I would use the Asimov solution (which is the one BSG used, too): plug in coordinates, push the big red button (big, clunky levers are cool, too), zap, you are there. No explanation at all.
"Newer" forms of FTL travel?
- Thread starter intrinsical
- Start date
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
How did you get your hands on my paper?
Don't pay attention to Tachy. He's puling your leg.
I somehow doubt the validity of the paper. Was it published by a mainstream scientific journal? If not, usually it's wacko territory.
Their handling of FTL is one of the few things BSG did right.
If faster than light travel was possible and we understood how to do it, we would be doing it. It always seems a little arrogant when sci-fi writers think they can explain something that the smartest physicists in the world can't.
That's not to say I'd avoid science if I was writing sci-fi. I'd just limit it to the science that I understand.
If faster than light travel was possible and we understood how to do it, we would be doing it. It always seems a little arrogant when sci-fi writers think they can explain something that the smartest physicists in the world can't.
That's not to say I'd avoid science if I was writing sci-fi. I'd just limit it to the science that I understand.
"Better?" Physics isn't fashion. Just because a theory's been around for a long time doesn't mean it ceases to apply. Einsteinian Relativity has been extensively verified by many experiments. It's an accurate description of how the universe works. True, it's incomplete in some ways, but that doesn't mean that the proven parts aren't still true.
In fact, the most active theoretical work in FTL travel over the past two decades -- from Thorne's wormholes to Alcubierre's warp drive to the Krasnikov Tube -- has arisen from the discovery of new solutions to the equations of General Relativity.
It's true that a workable theory of quantum gravity would offer new possibilities, but more than likely it would just be a refinement of what we already know from Relativity. Last year, Cleaver and Obousy published a paper using a concept from string theory as a potential means of creating an Alcubierre-style warp bubble with a (relatively) reasonable energy requirement. But it's still based in GR. All of physics is interconnected. It's all part of the same thing. So it's not an either-or proposition.
Quantum teleportation as a basis for FTL drive would hardly be a novelty in SF terms. It was the basis of the hyperdrive in Poul Anderson's van Rijn/Flandry universe going back to the '60s and '70s: a series of short instantaneous quantum leaps in quick succession producing the effect of FTL motion. I'm sure it's been the basis of quite a few "jump drives" as well. In a sense, it's the basis for Douglas Adams' Improbability Drive.
Slipstream drive in Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda was purportedly based on string theory, the idea being that every particle was linked to every other particle through "strings" in slipstream space, and that the collective string links between large masses such as star systems formed "conduits" along which a ship could travel. There was an element of quantum physics in there too, although one based on a misinterpretation of quantum theory: only a living pilot could use slipstream because of the quantum observer effect, the "need" for a sentient observer to be present for a decision to occur. (Which is completely wrong. When quantum physicists talk about "observation," they're using it as an example of interaction with an ensemble of particles. They focus on observation because that's how scientists speak -- in terms of what they can measure and document experimentally. It's not meant to suggest that only sentient observation can produce the effect. Also, Andromeda had sentient AIs, so it didn't make sense that they couldn't function as observers.)
That's an Einstein-Rosen or Einstein-Rosen-Podowlsky bridge. And B5 didn't use wormholes, except as a means for entering hyperspace, another spacetime continuum with a faster speed of light or shorter corresponding distances.
Incorrect. The Special Theory of Relativity states that travel at the speed of light would require infinite energy and give an object infinite relativistic mass. But it's called the Special Theory because it's intentionally limited to a special case, that of unaccelerated motion. The General Theory of Relativity deals with accelerations, whether from thrust or from gravity, and its equations demonstrate that it is possible to alter the geometry of spacetime by the presence of a large quantity of mass or energy. Such alterations of spacetime geometry, according to various physicists' interpretations of General Relativity, potentially allow for the possibility of reaching distant destinations faster than a beam of light travelling through flat space could reach them. That doesn't mean the Special Theory is "wrong," just that it's not meant to be absolutely inclusive.
Einstein himself recognized the FTL potential in the General Theory. That's why wormholes are called Einstein-Rosen bridges -- because Einstein was one of the people who thought them up.
No, the idea of warp drive has nothing to do with quantum theory and everything to do with General Relativity. What does the word "warp" literally mean? It means a distortion, a change in the shape of a thing. The term "warp drive" is short for "space warp drive." "Space warp" is a term referring to an alteration in the geometry of spacetime -- a concept introduced and defined by General Relativity. The concept of space warp propulsion first appeared in science fiction around 1930, and was specifically based in Einsteinian ideas about the "fabric of space" and how its shape could be altered to get around the lightspeed limit that applies in the flat, unaccelerated space of Special Relativity.
Also, the "alternate universes" in the Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum theory are not parallel continuums of the sort you're thinking of. "Universe" in that context is something of a misnomer. The alternate timelines of quantum theory are merely alternate quantum states of our own universe. Just as a subatomic particle can be in two or more states simultaneously, the idea is that the whole universe can be as well. It's one solution to the Schroedinger's Cat paradox. How can a cat be both alive and dead at once? Perhaps because the cat experiences two simultaneous and independent histories, effectively two separate causal universes because they never interact, but actually different facets of the same single universe.
Just because we know how to do something, do you REALLY think the government or the corporations in power will do whatever they can to push for it to actually happen?
Reality is a bit different.
We have the technology today to switch to more efficient energy sources for example and whatnot.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
The main reason we are experiencing incremental technological 'boosts' so to say is due to money and people in power (effectively we are wallowing in our own misery and everyone is milking money out of outdated techs to begin with).
I thought Scalzi's 'skip drive' concept was neat (In the Old Man's War books).
With it you could jump quite a distance (many many lightyears), but the caveat was that technically you did not appear in your own universe. You skipped to another point in *another* universe. Now it did turn out that that other universe always is extremely similar to the old universe, where most likely a mirror ship would have done the opposite skip. So for all intents and purposes, you did not travel faster than light. You just shifted to another universe.
Now I don't think he took that concept far enough - I was sure that one plot element would be an accidental skip to a more different universe, but that did not happen.
Anyway, I thought it was an original take on 'FTL' travel.
With it you could jump quite a distance (many many lightyears), but the caveat was that technically you did not appear in your own universe. You skipped to another point in *another* universe. Now it did turn out that that other universe always is extremely similar to the old universe, where most likely a mirror ship would have done the opposite skip. So for all intents and purposes, you did not travel faster than light. You just shifted to another universe.
Now I don't think he took that concept far enough - I was sure that one plot element would be an accidental skip to a more different universe, but that did not happen.
Anyway, I thought it was an original take on 'FTL' travel.
I like the Heim drive and hope that Heim was right in it's implementation.
Barring that I say strip mine the solar system and sun to create a giant super computer than can simulate an entire universe and make FTL a matter of fact for the rules of your simulated universe.
Barring that I say strip mine the solar system and sun to create a giant super computer than can simulate an entire universe and make FTL a matter of fact for the rules of your simulated universe.
Meredith,
From what I remember reading, the design doesn't seem to be to realistic or workable.
I don't think that would be a good idea. First of all it would be hugely resource intensive, second of all, what if something went wrong and you could not get out of the simulation?
From what I remember reading, the design doesn't seem to be to realistic or workable.
I don't think that would be a good idea. First of all it would be hugely resource intensive, second of all, what if something went wrong and you could not get out of the simulation?
