Today I got into a little argument with a friend here regarding FTL (faster than light) travel.
Here is the article.
So, he reckons FTL might be possible some time far into the future. In the footnote, he says -
So, we should imagine that in a future FTL (faster than light) engines will be developed and used. It may sound crazy, but consider what would a stone age man, armed with a primitive stone axe he chipped out of a rock all by himself, think of the ISS.
Alright, analogies are almost never perfect, often miss the details, and sometimes even downright misleading.
I felt compelled to correct this misconception in the comments (also the motivation to write this post) because this isn't an isolated case , but rather a very popular misconception harbored by a large fraction of people. Perhaps due to the abuse of these concepts within hollywood sci-fi movies, comics and shows and various other pop science tabloids or articles online from objectively low quality sources that intentionally obscure the details to attract a larger readership.
Here's the discussion
Joseph : FTL communication will never be possible, with any technology that comes in the future
Renzo : As I said, show your phone to a stone age human... You cannot imagine FTL as he cannot imagine a phone. Do not limit others by what you understand as boundaries.
creatr :Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
You were attempting to be humorous, right?
Here's a couple of good lists of similar predictions:
http://www.etni.org.il/quotes/predictions.htm
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Incorrect_predictions
When you predict "never," you can never be proven correct...
Joseph : No, but we actually understand the theoretical basis for the impossibility of FTL communication. We cannot be compared to stone age humans because we now have a "rough draft" of the universe, and our best , most valid frameworks of nature do not allow FTL propagation. This is not a limitation of human engineering, but a theoretical limit, no information can propagate faster than light, not even in principal. I'm sorry but saying otherwise makes you sound like an anti science charlatan.
Just go to physics. Stack exchange, ask the same question and users more qualified than me will also tell you the same thing.
Ps: there is no propagation of information in quantum entanglement, if you're frantically googling for possible counter examples ;)
Joseph : Also, the same goes for Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. We'll never be able to know perfectly well the simultaneous position and momentum of quantum mechanical objects.
Saying some kind of miraculous technology in future will remove the uncertainty simply indicates that the person making the claim hardly understands the reasons and basis for the existence of that principle.
This, along with faster than c speed, are probably two of biggest pop science misconceptions.
Happy to clear it up
Renzo :
Just go to physics. Stack exchange, ask the same question and users more qualified than me will also tell you the same thing.
As you may notice, I'm one of the guys that ANSWERS physics questions on a daily basis. No need to use a fallacy to attempt to make point here.
You are refuting ideas with rough absolutes, having no idea what knowledge will bring in a future.
You seem to have come only to troll and demean... please, go on your way.
Joseph : https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-fundamental-reason-why-the-speed-of-light-cannot-be-broken
having no idea what knowledge will bring in a future.
You see, human engineering is inconsequential for making predictions like this one, because it is a theoretical limitation and NOT an engineering one
I'd also claim that not only humans, but any species, no matter how advanced, will be able to break the barrier of c. Now, I'm sure you'd agree that is quite a bold claim, and if you followed my other posts, you'd probably see that I'm not a totally irrational moron that spews rhetoric, and that I'm more or less rational when it comes to scientific topics (at the very least. ) . So, is it not confusing when someone who is usually conservative / reserved with their statements coming out and making "bold" claims like this? Perhaps there's some fundamental misunderstanding you're harboring ; ) ?
You seem to have come only to troll and demean... please, go on your way.
That's not my intention, if disagreement sounds like demeaning, then I can't help it, if I called you a "charlatan" it's because statements like -
"we can some day build tech that will enable us to travel faster than c"
"we can one day design detection equipment precise enough to measure position and momentum of a quantum mechanical object to arbitrary accuracy "
are usually statements said by charlatans with a deep misunderstanding of the underlying scientific framework. And I just try to do my bit to correct them. No offence meant, at all.
please help yourself
So, thats the end of the discourse (for now).
Listening to people like my friend Renzo here, I can't help but feel if the "drive" to always remain open minded is hurting our ability to speak with conviction.
Before I get attacked for this supposedly "unscientific" position , I'd like to clarify that I fully understand and acknowledge the need for having an open mind to take to decisions, let alone do science.
but, is it really worth to re-open well settled results, results that are obtained through solid theoretical formulation and rigorous testing for literally millions of times?
It would be just like re inventing the wheel. Like I said elsewhere, I'm pretty open minded until I see the truth, then my mind closes on it.
Just realised I hadn't even touched on the actual answer anywhere ;)
So here's the basic idea.
Speed of light is not exclusive to light alone. It is the exact speed of all massless objects. Think of it as the "standard" speed of the universe. And, everything that has mass travels at a fraction of c.
You cannot increase the speed of massless objects (called 'Bosons'), they are created at c. In other words, they live and die at the speed of c. Any attempt to increase a photon's speed (by giving it energy) goes to increase its frequency but keep the speed constant.
To those who may be disappointed about this negative result from physics, I assure you, you'll deeply appreciate the reason why nature is the way she is when you get a mathematical understanding (it's actually pretty easy, and a rewarding endeavor) of The Special Theory of Relativity.