|
 Originally Posted by jyms
I think saying things are impossible based on our limited knowledge of the universe and physics a little unfair.
In a way it is, but only in a peculiar way. That way is that it is impossible to prove anything, which means it's impossible to know anything for certain. Even something as simple as 2+2=4 is an assumption. This is because we do not have complete knowledge, thus we cannot completely determine that 2+2 does in fact =4
However, claiming that because the most fundamental things we "know" are assumptions we then cannot "know" anything is silly. Existence itself appears to be an uncertainty with a greater than zero probability of anything and nothing, so there isn't any way to ever be fully certain since the Universe itself may not even have absolute certainty
Now, getting into more hard science instead of science philosophy, science is like a structure that builds upon itself. Adding a new floor or a new type material doesn't mean you tear the entire thing down. Our knowledge is a process of deeper discovery and confirmation, not of entire overhauls. Incomplete theory should not be confused with wrong theory. All theory is incomplete, but also they get a whole lot right that doesn't change
So when we see that in order to travel faster than light, we have to violate thermodynamics, we know it's just not going to happen. Particles can do it, we have no idea how, but humans will never do it. There is a stark contrast between what the fabric of existence can do, and what matter borne of that fabric can do.
A couple interesting things to think about
If intra-universe time travel were possible, it would create an infinite progression of matter creation and destruction. Not only can matter not be created nor destroyed, but there is no evidence that the Universe has infinity. The way this infinite progression would be created is, imagine this, you're in one room, you travel back in time to the next room, you walk back to the room you traveled from and watch yourself travel back. Not only was matter destroyed, created, in a pattern ad infinitum, but were you not always there watching yourself, and were not your other selves always there watching your other selves?
It's the grandfather paradox, and the main reason physicists believe that any sort of time travel would have to be inter-universe instead of intra-universe. This beats the infinite progression paradox, but not the matter creation/destruction problem. On top of that, how in the fuck could a human even survive a warp? Faster than light travel is some kind of crazy quantum effect, and in order to do it we would have to break ourselves down into particles then regroup on "the other side". Which is not possible. We could not create a device immune to this particle break down that could survive to reassemble us.
The other option would be to bypass the quantum world and simply "walk through" dimensions and universes and forces. Not gonna happen. Let's call it a Universe hull breach. If you ever see somebody distort the fabric of existence to that degree, you're not going to be around to see what happens next. If we ever developed the math to claim this was even possible, it would probably show us that the energy levels are impossible and that the Universe would react in an unfathomably cataclysmic way
Also, our knowledge of the Universe is not as limited as one might think. It is limited inasmuch as there is only so much we can learn, but not that shabby when it comes to how close we are to learning what we can. We're already nearing our peak capacity to understand things. Advanced theory is almost entirely a product of hardly testable math now, and we can only crash particles at so close to the speed of light
Physics education will reach a limit. I don't know when it will be, but I predict it will be before its theories are all molded into one. Even then, a physical theory of everything will tell us very little about other universes or existence in general simply due to having no reference point
|