Posted on 01/13/2016 9:28:58 PM PST by LibWhacker
It's a common theme in science fiction, but migrating to planets beyond our solar system will be a lot more complicated and difficult than you might imagine
The idea that humans will eventually travel to and inhabit other parts of our galaxy was well expressed by the early Russian rocket scientist Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, who wrote, “Earth is humanity’s cradle, but you’re not meant to stay in your cradle forever.†Since then the idea has been a staple of science fiction, and thus become part of a consensus image of humanity’s future. Going to the stars is often regarded as humanity’s destiny, even a measure of its success as a species. But in the century since this vision was proposed, things we have learned about the universe and ourselves combine to suggest that moving out into the galaxy may not be humanity’s destiny after all.
The problem that tends to underlie all the other problems with the idea is the sheer size of the universe, which was not known when people first imagined we would go to the stars. Tau Ceti, one of the closest stars to us at around 12 light-years away, is 100 billion times farther from Earth than our moon. A quantitative difference that large turns into a qualitative difference; we can’t simply send people over such immense distances in a spaceship, because a spaceship is too impoverished an environment to support humans for the time it would take, which is on the order of centuries. Instead of a spaceship, we would have to create some kind of space-traveling ark, big enough to support a community of humans and other plants and animals in a fully recycling ecological system.
On the other hand it would have to be small enough to accelerate to a fairly high speed, to shorten the voyagers’ time of exposure to cosmic radiation, and to breakdowns in the ark. Regarded from some angles bigger is better, but the bigger the ark is, the proportionally more fuel it would have to carry along to slow itself down on reaching its destination; this is a vicious circle that can’t be squared. For that reason and others, smaller is better, but smallness creates problems for resource metabolic flow and ecologic balance. Island biogeography suggests the kinds of problems that would result from this miniaturization, but a space ark’s isolation would be far more complete than that of any island on Earth. The design imperatives for bigness and smallness may cross each other, leaving any viable craft in a non-existent middle.
The biological problems that could result from the radical miniaturization, simplification and isolation of an ark, no matter what size it is, now must include possible impacts on our microbiomes. We are not autonomous units; about eighty percent of the DNA in our bodies is not human DNA, but the DNA of a vast array of smaller creatures. That array of living beings has to function in a dynamic balance for us to be healthy, and the entire complex system co-evolved on this planet’s surface in a particular set of physical influences, including Earth’s gravity, magnetic field, chemical make-up, atmosphere, insolation, and bacterial load. Traveling to the stars means leaving all these influences, and trying to replace them artificially. What the viable parameters are on the replacements would be impossible to be sure of in advance, as the situation is too complex to model. Any starfaring ark would therefore be an experiment, its inhabitants lab animals. The first generation of the humans aboard might have volunteered to be experimental subjects, but their descendants would not have. These generations of descendants would be born into a set of rooms a trillion times smaller than Earth, with no chance of escape.
In this radically diminished enviroment, rules would have to be enforced to keep all aspects of the experiment functioning. Reproduction would not be a matter of free choice, as the population in the ark would have to maintain minimum and maximum numbers. Many jobs would be mandatory to keep the ark functioning, so work too would not be a matter of choices freely made. In the end, sharp constraints would force the social structure in the ark to enforce various norms and behaviors. The situation itself would require the establishment of something like a totalitarian state.
Of course sociology and psychology are harder fields to make predictions in, as humans are highly adaptable. But history has shown that people tend to react poorly in rigid states and social systems. Add to these social constraints permanent enclosure, exile from the planetary surface we evolved on, and the probability of health problems, and the possibility for psychological difficulties and mental illnesses seems quite high. Over several generations, it’s hard to imagine any such society staying stable.
Still, humans are adaptable, and ingenious. It’s conceivable that all the problems outlined so far might be solved, and that people enclosed in an ark might cross space successfully to a nearby planetary system. But if so, their problems will have just begun.
