November 5, 2023 • 52 mins
What if we could bend the rules of physics to our whim and zip across galaxies at the speed of thought? Buckle up for an adrenaline-fueled jaunt through the cosmos as we tackle the tantalizing puzzle of faster-than-light (FTL) travel! We kick things off with a deep dive into the realm of FTL, an intricate world that straddles the line between scientific possibility and the realm of dreams. Amidst the theoretical physics, we manage to find time for a lighthearted chat about our favorite sci-fi shows. Come join the fun and let us know your favorites!
Dare to journey deeper into the cosmos as we examine the groundbreaking work of physicist Miguel Alcubierre. His revolutionary theory of relativity might just hold the key to breaking the cosmic speed barrier. We then shift gears to the mystifying world of quantum mechanics, time travel, and a tantalizing teaser from a figure who claims to be from the future. Are his predictions about 2023 and beyond accurate, or is it all just an elaborate hoax? Stay tuned to find out!
In the final stretch, we take a hard look at the paradoxes that FTL travel presents. These aren't your everyday conundrums, but mind-bending enigmas that challenge our understanding of causality and the flow of time. To demonstrate, we examine a hypothetical scenario of a space station, an impending explosion, and a spaceship trying to outrun a disaster. We guarantee by the end of this cosmic ride, your perspective on space, time, and travel will be profoundly changed. So, sit back, strap in, and prepare for a voyage unlike any other!
Let's get into it!
Follow us!
Email us: TheCatchupCast@Gmail.com
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
And something very important Can you travel?
Can you travel Faster thanspeed of light?
Aka, what AKA was Star Treklying to us, bro?
You know who knows?
While we intro this Chat, leaveus what your thoughts are in
(00:24):
the comments.
Did Star Trek?
Did Star Trek?
Speaker 2 (00:30):
get it wrong?
Speaker 1 (00:31):
Did Star Trek get it wrong bro?
Speaker 2 (00:33):
Yeah, man.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
So actually no, tell us what your favorite science
fiction like show is.
You know, you got BattlestarGalactica.
You know, you got your, you gotsome.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Firefly in there, man .
Speaker 1 (00:47):
Firefly, you got.
Your Andromeda, bro, mm-hmm,great show you got your.
Star Trek.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Yeah, you got your Stargate.
Speaker 1 (00:56):
Dude, you do, thank you, thank you, thank you.
That was the other one.
You have your Star Wars.
You do have some Star Wars,although one can argue that
that's just wizards in space.
Speaker 2 (01:07):
That is very true.
I mean, it's just space, space,space, magic.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
There's no, I'm literally OK, let's, we gotta
get it out there, bro.
I've watched episode one andtwo, but not yet three of Ahsoka
, right, Mm-hmm?
The Arch-nemesis in the show isa witch.
Witch.
(01:32):
Proves that all the rest ofthem gotta be wizards, bro.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
No man, no man.
You know what is goodtechnology, but magic you know I
don't know man, it's just realgood technology that they got.
It's so advanced that it justlooks like that go magic.
Speaker 1 (01:51):
So you're telling me Darth Vader had some tech when
he was going like yeah, man,it's all in the gloves, yeah.
It could be all in the glovesactually.
All in the gloves, bro, I don'tknow.
Anyway, chat less know whatyour favorite science fiction
star-themed show is in thecomments.
(02:13):
But yeah, man, it drove us alittle bit to what we're going
to be talking about in thisepisode.
Yeah, of course.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
So, yeah, it was something, you know, as I was
doing my doom scroll through notTikTok, actually, but YouTube.
I love to go down the rabbithole, especially when I'm on
long road trips, but it wassomething that I came across
which was FTL faster than mytravel, right, and it was
(02:41):
talking about the possibilitiesof if that's even a thing, or,
and if it is, you know, what arethe effects that could happen,
right, and one of the thingsthat we're going to.
You know, that's one of thethings that we're going to
really kind of dive into.
We're not going to get superdeep, because I am not a
physicist.
(03:01):
I've only watched a few videostalking about some of this stuff
, but what was reallyinteresting about it is just
kind of talking about some ofthe thought process on why it
may not even be a possibility,and so I found that to be really
, really amazing.
You know.
Speaker 1 (03:22):
Yeah, absolutely, it's really so.
I just want you guys to relax,recline, put your thinking caps
on, pay close attention, becausethis one's going to take a lot
of analysis to understand whythis potentially would not work
right.
Or even using Albert Einstein'stheory of relativity bro,
(03:45):
Theory of relativity, not ofA-relativity.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
Of a relativity Theory of relativity.
Speaker 1 (03:51):
dude, that's a theory of a dead man cover band.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
That's what I was going to say.
Speaker 1 (03:57):
Theory of a dead man cover band.
And they're all brothers Theoryof relativity Theory of
relativity.
Yeah, so yeah, we're going totalk about this.
Like I said, put your thinkingcaps on and let us know what you
think about it in the commentschat.
Of course, we want to let youknow, before we get into this
(04:17):
intro, the top three biggestways you can support this show,
right?
Mm-hmm, we're on a day andearly man, All right.
Number one we're going to talkabout there it is oh man, Okay.
So follow us on Facebook,follow us on YouTube.
We live stream every Thursday.
(04:38):
If you're listening to this onaudio, we invite people to jump
in the comments section in realtime and let us know what they
think about what we're talkingabout.
So just look up this podcasttitle on Facebook, on YouTube,
and come in and say what's up,what's that?
That's one of your firstcomments.
(04:59):
What's up?
So I got the juice bag, bro,and I know that I knew this show
.
They're like what's wrong withJohn?
This is OG John, right there,bro.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
Exactly, he's got the sauce.
Speaker 1 (05:15):
I got the sauce back, bro, all right.
Number two what a flex.
We got Rick Gates over here.
Guys, rick Gates on the chat.
So number two is Leave a Rainor Leave a Review.
It's actually the easiest wayyou can support this show.
(05:36):
It's super quick to do.
It helps us know how we'redoing or what we can do better.
It also shows us to morepotential listeners.
And number three oh my, rickGates has nothing on.
This dude man, rick Gates issweating his boots right now.
(05:57):
All right, number three.
I said really stupid memory,but I'll tell it during the
break here.
Number three is there.
It is.
Just in case you forgot whatthree looks like.
Follow us to our shop.
It's linked down below.
(06:17):
Wherever you're listening,wherever you're watching, we
have some really nice mercht-shirts, hoodies, hats, beanies
.
It's getting up to fall prettyclose, you know dang near.
And then we got phone cases andthe coffee mugs as well.
So head on over there.
Like I said, it's linkedwherever you're listening,
(06:38):
wherever you're watching.
And yeah, that's it, bro.
Let's go ahead and jump into it.
That's doing me.
What's going on?
Everybody, I'm John.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
You know, I'm Denison .
Speaker 1 (06:49):
This is the catch up, All right guys?
(07:16):
Yeah, let's go ahead and jumpinto this topic.
So, really, when Denisonbrought this idea up to me, I
was thinking about it, and itdoes make sense that there would
be issues like okay, so lighthas a speed, right, why is it
not faster?
Because you know it can travel.
(07:38):
This is what made me thinkright, so light can travel
through anything, right Through,well, not anything.
Obviously, it has its blocks,but it can travel through space
and time, which in which thereis no friction there is nothing
natural that slows anything downright.
Only on plants does light getdispersed and reduced, or what
(08:01):
happened?
Right yeah exactly yeah.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
When light is passing through different mediums, it
can be a little bit slower orfaster.
That's the reason why lighttravels slower and like water or
something like that, as opposedto the vacuum of space.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
Right.
So, with that said, it wouldmake sense that nothing
inherently could go faster thanlight, right?
Because clearly I mean you'dhave to do some rewriting of
physics to make that happen,right?
Speaker 2 (08:33):
Yeah, yeah, it's because of Albert Einstein's
theory of relativity.
See, I almost did it too.
Those dad gum relatives, man,they just keep on coming in.
But his theory of essentiallyhow the universe works and how a
(08:55):
lot of things kind of coalesce,at least to the knowledge that
we have so far of the universe,states that the speed of light
is the universal constant.
It is the rate at which theuniverse I think it is Well, I
think technically the universeexpands a little bit faster than
the speed of light.
(09:15):
But essentially, like thatright the stars, I mean, if you
really think about it, you canthink of it as like the
interesting fact that the lightfrom the sun takes eight minutes
to get to earth, right For us,for our eyeballs to see it, it
(09:37):
takes eight minutes, right, soone that just shows how big
space is.
But also think about it likewhen you turn on the light it
feels like it's just instant.
Right, Flip the switch, boom,light's there, and so to think
that when the sun comes around,or really when we come around
the sun, it takes that long forus to get to us, so to think
(10:01):
that we somehow are supposed tobe able to go faster than that,
right, Faster than the lightswitch, Faster than the light
coming from the sun, it's kindof crazy, you know.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
It is.
But I guess what makes you Iknow I just kind of argued in
this favor too, don't get mewrong, but what is it about that
makes you think this isimpossible?
