Question for the science guys.
- Thread starter Threeofseven
- Start date
Well, we can actually do better: theories make predictions, some of those predictions are things which are unexpected. When we can observe some of these unexpected-but-predicted-by-the-theory things (e.g. curvature of space, dilation of time, pulsars & black holes for relativity theories; single versus double slit experiments & tunneling for quantum mechanics; the Higgs boson for particle physics) happen, and especially if the measurements of reality are in line with the calculated predictions, they are strong confirmations that there is something right in the theory.
Oh, great guru, if "Einstein's Theory Of General Relativity" is not a theory please explain to us ignorant folks why it is called that. It is not called "Einstein's Hypothesis Of General Relativity", it has been tested and shown (in part, at least) to be correct.
From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. "Theory: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena."
I think that describes Einstein's General Theory Of Relativity pretty well. Einstein's General Theory Of Relativity has been tested and experimented ad nauseum and evidence mounts every week for its proof. Just a few months ago there was some discovery or another that supposedly added more evidence for the proof of Einstein's Theory Of General Relativity.
Last edited:
Sorry but the moment anyone says "just a theory" about any scientific theory then anything that follows can be dismissed as irrelevant to any serious discussion. The "just a theory" argument is the same one creationist use to diss evolution.
The "theory" explains the observations, not the other way around. Even if Einstein's theory was incorrect the observations of how the universe works would still be the same, in fact nothing can be definitively "proven", proof is not a word any reputable scientist uses (except for mathematicians of course, but then it's used in a different way). Even evolution hasn't been proven, but there is so much evidence that it is effectively non-refutable, which his about the closest we can get in the scientific world to "proven".
To cut a long story short never say "just a theory" in any discussion of science or where scientists may be listening or reading. To get to the theory stage, a hypothesis has to be tested to destruction, if it survives it may then become a theory, but it can still be one of several competing theories if two different theories can explain the same observations, but it can never be "just a theory".
A theory in science is not equivalent to the non-scientific definition:
Sceintific Use of Theory----> a: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
- the wave theory of light
- her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn
b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory
- in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all
----> How lay people use it 3a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject
- theory of equations
In science there are three steps to discovery validation, hypothesis is the first.
If a hypothesis is consistently tested, it becomes a Theory
If a Theory is proven to be immutable it becomes a Law.
Last edited:
Excellent. You are entirely correct. We perceive space and time to be so tightly connected that we refer to them as "space-time". We (currently) cannot move through one (we think) without moving through the other. But again, that is only how we perceive the universe. Less than 100 years ago we still believed a man could NEVER go faster than the speed of sound, that it was a wall in the sky that would never be defeated. Just because we do not know YET how to disconnect space from time does not mean that it is impossible. The word impossible = failure.
Isaac Newton said: ". . . to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."
That tiny seashore was "everything we know", the shells and pebbles his discoveries and the great ocean is "what is yet to be discovered". We have not come so very far from that, we are still on that tiny seashore with a great ocean of as yet undiscovered knowledge spread out before us.
It will not be done with great engines pushing masses through space-time. Einstein's theory suggests that as we approach the speed of light while moving through space-time the energy needed to further accelerate us will become infinite. So we should be looking at alternatives, a way of moving across space without having to move through time. I believe that someday, someone will develop a mathematical formula which does exactly that. A formula that will allow us to place masses far away without having to actually move them there across the intervening space-time, possibly using a higher-order dimension in much the same way Elite Dangerous' Hi-wake drive does. A way to be there without actually having to (take the time to) go there. o7
Last edited:
The initial conundrum is the speed of light. Which is the current known top speed; and in fact the entire physics model we have, predicates that this cannot be exceed. The notion of an albecurrie drive essentially is that it cheats; the mass inside the bubble never moves, it's collapsing and expanding space; so the exponent involved in acceleration becomes essentially less relevant.
The problem, is that we currently have exactly zero real-world energy sources to power such an incredible methodology such as to compress space to begin with, let alone expand it. So the entire thing with SC, is currently impossible.
Theory is not automatically an unproven concept; in fact every single scientific principle that has been sufficiently proven to be considered factually accurate, started as a theory. They never suddenly stop having theory to propose their principles. There is no light-switch. It doesn't disappear the moment repeated confirmation occurs.
However; the game is attempting to present concepts in a way we can understand. There is this notion that a 100% scientifically accurate game would be amazing; is let down by the fact that often the theories, whilst at times revolutionary, can be incredibly dry and boring.
And require an extremely profound natural inclination to mathematics, engineering, astrophysics and at least some degree of familiarity with quantum mechanics and string theory.
SC works by the ship forming a bubble around the ship; space is compressed and expanded to move within the existing plane (ie, within our own reality and universe). The ship itself never moves, the bubble does. So we'd almost certainly just see whatever was inside the bubble; anything outside of it would vary depending on our relative velocity as viewed externally; assuming we could even see or comprehend what is happening outside of the bubble, colours would shift as we accelerated, and then presumably once the bubble exceeds the speed of light, which is currently impossible? We're no-longer in kansas anymore, or within the current laws of physics. So who the hell knows.
It's a bit like dropping off the edge of a black hole horizon; we have a pretty good idea of what the experience would be like, until we cross the threshold, then the jury is out because physics itself breaks down. We can't really know, because there's nothing we can effectively use to define it, as our entire model basically becomes invalidated. So I would tend to think SC travel experience is implausible to define, because our method for defining essentially breaks down.
We can't go faster than the speed of light; everything mathematically breaks if we do. The only saving grace, is that inside the bubble, everything is still within current laws. So my tendency is to believe we'd be simply be unable to comprehend anything outside of the bubble. Because we have nothing to describe it. Because, presently, it simply cannot happen. You can imagine, I suppose, so I guess I'd simply play it safe and suggest we'd simply see nothing (and comprehend that as "empty void", or dark).
As for inter-system travel, I believe that's based more on folding two points together, to create a conduit; otherwise known as a wormhole. That's actually a more sound concept from a physics and maths standpoint, as it's not actually breaking constants such as the speed of light. It does need an utterly unfathomable amount of power though.
But above all else, this is a game, and as a game, it has to approach people with varying levels of understanding. It still has to work as a cohesive experience; so Frontier are going to present concepts in a way people can approach and not get a headache from, every time they play. They don't need to be 100% accurate to the current theories to do that. Just provide a simulacra that mostly adheres to what we know.
At present; both methods of transit are technically impossible to achieve. So the entire debate is hilariously irrelevant. We don't know exactly how to achieve either, within the technical capabilities we current possess.
The problem, is that we currently have exactly zero real-world energy sources to power such an incredible methodology such as to compress space to begin with, let alone expand it. So the entire thing with SC, is currently impossible.
Theory is not automatically an unproven concept; in fact every single scientific principle that has been sufficiently proven to be considered factually accurate, started as a theory. They never suddenly stop having theory to propose their principles. There is no light-switch. It doesn't disappear the moment repeated confirmation occurs.
However; the game is attempting to present concepts in a way we can understand. There is this notion that a 100% scientifically accurate game would be amazing; is let down by the fact that often the theories, whilst at times revolutionary, can be incredibly dry and boring.
And require an extremely profound natural inclination to mathematics, engineering, astrophysics and at least some degree of familiarity with quantum mechanics and string theory.
SC works by the ship forming a bubble around the ship; space is compressed and expanded to move within the existing plane (ie, within our own reality and universe). The ship itself never moves, the bubble does. So we'd almost certainly just see whatever was inside the bubble; anything outside of it would vary depending on our relative velocity as viewed externally; assuming we could even see or comprehend what is happening outside of the bubble, colours would shift as we accelerated, and then presumably once the bubble exceeds the speed of light, which is currently impossible? We're no-longer in kansas anymore, or within the current laws of physics. So who the hell knows.
It's a bit like dropping off the edge of a black hole horizon; we have a pretty good idea of what the experience would be like, until we cross the threshold, then the jury is out because physics itself breaks down. We can't really know, because there's nothing we can effectively use to define it, as our entire model basically becomes invalidated. So I would tend to think SC travel experience is implausible to define, because our method for defining essentially breaks down.
We can't go faster than the speed of light; everything mathematically breaks if we do. The only saving grace, is that inside the bubble, everything is still within current laws. So my tendency is to believe we'd be simply be unable to comprehend anything outside of the bubble. Because we have nothing to describe it. Because, presently, it simply cannot happen. You can imagine, I suppose, so I guess I'd simply play it safe and suggest we'd simply see nothing (and comprehend that as "empty void", or dark).
As for inter-system travel, I believe that's based more on folding two points together, to create a conduit; otherwise known as a wormhole. That's actually a more sound concept from a physics and maths standpoint, as it's not actually breaking constants such as the speed of light. It does need an utterly unfathomable amount of power though.
But above all else, this is a game, and as a game, it has to approach people with varying levels of understanding. It still has to work as a cohesive experience; so Frontier are going to present concepts in a way people can approach and not get a headache from, every time they play. They don't need to be 100% accurate to the current theories to do that. Just provide a simulacra that mostly adheres to what we know.
At present; both methods of transit are technically impossible to achieve. So the entire debate is hilariously irrelevant. We don't know exactly how to achieve either, within the technical capabilities we current possess.
Last edited:
"The technical capabilities we CURRENTLY possess". Exactly right. However the speed of light has recently been demonstrated to NOT be universally constant. Science has been experimentally successful (in the lab) in slowing light down by a significant percentage. We are constantly learning new things about how the universe works. It is amazing what humans, with our brains made from a couple pounds of meat and fat are able to achieve.
The SuperCruise (SC) drive is handwavium. I was discussing the "Hi-Wake" or HyperDrive. I think that, if it can be done that the way "faster than light-speed" travel will be accomplished could be very much like what is depicted as Elite Dangerous Hi-Wake drive.
Sure, theories can be "proven" to work. There are theories describing how uranium fissions/fuses which have been proven to work. That does not mean we actually completely understand them. It's a theory. We can cause controlled and uncontrolled nuclear chain reactions but that is about all we understand. 100 years later we are still using uranium for firewood just to heat water to make steam to turn generators to make electricity for God's sake! This was not the nuclear dream. The dream was a teaspoon of nuclear fuel would power a city for 100 years and it could, if only we knew how to directly convert nuclear energy to electricity, but we don't. But someday, we will. We just have not learned how, yet.
To say that "physics breaks down" inside a black hole is misleading. It is more accurate to say we simply do not have a great enough understanding of how the universe works for us to describe what happens inside a black hole. The word "singularity" is simply a cool sounding label for "we don't know".
I do not subscribe to the "space-warp" idea. If we cannot push a (relatively) tiny ship across vast distances how can we ever think we can fold (space) an entire universe to connect two widely separated points together? And Einstein's theories suggest there is not enough energy in the entire universe to accelerate any amount of mass to a greater-then-light-speed. BUT! There very well may be higher-order dimensions beyond the three (or four) that we humans perceive, dimensions that are not bound by the same physical rules that govern the universe as we perceive it and we might be able one day, to make use of those higher-order dimensions to move masses across three of our currently (somewhat) understood dimensions without moving across the fourth. Again, we just have not learned how to do it, YET!
This thread is simply discussing plausibility, not accuracy since there is no theory to "accurately" describe faster-than-light-speed travel. Elite Dangerous is not trying to "accurately" simulate FTL travel, simply "plausibly" depict it.
Making statements like "impossible to achieve" is defeatist thinking and a self-fulfilling prophecy. With that sort of thinking, all we can do is fail. Impossible = Failure. Everybody "knows" that humans are unable to fly and yet, millions of humans fly every day. I prefer to believe that all things are possible until proven once and for all otherwise. It is all perspective. In space, "up" is not always up, it is also down.
Last edited:
I didn't say it was a universal constant; I said it was the current speed limit. All current physics models indicate it's not possible to exceed the speed of light. When a lab can make light go faster than the known top speed? Then we're on the same page. Creating artificial barriers to light, to 'slow' it down, isn't solving the infinite mass issue of exceeding it.
To say physics breaks down inside a wormhole, isn't misleading; the mathematics and theorem that forms current known principles, can't describe it. We know hawking radiation can escape a black hole; so we have some understanding of the event horizon, but our physics models simply aren't able to describe passing the event horizon. Space-time becomes very weird. And then we simply can't define it.
As in, we simply do not know; there's obviously ongoing theories and our understanding of black holes is improving all the time; but we simply cannot describe beyond the event horizon. At present, physics models cannot adequately describe beyond the event horizon; we don't know, and current physics models and mathematics can't tell us; ergo the model breaks down.
Again, at the end of the day, the game is simply presenting concepts. It's trying to base those on generally agreed physics principles. Extreme accuracy is an irrelevant debate, let alone "plausible" because neither exists, so how can you debate plausibility?
Because we can't adequately formulate how to even accomplish what happens; never mind the energy requirements even if we somehow could. Again; the entire debate is a bit moot. The topics are still, essentially, science fiction. Eventually they may become scientific fact, proven repeatedly? Sure. But until then the entire notion one can have a "plausibility" debate, ignores that we don't even know if it is yet.
Folks are getting buried in minutia, and supposing unknowns, rather than considering how that might improve the game; it likely does not fundamentally matter, to a game that's presenting a vision of what it might be like.
Last edited:
Einstein's theories are obviously not completely incorrect, but parts of them might be and in fact, probably are since it is understood that he fudged some of the math. More accurate to say that his theories may be incomplete and that there is a lot left waiting to be discovered.
PS: If you re-read my post you will see, for the record, I never said "just a theory". I said it was "just that, a THEORY". As in, not disparaging, not belittling it but to say it was exactly that. A Theory, not a Law, not a Hypothesis. o7
Last edited:
Off topic, sorry...
Of course I know that KE= 1/2 mv^2
But I've always found this point so counterintuitive.
If we do this in open space at non relativistic speeds where space is speed invariant...
We accelerate the 1kg to 1m/s (0.5J) and reframe to say the ball is at rest... Then we only need another 0.5J to accelerate it 1m/s
Then reframe again to say the ball is stationary wrt itself and accelerate another 1m/s for another 0.5J...
But now, wrt the original frame the ball is travelling at 3m/s and we've spent 1.5J yet it has KE = 4.5J
whether a rocket is travelling at 10m/s or 1000m/s, burning a kilo of fuel will accelerate it the same amount... But that doesn't make sense from a 1/2mv^2 point of view... Why does it need more energy to accelerate something going faster that something else...
Quantum Chromodynamics.... I'm down with that after studying the bloody stuff for years, but I've never been able to get my head around this...
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure we'll never know, at least I'm pretty sure I won't.
Nothing in Science is 100% proven. There is always some doubt. Even the theory that the earth go"s around the sun is not "proven". BUT there is no good alterative evidence so its most likely right. Same goes for general relativity and nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Its most likely right.
Lol, yes im pretty sure too. Im relying on Einstein here. He is the one who says that to a stationary observer a person or object travelling near light speed wil appear compressed.
Long answer - 3.8 peta planks of Handwavium
Reading through this thread the only thought I am left with is from Dune.
Nothing recent about being possible to reduce the speed of light. Ie going through a medium like glass. But im not aware of any evidence of any thing ever going faater than light. Any time anybody says they have done it. The results can not be reproduced.