The difficulties of interstellar travel and the implausibility of the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis.

All these stone age problems are thrown out
with a civilization 1,000,000 years or more advanced than we are.
Therefore I believe there are ET that can (and do) travel interstellarly.
My little monkey mind doesn't need to know the physics.
The space traveling aliens have it solved.

Originally posted by Diablos

Originally posted by Urantia1111
I don't think scientists know everything there is to know about space or physics. In fact id estimate their comprehension of the universe at practically zero percent. Our pathetic species is barely out of the jungle technologically. We've only been engaged in heavy industry for a couple hundred years. You really think that's all the time we need? Our understanding of existance is in the fetal stages at best. In short, its WAY too early for Man to be spouting off about what's "impossible".

That may be true, but you're falling into the same illogical trap that all of the other believers are on this thread. Indeed, there is so much more to learn, which is fascinating. However, that does not at all mean what we currently is know is outright wrong.

The physics that governs everyday life is fully understood. This is where any practical applications in the near or distant future will come from. The few area we have to fill in (intergalactic distances, planck scale, etc) will never lead to anything practical.

I highly suggest you read a more indepth analysis of this in this [url=http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2010/09/23/the-laws-underlying-the-physics-of-everyday-life-are-completely-understood/]article[/ url] by renowned cosmologist Sean Carroll.

There will be no inertial dampeners, mass manipulators, space warps, and all of the other nonsense that has remained in science-fiction for the past 50 years. Using the fact that there is much we still don't understand as a justification for these fantasies is a non-sequtiur.

I had a headache reading most of the replies in this thread and now I have a full on migraine.

You obviously have a much better understanding of physics than most of the posters here, I cannot take people seriously who don't understand or read your post properly.

At the same time..you demonstrate hubris by claiming that everything is pretty much explained. I have given you many examples above which have not been explained. You think you can pick and choose which things are not important (e.g. what happens at energies of the Planck constant). You seem to think that ideas like the multiverse are not important and yet they are fundamental to how the universe would operate and there is good theoretical justification that the multiverse may actually exist.

As I mentioned already, we have created some excellent models of the universe according to our perception of the universe at present. However there are problems in fitting them into a standard theory to explain the universe we say around us and there are still large gaps in our understanding of the meaning of central concepts- dark matter, dark energy, universe or multiverse or cycloverse etc.

Your claim regarding anti-matter and alcubierre drives is also too one sided.

At higher levels of energies, at smaller fundamental particles, new understandings of the universe may become apparent and these understandings could open up further technological possibilities, just as relativity gave us the depth of understanding to operate GPS or target our space probes correctly.


As explained on a comment on one of the Discover magazine articles above

"We actually do understand gravity: it is described by Einstein’s general relativity. Not deep down at the quantum level, of course, but that’s very far from the world of the “everyday.”" That's wrong. Quantum mechanics is the everyday. The classical universe we see is in fact an entirely quantum mechanical universe - gravity included - operating quantum mechanically at every level. Back in 1900 they knew perfectly well that their laws didn't explain everything, but they just classified the things it didn't explain as outside the domain of discussion, and regarded the rest as an approximation that was good enough that you could call it the laws of physics. We have better approximations today, but are in fundamentally the same situation. We know that quantum mechanics and general relativity are inconsistent. We can see everyday effects of both of them. (Like gravity and computers.) We have approximations that are sufficient to predict/calculate anything we want, but we don't actually know what the rules are.

You don't get to pick and choose what is the 'everyday' arbitrarily. You don't get to say that's not important.
That's just like saying Newton not noticing relativity was not important because he could explain the motion of the planets that he could observe by his own laws.

Originally posted by ZeroPropulsion
here's an interesting analysis of the stan romanek equations (yeah yeah please spare me your "fake!" cries), for people interested in the subject of time travel, bending time and zero point propulsion
synchronizeduniverse.com...

From SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ROMANEK EQUATIONS
By Dr. Claude Swanson
July 1, 2012
Snippet of equation:


"where d is a very small length. I don’t know what the sphere might be. Finally,
if this is a sphere, I would expect the final parentheses to be (0,R) instead of (-
R,R)." ~Kasher I

My comment: Prime example of how primitive our understanding is. Kasher's assumption that (-R, R) is expected to be (0, R) is because he cannot understand the concept of absolute R. If he was able to understand absolute R then he would know (-R, R) is correct.

