5 ms·

I am not familiar with this field but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and I am not aware of any evidence absolutely ruling out the possibili

I am not familiar with this field but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and I am not aware of any evidence absolutely ruling out the possibility. From my understanding we are still unsure about very fundamental aspects of physics and the universe so there are certainly unknown unknowns left which could dramatically change our understanding of everything.

munchler 5y ago
> extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence I think you've got the sign on your skepticism reversed. The burden of proof is very much on those who claim that FTL travel is possible. From Wikipedia: The special theory of relativity implies that only particles with zero rest mass (i.e., photons) may travel at the speed of light, and that nothing may travel faster. As of the 21st century, according to current scientific theories, matter is required to travel at slower-than-light (also STL or subluminal) speed with respect to the locally distorted spacetime region. Apparent FTL is not excluded by general relativity; however, any apparent FTL physical plausibility is currently speculative. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light
- sgjohnson 5y ago
  I don’t think that anyone made the claim that FTL travel is possible; they merely said that there’s still so much we don’t know about the universe, so definitely ruling something out is a bit rash. With our current understanding of the universe, yes, indeed, FTL travel is not possible. But it’s naïve to think that our understanding of universe won’t change.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  The burden of proof for people making that claim is on the person making that claim. The burden of proof for making the claim that it’s “fundamentally impossible” is likewise on the person making that claim. For all we know, our understanding of the universe could be at a stage of analogous to “there are four elements: earth, air, fire, and water”. Many things that we enjoy daily were once “fundamentally impossible”.
  - monkeydreams 5y ago
    > Many things that we enjoy daily were once “fundamentally impossible”. Not so. They may have been conceptually impossible but did not run into the "fundamental" laws of physics. FTL travel breaks physics. A lot abiut our observable universe would be different if it were possible. The evidence that the universe obeys these laws is significant and, currently, not counter indicated.
    - netr0ute 5y ago
      > but did not run into the "fundamental" laws of physics Those "fundamental" laws of physics didn't exist several centuries ago.
      - igorkraw 5y ago
        Yes they did, we just hadn't figured them out yet. If we were very wrong in them, we'd have to be wrong in a way that doesn't affect all the technology using the wrong theory - which is part of why we refined them, because shit didn't work. That's what it means to be contradicting fundamental physics. It implies all of our other knowledge is wrong, but we are just lucky enough that our machines work anyway. Which, unless we see a phenomenon that we can't fit into our existing theories, seems unlikely
      - imtringued 5y ago
        Let's invent new laws of physics and hope the universe adopts them.
    - decebalus1 5y ago
      > FTL travel breaks physics Like quantum mechanics broke physics?
      - igorkraw 5y ago
        We observed quantum effects before the theory. We haven't seen any phenomena so far which require physics that could lead to FTL
roywiggins 5y ago
"FTL is impossible" doesn't seem like an extraordinary claim at all, but actually quite an ordinary one. The natural world seems to obey a light-speed limit every time it's been tested. Sure, it might be wrong, but as far as claims go it has a lot going for it, both experimentally and theoretically.
psyc 5y ago
After developing some intuition for relativity you realize that asking whether FTL is possible is more akin to asking whether you can remain inside a circle after traveling radius + 1 from the center, than it is to asking whether a car can be modded to exceed its top speed. It is nonsensical, not logically coherent within all currently known physics and it goes to the fundamental nature of motion itself. It can't be ruled out, but neither can Russell's Teapot.

munchler 5y ago

> extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence I think you've got the sign on your skepticism reversed. The burden of proof is very much on those who claim that FTL travel is possible. From Wikipedia: The special theory of relativity implies that only particles with zero rest mass (i.e., photons) may travel at the speed of light, and that nothing may travel faster. As of the 21st century, according to current scientific theories, matter is required to travel at slower-than-light (also STL or subluminal) speed with respect to the locally distorted spacetime region. Apparent FTL is not excluded by general relativity; however, any apparent FTL physical plausibility is currently speculative. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light

sgjohnson 5y ago
I don’t think that anyone made the claim that FTL travel is possible; they merely said that there’s still so much we don’t know about the universe, so definitely ruling something out is a bit rash. With our current understanding of the universe, yes, indeed, FTL travel is not possible. But it’s naïve to think that our understanding of universe won’t change.
sokoloff 5y ago
The burden of proof for people making that claim is on the person making that claim. The burden of proof for making the claim that it’s “fundamentally impossible” is likewise on the person making that claim. For all we know, our understanding of the universe could be at a stage of analogous to “there are four elements: earth, air, fire, and water”. Many things that we enjoy daily were once “fundamentally impossible”.
- monkeydreams 5y ago
  > Many things that we enjoy daily were once “fundamentally impossible”. Not so. They may have been conceptually impossible but did not run into the "fundamental" laws of physics. FTL travel breaks physics. A lot abiut our observable universe would be different if it were possible. The evidence that the universe obeys these laws is significant and, currently, not counter indicated.
  - netr0ute 5y ago
    > but did not run into the "fundamental" laws of physics Those "fundamental" laws of physics didn't exist several centuries ago.
    - igorkraw 5y ago
      Yes they did, we just hadn't figured them out yet. If we were very wrong in them, we'd have to be wrong in a way that doesn't affect all the technology using the wrong theory - which is part of why we refined them, because shit didn't work. That's what it means to be contradicting fundamental physics. It implies all of our other knowledge is wrong, but we are just lucky enough that our machines work anyway. Which, unless we see a phenomenon that we can't fit into our existing theories, seems unlikely
    - imtringued 5y ago
      Let's invent new laws of physics and hope the universe adopts them.
  - decebalus1 5y ago
    > FTL travel breaks physics Like quantum mechanics broke physics?
    - igorkraw 5y ago
      We observed quantum effects before the theory. We haven't seen any phenomena so far which require physics that could lead to FTL

roywiggins 5y ago

"FTL is impossible" doesn't seem like an extraordinary claim at all, but actually quite an ordinary one. The natural world seems to obey a light-speed limit every time it's been tested. Sure, it might be wrong, but as far as claims go it has a lot going for it, both experimentally and theoretically.

psyc 5y ago

After developing some intuition for relativity you realize that asking whether FTL is possible is more akin to asking whether you can remain inside a circle after traveling radius + 1 from the center, than it is to asking whether a car can be modded to exceed its top speed. It is nonsensical, not logically coherent within all currently known physics and it goes to the fundamental nature of motion itself. It can't be ruled out, but neither can Russell's Teapot.