Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rtp47.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopw
From: throopw@rtp47.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: FTL - a postivie argument
Message-ID: <98@rtp47.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 21-Jul-85 21:22:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: rtp47.98
Posted: Sun Jul 21 21:22:15 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Jul-85 00:43:27 EDT
References: <7800026@orstcs.UUCP>
Organization: Data General, RTP, NC
Lines: 40

> Okay, let's do something positive for a change and start considering
> potential ways that FTL could be achieved.
>               [... metaphysical discussion omitted ...]

I tend to agree with most of what was said.  However, the article didn't
do what it said it would, that is, consider potential ways that FTL
could be *acheived*.  What was shown was that FTL travel is "thinkable"
or conceptually possible, but then so is time-travel.  The article said
nothing at all about *how to do it*.

I'll list five major states that a technology goes though:
  - Concept. "I'd like to liberate large amounts of energy from a small
    amount of matter " or "I'd like to travel faster than light".
  - Theoretical foundation. "Given special relativity, I know that
    E=mc^2, so the energy is there if only we can get at it." or "An
    infinitely long rotating cylinder with extreme density can allow an
    object to follow a path leading to any given point in space-time.
    (FTL and time travel "rolled:-)" up in one)."
  - Feasibility.  "A fission chain-reaction will release some of the
    binding energy that manifests as mass in U235 atoms."
  - Implementation.  [squash court in Chicago]
  - Refinement.  [Three mile Island :-)]

I'd class FTL in the "concept" phase.  There are theoretical foundations
that could apply (one is given above), but all of these (at least so
far) also imply time travel and causality violation, or engineering on a
truly vast scale (or both, as in the example), so I'm not holding my
breath.

Nobody has even the remotest idea of how to make it feasible or how to
implement it.  Thus, since atomic energy was one of the
fastest-developed technologies to use as an analogy, I'd suspect that
FTL is at least 40 years and a lot of skull sweat away (if possible at
all), and that is assuming that some German patent clerk comes up with a
breakthrough right now.

(By the way, for an excellent treatment of FTL using the above mentioned
concept, see "The Avatar", by Poul Anderson, if you haven't already.)
-- 
Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC
<the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopw