Slashdot Mirror
Interstellar Hydrogen Prevents Light-Speed Travel?
garg0yle writes "As if relativity wasn't enough to prevent us traveling at light speed, Professor William Edelstein of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine is now claiming that the interstellar hydrogen, compressed in front of the ship, would bring the journey to a shocking end. 'As the spaceship reached 99.999998 per cent of the speed of light, "hydrogen atoms would seem to reach a staggering 7 teraelectron volts," which for the crew "would be like standing in front of the Large Hadron Collider beam."'"
That's what the deflector array is for.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
And I was just about to get into my 99.999998% lightspeed spaceship.
After reading the article (yeah, I know...) tow thought spring to mind...
/., I expect you all to forgive me for using the present tense here [grin]
1) Warp drive doesn't posit a traditional "go-very-fast-through-normal-space" type of spacecraft engine - it warps[*] space-time (hence the name!) in front of and behind the spacecraft - see here for an explanation. The spacecraft itself is sitting in a bubble of normal space, possibly even at rest.
2) Um, ramjets, anyone ?
Seriously, any number of sci-fi authors have covered this problem in enormous detail over the last few decades
Simon
[*] And because this is
Physicists get Hadrons!
Let's just hope the engine controls aren't made by Toyota, or it'll be hitting that speed whether the crew want or not.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
put a hydrogen-atom-splitter on the bow of the ship, they'll just get cut in half and fall out of the way.
"hydrogen atoms would seem to reach a staggering 7 teraelectron volts," which for the crew "would be like standing in front of the Large Hadron Collider beam."
Wow, free energy!
Free Martian Whores!
Guess we'll just have to go at 99.999997% of the speed of light then.
. . .to GET to .99999998 c, this is unlikely to be a concern. And if you have the effectively-infinite energy to move a ship at this speed, providing sufficient shielding should be a trivial exercise in additional hand-wavium. . . .
All you have to do is navigate around the hydrogen atoms.
I don't think anyone seriously contemplating relativistic or FTL travel expects to be physically accelerated to such speeds. After all, if stationary interstellar hydrogen is effectively hitting you at teravolt levels, it means that every particle in your body (and the ship) has actually been accelerated to velocities equivalent to the particles in the LHC beam. Not bloody likely. We need warp drive, subspace, wormholes, or something else to solve the problem, not ridiculous conventional acceleration.
- Michael
I'll bet that would sting.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
So, what he's saying is that the interstellar hydrogen density will limit us to no more than about 9600 light years nonstop at a continuous 1g acceleration/deceleration.
Given that even a matter/antimatter conversion drive would require about 116,000,000 tons of reaction mass (half antimatter) for every ton of payload, it would seem that we're going to be hitting a great many limits long before this particular limit begins to be meaningful.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Interstellar travel is fundamentally an economic paradox — ignoring, of course, such fantasies as Warp drives.
Sending a Shuttle-sized craft to Alpha Centauri in a matter of years would require roughly the current total energy consumption of humanity.
Only when our civilization advances to the point that we harness a significant portion of the Sun’s total energy output would the energy budget for interstellar travel approximate the same proportion of the energy budget we spend today on interplanetary missions.
One can suggest “sleeper ships,” but building mechanical devices that will survive thousands of years is as hard a problem as throwing them across light years of distance. Any gas will leak out of any container in such a timeframe, and no plastic or rubber seal would last a fraction of the time necessary. The next thought is to provide power to the ship during the long journey, but you need as much total energy as for getting there fast — and, if you can comfortably survive for millennia in interstellar space, why even bother with stars in the first place?
Oh — and the Fermi Paradox applies especially well. Assume that it takes even ten thousand years to colonize a remote solar system, and the entire galaxy would have been overrun by now if a colonizing civilization had started in the terrestrial Jurassic period.
Interstellar travel makes for great space opera, but it has no more bearing on reality than unicorns and dragons.
Cheers,
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
They already figured this out nearly a hundred years ago.
In fact, erosion by interstellar matter (both hydrogen and dust) was a major plot element in Arthur C. Clarke's 1986 novel The Songs of Distant Earth.
A while back, at the old 1994 Planetary Society conference on Interstellar Flight, I had a paper proposing a plasma erosion shield to protect an interstellar spacecraft-- I ought to dig that one up and put it on the web somewhere, but New Scientist ought to know about it, since they mentioned it in an article back in 1995.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Do not try to dodge the atoms - that's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth: there are no atoms.
Thereby increasing, almost infinitely, the improbability of any FTL technology - thusly ensuring success for a system that harnesses improbability as a motive power.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
...
Since most of the time the LHC is down that doesn't seem like a big problem :-p
Ok, big fan of the LHC, but just had to say it
Actually you are missing something very important in your maths: relativity. It doesn't take much shorter to get to the destination from the perspective of someone on earth, but the tale is different for the people on the spaceship. The distance to the destination shrinks.
Sagan talks about this in Cosmos. If a theoretical spaceship accelerated constantly, it could traverse the entire universe in a mere 50 years -- but by the time it returned earth would be long gone.
Conceptually -- the universe has no "size" for a photon in a perfect vacuum. From the point of view of this theoretical photon, it is created in a distant star and intersects with your eye instantaneously. From our point of view it could take millions of years.
Considering that mass is what prevents light-speed travel (as well as the density of the medium being travelled through), that implies an interesting relationship between space-time and the higgs boson.
The universe is stranger than any fiction.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right