## Heisenberg Drive

Post

### Re: Heisenberg Drive

#346
Changing the probility distribution of a particle's position requires adding energy. That energy must come from a source external to the particle you want to move. It also takes a LOT of energy. Thanks to e=mc^2, that means your ship starts to weigh more (meaning it takes more energy to change the probability distribution of particles)
Because you're putting in more energy to change the probability distribution of particles, the ship weighs more again, requiring even more energy.

- - -

Each individual particle in the ship has to be moved but cannot move itself, it requires an external source of power. Follow this through for every single particle on the ship and it becomes obvious that not every particle that makes up the ship can be moved.

- - -

The propagation of probability distributions is slower than light. If you want to move a particle 1 lightsecond amd you manage to instantaneously apply the required energy, it will still take at least 1 lightsecond before the particle moves the given distance.

- - -

You say this needs only one field. (Though it's a handwavium field, nothing to do with actual Field Theory)

What is the field made of? For example, the E field is made of electrons with photons carrying the force between electrons.

- - -

How is a H-field generated? What is physically happening to the space inside an H-field? (Not just a general "Particle probability of moving in all directions is constrained to give directional travel". That is not what is happening physically to spacetime and the particles in it. I want to know what particle interactions are occuring.)

- - -

If H-tech is really possible with your understanding of quantumn dynamics, do you have a peer-reviewed article presenting it? If not, why not present H-tech to a quantum physicist?
If H-tech is not physicly possible, Why try to fix one tiny aspect of LT's broken physics with more broken physics?
Post

### Re: Heisenberg Drive

#347
Sasha wrote:Changing the probility distribution of a particle's position requires adding energy. That energy must come from a source external to the particle you want to move. It also takes a LOT of energy. Thanks to e=mc^2, that means your ship starts to weigh more (meaning it takes more energy to change the probability distribution of particles)
Because you're putting in more energy to change the probability distribution of particles, the ship weighs more again, requiring even more energy.
That doesn't necessarily mean it takes more energy to cause a jump than can be generated. How can you say how much energy it takes to affect the probability distribution of a particle? You're not really "moving" the particle exactly.
Sasha wrote:Each individual particle in the ship has to be moved but cannot move itself, it requires an external source of power. Follow this through for every single particle on the ship and it becomes obvious that not every particle that makes up the ship can be moved.
You have some fraction of particles that consitute the H-drive, or more specifically the H-field generator. The navigation computer carries out the necessary computations to configure the H-field, which then causes a simultaneous jump of all of the particles inside the H-field, including those that comprise the H-field generator. Again, particles aren't so much being moved as just having their probability distribution changed.
Sasha wrote:The propagation of probability distributions is slower than light. If you want to move a particle 1 lightsecond amd you manage to instantaneously apply the required energy, it will still take at least 1 lightsecond before the particle moves the given distance.
If this is the case (and I'm not sure it is), then as I said elsewhere, you can transmit information through the higher dimensionality of space that presumably the already-implemented wormholes tunnel through. Again, the actual mechanism through which the probability distribution is altered is the most handwavium part of the proposal, so it may be the case that the probability distribution of particles are altered instantaneously.
Sasha wrote:You say this needs only one field. (Though it's a handwavium field, nothing to do with actual Field Theory)

What is the field made of? For example, the E field is made of electrons with photons carrying the force between electrons.
No idea. H-particles (handwavium-particles)? Could be anything.
Sasha wrote:If H-tech is really possible with your understanding of quantumn dynamics, do you have a peer-reviewed article presenting it?
If I did, I would be winning Nobel prizes left, right and centre. And very rich. But if this stipulation were applied to all science fiction developers, science fiction would be very boring indeed.
Sasha wrote: If not, why not present H-tech to a quantum physicist?
If I meet one, I could discuss it with him. Sounds like a fun idea.
Sasha wrote:If H-tech is not physicly possible, Why try to fix one tiny aspect of LT's broken physics with more broken physics?
Because it's not a tiny aspect, it's the entire theoretical basis governing how ships fly around in space, which you will likely spend 95% of your time doing. The H-drive concept is a lot more plausible and easier to accept than non-Newtonian reaction thrusters.

Limit Theory is a science fiction game, and in many works of science fiction they try to explain how (for instance) FTL travel is possible using exotic drive mechanisms that may not work in the real world, but which are plausible enough to allow for a suspension of disbelief. No work of science fiction that I know of tries to justify non-Newtonian reaction thrusters, because that is too implausible to allow for suspension of disbelief, but there are quite a few concepts similar to the H-drive (e.g. this).

Again, imagine this were part of a science fiction novel, where ships fly around in space using probability-altering stutterwarp drives. Would that aspect of it put you off of the book?
Post

### Re: Heisenberg Drive

#348
Sasha wrote: You say this needs only one field. (Though it's a handwavium field, nothing to do with actual Field Theory)

What is the field made of? For example, the E field is made of electrons with photons carrying the force between electrons
i personally imagined the H-field just being electromagnetic fields applied in esoteric ways

If electrons and protons were the quanta of E-fields capacitors would not work and you could not have an voltage source with open clams as you would have a current flowing between the contacts

Electrons and protons create the E field but are not its quanta, im not perfectly sure what its quanta are (maybe photons? Idk ) but its for sure nothing with mass, as how could then a combined ExB field, electromagnetic radiation, propagate as fast as light? ^^
Post

### Re: Heisenberg Drive

#349
I'm pretty sure Sasha is correct in saying that photons are the quanta associated with the E field. They're the quanta associated with all electromagnetism.
Post

### Re: Heisenberg Drive

#350
ThymineC wrote:I'm pretty sure Sasha is correct in saying that photons are the quanta associated with the E field. They're the quanta associated with all electromagnetism.
(I was very confused albeit...which is now resolved)
Post

### Re: Heisenberg Drive

#351
ThymineC wrote:I'm pretty sure Sasha is correct in saying that photons are the quanta associated with the E field. They're the quanta associated with all electromagnetism.
Photons are the quanta of the electromagnetic field.

Electrons are the quanta of the E-field.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_carrier

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_theory

(For some reason my phone REALLY hates copy+paste)

Those are some fantastic links for dipping your toes into quantum theory. If you want to get deeper into quantumn theory, I highly recommend a book called "Deep Beauty"
Post

### Re: Heisenberg Drive

#352
Then im asking you sasha how an electric field can be maintained between the plates of an capacitor with the electrons trapped in one of the plates?

As if the electron were the carrier of the electric field, capacitors would simply not work because the transmission of the electric field to the other plate of the capacitor would equalise the charges instantly and the capacitor would not store any energy. In fact it would appear as an direct current conductor which we know it is not.

Edit: after reading your links im perfectly sure that photons govern force transmission of static electric forces. As as soon as you apply a force to a charge it starts to move, moved charges create magnetic fields so you get instantly a magnetic interaction as you induce force by the electric field, and changing magnetic fields induce electric fields so you have inherent coupling between electric force and magnetic force.
And the force carrier for elecromagnetic force is the photon.
So the force carrier of the electric field is the photon.
QED
Post

### Re: Heisenberg Drive

#353
Yes, photons are the force carrier of the electric field but they are not the quanta by which an electric field is measured. They are the quanta for electromagnetic fields though.

It is important to note that the quanta of a field and force carriers are typically not the same thing. AFAIK, only guage bosons are force carriers however every fundamental particle has an associated field.
Post

### Re: Heisenberg Drive

#354
ThymineC wrote: Limit Theory is a science fiction game, and in many works of science fiction they try to explain how (for instance) FTL travel is possible using exotic drive mechanisms that may not work in the real world, but which are plausible enough to allow for a suspension of disbelief. No work of science fiction that I know of tries to justify non-Newtonian reaction thrusters, because that is too implausible to allow for suspension of disbelief, but there are quite a few concepts similar to the H-drive (e.g. this).
I find the physics of LT space with drag a lot more believable than H-Drive for the simple reason that the nucleus of an atom does not follow quantum mechanics. So nothing In the ship of consequence will care if the probability distribution is altered. (O No! All the electrons are now at the front of the ship.) [I am also not sure if protons and neutrons actually obey quantum mechanics (because they have mass and as far as I understand things with mass don't follow quantum mechanics) but I am sure that the quarks that they are made up of do, but that is then not enough to make them change position.}

I would much rather believe the following:
There is this unknown force that is causing our universe to accelerate outward. We can simply have this same force in LT and change it a little. Make it large and make it slow everything down. This is then also why planets don't orbit the sun.

