Sabine Hossenfelder: I think faster than light travel is possible. Here's why

Re:Sabine Hossenfelder: I think faster than light travel is ... by elcritch on Sunday April 09, 2023 @07:00PM (#35507304)

Well then again theoretical physics was dominated by "string theory" for decades despite a lack of any physical or experimental evidence, so we should take consensus about speculative physics with a grain of salt. This sort of speculation is precisely what physicists should be doing, within measure. At least Sabine appears to recognize her "out there" aspect, unlike say the string theorists that stifled physics for decades. At worse maybe she'll annoy another theoretician to analytically disprove her.

That said of course whatever quantum gravity would bring it'll need to reduce to match known physics. However at the fringes of known physics what will happen as you get nearer to the singularities in special relativity? Generally speaking in the past singularities in physics have been due to incomplete knowledge of the physics in these regions.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sabine Hossenfelder: I think faster than light travel is ... by superposeur on Sunday April 09, 2023 @07:30PM (#35507508)

Yes, at the fringes of known physics, as you say. My point is that this question is not at the fringes known physics. Earth and Alpha Centauri are not near the singularity of a black hole and special relativity is perfectly adequate to predict that events now on Earth will take some time to influence events on Alpha Centauri.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sabine Hossenfelder: I think faster than light travel is ... by singularity2001 on Monday April 10, 2023 @08:26AM (#35511465)

Since Sabine Hoffstader labeled the whole string theory (and some particle accelerator physics) as unscientific she shouldn't engage in the very fringes she appalls.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sabine Hossenfelder: I think faster than light travel is ... by taylodl on Monday April 10, 2023 @11:17AM (#35513357)

Both String Theory and Brane Theory have been shown to yield equivalent results to the Standard Model (QFT). Nowadays physicists choose the model yielding the simplest computation for the problem at hand. No contradictions have been found after years of doing this.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sabine Hossenfelder: I think faster than light travel is ... by Valgrim on Monday April 10, 2023 @01:22PM (#35514738)

So you're saying they're the same theory disguised as different, or another facet of the same solid, only useful as a computational shortcut. Maybe it's time to look for contradictions?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sabine Hossenfelder: I think faster than light travel is ... by taylodl on Monday April 10, 2023 @03:23PM (#35516273)

I'm not a physicist, just a knowledgable enthusiast. To your point, people are trying to look for contradictions. So far, none have been found. Physicists therefore use the model that simplifies the computation. If a contradiction is ever found then that will provide information as to which model is correct.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sabine Hossenfelder: I think faster than light travel is ... by nextaccountic on Monday April 10, 2023 @03:34PM (#35516408)

Isn't that just because there are enough free parameters that can be plugged in to make string theory agree with the standard model?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sabine Hossenfelder: I think faster than light travel is ... by flangola7 on Monday April 10, 2023 @05:16PM (#35517497)

What is wrong with string theory?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sabine Hossenfelder: I think faster than light travel is ... by planck01 on Wednesday April 12, 2023 @04:11AM (#35536416)

Some issues that string theory has:

- We have not found any evidence for it.

- Some predictions have been made from it that weren't found (e.g. no supersymmetric particles in the LHC).

- It can be tuned to fit almost fit any universe and any observation, which doesn't really make it scientific.

- The reasons for inventing it might have been misguided or flawed. (universe must be beautiful / simple / etc).

The lack of results are turning a growing part of the scientific community off, while there is still a core amount of scientists holding on to it.

[ Parent | on HN ]