# Space Travel

1. Sep 22, 2008

### patrick_usc

Would it be possible for a human being or any other solid matter to be encapsuled or exist in a sort of "Vaccum" which distorts space and time around the object that would make it have zero matter?
If so, would it be possible for light or protons to somehow be captured and propel that object along a determined path through space to a destination? And given the experiment in which an object the size of a molecule has already been involved in "time travel" could this potentially zero mass object be able to totravel through space and possibly time?

2. Sep 22, 2008

### Perillux

I'm not sure what you mean by that "vacuum" thing. However, according to Einsteins famous equation:
E = mc^2 if you have zero mass, then you have zero energy. The equation shows that mass and energy are essentially interchangeable.
So I'll assume that what you want is to convert all of this objects mass into energy. As of yet, there is no practical way to achieve this.

"time travel" into the future is only possible through relativity, traveling to the past is impossible.

3. Sep 22, 2008

### ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
There is simply way too many speculation built on top of speculation in your question here. At some point, you have to come back to some known physics before you extrapolate way too far. As it is, there is no way to address your question without diving into unverified speculation. This is against the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374" that governs all posts in this forum.

This is incorrect. Lights has no mass, but it certainly has energy.

This issue has been addressed in the FAQ thread in the General Physics forum. Please review it.

Zz.

Last edited by a moderator: Apr 23, 2017
4. Sep 22, 2008

### Perillux

I didn't mean that light has mass. I meant if m is 0 then the equation says that E is also 0.
Am I still interpreting it wrong?

5. Sep 23, 2008

### ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
Yes, because you're also implying that light has zero energy, since m=0. This is not correct. Light has m=0, but it certainly does NOT have zero energy. So your "rule" here is faulty.

Zz.