Any planetary body the voyagers try to inhabit will be either alive or dead. If there is indigenous life, the problems of living in contact with an alien biology could range from innocuous to fatal, but will surely require careful investigation. On the other hand, if the planetary body is inert, then the newcomers will have to terraform it using only local resources and the power they have brought with them. This means the process will have a slow start, and take on the order of centuries, during which time the ark, or its equivalent on the alien planet, would have to continue to function without failures.
It’s also quite possible the newcomers won’t be able to tell whether the planet is alive or dead, as is true for us now with Mars. They would still face one problem or the other, but would not know which one it was, a complication that could slow any choices or actions.
So, to conclude: an interstellar voyage would present one set of extremely difficult problems, and the arrival in another system, a different set of problems. All the problems together create not an outright impossibility, but a project of extreme difficulty, with very poor chances of success. The unavoidable uncertainties suggest that an ethical pursuit of the project would require many preconditions before it was undertaken. Among them are these: first, a demonstrably sustainable human civilization on Earth itself, the achievement of which would teach us many of the things we would need to know to construct a viable mesocosm in an ark; second, a great deal of practice in an ark obiting our sun, where we could make repairs and study practices in an ongoing feedback loop, until we had in effect built a successful proof of concept; third, extensive robotic explorations of nearby planetary systems, to see if any are suitable candidates for inhabitation.
Unless all these steps are taken, humans cannot successfully travel to and inhabit other star systems. The preparation itself is a multi-century project, and one that relies crucially on its first step succeeding, which is the creation of a sustainable long-term civilization on Earth. This achievement is the necessary, although not sufficient, precondition for any success in interstellar voyaging. If we don’t create sustainability on our own world, there is no Planet B.
The only way to go faster is for you to have no mass. To not be 'material'. Which , coincidentally, is in the Bible as well. It may even explain why we see those glowing orbs that zip around the sky violating the laws of physics. Maybe they aren't 'material', don't have 'mass'.
Over the years, I've had an abiding interest in such things, and have spent a good deal of time reading what some heretical physicists have to say about the subject.
What you outlined above, is something I've read in such writings many times - i.e., that in order to move faster than light, you first have to reduce an object's mass to zero. Some theorists even go so far as to explain how that can be done, using technologies that we're now on the cusp of developing.
It's a fascinating subject, and I hope to see the ftl puzzle unlocked during my lifetime.
The first to come to mind is “around “ the world.
Actually, at least according to Einstein's theory, it would require an *infinite* amount of energy to reach the speed of light. However, in the realm of quantum mechanics, instantaneous communication (of a sort) is apparently common place. See Belle's Theorem, the EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) experiment, the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox, and/or non-locality (aka "spooky action at a distance", Einstein's term for it)
EPR Paradox
By Andrew Zimmerman Jones
The EPR Paradox (or the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox) is a thought experiment intended to demonstrate an inherent paradox in the early formulations of quantum theory. It is among the best-known examples of quantum entanglement. The paradox involves two particles which are entangled with each other according to quantum mechanics. Under the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, each particle is individually in an uncertain state until it is measured, at which point the state of that particle becomes certain.
At that exact same moment, the other particle’s state also becomes certain. The reason that this is classified as a paradox is that it seemingly involves communication between the two particles at speeds greater than the speed of light, which is a conflict with Einstein’s theory of relativity.
The Paradox’s Origin:
The paradox was the focal point of a heated debate between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr. Einstein was never comfortable with the quantum mechanics being developed by Bohr and his colleagues (based, ironically, on work started by Einstein). Together with his colleagues Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, he developed the EPR Paradox as a way of showing that the theory was inconsistent with other known laws of physics.
(Boris Podolsky was portrayed by actor Gene Saks as one of Einstein’s three comedic sidekicks in the romantic comedy I.Q..) At the time, there was no real way to carry out the experiment, so it was just a thought experiment, or gedankenexperiment.
