Return to “Suggestions”

Post

Re: Heisenberg Drive

#378
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Neandertal wrote: Just to make things clear atoms don't have probability waves. they are always exactly where we expect them to be.
Wrong.

Protons and neutrons are as propabilistic quantum objects as electrons are.

You should maybe take a read about quantum field theory
So if atom follow quantum mechanics how are they colliding 2 single atoms at the exact place and time they want to in the large hadron collider?
Post

Re: Heisenberg Drive

#380
Neandertal wrote:
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Neandertal wrote: Just to make things clear atoms don't have probability waves. they are always exactly where we expect them to be.
Wrong.

Protons and neutrons are as propabilistic quantum objects as electrons are.

You should maybe take a read about quantum field theory
So if atom follow quantum mechanics how are they colliding 2 single atoms at the exact place and time they want to in the large hadron collider?
the uncertainty on an atom is much smaller than the one on an electron because of the bigger mass, in colliders, they use a stream of particles (lots and lots of particles), it's like eventually some of them will collide with each other.
In fact, even your body follows the uncertainty principle but because of its much, much higher mass than subatomic particles, this uncertainty is neglect able.

∆x∆p≥(h/4π) where ∆x is the standard deviation on the position, ∆p the one on the momentum and p=mv and h is the Planck constant: 6.62606957 × 10^-34 m^2 kg / s
Last edited by Cha0zz on Wed Jun 04, 2014 7:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
LT Wiki | IRC | REKT Wiki
Image
Idiots. Idiots everywhere. ~Dr. Cha0zz
Post

Re: Heisenberg Drive

#382
All this arguing is slightly irrelevant to my original question.
Neandertal wrote: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

#383
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Neandertal wrote: Please show me the reference to atoms. Not subatomic particles.
wheres the difference between a hydrogen nucleus and a proton?
nothing. but a hydrogen atom is not the same as a proton. And a hydrogen molecule is not the same either.
Post

Re: Heisenberg Drive

#384
Neandertal wrote:
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Neandertal wrote: Please show me the reference to atoms. Not subatomic particles.
wheres the difference between a hydrogen nucleus and a proton?
nothing. but a hydrogen atom is not the same as a proton. And a hydrogen molecule is not the same either.
And where is your "hard line" where a proton stops behaving like a subatomic particle?
A hydrogen atom is nothing more than 2 subatomic particles coincidentally being close to each other.
That they are interacting with each other does not change that they behave like subatomic particles.
Post

Re: Heisenberg Drive

#385
Cornflakes_91 wrote:And where is your "hard line" where a proton stops behaving like a subatomic particle?
A hydrogen atom is nothing more than 2 subatomic particles coincidentally being close to each other.
That they are interacting with each other does not change that they behave like subatomic particles.
I don't believe there is a hard line. The subatomic behavior is simply to small to be relevant.

That is why I say that they don't behave like that, and that is technically wrong, I simply mean that the effect is so small that you can simply ignore it.

I would still like to hear your thoughts on my original question.
Post

Re: Heisenberg Drive

#386
Neandertal wrote: I don't believe there is a hard line. The subatomic behavior is simply to small to be relevant.

That is why I say that they don't behave like that, and that is technically wrong, I simply mean that the effect is so small that you can simply ignore it.
Apparently there are circumstances under which macroscopically visible amounts of matter can have common quantum states.
See Bose-Einstein Condensate
especially superfluid Helium
Neandertal wrote: I would still like to hear your thoughts on my original question.
Im basing this off the latest nVidia single-gpu whichs performance i know (and that is abou half a year old, most likely even older).

We have a processor with 3TFLOP, 3E12 flop.
this processor runs at about 1GHz (it surely uses higher frequencies on some internal parts but i assume they scale analogous to my known 1GHz)
.
Now we assume that we can scale this thing up to teraherz frequencies.
now we are at about 3E15 flop.
Not enough.
i now lets take UV frequencies, ~ 1E15Hz -> 3E18 flop.
Close enough for now.

The actually used material thickness of the GPU is about 100nm, or 0.1micrometres.
(while the die itself is much thicker, the electronics do not need much z-area)
This gives us about 100E6 processors in 1cm^3.

So we have 300E24 Flop in 1cm^3 for UV optronics/plasmonics that i assume have the same volume density than todays electronics.

This is only using conventional computing and technology we can currently concieve.
No quantum computing, no density (flop/(ghz*cm^3)) advances, no esoteric computation methods.

I think with LT's future setting we can assume that the H-Drive is believeable, at least from an computational needs viewpoint ^^

(This are very rough ballpark estimations, the die might be a bit larger, the electronics are most likely thinner, but i should hit the right area)



Edit:i think i can actually sqeeze another 1E3 out of this by using 0.1 nanometre graphene electronics instead of 0.1 micrometre silicon electronics, so we are at 300E27 FLOP.

Edit2: the minimum feature width archieved for graphene is around 4nm, about 1/7th of the feature width of the nvidia gpu (28nm iirc).
So we have 7^2 more areal density.
->14.7E30 flop


edit3:
the newest nVidia GPU has 5Tflop, so the overall FLOP go up by 5/3
24.5E30 FLOP

edit4:
the 5Tflop GPU has ~5.5cm² area, so all flop go down by this amount.
4.45E30flop
Post

Re: Heisenberg Drive

#387
Cornflakes_91 wrote:Im basing this off the latest nVidia single-gpu whichs performance i know (and that is abou half a year old, most likely even older).

We have a processor with 3TFLOP, 3E12 flop.
this processor runs at about 1GHz (it surely uses higher frequencies on some internal parts but i assume they scale analogous to my known 1GHz)
.
Now we assume that we can scale this thing up to teraherz frequencies.
now we are at about 3E15 flop.
Not enough.
i now lets take UV frequencies, ~ 1E15Hz -> 3E18 flop.
Close enough for now.

The actually used material thickness of the GPU is about 100nm, or 0.1micrometres.
(while the die itself is much thicker, the electronics do not need much z-area)
This gives us about 100E6 processors in 1cm^3.

So we have 300E24 Flop in 1cm^3 for UV optronics/plasmonics that i assume have the same volume density than todays electronics.

This is only using conventional computing and technology we can currently concieve.
No quantum computing, no density (flop/(ghz*cm^3)) advances, no esoteric computation methods.

I think with LT's future setting we can assume that the H-Drive is believeable, at least from an computational needs viewpoint ^^

(This are very rough ballpark estimations, the die might be a bit larger, the electronics are most likely thinner, but i should hit the right area)



Edit:i think i can actually sqeeze another 1E3 out of this by using 0.1 nanometre graphene electronics instead of 0.1 micrometre silicon electronics, so we are at 300E27 FLOP.

Edit2: the minimum feature width archieved for graphene is around 4nm, about 1/7th of the feature width of the nvidia gpu (28nm iirc).
So we have 7^2 more areal density.
->14.7E30 flop


edit3:
the newest nVidia GPU has 5Tflop, so the overall FLOP go up by 5/3
24.5E30 FLOP

edit4:
the 5Tflop GPU has ~5.5cm² area, so all flop go down by this amount.
4.45E30flop
Kool.

Lets then plug this into the calculation.

2.34*10-10 * 4.45*1030 / 5*1022 = 2.08*10-2 m/s = 0.0208 m/s

That still doesn't even get to 1 m/s for only the processor. How is this going to be sufficient for the calculations for the entire ship to get to 100 m/s
Post

Re: Heisenberg Drive

#388
Neandertal wrote: Kool.

Lets then plug this into the calculation.

2.34*10-10 * 4.45*1030 / 5*1022 = 2.08*10-2 m/s = 0.0208 m/s

That still doesn't even get to 1 m/s for only the processor. How is this going to be sufficient for the calculations for the entire ship to get to 100 m/s
My calculations are only for technology i can instantly think of.
And we are 40 years after developing the first microprocessor.

When you apply another few hundred years of technological advancement to my calculations its pretty thinkable that the H-drive could be feasible
As my calculations have the possibility to come reality in my lifetime., that would be ~100years after the development of microprocessors.

I do not say the the H-Drive is possible with that tech.
I say that more development can make it possible, using technology i can not think of



Edit: you also left out the particle clustering modificatpr i thought we agreed on...
0.0208m/s *1E6.....
Post

Re: Heisenberg Drive

#389
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Neandertal wrote: Kool.

Lets then plug this into the calculation.

2.34*10-10 * 4.45*1030 / 5*1022 = 2.08*10-2 m/s = 0.0208 m/s

That still doesn't even get to 1 m/s for only the processor. How is this going to be sufficient for the calculations for the entire ship to get to 100 m/s
My calculations are only for technology i can instantly think of.
And we are 40 years after developing the first microprocessor.

When you apply another few hundred years of technological advancement to my calculations its pretty thinkable that the H-drive could be feasible
As my calculations have the possibility to come reality in my lifetime., that would be ~100years after the development of microprocessors.

I do not say the the H-Drive is possible with that tech.
I say that more development can make it possible, using technology i can not think of



Edit: you also left out the particle clustering modificatpr i thought we agreed on...
0.0208m/s *1E6.....
Well I simply don't agree that micro processors will really get that much better in the future for the simple reason that we are very close to the physical limit of miniaturization for them. I think the limit will be about 4 times better than we have now and then quantum mechanics will begin to interfere and make anything smaller useless because the electrons of nearby atoms will effect the charge in the transistors. effectively making random changes to your data. We should see that still in our lifetimes.

But back to the point. We now have the processor capable of moving only itself at 20800 m/s with particle clusters. Now we have to add the rest of the ship. So lets assume the ship is 100 Tons with the computer for that ship coming in at a ridiculous 1 Tons. (I cannot see anything larger for that size ship to be feasible). That means we can fly at a maximum speed of only 208 m/s. Own if that ship pick up 50 Tons of cargo our maximum speed drops to 138 m/s.

Now while we are at it we should probably make the calculations a bit more realistic. 1 calculation for every particle cluster is a bit ridiculous so lest make it 100. that brings our speed down to 2.08 m/s and 1.38 m/s with some cargo.

These numbers still seem pretty small to me.
Post

Re: Heisenberg Drive

#390
Your whole reasoning is based on 2 assumptions:
1) atoms only can be moved by a distance the same as their diameter
2) We will still be using silicon chips in the future

Both these assumptions can be wrong
1)Why only with a distance equal to their diameter?
2)Quantum computing would vastly increase the computational power and I think it is reasonable to think that in the future maybe even better and faster ways of calculating things will become possible.
LT Wiki | IRC | REKT Wiki
Image
Idiots. Idiots everywhere. ~Dr. Cha0zz

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests

cron