Well, that depends on what you mean by “the laws of physics”. Some might say, for example, that “time travel is impossible” is a law of physics, in which case, it’s trivially true that we don’t know of any FTL travel method that does not violate the laws of physics. Others might say that “negative mass is impossible” (or something to that effect; it turns out there are a whole slew of subtly different things you can say along those lines) is a law of physics, and by that standard, we can’t categorically rule out all hypothetical FTL devices anyone might ever think up, but it happens that all of the FTL ideas anyone has had so far do all require negative mass. Nobody’s ever come up with an idea for an FTL device that clearly and unambiguously doesn’t defy any laws of physics.
Hmm. Please correct me if I’m wrong. Current understanding of physics does not rule out expanding and contracting space. In fact, hyperexpansion is required, to explain the general homogeneity of the universe - and that hyperexpansion supposedly moved matter faster (a LOT faster) than light from other matter. I am pretty sure contraction of space is also allowed - you would know that better than I. Can you confirm that?
If a method is found to contract a portion of space in front of the “ship”, move the ship across the contracted space, then expand that space behind the ship, that could lead to FTL travel that does not “clearly and unambiguously defy any laws of physics”.
Professor Farnsworth “Thats the wonder of being a scientist. Anythings possible!”
I’ll agree with the OP pitting the “FTL is impossible” downers. If you want certain kinds of Science Fiction you pretty much gotta have FTL or some variant of it thats for all practical purposes ALSO magic given our present engineering abilities. We can’t make wormholes or space ships that can last for millions of years or expand our cryogenic sleep capabilties beyond an 18 hour sleep off of a bender out in the Alaskan tundra.
For that matter, any SF more than a decade or two years beyond what we are currently capable of doing engineering wise probably a bunch of baloney. Now some things go better than expected, but then again there have been plenty of experts (mind you, experts, not sci fi writers) predicting this or that was just around the corner and it still hasnt happened.
And for that matter again, most fiction is baloney. Its the exceptional case. Take the real life story of a thousand people or a thousand little real life story/plotlines/events. Write em and put em in a book or movie. Maybe a few make a good book or movie. And even then you’d have to polish it up (making it not so real anymore). If fiction in general realistically represented reality most people would stick to textbooks and documentaries.
BTW I am selling the movie rights to my life story if anyone is interested.
Yeah, that’s the Alcubierre metric. In order to get the right arrangement of expansion and contraction, you need negative mass. You can get naturally-occurring expansion or contraction, but it’s not arranged the right way.
I said that impossible science is used in exactly the same way in fiction that magic is used is fantasy. FTL never at any time in the history of the field meant a particle that might reset the definition of the speed of light; it is used to get aliens and galactic empires into the mix. Galactic empires are magic. They are medieval kingdoms writ large. That’s all they are and all they are ever meant to be. (Don’t tell me that somebody has written a galactic empire with democracy. You can call a zebra a horse but it’s still a zebra.)
What we know as science fiction grew out of the scientific romance, with romance still used in the old definition.
That’s all that FTL is, a device for heroic or marvelous deeds spread over light years. Nothing about this discovery - which is 99.99999999999999999999% sure not to hold up - will change that in the slightest. Well, maybe some writers will throw in neutrinos as a buzzword the way Asimov used positronium. But Asimov knew that the while positrons existed, the way he used them was writerly magic, to make robots work in his world.
There’s been this schism between science fiction and fantasy for as long as I’ve been in the field, which is over 40 years, and I know that some writers were nuts on the subject in the 50s. Sorry to them all, because they include many people I respect, but there literally is no basic difference between the two. They use both use magic: they just vary the tone. That’s why Star Wars has such a huge fanbase. It’s science fiction and it’s fantasy and it not only appeals to both, it makes it easy to see how the two merge.
People have this bizarre investment in science fiction. Fans from Gernsback onward really thought they were somehow special for reading the stuff. Look at the old fans are slans slogan, based on A. E. van Vogt’s 1946 novel.
That’s 1950. The word changed (hi nerds), but the mentality didn’t. Lots of old-timers hate, hate, hate the tilt toward fantasy being dominant today. But science fiction and fantasy have always been indistinguishable from the outside. Writers have always gone back and forth between them and mixed it up in the sloppy center of science fantasy. It’s all magic, and it’s all good.
I wouldn’t say that fantasy and science fiction are identical: Like any genre, each has their rules to be followed, and the rules aren’t quite the same. But you’re certainly right that there shouldn’t be some sort of schism between the fandoms, and the line between them (the genres and the fandoms both) is blurry at best.
It isn’t really a schism. There are just people at either end of the spectrum who have a strong preference for one genre, and dislike for the other. But there are plenty of people in the middle who enjoy both styles. I know several people who for a time in their lives read almost nothing (fiction-wise) except science fiction. They are the sort who derided all fantasy, based on one or two works that they disliked, without even bothering to look a little further. At the same time they were all die-hard LOTR fans. And later in life their tastes in literature changed to be more encompassing, or at least the way they described their tastes. It’s just human nature to take sides, even when there isn’t much of a clear distinction between the sides.
It’s not even all that hard to come up with a world in which backwards-in-time causation is rampant, that nevertheless looks much like ours – the analogy is that backwards- and forwards-in-time influences interfere, and create something like a standing wave, a stable fixed-point configuration. This is the basis of Cramer’s transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics. Then there’s also the idea of antiparticles as being the same as particles, only moving ‘backwards in time’, due to Feynman and Wheeler, but one should not overinterpret that: the microscopic laws of physics are fully time-reversal invariant anyway, so there’s not really a notion of ‘causation’ equivalent to what we usually mean (in the sense of temporal causation; there is of course an ontological causation, at least as a stochastical notion, where such and such occurred because of this and that).
Understanding this reference is a sure sign of an education in mathematics though 
Best. Thread. Title. Ever.
I applaud the epicness of your “nanny nanny poo poo”.
I salute your ultimate p4wn.
OTOH
Nothing can reach the speed of light, other than, you know, light, but there’s nothing preventing things from loitering on either side, in the general vicinity of the finish line.
L=now that we can transmit in pretemporal modes, faster than light, we should start looking for fore-transmitted information. It would be quite unique in that it would require no travel. Decide on the rotation in quantum space and we know prior or simultaneous to the event.
I won’t argue that Einstein was a visionary in certain ways, but this is kind of misleading. Einstein was very confident his own theory was correct, which is fairly common. But even within his own theory, he couldn’t accept some of the implications that others had come up with, such as black holes (which he was convinced could never ever form in nature). He was also very stodgy when it came to accepting quantum mechanics. Despite what the experiments were saying, he was convinced that his old idea of a clockwork universe had to be right, rather than the probability-based universe of quantum mechanics.
Fortunately, his constant arguing with physicists ended up strengthening the theory. And in that sense, Einstein was a great scientist. He argued quantum theory to the bone until he could come up with no more flaws, thus leaving us with a very strong theory.
The very act of poo-pooing new ideas is what science is about, because any idea that survives the process is one we can have great confidence in.
This is the mindset I don’t quite get. If I was a big wig science guy I’d attack a new exciting theory with gusto. But I’d also be thinking of how in the world it could also be right. I guess my ego is too weak or something…
Except there really was a schism. Damon Knight, who was a well-known writer and an influential critic who derided fantasy in his columns, was also the found the Science Fiction Writers of America. He meant for Science Fiction to be science fiction. He got extremely upset when a fantasy won its award, the Nebula. Many years later the organization changed its name to the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America because the fantasy writers felt so slighted. That generated a years-long brouhaha from people who hated the change. In fact, the official acronym is still SFWA because people refused to change it to SFFWA. That’s in addition to similar minds who hated it when a fantasy won the fan award, the Hugo. Hugos are handed out at the World Science Fiction Convention, and people took that literally.
We live in an age of fantasy domination today so its hard to remember back when fantasy was nothing and science fiction was king. But when it was the science fiction Nazis really were science fiction Nazis. Fantasy was belittled and denigrated. Tolkien didn’t mean anything until the late 60s when the hippies adopted him. Imagine how the hard science fiction writers who were pro-Vietnam War and anti-hippie felt about fantasy then.
That was the nadir, and most of that stupidity has passed. We’ve gone around in the cycle so that science fantasy is again cutting edge. For years though, decades even, a schism existed, among the publishers, the writers, and the readers. I prefer today.
You also had things like Anne McCafferty shoehorning Pern into the science fiction category, even though it was clearly fantasy, just because science fiction was more respectable.
Tachyons don’t reset the speed of light. They utterly depend on it.
Tachyons look like they’ll stop being hypothetical sometime later than neutrinos are shown to be FTL particles. Which is likely never.
Time travel novels are legion. They all depend on hand-waving and magic. Even Timescape.
Ok, I’ve found definitions of schism that include simple disharmony and *discord *as definitions instead of actual seperation. Also a definition of a religious offense of promoting schism. So you could call it a schism if you want.
I read Tolkien in the mid 60’s, and it seemed to be pretty well established at that point. But as I pointed out, science fiction chauvanists usually loved LOTR while simultaneously deriding all fantasy. So there’s another kind of schism going on also.
It is all rather silly. I prefer science fiction to fantasy, but I prefer quality writing to schlock in any genre.
“When an experiment finds an apparently unbelievable result and can find no artefact of the measurement to account for it, it’s normal procedure to invite broader scrutiny, and this is exactly what the OPERA collaboration is doing, it’s good scientific practice,” said CERN Research Director Sergio Bertolucci. “If this measurement is confirmed, it might change our view of physics, but we need to be sure that there are no other, more mundane, explanations. That will require independent measurements.”
Well, Mister Bertolucci did a pretty good job of rephrasing what I said. Good on him!