Space travel, and the possibilities of interstellar migration

[NateHevens]

At this point, traversable wormholes are still highly theoretical/speculative. (Obviously! ) But they're not violates-physics-impossible in the way that literal FTL is. Many wormhole models are known to be practically non-traversable for various reasons (high gravity differential [“spaghettification”], extreme radiation, inevitable wormhole throat collapse, inaccessibly concealed behind an event horizon, etc.). But other models address these obstacles (e.g. a naked “ring singularity”).

Yes, but all those wormholes utilize something that already exists, like the ring singularity, for example.

Now, constructing an artificial wormhole would represent engineering on a massive and highly advanced scale. But, again, it doesn’t appear to be scientifically impossible. See: traversable wormholes.

Good point. I take back what I said about them being a total impossibility. But I still don't see how creating one could be practically done. Even the one that doesn't require exotic matter requires strings, which themselves are only a mathematical concept right now.

So I'll amend my statement: An artificial wormhole is possible in theory, but as of right now, at least, it's not possible in practice.

 

[Thundercrack85]

So, the most expedient way to get interstellar travel, is to shoot down a flying saucer, and to make the alien talk?

I'm assuming no one has tried that yet.

 

[NateHevens]

So, the most expedient way to get interstellar travel, is to shoot down a flying saucer, and to make the alien talk?

I'm assuming no one has tried that yet.

Actually, people have... they usually end up shooting at a weather balloon or nothing at all... or, on rather rare occasions, a secret project by some country's military.

Also, you're assuming we'd be able to understand the alien. I find it hard to believe an alien species would speak English, or any other language that originated on earth.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Actually, people have... they usually end up shooting at a weather balloon or nothing at all.

That reminds me, did you ever read that incident I told you about?

 

[NateHevens]

That reminds me, did you ever read that incident I told you about?

Partially... job-hunting has picked up.

I need to finish my research on it.

Also, I edited my post...

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well, let me know your findings.

As for language... maybe. But then perhaps to him, explaining how to create a warp field to humans, would be like us trying to explain the workings of a combustion engine to a chimp.

 

[The Guard]

Wouldn't it be easier just to make another planet?

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

No. That is monumentally more difficult. Firstly, it would require all the raw materials. A star, an acretion disc with all the correct materials, making Earth-2 form in the habitable zone, gaining water then the formation of the planet itself, a very very slow process, up several tens of millions of years.

But if we tried to move a planet, first it would require a planet that everyone agrees should be moved. No matter what inhabitable planet that may be, it would require a huge amount of energy to be moved. Now, I'm not certain, but I think it would take all the energy of the sun to power the Earth to a speed of a slow rocket. Then we have the time issue, it would need to happen within the speed of a week. Impossible. So a traversable wormhole would be required. Which are theoretically inconclusive at the moment as they require negative energy density to stabilise them, which itself is still only theoretical.

Or you know, we could just terraform one .

Most things are more practical than building a planet however.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Wouldn't that also take like... billions of years?

I still say send out robot probes on starships. Even at subluminal speeds, they'd be able to find potentially hospitable planets in a few centuries.. Provided there are any in a range of 30 lightyears. I have my money on Tau Ceti and Delta Pavonis.

 

[chamber-music]

We would be better off working out a perpetual energy source or continue as we are going with Einstein's physics of trying to harness the power of tiny things like we have with the atom to create atomic energy.

Our current chemical combustion rocket ships are pretty weak. They are ok for getting to the international space station of the moon but getting even to other planets within out own solar system is difficult for them.

Wouldn't it be easier just to make another planet?

Would be easier to just terraform an existing planet providing the planet already has a few basic building blocks that humans could cahnge to make it habitable for life.

 

[The Guard]

No. That is monumentally more difficult. Firstly, it would require all the raw materials. A star, an acretion disc with all the correct materials, making Earth-2 form in the habitable zone, gaining water then the formation of the planet itself, a very very slow process, up several tens of millions of years.

But if we tried to move a planet, first it would require a planet that everyone agrees should be moved. No matter what inhabitable planet that may be, it would require a huge amount of energy to be moved. Now, I'm not certain, but I think it would take all the energy of the sun to power the Earth to a speed of a slow rocket. Then we have the time issue, it would need to happen within the speed of a week. Impossible. So a traversable wormhole would be required. Which are theoretically inconclusive at the moment as they require negative energy density to stabilise them, which itself is still only theoretical.

Or you know, we could just terraform one.

Most things are more practical than building a planet however.

Hmm.

What about a small planet then, for just our best and brightest, or some kind of self-sustaining space colony?

 

[chamber-music]

If we were visited by Aliens it would probably ended up like The Day The Earth Stood Still.

Humans don't react well to things they don't understand or are different from themselves.

We have killed some animals to the point of extinction and not even for food. People kill the black rhinos just for the horn to sell to the Chinese because they think it makes them viril despite there being zero scientific evidence that it does. They should just eat oyster and pop viagra like everyone else

 

[knowsbleed]

I don't even want to participate on any of the forums anymore... I just want to sit here and keep reading what all of you are typing. It's all very interesting. I just didn't understand the hate for Michio Kaku, he is excellent at putting complicated physics in layman's terms.

 

[Dr.]

Good point. I take back what I said about them being a total impossibility. But I still don't see how creating one could be practically done. Even the one that doesn't require exotic matter requires strings, which themselves are only a mathematical concept right now.

So I'll amend my statement: An artificial wormhole is possible in theory, but as of right now, at least, it's not possible in practice.

The story behind (physicist) Kip Thorne’s scientific paper on traversable wormholes is kinda neat. It was inspired by a request from Carl Sagan. Sagan wanted a scientifically accurate/plausible means of interstellar travel for his novel, Contact. Thorne was intrigued by the challenge and asked about the novel’s practical limitations - Earth technology now, in 50 years, in 100 years?, etc. But Sagan said there were no limits. The aliens in the story would be doing the engineering; so a suitable/arbitrarily advanced technology could just be assumed. The only stipulation was that known laws of physics were not to be violated.

Alas, the thing about Thorne’s artificial wormhole is its pragmatic drawbacks. The two “star gates” connecting the wormhole first have to be constructed. So if you wanted “rapid transit” between Earth and Alpha Centauri, you’d first have to make the slow/conventional voyage to Alpha Centauri and build one of the gates there. (It’d be a bit like a subway line. Once it’s done, travel is fast; but the initial construction is slow.) Unlike Star Trek’s “warp drive,” you’d be going to places that you’ve already been to (albeit faster now).

On the upside… by accelerating one of the star gates to near lightspeed (where time dilation effects take hold), you create a working time machine. Enter one gate “now” and you exit the other in the “future.”

 

[NateHevens]

Hmm.

What about a small planet then, for just our best and brightest, or some kind of self-sustaining space colony?

Although we don't have the technology at the moment, building a small, artificial planet, like the Death Star from Star Wars (only, preferably without the planet-killing power), might be a possibility, but I couldn't say for sure.

If we were visited by Aliens it would probably ended up like The Day The Earth Stood Still.

Humans don't react well to things they don't understand or are different from themselves.

We have killed some animals to the point of extinction and not even for food. People kill the black rhinos just for the horn to sell to the Chinese because they think it makes them virile despite there being zero scientific evidence that it does. They should just eat oyster and pop Viagra like everyone else

Don't remind me about the animals we've killed. It angers me to no end how stupid and reckless we can be.

That said, I still don't understand why we humans think we could survive an alien attack. We wouldn't. If we went back in time with our guns and our tanks and attacked neanderthals with their wooden clubs, it'd be no contest; the neanderthal would be wiped out, likely within a matter of days.

To an alien species attacking us, our hydrogen bomb would most likely be analogous to a wooden club. Who knows... they could probably wipe out the human species all at once in under a minute. We honestly wouldn't stand a chance no matter how hard we fought.

I don't even want to participate on any of the forums anymore... I just want to sit here and keep reading what all of you are typing. It's all very interesting. I just didn't understand the hate for Michio Kaku, he is excellent at putting complicated physics in layman's terms.

Michio lost a little of my respect because of his comments in this debate (his comments start about 1 hr and 7 mins in). He mischaracterized both sides of the debate, cheapening it and, in the process, spectacularly missing the point. His comments on the first episode of Curiosity, "Did God Create the Universe" (hosted by Professor Stephen Hawking... someone who I personally think makes Michio Kaku look like a grade-school drop out) in the after-show special "The Creation Question" (part 1 and part 2... Michio's comments start about 2 mins and 32 secs in to part 2), didn't help matters, either.

Michio strikes me as a politician when it comes to religion, and he adheres to this idea of Non-Overlapping Magisteria; an ill-advised attempt to accommodate religion into science by pretending morality, emotion, and the existence of gods cannot be explained scientifically (which, of course, is a load of crap). Of course, Michio's (ill-advised) stance on religion is for the atheist thread, not this one...

Now this doesn't mean the stuff Michio has done is worthless; just because he adheres to the misguided NOMA does not make all of his work meaningless. The issue NOMA addresses doesn't effect a person's work that much. His work in String Theory, and his ability to simplify it for the general audience, is to be commended. When it comes to popularizing, he's no Carl Sagan or Neil deGrasse Tyson or Brian Cox, of course, but he's damn good, and I rather enjoy his show SciFi Science. And he is brilliant. I would not want to spar with him over String Theory, and if I had to learn about it, I would want him as my teacher.

 

[childeroland]

What's the best book on a scientific, physical explanation of morality?

 

[Lead Cenobite]

What is the possibility of there ever being nanobots that can quickly construct things like space stations and spacecraft all on their own? Is that purely in the realm of science fiction?

 

[knowsbleed]

That said, I still don't understand why we humans think we could survive an alien attack. We wouldn't. If we went back in time with our guns and our tanks and attacked neanderthals with their wooden clubs, it'd be no contest; the neanderthal would be wiped out, likely within a matter of days.

