Our understanding of the Universe. Is it important? Philosophical discussion.

[James2097]

I was wondering what we really understand about the way things (Life the Universe and Everything - to quote Douglas Adams ) work... Are humans the most naive/arrogant species to ever exist (to think we can even begin to understand the mechanations of the universe (not just life specifically (as in the creation vs evolution thread) but absolutely everything – referring to string theory etc)? Is it even important to TRY and understand everything, things that may not even be relevant to our day-to-day lives?


Just found out they think there is a black hole right in our milky way:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-11/04/content_3729228.htm

The fact that this massive black hole was here for quite some time and we hadn't discovered it yet... it made me stop and wonder how accurate or advanced our observational skill/ability to measure things really are... how many theories must rely on data/assumptions that are just way off the mark?

Slowing down light:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-11/04/content_3728935.htm
We don't even fully underderstand what light is! Yet we'll happily use it and think we know all about it just like electricity... Funny how some people think understanding the properties of certain things means you understand them!

I know the properties (how women react to what I do - most of the time) but I'd be silly to think I understand exactly whats going on. And this is just something within our own species!

We get the impression from all the great things man has achieved that we somehow can control everything, that nothing is beyond our grasp of understanding, at least potentially. Does it matter that we seem to strive to become something (as a species) I'm sure we'll never reach?

All scientists in their respective eras were at the "cutting edge" of knowledge and research.. and of understanding of our universe... With each new theory it seems the "cutting edge" seems to loose its impact... we'll never truly be on the cusp of any kind of full understanding... Why do human beings want to know everything? Is it simply a latent urge buried deep within the human subconciousness to become immortal, to defy nature? Are we just scared of death or is there simply an inquisitive quality as a species? Is it just the conqueror mentality at our core? If we become comfortable with the inevitability of death (individually and as a species) do all these conceptual theories and space ambitions ring a bit hollow?

Fundamentally, is all this wondering about the universe all just a waste of good time you could be spending to play GT4?



I know I've asked many questions, and I don't expect answers to all, but a general discussion on this topic would be great to see. I'd also like a really good explanation (for the average Joe) of string theory (or M theory if you like) if someone wants to fill us in. I'm sure many people aren't really up to date with the latest scientific meanderings in conceptual physics... maybe because its not relevant to many people's lives? Ultimately does it really matter?

Discuss.

 

[Blake]

Does it matter that we seem to strive to become something (as a species) I'm sure we'll never reach?

If you strive for something you’ll reach and you reach it, what do you do? Say “I’ve reached my goal, I give up.” or do you say “What can I do next?”

If, for the human race, it’s the former – then we have a lack of motivation and nothing extraordinary will ever get done. We need to push ourselves past our ‘limits’ otherwise we will never do, create, or be anything worth-while.

The human race got where it is by pushing the boundaries.

Blake

 

[Duke]

It is vitally, fundamentally, and completely crucial that we continue to try to understand the universe and life around us. Without that continuous striving for a complete understanding of an incredibly complex system, we wouldn't be having this discussion, because we wouldn't have language. We'd also be too busy scavenging for things to eat that we hoped wouldn't kill us in one way or another, because we'd never have figured out that the red berries from the bush with all the thorns were good, but the big purple ones that are just hanging there for the taking will make you puke your guts up.

So, in short answer, YES, it's philosophically critical that we try to understand our universe. It's also philosophically critical that we realize there are no shortcuts to this knowledge, and that the attempt to shortcut it via mysticism can be very dangerous.

 

[Lee]

Oh god yes its important, if we knew more about the universe the possibilities are endless, we could find out something special about time and growth, we could learn about threats to the earth that are currentally unknown.

If we didn't consider this important, why did we land on the moon, why did we search for other planets in the solar system?

Knowlage is endless, we shall no matter what, strive to continue to learn more and more about the universe.

 

[Zardoz]

Good luck to us as we attempt to keep this thread from turning into another "creation versus evolution" discussion...

 

[FoolKiller]

The reasons you quoted about us not knowing about the things we think we do are exactly why we have to keep trying to learn. What we know today will be wrong tomorrow. People though the Earth was flat, that the universe circled the Earth, and that old food left sitting in the open spawned maggots and was the basis for all life.

Imagine what we don't actually know today. We must continue to learn about the universe around us.

Perhaps you are asking, is what we think we know important because it could all be wrong? Yes, it is. Trying to study these things we think we know are why we learn that they are wrong. Suddenly a part of an equation doesn't fit and we must figure out why and suddenly our study leads us somewhere else. Youcan't say well what I learn tomorrow is probably wrong too. It is a stepping stone process.

Observation shows that everytyhing circles the Earth. You can see it happen. But then someone is watching this and notices that some things move around over time in a way that isn't relevant to just circling Earth. They do some crazy math and discover that the Earth is spinning and moving around other objects while some move around us. This process moves forward and teh next thing you know we are walking on the moon and then putting giant telescopes in orbit that can show us things in other galaxies. Now we have the hope of seeing far enough to catch light still traveling from the beginning of the universe.

Yes, every single thing you know will probably be wrong in 1,000 years, but we won't know that unless we study what we think is right today.

As a conciously self-aware creature it is our nature to learn more and more about everything around us, even if it is to just prove ourselves wrong.

Good luck to us as we attempt to keep this thread from turning into another "creation versus evolution" discussion...

Actually, the answer to this thread would be, "Yes, so that we can answer answer the Creation versus Evolution thread." If for no other reason we should always study the world around us. But then, what would Swift and Danoff do in their free time?

 

[a6m5]

Very interesting thread, James. 👍

So, in short answer, YES, it's philosophically critical that we try to understand our universe. It's also philosophically critical that we realize there are no shortcuts to this knowledge, and that the attempt to shortcut it via mysticism can be very dangerous.

Duke covered what I was going to say, and more.

Good luck to us as we attempt to keep this thread from turning into another "creation versus evolution" discussion...

 

[James2097]

@Everyone
Obviously it was beneficial for us to take humanity to where it is currently, we would have zero technology otherwise! The question I was asking is more along the lines of:

"Have we come to the point where are generally happy and content - to the point where it may be a waste of time to think about the great question of life, the universe and everything? Does what goes on beyond our Earth and our understanding of our world really matter to us?"

Of course immediate human technologies and further inventions are great, and should be encouraged, but I was aiming for a more philosophical basis for disscussion.

This isn't a thread questioning the benefits of curiousity, or against scientific development and technological advancement (I think both are great), but more about our general understanding of the Universe, on a level that is perhaps so complex and deep humans may not ever have the ability or technology to try and understand everything perfectly.

Do you care about the formation and workings of the universe (only the tiniest part of it being Earth)? Is it relevant to your day to day lives? Not really I'd say. Of course we use technologies etc that we wouldn't have invented without considerable knowledge and research, but we simply APPLY things we see happen in the world, not understand the basis of what these things truly are and all their subtle properties.

We still do not know exactly what light is, what electricity is, even how gravity works... We can look at it in a very low level and say somethings like: "Ok gravity seems to be around -9.8 m/s acceleration toward the middle of the Earth..." and apply this knowledge to invent things. But is true understanding (M theory, big bang theory, Evolution etc etc) really important if we can't notice things like parallel universes and anti-matter when we go to the shop to get some milk?

 

[Duke]

Of course immediate human technologies and further inventions are great, and should be encouraged, but I was aiming for a more philosophical basis for disscussion.

I was speaking completely in a philosophical sense. It is philosophically critical that human beings continue to strive toward understanding their universe.

 

[James2097]

Hey Duke, I meant philosophically in terms of happiness and personal enjoyment of life... in the here and now- for you personally. I wasn't inferring you were not being philosophical... Just in a different sense. Everyone WAS being philosophical, but in a way that was more concerned with the potential future of humanity as a whole, as opposed to how these things affect your life personally.

All the technology we've developed as a species that has made our lives better/easier has (by a long way) been developed and invented right here on Earth, not as a result from our fascination with "space". Sure, we went to the moon, but did it make anyone's lives any better? Even going to the moon isn't easy for us now...

Are people any happier due to our increased knowledge than say, in the 1950 or 60s?
Is it better to be ignorant and happy (what you don't know you can't worry about) or knowledgable but potentially far more worried about our possible future (or lack thereof)?

The thing is, I can't ever see us getting off Earth to colonise anywhere else. This is surely the ultimate aim for space exploration, conceptual physics etc... The only way to keep the human race alive (not putting all your eggs in one basket...).
Call me pessimistic, but I think one would be pretty naive to think this kind of technology will ever be within our reach... There are some pretty cold realities as to what we can achieve with the materials at our disposal and the kind of energy sources we can harness... So is this HOPE important enough to sustain us? Are these potential scientific advancements (that will supposedly save us from becoming extinct) like religion in a way? The quest for immortality as a species?

Space travel over vast distances to colonize other planets fits into the catagory of "myth" I'd sadly say - if I'm being a cold realist. Do we hold hope onto myths as a species no matter how rational we try to be? Are humans just irrational in this way (religion orientated), no matter what?

 

[a6m5]

How about our satellites? They are products of our space programs, and have been very benefitial to us. While it's true that all our technology were developed here on Earth(as far as I know ), some of it were in pursuit of reaching space, and beyond. While I do see what you are saying, I think we need to keep on going strong.

 

[niky]

Hmmm... first we must ask ourselves, why the search?

Think about it... philosophy and abstract science have occupied a great number of minds and wasted millions of man-hours worth of potentially useful time over the past few centuries. Engineering and physical science often pay off dividends right away, but philosophical and scientific inquiry into the nature of the universe really doesn't produce anything economically useful... at least, not in the short term. But the quest for understanding has lead to the creation and utilization of tools which are... that, plus the ability to utilize natural phenomena, such as electricity or nuclear energy.

But in the short term, these researches don't pay off any dividend, so why do they persist, despite the high cost? Is it just a battle of intellectual egos? Or is there a deeper meaning? A need to understand, to pick apart the universe... to "monkey" with it?

Weird that we should mention evolution in this thread (actually, maybe that would be given)... as this desire to "tinker" or "monkey" with something is deeply ingrained in the human psyche, as a survival mechanism. "Monkey" curiosity led man to first pick up a branch or a bone, play with it... realize its potential as a weapon. "Monkey" curiosity led man to strike two flints together to watch the pretty sparks, or rub sticks together to make heat.

As time went on, we grew cognizant of the fact that understanding something would help us exploit it as another resource towards our survival as a species. Whether or not this is a conscious thing for every inventor or theorist, it's there. And we've learned to recognize that no matter how trivial the matter might seem today, it might mean life or death in the future.

Everything that man can now understand, he can control. Chemical Energy, Magnetism, Electricity, Atomic energy. Our further research into the nature of the Universe may lead to greater control (gravity? quantum energy? quantum states (for computing... wait, that's being done NOW)?).

But will it make us happy? No. Unhappiness is a given for humanity. Even provided with all that he needs, a man can never truly be happy unless he has something to "monkey" with. And as long as a small fraction of humanity continues to pick away at all the dark little corners of the Universe, the bounds of our knowledge will keep on growing... but our satisfaction with this knowledge will never be complete.

The understanding is not important... it is the NEED to understand that is.

 

[niky]

BTW, within the current limits of technology (within the next hundred years or so) and our understanding of physics, it is impossible for humanity to ever leave the Solar System. Our long term survival as a species may depend on sending "seeds" through interstellar space with bacteria carrying our DNA towards systems which are likely to have life-bearing planets, or which may develop them in the future.

The amount of "unformatted" or "junk" DNA in our genetic material may be enough to store data about ourselves and for a bacteria to carry that information relatively unchanged for the millions of years it would take for them to develop up to forms much like ourselves. It's a long shot, but it might work.

 

[a6m5]

BTW, within the current limits of technology (within the next hundred years or so) and our understanding of physics, it is impossible for humanity to ever leave the Solar System. Our long term survival as a species may depend on sending "seeds" through interstellar space with bacteria carrying our DNA towards systems which are likely to have life-bearing planets, or which may develop them in the future.

The amount of "unformatted" or "junk" DNA in our genetic material may be enough to store data about ourselves and for a bacteria to carry that information relatively unchanged for the millions of years it would take for them to develop up to forms much like ourselves. It's a long shot, but it might work.

Very cool stuff. I wonder if same technique can be used to terraform near by planets.

 

[niky]

Strangely, it's possible. It's also possible that Earth was colonized by alien bacteria or viruses... Who knows... we could be descended from "humans" who lived billions of years ago in another part of the Galaxy.

A lot of science-fiction "horror" scenarios point out that there is enought junk DNA to carry more than a few "species" encoded into them. Others point to them as a possible source of "sudden" mutations or evolutionary jumps.

 

[James2097]

The understanding is not important... it is the NEED to understand that is.

This is exactly what I was getting at... is our faith in human ingenuity just like a religion (giving comfort that we'll find a way to let our species carry on), an ingrained idea within all of us? It seems like its just hope. Hope is good and has served us well while we've worked out comparitively simple problems on Earth, but in this context (space exploration over lightyears etc) is this steadfast faith in our abilities just a little tenuous as a reason to keep caring about space? I feel the human race is kind of overrated. The laws of probability say that there are millions of other species within the gulf of time and space that are far more advanced than us...

If we admit its just this human need to have something to wonder (the eternal promise of an untapped resource... the lure of the unknown) about, to prove our ability as the ultimate resourceful survivors, helping our egos in the process, then thats good enough for me.

I'm not that pessimistic really... I think we'll eventually find a way to procreate ourselves somewhere else - I just think it'll take a little evolution on our part - I don't think we've even started to become what we can be...

Look at the time we've had any kind of technology at all, then look at the time human-like beings have existed in the Earth's timeline... We're just babies as a species! We've only really started to develop important developments (motorised ground/air travel, computers) in the last 100 years... that is seriously NOTHING in terms of the evolutionary timeline...

So I do have faith in our further development (whether that is rational or not -or whether is will really bring real benefits) but I also think that currently we don't have the ability to really do a lot more than we have...

We seem to have hit a wall in terms of good energy sources/propulsion systems etc for further space exploration... for the time being I'd say go have a beer and a game of GT4, and wait for us to evolve smarter brains (a certain probability given our thirst for knowledge inherent in all of us)!

I'd love to see us colonise another planet (even just Mars)... but I know I won't be around to see it - so I'm ambivalent about the whole space thing for now... I say go ahead, keep pushing, but I also don't expect any real returns for our efforts for a long while... if ever.

How about our satellites?

Within Earth's gravitational field, same as the moon. Still kinda within our own little neck-o-the-woods... I'm talking about understanding the ENTIRE universe!

Strangely, it's possible. It's also possible that Earth was colonized by alien bacteria or viruses... Who knows... we could be descended from "humans" who lived billions of years ago in another part of the Galaxy.

A lot of science-fiction "horror" scenarios point out that there is enought junk DNA to carry more than a few "species" encoded into them. Others point to them as a possible source of "sudden" mutations or evolutionary jumps.

COOL! Very tenuous however... How do we know we succeeded? I assume we'd be long gone before we got any kind of positive signal back! Is it important to know we succeeded, or is it enough to try anyway?

 

[Zardoz]

...I'm not that pessimistic really... I think we'll eventually find a way to procreate ourselves somewhere else - I just think it'll take a little evolution on our part - I don't think we've even started to become what we can be... We're just babies as a species!... for the time being I'd say go have a beer and a game of GT4, and wait for us to evolve smarter brains!...

...I'd love to see us colonise another planet... but I know I won't be around to see it - so I'm ambivalent about the whole space thing for now... I say go ahead, keep pushing, but I also don't expect any real returns for our efforts for a long while... if ever...

Don't expect any "real returns" at all. We're stuck here. This is it. This tiny, fragile little planet is all we're ever going to get.

If we were anything like the near-Godlike intellectual giants we like to think we are, we would have a unified goal as a species: We would be concentrating on controlling our population and finding ways to live comfortably without destroying the biosphere that sustains us.

But not us. Just the opposite. We continue to swell our numbers and soil our nest. Its hard to be optimistic about the future in light of our stubborn refusal to face reality.

Just for the sake of satisfying our curiousity, we need to get on with learning as much about the universe as we can, and we need to do it as quickly as possible. We don't have a lot of time. We're not going to be around long enough to "evolve smarter brains".

 

[FoolKiller]

All the technology we've developed as a species that has made our lives better/easier has (by a long way) been developed and invented right here on Earth, not as a result from our fascination with "space".

I'm not quite sure how you mean this. If you mean that we have yet to understand anything about the universe due to the space program I woud say you are mostly correct. We have learned things, but nothing that is definite and nothing that has answered great philisophical questions.

Now, if you mean that we have no useful technologies beacuse of our fascination with space I have to say that you are so wroing it is laughable. There are so many things we use today that came from technology developed by NASA it isn't even funny. Think of any big expensive life-saving medical test and there is a very good chance that the basic technology nehind it was developed or discovered by NASA. There might not be a that goes by that you don't use something that was created using a NASA discovery/creation. Even something as simple as WD-40 was created in the space program.


Now, from a completely philosophical standpoint I believe that we need to continue to search, explore, and study. No matter how pointless it is we will still always ask why. Think of the little child that asks about something and when you explain it to them they follow that with ,"why?" After every answer it keeps on going. That is what we do today, only the question topics are much bigger. Instead of, "why does it rain?" we ask "why do objects in the universe cluster?" Now if we get an answer to any question we ask, "how?" Now we have adde "how" to our philosophical lexicon and everything in life is a series of how and whys.

At least that is how I see life. I can't see how some people can become so wrapped up in their lives that they never look around and ask if there is something better or bigger that they can do or find. I live outside of the city I work in because I enjoy being able to step out on my back deck and just look at the stars and wonder. Even if we officially stopped all study like this people would continue it on their own because they are unable to quit asking why and how.

 

[niky]

I touched upon that in my first post. As such, all are incidental by-products of space exploration. It's like spending billions of dollars on chemical research on immortality and discovering Coca-Cola and the Band-Aid in the process. Though products from the space program do improve our lives, they're not the main goal.

But I agree with you guys 100%.

@James: As to seeding, by the time any positive results show, we'll all be dust, or monoatomic particles floating inside our (by then) bloated red sun. The important part is to try. I think the seeding of life, any kind of life, into the universe is a noble cause. Probably worth the trillions of dollars it would take to do so. Immortality of Earth-borne life would be assured in this way... and if we find a way of encoding "humanity" into those seeds, maybe immortality of the species, as well.

To transport even one of these "seeds" to another star, RIGHT NOW, though, takes more energy resources than we have available. Maybe within two or three generations, if the energy crunch hasn't hit us hard enough, we'll be able to more efficiently gather solar energy sent our way... whether through power satellites, vast-solar arrays in sparsely populated areas, or whatever, and we'll be able to reach the other planets and tap other energy resources. But that depends on things way beyond the grasp of scientists and engineers... human nature.

Those "monkey instincts" may form the root of curiosity and philosophy, but there are much more primal instincts in the human psyche as well. Territorialism and pack instinct lead to hate, war, fanaticism and a rejection of anything new or different. Whether we can conquer these within the five or six generations left before the energy crunch cripples any chance we have of leaving this planet (and by that, I mean beyond the Earth's gravity well... PHYSICALLY, not through machines)... well, that's something we'll have to pray for.

 

[FoolKiller]

I think seeding would be a last chance attempt in the event of the Earth's certain destruction. Travel long distances in space, even a colony ship traveling at current known speeds for generations would be feasible. The theory is already laid out for this in much of our science fiction works. Look at Arthur C Clark's Rama series. We know what we need to do something like this but we just have to develop the technology to make it possible.

Unless the Earth or human society is destroyed in the next 1,000 years I believe we will find the additional technology to create a ship of that type or better. Traveling to other planets will happen and even other star systems. It will be a long time down the road but just as the Americas were quickly colonized so will other places once we can reach them.

The idea that we can't do it is based on physics as we understand them now. How many times have we adjusted what we know about physics? The nothing goes faster than light principle is all theoretical. We have based all of our physics on what we can observe on this planet. How do we know that we may not discover new possibilities down the road? The human urge to discover has never died and people will always be willing to try something crazy in order to discover.

 

[niky]

Physics aside, what we really need is a source of energy. And unless we have access to something like a hundred to a thousand times the energy available to us now, space travel on that scale cannot happen.

We're pushing back the barriers. We already have access to fission tech (and it only took us half a century), but we honestly don't utilize it in full. Fusion tech is one area where advancement is very slow. If our energy tech development were as quick as our infotech development, we'd have quantum energy NOW. But we don't. It'll be a very long time coming. If quantum energy comes in my lifetime, I'll die happy... if it doesn't, I'm not holding my breath.

Also, space travel took a giant leap forward with Apollo... then it almost completely shut down. NASA is on a "cheap, fast, efficient" plan right now, which doesn't bode well for further developments in space propulsion technology. The Mars Mission? Delayed, delayed, delayed... because of money.

I've read some of the Rama books. That's actually something that might be possible, but in today's terms, that would take probably trillions (no kidding) of dollars to make... even IF we had the technology. And with the world unwilling to spend so much to develop efficient space travel... what chance does that have?

One possible way for humans to travel interstellar distances is laid out in "Songs of Distant Earth"... where they perfect a quantum drive before the planet dies.

Oh well, we can dream...

 

[FoolKiller]

Physics aside, what we really need is a source of energy. And unless we have access to something like a hundred to a thousand times the energy available to us now, space travel on that scale cannot happen.

We're pushing back the barriers. We already have access to fission tech (and it only took us half a century), but we honestly don't utilize it in full. Fusion tech is one area where advancement is very slow. If our energy tech development were as quick as our infotech development, we'd have quantum energy NOW. But we don't. It'll be a very long time coming. If quantum energy comes in my lifetime, I'll die happy... if it doesn't, I'm not holding my breath.

This is why I gave it a 1,000 year timeframe, but a breakthrough is all it takes to suddenly speed things along. Someone finds the right thing and it points everyone in a whole new direction. Suddenly science makes leaps and bounds. Look at computers or how the idea of flight changed once the Wright Brothers figured it out. We went from standing on the ground watching birds to landing on the moon in no time.

I've read some of the Rama books. That's actually something that might be possible, but in today's terms, that would take probably trillions (no kidding) of dollars to make... even IF we had the technology. And with the world unwilling to spend so much to develop efficient space travel... what chance does that have?

One possible way for humans to travel interstellar distances is laid out in "Songs of Distant Earth"... where they perfect a quantum drive before the planet dies.

Oh well, we can dream...

Rama used a different kind of propulsion system than we do today. It has been a while since I read it but it does get vaguely described. It would also be a post planetary travel technology.

Many theories for interstellar travel is laid out and eventually one of them will plan out, but as I said it will take a breakthrough first. If humans don't eventually reach this ability I strongly believe that it will only be because something wiped us out first. It won't be for lack of trying.

 

[niky]

I hope we will get there, too. But in this post 9-11 world, so much of our energy and resources are wasted on socio-cultural conflict, that this one terrorist action may have set back that future by at least another decade.

For extra ideas on future possibilities, the works of Stephen Baxter are illuminating. His "Manifold" series takes a very long view into the future.

For a more cynical view of our future in space, you can always check out "Fallen Angels" by Larry Niven. It's pretty old, and full of a lot of in-jokes and cameos from Niven's supporters, fans and convention regulars, but it's a pretty funny satire of the direction the world could be headed in. No space program, government taken over by "greenies"... environmental extremists, who ban almost all types of pollution sources... INCLUDING space travel... and thus reduce the greenhouse gases which were, incidentally, preventing the next Ice Age (which is actually about due in real life).

 

[James2097]

Interstellar Propulsion Technologies
Because current chemical propulsion systems are inadequate, scientists have turned their attention to a number of other means to propel spacecraft at the speeds necessary for interstellar travel. Although the technologies needed to make these spacecraft a reality do not exist yet, they are based on well-known laws of physics.

One of the first realistic designs for an interstellar spacecraft was Orion, whose design dates back to the 1950s. Orion would work by ejecting nuclear bombs out the rear of the spacecraft at a rate of five bombs per second. The bombs would explode and push against a shock plate attached to the rear of the spacecraft, accelerating the vehicle. Orion was originally designed as an interplanetary spacecraft for missions to the Moon or Mars, but the design was adapted for interstellar travel. However, the use of such a spacecraft would violate existing treaties that forbid nuclear explosions in space.

The British Interplanetary Society revisited the Orion concept and refined it, creating an interstellar spacecraft design called Daedalus. Daedalus would generate thrust through small fusion explosions, using hydrogen scooped up from Jupiter's atmosphere before leaving the solar system. The force of the explosions would be channeled out of the spacecraft through the use of magnetic fields. The spacecraft would be able to reach Barnard's Star, about 6 light-years away, in fifty years.

Both Orion and Daedalus require the spacecraft to carry all the fuel needed to cross interstellar distances, a significant fraction of the mass of the vehicle. An alternative proposal, the Bussard Interstellar Ramjet, would circumvent this problem by using the trace amounts of hydrogen in inter-stellar space. A laser on the front of the spacecraft would fire ahead to ionize hydrogen atoms, which would be scooped into the spacecraft by means of magnetic fields. The hydrogen would then be used in the vehicle's fusion engine to generate thrust. The spacecraft would have to go at least 6 percent of the speed of light for the ramjet to work; to reach this speed, the spacecraft would have to carry some hydrogen of its own. There are a number of potential problems with this concept, including how effectively the ramjet could scoop up hydrogen without slowing down the spacecraft as a result of magnetic field drag. Another major problem is the fact that there are currently no fusion engines.

Another alternative is the use of lasers to propel spacecraft. An inter-stellar laser sail proposed by scientist Robert Forward would shine an Earth-based laser on a sail attached to a spacecraft, accelerating the craft out of the solar system and towards another star. Forward's original proposal would use a 10-million-gigawatt laser shining on a 1,000-kilometer (62,000 miles) sail attached to a 1,000-ton spacecraft, sending the craft to Alpha Centauri in just ten years. However, the laser would be thousands of times stronger than all of the power used on Earth today, and so Forward revised the concept to use a 10-gigawatt laser on a 16-gram (0.57-ounce), 1-kilometer (0.62-mile) sail embedded with sensors to make observations as it flew by another star.

The best systems for interstellar travel, however, may come from aspects of physics that are not yet known. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has funded a small project called Breakthrough Propulsion Physics that supports researchers looking into new concepts that could lead to effective interstellar propulsion systems. Research in this area features a number of esoteric topics, from quantum vacuum energy to antigravity.

Destinations
Where the first interstellar missions will go is an open question. The most likely destinations are the stars closest to Earth, such as Alpha Centauri and Proxima Centauri, Tau Ceti, and Epsilon Eridani. Scientists will probably be most interested in stars that appear to have Earth-like planets, and thus would be likely to have life. Although no Earth-like planets have been discovered, astronomical techniques are improving to the point where such discoveries should be possible within the next few decades. It is quite likely that future interstellar explorers will have a wide range of new worlds to explore.

Maybe there is a little promise, but talk is cheap. There are a million hurdles and we haven't even taken the first stride to clear the first one it seems.

 

[Zardoz]

...the next Ice Age (which is actually about due in real life).

We don't know when it will occur, but we can be absolutely certain about one thing: The human race will face it with no oil. All petroleum reserves will have dried up by then.

Ice age with no fuel, or maybe a planet-scorching runaway greenhouse effect, instead. Future generations may face some daunting dilemmas. Talk about a "doomsday scenario"...

Does everybody realize how lucky we are to be living in this period of history?

 

[niky]

There's a statistical theorem, the "Carter Catastrophe" that postulates that since the world population is expanding exponentially, and since a large percentage of all the people who have EVER lived will live right before the human race becomes extinct (like dinosaurs, right? ), then the chances of you lpersonally living at the end of days should be enormous. Heady stuff, if a little paranoid.

The Forward device (a particular favorite of Larry Niven, as it requires little technology, and is easy to assign to spaceflight) is one possibility.... actually, a spaceborne solar-powered laser array based in the Lagrange points of the Earth Moon system could push a laser sail out for a few decades. The laser sail would then decelerate at the target system on solar winds. Leaving the target system relies on either having enough materials and manpower (or robot power) to make launch lasers at the target, or having another civilization or outpost at that site with the lasers already in place.

Niven also points out that lasers like that are a good defense against extinction-level asteroid threats.

Quantum vacuum energy has been cited in fiction by Arthur C. Clarke (one of the grand old men of sci-fi, writer of 2001). But it's still a pipe-dream. A lot of forward looking writers and researchers are looking towards what we can understand and manipulate NOW as means for us to leave this planet. Remember, if we cannot observe an energy source in action in nature, chances are it's not possible to tap it.

Of course, given ultimate understanding, we might gain ultimate power. And what is the ultimate power? Creation? Some scientists think that given enough power, we could understand the big bang. With a big enough particle accelerator, we can achieve conditions that exist nowhere else in the universe at this time. The question is: If you can recreate the conditions of the big bang, could you possibly cause the event itself? Some philosophers see this as the ultimate philanthropic goal of science: creating a new universe... in effect, not reversing entrophy, but starting the universal life cycle anew, creating conditions that would aid in the spread and continuance of life and intelligence.

 

[James2097]

That was deep man. Whoa. (Keanu Reeves voice)

Only joking, great post niky 👍

 

[niky]

I read too much sci-fi.

I forgot to add... since lasers are a good defense against asteroid and comet strike (continuous heating by lasers on one side of an asteroid over a few months can deflect its path... effect on a comet would be even more powerful due to outgassing), it would be easy to have them installed, as they would make "sense" from an economy/survival standpoint.

 

[FoolKiller]

The question is: If you can recreate the conditions of the big bang, could you possibly cause the event itself? Some philosophers see this as the ultimate philanthropic goal of science: creating a new universe... in effect, not reversing entrophy, but starting the universal life cycle anew, creating conditions that would aid in the spread and continuance of life and intelligence.

Can this energy be contained or will we all go boom before we realize what happened?

 

[James2097]

Can this energy be contained or will we all go boom before we realize what happened?

Thats what I was thinking. Perhaps we expand in all directions equally, hence we aren't really aware we're expanding. Everything is relatively the same so we don't notice... I just talking crap here... no idea but it sounds dangerous. And impossible.