Return to “Suggestions”

Post

Re: Star Citizen and question for Josh

#361
ThymineC wrote: 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.
I haven't read the rest of the thread (it's quite long ;) ) but probability is a property of a system that comes directly from applying physical laws to it and calculating what comes of that, so changing probabilities would require the changing of physical laws. Which is probably not possible.
Warning: do not ask about physics unless you really want to know about physics.
The LT IRC / Alternate link || The REKT Wiki || PUDDING
Image
Post

Re: Star Citizen and question for Josh

#362
Dinosawer wrote:
ThymineC wrote: 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.
I haven't read the rest of the thread (it's quite long ;) ) but probability is a property of a system that comes directly from applying physical laws to it and calculating what comes of that, so changing probabilities would require the changing of physical laws. Which is probably not possible.
I imagine that the H-drive works by affecting the laws of physics (in some manner) within a localised volume of space around it. There's no law of physics that rules out changing the laws of physics that I know of.
Post

Re: Star Citizen and question for Josh

#363
ThymineC wrote:
Dinosawer wrote:
ThymineC wrote: 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.
I haven't read the rest of the thread (it's quite long ;) ) but probability is a property of a system that comes directly from applying physical laws to it and calculating what comes of that, so changing probabilities would require the changing of physical laws. Which is probably not possible.
I imagine that the H-drive works by affecting the laws of physics (in some manner) within a localised volume of space around it. There's no law of physics that rules out changing the laws of physics that I know of.
Well, changing the laws of physics is breaking them by default. Because if you change them they're no longer valid. Also, changing laws of physics in a certain area of space would violate conservation of momentum while changing them at a certain time would break certain of energy, which are the 2 most fundamental physical laws.
What you're saying might not be actually impossible, maybe, but I wouldn't exactly call it plausible either.
Warning: do not ask about physics unless you really want to know about physics.
The LT IRC / Alternate link || The REKT Wiki || PUDDING
Image
Post

Re: Star Citizen and question for Josh

#364
ThymineC wrote: I imagine that the H-drive works by affecting the laws of physics (in some manner) within a localised volume of space around it. There's no law of physics that rules out changing the laws of physics that I know of.
Now you're just screwing with my head :P
There is no way to disprove any speculation like this. I can say pink fluffy unicorns making my ship glide, and you can't say it's not possible future tech. You are literally bending the rules to include your design, and with it, every sci-fi (or other) design ever.
Your drive is just that, implausible enough to have a nil in believablity for me, since nothing can be really disproved, especially if you are moving the goalposts at this speed.
panic
Post

Re: Star Citizen and question for Josh

#365
Dinosawer wrote:Well, changing the laws of physics is breaking them by default. Because if you change them they're no longer valid. Also, changing laws of physics in a certain area of space would violate conservation of momentum while changing them at a certain time would break certain of energy, which are the 2 most fundamental physical laws.
Conversation of momentum wouldn't be violated by the H-drive. There's no change of momentum involved. Why would violating them at a certain time break certain kind of energy? What does that even mean?

Changing the laws of physics is not breaking them. Breaking the laws of physics means performing an action that should be impossible, given the set of laws of the universe. However, if a subset of those laws mean that different laws apply in a certain situation, and an agent abides by that new set of laws, then the agent's actions are still possible given those set of laws.
Post

Re: Star Citizen and question for Josh

#366
ThymineC wrote:
Dinosawer wrote:Well, changing the laws of physics is breaking them by default. Because if you change them they're no longer valid. Also, changing laws of physics in a certain area of space would violate conservation of momentum while changing them at a certain time would break certain of energy, which are the 2 most fundamental physical laws.
Conversation of momentum wouldn't be violated by the H-drive. There's no change of momentum involved. Why would violating them at a certain time break certain kind of energy? What does that even mean?

Changing the laws of physics is not breaking them. Breaking the laws of physics means performing an action that should be impossible, given the set of laws of the universe. However, if a subset of those laws mean that different laws apply in a certain situation, and an agent abides by that new set of laws, then the agent's actions are still possible given those set of laws.
Well, it's a bit complicated, but from theoretical physics it follows that conservation of momentum is a direct effect of the laws of physics not changing in a different place, whereas conservation of energy follows directly from the laws of physics being invariant in time. The exact reason for this is fairly hard to explain, symmetries and all that stuff theoretical physicists get so excited about.
This means, if you would be able to change the laws of physics at a place you would be able to break those 2 conservation laws - your system wouldn't necessarily do it, but it would make it possible.

For the rest, well that's true, which is why I say it might not be impossible, but the current laws of physics include the rule that the laws are the same at any time at any place, so if this weren't the case that would mean quite a deviation from what we think is true now.

