Space/ Time/ Distance, where we're going wrong
Discussion
I was thinking about this the other day. Space distances are measured in time terms i.e. light years. A human lifestime is incredibly brief at these scales, so travelling to a star even 100 light years away at near the speed of light would still be a multi generational endeavour. Let alone 1,000, or 10,000 light years away.
But suppose ( borrowing from the Cryonics thread ) it becomes possible to download a conciousness to a chip, or of course to create chips with conciousness, supposing such chips had lifespans in the hundreds of thousands or indeed millions of years.
To an entity with a life span of 1m years travelling at near light speeds to a star 500 light years distant would be the equivalent of roughly an 18 day trip scaled to a 100 year human life span at present. Proxima Cenauri would be the equivalent 3.5 hours away.
A trip from one side of the Milky way to the other would be the equivalent of a 10 year trip.
So it occurs to me that it might never be the case that we can alter the fundamental physics around travelling faster than light ( wormholes etc ) but the solution may well lie in changing the nature of concious beings such that the timescale of 'life' becomes much, much, longer.
If that has happened elsewhere in the Galaxy already it may well be the case that at the timescales alien civilisations operate we have literally barely registered as a blip in the last 100 years when we've had any signals going off planet.
But suppose ( borrowing from the Cryonics thread ) it becomes possible to download a conciousness to a chip, or of course to create chips with conciousness, supposing such chips had lifespans in the hundreds of thousands or indeed millions of years.
To an entity with a life span of 1m years travelling at near light speeds to a star 500 light years distant would be the equivalent of roughly an 18 day trip scaled to a 100 year human life span at present. Proxima Cenauri would be the equivalent 3.5 hours away.
A trip from one side of the Milky way to the other would be the equivalent of a 10 year trip.
So it occurs to me that it might never be the case that we can alter the fundamental physics around travelling faster than light ( wormholes etc ) but the solution may well lie in changing the nature of concious beings such that the timescale of 'life' becomes much, much, longer.
If that has happened elsewhere in the Galaxy already it may well be the case that at the timescales alien civilisations operate we have literally barely registered as a blip in the last 100 years when we've had any signals going off planet.
Edited by Timmy40 on Tuesday 5th April 14:37
If you could travel at close to the speed of light a trip to a star 100 light years away would take slightly over 100 years to an external observer; to someone on the ship it would seem to take a hell of a lot less because of time dilation, get close enough to the speed of light and an observer on the ship could travel across the galaxy in less than a subjective day.
I knew time dilation related to Black Holes, wasn't actually aware how it relates to speed of travel.
I think that this is eventually how we will explore or maybe even colonise other start systems. But as mentioned in the other thread, you would definitely need the ability to go on "stand-by" or as cleverly stated adjust your "clock-speed". As travelling for such distances and for such a length of time would quickly mean you'd probably go mad, even as a digital conscience. Unless you had travelling companions, and even then you may get thoroughly fed up with them for such a length of time.
Also, if it were our own conscience put into a digital form, we would still understand time to be what it is, even if we were to live for 1m years, a day is still a day after all.
This also leads to the Fermi Paradox doesn't it? Surely if the galaxy is as old as it is, and there should have been by now civilisations far superior to ours, where are they?
I love this sort of stuff, even if I don't understand it all!
PS Post Up EricMc, don't worry about Toaster!
I think that this is eventually how we will explore or maybe even colonise other start systems. But as mentioned in the other thread, you would definitely need the ability to go on "stand-by" or as cleverly stated adjust your "clock-speed". As travelling for such distances and for such a length of time would quickly mean you'd probably go mad, even as a digital conscience. Unless you had travelling companions, and even then you may get thoroughly fed up with them for such a length of time.
Also, if it were our own conscience put into a digital form, we would still understand time to be what it is, even if we were to live for 1m years, a day is still a day after all.
This also leads to the Fermi Paradox doesn't it? Surely if the galaxy is as old as it is, and there should have been by now civilisations far superior to ours, where are they?
I love this sort of stuff, even if I don't understand it all!
PS Post Up EricMc, don't worry about Toaster!
Edited by AshVX220 on Tuesday 5th April 15:56
Timmy40 said:
Mr E said:
There's a (quite good in my opinion) sifi book by Alistair Reynolds called "House of Suns" where the lead characters measure time in cycles. Galatic cycles. Entire civililisations grow and die with little notice.
Thanks. I've ordered it. Should be a good read. Einion Yrth said:
If you could travel at close to the speed of light a trip to a star 100 light years away would take slightly over 100 years to an external observer; to someone on the ship it would seem to take a hell of a lot less because of time dilation, get close enough to the speed of light and an observer on the ship could travel across the galaxy in less than a subjective day.
I think my head just exploded.
As v tends towards c the dividend becomes larger (1-v*v/c*c is always 0 < n < 1) and the square root of any number less than 1 is less than 1, Thus t Prime tends (asymptotically) towards 0.
When v == c the equation breaks. But nothing that has rest mass can ever have a velocity of c, so that's, sort of, all right.
Timmy40 said:
So it occurs to me that it might never be the case that we can alter the fundamental physics around travelling faster than light ( wormholes etc ) but the solution may well lie in changing the nature of concious beings such that the timescale of 'life' becomes much, much, longer.
If that has happened elsewhere in the Galaxy already it may well be the case that at the timescales alien civilisations operate we have literally barely registered as a blip in the last 100 years when we've had any signals going off planet.
Who remembers that episode of Star Trek...?If that has happened elsewhere in the Galaxy already it may well be the case that at the timescales alien civilisations operate we have literally barely registered as a blip in the last 100 years when we've had any signals going off planet.
http://nathangeffen.webfactional.com/spacetravel/s...
For a space ship going 100 LY accelerating ( and decelerating) at 1G it takes the travellers 9 years but to external observers it takes 102 years.
Dont look at the energy requirements lol..
For a space ship going 100 LY accelerating ( and decelerating) at 1G it takes the travellers 9 years but to external observers it takes 102 years.
Dont look at the energy requirements lol..
RobDickinson said:
http://nathangeffen.webfactional.com/spacetravel/s...
For a space ship going 100 LY accelerating ( and decelerating) at 1G it takes the travellers 9 years but to external observers it takes 102 years.
Dont look at the energy requirements lol..
It is a big, very B I G universeFor a space ship going 100 LY accelerating ( and decelerating) at 1G it takes the travellers 9 years but to external observers it takes 102 years.
Dont look at the energy requirements lol..
Bound to be lots of unused, wasted even energy around
(next big thing to work on)
lol
Einion Yrth said:
As v tends towards c the dividend becomes larger (1-v*v/c*c is always 0 < n < 1) and the square root of any number less than 1 is less than 1, Thus t Prime tends (asymptotically) towards 0.
When v == c the equation breaks. But nothing that has rest mass can ever have a velocity of c, so that's, sort of, all right.
Also, what is "rest time", is that time as we experience it?
AshVX220 said:
Einion Yrth said:
As v tends towards c the dividend becomes larger (1-v*v/c*c is always 0 < n < 1) and the square root of any number less than 1 is less than 1, Thus t Prime tends (asymptotically) towards 0.
When v == c the equation breaks. But nothing that has rest mass can ever have a velocity of c, so that's, sort of, all right.
Also, what is "rest time", is that time as we experience it?
AshVX220 said:
With that equation, is it a theory or has it been proven, if it's been proven, how?
Also, what is "rest time", is that time as we experience it?
It was proven by putting an atomic clock in orbit and predicting the time difference compared with an identical clock left on earth wasn't it? You don't need super high velocities to create an observable effect.Also, what is "rest time", is that time as we experience it?
AshVX220 said:
Einion Yrth said:
As v tends towards c the dividend becomes larger (1-v*v/c*c is always 0 < n < 1) and the square root of any number less than 1 is less than 1, Thus t Prime tends (asymptotically) towards 0.
When v == c the equation breaks. But nothing that has rest mass can ever have a velocity of c, so that's, sort of, all right.
Also, what is "rest time", is that time as we experience it?
It has been proven correct to 5 decimal places (possibly 7)
when v=c the term v2/c2 on the bottom becomes 1 and the entire of the bottom of the equation 1-v^2/c^2 becomes =0
anything divided by 0 is infinity. so effectively time stops
the same equation also applies to mass (substitute time with mass) so at v=c mass becomes infinite (and therefore infinite energy which is why you cant travel at the speed of light)
The inverse of the same equation also applies to length (Lorentz contraction) so as you approach the speed of light distance shortens
paulrockliffe said:
AshVX220 said:
With that equation, is it a theory or has it been proven, if it's been proven, how?
Also, what is "rest time", is that time as we experience it?
It was proven by putting an atomic clock in orbit and predicting the time difference compared with an identical clock left on earth wasn't it? You don't need super high velocities to create an observable effect.Also, what is "rest time", is that time as we experience it?
There's two relativistic effects at play here - that due to the speed of the satellite (special relativity) and that due to its altitude (general relativity). The two effects work in opposite directions, but the effect due to GR is much greater than that due to SR, and that's the one that has to be compensated for.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_t...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_t...
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff