• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

"Light Barrier" bothers me

I have studied relativity, time dialation, and light cones. I know about mass growing at high % of C. It still just does not click in my head. I see no difference in taking 6 years to reach the next star or 6 days. I still don't get how going faster than C is so "impossible". If paradoxes form from a certain light cone plot, is there any reason that things would just happen in sequence instead? If C appears as the same speed to all points of view, then could you just go faster and faster without the worry of getting close, and yet still get to another star in a short amount of time? Am I just not getting it?

Thank you.
 
E=MC(2) is the problem. The faster you go, the more mass you gain, so in theory, to reach and breach C, you would have to assume infinite mass. For all intents and purposes, this is, so the theory holds, impossible, as you would need to also gain infinite energy as well, as I understand it (and I never even got past basic physics at school
file_23.gif
)

Hope that helps
 
But the theory of relativity does not affect the rate of spacial expansion, thus it does not apply to Cosmic Inflation or the Alcubierre Warp Drive. Some pysicists still say that the Warp Drive can be turned into a time machine. I think if you combine the Warp drive with portable wormholes, you have the basis for historical time travel. One can carry one end of a wormhole within the warp bubble of a warp drive and then go faster than the speed of light, go backwards in time and then return to Earth in the past, deposit the Wormhole on Earth's surface and time travellers from the future can visit Earth's past. Of course with the many Worlds postulate, changing history has no consequences on the present as the wormhole will simply connect two seperate realities.
 
I know about mass growing at high % of C.
Apologies for being a pedant, but the change in mass is at any velocity, it just isn't generally noticeable at lower velocities.

At 10% of C the mass dilation and matching time dilation is approximately 0.5%

At 1% of C it is 0.005%

For example a ship travelling at 200% dilation (about 0.85C) from the frame of reference of the person on board the vessel they are apparently going well over the speed of light (at about 1.7C). This matching dilation continues to the point where it may take a couple of days (on board the vessel) to reach another star.


Am I just not getting it?
Some of these things hurt to just think about. I know I always end up with a headache.
 
Originally posted by Dirk Desiato:
I have studied relativity, time dialation, and light cones. I know about mass growing at high % of C. It still just does not click in my head. I see no difference in taking 6 years to reach the next star or 6 days. I still don't get how going faster than C is so "impossible". If paradoxes form from a certain light cone plot, is there any reason that things would just happen in sequence instead? If C appears as the same speed to all points of view, then could you just go faster and faster without the worry of getting close, and yet still get to another star in a short amount of time? Am I just not getting it?

Thank you.
What I don't get about relativity is the cult like following the theory has. Relativity theory is a very useful scientific tool - but we shouldn't assume that it will never be shown to be off in some manner. (Just as Newton's equations are useful in most cases, but are not valid at relativistic speeds. )
 
Hi !

Dirk, I do not really get, what excactly You don't get


The cult around relativity is perhaps based on the way this theory presents somehow frightening properties of our real world in a very compact and elegant way.
Another point might be the stability of the theory against any falsification attempts during the last 100 years.

Honestly, I more impressed by the really fantastic consequences of the SR than by most of the SF stuff I have ever read.

Regards,

TE
 
OK, just to mess things up, If due to time dialation the people on the ship go to Alpha proxima in about 10 days their time, but it takes 4+ years Earth time. How would you play this out? "Forever War" style, or something else? Could an interstellar civilization work with people zooming around space and staying young while everyone planetbound just gets old?
 
Somehow its not different as to do the accounting of cold sleep passengers

People "on the trip" just stay younger than the resting ones....
I guess an interstellar civilisation could get along with that, as its very calculatable, even if it produces a striking social impact by bringing people out of sync.
A concept could be to let people, who belong together, follow similar travel paths, so that they stay in sync.
 
There are a couple of scifi novels that use "RealUniverse" travel methods.

The more famous I can think of is the Enders game saga, but they cheat and have instantaneous communication.

David Brin's universe has some similar aspects, but mainly in the form of social order: Spacers never expect to be able to go home.

More interesting is using real space communication as well. Most starships spend a majority of their time between worlds, to the crew it is like always landing at a foreign port (even when they go home). This setup completely kills trade however, there is no point unless you can accurately gauge what will be popular centuries in the future.

The very nature of it does make it very similar to a cold sleep slow universe, just using time dilation to store those shipboard rather then medical means. The transit times are in a similar order (decades between systems).
 
Originally posted by Space Cadet:
But we don't know what would replace Relativity, we can only guess.
Very true - if we're trying to engineer a space craft for real use, we'd better stick to relativity until / unless new and better methods are found.

However, when we're trying to write or game SciFi, I say we should start guessing! (Don't forget to include why relativity has held up to this point in your guess however. It's SCIENCE fiction afterall, not just fiction.)

One physicist I've read about (forgot his name unfortunately)accepted most of Einstein's equations but had a very different view of what was driving the equations. The alternate theory dealt with either and has met understandable skepticism. However the alternate theory addressed the histroical results of either (and other) experiments effectively and appeared to be as internally consistent as relativity. The consequences of the different views were tremendous. If Einstein had the right explanation, then the "light limit" is real - if the other guy was right, then the "light limit" does not exist. If I had to bet who was right, I'd go with Einstein - but if I'm speculating potential future developments for a story line I see no problem with looking at the implications of the alternative theory.

Originally posted by TheEngineer
Another point might be the stability of the theory against any falsification attempts during the last 100 years.
Newton's laws of motion had similar stability - except in limited areas such as orbital predictions. Doesn't relativity break down at the quantam level? I don't think we should scrap Einstein anymore than we scraped Newton. However, we should also assume that exceptions and/or modifications to the theory will be made in time.
 
The hard part is keeping track of all the political developments that occur on planets between visits. You have to assume some power source other than fusion to make it realistic.

Since Traveller has grav tech, how about a singuarity drive? This traveller setting has everything the OTU has except a jump drive, including the ability to control gravity within the ship. If it has this ability, you place a tiny black hole in the center of the reaction chamber. Gravity control keeps the black hole centered regardless of the acceleration the ship under goes. Hawking radiation from that tiny black hole is what powers all the ship's systems, including maneuver drive, weapons etc. When the ship fuels up, it dips into the atmosphere of a gas giant and feeds its black hole until it accumulates many times the ship's "dry mass", this means that most of the ship's loaded mass is in that tiny atom-sized black hole and everything else is only a tiny percentage of the ships over all weight. I'm also assuming there is no magical reactionless maneuver drive, instead what we have is something like a pion drive where charge particles and antiparticles evaporate from the black hole as Hawking radiation, and the larger particles annhilate in a matter/antimatter reaction producing short lived pions which are funneled out of a magnetic nozzil at the back of the ship, it this way, the black hole's mass gets converted into energy. the black hole is just a convenient way to make a rocket without obscenely huge tanks. The black hole also eliminates the need to store tons and tons of antimatter and matter that would take up most of the volume of the ship along with the containiment systems.

A ship with a black hole or black holes whose total mass was 100 times the dry weight of the rest of the ship could reach a final velocity of 0.9998 c assuming total mass to energy convesion and 100% efficent channeling of the Hawking radiation out the back nossil. Of course 100% efficientcy would not likely be achieved. the formula for final velocity as a percentage of the speed of light is:

V/c = (R^(2 * square root(e * (2 - e))) - 1) / (R^(2 * square root (e * (2 - e))) + 1)

Where V is the final velocity,
c is the velocity of light,
e is the fractional conversion of mass into energy,
and R is the mass ratio of loaded mass to empty mass,
^ is the exponent symbol that I use and * is multiplication.

In the case of a singularity drive, the back hole converts itself into energy with 100% effeciency producing approximately equal amounts of matter and anti matter as well as photons from its event horizon, chanelling that energy with 100% efficiency is another question, so you might assume 50% effeciency as a conservative estimate.
 
Lets say now we reduce e to 0.5 and increase R to 500:

V/c = ( 500^(2 * square root(0.5 * (2 - 0.5))) - 1)/ (500^(2 * square root (0.5 * (2 - 0.5))) + 1)

V/c = 0.999957707 c is the result I get on my calculator.

This assumes you accelerate up to this velocity. If you want a mass ratio that assumes the rocket turns around and mid point and slows down, the it is 500^2 or a black hole whose mass is 249,999 times that of the empty ship producing a 250,000:1 ratio. The neat thing about black holes is that they are small, so all you really see is that 100 ton scout ship, it skims a gas giant scooping up 249,999 times its dry mass weight to load up its black holes for its next interstellar journey.
 
Originally posted by SGB - Steve B:
One physicist I've read about (forgot his name unfortunately)accepted most of Einstein's equations but had a very different view of what was driving the equations. The alternate theory dealt with either and has met understandable skepticism. However the alternate theory addressed the histroical results of either (and other) experiments effectively and appeared to be as internally consistent as relativity. The consequences of the different views were tremendous. If Einstein had the right explanation, then the "light limit" is real - if the other guy was right, then the "light limit" does not exist. If I had to bet who was right, I'd go with Einstein - but if I'm speculating potential future developments for a story line I see no problem with looking at the implications of the alternative theory.
Oh, man! Don't do this to me! ;) That sounds intriguing and now I want to read this guy's theory. Argh! I need his name!

file_21.gif
 
Dutch theoretical Physicist Hendrick Lorentz.