Because, first of all, there'sa little thing called mission
impossible, that nothing isimpossible, right, uh-huh.
(10:37):
Second of all, we already arelike doing impossible things.
Right, we are splitting atomsby colliding them together.
You know, we've done nuclearfusion and fission, yep, and
we're studying the quantum levelat a rate never before seen,
right, yeah.
Speaker 2 (10:57):
That's true.
And again, an AI just recentlywas able to map every single
protein ever known, essentiallythat we could ever know, was
able to tell the compositionstructure of each and every
(11:20):
protein ever.
Wow, yeah, so you know, amazingthing, something that, a task
that we thought we'd never beable to do, but we-.
Speaker 1 (11:29):
So AIs are making all kinds of gains.
Man, I know, I know.
Those are different kinds ofthings my bad.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
So you're right I mean, who knows right?
But there are some goodobservations that, at least with
our current knowledge of howthe universe works and how you
know, everything is where itdoesn't make much sense.
So you know I can, I'll go overthat and I'll also go over like
(12:05):
the theoretical way of how wecould go about going faster than
light.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
Okay, because, yeah, I wanna hear what then makes you
think that it wouldn't bepossible.
You know what I?
Speaker 2 (12:19):
mean, yeah, so, okay.
So I guess I'll first startwith, just like, the possibility
of if we could right, how wouldwe right?
So there is one of the leadingtheories of how we would go
faster than the speed of light.
(12:41):
Is called I'm gonna butcherthis man's name, but let me see
what I can do here Okay, it'sAlcubierre, it's
A-L-C-U-B-I-E-R-R-E.
(13:04):
So there was a physicist namedMichael Alcubierre or something
like that.
I may be pronouncing his namewrong and I do apologize, but he
took Einstein's theory ofrelativity and through it he was
able to figure out apossibility of how to move
(13:30):
faster than the speed of light.
Right, Because we know thatthrough Einstein's theory that
nothing can go faster than thespeed of light.
So what his equation does isessentially makes it to where
you would theoretically create abubble right Of space-time.
So then that way for thoseinside the bubble you would be,
(13:56):
everything would be normal,right, you'd be standing still,
you wouldn't notice time passingor anything like that.
But around the bubble is space.
So it's like you're beingpulled, or I should say be
squeezed through space.
Right, so in space can move asfast as it wants.
(14:18):
Right, space expands fasterthan the speed of light.
So essentially, you would usethat process, that property, so
you would look like an egg beingin an egg right, and you're
just getting squeezed throughspace to get to wherever your
destination is right.
Same thing would go with likeif you were to do something
(14:39):
similar to like FTL travel orsomething FTL is just short for
faster than light.
But anyway, he proposed beingable to create this bubble of
space around us and that wouldpropel us to wherever we needed
to go or whatever like that, andthat would theoretically make
(15:01):
us go faster than the speed oflight.
So it's like you know, it's intheory.
It sounds amazing and it workswithin the equation, but the
problem is well, there's severalproblems, but one of the
(15:24):
biggest ones is that multiplephysicists have said that
essentially, some of the effectsthat are actually happening
inside of the bubble are justtoo problematic.
Essentially, you would just die.
Also, it would be.
Speaker 1 (15:44):
Like how.
Speaker 2 (15:46):
There's something called Hawking radiation, where
it would essentially cause theinside of the bubble to like,
heat up to an extreme amount,and then you would just die as
well as probably collapse thebubble in and on itself, because
as you're being squeezedthrough the space time,
(16:07):
essentially that radiation isgathering around the bubble and
then eventually seeping inside,and then you know stuff like
that.
But the other thing about this,right.
So there's tons of problems withwhat I think has been deemed
the Alcubierre drive, right, andof course these are all
(16:31):
theories, right, because we it'sjust working with equations or
whatever like that.
But one of the other issues withit is the amount of mass, the
amount of energy that would berequired to create something
like this.
Right, because really the wholeconcept of this is also going
(16:53):
with in line of, like, how spacegets distorted around very
dense and massive objects likeour sun.
Right, it creates a bend inspace time because of how
massive it is.
And so you know, we're doingthis warp bubble in a I'm gonna
(17:13):
call it like a warp bubble orwhatever like that, but we're
doing this in an effort to dosomething like that.
So you would need a huge amountof energy.
I think the first estimates ofhow much energy that it would
require to even just createsomething similar to this would
be like the amount of energythat exists in the entire
(17:37):
universe, or more than theamount of energy that exists in
the entire universe.
So you know, just an infiniteamount of energy, essentially,
which one?
cool thing you know, just toshowing how much progress that
we're making and as well as howmuch, how much, we are really
pushing ourselves.
(17:57):
You know, going back to yourthought process of nothing's in
place, going back to yourthought process of nothing's
impossible, it's just, you know,we just need to work at it long
enough.
But another physicist theorizedthat by just redoing the math
and the equation said well, youknow what, maybe we can achieve
(18:19):
something like this with a solarsystem's worth of energy.
You know, still an incredibleamount of energy.
But we lowered it quite a bit.
So you know, there's alwaysthat thought process of maybe we
can even lower those demandseven more.
Speaker 1 (18:37):
But it's just how would you acquire all that you
know?
Speaker 2 (18:41):
Yeah, exactly, I mean you would have to have.
You know that goes to.
I forgot, I think it's like Ithink you have big extension
cord with a multi socket,Exactly you know Gotta get on
though All those renewables bro.
Speaker 1 (18:58):
Yeah, all eight planets bro.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
Exactly.
I mean, you know, something likea Dyson sphere might be
something cool that would work,right?
Yeah, a Dyson sphere for thoseof you who don't know, it's not
a big giant, you know it's notthe Dyson vacuum, you know that
you have around that with thebig ball and stuff, but it's a
(19:21):
theoretical way of harnessingthe sun's energy where it would
essentially be a large.
You would create a largestructure, right?
Well, in this thought process,we'll use solar panels, right,
but you encapsulate the sun inthis gigantic structure of solar
(19:45):
panels to where they'recapturing every single ounce of
the sun's energy, and then youwould, you know, of course, use
that energy to do whatever youneed To.
Use that energy to do whateveryou need to, right?
So that would be a thoughtprocess, right?
That's also what I think that'stechnically considered a.
There's a I forgot what the termis but there's different tiers
(20:07):
of like civilizations.
Essentially, it was onescientist's thought process of
different achievements that youknow highly advanced
civilizations could do, right?
So there'd be like tier one,right?
So that would be a civilizationthat is able to harness the
(20:28):
entire planet that they're on,like every single resource,
every single piece of energy,all of that right, fully harness
that.
We're not even at that scale,right, and then I think a tier
two would be able to harnessEssentially some of the other
(20:48):
planets resources and energy andstuff like that.
Then a Tier 3 civilizationwould be able to harness the sun
, essentially that solar systemsenergy which would encapsulate
the sun itself.
Speaker 1 (21:06):
Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2 (21:08):
Anyway, yeah.
Speaker 1 (21:10):
Well, just to give y'all some more context.
Actually I did want to let youknow.
I found out you were reallyclose dude, it's Alcubierre,
Alcubierre.
Speaker 2 (21:24):
Oh God, thank you.
I was trying, man, I'd be likeAlcubierre.
Speaker 1 (21:30):
Hey, hey.
But yeah, one thing that Ifound interesting, which I don't
know lost my place, but youknow, it's interesting that he
proposed this in 94.
It's like Star Trek alreadyhappened and the Star Trek, the
(21:54):
next generation, happened, thefirst three Star Wars happened.
They're like let's go tohyperdrive, right, but then this
dude's like you know what.
I bet we could do somethinglike that.
Speaker 2 (22:09):
Yeah Well, I mean, he actually got his inspiration
from it.
He said how could it bepossible, how could we
scientifically do what Star Trekis doing?
Speaker 1 (22:21):
Yeah, so it's going to help to create the future.
Well, one thing based off whatyou were telling me, just to put
it in a popular culture kind ofway is I did picture a
hyperdrive right From Star Wars,because one thing that always
confused me about hyperdriveright, is they just hit it and
(22:46):
then it's like this All thestars turn to beams, right, but
it's not like they're going anyfaster, but also they are, you
know, more or less.
You see, like when they cutback to a ship in the hyperdrive
, it's just all this stuffwhirling around them, right, and
(23:10):
then when it shuts off there inthat next place, you know, I
know that science fiction showsand all that kind of stuff.
But yeah, okay, so this one wasright, right, right, right.
So this says objects cannotaccelerate to the speed of light
(23:38):
with normal spacetime.
Instead, the Alky, a Cubiarydrive, shifts space around an
object so that the object wouldarrive at its destination more
quickly than light would innormal space without breaking
any physical loss.
It's just so wild that itdoesn't Dang.
(24:00):
Where'd that other?
I read this other thing.
It said I don't know where thatwent.
Sorry, chat, but I do want tosay though I found this really
interesting as well.
So although Alky, the areametric, is consistent with
(24:23):
Einstein's equations, rightGeneral relativity does not
incorporate quantum mechanics,this says.
Some physicists have presentedarguments to suggest that theory
of quantum gravity, which couldincorporate both theories of
relative EM, quantum physics,right Would eliminate those
(24:45):
solutions in general relativitythat allow for backward time
travel and thus make the Alky,the area drive invalid.
So they're saying this kind ofscience, if it were ever able to
be implemented, right wouldactually cause the reverse time
(25:06):
travel rather than travelthrough space.
Speaker 2 (25:09):
Well, no, you could do both, because if you're going
faster, you can do either youcan choose either or because the
thought process is, if you'rebending spacetime around you,
you could go in either direction.
That you need to Because you'regoing faster than light, but we
(25:29):
also know that if you're goingfaster than light, you get weird
time dilations that pop up, andso that is a possibility of you
being able to go forward aswell as backward in time.
Speaker 1 (25:43):
Yeah, okay, gotcha.
Yeah, I think you just findthat interesting, because I
think quantum mechanics do opena lot of possibilities, mm-hmm.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
It does.
Speaker 1 (25:55):
But yeah, like it says here, posing a method for
changing the geometry of spaceby creating a wave that would
cause the fabric of space aheadof spacecraft to contract and
space behind to expand.
That's just so insane, dude.
Speaker 2 (26:08):
Mm-hmm, yeah, you're getting squeezed through space.
Speaker 1 (26:11):
Yeah, to me I feel like that'd have to be some
quantum engine, right?
Mm-hmm, that probably starts inthe 24th century, like Star
(26:34):
Trek, the next generation, yeah,you know, though I mean, that's
got to be something to do withthat, because the amount of
right now, the amount of powerthat that would draw, you know,
and the lack of us being able tohave that, you know.
Speaker 2 (26:55):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (26:56):
We don't understand enough about quantum mechanics
yet.
I mean, we don't evenunderstand a fraction of quantum
mechanics.
Dude.
Speaker 2 (27:03):
Yeah, that's true.
Speaker 1 (27:04):
We really could.
Okay, I'll say this rightMm-hmm, we could travel.
I bet we can travel throughtime.
Okay, assuming that travelingfaster than the speed of light
ever becomes a possibility, Ibelieve I assume that we could
travel through time before wecould travel beyond the speed of
(27:29):
light.
That, oddly, seems moreattainable for me.
I don't think so From a powerperspective.
Speaker 2 (27:39):
From a power perspective.
How?
Because the only way for you tobe able to travel back in time,
you would need some of the samepower requirements, as you
would need to travel faster thanlight.
So I need the power to focus onthis thing.
Speaker 1 (27:57):
Yes, I don't have that.
Evergy doesn't have that option.
Man, it's crazy.
I just want you know thatthere's this guy right that is
making all these predictions.
He's kind of like popular insub pop culture.
(28:22):
He says he's from the futureand then he knows what will
happen.
He's just trying to warn us.
You know, mm hmm Light, let meread some of these.
We'll find it.
Guy from the future predictions.
(28:43):
First and from future predicts.
Yeah, this is the dude.
This guy's from 2671, bro 2671.
Speaker 2 (28:55):
Wow, he's out there, man.
Speaker 1 (28:57):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
So I don't know if he got thisone wrong or not, but supposedly
on March 23rd, 8000 people wereselected by aliens to save the
earth.
Shout out to the aliens forwatching out for us.
He always come through.
Mm.
Hmm, I really appreciate you.
(29:19):
I don't know where the rest is.
This way literally justdisappeared because this station
wants to have ads Gross.
Yeah, I don't know what'shappened with that.
So, yeah, maybe you alreadyfeel when I went here, we go May
15th.
(29:39):
Is this all 2023?
So not only of 750 feet inheight would hit San Francisco
In 18, 7 people will drop fromthe sky at once.
We don't know.
That didn't happen.
Speaker 2 (29:57):
I mean, I guess, technically sure.
Speaker 1 (30:00):
August 18, scientists will find a remedy for skin
cancer.
Kind of true.
I think we have a melomavaccine pending.
Speaker 2 (30:13):
Yeah, but I feel like that was already a discovery,
that already happened.
Speaker 1 (30:18):
Maybe he just got his calendar wrong.
Maybe they use a differentcalendar in 2672.
Did you ever?
Speaker 2 (30:23):
read that yeah, no, you're right, you're right, man,
my bad.
Speaker 1 (30:28):
December 3rd, a crystal will be found which will
cure many diseases.
Speaker 2 (30:33):
Uh oh, he's talking about crystals.
Wow, are you crystal girliesout here With your rocks around
your neck?
You know, hey, this man'sspeaking your language, he's got
you.
Speaker 1 (30:45):
Are you crystal girlies in the chat?
We don't mean to offend you.
Speaker 2 (30:49):
No, not at all.
Speaker 1 (30:50):
You're valued part of our fan base.
And then, lastly, december 29th, new organs will start growing
through stem cells.
Haven't we already done that?
Speaker 2 (31:03):
Yeah, we've already started that process.
Speaker 1 (31:06):
No, back to the future, where you came from.
Speaker 2 (31:09):
I know, I know and you know, if we're going to go
on laws of causality or whatever, we would think that him making
these predictions have apossibility of actually changing
the course of history, whichwould also make things wrong.
But hey, who knows.
Speaker 1 (31:30):
Well, that just means we're on a different timeline
now?
Speaker 2 (31:32):
Yeah, exactly, we're a whole different timeline.
Speaker 1 (31:35):
Like the Avengers, bro.
They're on a different timelinenow.
Speaker 2 (31:37):
Yeah, no, you're right, man Loki came from a
different timeline bro.
Speaker 1 (31:41):
He is himself on a different timeline, but not by
himself fault.
You're right, it's really TonyStark's fault.
But anyway, we don't need toget into that right now.
Discussion for a different day.
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (31:58):
But it's I guess yeah , just a little, but I guess
I'll go over really quickly likea paradox.
I think one of the biggerparadoxes that kind of pop up
(32:19):
with faster than light travelthat I think a lot of people
don't think of and somethingthat I never thought of and kind
of what you know some otherstuff that we have to think
about but one of the bigger onesI was actually trying to
explain to John earlier beforewe started, which was so if you
(32:42):
are going faster than light andour universe runs in a causality
type of deal, right, so A plusB equals C, right, that's how
cause and effect works in ouruniverse, right, because we
understand it currently.
(33:04):
So one of the issues that comeswith faster than light travel is
that there is a possibility ofyou breaking that causality rule
, right, because, for instance,if we do a graph, right, we'll
do a graph to make it a littlebit easy, right?
This is I'm going to see if Ican try to do this.
(33:28):
It'll be a little weird, butall right, here we go.
We're going to use this phonebecause it's nice and straight
for us.
So this is, you know, existenceor whatever like that, or plane
of causality right and say thispoint right, here is Earth
(33:54):
right.
We'll just say, actually we'regoing to put you in the middle.
I'm trying to do this, so thatway it's nice, this is good work
.
Yeah, yeah, okay.
So this is us right, and say,just remember, it's right here,
I'm kind of having to, you know,I only have a few hands.
We'll say, over here, right is.
(34:16):
We'll just say explosion ofsome sort, right.
And then so we've got explosion, right, we've got Earth and
we've got let's see, okay, we'lluse this other phone here.
(34:40):
We've got at the top of thislike a space station, right,
sure.
So I'm explaining this how Iunderstood it and how it was
explained by in some of the fewvideos that I watched that were
talking about this.
(35:01):
But anyway, top of this is aspace station.
So we've got this nice linearline that's going right, it's
going upwards.
So, for instance, right, a bigexplosion happens, right.
So we'll say, like it's, asupernova happens right over
here.
The law of causality happensright, and this is also speeding
(35:24):
or going in the speed of light.
So explosion happens.
It gets to us, which is Earth,right here.
Right, we're chilling.
We're like, oh, hey, look atthat Cool.
Oh, explosion, right, explosionis going to say space station.
Like I said, up here it's goingto hit, the explosion is going
(35:47):
to impact our space station uphere, right, yep, so that's
problematic, right.
We're going to like oh man,that's bad, right.
So us as Earth says like, wait,gotta move, right.
Us, as Earth says like yo, wecan't let that happen.
So let's go ahead and send offa message to our space station.
Who's over here, right?
(36:09):
Different point in space,different point in and stuff.
So we're going to send off atransmission to them and say
like, hey, we got something badhappening, right, hey, yo, come
on now.
Camera, I need you to zoom outfor me, thank you.
So we're sending out somethingright here.
Camera's really having a hardtime.
(36:31):
Yeah, anyway, you know.
You know we're sending outsomething over here and saying,
hey, we're sorry, us heresending information to here,
sorry, it's weird.
Probably should write this down, but it is what it is.
Speaker 1 (36:48):
Anyway, it would be nice if we could draw on the
screen.
That'd be really.
Speaker 2 (36:54):
I know, I know it would be pretty dope, but anyway
.
So we have that going right.
We have our linear line goingand gosh darn, it's harder
because I'm trying to do thisbackwards because of the way
that, yeah, anyway, linear line,ish.
