Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

coffeecofeecoffee t1_iyiyozv wrote

Reply to comment by KiwasiGames in Scientists simulate ‘baby’ wormhole without rupturing space and time by Crazy-Sundae-5141

I feel like "we like causality" is not good enough for me. Just because we can't understand a universe that breaks causality doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We know n o t h i n g.

2

KiwasiGames t1_iyj9pqv wrote

Come on. This is a science sub.

We have never seen a FTL particle, ever. And we have looked for them.

We have no gaps in our theories of physics that would be effectively explained by allowing FTL.

And every known law of physics would turn out to be wrong if FTL was a thing.

None of that suggests that we will ever get to FTL.

2

coffeecofeecoffee t1_iyjolmc wrote

Yes, but models aren't truths, they are tools. Velocity A + Velocity B = Velocity (A + B) was a good enough model until we needed a more complicated one to account for relativistic speeds.

It doesn't mean the first model is wrong, just that it's not the full picture. I refuse to believe that Einsteins theory of relativity is the full picture.

I wonder why the speed of light is the speed of light? I feel things that are once thought of as "physical intrinsic laws" are really just results of a more complicated mechanism. So what's to say the speed of light, and velocity and spacetime in general is just the observable symptom of something more fundamental?

I don't expect us to find something faster than light but I'm not convinced the entire concept of velocity and spacetime is as fundamental and solid as it feels now.

2