Physics' depressing predictions of human space exploration.

[Demojen]

Not exactly, Jacob.
More like there is a great deal in the universe we will never know.
Science is about exploration, not coming to conclusions and giving up.

 

[Sick Of Sickness]

Can someone please explain WHY something cannot go faster than light speed, and if possible, in a purely hypothetical sense, what would happen if something did...

 

[Halfpint]

At one time the famous physicist Lord Kelvin said that heavier than air flight was impossible, radio had no good use, and x-rays were a hoax(though he later repented). Never say never.

 

[Sick Of Sickness]

They also said that trains would never be able to go 50 mph because humans would not be able to breathe at that speed.

 

[Icefire9atla]

something did...
Can someone please explain WHY something cannot go faster than light speed, and if possible, in a purely hypothetical sense, what would happen if something did...

Because as something goes faster and faster, the object gets heavier and heavier (due to relativity), and requires more energy to accelerate it. As any object that has mass approaches light speed, it's mass approaches infinity.

Another reason that something cannot go faster than light is because it would involve time going backwards for that object (time slows down as you go faster and stops at the speed of light).

However, it is possible for space to expand faster than light, so we have a hypothetical method to 'travel' faster than light without really moving.

Edit: In fact, all of the most distant galaxies in the universe are moving away from us faster than the speed of light.

 

[JacobEvans]

Another reason that something cannot go faster than light is because it would involve time going backwards for that object (time slows down as you go faster and stops at the speed of light).

Actually you wouldn't go directly backwards into time.

I recommend you do a simple time dilation calculation with a value greater than c... You'll see the strangeness of your answer. :mrgreen:

 

[jrparri]

We managed to populate remote islands just with a bunch of guys (and gals, surely) on a canoe.

There doesn't need to be a "there and back again" - we have to send out people who understand that:

1) They may never actually get anywhere,
2) They very probably won't be able to live on the place that we're sending them, assuming they get there,
3) They very definitely won't get there in one lifetime, which is quite a commitment to make on behalf of your children and your children's children,
4) Yeah, there's no way in hell you're coming back, even if everything goes right.

I bet with these conditions understood, you'd still have people lining up around the block to go seed the galaxy with humanity. Homo Sapiens are just crazy that way.

 

[JacobEvans]

We managed to populate remote islands just with a bunch of guys (and gals, surely) on a canoe.

There doesn't need to be a "there and back again" - we have to send out people who understand that:

The journey from one island to any other island on Earth is absolutely elementary compared to the flight from our solar system to even the closest stars. Think about the challenge of sustenance, psychological issues, navigation, upkeep, and a means of some how successfully colonizing another world that we have only basic knowledge of and making the proper adaptations to the colonies to successfully withstand a new alien environment.

If we want ANY hope in accomplishing these goals, we would need to first learn to colonize all available worlds in our own solar system and develop technology that we don't even know is possible to develop!

 

[jrparri]

The journey from one island to any other island on Earth is absolutely elementary compared to the flight from our solar system to even the closest stars.

Of course, I was speaking more to the spirit of it... and to debunk the idea that we'd somehow have to bend space or go faster than light, or that kind of nonsense.

Think about the challenge of sustenance, psychological issues, navigation, upkeep, and a means of some how successfully colonizing another world that we have only basic knowledge of and making the proper adaptations to the colonies to successfully withstand a new alien environment.

If we want ANY hope in accomplishing these goals, we would need to first learn to colonize all available worlds in our own solar system and develop technology that we don't even know is possible to develop!

And even if we had methods of dealing with the issues you mentioned, and we were old hands at colonizing worlds in our system, going to another system would STILL be a suicide mission.

But people would still do it. That's what I was trying to say.

 

[borrofburi]

And even if we had methods of dealing with the issues you mentioned, and we were old hands at colonizing worlds in our system, going to another system would STILL be a suicide mission.

But people would still do it. That's what I was trying to say.

Sign me up. Though I suppose mars is first, so sign me up for that one.

 

[CkVega]

I'm guessing that we'd have to start building monoliths

 

[connorkimbro]

We're overlooking something here.

It is true that we won't be able to get to any star of relevance in any convenient time, if we can't travel even a fraction of light speed.

However, even if we remain as slow as we foresee ourselves being, there is no limit to the increase in life expectancy.
As in, eventually, the time that it will take us to get to Alpha Centuri will be meaningless to us. Maybe the centuries it would take mankind to get there would only really mean as much to us as a year-long voyage to the New World.

Also, I would expect the increased life expectancy of our species would give us an incentive to go; that is, something to do. We will eventually get bored of this solar system, and out of nothing but curiosity, a pioneering spirit and boredom, we will want to explore new worlds.

So, even presuming physics doesn't find a quick fix, I can't envisage it from stopping us.

Well said I think most people overlook the fact that human life expectancy is NOT a constant.

Our knowledge and technological ability with regards to space exploration will continue to increase.
Our knowledge and technological ability with regards to human life extension will continue to increase.

Therefore, I think that *eventually* we will fill the universe<i></i>.

Of course, it may take a while.

On that note: book recommendations! Read the "Culture" novels by Iain M. Banks. There are lots of them; there's no sequential order to them, so pick whichever sounds most interesting to you and feel free to start with that. (The stories are un-related, but all take place in the same universe in the far distant future). They're quite good.

 

[Breakyerself]

I don't care what our current understanding of the universe is. The history of progress makes me believe that every hurdle we face as a species will be overcome if science is given enough time to work. We may currently have no idea how to travel to other solar systems, but I "believe" that given enough time we will eventually travel to other stars and even other galaxies. Call it absurd. Say it flies in the face of science. I don't care. I would be a depressed individual if I didn't believe this.

 

[JacobEvans]

I don't care what our current understanding of the universe is. The history of progress makes me believe that every hurdle we face as a species will be overcome if science is given enough time to work. We may currently have no idea how to travel to other solar systems, but I "believe" that given enough time we will eventually travel to other stars and even other galaxies. Call it absurd. Say it flies in the face of science. I don't care. I would be a depressed individual if I didn't believe this.

You sir sound like a religious fellow.

 

[bipolarGod]

I hate to admit that he may be right. It's always been a dream of mine to be able to go out into space and explore the unknown. The sad reality of it is that my chances of ever getting to go out into space, to see the moon or mars, will have to remain a wet dream for a little bit longer than Id like it to be.

 

[ladiesman391]

You sir sound like a religious fellow.

I would call him a "hopeful" fellow (he's not talking about God) and there's nothing wrong with that IMO.

 

[mealstrom]

He says by the time it's anywhere near feasible to do it, there will be not the slightest advantage to sending humans over the machines that we'll have then; they will not be able to do anything that the machines can't do, at a fraction of the cost.

I haven't read all the posts yet, so I don't know if someone has touched on this yet. What he seems to forget is that humans will never be content with allowing a machine (no matter how advanced) to do 100% of their exploration. There will always be the burning desire to SEE new discoveries first hand.

I have no doubt that if we could spin the LHC fast enough by hand there'd be a line of people waiting to take their turn to spin it.

He's also making the mistake of using current technological limits to base his theories on. It's a good thing for us that the Wright brothers didn't listen to those that said it would be impossible for human flight to ever happen.

 

[StevoDog21]

Mealstrom-
The part of my original post you quoted was referring to human exploration in our own solar system. Prof. Park didn't say we wouldn't go to those places; he said it would be unjustified and unnecessary per the reasons given in the part you quoted.
(And the pertinent point about your LHC example is surely the fact that we CAN'T "spin" it fast enough by hand, but we know we can make a machine that can).
Nor did he actually make the "mistake" of using current technological limits to base his "theories" on, since his premise is that it's not a matter of technological advancement, but rather the unavoidable constraints of physical reality and human life-span.
Nothing the Wright brothers were trying to do seemed to violate the laws of physics; to be actually physically impossible. The basic principles of aerodynamics were already well known, (hangliding was a quite popular pastime for the adventurous in the late 1800's), and the internal combustion piston engine was over a half century old.
Cars had been on the road for over 25 years. This obviously WAS simply a matter of technological advancement, and very few real scientists believed or said that what they were trying was impossible; it was ordinary laymen with very little exposure to technology of any kind that made claims like that. Most scientists, to the contrary, believed it was not only possible, but inevitable, and could point out exactly what technological advances would accomplish it.
Big difference with that and interstellar travel.

 

[Sloth]

It is impossible to think that we will one day be able to travel to other stars' systems because of our current understanding of the universe.

As long as there is something out there that we can learn, I will hold on to the hope that one day we will leave this planet on a journey to another. Although, I have my doubts about any "hyperspace" propulsion system. I think generational ships are the way were going to go.

It doesn't matter really, we are a young species and our understanding of the universe is even younger. I don't think we should call it quits this early in the game.

 

[borrofburi]

Prof. Park didn't say we wouldn't go to those places; he said it would be unjustified and unnecessary per the reasons given in the part you quoted.

A statement I still disagree with. All of us living on one planet means that all it takes is one planetary disaster to wipe out our species.