By the way, that "certain" should have been "conservation" (damn you, autocorrect)
Warning: do not ask about physics unless you really want to know about physics.
The LT IRC / Alternate link || The REKT Wiki || PUDDING
Image
Post

Re: Heisenberg Drive

#367
There is one thing that has been bugging me for a bit and that is that even if I give way that the H-Drive is possible there is no way it can generate anywhere near useful speeds.

Let me explain.

Lets assume we are suing a pure silicon processor 1 cm3.
Lets also assume that this processor can supply us with a completely ridiculous 1 YottaFLOPS of calculation power. (1 Yotta = 1024 and 1 Tera = 1012). :shock:
Lets then assume that in order not to completely break the universe each atom will me magically tele-ported with the H-Drive no more than its Diameter.
I will also assume that each atom only needs one calculation per jump. :shock:

That gives us the following:
Silicon has 5*1022 atom per cm3.
Each silicon atom had a diameter of 2.34*10-10 m
The silicon processor can do 1024 calculation per second.

Now if we want to calculate the speed that this processor can travel with the H-Drive we take atom diameter * calculations per second / atoms in processor:
2.34*10-10 * 1024 / 5*1022 = 4.68*10-9 m/s = 0.00000000468 m/s

That does not seem very fast to me and we have not even taken the actual drive (never mind the rest of the ship) into account.

So what does this mean for the H-Drive?
Post

Re: Heisenberg Drive

#368
AddyRoss wrote:
Neandertal wrote:I will also assume that each atom only needs one calculation per jump. :shock:
I can't speak for Thymine and I've only loosely been following this thread, but I believe your arguments breaks down at this assumption. It's not one calculation per particle, it's a number of calculations that apply to a whole group of particles. Kind of like a compression algorithm, such as for an image that might arrange pixels into discrete blocks and treat them all the same.
That may be but it isn't one calculation either. it will probably be more like 106 calculations per group of particles and you will have to keep the groups small so in the order of 106 particles per group. so I don't see why 1 calculation per atom as a stating point is really a problem. EDIT: Or rather that a group of particles require a number of calculations equal to the number of particles in the group.

But lets humor you and say that we can use 1 calculation for every 106 atoms. That still only gives you 0.00468 m/s. And this is still only for the 1 cm3 processor doing the calculation and nothing for the rest of the presumably 100 m3 ship.
Post

Re: Heisenberg Drive

#370
AddyRoss wrote: Why would an atom be limited to only being teleported by a distance equal to its diameter?
It cannot be teleported at all!

I am merely using the term teleport because that is basically what the H-Drive is doing. It is doing this teleportation using Heisenberg uncertainty principal. So it will move the particles to a location that it is not super unlikely to occupy in the first place. So the further you move per jump the harder it will be.

Can you give me better starting assumptions?
Post

Re: Heisenberg Drive

#371
AddyRoss wrote:...
And non of that is relevant for an Atom. (Yes I did take Chemistry as well.)

The point is that Yes you can but that makes the calculation harder. to keep the calculations easy you limit the maximum distance you want to move with each jump. Also remember that the total movement needs to be smooth.
Post

Re: Heisenberg Drive

#373
AddyRoss wrote:
Neandertal wrote:
AddyRoss wrote:...
And non of that is relevant for an Atom. (Yes I did take Chemistry as well.)

The point is that Yes you can but that makes the calculation harder. to keep the calculations easy you limit the maximum distance you want to move with each jump. Also remember that the total movement needs to be smooth.
"Makes the calculations harder". How much harder, in actual numbers, do the calculations become if you're manipulating the probability wave of a particle to make it appear to be displaced by one millimetre (say) than one diameter's width? How powerful are computers in Limit Theory? How many calculations are necessary to transport a given set of particles?
From 1nm to 1mm I would say about 1000 000 times harder.

Computers in Limit theory will probably not be that powerful since we will be reaching the physical limit to how small transistors can be made in about 20 years.

But for the benefit of the argument you will notice that I made the computer for my calculation stupidly powerful.

Just to make things clear atoms don't have probability waves. they are always exactly where we expect them to be.

Instead of questioning everything give me a better alternative.
Post

Re: Heisenberg Drive

#374
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Neandertal wrote:
AddyRoss wrote:...
And non of that is relevant for an Atom. (Yes I did take Chemistry as well.)
All of this is relevant for an atom, as it follows the same basic laws.
If you want do define an area where the atom is with 100.000% certainity you have to take the whole universe.
Please show me proof of this. When has an atom ever been found somewhere where it should not have been? I am not talking about the electrons or protons that make up the atom but the actual atom itself.

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron