Is a FTL Drive with a Preferred Frame Enough to Resolve Temporal Paradoxes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Blasp
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Frame Ftl
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of a faster-than-light (FTL) drive that operates with respect to the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) rest frame and its implications for resolving temporal paradoxes. Participants explore theoretical frameworks, practical applications, and the consistency of such a model with existing physical laws.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose a FTL drive that varies speed based on movement relative to the CMB peculiar velocity, questioning whether this could eliminate temporal paradoxes.
  • Others argue that positing a preferred frame, such as the CMB, does not fundamentally change the implications of Lorentz transformations and special relativity.
  • A participant suggests that while FTL might be framed as an illusion of time travel in science fiction, it does not allow for actual alteration of the past.
  • One participant references an external source that claims to present a model of FTL without paradoxes while maintaining relativity, seeking validation of its correctness.
  • Another participant challenges the use of the term "correct," suggesting that internal consistency is a more appropriate measure for theoretical models that do not align with reality.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the feasibility and implications of a CMB-referenced FTL drive. There is no consensus on whether such a model effectively resolves temporal paradoxes or remains consistent with established physics.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge limitations in their assumptions regarding the nature of FTL travel and its relationship to existing physical laws, particularly concerning the implications of a preferred frame.

Blasp
Lets assume a FTL drive that works only with respect to CMB rest frame (technobabble probably something about inflation/dark energy). So drive speed would vary depending on whether the ship is moving along CMB peculiar velocity (371 km/s towards constellation Leo), or against it. Would that be enough to get rid of temporal paradoxes? How would such a drive work in practice, for various directions of movement, round trips..?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Blasp said:
Lets assume a FTL drive that works only with respect to CMB rest frame ...
Once you posit a situation that amounts to "if the laws of physics did not apply, what would the laws of physics say about <insert nonsense of your choice>" followup questions based on that are not going to be particularly meaningful.
 
Last edited:
Blasp said:
Lets assume a FTL drive that works only with respect to CMB rest frame (technobabble probably something about inflation/dark energy). So drive speed would vary depending on whether the ship is moving along CMB peculiar velocity (371 km/s towards constellation Leo), or against it. Would that be enough to get rid of temporal paradoxes? How would such a drive work in practice, for various directions of movement, round trips..?

In an alternate timeline, it were maybe possible to view CMB as a preferred frame, when we talk about speeds (like on Earth, surface is considered a preferred frame when we talk about speed).
But it change nothing, Lorentz transformations, observations led to SR remains the same.
Of course in usual SF and many debates around the net, FTL is only the illusion of time travel, it don't let really alter the past.
 
Blasp said:
Is it correct?
"Correct" is not really a term that should be applied to something that does not describe reality. I think you more likely mean "is it internally consistent?" I spent very little time looking at the site but he seems to have given it a lot of thought so it may well be internally consistent.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 145 ·
5
Replies
145
Views
18K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
6K