Speculation: Envision of Future Travel Technologies

[tylers100]

Diagram

I have developed a simple diagram about an envision of future travel technologies, although these are fiction for now. The purpose of this thread and diagram is for fun viewing and discussion about now to future travel technologies. See attached image to this post.

• Impulse Engine: Interplanetary travel in Star Trek films and television shows. Speed up to before Warp level. I imagine experience would be like driving ordinary vehicles.
• Warp Drive: Faster than light travel. I imagine it to be best for fun rush experience, imo.
• FTL Jump: Faster than light travel or jump from a to b. Woah, I imagine it to be fast but potential boring and disorienting upon arrival.
• Teleportation: Same as FTL jump, just a bit different way.
• Stargate: Like Stargate film and tv show series, similar to warp drive travel and portal experience.
• Portal: Almost similar to FTL Jump, Teleportation, and Stargate, but faster / instant as if walking through a door.

Portal, The Final Frontier in Travel Technology

I want to point out an interesting thing about the portal technology... to me, it is the final frontier in travel technologies. Yet, we here on Earth use television and Internet.. so, these are already known and used technologies, to me, are forms of portal in some way.

[Moontanman]

Most if not all of these technologies would require what is known as "Clark Tech" or from our point of view "magic" I have my doubts that a star trek like leap in technologies is in our future at any point. The entire premise of Star Trek was the discovery of a new layer of reality, warp tech, subspace tech, and sometimes they talk about hyperspace, that sort of reminds me of the leap mankind made after the discovery of magnetism and electricity the control or use of both. Our entire civilization is based on electricity and magnetism, I have severe doubts we will ever make such a discovery again or that there even is one waiting to be discovered.  

[Phi for All]

6 hours ago, tylers100 said:

Impulse Engine: Interplanetary travel in Star Trek films and television shows. Speed up to before Warp level. I imagine experience would be like driving ordinary vehicles.

Do you mean ordinary space vehicles? Because no space vehicle drives like an ordinary terrestrial vehicle. Space destinations move, so you have to predict where it's going to be and meet it there. 

Impulse power is kind of dumb. It's not that different from any other sub-light propulsion, so it would still take a long time to travel within a system, even if you went faster than the usual "one-quarter impulse". And the relativistic effects would be difficult to overcome. Time dilation effects are cumulative.

I haven't watched much Stargate, but there's not that much difference between a Stargate and a "portal" from the way you describe them, except one is faster by being instantaneous (the Stargates aren't?). I'm not sure what you're hoping to accomplish with your diagram, but as Moontanman says, most of your list is fairly fanciful. And if we figure out teleportation, isn't that the same as a stargate or portal? I'm having a hard time seeing how one leads to the other as in your diagram. It would seem as though one makes the rest superfluous. 

[Moontanman]

One quarter impulse is supposed to be 1/4 the speed of light, much better than what we can do now... but the point that "impulse drive" is fantasy as described in Star Trek stands

Impulse drive in Star Trek is supposed to be a fusion drive that most of the exhaust and waste heat is expelled into subspace. NASA on the other hand has a different idea;

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2021/02/03/ultimate-ev-engine-this-nasa-funded-space-drive-requires-no-fuel

https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2018_Phase_I_Phase_II/Mach_Effect_for_In_Space_Propulsion_Interstellar_Mission/

[tylers100]

38 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Do you mean ordinary space vehicles? Because no space vehicle drives like an ordinary terrestrial vehicle. Space destinations move, so you have to predict where it's going to be and meet it there. 

Impulse power is kind of dumb. It's not that different from any other sub-light propulsion, so it would still take a long time to travel within a system, even if you went faster than the usual "one-quarter impulse". And the relativistic effects would be difficult to overcome. Time dilation effects are cumulative.

I haven't watched much Stargate, but there's not that much difference between a Stargate and a "portal" from the way you describe them, except one is faster by being instantaneous (the Stargates aren't?). I'm not sure what you're hoping to accomplish with your diagram, but as Moontanman says, most of your list is fairly fanciful. And if we figure out teleportation, isn't that the same as a stargate or portal? I'm having a hard time seeing how one leads to the other as in your diagram. It would seem as though one makes the rest superfluous. 

1. Ordinary space vehicles: I'm talking about getting used to.

2. Impulse power: If it was to be invented, battle-tested, and does work.. it stands alongside with other sub-light propulsion... would you still call it dumb when it is available and ready to be used in robotic spacecrafts?

3. Teleportation, Stargate, Portal: Teleportation (transfer of energy/matter that takes time), Stargate (enter then travel as if were warping.. that also takes time), and Portal (instantaneous).

4. The point of my diagram: Slow to fast (i.e. impulse, warp drive, FTL jump / teleportation, stargate, then finally portal). Also, a demonstration of technological possibilities, progression, and psychology preparedness with travelling experience. If a situation was to happen (e.g. somehow if we lost or are unable to use the portal technology), there are other and available options hence rest of the diagram.

[Phi for All]

46 minutes ago, tylers100 said:

1. Ordinary space vehicles: I'm talking about getting used to.

We're already used to the mechanics of it, so yes, it would be like flying ordinary space vehicles. If we're using Star Trek examples, and taking lots of people with us, we need the dampeners or whatever they use to keep from being squished against the bulkheads when the ship accelerates/decelerates  to/from a fraction of c. 

Impulse and warp drive (and perhaps your FTL jump?) propel a vehicle through spacetime, but teleportation takes your molecules from one point and makes them appear (or recreates them) at another point (very limited in distance, iirc). And the stargate and portal are more like the folded space from Frank Herbert's Dune, where two points in space are basically joined (usually by a wormhole) so travel from one to the other is instantaneous. Why would these modes of travel necessarily lead to one another as in the diagram you've drawn?

46 minutes ago, tylers100 said:

2. Impulse power: If it was to be invented, battle-tested, and does work.. it stands alongside with other sub-light propulsion... would you still call it dumb when it is available and ready to be used in robotic spacecrafts?

It's definitely hard to call it dumb when the premise is that it does work.

[tylers100]

28 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

We're already used to the mechanics of it, so yes, it would be like flying ordinary space vehicles. If we're using Star Trek examples, and taking lots of people with us, we need the dampeners or whatever they use to keep from being squished against the bulkheads when the ship accelerates/decelerates  to/from a fraction of c. 

Impulse and warp drive (and perhaps your FTL jump?) propel a vehicle through spacetime, but teleportation takes your molecules from one point and makes them appear (or recreates them) at another point (very limited in distance, iirc). And the stargate and portal are more like the folded space from Frank Herbert's Dune, where two points in space are basically joined (usually by a wormhole) so travel from one to the other is instantaneous. Why would these modes of travel necessarily lead to one another as in the diagram you've drawn?

It's definitely hard to call it dumb when the premise is that it does work.

Why? I was inspired by the research tree concept in the Galactic Civilization 3 game.

link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrVG1D14P28

 

[Bufofrog]

I start from the premise that FTL propulsion is impossible.  

The first reason is relativity.

The second more important reason is that FTL travel can violate causality.  The universe is very stubborn about some things.  For instance the universe will not allow you to know your absolute velocity.

I think causality is another thing that the universe is stubborn about.  I don't think any potential technology that could violate causality would actually work.

[MigL]

Yes, causality is a bitch.

Any two way FTL motion would undoubtedly violate causality, as it would be a 'time' machine.

It would be more useful to discuss science based transportation modes, as opposed to science fiction.

[Phi for All]

45 minutes ago, MigL said:

It would be more useful to discuss science based transportation modes, as opposed to science fiction.

I agree. 

[Ken Fabian]

I suspect modern physics is circling in on a complete understanding of the underlying physical nature of our universe - and I don't expect it to include opportunities for these kinds of technologies. Of course I would be pleased to be wrong.

I see science and technological development following S-curve type progressions and think appearances of being exponential and open ended are illusory. I think that still leaves it open for a lot more technological progress, but probably not the giant leaps in spacecraft propulsion required to open up the possibility of interstellar travel.

[TheVat]

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

 

 And if we figure out teleportation, isn't that the same as a stargate or portal? I'm having a hard time seeing how one leads to the other as in your diagram. It would seem as though one makes the rest superfluous. 

This always struck me as a quaint bug in the ST premise.  If one could really teleport so easily, you would think it would be scalable to greater distances (and get around lightspeed limit via "subspace").  Sticking with starships, in the scripting, was really just so that the plots could project 20th century gunboat diplomacy into the 24th century. 

[Endy0816]

2 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

I start from the premise that FTL propulsion is impossible.  

The first reason is relativity.

The second more important reason is that FTL travel can violate causality.  The universe is very stubborn about some things.  For instance the universe will not allow you to know your absolute velocity.

I think causality is another thing that the universe is stubborn about.  I don't think any potential technology that could violate causality would actually work.

Might be able to leap outside volume of the observable universe and partially get around causality that way.

Would likely have to be a one-way trip though.

Edited June 8, 2022 by Endy0816

[Moontanman]

5 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

I start from the premise that FTL propulsion is impossible.  

The first reason is relativity.

The second more important reason is that FTL travel can violate causality.  The universe is very stubborn about some things.  For instance the universe will not allow you to know your absolute velocity.

I think causality is another thing that the universe is stubborn about.  I don't think any potential technology that could violate causality would actually work.

 

5 hours ago, MigL said:

Yes, causality is a bitch.

Any two way FTL motion would undoubtedly violate causality, as it would be a 'time' machine.

It would be more useful to discuss science based transportation modes, as opposed to science fiction.

If I understand the current crop of FTL warp drives that are being proposed the spacecraft is causally isolated from the rest of the universe and this stops the time travel aspects. 

[Bufofrog]

23 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

If I understand the current crop of FTL warp drives that are being proposed the spacecraft is causally isolated from the rest of the universe and this stops the time travel aspects.

How could that be done?

[Moontanman]

5 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

How could that be done?

The warp bubble isolates you from the rest of the universe while its on. Of course that makes steering a bit of thrill!

 

[Bufofrog]

10 hours ago, Moontanman said:

The warp bubble isolates you from the rest of the universe while its on. Of course that makes steering a bit of thrill!

And when the warp bubble (or whatever) turns off then you have traveled faster than light so it is possible to violate causality, so the problem remains.

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, Bufofrog said:

And when the warp bubble (or whatever) turns off then you have traveled faster than light so it is possible to violate causality, so the problem remains.

Unless you are thinking of instantaneous communication this is not true. Travel takes a finite amount of time, you could not travel back to a time at your launch site before you launched.  

https://youtu.be/an0M-wcHw5A?list=PLh5Kb8DlWT5h8diVqIFyASeFv0XbWn4KA 06:53

This video explains why ftl is time travel but I think i see a problem with the explanation, they assume that a signal can be sent and that a STL ship could hear it and signal back at FTL speeds. I think if the FTL signal is impossible due to time travel because of the ship signaling backwards in time if you eliminate the FTL signal and have a FTL space craft that is casually isolated from the universe when traveling that paradox is avoided. Many versions of warp bubble travel state that the space craft is casually isolated.    

 

[Bufofrog]

4 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Unless you are thinking of instantaneous communication this is not true. Travel takes a finite amount of time, you could not travel back to a time at your launch site before you launched.

I of course said nothing of the sort.  What I said is that faster than light travel can result in a violation of causality.  It is a simple matter for you to google this idea to read for yourself why this is true.  There is no need to argue with me about it because it is not my idea.  This is the view of mainstream physics and a consequence of relativity.  You can choose to not believe it if you like.

[Markus Hanke]

On 6/9/2022 at 10:03 AM, Moontanman said:

Of course that makes steering a bit of thrill!

I presume you are talking about the Alcubierre metric, being a solution of the Einstein equations.

There are numerous problems with this concept, to the degree that I would nearly call it “unphysical”. But assuming for now that the creation of such a ‘bubble’ were somehow possible, it would be a completely impractical - and highly dangerous - means of travelling. The pivotal issue is that once the bubble has been created, there would be no physical means of accelerating it, meaning you could neither steer nor stop it. There also wouldn’t be any means to enter or exit it without getting ripped to shreds by tidal forces. Furthermore, if the bubble enters the gravitational influence of another body (star etc), it would begin to distort and undergo other non-linear interactions with the background curvature, which would be very bad news for whatever is in the interior.

