Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!mit-eddie!nessus From: nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers Subject: FTL travel Message-ID: <4683@mit-eddie.UUCP> Date: Sat, 13-Jul-85 10:39:45 EDT Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.4683 Posted: Sat Jul 13 10:39:45 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 14-Jul-85 08:42:14 EDT Distribution: net.sf-lovers Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA Lines: 49 > From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) > In article <4577@mit-eddie.UUCP> nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) writes: >> According to Special Relativity, faster-than-light travel is >> exactly equivalent to traveling backwards in time: there is no >> difference. > Stories assuming ftl travel generally (implicitly) assume that special > relativity is wrong, that there is a preferred frame of reference, which > approximates our own here on Earth. Admittedly, most do this because the > author does not understand special relativity, BUT it is a consistent > assumption -- just not very likely. One would think that the Michelson-Morley experiment fairly well ruled out this unlikely possibility nearly a hundred years ago! > From: Peter Alfke> Actually, according to Special Relativity, faster-than-light travel is > just plain impossible. All the sqrt(v^2 / c^2) terms turn imaginary . No. Special Relativity just says that you can't accelerate through the speed of light. It doesn't say you can't travel faster than the speed of light. Haven't you ever read any of the stuff on tachyons? The tachyon theory is completely consistent with Special Relativity. They always travel faster than light, and they travel backwards through time. > Any story in which ftl works is tacitly assuming that something new > has superceded Relativity in the same manner as Relativity superceded > Newtonian mechanics. That, or the author just doesn't care about all > the physical ramifications; he/she just needs ftl to tell the story. > (Either approach is equally valid in my book.) Something might come along that might be more general than Special Relativity (gee like General Relativity), but it's incredibly unlikely that anything will ever contradict Special Relativity. Special Relativity is mathematically derived from some very simple assumptions.. If Special Relatvity were found to be incorrect, it would mean that at least one of those simple assumptions is incorrect. It is EXTREMELY unlikely that any of these simple assumptions is incorect, and if one of them were to be found to be incorrect, it would have far more ramifications than merely FTL travel, which then should be dealt with in the SF story. "This is the time And this is the record of the time" Doug Alan nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA)