Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
The Encyclopediss of the 19th century thought they knew all there was to know. Then Roentgen came along...
|
The encyclopedias may have thought that-- but the scientists never did.
Scientists make observations and attempt to derive explanations that best fit those observations. Even when an explanation is found that fits the observations made at the time, there is always the possibility of new findings that mean the explanation (the
theory) has to be revised or tossed out.
There are many things that scientist thought or suspected to be correct in the 1800s that turned out to not be so. But that does
not mean that, therefore, today's science is just as likely to be wrong. Scientists have far more powerful tools at their disposal today than they did 200 years ago-- not only technological tools like computers and electron microscopes and orbital telescopes, but also mental tools-- systematic ways of thinking about and examining the world that have been refined over the centuries ("the scientific method.") What passed for science in the 19th century and before was more in line with philosophy and not what we know as modern experimental science (and the further back you go, the less "scientific" the majority of "science" was.)
So is it-- in theory-- possible that there is something we have fundamentally wrong about current physics? Sure. Do I think it likely that we have something as wrong as people had it in the past? I don't think it very likely. There is no evidence of FTL travel that brings into question standard models of physics-- and particle accelerators are monitored to keep track of all energies involved in collisions-- if any of the mass of a collision disappeared into the past or flew off at a multiple of the speed of light, it would be noticed-- lots of new particles are found by sifting through many billions of collisions to find 1 or 2 instances of the particle's formation. If it happens, it is exceedingly rare.
And even if there is ever found a particle that can travel faster than light or a way is found to make photons travel "faster than light"--
that does not mean that a macroscopic object can be made to do so.
As much as I love for it be otherwise, I do not think that FTL travel will ever be anything more than a plot device used in the telling of a science fiction story.
But-- just because we aren't likely to have FTL, that doesn't mean we can never explore other solar systems. Even current levels of technology can send probes to nearby stars within a matter of centuries. The problem is societal-- people not willing to invest in something that will not bear results for many generations or lifetimes. Most politicians (who pay the budgets for the space agencies) want results within the bounds of their own election cycle.
The best first step towards getting interstellar probes is to get rid of a disease so universal to humanity that most don't even think of it as such-- that pesky genetic disorder that we call "old age." Improve our cellular self-repair machinery so that it doesn't fail after a few decades, and people can start caring about something that won't show results for centuries because they can begin to be of the mindset that they might be around to see those results. If interstellar exploration isn't for mere mortals, then stop being mortal.