Several years later, the physicist David Bohm modified the EPR paradox example so that things were a bit clearer. (The original way the paradox was presented was kind of confusing, even to professional physicists.) In the more popular Bohm formulation, an unstable spin 0 particle decays into two different particles, Particle A and Particle B, heading in opposite directions.
Because the initial particle had spin 0, the sum of the two new particle spins must equal zero. If Particle A has spin +1/2, then Particle B must have spin -1/2 (and vice versa). Again, according to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, until a measurement is made, neither particle has a definite state. They are both in a superposition of possible states, with an equal probability (in this case) of having positive or negative spin.
The Paradox’s Meaning:
There are two key points at work here which make this troubling:
Quantum physics tells us that, until the moment of the measurement, the particles do not have a definite quantum spin, but are in a superposition of possible states.
As soon as we measure the spin of Particle A, we know for sure the value we’ll get from measuring the spin of Particle B.
If you measure Particle A, it seems like Particle A’s quantum spin gets “set” by the measurement ... but somehow Particle B also instantly “knows” what spin it is supposed to take on. To Einstein, this was a clear violation of the theory of relativity.
No one ever really questioned point 2; the controversy lay entirely with point 1. David Bohm and Albert Einstein supported an alternative approach called “hidden variables theory,” which suggested that quantum mechanics was incomplete. In this viewpoint, there had to be some aspect of quantum mechanics that wasn’t immediately obvious, but which needed to be added into the theory to explain this sort of non-local effect.
As an analogy, consider that you have two envelopes that contain money. You have been told that one of them contains a $5 bill and the other contains a $10 bill. If you open one envelope and it contains a $5 bill, then you know for sure that the other envelope contains the $10 bill.
The problem with this analogy is that quantum mechanics definitely doesn’t appear to work this way. In the case of the money, each envelope contains a specific bill, even if I never get around to looking in them.
The uncertainty in quantum mechanics doesn’t just represent a lack of our knowledge, but a fundamental lack of definite reality. Until the measurement is made, according to the Copenhagen interpretation, the particles are really in a superposition of all possible states (as in the case of the dead/alive cat in the Schroedinger’s Cat thought experiment). While most physicists would have preferred to have a universe with clearer rules, no one could figure out exactly what these “hidden variables” were or how they could be incorporated into the theory in a meaningful way.
Niels Bohr and others defended the standard Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which continued to be supported by the experimental evidence. The explanation is that the wavefunction which describes the superposition of possible quantum states exists at all points simultaneously. The spin of Particle A and spin of Particle B are not independent quantities, but are represented by the same term within the quantum physics equations. The instant the measurement on Particle A is made, the entire wavefunction collapses into a single state. In this way, there’s no distant communication taking place.
The major nail in the coffin of the hidden variables theory came from the physicist John Stewart Bell, in what is known as Bell’s Theorem. He developed a series of inequalities (called Bell inequalities) which represent how measurements of the spin of Particle A and Particle B would distribute if they weren’t entangled. In experiment after experiment, the Bell inequalities are violated, meaning that quantum entanglement does seem to take place.
Despite this evidence to the contrary, there are still some proponents of hidden variables theory, though this is mostly among amateur physicists rather than professionals.
Related Articles:
What is Bell’s Theorem?
What is Quantum Entanglement?
There are many different interpretations of quantum mechanics.
How Quantum Physics Explains the Invisible Universe
Copenhagen interpretation - “textbook” explanation of quantum physics
Measurement Problem
What is Schroedinger’s Cat?
http://physics.about.com/od/physicsetoh/g/EPRparadox.htm
Well, we travel 2pi times 93 million miles around the sun each and every year, without even trying, and we don’t even notice it!
“Something needs to break the log jam. Will it be Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos?”
Yes, the private sector.
I think that as the technology brings costs down, it will (this decade) pass the point where only governments can do spaceflight, and let rich people, corporations, or other large organizations (like a church or NGO), start taking off on their own for flights. After we have two or three permanent settlements elsewhere, there will be enough know how for all kinds of groups to strike out on their own to settle.
