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 has superceded Relativity in the same manner as Relativity superceded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)