PS. I think the Idea of the H-Drive is great but the premise that it is more believable than drag in space is what I reject.
Post

### Re: Heisenberg Drive

#355
Neandertal wrote: I find the physics of LT space with drag a lot more believable than H-Drive for the simple reason that the nucleus of an atom does not follow quantum mechanics. So nothing In the ship of consequence will care if the probability distribution is altered. (O No! All the electrons are now at the front of the ship.) [I am also not sure if protons and neutrons actually obey quantum mechanics (because they have mass and as far as I understand things with mass don't follow quantum mechanics) but I am sure that the quarks that they are made up of do, but that is then not enough to make them change position.
Um. I'm pretty sure quantum mechanics applies to all particles. And I'm terrifically sure that quantum mechanics applies to things with mass. Electrons have mass.
Post

### Re: Heisenberg Drive

#356
Neandertal wrote:[
I find the physics of LT space with drag a lot more believable than H-Drive for the simple reason that the nucleus of an atom does not follow quantum mechanics. So nothing In the ship of consequence will care if the probability distribution is altered. (O No! All the electrons are now at the front of the ship.) [I am also not sure if protons and neutrons actually obey quantum mechanics (because they have mass and as far as I understand things with mass don't follow quantum mechanics) but I am sure that the quarks that they are made up of do, but that is then not enough to make them change position.}
as soon as you state trustable sources that quantum mechanics do not apply to protons and neutrons i'll believe you, until then i default to read my book and listen to my professor in the university.

as according to every source i know quantum physics apply to ALL objects, even to macroscopic.
in macroscopic objects noise does cancel out all visible effects, though

btw: electrons have mass
Post

### Re: Heisenberg Drive

#357
Cornflakes_91 wrote: as soon as you state trustable sources that quantum mechanics do not apply to protons and neutrons i'll believe you, until then i default to read my book and listen to my professor in the university.

as according to every source i know quantum physics apply to ALL objects, even to macroscopic.
in macroscopic objects noise does cancel out all visible effects, though

btw: electrons have mass
This is completely correct, quantum mechanics apply to all objects, even macroscopic ones, the quantum effects in macroscopic objects are however so small that you can ignore them without problems.
LT Wiki | IRC | REKT Wiki

Idiots. Idiots everywhere. ~Dr. Cha0zz
Post

### Re: Star Citizen and question for Josh

#358
Mistycica wrote:Manipulating probability, having an inertialess drive, gaining silly amounts of power with no fuel (admittedly I skimmed, so no idea what's your explanation there)
It still requires power (and loads of it), it just doesn't require that energy to come from chemical combustion. It runs on pure electricity, like a quantum vacuum plasma thruster. Does that aid with plausibility?
Talvieno wrote: You may also have noticed that in the LT universe, nebulae are unusually thick. In real life, you can't really tell you're inside a nebula when you're inside one. In Mr. Parnell's universe, neublae are very, very thick. You may also have noticed the dense "fogs" of dust in some of the asteroid fields - also something you would never, ever see in real life because such clouds would very quickly condense into solid clumps.
Then why is the speed limit still capped in non-dusty systems, which Josh has said he will include (unless you want to propose game design to the contrary)? Why do ships come instantly to rest as soon as you destroy them? Why do we see the thrusters continue to burn even as the ship moves at constant velocity? Is the drag produced by the dust against it really that high? Why does increasing power to shields not increase the maximum tolerable speed (unless you want to propose game design to the contrary)?
Post

### Re: Star Citizen and question for Josh

#359
ThymineC wrote:
Mistycica wrote:Manipulating probability, having an inertialess drive, gaining silly amounts of power with no fuel (admittedly I skimmed, so no idea what's your explanation there)
It still requires power (and loads of it), it just doesn't require that energy to come from chemical combustion. It runs on pure electricity, like a quantum vacuum plasma thruster. Does that aid with plausibility?
Not really, because the whole plausibility equation thing is zeroed out with the probability skewing But it's one interesting concept, thanks for sharing.
panic
Post

### Re: Star Citizen and question for Josh

#360
Mistycica wrote:
ThymineC wrote:
Mistycica wrote:Manipulating probability, having an inertialess drive, gaining silly amounts of power with no fuel (admittedly I skimmed, so no idea what's your explanation there)
It still requires power (and loads of it), it just doesn't require that energy to come from chemical combustion. It runs on pure electricity, like a quantum vacuum plasma thruster. Does that aid with plausibility?
Not really, because the whole plausibility equation thing is zeroed out with the probability skewing But it's one interesting concept, thanks for sharing.
What's implausible about probability skewing? It doesn't contradict any established laws of physics, to my knowledge. It just assumes future technology that hasn't been developed yet but could be developed. H-Drive doesn't explicitly contradict any laws of physics to my knowledge. Conventional thrusters with semi-Newtonian physics does.

### Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests