Physicists: My theory of obtaining lightspeed!

Messiah Khan · 26 Oct 2006 at 12:27

Your idea isn't too stupid actually. Infact, it makes so much sense that is has already been designed by NASA.

You won't get to light speed but it wil go very fast, although it will take VERY long to accelerate. The method that NASA is using, is leaving the engine on the ground to reduce the mass of the spacecraft. The engine is infact a massive laser that blasts in to the back of the spacecraft. The only problem with this technology is if the spacecraft vears slightly off course, the laser defelectors don't work properly, and the spacecraft melts quite quickly. Several versions of this technology were actually demonstrated during X-prize competitions a few years ago.

But the idea of using high energy particles to slowly accelerate a spacecraft to a high velicity is infatc already in use. NASA's Smart1 spacecraft uses an ion drive which works with a similar principle to what you describe.

AJUK · 26 Oct 2006 at 12:31

Two of these gaffa taped to the side will do it, don't forget the spare batteries.

http://www.northerntooluk.com/products.asp?partno=20171E

Psyk · 26 Oct 2006 at 12:36

Mr-White said:
i think its an Einstein theory that the faster you go the more thrust is needed so the closer you get to light speed the harder its gets to increase speed

theres a hyperthetical theory that a tachyon particle can travel faster that light speed (superluminal velocity).

for us to travel at these kinds of speeds (670 616 629 mph) , its not going to happen for quite some time

MW

Apparently Einstein didn't actually say it was impossible to go faster than the speed of light, but that it was impossible to travel at the speed of light. But the question is, how can you go faster than the speed of light, without getting to the speed of light first? With that in mind it makes sense that tachyons could go faster than the speed of light.

MasterMike · 26 Oct 2006 at 12:38

Psyk said:
Apparently Einstein didn't actually say it was impossible to go faster than the speed of light, but that it was impossible to travel at the speed of light. But the question is, how can you go faster than the speed of light, without getting to the speed of light first? With that in mind it makes sense that tachyons could go faster than the speed of light.

...tachyons which are completely theoretical and have never been observed directly or indirectly.

Shoseki · 26 Oct 2006 at 12:42

If anyones interested, I came up with a physics model of how to make a lightsaber...

Psyk · 26 Oct 2006 at 12:42

MasterMike said:
...tachyons which are completely theoretical and have never been observed directly or indirectly.

Well even so, it gives some credibility to the idea.

D.P. · 26 Oct 2006 at 12:42

Simply use the star trek style transponders, or food replicator technologies..

Sit inside space ship, a fancy scanner measures every single atom, transmits the information by radio waves, a reciever station picks up the transmission and the replicator device rebuilds every single atom in the same place. Hey presto, you've jumped at the speed of light.

Alternatively, instead of trying to travel really fast you simply shrink your local space-time continum reducing the spatial distances.

Or you gather huge amount sof matter, create worm-holes, harness the power of several stars to stablise the worm-hole and you can pop out the otherside in an instant.

OR you step into a parallel universe where you happen to be in the location that you want to be, instantly..

Or you replicate the entire universe in a computer simulation, matrix style and can simply teleport anywhere you want.

D.P. · 26 Oct 2006 at 12:43

Shoseki said:
If anyones interested, I came up with a physics model of how to make a lightsaber...

nah, thats boring.

Visage · 26 Oct 2006 at 12:44

Mr-White said:
i think its an Einstein theory that the faster you go the more thrust is needed so the closer you get to light speed the harder its gets to increase speed

theres a hyperthetical theory that a tachyon particle can travel faster that light speed (superluminal velocity).

for us to travel at these kinds of speeds (670 616 629 mph) , its not going to happen for quite some time

MW

Star Trek != Real Life.

D.P. · 26 Oct 2006 at 12:47

messiah khan said:
Your idea isn't too stupid actually. Infact, it makes so much sense that is has already been designed by NASA. You won't get to light speed but it wil go very fast, although it will take VERY long to accelerate. The method that NASA is using, is leaving the engine on the ground to reduce the mass of the spacecraft. The engine is infact a massive laser that blasts in to the back of the spacecraft. The only problem with this technology is if the spacecraft vears slightly off course, the laser defelectors don't work properly, and the spacecraft melts quite quickly. Several versions of this technology were actually demonstrated during X-prize competitions a few years ago.

But the idea of using high energy particles to slowly accelerate a spacecraft to a high velicity is infatc already in use. NASA's Smart1 spacecraft uses an ion drive which works with a similar principle to what you describe.

Yep, and we all know that the Tie fighters were Twin Ion Engine fighters.... :cool:

Nasa built the first SIE

Alan! · 26 Oct 2006 at 13:07

Visage · 26 Oct 2006 at 13:11

Alan! said:
I'd say this is the most likely way to achieve these sorts of velocities. Shrink the space in front of your ship and stretch the space behind you, a la Star Trek.
This is happening al the time and is the reason why outerspace is black.

Riiiight......nothing to do with a lack of material to scatter and diffuse starlight?

Arcade Fire · 26 Oct 2006 at 13:16

D.P. said:
Or you gather huge amounts of matter, create worm-holes, harness the power of several stars to stablise the worm-hole and you can pop out the otherside in an instant.

Shh, don't tell everyone or they'll all be at it!

SteveOBHave · 26 Oct 2006 at 13:17

There has been in the past some design ideas that are based around huge controlled explosions. Daedalus was a concept dreamt up for unmanned exploration of close star systems by probe. The 54,000 tonne size of the project makes it a little difficult and ungainly, but interesting non-the-less.

The OP idea is great as long as the mass behind it doesn't shift from all the force and/or the ship doesn't immdiately dissappear due to the forces and heat involved in creating that much light.

http://www.bisbos.com/rocketscience/spacecraft/daedalus/daedalus.html

Alan! · 26 Oct 2006 at 13:24

daz · 26 Oct 2006 at 13:32

D.P. said:
Simply use the star trek style transponders, or food replicator technologies..

Sit inside space ship, a fancy scanner measures every single atom, transmits the information by radio waves

First we need a Heisenberg compensator.

SteveOBHave · 26 Oct 2006 at 13:33

Alan! said:
No.
The universe is infinite so in any direction you travel you would eventually hit a star. The reason you cant see these stars is because the universe is expanding and the space between you and the star is expanding faster than light, so the light from that star cant get to your eyes for you to see it. So the space looks dark.
If the universe was to stop expanding, eventually the night sky would be full of light.

I'd recommend Parallel Worlds: The Science of Alternative Universes and Our Future in the Cosmos by Michio Kaku it covers a lot of the stuff in this thread.

Mmmm, I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there. Yes space is expanding (by agreed upon theory) but the reason space is black has as much to do with light intensity and diffusion of light as it is to do with mavity effect and wave length.

I would be extraordinarily dubious accepting the idea the objects are moving away from us at light speed!?!?!?!? I would accept that some are moving away fast enough to state that due to 'rapid' movement the relative light wavelength is made longer (Doppler Effect) and thus drops it into red and beyond but def not moving at light speed.

Combat squirrel · 26 Oct 2006 at 13:35

u sir need to learn some physics (thread starter), lol

Arcade Fire · 26 Oct 2006 at 13:37

Alan! said:
No.
The universe is infinite so in any direction you travel you would eventually hit a star. The reason you cant see these stars is because the universe is expanding and the space between you and the star is expanding faster than light, so the light from that star cant get to your eyes for you to see it. So the space looks dark.
If the universe was to stop expanding, eventually the night sky would be full of light.

I'd recommend Parallel Worlds: The Science of Alternative Universes and Our Future in the Cosmos by Michio Kaku it covers a lot of the stuff in this thread.

(i) No one really thinks that the universe is infinite any more.

(ii) The idea that any ray should land on a star is a well-known paradox, which can be solved by either postulating that space is expanding faster than the speed of light, or just accepting that the universe isn't infinite. If you do the former, then the universe is practically finite anyway because we could never access (or even see) the bits that are far enough away from us. Also, what does it even mean to say that an infinite universe is exanding? If the universe is infinite, what happens to all the evidence for the Big Bang? That couldn't have happened in an expanding universe.

(iii) Michio Kaku writes a lot of crap. He's a scientist who really wants to be a sci-fi author.

Alan! · 26 Oct 2006 at 13:42