Cheaper lift is happening. New propulsion systems are a tough to forecast wildcard. Long term life support habitats is a challenge for the 2020s. Significant self-sufficiency will be achieved some time after that. Plentiful energy sources would speed things up - but nuclear could do a lot, and solar is getting better and could be significant (inside the asteroid belt where you can still get good sunlight).
The 2020’s will also be the start of a great explosion of robotic capability, which will really push power down to smaller groups with less money. With enough robotic capability, even individuals could head out on their own.
In general, once technologies are developed, the cycle time for copies to become much cheaper and widespread keeps getting faster - when supersmart robots are 3-D printing stuff, it will be quicker still.
So it is likely that the speed of space colonization will continue to accelerate rapidly, once the initial capability is developed. my guess is that we will have initial operating capability in the 2020’s, and be off to the races in the 2030s, with many groups and Nations establishing long-term facilities off-Earth.
What is Bell’s Theorem?
By Andrew Zimmerman Jones
One of the most curious elements of physics is the principle of quantum entanglement in quantum physics, where two seemingly independent particles appear to be connected to each other in a strange way. This behavior - which was famously debated by Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr - was called “spooky action at a distance” by Einstein. However, physicist John Stewart Bell developed a way of determining whether this “action at a distance” (or non-local behavior, in more physics-like jargon) actually takes place.
What was Bell’s Theorem?
Answer: Bell’s Theorem was devised by Irish physicist John Stewart Bell (1928-1990) as a means of testing whether or not particles connected through quantum entanglement communicate information faster than the speed of light. Specifically, the theorem says that no theory of local hidden variables can account for all of the predictions of quantum mechanics. Bell proves this theorem through the creation of Bell inequalities, which are shown by experiment to be violated in quantum physics systems, thus proving that some idea at the heart of local hidden variables theories has to be false.
The property which usually takes the fall is locality - the idea that no physical effects not move faster than the speed of light.
Quantum Entanglement:
In a situation where you have two particles, A and B, which are connected through quantum entanglement, then the properties of A and B are correlated. For example, the spin of A may be 1/2 and the spin of B may be -1/2, or vice versa. Quantum physics tells us that until a measurement is made, these particles are in a superposition of possible states. The spin of A is both 1/2 and -1/2. (See our article on the Schroedinger’s Cat thought experiment for more on this idea. This particular example with particles A and B is a variant of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, often called the EPR Paradox.)
However, once you measure the spin of A, you know for sure the value of B’s spin without ever having to measure it directly. (If A has spin 1/2, then B’s spin has to be -1/2. If A has spin -1/2, then B’s spin has to be 1/2. There are no other alternatives.) The riddle at the heart of Bell’s Theorem is how that information gets communicated from particle A to particle B.
Bell’s Theorem at Work:
John Stewart Bell originally proposed the idea for Bell’s Theorem in his 1964 paper “On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox.” In his analysis, he derived formulas called the Bell inequalities, which are probabilistic statements about how often the spin of particle A and particle B should correlate with each other if normal probability (as opposed to quantum entanglement) were working. These Bell inequalities are violated by quantum physics experiments, which means that one of his basic assumptions had to be false, and there were only two assumptions that fit the bill - either physical reality or locality was failing.
To understand what this means, go back to the experiment described above. You measure particle A’s spin. There are two situations that could be the result - either particle B immediately has the opposite spin, or particle B is still in a superposition of states.
If particle B is affected immediately by the measurement of particle A, then this means that the assumption of locality is violated. In other words, somehow a “message” got from particle A to particle B instantaneously, even though they can be separated by a great distance. This would mean that quantum mechanics displays the property of non-locality.
If this instantaneous “message” (i.e., non-locality) doesn’t take place, then the only other option is that particle B is still in a superposition of states. The measurement of particle B’s spin should therefore be completely independent of the measurement of particle A, and the Bell inequalities represent the percent of the time when the spins of A and B should be correlated in this situation.
Experiments have overwhelmingly shown that the Bell inequalities are violated. The most common interpretation of this result is that the “message” between A and B is instantaneous. (The alternative would be to invalidate the physical reality of B’s spin.) Therefore, quantum mechanics seems to display non-locality.
Note: This non-locality in quantum mechanics only relates to the specific information that is entangled between the two particles - the spin in the above example. The measurement of A cannot be used to instantly transmit any sort of other information to B at great distances, and no one observing B will be able to tell independently whether or not A was measured. Under the vast majority of interpretations by respected physicists, this does not allow communication faster than the speed of light.
http://physics.about.com/od/quantuminterpretations/f/bellstheorem.htm
Here is the correct answer.
What Will It Take for Humans to Colonize the Milky Way?
Answer: omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence.
“IMHO, the whole enterprise is “beyond imaginingâ€. The reality of these distances conquers any notion we may rationally maintain of traversing them. I may cite the Fermi paradox ... where is everybody?”
The Solar System is really, really big. It will take a long time to occupy it. Then in 500 years, traversing the stars may not seem like such a big deal. Look at the world in 1615 A.D., five hundred years ago.
OTOH, we may be hard up against physics. But I wouldn’t draw that conclusion yet.
I don't see the point of historical comparisons, as historical activites have been strictly confined to the surface of the earth, while the earth itself, in Newtonian terms, traverses 300 million miles each year.
So the sun is our local frame of reference, and Voyager I, after a journey of decades, is still in the front yard of our homestead, about 18 light-hours distant. This compares to the galactic scale of 100,000 light years. So how do you figure?
*snickers*
Someone’s sides are splitting in a galaxy faraway.
Somebody's gotta be first! Might as well be us!
I thought Captain Picard was already doing this...
Answer: omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence.
You are correct sir. Only God has those attributes. I believe, however, His angels patrol the universe, so yes, there is life out there, angelic life.
A United Planet is required to do this and all we have to do is look at the DN (Do Nothing), oops, I mean UN.
Humanity needs to combine it's best resources working together in order to explore the stars and finance it.
To date, even America can't put a man in space anymore and relies on the Russkies.
Sad state of affairs...
Despite that hoopla, there is no engine made in the US which is as powerful, cheap, and reliable as the Russian RD series. To make matters worse, the Russians are working on new technology to make the Apollo engines look small - we have nothing,
As we buy our heavy lift now from the Russians, we will continue to do so in the future because they will remain cheaper, with more lift, unless US companies get a clue.
Musk and the rest will remain bit players working on so far non-profitable ventures paid for with tax payer subsidies. There is no vision there, just vague ideas unformed and undirected, searching for a grant or subsidy. Like a well run country, there needs to be leadership in space - as we displayed during the early part of the Apollo program before Nixon’s complete loss of political will set in - something from which the country has not recovered from. You will know a recovery is underway when education begins to return to the standards in place in the 60s and before.
Actually all it takes is the political will to do so - there is nothing which states that a “United Planet” has the political will to do anything other than force conformity on its citizens. Going into space is actually a risk, since that entails a loss of political control which is intolerable to such a bureaucratic nightmare.
Humanity in the form of Islam is busily killing everyone who is not them in some 20 odd wars currently underway. Eliminated the scourge and see if a better world could emerge.
People have a poor concept of who we are and how we live on this world. We live in a soup of bacteria, viruses and prions. A 150 pound man carries about five pounds of genetic stuff that is not his. Because those cells are so tiny there are actually billions more of them than he has of his own human cells.
It’s likely that any planet we would want to visit already has its own bacteria. Bacteria likes to live in moist, nutrient full places, like our crotch and armpits. We can coexist with our own sea of junk because we evolved with it and are mostly immune to it except under special circumstances. But even the simplest and most harmless seeming alien would likely not be recognized by our provincial immune systems and would have free reign.
I laughed every time Kirk kissed some blue alien, thinking, -man, you’re going to regret that!-
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.