Why do we keep saying its impossible?

[Bunting]

I was wondering why we keep sayign things are impossible? If anything history has shown us that when we say something is impossible, more often than not, it isnt!

"Everything which can be invented, has been invented" - Head of the patent office of america, 1899.

A multitude of times in the past they said the periodic table is full, then there was somethign else to go on there! how do we know something else can't go up there ? eh eh! Lots of things were impossible (according to physisists) until the quantum theory came along, why can't the same happen again ? what if the next einstein comes along and says "well actually, look at this" then everyone goes...

"oh right, so we can travel faster than the speed of light" but someone then goes "yeah, but it MUST be impossible to do this and that!". and it happens all the time! why does it happen!

whether this is of interest to many i dunno, but its been bugging me for ages! :P

 

[pi-70679]

I think that in some cases, restrictions restrictions that have been set by people before were "broken" while at the same time respected. For example, the speed of light is supposed to be absolute, nothing can go faster. However, we can still travel a huge distance in less time than light by using higher dimensions. Thus, relative to an absolute observer, we are going faster than the speed of light, while still not breaking any restrictions imposed by relativity. This is what I think will happen in the future. We will learn to go around the laws mostly, even though a huge deal is still waiting to be discovered if you ask me.

 

[Hurkyl]

Well, the "light barrier" is fundamentally different than previous "impossibilities".

Things like "all that can be invented has been invented" is simply an extrapolation based on the wide array of things that have been invented, and the slowdown of truly innovative ideas.

Something like "The sound barrier can't be broken" was based on the extreme physical stress placed on objects breaking the sound barrier, and the reckoning of engineers who simply had the opinion that it was too tough for any material to withstand.


Statements like "It is impossible to travel faster than light", however, is a rigorous deduction from special relativity. Scientists say that it is impossible not because they think we've gone almost as fast as we can go, not because they think it's too difficult, but because the mathematics say it can't happen.

If the light barrier were to be broken, that would mean Special Relativity is wrong. Of course, Special Relativity could be wrong, but scientists have no reason to think that it is.

Hurkyl

 

[FZ+]

In other words, there is no such thing as a technical impossibility. This was the flaw of previous restrictions.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by FZ+
In other words, there is no such thing as a technical impossibility. This was the flaw of previous restrictions.

To clarify things a bit and add to what Hurkyl said, there is a difference between a TECHNOLOGICAL barrier and a THEORETICAL barrier. A technological barrier is breakable, a theoretical one is not (unless the theory is wrong).

The sound barrier was always known to be a technological barrier (bullets have been going supersonic for a long time). We just needed to invent the technology to break it for aircraft.

The speed of light is a theoretical barrier in that our understanding of physics says that it isn't possible to break it regardless of our level of technology. It would be a major upheavel to physics to find that it is breakable.

So yes, some things said to be impossible are not - but some things said to be impossible really are.

 

[Rebel]

I say that most scientist don't have a clue of anything because there minds are stuck on things of the current time and over the years things do change. They though eistien was nuts back then but we look back and say to our selfs gezz those people are smart so for the present day i would have to say scientist and science are in there infancy.

 

[Integral]

Originally posted by Rebel
I say that most scientist don't have a clue of anything because there minds are stuck on things of the current time and over the years things do change. They though eistien was nuts back then but we look back and say to our selfs gezz those people are smart so for the present day i would have to say scientist and science are in there infancy.

Perhaps if you actually knew something about modern science you could make some meaningful comments.

 

[STAii]

Well ...
It is all about information ..
Mainly (i believe) there is no definite way to tell if a certain info is true or not.
Over time, we have found ways that we have agreed that everything that applies on it is true.
Some of those include Logic, on which Mathematics are based (somehow).
Therefore scientists believe that whatever has been derived using Mathematics will and Logic (in the right way) will be true.
It is hard to find flaws or errors in things that have been based on Logic and/or Math, but it is not impossible, it is possible that someday someone will find something wrong in either the original data that has been used to derive a certain theoretical limit, or something wrong in the use of Math/Logic in it.

Otherwise, every other impossibility is just people that are too lazy to work to make something possible.

