Warp Drive may be possible!

[Finrock]

If two events occur at two different point separated by more than the light-time between them -- for example, if an explosion occurs on the surface of the Earth and of Mars thirty seconds apart -- then by choosing your reference frame, you can make them occur simultaneously, or you can make one occur before the other.

If you have a method of faster-than-light travel, you can then not only choose your reference frame, but arrive before the event occurs. Thus, you can go kill your parents before you are born, meaning that you never existed. So who killed your parents?

Any FTL travel scheme must resolve this paradox. Creating a spatiotemporal "warp bubble" doesn't resolve the paradox.

I understand the paradox. I think you are assuming the paradox reflects reality. It is based on assumptions that are challenged, for instance, when we consider time as being cyclical in nature rather than linear. In any event, I'm questioning the premise that such a paradox even exist. The paradox assumes we understand time. That such a paradox actually exist is not a foregone conclusion.

Regards,

Finrock

[Vort]

I understand the paradox. I think you are assuming the paradox reflects reality.

Indeed, the paradox reflects reality as we (or at least, as I) understand it.

It is based on assumptions that are challenged, for instance, when we consider time as being cyclical in nature rather than linear.

I haven't any idea what you're suggesting here. What does "cyclical time" mean, and how does it avoid or resolve the paradox?

In any event, I'm questioning the premise that such a paradox even exist. The paradox assumes we understand time. That such a paradox actually exist is not a foregone conclusion.

Certainly, if our understanding of physics is fundamentally flawed. Can you describe how you would modify our current understanding of physics to allow for faster-than-light travel, and specifically how you would account for such temporal paradoxes as I brought up?

[Traveler]

There is another possibility beyond the standard paradox. If time is not continuous then it is not an actual dimension. But time is a part of the fabric of our 3 dimensional space that is altered as one approaches the speed of light. At this point the characteristic is that any effort to use energy to increase speed is proportionally converted to mass which warps space creating an “uphill” problem. The theory with warp drive is that the energy is used in a manner to warp space to create a downhill so that the object is both pushed and pulled by a gravity well to constantly accelerate.

There are several problems with the theory. Not so much that the theory will not work but what happens to matter when it reaches or crosses the threshold of the speed of light. One theory is that matter takes on different properties defined by quantum mechanics and begins to behave like a boson. If this is the case then black holes are not really in a state of singularity but all the matter is able to occupy the same quantum states - which includes occupying the same space time - but without form (sound familiar - it should).

Another theory is that matter exciding the speed of light begins to go backwards in time. This is the condition that creates the paradox so often referenced in many science fiction stories. But if time is not actually continuous then this would not occur - thus the paradox is an illusion. There are indications that time is not continuous.

The final theory considered possible is that as matter reaches the threshold of the speed of light it alters dimensional space and creates a portal to another dimension. In this case faster than light speed would still remain both possible and impossible depending on your frame of reference - but a lot of other interesting things become possible according to the laws of physics we currently use (especially with quantum and particle physics) that in essence has the effect of folding our space time back on itself creating in essence a worm hole or what is called the tunnel effect that is already observed for particles traveling at the speed of light (bosons). But unlike the wormholes depicted so often in science fiction movies - the wormhole would not have a tunnel but more of a portal through the new dimensional space creating in effect a direct connection to the folded point in our space time. It is this theory I personally find the most intriguing for many many reasons.

The Traveler

Edited September 21, 2012 by Traveler

[jerome1232]

Maybe I am in to deep but, I just don't understand why going faster than light necessitates moving backwards in time. I don't understand the connection between the two.

Be gentle, I've only gone through high school level physics.

[Blackmarch]

except the only problem that i see with the time travel bit is that the objects within the warp are not traveling the speed of light or past that speed. I think at best we could manage to get to something as it happens.

[Vort]

Maybe I am in to deep but, I just don't understand why going faster than light necessitates moving backwards in time. I don't understand the connection between the two.

Be gentle, I've only gone through high school level physics.

I have spent a half hour trying to write a coherent response to this, and I'm only halfway through. I have to go to work. Maybe I'll finish it tonight or tomorrow. Or maybe I'll decide I just can't write a coherent response...

