News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The horizon problem for faster than light travel by sokoloff on Thursday January 20, 2022 @06:31PM (#30016968)
The burden of proof for people making that claim is on the person making that claim. The burden of proof for making the claim that it’s “fundamentally impossible” is likewise on the person making that claim.

For all we know, our understanding of the universe could be at a stage of analogous to “there are four elements: earth, air, fire, and water”. Many things that we enjoy daily were once “fundamentally impossible”.

Re:The horizon problem for faster than light travel by monkeydreams on Thursday January 20, 2022 @06:37PM (#30017025)
> Many things that we enjoy daily were once “fundamentally impossible”.

Not so. They may have been conceptually impossible but did not run into the "fundamental" laws of physics. FTL travel breaks physics. A lot abiut our observable universe would be different if it were possible.

The evidence that the universe obeys these laws is significant and, currently, not counter indicated.

Re:The horizon problem for faster than light travel by netr0ute on Thursday January 20, 2022 @08:23PM (#30017960)
> but did not run into the "fundamental" laws of physics

Those "fundamental" laws of physics didn't exist several centuries ago.

Re:The horizon problem for faster than light travel by igorkraw on Thursday January 20, 2022 @08:46PM (#30018152)
Yes they did, we just hadn't figured them out yet. If we were very wrong in them, we'd have to be wrong in a way that doesn't affect all the technology using the wrong theory - which is part of why we refined them, because shit didn't work.

That's what it means to be contradicting fundamental physics. It implies all of our other knowledge is wrong, but we are just lucky enough that our machines work anyway. Which, unless we see a phenomenon that we can't fit into our existing theories, seems unlikely

Re:The horizon problem for faster than light travel by imtringued on Friday January 21, 2022 @04:05AM (#30020993)
Let's invent new laws of physics and hope the universe adopts them.
Re:The horizon problem for faster than light travel by decebalus1 on Thursday January 20, 2022 @06:49PM (#30017138)
> FTL travel breaks physics

Like quantum mechanics broke physics?

Re:The horizon problem for faster than light travel by bashinator on Thursday January 20, 2022 @09:36PM (#30018511)
Quantum mechanics _fixed_ physics. Newtonian physics predicts that an electron will spiral into the nucleus of an atom within a few nanoseconds of the atom’s creation.
Re:The horizon problem for faster than light travel by igorkraw on Thursday January 20, 2022 @08:47PM (#30018160)
We observed quantum effects before the theory. We haven't seen any phenomena so far which require physics that could lead to FTL
Re:The horizon problem for faster than light travel by mannerheim on Thursday January 20, 2022 @07:21PM (#30017447)
By this standard, there is literally nothing that can be called impossible. Perpetual motion machines can't be said to be impossible because, who knows, maybe there is a God and tomorrow He could flip the switch for free energy from off to on.
Re:The horizon problem for faster than light travel by DSMan195276 on Thursday January 20, 2022 @07:53PM (#30017732)
It's simply the difference between claiming something is "impossible based on our current understanding/model of physics" and "impossible regardless of what we don't understand". Science gives us the first one, but the original commentator unambiguously claimed the second. Our models of the universe being wrong happens all the time, sometimes in significant ways, and even now there are plenty of unexplained things in our universe that have the potential to change our understanding. It seems pretty optimistic to assume our current models are guaranteed correct in every circumstance we haven't yet observed even when they can't explain everything we have actually observed.

So yes, perpetual motion could start working tomorrow, or could already exist for all we know. That doesn't mean it's wrong to say physics _currently_ says it's impossible and any claim better have some pretty good evidence to dispute it (which none currently do). But that also doesn't mean that if we're around centuries/millennia from now we won't have found a special case where our current understanding breaks down.