 

[Bunting]

Originally posted by pi-70679
This is what I think will happen in the future. We will learn to go around the laws mostly, even though a huge deal is still waiting to be discovered if you ask me.

Hmm, that makes sense! I never thought of it as 2 categories, technical and theoretical. I understand a little better now :) thanks for all the replys :)

 

[pmb]

Hi Bunting

re - " was wondering why we keep sayign things are impossible?"

Excellant point. I would guess that people become very convinced of something to the point that they get tired of saying "This has never happened and it seems that it never will."

and simply say "This is impossible."

But it's incorrect to say that since what has always happened in the past might not happen always happen in the future. For example: Maybe the laws of nature will all of s sudden change one day. We have no reason to believe they will. Yet we are basing the future on the past and I see no reason that is the way it must be. I just see that is the way it "seems" to be at the moment.

However consider a definition, from Webster's Dictionar for example.

Impossible: felt to be incapable of being done, attained, or fulfilled : insuperably difficult


Pete

 

[Bunting]

hmmmm, i don't agree with that definition :-/ impossible IS when you can't do something, not when you just feel you can't do it :-/

 

[NEOclassic]

Originally posted by Bunting
I was wondering why we keep sayign things are impossible? If anything history has shown us that when we say something is impossible, more often than not, it isn't!

Lots of things were impossible (according to physisists) until the quantum theory came along, why can't the same happen again? what if the next Einstein comes along and says "well actually, look at this" then everyone goes...

:P

Hi P. Bunting,
Quantum Theory was created as an augmentation of Newton-Einstein classical mechanics rather than a replacement for it. I argue that the physicists you mentioned in your quote were short sighted in failing to realize that the neutral charge of the neutron and the energetics and leptonic items expelled (at the time of decay to a proton) were unarguably proof that a neutral orbital coupling of the expelled electron and the retained positron charge of the proton existed, when in the neutron, in the same volume occupied by the ultimate positive charge of the proton. It follows that the neutron, per se, contains an oppositely charged (neutral) quantum orbital structure. Such an orbital called singlet positronium was discovered in the 1930's.
I'm no Einstein but I am a learned logician and I predict that a new breed of physicists will ultimately despair of the QED Gell-Mann Standard model of the proton and look to augment classical physics with Nature's real pair of positronium quanta.
Proof that a second e+e- triplet quantum is present in the neutron as a building block of its SR mass enhanced heavy shell is evidenced by its presence in the atom-smasher debris of a crushed proton (remember that the singlet e+e- no longer exists in the proton).
PS: The pi meson has a larger cross-section for e+e- decay than that for charged mu meson production; in natural cosmic ray destruction, the expelled neutral e+e- and its auto-annihilation are both undetectable. Thanks for you audience, Jim

 

[pi-70679]

I don't totally agree with what some of you said about if derived from logic and math then it should in most cases be true. I base myself to say that on geometry. Not so long ago, people were almost always using euclidean geometry. Nowadays, we know that euclidean geomtry cannot always be used especially if not on a plane. Although euclidean geometry is totally true and no one has any doubts about the sum of angles inside a triangle on a plane, it is quite logical that thius doesn't apply on a sphere. Euclid used logic to fimnd his theorems upon which many other math theorems have been built. Thus, what we really discover is limitations to limitations. Thus, this is not false, but no absolute neither, as we learn more about the space surrounding us. Thus, something might be impossible at one time, using logic and math, but logic is not failproof, and math is often based on math. Thus, there may be ways to go around the limitations that we found to exist. I believe, as i said earlier, that instead of remodelling laws, we more often find the little possibility in which it doesn't apply and exploity it to come to our goals. Also what used to be impossible changes as the society and the people are changing i think, but i would leave that to sociologists and people who know what they are talking about in that field. I'm only interested in the physics/math part.

 

[wimms]

How about optimistic law of human brain: human neurons can't possibly fire in direction that is absolutely, finally impossible in this universe? (its dictated by fine structure of the universe )

The only impossible thing is that which hasn't (yet) occurred to us as a goal. All else is just matter of money...

GR is not much better nor worse than Newton's. GR has probs, QM has probs, there is that miss-universe of TOE's going on over the years, and we've yet to see the winner.

Claiming that lightspeed is final barrier now is not much better than soundbarrier back then, only selfconfidence is higher. Noone has actually tried to brake it, right? Besides, GR doesn't forbid FTL, its just our deduction that by ordinary means its impossible. What remains, is obviously unconventional means...

 

[FZ+]

Noone has actually tried to brake it, right?

We have. If you accelerate an electron with a potential difference, the work done is equal to e * V. So, you can increase the kinetic energy of the electron by jacking up the voltage. However, you will find that though you can approach c for the velocity of the electron, you can never reach it. The momentum increases, but the velocity doesn't get there.

 

[Bunting]

Originally posted by FZ+
We have. If you accelerate an electron with a potential difference, the work done is equal to e * V. So, you can increase the kinetic energy of the electron by jacking up the voltage. However, you will find that though you can approach c for the velocity of the electron, you can never reach it. The momentum increases, but the velocity doesn't get there.

ahhh right, should have done a bit more reserch into that really :P but my case stands, physicists do say things arent possible.

no matter how much quantum mechanics is imilar to class relativity, it still dispelled some reasonings that some things are impossible!

as for what NEOclassic says, I am not even going to pretend to understand it :) in lamens terms ?? ;)

 

[Integral]

Indeed it is commonly understood that it is theoretically impossible to accelerate massive bodies to the speed of light. The point you naysayers seem to missing is that it has NOT been blindly accepted. From the first time Einstein dervived the result it has been challgenged experimentally. Einstein's results have been verified and are a standard factor in ALL HIGH ENERGY particle physics experiments.

Now if you say "well that is in the world subatomic particles, how do we know that it applies to bigger things, perhaps this limit only exists in the quantum world." To that I say, since you are nothing but an assembly of subatomic particles, at what point does the laws of physics change? This phenomnea has observed with single electrons, single protons and ionized atoms. Do you suppose that the laws of physics change when 10 or 10 million atoms gather together?

My message to you is if you do not believe it, fine. Learn some physics, get your PhD then design and execute an experiment which substainicates your belief.

IF you are not willing, or unable to, achive the above then you are at the mercy of those who have done, or at least have studied the results of the experiments that have been done.

IF you choose not to pursue higher knowledge of Physics then you must learn to accept the results of those who have. Physics is not an armchair science, it is experimental science. You are playing the part of the armchair scientists, if you do not like a result it cannot be correct, simply because you do not wish it to be. Sorry, the universe cares nothing for what we want. The goal of physicists is to understand the universe as it is, not as we wish it to be.

I tend to be somewhat short with armchair physicists whose entire education comes from coffee table physics books. Your naysaying is essentially calling 3 generations of the best minds of mankind idiots. I don't buy it.

 

[pi-70679]

I'm sorry if i offended someone, i just think that stuff such as going pass the speed of light can be countered by say hyperdimensions. The thing which i considered to be the problem people think is impossible to solve is to travel large distances in a humanlifetime that even light would be too slow do. I never doubted that one can't go faster than the speed of light, just that the possibility of shorcuts would mean we don't need to try to do so.
I never thought any of those scientists were idiots, on the contrary, i'd like to be able to do 1/100 of what they did for the world and i would still be happy. And once again, if i offended you in any way, please know that i am very sorry i did so.

 

[wimms]

Right. Integral, please don't feel offended. Most people very highly respect current science and believe all that is generally accepted, including impossible FTL. The hope remains that this is not the end, new developments will reveal other new ways to do it.
Reminds me doors with "Pull" sign on them - if you attack them head on, you might get hurt..

 

[Integral]

Not to worry, I am not offended, I simply would like to see more effort to understand the lessons modern Physics has to offer, and fewer dreams of what is essentially science fiction.

It seems that the universe has construted inpenatrable barriers, at least according to our current understanding. This does not mean that physicts simply accept this and make no further efforts.

What does the future hold? While it is impossible to say for sure, I'll bet that the speed of light barrier is real. Mankind will continue to extend his understanding of the universe, what we now know will not change, prehaps it will be extended, as Einstein did Newtons laws, but not thrown out.

For me, the biggest lesson we must learn it that the Earth and nearby planets is what we have to work with, we must not squander it.

 

[pmb]

Originally posted by Bunting
hmmmm, i don't agree with that definition :-/ impossible IS when you can't do something, not when you just feel you can't do it :-/

Then one should never use the term if they mean it literally since its not something that is noticible.

However - I might say that its impossible to fit a full grown whale into a coffe cup. I say it because it seems that its impossible. But I don't know that its impossible. Who knows! Some day a billion years in the future someonne might figure out how to do it without changing the meaning of "full grown whale" and "coffee cup". I don't know. So maybe I should say that its impossible for "me" to do it "today".

But who has time for trying to figure out how to speak literally

Pmb

 

[STAii]

Originally posted by pi-70679
Nowadays, we know that euclidean geomtry cannot always be used especially if not on a plane. Although euclidean geometry is totally true and no one has any doubts about the sum of angles inside a triangle on a plane, it is quite logical that thius doesn't apply on a sphere. Euclid used logic to fimnd his theorems upon which many other math theorems have been built.

Sure, but the euclidian geometry was not wrong, the non-euclidian geometry was just a new science.
Euclid said that the sum up of a triangle's angles is 180^o.
When you put three lines onto a sphere, it is not a triangle in the euclidian sense, since the sphere is not a plane, and the lines are not straight.
So, since euclidian geometry was based on logic, it was not wrong, and the non-euclidian geometry is not wrong too, but they are not based on the same definitions, and that is all .

So, now if i define 1+2=4 (in my own new science), and then define 4+2=7 (also in my own science), and then make other definitions, and eventually conclude that 1+2+2=7 (under my new science also), would i be wrong ?
I don't this so, cause according to my definitions along with logic, i am right , if this does not make sense under other definitions (the ones that are well known for the math (1+2=3)), it doesn't mean it is wrong .

 

[pi-70679]

First STAii, if you read what i wrote again, you'll see that i don't say euclidean geometry doesn't apply, i just said that if you go outside flatland, you can have something else and that when space is curved, a shape will be deformed, just like drawing a triangle on an empty baloon and then fill it with air. We are really saying the same thing: sure there are laws that can't be broken, but the laws are sometimes limited to a finite number of conditions. The conditions for euclidean geometry is that the surface must be a plane.
Second, as for the sum of 1+2 = whatever that is not 3, i see what you mean but that argument is really kinda weak because you simplified it quite a bit to make it look obvious, when it really isn't. I would suggest trying to figure out a better one or to rearrange this one in a better way.

 

[CJames]

Physics is based on the concept that all things obey absolute laws true everywhere in the universe. It therefore follows that certain things have to be impossible, the things that break those laws. We don't necessarily know everything that is possible, but we do know certain things that are impossible. If the Earth has the same mass tomorrow, then we can say it is impossible that an object will fall at 2 m/s^2. Special relativity has demonstrated that it is impossible to travel at the speed of light, a theory that has been tested an incredibly large number of times.

 

[Bunting]

hmmmm, wow, a lot of good points :) there is obviously a lot of difference between peoples thoughts on this subject :) good to know :P

anyway, i was just thinking while reading some of these replys, that what if what the universe has created isn't the end ? what if humands actually are meant to evolve beyong that of our so called gods? one day we may even find out that rules are not there, and there is only barriers created by our own invention!

As for what integral said about armchair physisists :P I am only an alevel student atm but intend to go onto a PhD in physics definatele (if tis available and viable at the end of my degree!) and this is definatele the sort of stuff i am going to be working on :) so although atm i can only speculate and be an armchair sub-physist! I am doing the best i can :)

 

[jammieg]

Because it's a whole lot easier to do the possible rather than the impossible.

 

[STAii]

Well pi-70679, i see your point.
I think we (somehow) agree on the same opinion.
What i wanted to say is that every science that follows Math and Logic is always right comparing to its foundations (basic definitions and rules), and what you are saying (in my understanding, tell me if i am wrong) is that each science can be limited by its foundations, because different foundations may lead us into different (and maybe more useful, or more general) results.