This way.
There we go, linear line goingearth here, explosion here,
(37:18):
space station here.
We send a communication to thespace station and say, hey, you
better move because you're aboutto get exploded.
And so our explosion or ourtimeline goes, like I said
supernova or explosion happensor whatever like that.
(37:40):
We notify the station, stationgets the information and makes
their course correction orwhatever like that, and dodges
the explosion and then theexplosion actually gets to the
space station.
Right, that's how that works.
Right, because we're using,we'll say, faster than like
travel communication, so thatway it's getting there as fast
(38:02):
as possible.
So if we're looking atcausality, that all makes sense,
right, with our regular fasterthan like travel communication,
all sorts of other stuff.
Where wrenches pop up is when wehave different variables in
this same scenario.
So our timeline still issupernova happens, earth checks
(38:29):
out that supernova and then saysand then we also have the point
of when the actual spacestation itself sees the
supernova happen or is about toget hit or whatever, right?
What throws the wrench in thescenario is if we throw a little
bit of a ship in between there.
(38:50):
Right, a little, a little shipthat's going not faster than
like slower than than the speedof light there.
Now I'm going to have to try toadd them to our little graph,
right?
So let's see, we got supernova,we got earth and we're going to
(39:12):
say in between there andbetween there, disregard the
size, this is our spaceship,right, spaceship here right in
the middle or right in the inbetween earth and space station,
right?
(39:33):
So now what's going to happenis we're going to have explosion
happens, we're going to haveearth seeing the explosion,
earth relaying that informationto the space station.
(39:54):
But technically, as it goesthrough and our line of
causation or whatever like that,it's going to hit the slower
than light ship first.
It's going to hit them first,or I should really say it's
going to the communication, isgoing to technically get to them
(40:16):
first before it gets to thespace station, right?
So if the space, if the shipsays, well, they're going slower
than the speed of light, so intheir eyes it's going to be
everything is going to looknormal on their side if they
(40:39):
don't say anything, and what Imean by that is if they don't
intercept that communication andsay like well, things are good,
here you go, because in theirline of causation, right and how
they're seeing stuff.
They're going to see thesupernova, but then they're also
going to see that the spacestation moved so that it so that
(41:03):
the blast didn't hit the spacestation, right.
Yeah, so, but in that weird inbetween time, since they're
going slower than the speed oflight, the communication I'm
trying to remember this properly.
So I'm trying to make sure thatI got it Essentially in that in
(41:25):
that time frame when thecommunication is actually
getting to, essentially in thetime frame in which the ship is
in, they see, or they see theeffects of what Earth did before
(41:50):
Earth actually sent the message.
That makes any sense.
Yeah, yeah, I get it.
The problem comes is if theshuttle says, hey, don't send
(42:11):
this message because they'vealready moved or something like
that.
There's no point in you sendingthis message.
They're not in the way becausethey don't see it this way, and
they send that back to Earth.
What Earth gets before they geta chance to see the or they see
the supernova, they get amessage from this ship that says
(42:32):
they've already moved, don'tsend any messages.
And then you have your line ofcausation where essentially
there's still technically,there's this weird process of
somehow the space station orsorry.
The paradox comes in is how isit that the space shuttle has
(42:57):
already seen this before Earthhas sent out the message?
Right?
If Earth hasn't sent out themessage, then there's no way for
them to actually see the shipmoving out of the way of this
explosion, right?
And so then that whole thingbreaks, because now that makes
no sense.
So that's where our paradoxcomes in.
(43:19):
It becomes essentially thatgrandfather paradox that we all
know about.
Right, if someone goes back intime to kill their grandfather,
but they can't do that, becauseif they kill their grandfather
then they won't exist, becausethey won't exist to go back in
time to kill their grandfatherright, They'll be like I'm back
in the future, like I'mdisappearing.
(43:42):
Exactly, oops.
Speaker 1 (43:45):
Man, hopefully I'll love the grandfathers out there.
Hopefully y'all are getting alot of fun, yeah, I wanted to
point out too, one other thing Ifound.
I actually asked my trustedfriend.
Actually top five, of courseMadison's number one, but coming
(44:05):
in at number four, maybe evennumber three, is chat GBT.
Speaker 2 (44:11):
Always there for you.
Speaker 1 (44:13):
Always there for you, man.
I answer questions every time Iasked is it possible to travel
faster than speed of light?
If not, why?
Now, as you mentioned, there'sEinstein's theory of special
relativity Talked about thatCausality, which is just what
you talked about, right?
(44:33):
And then tachyons, I think, ishow you pronounce this, but
these are only hypotheticalparticles that are imagined to
always travel faster than light.
They've never been observed andmany physicists believe they
(44:54):
don't exist.
So how do you even come up withthem, dog?
So then you got warp drives andwormholes, but in these
concepts, space itself hasmanipulated, either being
compressed in front ofspacecraft and expanding behind
it, in the case of a warp drive,or by connecting two distant
(45:15):
points with a shortcut, in thecase of a wormhole.
All these ideas are fascinatingsolutions and are solutions to
the equations of generalrelativity.
They come with their own setproblems.
For instance, a warp drivemight require negative energy
and exotic matter.
Speaker 2 (45:32):
Neither would have been conclusively shown to exist
.
Speaker 1 (45:35):
Oh really, you could just go on, and you could go on
down to jaguars if you need someexotic matter bro, I'll teach
you some exotic matter there.
Oh man, that's a deep insidejoke for dancing guys.
Speaker 2 (45:53):
It really is.
Speaker 1 (45:54):
It's dancing.
I'm sorry I brought you allinto that chat, but the last
thing about this was quantumentanglement, which I originally
thought was just the thing thatlet Hope's mom talk through
Ant-Man in the first or secondAnt-Man movie.
Apparently not, so.
(46:16):
Quantum entanglement actuallyshoots a hole in the whole idea
I have of quantum space.
Using that right, of course, wecould still find a loophole
through quantum entanglement,but we know so little about it
Right now.
I'm going to have to say thiswould be a reason that the
quantum space would not allow usto travel faster and speed time
(46:37):
.
Here's why it says twoparticles in quantum
entanglement two particles sorry, I can't talk become connected
in such a way that the state ofone instantaneously influences
the state of the other,regardless of distance.
However, this doesn't involvethe transfer of information or
(46:59):
matter faster and light, so itdoesn't violate relative.
So some big brain stuff I'mgoing to ask it to.
I'm going to say this let'srevisit this one right.
Explain number five like I'm inhigh school.
Are you all ready for this?
(47:30):
What's this kind of plan?
I didn't expect this Imagine youand your best friend each have
a pair of dice.
But these are ordinary dice.
They're magic dice.
No matter how far apart you twoare, every time you both roll
your dice at the same time theywill always show the same number
.
So if your role for yourfriends dice will also show up
for instantly, even if they'reon the other side of the world.
(47:53):
This is like.
This is kind of like thequantum entanglement in the
world of tiny particles.
Sometimes two particles canbecome entangled.
This means the state orcondition one particles directly
related to the state of theother, no matter how far apart
they are.
That's amazing.
But here's the catch Eventhough the particles are
connected in this mysterious way, you can't use this connection
(48:15):
to send messages or informationfaster and light.
So if you tried to use yourmagic dice to send secret codes
to your friend, it wouldn't workbecause you can't control what
number of your role.
It's random In the real worldof science if the particles
aren't dice and we don't fullyunderstand why or how
entanglement works the way itdoes, but one thing we know is
(48:38):
that it doesn't allow for fasterand light communication.
How about that?
That was a good explanation, soI know what, if that's what's
happening in the Marvels, bro,the quantum entangled yeah,
because that's what would happenon large scale is that if, say,
a thing traveled throughquantum physics, it could become
(49:01):
quantum entangled with thoseatoms, so it could just shift
randomly.
Is that correct?
Speaker 2 (49:07):
Well, I mean, it's technically like the thing about
the quantum verse that'sinteresting is that it changes
as you observe it, so it can bein a different state until you
observe it.
That's the whole Schrodinger'scat thingy, where it's
technically in all states at thesame time until you observe it.
(49:30):
So it's both dead and aliveuntil you observe it, and that's
yeah, so Schrodinger's cat isjust.
This was a theory, he justdidn't have to make it.
But essentially you put a catin the box and closed it and,
(49:55):
depending on when that cat is inthat box, there is no way to
tell if that cat is alive ordead, because technically, in
quantum wise, it would be in adouble state.
So it'd be both alive and deaduntil you observe.
The moment that you observe it,you can say, oh, no, that cat's
(50:17):
still alive, or no, no, thatcat died.
So it's like that.
So yes, in some ways it couldbe similar.
You're right.
The moment that you observethem they could swap places, or
something like that.
Speaker 1 (50:32):
Sounds like a very caticlysmic idea.
So, yeah, I think we reallybroke this down.
I think we had a good job, gooddiscussion on this.
I really appreciate you, youknow, especially with the
causality discussion.
You did a good job ofexplaining that and I know that
was difficult.
Speaker 2 (50:51):
So try my best.
It's hard without nice visuals,you know.
Speaker 1 (50:55):
I know, but you did your best.
Dude.
Ipod, yeah, ipod.
Speaker 2 (51:00):
You iPod.
Speaker 1 (51:01):
Ear buzz holder, bro.
I don't even know what the lastthing was, but yeah, worked out
.
So all right, guys.
Well, thank you for jumping on,thank you for streaming with us
this fine Thursday night.
Yeah, remember to like andreview wherever you're listening
, wherever you're watching,watching, and check out our shop
(51:26):
.
Wherever you're watching orlistening, bro Guys, you can
check out our good, cleanmerchant Boy do.
We have a lot of it.
So, thank you so much forlistening.
Thank you for watching.
I'll catch up with you nextweek.
And something very important Can you travel?
Can you travel Faster thanspeed of light?
Aka, what AKA was Star Treklying to us, bro?
You know who knows?
While we intro this Chat, leaveus what your thoughts are in
(00:24):
the comments.
Did Star Trek?
Did Star Trek?
Speaker 2 (00:30):
get it wrong?
Speaker 1 (00:31):
Did Star Trek get it wrong bro?
Speaker 2 (00:33):
Yeah, man.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
So actually no, tell us what your favorite science
fiction like show is.
You know, you got BattlestarGalactica.
You know, you got your, you gotsome.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Firefly in there, man .
Speaker 1 (00:47):
Firefly, you got.
Your Andromeda, bro, mm-hmm,great show you got your.
Star Trek.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Yeah, you got your Stargate.
Speaker 1 (00:56):
Dude, you do, thank you, thank you, thank you.
That was the other one.
You have your Star Wars.
You do have some Star Wars,although one can argue that
that's just wizards in space.
Speaker 2 (01:07):
That is very true.
I mean, it's just space, space,space, magic.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
There's no, I'm literally OK, let's, we gotta
get it out there, bro.
I've watched episode one andtwo, but not yet three of Ahsoka
, right, Mm-hmm?
The Arch-nemesis in the show isa witch.
Witch.
(01:32):
Proves that all the rest ofthem gotta be wizards, bro.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
No man, no man.
You know what is goodtechnology, but magic you know I
don't know man, it's just realgood technology that they got.
It's so advanced that it justlooks like that go magic.
Speaker 1 (01:51):
So you're telling me Darth Vader had some tech when
he was going like yeah, man,it's all in the gloves, yeah.
It could be all in the glovesactually.
All in the gloves, bro, I don'tknow.
Anyway, chat less know whatyour favorite science fiction
star-themed show is in thecomments.
(02:13):
But yeah, man, it drove us alittle bit to what we're going
to be talking about in thisepisode.
Yeah, of course.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
So, yeah, it was something, you know, as I was
doing my doom scroll through notTikTok, actually, but YouTube.
I love to go down the rabbithole, especially when I'm on
long road trips, but it wassomething that I came across
which was FTL faster than mytravel, right, and it was
(02:41):
talking about the possibilitiesof if that's even a thing, or,
and if it is, you know, what arethe effects that could happen,
right, and one of the thingsthat we're going to.
You know, that's one of thethings that we're going to
really kind of dive into.
We're not going to get superdeep, because I am not a
physicist.
(03:01):
I've only watched a few videostalking about some of this stuff
, but what was reallyinteresting about it is just
kind of talking about some ofthe thought process on why it
may not even be a possibility,and so I found that to be really
, really amazing.
You know.
Speaker 1 (03:22):
Yeah, absolutely, it's really so.
I just want you guys to relax,recline, put your thinking caps
on, pay close attention, becausethis one's going to take a lot
of analysis to understand whythis potentially would not work
right.
Or even using Albert Einstein'stheory of relativity bro,
(03:45):
Theory of relativity, not ofA-relativity.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
Of a relativity Theory of relativity.
Speaker 1 (03:51):
dude, that's a theory of a dead man cover band.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
That's what I was going to say.
Speaker 1 (03:57):
Theory of a dead man cover band.
And they're all brothers Theoryof relativity Theory of
relativity.
Yeah, so yeah, we're going totalk about this.
Like I said, put your thinkingcaps on and let us know what you
think about it in the commentschat.
Of course, we want to let youknow, before we get into this
(04:17):
intro, the top three biggestways you can support this show,
right?
Mm-hmm, we're on a day andearly man, All right.
Number one we're going to talkabout there it is oh man, Okay.
So follow us on Facebook,follow us on YouTube.
We live stream every Thursday.
(04:38):
If you're listening to this onaudio, we invite people to jump
in the comments section in realtime and let us know what they
think about what we're talkingabout.
So just look up this podcasttitle on Facebook, on YouTube,
and come in and say what's up,what's that?
That's one of your firstcomments.
(04:59):
What's up?
So I got the juice bag, bro,and I know that I knew this show
.
They're like what's wrong withJohn?
This is OG John, right there,bro.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
Exactly, he's got the sauce.
Speaker 1 (05:15):
I got the sauce back, bro, all right.
Number two what a flex.
We got Rick Gates over here.
Guys, rick Gates on the chat.
So number two is Leave a Rainor Leave a Review.
It's actually the easiest wayyou can support this show.
(05:36):
It's super quick to do.
It helps us know how we'redoing or what we can do better.
It also shows us to morepotential listeners.
And number three oh my, rickGates has nothing on.
This dude man, rick Gates issweating his boots right now.
(05:57):
All right, number three.
I said really stupid memory,but I'll tell it during the
break here.
Number three is there.
It is.
Just in case you forgot whatthree looks like.
Follow us to our shop.
It's linked down below.
(06:17):
Wherever you're listening,wherever you're watching, we
have some really nice mercht-shirts, hoodies, hats, beanies
.
It's getting up to fall prettyclose, you know dang near.
And then we got phone cases andthe coffee mugs as well.
So head on over there.
Like I said, it's linkedwherever you're listening,
(06:38):
wherever you're watching.
And yeah, that's it, bro.
Let's go ahead and jump into it.
That's doing me.
What's going on?
Everybody, I'm John.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
You know, I'm Denison .
Speaker 1 (06:49):
This is the catch up, All right guys?
(07:16):
Yeah, let's go ahead and jumpinto this topic.
So, really, when Denisonbrought this idea up to me, I
was thinking about it, and itdoes make sense that there would
be issues like okay, so lighthas a speed, right, why is it
not faster?
Because you know it can travel.
(07:38):
This is what made me thinkright, so light can travel
through anything, right Through,well, not anything.
Obviously, it has its blocks,but it can travel through space
and time, which in which thereis no friction there is nothing
natural that slows anything downright.
Only on plants does light getdispersed and reduced, or what
(08:01):
happened?
Right yeah exactly yeah.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
When light is passing through different mediums, it
can be a little bit slower orfaster.
That's the reason why lighttravels slower and like water or
something like that, as opposedto the vacuum of space.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
Right.
So, with that said, it wouldmake sense that nothing
inherently could go faster thanlight, right?
Because clearly I mean you'dhave to do some rewriting of
physics to make that happen,right?
Speaker 2 (08:33):
Yeah, yeah, it's because of Albert Einstein's
theory of relativity.
See, I almost did it too.
Those dad gum relatives, man,they just keep on coming in.
But his theory of essentiallyhow the universe works and how a
(08:55):
lot of things kind of coalesce,at least to the knowledge that
we have so far of the universe,states that the speed of light
is the universal constant.
It is the rate at which theuniverse I think it is Well, I
think technically the universeexpands a little bit faster than
the speed of light.
(09:15):
But essentially, like thatright the stars, I mean, if you
really think about it, you canthink of it as like the
interesting fact that the lightfrom the sun takes eight minutes
to get to earth, right For us,for our eyeballs to see it, it
(09:37):
takes eight minutes, right, soone that just shows how big
space is.
But also think about it likewhen you turn on the light it
feels like it's just instant.
Right, Flip the switch, boom,light's there, and so to think
that when the sun comes around,or really when we come around
the sun, it takes that long forus to get to us, so to think
(10:01):
that we somehow are supposed tobe able to go faster than that,
right, Faster than the lightswitch, Faster than the light
coming from the sun, it's kindof crazy, you know.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
It is.
But I guess what makes you Iknow I just kind of argued in
this favor too, don't get mewrong, but what is it about that
makes you think this isimpossible?
Because, first of all, there'sa little thing called mission
impossible, that nothing isimpossible, right, uh-huh.
(10:37):
Second of all, we already arelike doing impossible things.
Right, we are splitting atomsby colliding them together.
You know, we've done nuclearfusion and fission, yep, and
we're studying the quantum levelat a rate never before seen,
right, yeah.
Speaker 2 (10:57):
That's true.
And again, an AI just recentlywas able to map every single
protein ever known, essentiallythat we could ever know, was
able to tell the compositionstructure of each and every
(11:20):
protein ever.
Wow, yeah, so you know, amazingthing, something that, a task
that we thought we'd never beable to do, but we-.
Speaker 1 (11:29):
So AIs are making all kinds of gains.
Man, I know, I know.
Those are different kinds ofthings my bad.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
So you're right I mean, who knows right?
But there are some goodobservations that, at least with
our current knowledge of howthe universe works and how you
know, everything is where itdoesn't make much sense.
So you know I can, I'll go overthat and I'll also go over like
(12:05):
the theoretical way of how wecould go about going faster than
light.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
Okay, because, yeah, I wanna hear what then makes you
think that it wouldn't bepossible.
You know what I?
Speaker 2 (12:19):
mean, yeah, so, okay.
So I guess I'll first startwith, just like, the possibility
of if we could right, how wouldwe right?
So there is one of the leadingtheories of how we would go
faster than the speed of light.
(12:41):
Is called I'm gonna butcherthis man's name, but let me see
what I can do here Okay, it'sAlcubierre, it's
A-L-C-U-B-I-E-R-R-E.
(13:04):
So there was a physicist namedMichael Alcubierre or something
like that.
I may be pronouncing his namewrong and I do apologize, but he
took Einstein's theory ofrelativity and through it he was
able to figure out apossibility of how to move
(13:30):
faster than the speed of light.
Right, Because we know thatthrough Einstein's theory that
nothing can go faster than thespeed of light.
So what his equation does isessentially makes it to where
you would theoretically create abubble right Of space-time.
So then that way for thoseinside the bubble you would be,
(13:56):
everything would be normal,right, you'd be standing still,
you wouldn't notice time passingor anything like that.
But around the bubble is space.
So it's like you're beingpulled, or I should say be
squeezed through space.
Right, so in space can move asfast as it wants.
(14:18):
Right, space expands fasterthan the speed of light.
So essentially, you would usethat process, that property, so
you would look like an egg beingin an egg right, and you're
just getting squeezed throughspace to get to wherever your
destination is right.
Same thing would go with likeif you were to do something
(14:39):
similar to like FTL travel orsomething FTL is just short for
faster than light.
But anyway, he proposed beingable to create this bubble of
space around us and that wouldpropel us to wherever we needed
to go or whatever like that, andthat would theoretically make
(15:01):
us go faster than the speed oflight.
So it's like you know, it's intheory.
It sounds amazing and it workswithin the equation, but the
problem is well, there's severalproblems, but one of the
(15:24):
biggest ones is that multiplephysicists have said that
essentially, some of the effectsthat are actually happening
inside of the bubble are justtoo problematic.
Essentially, you would just die.
Also, it would be.
Speaker 1 (15:44):
Like how.
Speaker 2 (15:46):
There's something called Hawking radiation, where
it would essentially cause theinside of the bubble to like,
heat up to an extreme amount,and then you would just die as
well as probably collapse thebubble in and on itself, because
as you're being squeezedthrough the space time,
(16:07):
essentially that radiation isgathering around the bubble and
then eventually seeping inside,and then you know stuff like
that.
But the other thing about this,right.
So there's tons of problems withwhat I think has been deemed
the Alcubierre drive, right, andof course these are all
(16:31):
theories, right, because we it'sjust working with equations or
whatever like that.
But one of the other issues withit is the amount of mass, the
amount of energy that would berequired to create something
like this.
Right, because really the wholeconcept of this is also going
(16:53):
with in line of, like, how spacegets distorted around very
dense and massive objects likeour sun.
Right, it creates a bend inspace time because of how
massive it is.
And so you know, we're doingthis warp bubble in a I'm gonna
(17:13):
call it like a warp bubble orwhatever like that, but we're
doing this in an effort to dosomething like that.
So you would need a huge amountof energy.
I think the first estimates ofhow much energy that it would
require to even just createsomething similar to this would
be like the amount of energythat exists in the entire
(17:37):
universe, or more than theamount of energy that exists in
the entire universe.
So you know, just an infiniteamount of energy, essentially,
which one?
cool thing you know, just toshowing how much progress that
we're making and as well as howmuch, how much, we are really
pushing ourselves.
(17:57):
You know, going back to yourthought process of nothing's in
place, going back to yourthought process of nothing's
impossible, it's just, you know,we just need to work at it long
enough.
But another physicist theorizedthat by just redoing the math
and the equation said well, youknow what, maybe we can achieve
(18:19):
something like this with a solarsystem's worth of energy.
You know, still an incredibleamount of energy.
But we lowered it quite a bit.
So you know, there's alwaysthat thought process of maybe we
can even lower those demandseven more.
Speaker 1 (18:37):
But it's just how would you acquire all that you
know?
Speaker 2 (18:41):
Yeah, exactly, I mean you would have to have.
You know that goes to.
I forgot, I think it's like Ithink you have big extension
cord with a multi socket,Exactly you know Gotta get on
though All those renewables bro.
Speaker 1 (18:58):
Yeah, all eight planets bro.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
Exactly.
I mean, you know, something likea Dyson sphere might be
something cool that would work,right?
Yeah, a Dyson sphere for thoseof you who don't know, it's not
a big giant, you know it's notthe Dyson vacuum, you know that
you have around that with thebig ball and stuff, but it's a
(19:21):
theoretical way of harnessingthe sun's energy where it would
essentially be a large.
You would create a largestructure, right?
Well, in this thought process,we'll use solar panels, right,
but you encapsulate the sun inthis gigantic structure of solar
(19:45):
panels to where they'recapturing every single ounce of
the sun's energy, and then youwould, you know, of course, use
that energy to do whatever youneed To.
Use that energy to do whateveryou need to, right?
So that would be a thoughtprocess, right?
That's also what I think that'stechnically considered a.
There's a I forgot what the termis but there's different tiers
(20:07):
of like civilizations.
Essentially, it was onescientist's thought process of
different achievements that youknow highly advanced
civilizations could do, right?
So there'd be like tier one,right?
So that would be a civilizationthat is able to harness the
(20:28):
entire planet that they're on,like every single resource,
every single piece of energy,all of that right, fully harness
that.
We're not even at that scale,right, and then I think a tier
two would be able to harnessEssentially some of the other
(20:48):
planets resources and energy andstuff like that.
Then a Tier 3 civilizationwould be able to harness the sun
, essentially that solar systemsenergy which would encapsulate
the sun itself.
Speaker 1 (21:06):
Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2 (21:08):
Anyway, yeah.
Speaker 1 (21:10):
Well, just to give y'all some more context.
Actually I did want to let youknow.
I found out you were reallyclose dude, it's Alcubierre,
Alcubierre.
Speaker 2 (21:24):
Oh God, thank you.
I was trying, man, I'd be likeAlcubierre.
Speaker 1 (21:30):
Hey, hey.
But yeah, one thing that Ifound interesting, which I don't
know lost my place, but youknow, it's interesting that he
proposed this in 94.
It's like Star Trek alreadyhappened and the Star Trek, the
(21:54):
next generation, happened, thefirst three Star Wars happened.
They're like let's go tohyperdrive, right, but then this
dude's like you know what.
I bet we could do somethinglike that.
Speaker 2 (22:09):
Yeah Well, I mean, he actually got his inspiration
from it.
He said how could it bepossible, how could we
scientifically do what Star Trekis doing?
Speaker 1 (22:21):
Yeah, so it's going to help to create the future.
Well, one thing based off whatyou were telling me, just to put
it in a popular culture kind ofway is I did picture a
hyperdrive right From Star Wars,because one thing that always
confused me about hyperdriveright, is they just hit it and
(22:46):
then it's like this All thestars turn to beams, right, but
it's not like they're going anyfaster, but also they are, you
know, more or less.
You see, like when they cutback to a ship in the hyperdrive
, it's just all this stuffwhirling around them, right, and
(23:10):
then when it shuts off there inthat next place, you know, I
know that science fiction showsand all that kind of stuff.
But yeah, okay, so this one wasright, right, right, right.
So this says objects cannotaccelerate to the speed of light
(23:38):
with normal spacetime.
Instead, the Alky, a Cubiarydrive, shifts space around an
object so that the object wouldarrive at its destination more
quickly than light would innormal space without breaking
any physical loss.
It's just so wild that itdoesn't Dang.
(24:00):
Where'd that other?
I read this other thing.
It said I don't know where thatwent.
Sorry, chat, but I do want tosay though I found this really
interesting as well.
So although Alky, the areametric, is consistent with
(24:23):
Einstein's equations, rightGeneral relativity does not
incorporate quantum mechanics,this says.
Some physicists have presentedarguments to suggest that theory
of quantum gravity, which couldincorporate both theories of
relative EM, quantum physics,right Would eliminate those
(24:45):
solutions in general relativitythat allow for backward time
travel and thus make the Alky,the area drive invalid.
So they're saying this kind ofscience, if it were ever able to
be implemented, right wouldactually cause the reverse time
(25:06):
travel rather than travelthrough space.
Speaker 2 (25:09):
Well, no, you could do both, because if you're going
faster, you can do either youcan choose either or because the
thought process is, if you'rebending spacetime around you,
you could go in either direction.
That you need to Because you'regoing faster than light, but we
(25:29):
also know that if you're goingfaster than light, you get weird
time dilations that pop up, andso that is a possibility of you
being able to go forward aswell as backward in time.
Speaker 1 (25:43):
Yeah, okay, gotcha.
Yeah, I think you just findthat interesting, because I
think quantum mechanics do opena lot of possibilities, mm-hmm.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
It does.
Speaker 1 (25:55):
But yeah, like it says here, posing a method for
changing the geometry of spaceby creating a wave that would
cause the fabric of space aheadof spacecraft to contract and
space behind to expand.
That's just so insane, dude.
Speaker 2 (26:08):
Mm-hmm, yeah, you're getting squeezed through space.
Speaker 1 (26:11):
Yeah, to me I feel like that'd have to be some
quantum engine, right?
Mm-hmm, that probably starts inthe 24th century, like Star
(26:34):
Trek, the next generation, yeah,you know, though I mean, that's
got to be something to do withthat, because the amount of
right now, the amount of powerthat that would draw, you know,
and the lack of us being able tohave that, you know.
Speaker 2 (26:55):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (26:56):
We don't understand enough about quantum mechanics
yet.
I mean, we don't evenunderstand a fraction of quantum
mechanics.
Dude.
Speaker 2 (27:03):
Yeah, that's true.
Speaker 1 (27:04):
We really could.
Okay, I'll say this rightMm-hmm, we could travel.
I bet we can travel throughtime.
Okay, assuming that travelingfaster than the speed of light
ever becomes a possibility, Ibelieve I assume that we could
travel through time before wecould travel beyond the speed of
(27:29):
light.
That, oddly, seems moreattainable for me.
I don't think so From a powerperspective.
Speaker 2 (27:39):
From a power perspective.
How?
Because the only way for you tobe able to travel back in time,
you would need some of the samepower requirements, as you
would need to travel faster thanlight.
So I need the power to focus onthis thing.
Speaker 1 (27:57):
Yes, I don't have that.
Evergy doesn't have that option.
Man, it's crazy.
I just want you know thatthere's this guy right that is
making all these predictions.
He's kind of like popular insub pop culture.
(28:22):
He says he's from the futureand then he knows what will
happen.
He's just trying to warn us.
You know, mm hmm Light, let meread some of these.
We'll find it.
Guy from the future predictions.
(28:43):
First and from future predicts.
Yeah, this is the dude.
This guy's from 2671, bro 2671.
Speaker 2 (28:55):
Wow, he's out there, man.
Speaker 1 (28:57):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
So I don't know if he got thisone wrong or not, but supposedly
on March 23rd, 8000 people wereselected by aliens to save the
earth.
Shout out to the aliens forwatching out for us.
He always come through.
Mm.
Hmm, I really appreciate you.
(29:19):
I don't know where the rest is.
This way literally justdisappeared because this station
wants to have ads Gross.
Yeah, I don't know what'shappened with that.
So, yeah, maybe you alreadyfeel when I went here, we go May
15th.
(29:39):
Is this all 2023?
So not only of 750 feet inheight would hit San Francisco
In 18, 7 people will drop fromthe sky at once.
We don't know.
That didn't happen.
Speaker 2 (29:57):
I mean, I guess, technically sure.
Speaker 1 (30:00):
August 18, scientists will find a remedy for skin
cancer.
Kind of true.
I think we have a melomavaccine pending.
Speaker 2 (30:13):
Yeah, but I feel like that was already a discovery,
that already happened.
Speaker 1 (30:18):
Maybe he just got his calendar wrong.
Maybe they use a differentcalendar in 2672.
Did you ever?
Speaker 2 (30:23):
read that yeah, no, you're right, you're right, man,
my bad.
Speaker 1 (30:28):
December 3rd, a crystal will be found which will
cure many diseases.
Speaker 2 (30:33):
Uh oh, he's talking about crystals.
Wow, are you crystal girliesout here With your rocks around
your neck?
You know, hey, this man'sspeaking your language, he's got
you.
Speaker 1 (30:45):
Are you crystal girlies in the chat?
We don't mean to offend you.
Speaker 2 (30:49):
No, not at all.
Speaker 1 (30:50):
You're valued part of our fan base.
And then, lastly, december 29th, new organs will start growing
through stem cells.
Haven't we already done that?
Speaker 2 (31:03):
Yeah, we've already started that process.
Speaker 1 (31:06):
No, back to the future, where you came from.
Speaker 2 (31:09):
I know, I know and you know, if we're going to go
on laws of causality or whatever, we would think that him making
these predictions have apossibility of actually changing
the course of history, whichwould also make things wrong.
But hey, who knows.
Speaker 1 (31:30):
Well, that just means we're on a different timeline
now?
Speaker 2 (31:32):
Yeah, exactly, we're a whole different timeline.
Speaker 1 (31:35):
Like the Avengers, bro.
They're on a different timelinenow.
Speaker 2 (31:37):
Yeah, no, you're right, man Loki came from a
different timeline bro.
Speaker 1 (31:41):
He is himself on a different timeline, but not by
himself fault.
You're right, it's really TonyStark's fault.
But anyway, we don't need toget into that right now.
Discussion for a different day.
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (31:58):
But it's I guess yeah , just a little, but I guess
I'll go over really quickly likea paradox.
I think one of the biggerparadoxes that kind of pop up
(32:19):
with faster than light travelthat I think a lot of people
don't think of and somethingthat I never thought of and kind
of what you know some otherstuff that we have to think
about but one of the bigger onesI was actually trying to
explain to John earlier beforewe started, which was so if you
(32:42):
are going faster than light andour universe runs in a causality
type of deal, right, so A plusB equals C, right, that's how
cause and effect works in ouruniverse, right, because we
understand it currently.
(33:04):
So one of the issues that comeswith faster than light travel is
that there is a possibility ofyou breaking that causality rule
, right, because, for instance,if we do a graph, right, we'll
do a graph to make it a littlebit easy, right?
This is I'm going to see if Ican try to do this.
(33:28):
It'll be a little weird, butall right, here we go.
We're going to use this phonebecause it's nice and straight
for us.
So this is, you know, existenceor whatever like that, or plane
of causality right and say thispoint right, here is Earth
(33:54):
right.
We'll just say, actually we'regoing to put you in the middle.
I'm trying to do this, so thatway it's nice, this is good work
.
Yeah, yeah, okay.
So this is us right, and say,just remember, it's right here,
I'm kind of having to, you know,I only have a few hands.
We'll say, over here, right is.
(34:16):
We'll just say explosion ofsome sort, right.
And then so we've got explosion, right, we've got Earth and
we've got let's see, okay, we'lluse this other phone here.
(34:40):
We've got at the top of thislike a space station, right,
sure.
So I'm explaining this how Iunderstood it and how it was
explained by in some of the fewvideos that I watched that were
talking about this.
(35:01):
But anyway, top of this is aspace station.
So we've got this nice linearline that's going right, it's
going upwards.
So, for instance, right, a bigexplosion happens, right.
So we'll say, like it's, asupernova happens right over
here.
The law of causality happensright, and this is also speeding
(35:24):
or going in the speed of light.
So explosion happens.
It gets to us, which is Earth,right here.
Right, we're chilling.
We're like, oh, hey, look atthat Cool.
Oh, explosion, right, explosionis going to say space station.
Like I said, up here it's goingto hit, the explosion is going
(35:47):
to impact our space station uphere, right, yep, so that's
problematic, right.
We're going to like oh man,that's bad, right.
So us as Earth says like, wait,gotta move, right.
Us, as Earth says like yo, wecan't let that happen.
So let's go ahead and send offa message to our space station.
Who's over here, right?
(36:09):
Different point in space,different point in and stuff.
So we're going to send off atransmission to them and say
like, hey, we got something badhappening, right, hey, yo, come
on now.
Camera, I need you to zoom outfor me, thank you.
So we're sending out somethingright here.
Camera's really having a hardtime.
(36:31):
Yeah, anyway, you know.
You know we're sending outsomething over here and saying,
hey, we're sorry, us heresending information to here,
sorry, it's weird.
Probably should write this down, but it is what it is.
Speaker 1 (36:48):
Anyway, it would be nice if we could draw on the
screen.
That'd be really.
Speaker 2 (36:54):
I know, I know it would be pretty dope, but anyway
.
So we have that going right.
We have our linear line goingand gosh darn, it's harder
because I'm trying to do thisbackwards because of the way
that, yeah, anyway, linear line,ish.
This way.
There we go, linear line goingearth here, explosion here,
(37:18):
space station here.
We send a communication to thespace station and say, hey, you
better move because you're aboutto get exploded.
And so our explosion or ourtimeline goes, like I said
supernova or explosion happensor whatever like that.
(37:40):
We notify the station, stationgets the information and makes
their course correction orwhatever like that, and dodges
the explosion and then theexplosion actually gets to the
space station.
Right, that's how that works.
Right, because we're using,we'll say, faster than like
travel communication, so thatway it's getting there as fast
(38:02):
as possible.
So if we're looking atcausality, that all makes sense,
right, with our regular fasterthan like travel communication,
all sorts of other stuff.
Where wrenches pop up is when wehave different variables in
this same scenario.
