UFO:Alien Invasion
General => Discussion => Topic started by: vedrit on February 17, 2009, 02:52:17 am
-
I that everyone wishes that FTL were possible, but I agree with Einstein when he basically said that light was the unsiversal speed limit.
Having said this, I suggest that Alien Origin be changed to say something like "We decided it wasnt cloaking technology they were using, but rather that they had discovered a way to manipulate space to create wormholes with such precision to appear so close to Earth."
The theory is entirely plausible, even for the real world. Wormholes are, in lamemans terms, tunnels in space. Who's to say that they have any particular signature? That they emit radiation or some particle? And, as some theories go, wormholes can even go through time (As cool as it seems, I disagree with these. Power to String Theory!)
Just something to stew in the ol cooking pot
-
I that everyone wishes that FTL were possible, but I agree with Einstein when he basically said that light was the unsiversal speed limit.
Having said this, I suggest that Alien Origin be changed to say something like "We decided it wasnt cloaking technology they were using, but rather that they had discovered a way to manipulate space to create wormholes with such precision to appear so close to Earth."
The theory is entirely plausible, even for the real world. Wormholes are, in lamemans terms, tunnels in space. Who's to say that they have any particular signature? That they emit radiation or some particle? And, as some theories go, wormholes can even go through time (As cool as it seems, I disagree with these. Power to String Theory!)
Just something to stew in the ol cooking pot
. . . Yes, the alien FTL engines are actually wormhole-based, and have been from the start.
Regards,
Ryan
-
Ah. Well. I suppose that, in-game, we dont find that out till later on, long after Alien Origin research is done. Makes sense.
-
I think it is unknown in today's world if Superphotonic travel will ever be possible for things other than some particles on the atomic scale (and I admit I'm not a science major), but I will say that there was once a time when people thought we'd never break the sound barrier and safely travel faster than the speed of sound, as well as a time when people thought we'd never have working aircraft of any kind.
-
@vedrit:
Afaik according to Einstein, creating an artificial wormhole requires the energy of a 'black hole'.
So wormhole travel is pretty much as 'realistic' as FTL-drives.
C'mon guys, this is a *game*. SciFi is not so far away from orcs, trolls and elves.
Luke, Adama and Kirk had FTL-drives, so why shouldn't our little aliens have them ?
-
He was never arguing against FTL (in the sense of wormholes, at least). What's your point?
-
I think it is unknown in today's world if Superphotonic travel will ever be possible for things other than some particles on the atomic scale (and I admit I'm not a science major)
Wormholes are not superluminal travel in a strict sense, since special relativity is a local effect, and locally the speed of light is not exceeded.
As for FTL... It is entirely possible that the foundation of modern physics is false, but currently there are many reasons why matter with mass/information cannot reach c (and why massless matter must travel at c, but i won't go into that). The easiest to explain are time dilation and length contraction.
As an object accelerates, an outside observer views it's time slowing and it's length, contracting. At 0.86 c (relative to the observer) the object is aging at half the speed and it's length is half it's length at a standstill. At c the object would not age, and it has no length. This is bad. Any faster and the object's demensions (both space and time) would be negative. This is really bad.
The theory is entirely plausible, even for the real world. Wormholes are, in lamemans terms, tunnels in space
I really dislike this analogy. Unfortunately, I can't think of one that is as easy to understand and more accurate. And It isn't entirely plausible, since the amount of energy required to create and manipulate a stable wormhole would be much higher then all the energy generation by powerstations on the earth in the last hundred years.
there was once a time when people thought we'd never break the sound barrier and safely travel faster than the speed of sound, as well as a time when people thought we'd never have working aircraft of any kind.
And I continue my efforts in proving them right!
Edit: As always, i'm arguing for the sake of arguing, not suggesting a change in the game.
-
The argument against FTL, again according to theories, is that mass X requiers exponentially more energy to reach the speed of light.
And I must have missed an article somewhere, as last I heard, wormholes were natural phenomenon. I know, I know, we in the real world cant even contain lightning, but its on its way. Is it not possible that aliens with their advanced knowledge have managed to contain the univers's wonder? At any rate, a wormhole certanly seems a whole lot energy-cheaper than FTL, or even near light speeds. How many tons are spacecraft?
Perhaps we could use both. FTL for small ships, like scouts, and wormholes for larger ships, like harvesters or motherships?
-
All FTL in the game is wormhole based. Small craft don't have FTL at all; they are dependent on a FTL capable carrier ship to take them to and fro.
-
The argument against FTL, again according to theories, is that mass X requiers exponentially more energy to reach the speed of light.