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
Very interesting. It doesn't matter who looks at this or how smart that person is, their perspective will always be formulated from within the paradigm of physics as we currently know it. We can say that the rules of physics remain constant throughout the universe, but we really don't know that to be true... we only assume that it is. Perhaps there are different elements found on other planets and in other galaxies that we are unaware of and these elements change the possibilities in that place, but we are unaware of that. Lately there has been a lot of talk about how we exist within a computer simulation. If that is true, then all of the rules that apply to us are written in some type of code, advanced code, but code nonetheless... and it is only a matter of time before that code is broken. Anyway, great thread and great discussion.

Much of your text make me think of looking past what you have been told is real/conditioned to believe. Are you using synchronicity to hack reality? Go for it .

Originally posted by ZeroPropulsion
here's an interesting analysis of the stan romanek equations (yeah yeah please spare me your "fake!" cries), for people interested in the subject of time travel, bending time and zero point propulsion
synchronizeduniverse.com...

From SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ROMANEK EQUATIONS
By Dr. Claude Swanson
July 1, 2012

I read through the Stan Analysis paper and found a number of incorrect assumtions. However, I did notice in the paper a quote from Alcubierre that maybe of interest.

According to Alcubierre:

“The center of the perturbation corresponds to the spaceship’s position ( ) S x t .
We clearly see how the volume elements are expanding behind the spacecraft,
and contracting in front of it.”

Remarkably, those in the craft would not experience the force of
acceleration, and no time dilation. Again quoting Alcubierre:

“Since coordinate time is also equal to the proper time of distant observers in
the flat region, we conclude that the spacecraft suffers no time dilation as it
moves. It is also straightforward to prove the spaceship moves on a geodesic.
This means that even though the coordinate acceleration can be an arbitrary
function of time, the proper acceleration along the spaceship’s path will
always be zero.” (Alcubierre, 1994).

I believe this is another way of saying the problems of acceleration and mass the OP seems to be concerned with are addressed.

reply to post by Diablos


The *implausibility* here is that you still think that the 20th/21st century human mind has it all figured out.

reply to post by straddlebug


Nice signature ~ I want one of those!

Originally posted by ManInAsia
At the same time..you demonstrate hubris by claiming that everything is pretty much explained. I have given you many examples above which have not been explained. You think you can pick and choose which things are not important (e.g. what happens at energies of the Planck constant). You seem to think that ideas like the multiverse are not important and yet they are fundamental to how the universe would operate and there is good theoretical justification that the multiverse may actually exist.

With all due respect, I think you misunderstood my point. I'll easily cede that there is still much we have to learn, but that is not what is in contention here. The real question we should be asking is will any of it ever be practical? For example, look at the standard model of particle physics. Other than the electron and photon, which other particle has seen as much widespread application other than those two? Neutrinos have been around for more than 50 years, and yet we have not seen anything practical using neutrinos? Other than some obscure medical applications, there is no reason at all to believe standard model physics will ever lead to any groundbreaking devices that will revolutionize society and space travel. If we can't even use standard model physics for anything practical in space travel, then should we really expect the knowledge of the physics beyond the standard model, which is practically inaccessible, will truly lead to immense practical benefits?

Originally posted by ManInAsiaYour claim regarding anti-matter and alcubierre drives is also too one sided.

Please clarify.

Originally posted by ManInAsiaAt higher levels of energies, at smaller fundamental particles, new understandings of the universe may become apparent and these understandings could open up further technological possibilities, just as relativity gave us the depth of understanding to operate GPS or target our space probes correctly.

edit on 19-3-2013 by ManInAsia because: (no reason given)

This is a non-sequitur. It does not naturally follow that widespread technological application is the end result of some fundamental discovery. In fact, the required energy levels to make the new discoveries today is among the several hurdles that will ever keep the physics discovered from ever being practical. For example, just look at Higgs-Boson. The simple fact it decays into lighter particles within a fraction of a nanosecond and requires energy levels on the order of terra-electron volts would instantaneously kill the interest of any serious engineer thinking of putting it to any practical use. Even if it was stable and it could do everything those scientifically illiterate believe it could, it would still be completely impractical unless you have complete access to the energy levels at the LHC. Unfortunately, most of the other particles in the standard model are in the same boat. Now, how exactly can the physics beyond the standard model, which arguably requires much higher energy levels to probe, will ever be put to practical use?