[Finrock]

Indeed, the paradox reflects reality as we (or at least, as I) understand it.

The paradox is based on a number of assumptions about reality that are not settled nor even close to being settled questions in physics. One of these assumptions is our assumptions about time. What is time and does "time" actually exist in the traditional linear sense are not even close to settled questions.

I haven't any idea what you're suggesting here. What does "cyclical time" mean, and how does it avoid or resolve the paradox?

In linear time, there is a past, present, and future. In cyclical time theory, there is no such thing as a past or a future. If the past and the future do not exist, the causality paradox becomes irrelevant.

Certainly, if our understanding of physics is fundamentally flawed. Can you describe how you would modify our current understanding of physics to allow for faster-than-light travel, and specifically how you would account for such temporal paradoxes as I brought up?

We know that our understanding of physics is fundamentally flawed. Science recognizes that the Standard Model does not accurately reflect reality in some very big areas, but it is the best model we have to date. You made the assertion that warping space in order to traverse space in effect faster than light would "inevitably" lead to a violation of the causality paradox. I am challenging the premises on which the paradox exist. So, how can you know that if we travel FTL we will "inevitably" violate a temporal paradox, when we don't even really understand what time is and if the past and the future are actually existing things?

Futher, even accepting the Standard Model, it isn't certain, not even pretty certain, that traveling back in time would result in any causality paradoxes.

Regards,

Finrock

[Vort]

The paradox is based on a number of assumptions about reality that are not settled nor even close to being settled questions in physics. One of these assumptions is our assumptions about time. What is time and does "time" actually exist in the traditional linear sense are not even close to settled questions.

Huh?

"Time" is the name we give to an observable and measurable event. It is extraordinarily well-characterized. Asking "What is time?" is equivalent to asking "What is space?" The terms used in the questions are not narrowly defined. To answer the question "What is time?", we first must answer the question, "What does 'What is time?' mean?" And in the basic meaning I have described, time is indeed exceedingly well characterized.

In linear time, there is a past, present, and future. In cyclical time theory, there is no such thing as a past or a future. If the past and the future do not exist, the causality paradox becomes irrelevant.

Causality is the basis of all reasoned thought. If causality itself is illusory, reason as we know it cannot exist. The causality chain itself might be infinite, but the basic fact of causality cannot reasonably be questioned. Even to formulate an argument for or against it depends on our acceptance of causality.

The beast does not know that what he did yesterday might determine his fate tomorrow. He does not understand causality on any more than an immediate basis. We are not beasts. We are children of God. We understand causality; indeed, that understanding forms the very basis of our agency. Actions have consequences. You want to divorce action from consequence. What paradigm do you put in its place? If things happen without cause, how are we to understand, well, anything?

We know that our understanding of physics is fundamentally flawed. Science recognizes that the Standard Model does not accurately reflect reality in some very big areas, but it is the best model we have to date.

But there is an unimaginably huge canyon of a gap between saying that our models have known deficiencies and asserting that causality does not exist.

You made the assertion that warping space in order to traverse space in effect faster than light would "inevitably" lead to a violation of the causality paradox. I am challenging the premises on which the paradox exist.

Right. You are denying causality. But as causality is probably the most basic observation possible, preceded perhaps only by the actual recognition of our own existence, I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on unless you can propose something to replace causality.

And remember, causality has a rock-solid, pretty much 100% track record of success since prehistory.

So, how can you know that if we travel FTL we will "inevitably" violate a temporal paradox, when we don't even really understand what time is and if the past and the future are actually existing things?

The same way I know I really exist and am not merely a dream in some creature's mind.

Futher, even accepting the Standard Model, it isn't certain, not even pretty certain, that traveling back in time would result in any causality paradoxes.

Of course it is. If you claim it is not, please resolve the canonical examples I provided.

[bcguy]

Yes if that is possible, we will be the aliens who invade another planet with McDonald's Marketing managers on board!

[NightSG]

The same way I know I really exist and am not merely a dream in some creature's mind.

So how do you know I didn't just dream that you said that?