It is impossible for a mass to reach the speed of light at all, because at c the mass would have infinite kinetic energy. There is no limit how close to c a mass can get, but energy increases exponentially as you accelerate...
And I must have missed an article somewhere, as last I heard, wormholes were natural phenomenon
It's very unlikely, with all the conditions required for a wormhole, that they or a natural occurance, and they have never been detected. Can't rule it out, but they would never be as common as any other stellar object
-
It's very unlikely, with all the conditions required for a wormhole, that they or a natural occurance, and they have never been detected. Can't rule it out, but they would never be as common as any other stellar object
Well, but dark matter has also not been detected, and it's theorized to be around in huge quantities.
-
Well, but dark matter has also not been detected, and it's theorized to be around in huge quantities.
Dark matter has been detected (some scientists think it has anyway) as the gravitational anomalies that help galaxies form, and maintain the structure eg: there are many large stellar structures that don't have the gravitational force to exist hold together without dark matter, and since they do exist so must dark matter.
The the theory is exactly my point, wormholes haven't been detected and they are theorized to be rare or non-existant naturally.
All FTL in the game is wormhole based. Small craft don't have FTL at all; they are dependent on a FTL capable carrier ship to take them to and fro.
If that's a comment on how realistic the FTL is in the game, it should be said that it isn't very realistic at all (I stress that it isn't a complaint). For example, the theory for traversable Einstein-Rosen bridges suggests a huge (and I mean, astronomically huge) amount of "exotic" or negative energy and matter required to stop the wormhole from instantly collapsing, the moment the two mouths become connected. It's alot more energy then the rest energy of the (ton?) antimatter fuel tank on a carrier.
-
I think this is the point where I put my fingers in my ears.
-
I think this is the point where I put my fingers in my ears.
lol
I theorize that the reason that we havent found wormholes is because they do not differ from the rest of space unless one end is not in "regular" space.
Its like trying to find a paper circle set on a peice of paper that is the same color and type
-
I theorize that the reason that we havent found wormholes is because they do not differ from the rest of space unless one end is not in "regular" space.
Its like trying to find a paper circle set on a peice of paper that is the same color and type
To Theorize requires a base of experimental fact (which is why string theory has been criticized so badly within the scientific community), I feel like there is some conjecture going on here but I'll humor you. You're obviously imagining a wormhole the size of a planet or star but detection of such wormholes would be easy! They would be invisible themselves (I'm ignoring the negative support interior) but they would show a change as they move like a paper circle set on a piece of paper, both of which have a picture of hundreds of stars in "random" positions, as the circle moves, it blocks out some stars and unblocks some and even if that doesn't detect the wormhole the negative energy and density in a stable wormhole would repel light, an effect opposite to gravity lensing, which is "easy" to detect.
The problem is that they wouldn't exist on that scale, and they are very hard to make stable. It's thought by some that tiny bridges are created on the same scale as vacuum energy, and that they are then annihilated in the same fashion. But they annihilate because they are untraversable and when matter (or even light) approaches, they become unstable.
At this moment, we either wait for another thousand years for the technology to create our own stable bridges (if it's even possible), or we meet an advance civilization and they give us the technology. (I'm laughing at myself for saying this)
-
I never said they would be THAT large. Thats just rediculous. But yes, I must agree that it would take thousands of years to make, if even possible, a bridge.
While, yes, my theory is based on nothing, arent most wormhole theories? Arent most of them based on "what we think is there, but cant prove is there."
At any rate, seeing as how this game is sci-fi, where anything is possible, it was all just a suggestion, whether to be accepted or not.
-
While, yes, my theory is based on nothing, arent most wormhole theories?
No. The way spacetime is distorted by a mass is well described by Einstein's theory of general relativity which is very well tested.
Using that base of "fact" you can then formulate a mathematical "simulation." As this simulation has a foundation of "fact" (a theory that completely fits the available evidence) equations derived from it can be considered reliable, until proven wrong.
Wormholes are not impossible with general relativity, and they should be possible with quantum gravity.
Arent most of them based on "what we think is there, but cant prove is there."
I wouldn't say "think." More like "It's possible it's there according to the current science, but we don't (and may never) have the technology to prove it one hundred percent."
At any rate, seeing as how this game is sci-fi, where anything is possible, it was all just a suggestion, whether to be accepted or not.
I never suggested a change to the game's ultimately unrealistic science background. But If you were you should be aware that the game doesn't change unless there is an overwhelming demand for the change, or you provide replacement code, descriptions or models which are better then what is currently available.
