What Sense Does High Velocity Travel Make? - Oh-My-God Particle

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter KingOrdo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Travel Velocity
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of high-velocity travel, specifically focusing on the 'Oh-My-God particle' and its implications for interstellar travel compared to fictional spacecraft like those in Star Trek. Participants explore the differences in time experienced by observers traveling at relativistic speeds versus those calculated using Newtonian physics, touching on concepts of time dilation, length contraction, and the narrative choices in science fiction.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the Oh-My-God particle could travel to the center of the galaxy in about 3 seconds, while a spacecraft traveling at 1516c would take approximately 21 years, highlighting the effects of relativistic physics.
  • Others argue that the Newtonian calculations for the spacecraft do not account for time dilation or length contraction, which are significant at relativistic speeds.
  • A participant explains that in the frame of the Oh-My-God particle, the distance to the galaxy's center is length contracted, making the journey much shorter in its perspective.
  • Some contributions reference the twin paradox to illustrate the differences in time experienced by the particle and an observer on Earth.
  • There is a discussion about the use of Newtonian rules in Star Trek, with participants questioning the validity of special relativity at speeds greater than c and suggesting that narrative convenience often overrides scientific accuracy in storytelling.
  • Participants mention the concept of Warp Drive in Star Trek, describing it as a method that sidesteps relativistic issues by manipulating space rather than exceeding the speed of light.
  • Some express skepticism about the scientific basis of Warp Drive, referencing the Alcubierre warp drive as a theoretical model that might allow faster-than-light travel but questioning its practical application and implications for causality.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the implications of relativistic travel and the narrative choices in science fiction. There is no consensus on the validity of the assumptions made in the Star Trek universe regarding Warp Drive and its relationship with relativity.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the reliance on fictional representations of physics in Star Trek, the assumptions made about relativistic effects, and the unresolved nature of the Alcubierre warp drive's feasibility.

KingOrdo
Messages
124
Reaction score
0
In a description of the discovery of the so-called 'Oh-My-God particle' (http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/ohmygodpart.html), the following assertion is made:
It is interesting to observe that a real particle, in our universe, subject to all the laws of physics we understand, is a rather better interstellar voyager than the best fielded in the 24th century by the United Federation of Planets. Their much-vaunted Galaxy Class starships are capable of speeds slightly in excess of Warp Factor 9, an apparent velocity of 1516 cochranes (or 1516 times the speed of light).[4] At a velocity of 1516 c, traveling to the centre of the galaxy would take, as perceived by the life forms on board, a little more than 21 years. By contrast, an observer on board the Oh-My-God particle would arrive at the nucleus of the Milky Way, according to his clock, just about 3 seconds after leaving Starbase Terra. That's more than 9,700,000 times faster than the starship. In the time the starship spends vacuum-whooshing and rumbling its way to the nearby star Aldebaran, the particle could travel to the edge of the visible universe.

The idea seems to be, essentially, that it would take 21 years to go from Earth to the center of the galaxy at 1516c, while only taking 3 seconds to make the same trip at (very close to) c. How could that be? What sense does that make?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
KingOrdo said:
The idea seems to be, essentially, that it would take 21 years to go from Earth to the center of the galaxy at 1516c, while only taking 3 seconds to make the same trip at (very close to) c. How could that be? What sense does that make?
Because under the Newtonian rules they're assuming in the 1516c calculation, there is no time dilation or length contraction; but with relativity, the clocks of a ship moving to the center of the galaxy at very close to c would be slowed down in the galaxy's frame, and by getting the ship arbitrarily close to c you can slow them down as much as you want, even to the extent that only 3 seconds would pass on the moving clock during the 30,000 years or so it would take in the galaxy's frame. In the ship's frame, its clocks are not slowed down, but the length of the galaxy is Lorentz-contracted, and again it can be contracted to an arbitrary degree, enough so that the distance from Earth to the center in the ship's frame is less than 3 light-seconds.
 
In the frame of the OMG particle, the distance between the Earth and the center of the galaxy is length contracted, to a number much less than 1516 light years.

If you consider the "round trip" case, this is just an example of the twin paradox.

Twin A sets out at the velocity of the OMG particle, goes to the center of the galaxy in 3 seconds, turns around instantaneously, and proceeds back to the Earth in another 3 seconds, making the round trip in 6 seconds.

Twin B, on Earth, experiences 60,000 years.
 
Indeed. And why do they use "Newtonian rules" for the spacecraft ? I assume it's because special relativity is invalid for speeds greater than c?
 
KingOrdo said:
Indeed. And why do they use "Newtonian rules" for the spacecraft ? I assume it's because special relativity is invalid for speeds greater than c?
Partly that, and probably partly also because that's just how things seem to work on Star Trek, no one ever ages differently depending on what "warp" they've been moving at.
 
KingOrdo said:
Indeed. And why do they use "Newtonian rules" for the spacecraft ? I assume it's because special relativity is invalid for speeds greater than c?

Mainly it's because to do otherwise would causes too many plot problems:

Data: "Captain, we are receiving a distress call from Star Base 10. They are under attack by the Romulans.

Picard: "How fast can we get there?"

Data: " 15 minutes at warp 9, sir"

Picard" Very well, plot a course and engage!"

15 minutes later, by the ship's clock, the Enterprise arrives at Star Base 10, only to find that the battle has been over for some 2 weeks and the Star Base is now in the hands of the Romulans!

IOW, for the sake of telling the story, Warp drive is assumed to side step Relativity issues.
 
Janus said:
IOW, for the sake of telling the story, Warp drive is assumed to side step Relativity issues.
Yes. It wasn't called Warp Drive just for fun...

The technobabble explanation of the Warp Drive is that it shrinks the space in front of the craft and expands the space behind the craft. The "Warp factor" is not a "speed" at all, it is literally the factor by which it exaggerates this space "warping" effect. The craft does not actually exceed c in its local "Warp bubble" of space.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Yes. It wasn't called Warp Drive just for fun...

The technobabble explanation of the Warp Drive is that it shrinks the space in front of the craft and expands the space behind the craft. The "Warp factor" is not a "speed" at all, it is literally the factor by which it exaggerates this space "warping" effect. The craft does not actually exceed c in its local "Warp bubble" of space.
I don't think that explanation was ever used on the Star Trek show itself though, was it? There is actually a real proposal in general relativity that would work in a similar way, known as the Alcubierre warp drive, but I think it's not actually completely clear whether it could be used to travel to other stars or galaxies in less time than a light beam traveling through normal semiflat space would. As for Star Trek, the most logical explanation I've seen is the one here, which suggests that in the Star Trek universe "subspace" actually defines a preferred frame for FTL travel, thereby avoiding the problem of causality violations which would arise if it was supposed to be consistent with relativity (I would think if the Alcubierre bubble could get to distant destinations in otherwise flat space faster than a light beam traveling through the flat space would, then this would lead to causality violations as well, despite the fact that the ship inside the bubble does not locally travel faster than c...I know that GR predicts wormholes could lead to causality violations if quantum effects don't destroy them, even though no one locally travels faster than c when going through the wormhole either).
 

Similar threads

Graduate Find the "Oh-My-God Particle" - 1516 x Speed of Light Explained
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K