[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again

In a message dated 10/21/98 11:07:18 PM, stevev@efn.org wrote:

>KellySt@aol.com writes:
> > >Actually, I also remember Isaac Kuo making the very good point
> > >that the structure of spacetime for an FTL particle would be so
> > >weird that hardly any of the usual laws of physics would imply,
> > >and that not even atoms could hold together since electromagnetic 
> > >forces wouldn't propagate isotropically.
> > 
> > I seem to remember similar arguments by physicists "proving" that quantum
> > mechanics and black holes were impossible.
>The "warp bubble" approaches to FTL at least try to answer that
>concern; an object moves in a "bubble" of normal spacetime where
>the laws of physics work.  If you claim that individual subatomic
>particles can move FTL, though, they're going to have several
>major problems with interacting with the slower-than-light
>universe, and extended collections of particles are going to have
>problems holding together.

Even relatavistic startravel gets nasty with all the collisions.  Your
starship bow thinks its on the wrong end of an ion cannon.

>Mostly this reminds me why we are not allowing FTL -- there are
>no theories of FTL that are even close to being experimentally
>demonstrated, so how are we supposed to design an FTL spacecraft
>around completely unknown properties?  We could argue about FTL
>for a long time, but that's not going to get us anywhere.

True and true.  Any current theory is so rough its debateable if it would work
even if we could build it, which we have no idea how to do.  Not surprizing
really.  If anyone had a solid clue it would be geting discussed at far higher
levels then us.   ;)