I Think Faster Than Light Travel is Possible. Here's Why.

YouTube ^ | April 8, 2023 | Sabine Hossenfelder

[SunkenCiv]

If you've been following my channel for a really long time, you might remember that some years ago I made a video about whether faster-than-light travel is possible. I was trying to explain why the arguments saying it's impossible are inconclusive and we shouldn't throw out the possibility too quickly, but I'm afraid I didn't make my case very well. This video is a second attempt. Hopefully this time it'll come across more clearly!

I Think Faster Than Light Travel is Possible. Here's Why. | 23:46
Sabine Hossenfelder | 943K subscribers | 1,569,919 views | April 8, 2023

[Svartalfiar]

I’m curious of how long it would take to reach the speed of light when maintaining an ACCELERATION that would put a constant 2g on the body.

Speed = Accel x Time
Time = Speed/Accel
Time = 300MM m/s / 9.81 m/s²
Time = 30.6MM s = 8500 hr = 354 solar hours

So about one year.

[SunkenCiv]

She definitely has a droll sense of humor, that’s part of why her vids work out so well. It was also humorous that she said she’d done one on the subject a couple years ago, rewatched it, and didn’t understand the old video herself.

[SunkenCiv]

We can be sure that the speed of dark is at least a little faster, because when you turn on the light in a dark room, you never see the dark leaving.

[SunkenCiv]

“...the early universe had enough energy that particles were traveling > c.”

No, they weren’t. According to the standard model, the universe itself was expanding > c.

[SunkenCiv]

Why not?

[SunkenCiv]

The usual notion is the production of a warp or bridge that exists outside of normal space, but connects one part with another. And inside, there is no matter. But thanks for playing.

[M Kehoe]

Hi.

I like to see the posts on treads like these.

In the fwiw department I clocked my neuron to synapse pulse at just under 186,000 per second.

I’ll work on breaking the speed of light in a second.

5.56mm

[FatherofFive]

You should watch the video. She explains that.

After your post, I watched it. She didn't address the point I made about the energy required for acceleration to SOL travel. She did say speed of light travel would require infinite energy or zero mass. This refutes her entire argument, but she just walked past it.

[conserv8]

There is no mass, only trafficked energy.

[conserv8]

Seeds.
Wow!

[GingisK]

Fortunately, we’re not on a project where those sort of results are expected. ;-D

[GingisK]

Yep that is her way out. There are a lot of blanks to fill in to make all that mass become energy and then back to mass again in the same configuration. Its a big exercise with lots of missing pieces that aren’t in the toy box.

[fso301]

Why not?

Because she is basing her belief on a false assumption that billions upon billions of stars having 14 billion years will make possible many advanced inter-galactic civilizations.

What she doesn't understand is that there are limiting probabilities upon probabilities upon probabilities which vastly reduce the total number of suitable stars, within suitable regions of their galaxies, having suitable type solar systems with large gas giants in the outer belts, with earthlike planets in habitable regions, having the right axial tilt, right rotational speed, right iron core, right moon, right amount of water, and on and on.

And then there is the matter she hasn't considered of how in a sterile pre-biotic environment do chemicals randomly assemble to produce even the simplest of cells which are mindbogglingly complex?

She has considered none of that and is just going on blind faith.

[conserv8]

Traffic cops are not toys. :-}

[Fuzz]

They are if you know how to play with them.

[conserv8]

I had not looked at the article until your post.

I will read it later. That is some surprisingly thoughtful material.
I would have missed it if not for your post.

I believe that life has been, and is forever.
Not so much individual lives, but an eternal conscienceless.

[conserv8]

consciousness - (bad click)

[jerod]

Good luck with that.

[grey_whiskers]

11:04 · But then the temperature dropped, and the Higgs field condensed. This condensate now fills the
11:11 · entire universe. But it was only when the Higgs field condensed that particles acquired masses.
11:18 · It’s a phase transition called “electroweak symmetry breaking” and it’s believed to have
11:23 · happened about 10 to the minus 11 seconds after the Big Bang at
11:28 · a temperature of 10 to the 15 Kelvin, that’s much hotter than even the centre of the sun.
11:33 · What all this means is that in the early universe none of the particles had masses.
11:39 · They were all massless, and they were all moving with the speed of light. Later they were not.

So I nisread these lines mistaking “with the speed of light” for “greater than the speed of light”.

The obvious question is, does special or general relativity even hold when the universe is expanding? I never read up on the details of inflation.

Other than Bidenflation, which is different.

[SunkenCiv]

:^)