See section 2 of James Hogan's Kicking the Sacred Cow Bean books, 2004; ISBN 978-1-4165-2073-3.

A quite interesting dissection of current scientific (more or less) theories and fads, and less-popular alternatives which are actually more consistent and elegant (in the meaning of "self-contained, simple, needing no outside manipulation").

For example, the truly astounding number of "special situations" in which General & Special Relativity need to have "fudge factors" & "single-situation modifiers" applied to its equations, in order to massage the equations into working for that case, compared to the extremely few cases in which Lorentz's theories (as developed by later scientists) might need similar treatment.
 
I am not tied into the high energy community the way I once was, but two things come to mind.

As I recall Tachyons have been know to travel faster than light for 30 years or more.

Also recent experments have been reported to have seen particals that appear a descrete amont of time before the collision that creates them occures.

Now I only finished Junior level physics and never actully compleated my degree in Physics, both of these are hard to square with what I understand from Einstine.

Again since I am no longer keeping up with that community so I don't know what they have learned.

I also know that while it is a small group, the unified field therory are starting to lean back to a therory that relies on some sort of ether.

Also recall that newtonian mechanics is compleatly accurate and at low relitive velocites retivitic effects are either so small they can be safly ignored or actaully reduce out entirly and reduce to the equasions newton wrote.
 
Originally posted by Mr TeK:
As I recall Tachyons have been know to travel faster than light for 30 years or more.
Well, it's a ~40 year-old definition of a hypothetical particle. I'm not sure that's the same as "known to travel".
 
Tachyons are a form of matter that always travel faster than the speed of light, the slower they travel the higher their kinetic energy.

The time dialation factor is gamma and the formula is:

gamma = 1 / square_root( 1 - (V^2/c^2) )

Since square roots are problematic with negative numbers lets square both sides of the equation

gamma^2 = 1 / ( 1 - (V^2/c^2) )

We can plot out gamma squared

V/c = gamma^2 --------> gamma
0.0001 = 1.00000001 -->1.000000005
0.001 = 1.000001 ----->1.0000005
0.01 = 1.00010001 ---->1.000050004
0.1 = 1.01010101 ----->1.005037815
0.2 = 1.041666667 ---->1.020620726
0.3 = 1.098901099 ---->1.048284837
0.4 = 1.19047619 ----->1.091089451
0.5 = 1.333333333 ---->1.154700538
0.6 = 1.5625 --------->1.25
0.7 = 1.960784314 ---->1.400280084
0.8 = 2.777777778 ---->1.666666667
0.9 = 5.263157895 ---->2.294157339
0.95 = 10.25641026 --->3.202563077
0.98 = 25.25252525 --->5.025189076
0.99 = 50.25125628 --->7.08881205
0.999 = 500.2501251 -->22.36627204
0.9999 = 5,000.250013 ->70.71244596
0.99999 = 50,000.25 -->223.6073568
0.999999 = 500,000 --> 707.1067812
1.000001 = -500,000 -> 707.1067812i
1.00001 = -49,999.75 -> 223.6062387i
1.0001 = -4,999.750013 > 70.70891042i
1.001 = -499.7501249 -> 22.3550917i
1.01 = -49.75124378 --> 7.053456159i
1.1 = -4.761904762 ---> 2.182178902i
1.2 = -2.272727273 ---> 1.507556723i
1.3 = -1.449275362 ---> 1.203858531i
1.4 = -1.041666667 ---> 1.020620726i
1.5 = -0.8 -----------> 0.894427191i
1.6 = -0.641025641 ---> 0.800640769i
1.7 = -0.529100529 ---> 0.727392967i
1.8 = -0.446428571 ---> 0.668153104i
1.9 = -0.383141762 ---> 0.61898446i
2.0 = -0.333333333 ---> 0.577350268i
3.0 = -0.125 ---------> 0.35355339i
10 = -0.01010101 -----> 0.100503781i
100 = -0.00010001 ----> 0.010000499i
infinite = 0.00000 ---> 0.00000

How to interpret the imaginary gamma factors.
an imaginary number is the square root of a negative number and is followed by the symbol i, that number multiplied by itself equals a negative number, but another way to arrive at a negative number is to remove the i and multiply that number times its negative such as with the last example:

0.010000499 * -0.010000499 = -0.00010001 at V/c = 100

I interpret this to mean that there are two velocities 100c, one where the gamma factor is positive and another where the gamma factor is negative. tachyons can range in speed from just above the speed of light to infinite to just above the speed of light but travelling backwards in time.
 
No prob, Baphomet...


“…Science as it is really practiced, caught up in the turmoil of personalities, with Truth always out of reach, and truths too often limping along, wounded in the turf wars and drive-bys of gangs of Ph.D.-totin’ grant-heads.”
Orson Scott Card: “Future on Ice”
 
Back
Top