The Physics That Makes Interstellar Travel IMPOSSIBLE ...

[alarmguy]

A massive object cannot reach the speed of light because the Lorentz factor becomes infinite as velocity approaches the speed of light. That drives total energy and momentum to infinity. In spacetime terms, massive objects follow timelike trajectories and cannot transition to lightlike trajectories. The barrier is mathematical and geometric, not technological.

For faster than light travel to be possible, something fundamental in relativity would have to be wrong. Special Relativity shows that as an object with mass moves closer to the speed of light, the energy required to keep accelerating it increases without bounds. At exactly the speed of light, the required energy becomes infinite. Since infinite energy is physically impossible, objects with mass cannot reach that speed.

This is not just an energy problem, it is built into the structure of spacetime. Massive objects move along what are called timelike paths, while light moves along lightlike paths. To exceed the speed of light, an object would have to shift into a completely different category of motion, which relativity does not allow. Doing so would also create causality problems, where events could appear to happen before their causes in some reference frames.

So for faster than light travel to work, we would have to overturn Lorentz invariance, the relativistic energy equation, or the basic geometry of spacetime itself. All of those have been confirmed experimentally to extremely high precision. That is why the speed of light is understood as a structural limit of reality, not a technological barrier. What would it mean for the Lorentz factor to be wrong? It would mean the 38ms time difference between GPS satellite time and earth surface time would be wrong and your GPS wouldn't be accurate and it would drift 10km per day. The Lorentz factor can't simultaneously predict this time difference but also be wrong about the infinite energy required for massive objects to reach the speed of light - for one to be true, the other must be true. Experimentally, the increases measured in energy/momentum are unbelievably accurately predicted by the Lorentz.

I get the statement but this is physics as we know it. "fundamental in relativity would have to be wrong" as we believe it to be.
Im really not that interested in the subject and I have never researched or cared to learn about it. But I refuse to believe travel through space can only exist as we know it. I see ourselves as primitive. All good, not debating you I am just say I am not a believer in the limitations you have posted. However, I will not be on this earth in a thousand years or whatever time it takes.

http://www.physics.semantrium.com/relativity.html
"A paradigm with an absolute time and space does not constitute a physical fact though: it's an agreement, so alternative paradigms can in principle be proposed. However, for any absolute velocity there simply cannot be a satisfactory definition of time and space. The relativistic transformation equations themselves are a farce, they are false definitions of time and space for two reasons: ..."

Im not sure but I think the above makes my point!

 

[PWMDMD]

I get the statement but this is physics as we know it. "fundamental in relativity would have to be wrong" as we believe it to be.
Im really not that interested in the subject and I have never researched or cared to learn about it. But I refuse to believe travel through space can only exist as we know it. I see ourselves as primitive. All good, not debating you I am just say I am not a believer in the limitations you have posted. However, I will not be on this earth in a thousand years or whatever time it takes.

http://www.physics.semantrium.com/relativity.html
"A paradigm with an absolute time and space does not constitute a physical fact though: it's an agreement, so alternative paradigms can in principle be proposed. However, for any absolute velocity there simply cannot be a satisfactory definition of time and space. The relativistic transformation equations themselves are a farce, they are false definitions of time and space for two reasons: ..."

Im not sure but I think the above makes my point!

This is not peer-reviewed, it’s basically a 20 year old blog by a guy who I can’t find any other peer-reviewed literature. He can write whatever he want but in TWENTY YEARS what has he done experimentally to prove his thesis correct or even that SR and GR are wrong? It’s just the ramblings of a fringe writer.

If this was based on current data and verifiable it would be the bigger development in physics in this century - ground breaking and it would have profound impacts. There’s a reason no one is talking about this…

 

[alarmguy]

This is not peer-reviewed, it’s basically a 20 year old blog by a guy who I can’t find any other peer-reviewed literature. He can write whatever he want but in TWENTY YEARS what has he done experimentally to prove his thesis correct or even that SR and GR are wrong? It’s just the ramblings of a fringe writer.

Exactly, my point is, who cares what is reviewed? We can only review what knowledge we believe to be true. I already posted my thoughts.

 

[KrisZ]

I get the statement but this is physics as we know it. "fundamental in relativity would have to be wrong" as we believe it to be.
Im really not that interested in the subject and I have never researched or cared to learn about it. But I refuse to believe travel through space can only exist as we know it. I see ourselves as primitive. All good, not debating you I am just say I am not a believer in the limitations you have posted. However, I will not be on this earth in a thousand years or whatever time it takes.

http://www.physics.semantrium.com/relativity.html
"A paradigm with an absolute time and space does not constitute a physical fact though: it's an agreement, so alternative paradigms can in principle be proposed. However, for any absolute velocity there simply cannot be a satisfactory definition of time and space. The relativistic transformation equations themselves are a farce, they are false definitions of time and space for two reasons: ..."

Im not sure but I think the above makes my point!

So you have a super strong opinion despite not having any knowledge about the subject nor being interested in learning about the subject, all based on good sounding quotes that say absolutely nothing and are based on nothing.

It’s one thing to question the status quo, it’s another to do so without anything of relevance to back it up.

 

[PWMDMD]

Exactly, my point is, who cares what is reviewed? We can only review what knowledge we believe to be true. I already posted my thoughts.

You’ve turned a discussion about evidence and logic into a philosophical discussion about belief - they rarely mix.

That’s precisely why review matters. We can only evaluate claims based on the best evidence currently available, not on what we personally feel is true. Knowledge is provisional, but it is not arbitrary. It is constrained by evidence, internal consistency, predictive power, and repeatability.

Saying “who cares what is reviewed” dismisses the very mechanism that separates belief from knowledge. Peer review, replication, and empirical testing are not about assuming we know everything. They are about reducing error over time.

You are right that we can only review what we think is true. The difference is that science allows those beliefs to be challenged, falsified, and improved. That process is why we know vastly more about physics, chemistry, biology, and cosmology today than we did a century ago.

If you reject the review process, then you are left with personal intuition as the final authority. And historically, intuition without structured verification is wrong far more often than it is right.

But you do you Boo…

 

[billt460]

I love these discussions. Especially about density. How can a tablespoon of one planet weigh more than the Earth? Hard to wrap your head around.

 

[PWMDMD]

I love these discussions. Especially about density. How can a tablespoon of one planet weigh more than the Earth? Hard to wrap your head around.

The only matter that can do that and not collapse into a blackhole is a neutron star. The only reason it doesn't collapse is because it's made entirely of neutrons and the Pauli exclusion principle states no two fermions can occupy the same quantum (local) system in the same quantum state. This places them in an extremely high energy state and creates an outward push that prevents collapse.

I agree it is hard to wrap your head around - thankfully, this is relatively rare condition in the universe.

Here's something crazy. You are made up of mostly empty space (mostly found between the nucleus and the surrounding electron cloud) and if you removed that space, you'd be microscopic, but still weight the same.

Atom radius ≈ 10^-10 meters
Nucleus radius ≈ 10^−15 meters

That is a factor of 100,000 in linear size. Since volume scales as the radius cubed, (10^5)^3=10^15. So the atom’s volume is about one quadrillion times larger than the nucleus. That means essentially all the atom’s volume is outside the nucleus and that is mostly empty space.

 

[K-Man]

The belief that faster-than-light speed is possible boils down to this:

Newtonian physics (gravity as a main force) is a subset of Einsteinian physics (relativity). Maybe Einsteinian physics is a subset of some other type of physics that would allow faster-than-light travel. Just as the equations involving orbital and celestial mechanics are still valid for everyday calculations without using the relativity equations, so maybe the relativity equations are valid within something larger. This would mean that the Lorentz factor is valid only within relativity calculations as a special case of whatever that larger physics is.

Right now there seems to be no evidence of any larger physics that would include relativity as a subset. Physicists believe they would be able to detect tachyons, proposed particles with imaginary (in the mathematical sense) mass that go faster than c, the speed of light, from certain types of radiation they would cause. In theory those could not go slower than c. Guess what: no tachyons have been detected so far.

But in the late 19th Century some notable physicists thought they would be reduced to extending constants in Newtonian physics by a few more decimal places. Then came particle physics and relativity to upset the applecart. So who can say what future discoveries might bring? But it's healthy to be skeptical about that possibility, I suspect, so warp drive and the like will remain the stuff of Star Trek and Star Wars, not real life.

 

[PWMDMD]

The belief that faster-than-light speed is possible boils down to this:

Newtonian physics (gravity as a main force) is a subset of Einsteinian physics (relativity). Maybe Einsteinian physics is a subset of some other type of physics that would allow faster-than-light travel. Just as the equations involving orbital and celestial mechanics are still valid for everyday calculations without using the relativity equations, so maybe the relativity equations are valid within something larger. This would mean that the Lorentz factor is valid only within relativity calculations as a special case of whatever that larger physics is.

Right now there seems to be no evidence of any larger physics that would include relativity as a subset. Physicists believe they would be able to detect tachyons, proposed particles with imaginary (in the mathematical sense) mass that go faster than c, the speed of light, from certain types of radiation they would cause. In theory those could not go slower than c. Guess what: no tachyons have been detected so far.

But in the late 19th Century some notable physicists thought they would be reduced to extending constants in Newtonian physics by a few more decimal places. Then came particle physics and relativity to upset the applecart. So who can say what future discoveries might bring? But it's healthy to be skeptical about that possibility, I suspect, so warp drive and the like will remain the stuff of Star Trek and Star Wars, not real life.

It is true that Newtonian mechanics turned out to be a limiting case of relativity, and in principle relativity itself could be part of a deeper theory. Science has been revised before. However, relativity is not a narrow model that explains only a few phenomena - it is woven into particle physics, cosmology, GPS timing, accelerator experiments, and the structure of the Standard Model. Any larger theory would have to reproduce Lorentz invariance and match an enormous body of precision data, while avoiding causality violations. As you stated, no evidence of tachyons or faster-than-light signals has been observed despite extensive testing.

It is absolutely healthy to remain open to the possibility that future physics could extend or even revise relativity. Scientific humility matters. But healthy skepticism cuts both ways. It means being cautious about dismissing established theory without evidence, not assuming breakthroughs will overturn deeply tested laws simply because history shows that revolutions can happen.

In day-to-day reasoning, the rational position is to accept what the current data overwhelmingly supports. Relativity is not a speculative framework hanging by a thread. It is confirmed across particle accelerators, astrophysics, cosmology, and precision engineering systems like GPS. There is no empirical indication of superluminal particles, Lorentz violations, or causality breakdown.

So while warp drives make compelling science fiction, the evidence available today strongly indicates that faster-than-light travel is not physically realizable. Remaining open to new discoveries is intellectually responsible, but operating as if those discoveries are likely, absent data, is not skepticism, it is speculation.

 

[JeffKeryk]

There's an old saying, "What beats Science? Better Science."
Science is a self-correcting process, not a static set of beliefs.

Sometimes being wrong is incredible as it means I'm learning something.
Just my 2 cents, which is more than you paid for it.

 

[PWMDMD]

There's an old saying, "What beats science? Better science."
Science is a self-correcting process, not a static set of beliefs.

Sometimes being wrong is incredible as it means I'm learning something.
Just my 2 cents, which is more than you paid for it.

I've published a few science articles in immunology in well known journals. This work was based on the previous work of the PI spanning 20 years by the time I got there. We went into every new project trying to disprove what he had already published before taking the next step to add some new knowledge. We never wanted to "protect" what had already been published, we wanted to be correct in what we published. This is how the vast majority of scientists I know (and I know quite a few) operate. It's always about better science and reputation is everything in science.

 

[JeffKeryk]

I've published a few science articles in immunology in well known journals. This work was based on the previous work of the PI spanning 20 years by the time I got there. We went into every new project trying to disprove what he had already published before taking the next step to add some new knowledge. We never wanted to "protect" what had already been published, we wanted to be correct in what we published. This is how the vast majority of scientists I know (and I know quite a few) operate. It's always about better science and reputation is everything in science.

The people I admire most and learn from most are the open minded who are willing to listen. I had a Physics teacher who listened to me explain why I was so sure about a topic about a mirror reflection or somehting. The good Professor then calmly said, "Jeff, look at this..." which proved me dead wrong. What a wonderful lady! I remember her as a smallish German professor with thick glasses and accent. Simply wonderful!

I've done a little publishing myself, though not to be compared with your work. Mine was in computer solutions used to manage a multi-billion dollar Semiconductor Manufacturing company. Nanometrics for the win! Ha!

 

[PWMDMD]

The people I admire most and learn from most are the open minded who are willing to listen. I had a Physics teacher who listened to me explain why I was so sure about a topic about a mirror reflection or somehting. The good Professor then calmly said, "Jeff, look at this..." which proved me dead wrong. What a wonderful lady! I remember her as a smallish German professor with thick glasses and accent. Simply wonderful!

That's great! The nice people are needed and they serve a purpose, especially as teachers.

That said, I also think people don't understand how contentious science can be. We had weekly meetings with everyone in the department where grad students would present what they were doing and the results from the previous week and we all sat there basically busting their chops any and every way we could. The goal was to question everything they said, poke holes in their arguments anyway we could, to hash out the problems and issues long before any of that data was submitted for peer-review. Some of these sessions were brutal and we were encouraged to not hold back at all.

 

[JeffKeryk]

That's great! The nice people are needed and they serve a purpose, especially as teachers.

That said, I also think people don't understand how contentious science can be. We had weekly meetings with everyone in the department where grad students would present what they were doing and the results from the previous week and we all sat there basically busting their chops any and every way we could. The goal was to question everything they said, poke holes in their arguments anyway we could, to hash out the problems and issues long before any of that data was submitted for peer-review. Some of these sessions were brutal and we were encouraged to not hold back at all.

In Computer Science we have a similar process called Destructive Testing. Beat the snot outta it because you can be sure world wide users will.
Testing code in the way it was designed to be used is for big whoosies.