If you want a concept that is at least remotely plausible, you should look into the Krasnikov tube. Not as flashy as a warp drive, but more practical if you could somehow manage to create one.

[Moontanman]

20 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

I of course said nothing of the sort.  What I said is that faster than light travel can result in a violation of causality.  It is a simple matter for you to google this idea to read for yourself why this is true.  There is no need to argue with me about it because it is not my idea.  This is the view of mainstream physics and a consequence of relativity.  You can choose to not believe it if you like.

 

12 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

I presume you are talking about the Alcubierre metric, being a solution of the Einstein equations.

There are numerous problems with this concept, to the degree that I would nearly call it “unphysical”. But assuming for now that the creation of such a ‘bubble’ were somehow possible, it would be a completely impractical - and highly dangerous - means of travelling. The pivotal issue is that once the bubble has been created, there would be no physical means of accelerating it, meaning you could neither steer nor stop it. There also wouldn’t be any means to enter or exit it without getting ripped to shreds by tidal forces. Furthermore, if the bubble enters the gravitational influence of another body (star etc), it would begin to distort and undergo other non-linear interactions with the background curvature, which would be very bad news for whatever is in the interior.

If you want a concept that is at least remotely plausible, you should look into the Krasnikov tube. Not as flashy as a warp drive, but more practical if you could somehow manage to create one.

Both of you are of course correct, our current understanding of warp travel make them impractical if not impossible but IMHO I think it's a bit premature to "wipe warp drive" off the table. The hypothesis has changed greatly in the short time since it was proposed. Originally it needed more energy that is contained in the entire universe to work. The metrics have changed several times and I see no reason to say they cannot change further as research continues. I'm not saying warp drive will be possible but nothing would indicate it will not change further as research continues. If nothing else warp drive would be a great way to travel slower than light, this would open up the entire solar system in a way that we only dream of today. Also there are "warp drives" that do not use negative energy, in fact there are a great many different variations on the concept of warp drives. 

[Moontanman]

On 6/9/2022 at 9:42 AM, Bufofrog said:

And when the warp bubble (or whatever) turns off then you have traveled faster than light so it is possible to violate causality, so the problem remains.

 

On 6/9/2022 at 11:29 AM, Moontanman said:

Unless you are thinking of instantaneous communication this is not true. Travel takes a finite amount of time, you could not travel back to a time at your launch site before you launched.  

https://youtu.be/an0M-wcHw5A?list=PLh5Kb8DlWT5h8diVqIFyASeFv0XbWn4KA 06:53

This video explains why ftl is time travel but I think i see a problem with the explanation, they assume that a signal can be sent and that a STL ship could hear it and signal back at FTL speeds. I think if the FTL signal is impossible due to time travel because of the ship signaling backwards in time if you eliminate the FTL signal and have a FTL space craft that is casually isolated from the universe when traveling that paradox is avoided. Many versions of warp bubble travel state that the space craft is casually isolated.    

 

Bufofrog, I'm going to have to withdraw this post, I spent three hours last night googling this and found out that the idea of " alcubierre drive" is still being debated and if I'm honest I have to admit the people who are on the side of "time travel" seem to have the best argument. In all honesty I'm pretty sure this is above my pay grade, I apologise for being so sure and flippant about it.  

[Bufofrog]

On 6/11/2022 at 12:35 PM, Moontanman said:

Bufofrog, I'm going to have to withdraw this post, I spent three hours last night googling this and found out that the idea of " alcubierre drive" is still being debated and if I'm honest I have to admit the people who are on the side of "time travel" seem to have the best argument. In all honesty I'm pretty sure this is above my pay grade, I apologise for being so sure and flippant about it.

No problem, I've enjoyed talking about it. 

[tylers100]

An update with my diagram:

[swansont]

The drawing isn’t the shortcoming here. You haven’t presented anything that meets the level of rigor we need.