyons, to create a makeshift wave behind a future spacecraft of some sort. It states that by doing this, one creates a bubble around the spacecraft. And inside that bubble, speeds are way below 180,000 Mp/s., but outside the bubble, speeds are much higher than 180,000Mp/s. It's kind of a loophole in Einstein's theory about light speed travel. Thoughts on this idea? I personally don't think it's possible. One reason is that, if tachyons are real, I don't think there's any way for us (Made of Normal Matter) to interact with Faster than Light particals.

    Oh, btw, I'm new here. Hi everyone. :smile:
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 19, 2009 #2
    Well being as we don't know that Tachyons exist, I doubt that we are really into applying their properties in the realm of engineering just as of yet.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyons" [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  4. Nov 19, 2009 #3
    One would think that right? But apparently, there are already theories on how to apply them, based on we know about normal partical structure. I don't really understand why this has been even considered, seeing that it's just an assumption about the unknown. :confused:
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  5. Nov 19, 2009 #4
    I imagine that it is just a tool for hypothetical ideas and science fiction. Who knows? Maybe one day it will stop being science fiction. So many other things have. My phone is cooler than Captain Kirk's.
  6. Nov 19, 2009 #5
    Yeah, maybe. I think that science in general is becoming a little too liberal. All this nonsense, and crazy ideas made up by people who want to be noticed in the scientific community, is distracting people like me from learning the "Facts". I'm only 17, and I'm having a hard time sorting fact from science fiction. I usually discourage conservative thinking, but I'm beginning to believe that it's the only thing that's going to set the scientific community straight for a better learning environment for rising Physisists, and Mathmeticians.
  7. Nov 19, 2009 #6
    You should read some of the old pulp fiction from the 1920's and 30's. Or even check out some of the fiction from the 50's and 60's. Those guys came out with some pretty wild stuff that would be considered totally outlandish by today's standards. Pay attention to the guys in PF forums. They are really good at explaining real science.
  8. Nov 19, 2009 #7
    I've stopped calling them phones. They're computers with a telephone feature.
    They're as much phones as my computer is a Solitaire machine.
  9. Nov 19, 2009 #8


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    "Loopholes" of this kind have been known for a very long time. If I remembmer correctly the first person to consider methods for "folding" spacetime was Gödel, only a couple of years after GR was first published. Einstein himself was involved in some of the work (he and Gödel were friends).

    Anyway, this is definitly "exotic" physics but done right it is can still be serious science; simply because it touches upon some very fundamental questions in physics, the "nature of time", quantum gravity etc.
    Papers on what is in effect mechanisms that would allow FTL and perhaps even time-machines (although they are usually not called that) are published on a pretty regular basis in peer-reviews journals; not because someone is actually planning to build one (even "optimistic" theories tells us that it would require an absolutely enormous amount of energy to bend space time that much) but because question such as whether or not e.g."white holes" (and therefore wormholes that would in principle allow FTL travel) exist/are stable are quite important in cosmology and astronomy in general.

    Also, why is this thread in the "scepticism and Debunking" forum?
  10. Nov 19, 2009 #9
    Sounds like a scrambled version of the Alcubierre warp-metric, which is a way of travelling FTL via a bubble of space-time, the borders of which contract space-time in the direction of travel then re-expand it in the opposite direction. No tachyons are involved and they don't distort space-time anyway.

    Howdy! We're pretty friendly but dislike dogmatic restatements of old ideas that have been debunked countless times - thus the banned topics file.
  11. Nov 20, 2009 #10
    Well, I don't get how you can make that statement considering we don't know if tachyons exist. But thanks for the clarification regardless.

    Lol, well, I'm still getting the hang of this forum, so, just bear with me please.
  12. Nov 20, 2009 #11
    Well you can define some of the properties of tachyons before you can observe them - else how will you know when you see one? Tachyons don't distort space-time any more than other particles - i.e. individually only a tiny, tiny bit. They're not magical "space-time distorters" like some imaginary particle on "Star Trek" (eg. tetrions.)

    Me too! Some topics are just verboten, which I keep discovering the hard way.
  13. Nov 20, 2009 #12
    Some theories state that tachyons are most likely the actual fabric of space. Their properties are FTL. And by general physics' laws, the only thing moving faster than 180,000Mp/s, is the expansion of existance itself. And because they are the only FTL partical in the universe, they do not interact with any other forms of matter (Dark or otherwise). Now, I don't agree with this theory at all, but I think it's funny how Physisists make up these laws and properties that defy pretty much all of modern physics about something that possibly doesn't exist. And it's worth speculating, possible or not.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook