What is the best scientific method to deep space travel

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the best scientific methods for deep space travel, particularly in the context of spreading Earth life to other habitable planets. Participants explore theoretical concepts, practical approaches, and ethical considerations related to interstellar travel and life propagation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that bending spacetime, similar to concepts in science fiction like warp drives, could be a method for deep space travel.
  • Others argue that while Alcubierre's warp drive model has theoretical validity, it faces significant physical and energetic challenges that may render it impossible.
  • A participant suggests reframing the question to focus on practical methods for spreading Earth life to other planets, rather than solely on faster-than-light travel.
  • Concerns are raised about the ethical implications of introducing Earth life to other planets, questioning whether it is moral to do so.
  • Some participants discuss potential propulsion methods, such as nuclear drives or solar-pumped lasers, to achieve a fraction of the speed of light for interstellar travel.
  • There is a suggestion that biological and robotic solutions may be more feasible for long-duration space missions than attempting to achieve faster-than-light travel.
  • A participant speculates on the evolutionary changes that might occur in humans over generations aboard a spaceship, raising questions about identity and adaptation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a variety of views on the feasibility of warp drives and the ethical considerations of spreading life to other planets. There is no consensus on the best method for deep space travel, and multiple competing ideas remain unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in current understanding of warp drive models and the energy requirements for interstellar travel. The discussion also reflects uncertainty regarding the long-term survival of Earth life during extended space missions.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in theoretical physics, astrobiology, space exploration, and ethical considerations in science may find this discussion relevant.

  • #31
Well Chronos, considering you can't go faster than the speed of light, I'm not sure what you mean by infinitely fast.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #32
I believe "infinitely fast spacecraft " means "pretty d@*n quick". :biggrin:

It still comes down to the fact that to accelerate matter to near light speed requires a lot of energy, and one cannot avoid/escape the reality that there are limits to the energy density in man-made material systems. Sure stars can have plasma densities of 1022 protons/cm3, but the pressures are enormous, and no man-made system can handle that, especially at the high temperatures involved. Similar, we cannot build a craft that can travel to the center of the earth.
 
  • #33
Office_Shredder said:
Well Chronos, considering you can't go faster than the speed of light,

...in local space and by any physics that we understand.

We don't know that the limit is absolute which is why scientists play with ideas like warp drive. But it is silly to attempt resolving FTL paradoxes since it would required a physics that we don't know [and may not exist].
 
Last edited:
  • #34
Ivan Seeking said:
...in local space and by any physics that we understand.

We don't know that the limit is absolute which is why scientists play with ideas like warp drive. But it is silly to attempt resolving FTL paradoxes since it would required a physics that we don't know [and may not exist].
Doesn't the expansion of the universe cause distant galaxies to recede faster than the speed of light? Okay this is because of the expansion of the fabric of spacetime but the effect on matter is real none-the-less so perhaps an understanding of exactly what is involved in expanding spacetime would get us started in creating FTL ships.
 
  • #35
Art said:
Doesn't the expansion of the universe cause distant galaxies to recede faster than the speed of light? Okay this is because of the expansion of the fabric of spacetime but the effect on matter is real none-the-less so perhaps an understanding of exactly what is involved in expanding spacetime would get us started in creating FTL ships.

That's why I specified local space. :biggrin:

I think the idea of distant galaxies moving faster than light is speculative but now considered possible. I haven't kept up with this lately but I don't see how we could know that they exist.
 
  • #36
The best method for deep space travel is scientific methods. Warp drive is currently unfeasible, not to mention dangerous, and it seems you trekkies don't know much about evolution. In a nut shell, evolution takes baby steps every 400,000,000 years, give or take, without some catalyst. Anyone with any sense at all would not describe their methods for deep space travel on a physics forum, at least i wouldn't, until all the proper documents were in order for a government agency to review and hopefully approve testing on some minuscule level.
 
Last edited:
  • #37
Freshtictac said:
The best method for deep space travel is scientific methods. Warp drive is currently unfeasible, not to mention dangerous, and it seems you trekkies don't know much about evolution. In a nut shell, evolution takes baby steps every 400,000,000 years, give or take, without some catalyst. Anyone with any sense at all would not describe their methods for deep space travel on a physics forum, at least i wouldn't, until all the proper documents were in order for a government agency to review and hopefully approve testing on some minuscule level.
I'm not sure sure is weirder: the fact that you're responding to a post that's three years old, or the weird ramblings about traveling in deep space using scientific methods (as opposed to unicorn methods I suppose) and some spurious blurt about evolution. (Maybe we're supposed to evolve our scientific method of space travel?) :biggrin:

Anyway, don't bogart that joint my friend.
 
  • #38
DaveC426913 said:
I'm not sure sure is weirder: the fact that you're responding to a post that's three years old, or the weird ramblings about traveling in deep space using scientific methods (as opposed to unicorn methods I suppose) and some spurious blurt about evolution. (Maybe we're supposed to evolve our scientific method of space travel?) :biggrin:

Anyway, don't bogart that joint my friend.

:smile: I think that I would have to be using something stronger to write that.
 

Similar threads

High School Any Feasible Faster-Than-Light Interstellar Travel?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
High School Did anyone actually see the space moving faster than light?
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
Judge gets scientific method better than scientists
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Where (what) is an orbit? Where is Space?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
[Philosophy of science] Bias inherent in the Scientific Method itself?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Undergrad Perceived Speed of Objects in Space
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
High School Space Expansion/Time Travel (#IMAN00B)
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Question about the Scientific Method
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Undergrad Can We Build a Shaw-Fujikawa Translight Engine for Space Travel?
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
6K
Writing: Input Wanted "Spacetime Drive" idea for sci-fi series of shorts
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K