the physics were the same 5000 years ago, the people just didn't know it yet.
Everything we've built so far, obeyed physics, and I expect that to remain true in perpetuity.
Everything we've built so far, obeyed physics, and I expect that to remain true in perpetuity.
At least until we solve general relativity vs quantum mechanics (theory of everything), I would be hesitant to claim we know enough to state definitely what is or isn't possible.
We also know this very clearly from relatively simple direct measurements: there never was and there never will be a way for matter to accelerate to speeds greater than c.
The likelihood of your statement is similar to that of mine. It's just nicer to conjecture about the former because the increased complexity brings the illusion of potential.
Even Newtonian physics 300 years ago largely remain the same, relativity complemented it and explained issues on edge cases. It did not completely overturn Newtonian Physics and gravity did not became repulsive instead of attractive.
The discovery of more fundamental models may reveal dualities between our existing theories and new ones.
These duals may show that our current models are accurate, but only to an extent, or don't apply in certain circumstances.
It's hard to fathom, but with gaps to fill in our knowledge of the universe, we may let our imaginations run wild yet :').
There's now a scheme that doesn't require negative energy.
https://newatlas.com/physics/ftl-warp-drive-no-negative-ener...
It may be almost impossible to build due to the energy required, but it isn't prohibited by the physics we currently know.
It's like complaining on why people don't try to build a perpetual machine - it's because it is not possible. You're welcome to keep trying though.
You can always argue that we know more now, that there are fundamental limits, etc., but there’s always more to learn and revise.
Instead, many things that seemed possible 50-150 years ago have turned out in the meantime to be impossible - speeds faster than c (before Maxwell's equations and SR), arbitrary precision measurements (before Heisenberg's uncertainty principle), uniquely determining the future state of a system based on a previous state (before wave functions), arbitrary amounts of matter and energy (before quantization of these and other properties) etc.
The history of physics is usually one of discovering new constraints, not one of discovering new possibilities. Before physics, we used to believe in unconstrained magic. Not only have we always believed we can reach the stars, we used to believe we could do it by finding the right magical formula or praying hard enough.
Of course there are some exceptions - electricity and quantum computing come to mind.
5000 years is before Ozymandias. Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!
This is such a glaring and huge blindspot in western scientific thought process - a blindness to the human element of the scientific process. As if "physics" is something that has been around forever and we just found it in perfect form like some ancient artifact in a cave, rather than the truth of the matter, which is that it is a human creation that is modified with time and is a complex communal phenomenon with many different facets and pieces that not everyone agrees upon. In fact many of the most fundamental elements of physics are under revision and without consensus.
Stating that our current models of physics preclude X neglects to mention it's our current understanding of physics which preclude X.
Our models may change to better match reality in the future.
Is a statement that nothing can go faster than the speed of light not a model? And if not, how did we arrive at that knowledge? God? Direct experience of the speed of light?