 

[K-Man]

It is true that Newtonian mechanics turned out to be a limiting case of relativity, and in principle relativity itself could be part of a deeper theory. Science has been revised before. However, relativity is not a narrow model that explains only a few phenomena - it is woven into particle physics, cosmology, GPS timing, accelerator experiments, and the structure of the Standard Model. Any larger theory would have to reproduce Lorentz invariance and match an enormous body of precision data, while avoiding causality violations. As you stated, no evidence of tachyons or faster-than-light signals has been observed despite extensive testing.

It is absolutely healthy to remain open to the possibility that future physics could extend or even revise relativity. Scientific humility matters. But healthy skepticism cuts both ways. It means being cautious about dismissing established theory without evidence, not assuming breakthroughs will overturn deeply tested laws simply because history shows that revolutions can happen.

In day-to-day reasoning, the rational position is to accept what the current data overwhelmingly supports. Relativity is not a speculative framework hanging by a thread. It is confirmed across particle accelerators, astrophysics, cosmology, and precision engineering systems like GPS. There is no empirical indication of superluminal particles, Lorentz violations, or causality breakdown.

So while warp drives make compelling science fiction, the evidence available today strongly indicates that faster-than-light travel is not physically realizable. Remaining open to new discoveries is intellectually responsible, but operating as if those discoveries are likely, absent data, is not skepticism, it is speculation.

To make my position clear, I agree with you. It's highly doubtful that a future physics will allow warp speeds.

We do seem to be looking at limits on a lot of physics and nuclear chemistry. It seems unlikely we'll extend creation of new elements much beyond the current end at element 118, for example. Maybe we'll get to 119 and 120, but not much further because of the rapid disintegration of isotopes past that.

 

[MolaKule]

Let's try and keep this a scientific discussion recognizing that science is a result of deduction, causality, induction, sometimes abduction, and that scientific explanations lack absolute certainty, but it is the best we have at the present time.

.

 

[billt460]

Yet another mystery of the cosmos..... If a nutron star spins at something like 700 revolutions per second, how does it not tear itself apart from centrafugal force?

 

[MolaKule]

Yet another mystery of the cosmos..... If a nutron star spins at something like 700 revolutions per second, how does it not tear itself apart from centrafugal force?

Consider what a star is; a massive collection of gasses and dust.

"...Once formed, neutron stars no longer actively generate heat and cool over time, but they may still evolve further through collisions or accretion. Most of the basic models for these objects imply that they are composed almost entirely of neutrons, as the extreme pressure causes the electrons and protons present in normal matter to combine into additional neutrons. These stars are partially supported against further collapse by neutron degeneracy pressure, just as white dwarfs are supported against collapse by electron degeneracy pressure..."

Wiki, Neutron Star

Neutron stars are known that have rotation periods from about 1.4 ms to 30 s. 1.4ms is ~ = 714 rps

 

[billt460]

Consider what a star is; a massive collection of gasses and dust.

"...Once formed, neutron stars no longer actively generate heat and cool over time, but they may still evolve further through collisions or accretion. Most of the basic models for these objects imply that they are composed almost entirely of neutrons, as the extreme pressure causes the electrons and protons present in normal matter to combine into additional neutrons. These stars are partially supported against further collapse by neutron degeneracy pressure, just as white dwarfs are supported against collapse by electron degeneracy pressure..."

Wiki, Neutron Star

But their density is unimaginable. A teaspoon of a nutron star can weigh over 100 million tons. And then you have to factor in they spin at their equator at close to 25 percent of the speed of light.

That kind of centrifugal force is hard to comprehend.

 

[bunnspecial]

We do seem to be looking at limits on a lot of physics and nuclear chemistry. It seems unlikely we'll extend creation of new elements much beyond the current end at element 118, for example. Maybe we'll get to 119 and 120, but not much further because of the rapid disintegration of isotopes past that.

I've certainly been wrong before, and may be about this, but I'm skeptical that we're going to see elements larger than 118.

As we've seen with the last few super-heavy elements, we're basically fighting whether or not the strong nuclear force can overcome the electrostic repulsion of having that many protons shoved into a single nucleus. Adding more neutrons to "buffer" the protons(and the resultant electrostatic forces) just makes the nucleus larger, again pushing the limits of the strong nuclear force.

A hypothetical element 119 would not only have an even larger nucleus that would be even less stable than element 118, but would most likely be the most chemically reactive element known. You're going to be dealing with a comically huge electron cloud, and the single electron in the highest occupied(ground state) orbital is going to be electrostatically repelled by the lower 118 electrons, plus experience almost no pull from the nucleus thanks to the shielding effect. In fact, in that sense, element 120 MIGHT be a bit more likely than 119 since at least the outermost electrons would be paired, but 120 is going to have a nucleus even less stable than 119.

Maybe the Large Hadron collider or somewhere else will manage to make 119 or 120 for a few femtoseconds, but I think it's quantum-mechanically a tough hill to climb.