This is the main issue that believers are banking their entire beliefs on. That there is some magical physics that still eludes us but once mastered allows us to violate all of the most fundamental laws of physics. Unfortunately for them, we understand nature much better than they think we do, even if we don't have everything figured out.

Originally posted by spiritualarchitect
reply to post by straddlebug

 

Nice signature ~ I want one of those!

Originally posted by Hopeforeveryone
reply to post by Erno86

 

Well yes but you'd need a surface to direct your photons at to gain thrust. You'd also need a sun in the back of your space ship to get any kind of usable force.The pressure exerted on earth at 1 AU is pretty feeble 9.15 µPa (µN/m²). Using the solar radiation from the sun , using solar sails you can cut the time taken to get to pluto ( v conventional rockets) by 1/4 to 1/2. It's an acumulative effect

Ultimatly you'd still be confined by Einstein - to try get to faster than light speeds you'd just end up creating a black hole, asuming you had the energy to go for it in the first place.

The photon receptor... directs the starlight photons towards the photon hungry black hole photon engine on the starship, and is expelled from either one or two magnetic poles of the photon engine ---- the same as some massive black holes can eject photons at their poles at nearly the speed of light. The saucer should have a number of revolving thruster ports, that can determine velocity and angle vectors.

The photon sail [that uses solar winds]...is an entirely different form of starship technology, than what I'm talking about; but I appreciate your input.

reply to post by Diablos


Hello everyone. I've been watching this forum for some time (on and off), but have only felt strongly compelled to join and post by the OP from Diablos.

Diablos, I respect your point of view and understand that you wish to caution against wild flights of fancy by many who may underestimate the problems involved with traversing vast interstellar distances.

However, it would be remiss not to point out that FTL does not contravene relativity. Several papers have been written by prominent persons regarding this subject, without the need for exotic Warp Drive technologies or Bubbles of Space-Time. True, any propulsion system requires extra mass for fuel - that adds to the inertial mass of the vehicle at journey start.

Paul R. Hill postulated in his 'Unconventional Flying Objects' book that the observed aerial characteristics of UAPs are mostly described by an ability to manipulate the gravitational field. Something which we do not yet fully understand. Indeed, our knowledge is so lacking that, at this time, there is some debate on whether gravity (whether as a field, as opposed to gravitational radiation or gravity waves) propagates faster than C.

For example, our planet orbits the sun based upon its gravity centric location, not its observed location - which is several minutes delayed because of light speed.

A star of many times the stellar mass of our own collapses to a black hole faster than C, as gravity takes over.

I note that some replies have correctly pointed out that for a vehicle with steady acceleration of around 1G will approximate light speed in a relatively short time. As Lorenz contraction and time dilation takes over, the on board time in relation to observers 'at home' will diminish. This you already know.

I am sure that you also understand this allows for traversing vast distances in relatively short 'on board' time since, essentially, the vehicle achieves faster than C travel (according to its own reference frame) as calculated by distance traveled by on-board time. This does not contradict Einstein's theories.

Our limitations, thus far, are in the fuel source and in our ability to reduce the inertial mass of the vehicle. If propulsion ever can be based upon manipulating the gravitational field, then it naturally follows that reducing the inertial mass should be a simple by-product.

We should also not limit the acceleration to 'Earth bound' terms. Paul Hill speculated that a steady acceleration of 10G would achieve light speed in around 2.5 weeks. Before anyone says that's more than the human body could handle, Dr. Hill also suggested that any intelligent species capable of using gravity would also be able to make those G forces negligible on any occupant (assuming there are any).