-
Considering the change Im proposing is just changing text (I could be wrong. I have no idea whats going on in that department), I dont see the issue.
-
I that everyone wishes that FTL were possible, but I agree with Einstein when he basically said that light was the unsiversal speed limit.
Completely offtopic for the game, but one of Einstein's assumptions was that the speed of light was constant from (almost any) reference frame. ("Guassian", I believe, is the actual term, but don't ask me to explain the difference between that and "any"). That, along with the assumption that the laws of physics are the same churns out a bunch of odd results that match experimentations.
"Cannot travel faster than light" is NOT one of the conclusions.
"Cannot accelerate up to the speed of light" is.
Space itself can, and does, "move" faster than light -- see the superluminal expansion of space itself.
The idea that you can move a bubble of space around faster than light, while nothing in that bubble has to move "fast" (don't ask relative to what) is both theoretically possible under G.R., and under (or at least was) research.
So it doesn't take a wormhole (and last I heard, the research into wormholes was indicating that they were most likely unstable and collapsing, and certainly not common.)
-
I wasn't going to post again since I would probably just be repeating myself, but I felt the need to correct several points.
but one of Einstein's assumptions was that the speed of light was constant from (almost any) reference frame.
Actually Einstein theorized that the speed of light through a vacuum was an average. Some photons travel slower then c and some travel faster but dividing the photon count by the net speed will always result in 186,282.4 miles per second (rounded up). You need to specify that it is a vacuum as in many cases light can propagate through a medium at very slow speeds which is why some nuclear reactors emit cerenkov radiation.
That, along with the assumption that the laws of physics are the same churns out a bunch of odd results that match experimentations.
Some ideas are hard to picture but the vast majority of experiment results make complete sense in physics. Try to imagine the problem in an abstract way, without applying assumptions that we formulate in everyday life.
"Cannot travel faster than light" is NOT one of the conclusions.
"Cannot accelerate up to the speed of light" is.
Space itself can, and does, "move" faster than light -- see the superluminal expansion of space itself.
Woah. Stop right there. Cannot travel faster then light IS a conclusion of special relativity. If you can't accelerate too c how would you get faster then c? You may be talking about relative to a stationary observer watching a FTL drive, but that is erroneous. Special relativity is LOCAL. LOCALLY c cannot be reached and cannot be exceeded (by mass).
Space-time can distort at a speed higher the 186,282.4 miles per second but it isn't expanding at that rate. Our knowledge of the expanding universe is based on how much space is occupied by matter and energy. It is entirely possible that space is finite or infinite but it's all guessing. Since S-T is immaterial and has no "mass" or even physical body of it's own (in our perspective), it was a silly thing to bring up in this context.
The idea that you can move a bubble of space around faster than light, while nothing in that bubble has to move "fast" (don't ask relative to what) is both theoretically possible under G.R., and under (or at least was) research.
Ha ha! Good ol' warp drive eh? In theory it is possible. Manipulate space-time to contract ahead of an object and expand behind it. The travel time / distance would resolve as a speed higher then c while local speed never approached even relativistic velocities.
But our mate special relativity still plays a part. An observer outside the bubble would see the object going at a lower speed then c and the object would see the universe traveling at a speed of less then c yet the D/T= >c so it's a paradox right? Well no it isn't, but it's a little hard to explain so I'll give an analogy. If two people, named A and B could see each other and started walking in opposite directions, A sees B getting smaller and B sees A getting smaller. An apparent paradox that makes perfect sense in everyday situations.
In practice this warp is impossible though. The "bow-wave" would have to be created with very dense matter or energy and this matter or energy cannot exceed c so the bubble behind it is limited to c as well, meaning it isn't FTL travel.
The other theory for this uses S-T disturbing objects, such as a quickly rotating singularity to distort space time to propel the object. This would require a network of these S-T disturbing objects in the same fashion as a train requires track. The track would be placed by a slower then c ship meaning the initial journey would be at normal speeds. Oh, and each track object would need it's own star for power.
-
I wasn't going to post again since I would probably just be repeating myself, but I felt the need to correct several points.
but one of Einstein's assumptions was that the speed of light was constant from (almost any) reference frame.
Actually Einstein theorized that the speed of light through a vacuum was an average. Some photons travel slower then c and some travel faster but dividing the photon count by the net speed will always result in 186,282.4 miles per second (rounded up).
This doesn't agree with anything that I learned in special relativity, and I can't say that I know G.R. inside and out.
What I do know is that S.R. makes two assumptions:
1. The speed of light in a vacuum is constant in any inertial reference frame
2. The laws of physics are constant in any inertial reference frame
No average; no "some photons go faster and some slower". Absolute constants.
G.R. relaxes the constraints from inertial reference frame (no acceleration) to "Gaussian".
That, along with the assumption that the laws of physics are the same churns out a bunch of odd results that match experimentations.
Some ideas are hard to picture but the vast majority of experiment results make complete sense in physics. Try to imagine the problem in an abstract way, without applying assumptions that we formulate in everyday life.
You get such odd results as "F = GMm/r^2" being hard to even state. Mass as seen by who? Distance as seen by who? Different observers will see different speeds, and different distances. It isn't even clear that this law can be stated under G.R.
You get such odd results that we now take as a given -- for example, if two people are walking towards each other, they have different concepts of "now" across the universe. You might even find that many many light years away, a planet blows up, and to one person that event is in the past, while to the other person it is in the future.
You get the "Light cone", which has "Elsewhere, but cannot say past or future"; you get "Past" (or "future"), but cannot say if here or not here, etc.
You get the whole "No, our satellites do not have the same clocks as the GPS receivers that listen to them".
Heck, you get "Sorry, the top floor's clocks aren't synched with the ground floor's clocks".
You get "Sure, if you're on a train, and you throw a baseball, the baseball goes as fast as both the pitch and the train. As long as the train isn't really really fast".
We grew up with these oddities, but they are oddities.
"Cannot travel faster than light" is NOT one of the conclusions.
"Cannot accelerate up to the speed of light" is.
Space itself can, and does, "move" faster than light -- see the superluminal expansion of space itself.
Woah. Stop right there. Cannot travel faster then light IS a conclusion of special relativity. If you can't accelerate to c how would you get faster then c?
An object moving slower than light cannot accelerate faster than light.
An object moving faster than light cannot decelerate below light speed.
An object moving at the speed of light itself has an oddity. Light moving in the same direction (parallel to itself) moves at the same speed as light heading in the opposite direction. The only way this can happen is if photons takes zero time to move from emitter to absorber.
The idea that you can move a bubble of space around faster than light, while nothing in that bubble has to move "fast" (don't ask relative to what) is both theoretically possible under G.R., and under (or at least was) research.
Ha ha! Good ol' warp drive eh? In theory it is possible. Manipulate space-time to contract ahead of an object and expand behind it. The travel time / distance would resolve as a speed higher then c while local speed never approached even relativistic velocities.
But our mate special relativity still plays a part. An observer outside the bubble would see the object going at a lower speed then c and the object would see the universe traveling at a speed of less then c yet the D/T= >c so it's a paradox right? Well no it isn't, but it's a little hard to explain so I'll give an analogy. If two people, named A and B could see each other and started walking in opposite directions, A sees B getting smaller and B sees A getting smaller. An apparent paradox that makes perfect sense in everyday situations.
In practice this warp is impossible though. The "bow-wave" would have to be created with very dense matter or energy and this matter or energy cannot exceed c so the bubble behind it is limited to c as well, meaning it isn't FTL travel.
So this idea has been disproven? Thank you; I was not aware of that.
The other theory for this uses S-T disturbing objects, such as a quickly rotating singularity to distort space time to propel the object. This would require a network of these S-T disturbing objects in the same fashion as a train requires track. The track would be placed by a slower then c ship meaning the initial journey would be at normal speeds. Oh, and each track object would need it's own star for power.
So you need to build your road network, and once built, travel within your empire along the roads is fast. That doesn't sound any different than existing historical systems.
Note that it still permits FTL travel. Just not FTL expansion.
-
And, if I recall correctly (Simply awed, and stupefied by the spacial theory talk), the game didnt exactly say they PROVED that the aliens were traveling at FTL speeds, only it SEEMED to be so.
The only scientific addition I can add is that the only time light photons have been slowed was when passed through Bose-Einstein condensate. (I could be wrong, but Im fairly sure)
-
Please stop using the term "assume." Theory is a preferred word. Assumptions aren't based on any fact. Facts are purely based on fact. Theories cover anything between.
No average; no "some photons go faster and some slower". Absolute constants.
Light does vary in speed by a lot. I think the normal measured variation is 0.00000000000001 percent c. It is a considered a constant because net speed / photon count will ALWAYS equal c. Hence that calculation's answer is a constant.
You get such odd results... We grew up with these oddities, but they are oddities.
Your opinion of what is odd is obviously different to mine. Psychology isn't a subject I know much about (though I have my opinions) but from what I can see the reason you think of these as odd is because of the laws you formulated for yourself while growing up. Try seeing physics in a different way to how you see everyday life. I don't consider those situations odd because I understand them, can picture them in my mind and they are very well tested.
An object moving slower than light cannot accelerate faster than light.
An object moving faster than light cannot decelerate below light speed.
"Object" is the wrong word. Mass and information cannot reach or exceed c. Theoretical particles that travel faster then c could also never reach c. But because of that we can't interact with them, they can't be used to transmit information, they are very unstable (cannot be expressed as "existing" in the classic sense). You are right that FTL particles couldn't reach or drop below c, but I find you correcting me patronizing since I wasn't referring to them as they are completely out of context for this discussion!
Mass can't reach c. Mass and information can't exceed c.
So you need to build your road network, and once built, travel within your empire along the roads is fast. That doesn't sound any different than existing historical systems.
Indeed. Though I obviously didn't make the point well. Power is a problem. Destroying a hundred solar systems for a journey to a nearby star isn't that practical. I think the ratio is a ton of matter needs to be annihilated into energy for every atom that you send through the network but I can't be completely accurate off the top of my head.
-
Light does vary in speed by a lot. I think the normal measured variation is 0.00000000000001 percent c.
Wow. I was not aware of that; thank you.
Your opinion of what is odd is obviously different to mine. Psychology isn't a subject I know much about (though I have my opinions) but from what I can see the reason you think of these as odd is because of the laws you formulated for yourself while growing up.
Fair enough; my personal idea of "odd" is different than probably 95% of the population.
When I call something "odd" in this respect I'm referring to what most (>66%) of the population regard as "odd" based on normal activities and observations in every day life.
For about 20 years now, we've grown up with G.R. as a given, with adults having learned enough of it in this country that they understand it does strange things in strange situations. In other countries that level of learning isn't there, and the concept of "odd" differs.
... but I find you correcting me patronizing since I wasn't referring to them as they are completely out of context for this discussion!
Fair enough. I was not trying to be patronizing, and I apologize for it.
Mass can't reach c. Mass and information can't exceed c.
Right. One of the big surprises for me in physics was that light can travel faster than C, and relatively easily. Apparently (if I remember correctly), in a wave guide you can get the light waves to twice the speed of C if the information carried by those waves drops to half C; apparently the actual constant is C squared, not C itself.
The point was that while you cannot exceed C while staying in normal space, nothing prevents you from doing odd things with space. Warping space was one of the things that I had read of; you indicated that it turned out not to work. Massive spinning objects (hello rotating super massive black holes) was another; you just indicated that the power consumption is ZPM-level (sigh, no stargates.) Wormholes are an often discussed idea, but what I've read indicates that the current belief is that they are probably either ultra-rare, unstable, self-collapsing, or just plain "untravel-able" by anything bigger than a photon (so at best they can transmit information, not matter).
So the only thing left may be an M-space bridge, but it would have to be portable and able to run both ways.
Please stop using the term "assume." Theory is a preferred word.
Now we're into nitpicking. "Assumptions", to me, are what you place at the start of any theory. Given those assumptions, the theory states what is predicted.
S.R. and G.R. each made two assumptions; then, based on those assumptions being true, some things come out to be true. The assumptions of S.R. are untestable -- you cannot get a true inertial reference frame, but it turns out that the predictions of S.R. match local observations for non-accelerating reference frames. G.R., on the other hand, DOES match predictions to observations, so the presumption is that the two assumptions made by G.R. are in fact true.
(as a side note: S.R. is not the only theory that manages to match observation and prediction. Lorenz, if I recall correctly, came up with a different set of assumptions that also match, and turns out to be 100% equivalent to S.R., but has very different assumptions about why and what's happening than S.R. does. For example, does an object only appear to change size with speed, because the observer cannot see identical instants at different locations, or is there in fact a true reference frame, and objects really do change in size, but since your rulers also change, you cannot tell.)
That is what the term "assume"/"assumption" means to me. If it has a different meaning to you, then lets agree to disagree.
-
Oh Oh OOOOooooooooooooooooo..... how could i have missed such an exciting theory discussion!? OMG.
I love sci fi stuff!
And to help us understand that FTL (Faster than Light) is theoretically possible in the real world (at least in theory), check out this wonderful piece of paper published closed to a decade ago... came across it during my diploma years......
Warning ahead though, its uber intellectual and so brace urself.....
FTL Discussions (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html)
And something on DISCOVERY that seemed plausible for design here perhaps? Lol.
Discovery stuff (http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/07/28/warp-speed-engine.html)
More? Lol.
See This (http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20080711215055data_trunc_sys.shtml)
and
THIS! (http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2141/dark-energy-spacecraft-could-fly-faster-light)