[PvK]

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:

...

quote:

---

That's where I think you're mistaken/backwards, if you Subscribe to quantum theory. According to QT, in no frame of reference is any physical object allowed to be accelerated to the speed of light. Instead, it will seem to age less quickly, from the stationary frame of reference. So, from Earth, the Twinkie seems to have taken at least ten years to make the trip, but the Calendar clock included as a free gift inside the Twinkie package only shows one year elapsed.

We started with the assumption that the Twinkie was moving at 10x the speed of light! You're not allowed to say it isn't possible.

---

Well I guess we were on different pages, then. I assumed that this was all assumed to be taking place with sub-light acceleration. Gravity, even from the sun, isn't a big deal if you're able to travel faster the light (thinking of the Trek slingshot effect here).

Quantum theory doesn't say anything about faster-than-light travel. There is essentially no data available on faster-than-light travel, since you can't directly observe any of it with sub-light particles and mechanics, which is all we have to work with.

As I wrote at the time, what I was talking about was applying acceleration so that the Twinkie would go 10 times lightspeed IF there were no relativistic effects. This means that from the Twinkie's own frame of reference, it would seem to move that fast, except that everything around it would seem to be aging ten times as fast as usual.

Of course, if Twinkies are a product of alien technology, then maybe this has something to do with the secret of their longevity. Naaa, they're just pLastic.

Think of the discussion as thus:
While bending or breaking the fewest laws of physics in order to get a Twinkie moving at 10x the speed of light, what might happen?

for V>C:
gamma = 1/[ (1-V^2/C^2)^.5 ]
1/ (-ve)^.5
or 1/i
So an imaginary number... how do you want to interpret that?

I interpret the imaginary number result as a contradiction of premises, which is what it usually means - it's impossible given the rules you framed the problem with. The only mathematical solution, without adding new premises, is to move away from your destination, which only sends you back in time according to the children in the back seat, who measure time as "how long until we're THERE?" If time slows down to compensate for any acceleration, then there is no acceleration that will take you faster than the speed of light. You're postulating a simple contradiction.

The idea of bending or breaking the rules "as little as possible" is subjective - in other words, we're back to making stuff up. The Star Trek invention seems like several logic leaps at once, and seems to me to be loosely based on misunderstandings including taking the relativistic effect backwards.

I guess maybe they could imagine that the relativistic effect is backwards on the other side of the speed of light, and compounded by a strong gravitational field. Then maybe you could ... go back in time ... which brings up all sorts of paradoxes, which seem to make the whole thing nonsensical, except from a fantasy point of view.

PvK