Even if this was not the case, steady acceleration at say 2.5G would be no hardship for an occupant who was the denizen of a planet with 3 times Earth G. Consequently, taking every current theory as fact, we still do not violate any laws in traveling around the galaxy.

I appreciate your adherence to current postulates as "the be all and end all" of fact. I thought it very amusing, about 20 years ago, when a student of astrophysics spent two hours of my time attempting to convince me that if the universe ended in a 'Big Crunch', that time would go backwards, as Professor Hawking postulated. Her belief in what Hawking said out-weighed her ability and objectivity for critical thought. To me, it was a dumb pseudo science claim, where the math indicated one thing but reality another. I appreciated Hawking saying sometime later, that it was the dumbest idea he ever had. Amazing how no one remembers believing that now that he recanted it!

At the end of the day, you can believe what you will. If it's based just on the sayings of the great and the good, all you do is regurgitate. However, critical thinking requires more than crapping on an idea simply because it does not fit your world view. It requires a ponderance of the evidence available, it requires the ability to examine the evidence in isolation from pre-conceived and pre-learnt ideas. And, before you ask, yes, there is sufficient evidence, whether or not it fits the changing goal posts that we seem to face.

As for other comments in this thread; not ragging on anyone but ETH is probably the most likely answer. Time travel and pan dimensional causes are probably more far fetched and less easily theoretically describable. btw, ETH does not require a biological entity and neither does it require human life spans.

Hopefully, my first post here has not upset anyone. This is a subject that interested me many years ago, and which I've now come back to, with possibly more focus. My interest is in the science of the thing, as confounding as it is.

Many thanks for indulging me thus far.

reply to post by Diablos


I am amazed about the amount of people giving you a hard time about being "negative" on the probability of interstellar space travel. I also think its cute that people keep comparing the fact that we traveled by horse a few hundred years ago to the logical conclusion that we must continue making these leaps in technology in the next few hundred years.

For those who believe this: your logic is flawed. The amount of progress we have made is comparable to filling up an empty glass of water. We are now nearing the top of the glass with little room for more. And by this I mean that based on our intellect and the amount of undiscovered mathematics, technology, and chemistry, we were pretty much destined to collect all of these things within a short period of time. We will stop making the amount of advances comparable to the amount of progress we have made in the last few hundred years because there is not a whole lot that has not been discovered which also means we need to start innovating more and discovering less if we want to see the trends continue even at a fraction of the speed. We are also reaching the boundaries of our intellect. We will soon have to rely on computers to make higher mathematical calculations.

That being said; there is nothing that the OP said that was incorrect. Given a reasonable prediction, we will not attain interstellar travel any time within the next couple millennium. This however, can be proven wrong with some single radical discovery. The chances this discovery will occur is very slim. The chances that it even exists is almost as slim.

Most of the ideas we have revolve around the possibility of expanding and shrinking space. The biggest problem is the process of shrinking space. It would be the equivalent of closing a book so it would be like undisturbed space and it would be flat. Then to get the shrinking effect you would have to close the book even more, which is physically impossible. The ability to do this goes against the laws of matter and its effects on space. So, the only plausible means to defeat this is to break the law. You cant shrink space using anything made of mass because mass causes space to expand.

The only way to break the law is to rewrite it. Embedded in all matter and space is the mathematical code that causes its existence. Create a virus that manipulates this code and you can create an anti-graviton, a particle that does not exist in space because if it did it would immediately be annihilated like an bubble under water.Make this virus eat space and create anti-gravitons and you would be on your way to pulling space toward you. Unfortunately though if you do this you would bring a wake of energy and particles with you that when you stop would obliterate anything in its path in front of you. I guess you would have to aim for black holes then right?

P.S. And for those who think that when you travel at the speed of light you can travel for hundreds of years that you experience and it would feel like a few weeks: you misunderstand the concept. A week of light speed still feels like a week to you. For someone who is standing still watching you move at that speed it would feel much longer because the speed that the particle waves move have been stretched out which makes you appear to move at a fraction of the speed you would feel. You would essentially age slower than the stationary person but you would not notice the effect because each second to you still would feel like a second.

Even if the OP is correct, we are assuming we NEED to go at least the speed of light.... I think it was in fermi's paradox that it was proposed, we could colonize the whole galaxy in 100 million years, going only 1/10c. Hence the question where are all the extraterrestials. Solar sails and replicating machines could do this job. We don't even have to get to the nearest star systems in our lifetimes or even our childrens.... I do agree with the conclusions though. For now.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Diablos


That all may be true as far as your science and all that but, most serious researchers already accept that the beings visiting earth now are extra-dimensional and they don't need to traverse any distance at all as we would think of it.

As far as space travel and all that I agree it's a pretty slim chance. Humans can't reproduce correctly in space without some deformity's from what I understand. So on that point I certainly agree.

The argument against E.T. your putting forth is entirely straw-man if you ask me, because as I said most accept that they traverse through dimensions not at all available to humans in our corporeal form.

-FG

While I acknowledge the extreme difficulty of what the OP discusses, back in the 1960s we as a race were extremely technically limited. Looking at what has changed between then and now would be too long to list. It is only now as a race with our sciences and understanding of the Universe developing exponentially can we truly ponder the mysteries of achieving "Stable Wormhole" or Faster-than-light Travel and actually see it as plausible.

If the rate of our technological renaissance holds steady, the Samsung Galaxy S4 will be the equivalent of one of those ENORMOUS arm sized 'Mobile Phones' of the 1980s.

You just never know what the future will bring...at least for now it's plausible and not "impossible" as those in the 1960s once thought.

Originally posted by cocotutch
While I acknowledge the extreme difficulty of what the OP discusses, back in the 1960s we as a race were extremely technically limited. Looking at what has changed between then and now would be too long to list.

That difference is much less than 1960 vs 50 years prior to that.

It is only now as a race with our sciences and understanding of the Universe developing exponentially can we truly ponder the mysteries of achieving "Stable Wormhole" or Faster-than-light Travel and actually see it as plausible.

If the rate of our technological renaissance holds steady, the Samsung Galaxy S4 will be the equivalent of one of those ENORMOUS arm sized 'Mobile Phones' of the 1980s.

That rate of technological renaissance has already slowed down substantially in everything other than microelectronics, and that was already by the 1960's. After discovering the periodic table, quantum mechanics, lasers, nuclear physics, there isn't much new really big practical physical science coming down. There's some occasional nifty things (e.g. graphene) but nothing really big the way it used to be. Remember there were men flying jet planes who grew up in an environment when the wealthiest still took horses and trains to get around. As a boy I flew in a jet plane going 525 miles per hour. As an adult, I fly in a jet plane going 525 miles per hour, except there is no free food and the seats are smaller.

Electronics is a different story, because it depends on the cleverness of rearranging atoms. In the 1960s already progress in electronics was already very profound and rapid---and they knew it, comparing 1965 to 1925 was enormous. And they knew that they were far from physical limits, they knew how big atoms were and how big the structures they were manipulating.

Well, now atoms are exactly the same size as they always were, but the structures are getting close to that size. Progress in electronics has also slowed substantially. Fastest CPU is 3-4 GHz. Fastest CPU 5 years ago was 3-4 GHz. That stagnation had NEVER occurred before in the history of digital electronics.

Why? Because we are limited by physics in electronics as we are limited by physics in everything else.

We are also limited in bandwidth, and because of the realities of physics and electronics, there will be no big breakthrough in using electromagnetic bandwidth. Channel encoders are now close to the Shannon limit. Again, limitations of physics and mathematics.

Originally posted by Gazrok
100 years ago, if you told someone we'd have men walking on the moon, they would have believed it to be just as ridiculous as you (OP) believe it to be for interstellar travel. If you had told me when I was a kid, that I'd have a phone in my pocket, where I could call anyone in the world, take pictures, navigate me to a location, and access nearly all info I'd ever want to know....I would have thought you insane.

you are correct . 100 years ago if you say things about landing on moon. cellphone, computers, you would be branded liar/insane/magician/witch.

then again today if you say its impossible to reach the stars using FTL you will be branded as close-minded , unscientific, etc etc...

you see the same difference ?? the mockers/insulters are still here, just different topic to insult and different leanings. i mean are we speaking of FTL as science fact or as science fiction ? if we are talking about fiction then there are limitless possibilities. but if we are talking about science then there are certain rules (that we now know) that must be followed. saying something is possible because in the future 'maybe' we know more physics is kinda like cheating... again , are we talking science theoritical or practical ? you can theorize and theorize endlessly but it took some work to make it a reality..

Originally posted by BlindBastards
In the 1960’s what we’re all doing right now would have seem utterly impossible. If you were to explain the modern day internet to an average man or woman from 1963 they’d think you were talking complete nonsense. So many things - LED TV’s, bluetooth devices, wifi, even touch screen items would have seemed very alien to them fifty years ago. In 1963 these guys probably thought it impossible to land on the moon...

I, for one, believe we have been and are being visited. For what reason, who knows? As for how they get here, we cannot even begin to explain how they’d do it. They wouldn’t use something as relatively primitive as rockets.

Theres so much wrong with this post. I trully don't wish to offend but I can only assume you ate very young.

Take LED TVs and the internet. These were envisioned in a H G Wells movie from 1933 'The shape of things to come'. They were in advance of currently available TVs and net access. Indeed it is superior to any depicted in sci-fi films and shows right up until the early 90s.

I think everything it is possible in our universe if you have the right amount of energy: you can turn sand into diamonds or stars into black holes. But there is a constant: there is no free or unlimited energy. Every ET civilization, no matter how old and advanced, would be in constant look for new sources of energy. And if only one of these advanced civilizations would have had NLS or FTL they would have “conquered” our galaxy by now.
I think universe is full of microbial life, but complex and intelligent forms of life it is hard to have, more like finding 1000 carat diamond in your garden. And getting advanced and survive long enough for space travelers it is even harder. Look at our civilization: one more demented like Hitler and we are history. Not to mention we are pretty close to the infamous extinction cycle which occurs every 65 million years or so.

That rate of technological renaissance has already slowed down substantially in everything other than microelectronics, and that was already by the 1960's. After discovering the periodic table, quantum mechanics, lasers, nuclear physics, there isn't much new really big practical physical science coming down. There's some occasional nifty things (e.g. graphene) but nothing really big the way it used to be. Remember there were men flying jet planes who grew up in an environment when the wealthiest still took horses and trains to get around. As a boy I flew in a jet plane going 525 miles per hour. As an adult, I fly in a jet plane going 525 miles per hour, except there is no free food and the seats are smaller. Electronics is a different story, because it depends on the cleverness of rearranging atoms. In the 1960s already progress in electronics was already very profound and rapid---and they knew it, comparing 1965 to 1925 was enormous. And they knew that they were far from physical limits, they knew how big atoms were and how big the structures they were manipulating. Well, now atoms are exactly the same size as they always were, but the structures are getting close to that size. Progress in electronics has also slowed substantially. Fastest CPU is 3-4 GHz. Fastest CPU 5 years ago was 3-4 GHz. That stagnation had NEVER occurred before in the history of digital electronics. Why? Because we are limited by physics in electronics as we are limited by physics in everything else. We are also limited in bandwidth, and because of the realities of physics and electronics, there will be no big breakthrough in using electromagnetic bandwidth. Channel encoders are now close to the Shannon limit. Again, limitations of physics and mathematics.

Some good points. However chip speed is not the only breakthrough obviously. Parallel computing is possibly just as important, as is bringing cost down and energy requirements. Graphene is not just an afterthought but has many very interesting applications and is the real front of nanotechnology. Nanotechnology genuinely can produce breakthroughs due to new structures, such as metamaterials.

You also left out discussion of the next wave of electronics, quantum computing, which will be exponentially more powerful than current systems. It's still decades away bu when it comes it will change things too.

Progress in other fields has also accelerated recently, especially in molecular biology (in conjunction with progress in electronics).

There has also been a lot of progress in getting renewable energy costs down, again costs being a very important factor in the success of a technology.

Sensors and miniaturization along with advances in telecommunications and reduced costs is going to create an alway on, always connected Earth, and machine intelligence IS improving my leaps and bounds. Perhaps increased intelligence of machines will help lead us into new breakthroughs also.