So our timeline still issupernova happens, earth checks
(38:29):
out that supernova and then saysand then we also have the point
of when the actual spacestation itself sees the
supernova happen or is about toget hit or whatever, right?
What throws the wrench in thescenario is if we throw a little
bit of a ship in between there.
(38:50):
Right, a little, a little shipthat's going not faster than
like slower than than the speedof light there.
Now I'm going to have to try toadd them to our little graph,
right?
So let's see, we got supernova,we got earth and we're going to
(39:12):
say in between there andbetween there, disregard the
size, this is our spaceship,right, spaceship here right in
the middle or right in the inbetween earth and space station,
right?
(39:33):
So now what's going to happenis we're going to have explosion
happens, we're going to haveearth seeing the explosion,
earth relaying that informationto the space station.
(39:54):
But technically, as it goesthrough and our line of
causation or whatever like that,it's going to hit the slower
than light ship first.
It's going to hit them first,or I should really say it's
going to the communication, isgoing to technically get to them
(40:16):
first before it gets to thespace station, right?
So if the space, if the shipsays, well, they're going slower
than the speed of light, so intheir eyes it's going to be
everything is going to looknormal on their side if they
(40:39):
don't say anything, and what Imean by that is if they don't
intercept that communication andsay like well, things are good,
here you go, because in theirline of causation, right and how
they're seeing stuff.
They're going to see thesupernova, but then they're also
going to see that the spacestation moved so that it so that
(41:03):
the blast didn't hit the spacestation, right.
Yeah, so, but in that weird inbetween time, since they're
going slower than the speed oflight, the communication I'm
trying to remember this properly.
So I'm trying to make sure thatI got it Essentially in that in
(41:25):
that time frame when thecommunication is actually
getting to, essentially in thetime frame in which the ship is
in, they see, or they see theeffects of what Earth did before
(41:50):
Earth actually sent the message.
That makes any sense.
Yeah, yeah, I get it.
The problem comes is if theshuttle says, hey, don't send
(42:11):
this message because they'vealready moved or something like
that.
There's no point in you sendingthis message.
They're not in the way becausethey don't see it this way, and
they send that back to Earth.
What Earth gets before they geta chance to see the or they see
the supernova, they get amessage from this ship that says
(42:32):
they've already moved, don'tsend any messages.
And then you have your line ofcausation where essentially
there's still technically,there's this weird process of
somehow the space station orsorry.
The paradox comes in is how isit that the space shuttle has
(42:57):
already seen this before Earthhas sent out the message?
Right?
If Earth hasn't sent out themessage, then there's no way for
them to actually see the shipmoving out of the way of this
explosion, right?
And so then that whole thingbreaks, because now that makes
no sense.
So that's where our paradoxcomes in.
(43:19):
It becomes essentially thatgrandfather paradox that we all
know about.
Right, if someone goes back intime to kill their grandfather,
but they can't do that, becauseif they kill their grandfather
then they won't exist, becausethey won't exist to go back in
time to kill their grandfatherright, They'll be like I'm back
in the future, like I'mdisappearing.
(43:42):
Exactly, oops.
Speaker 1 (43:45):
Man, hopefully I'll love the grandfathers out there.
Hopefully y'all are getting alot of fun, yeah, I wanted to
point out too, one other thing Ifound.
I actually asked my trustedfriend.
Actually top five, of courseMadison's number one, but coming
(44:05):
in at number four, maybe evennumber three, is chat GBT.
Speaker 2 (44:11):
Always there for you.
Speaker 1 (44:13):
Always there for you, man.
I answer questions every time Iasked is it possible to travel
faster than speed of light?
If not, why?
Now, as you mentioned, there'sEinstein's theory of special
relativity Talked about thatCausality, which is just what
you talked about, right?
(44:33):
And then tachyons, I think, ishow you pronounce this, but
these are only hypotheticalparticles that are imagined to
always travel faster than light.
They've never been observed andmany physicists believe they
(44:54):
don't exist.
So how do you even come up withthem, dog?
So then you got warp drives andwormholes, but in these
concepts, space itself hasmanipulated, either being
compressed in front ofspacecraft and expanding behind
it, in the case of a warp drive,or by connecting two distant
(45:15):
points with a shortcut, in thecase of a wormhole.
All these ideas are fascinatingsolutions and are solutions to
the equations of generalrelativity.
They come with their own setproblems.
For instance, a warp drivemight require negative energy
and exotic matter.
Speaker 2 (45:32):
Neither would have been conclusively shown to exist
.
Speaker 1 (45:35):
Oh really, you could just go on, and you could go on
down to jaguars if you need someexotic matter bro, I'll teach
you some exotic matter there.
Oh man, that's a deep insidejoke for dancing guys.
Speaker 2 (45:53):
It really is.
Speaker 1 (45:54):
It's dancing.
I'm sorry I brought you allinto that chat, but the last
thing about this was quantumentanglement, which I originally
thought was just the thing thatlet Hope's mom talk through
Ant-Man in the first or secondAnt-Man movie.
Apparently not, so.
(46:16):
Quantum entanglement actuallyshoots a hole in the whole idea
I have of quantum space.
Using that right, of course, wecould still find a loophole
through quantum entanglement,but we know so little about it
Right now.
I'm going to have to say thiswould be a reason that the
quantum space would not allow usto travel faster and speed time
(46:37):
.
Here's why it says twoparticles in quantum
entanglement two particles sorry, I can't talk become connected
in such a way that the state ofone instantaneously influences
the state of the other,regardless of distance.
However, this doesn't involvethe transfer of information or
(46:59):
matter faster and light, so itdoesn't violate relative.
So some big brain stuff I'mgoing to ask it to.
I'm going to say this let'srevisit this one right.
Explain number five like I'm inhigh school.
Are you all ready for this?
(47:30):
What's this kind of plan?
I didn't expect this Imagine youand your best friend each have
a pair of dice.
But these are ordinary dice.
They're magic dice.
No matter how far apart you twoare, every time you both roll
your dice at the same time theywill always show the same number
.
So if your role for yourfriends dice will also show up
for instantly, even if they'reon the other side of the world.
(47:53):
This is like.
This is kind of like thequantum entanglement in the
world of tiny particles.
Sometimes two particles canbecome entangled.
This means the state orcondition one particles directly
related to the state of theother, no matter how far apart
they are.
That's amazing.
But here's the catch Eventhough the particles are
connected in this mysterious way, you can't use this connection
(48:15):
to send messages or informationfaster and light.
So if you tried to use yourmagic dice to send secret codes
to your friend, it wouldn't workbecause you can't control what
number of your role.
It's random In the real worldof science if the particles
aren't dice and we don't fullyunderstand why or how
entanglement works the way itdoes, but one thing we know is
(48:38):
that it doesn't allow for fasterand light communication.
How about that?
That was a good explanation, soI know what, if that's what's
happening in the Marvels, bro,the quantum entangled yeah,
because that's what would happenon large scale is that if, say,
a thing traveled throughquantum physics, it could become
(49:01):
quantum entangled with thoseatoms, so it could just shift
randomly.
Is that correct?
Speaker 2 (49:07):
Well, I mean, it's technically like the thing about
the quantum verse that'sinteresting is that it changes
as you observe it, so it can bein a different state until you
observe it.
That's the whole Schrodinger'scat thingy, where it's
technically in all states at thesame time until you observe it.
(49:30):
So it's both dead and aliveuntil you observe it, and that's
yeah, so Schrodinger's cat isjust.
This was a theory, he justdidn't have to make it.
But essentially you put a catin the box and closed it and,
(49:55):
depending on when that cat is inthat box, there is no way to
tell if that cat is alive ordead, because technically, in
quantum wise, it would be in adouble state.
So it'd be both alive and deaduntil you observe.
The moment that you observe it,you can say, oh, no, that cat's
(50:17):
still alive, or no, no, thatcat died.
So it's like that.
So yes, in some ways it couldbe similar.
You're right.
The moment that you observethem they could swap places, or
something like that.
Speaker 1 (50:32):
Sounds like a very caticlysmic idea.
So, yeah, I think we reallybroke this down.
I think we had a good job, gooddiscussion on this.
I really appreciate you, youknow, especially with the
causality discussion.
You did a good job ofexplaining that and I know that
was difficult.
Speaker 2 (50:51):
So try my best.
It's hard without nice visuals,you know.
Speaker 1 (50:55):
I know, but you did your best.
Dude.
Ipod, yeah, ipod.
Speaker 2 (51:00):
You iPod.
Speaker 1 (51:01):
Ear buzz holder, bro.
I don't even know what the lastthing was, but yeah, worked out
.
So all right, guys.
Well, thank you for jumping on,thank you for streaming with us
this fine Thursday night.
Yeah, remember to like andreview wherever you're listening
, wherever you're watching,watching, and check out our shop
(51:26):
.
Wherever you're watching orlistening, bro Guys, you can
check out our good, cleanmerchant Boy do.
We have a lot of it.
So, thank you so much forlistening.
Thank you for watching.
I'll catch up with you nextweek.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.