We'd also have to account for the foreign bacteria for them and us.

Michio lost a little of my respect because of his comments in this debate (his comments start about 1 hr and 7 mins in). He mischaracterized both sides of the debate, cheapening it and, in the process, spectacularly missing the point. His comments on the first episode of Curiosity, "Did God Create the Universe" (hosted by Professor Stephen Hawking... someone who I personally think makes Michio Kaku look like a grade-school drop out) in the after-show special "The Creation Question" (part 1 and part 2... Michio's comments start about 2 mins and 32 secs in to part 2), didn't help matters, either.

Michio strikes me as a politician when it comes to religion, and he adheres to this idea of Non-Overlapping Magisteria; an ill-advised attempt to accommodate religion into science by pretending morality, emotion, and the existence of gods cannot be explained scientifically (which, of course, is a load of crap). Of course, Michio's (ill-advised) stance on religion is for the atheist thread, not this one...

Now this doesn't mean the stuff Michio has done is worthless; just because he adheres to the misguided NOMA does not make all of his work meaningless. The issue NOMA addresses doesn't effect a person's work that much. His work in String Theory, and his ability to simplify it for the general audience, is to be commended. When it comes to popularizing, he's no Carl Sagan or Neil deGrasse Tyson or Brian Cox, of course, but he's damn good, and I rather enjoy his show SciFi Science. And he is brilliant. I would not want to spar with him over String Theory, and if I had to learn about it, I would want him as my teacher.

It's interesting that you state that he's almost like a religious politician. When he spoke about the 3 types of civilizations, he spoke about us being a type 0 civilization he spoke about world politics and terrorists... he doesn't have a true understanding of certain things and does come across as talking just to talk. But when he's speaking about matters he is truly well versed on (String Theory) it is really intriguing and captivating.

 

[chamber-music]

I totally nerded out when Professor Brian Cox interviewed Professor Stephen Hawking.

Heres the interview by the way
[YT]Cw8nob9f-qI[/YT]

The one scientific thing that Hawking and Cox hope scientists will of solved by the end of this century is nuclear fusion.

To master Nuclear fusion is to harnessing the power of the sun.

Inexhaustible source of energy caused by the nuclei of atoms being joined together, or fused. The problem is the heat required to make a fusion reaction would be that of the level of a atomic bomb.

We need to come of with a way of safely engineering it because it can actually work its not a theory.

What is the possibility of there ever being nanobots that can quickly construct things like space stations and spacecraft all on their own? Is that purely in the realm of science fiction?

Nanomachines are largely in the research-and-development phase at the moment.

If we manage to create nanomachines the first field they will probably be used in medical technology.

 

[NateHevens]

I totally nerded out when Professor Brian Cox interviewed Professor Stephen Hawking.

Heres the interview by the way
[YT]Cw8nob9f-qI[/YT]

HOLY CRAP THAT IS AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*nerdgasm*

The one scientific thing that Hawking and Cox hope scientists will of solved by the end of this century is nuclear fusion.

To master Nuclear fusion is to harnessing the power of the sun.

Inexhaustible source of energy caused by the nuclei of atoms being joined together, or fused. The problem is the heat required to make a fusion reaction would be that of the level of a atomic bomb.

We need to come of with a way of safely engineering it because it can actually work its not a theory.

Agreed completely. Although I would like to see some regulatory provisions that would restrict the power from being used as a weapon. A nuclear fusion bomb would make your average atom bomb look like a weak firecracker.

It should be used as an energy source alone.

Nanomachines are largely in the research-and-development phase at the moment.

If we manage to create nanomachines the first field they will probably be used in medical technology.

True, but I fear their use in other fields because I personally don't like the idea of a future when all but a very select few humans aren't working anymore, and thus making money. I can't think of a better way to create a huge class divide...

That said, nanomachines could be insanely useful...

 

[Lighthouse]

I know I seem like a broken record....but how am I around a bunch of science geeks.....and no one seems interested in the Higgs Boson? I'm pretty damn excited.

 

[Paroxysm]

@pattonoswalt: Why didn't they let Danny Glover announce the "Higgs" part of the whole Higgs boson thing? #toooldforthissigma

 

[chamber-music]

Agreed completely. Although I would like to see some regulatory provisions that would restrict the power from being used as a weapon. A nuclear fusion bomb would make your average atom bomb look like a weak firecracker.

It should be used as an energy source alone.

Hopefully no one would ever be crazy enough to use a nuclear fusion bomb although I wouldn't bet money on it.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I know I seem like a broken record....but how am I around a bunch of science geeks.....and no one seems interested in the Higgs Boson? I'm pretty damn excited.

I'd talk about it, except I have no idea what it does. Something about the universe, and how it all holds together.

 

[Dr.]

Hopefully no one would ever be crazy enough to use a nuclear fusion bomb although I wouldn't bet money on it.

Hopefully. But there are several thousands of them in existence. Technically, hydrogen bombs are fusion bombs.