princelian
August 13th, 2006, 10:23 PM
I, too, was greatly enjoying the discussion about the universe, and I happily invite anyone to disagree with any of the imagining I'll be doing on this thread.
I'm not out to prove anything; I'm not out to point fingers at ANYONE; I'm not out say that one way of looking at the universe, be it quantum mechanics, Newtonian physics, or the current flavor of hyperspatial physics is better than any other.
That being said, please leave personal matters and disagreements off this version of the thread. Please.
What I want to do with this thread is to learn if there are any of you who have some ideas about what the "expanding ball o' universe" implies for hyperspatial mechanics in Traveller. Could something about this giant ball with the physical universe paper macheed (sp?) to the outside have implications for either N- or J-space maneuvering?
And what is the nature, again, in Traveller adventure terms, of the inside of that sphere? Could it lead to alternate N-space/physical dimensions that are "paper macheed" to layers of that sphere (if its structure is layers as is our planet)?
How does it interact with what we perceive as the normal three_plus_time dimensions? Are there regions where space/time curves out- or in-ward and the barrier between the outside (N-space) and the inside (J-space) is stronger (outward curvature) or weaker (inward curvature)?
Could these be plotted by sufficiently advanced technology to allow jumps in more unusual circumstances, or jumps that don't obey the normal laws of Traveller jumpspace?
I'm not out to prove anything; I'm not out to point fingers at ANYONE; I'm not out say that one way of looking at the universe, be it quantum mechanics, Newtonian physics, or the current flavor of hyperspatial physics is better than any other.
That being said, please leave personal matters and disagreements off this version of the thread. Please.
What I want to do with this thread is to learn if there are any of you who have some ideas about what the "expanding ball o' universe" implies for hyperspatial mechanics in Traveller. Could something about this giant ball with the physical universe paper macheed (sp?) to the outside have implications for either N- or J-space maneuvering?
And what is the nature, again, in Traveller adventure terms, of the inside of that sphere? Could it lead to alternate N-space/physical dimensions that are "paper macheed" to layers of that sphere (if its structure is layers as is our planet)?
How does it interact with what we perceive as the normal three_plus_time dimensions? Are there regions where space/time curves out- or in-ward and the barrier between the outside (N-space) and the inside (J-space) is stronger (outward curvature) or weaker (inward curvature)?
Could these be plotted by sufficiently advanced technology to allow jumps in more unusual circumstances, or jumps that don't obey the normal laws of Traveller jumpspace?
RainOfSteel
August 14th, 2006, 12:08 AM
From what I have read in Brian Green's The Fabric of the Cosmos, the mounting evidence is that there is no way for matter and most energy to travel faster than the speed of light. Only photons may travel the speed of light (or perhaps another massless particle).
Quantum mechanics does state that through "entaglement", information does appear to propagate infinitely and instantly across the universe, but there also appears to be no way of making use of that information.
The only impact of this on the OTU as far as I can see would be to negate the Jump Drive, but we can't have that so that Jump Drive remains intact and functional.
---------------------------------------
I have also seen recent news articles (in the last year), about a scientist with a supposedly revolutionary idea about how to use powerful magnetic fields to create a propulsion system capable of enormous velocities (possibly FTL), but until that system gets tested, if ever, I sort of classify it off in the realm of "that would be cool but I'm not expecting anything".
---------------------------------------
You should also check-out Jump 101 (http://eaglestone.pocketempires.com/rules/jumpdrive.html), parts 1-6 and a supplement.
Quantum mechanics does state that through "entaglement", information does appear to propagate infinitely and instantly across the universe, but there also appears to be no way of making use of that information.
The only impact of this on the OTU as far as I can see would be to negate the Jump Drive, but we can't have that so that Jump Drive remains intact and functional.
---------------------------------------
I have also seen recent news articles (in the last year), about a scientist with a supposedly revolutionary idea about how to use powerful magnetic fields to create a propulsion system capable of enormous velocities (possibly FTL), but until that system gets tested, if ever, I sort of classify it off in the realm of "that would be cool but I'm not expecting anything".
---------------------------------------
You should also check-out Jump 101 (http://eaglestone.pocketempires.com/rules/jumpdrive.html), parts 1-6 and a supplement.
aramis
August 14th, 2006, 01:09 AM
My preferred method is simple non-consideration. In Traveller, what lies beyond the known universe is no more knowable than in the Real World.
Y'see, even at Infinite J6 range (robot crew, AM PP and JD, TL21 or so, ala Annic Nova/MT Rules), you can only make (without some major accident) 312 Pc/year over light. ≅1017 C. That means that making inroads into astronomy is negligible (but important) for research purposes, but isn't going to do a whole lot for extragalactic studies.
I't possible for such a ship to get 6 times as far, but not bloody likely... at least in the OTU as defined in the MT rules.
Heck, at that speed, even the edge of the galaxy is a rough bit.
One could readily set up such a ship under the MT rules (No other has that high a TL set), and possibly build one capable of reaching the LMC... but we'd be talking a century-long mission, IIRC.
So, the "Beyond the edge" doesn't matter much to MTU, nor the OTU.
The other side of the coin, the inside of the "expanding shell" doesn't matter much, either, since we've already got a vague definition for it in Traveller terms... J-Space.
Now, one of the things put forth in the RW for the acceleration is not the "expansion of the universe" but random quantum-predicted particle anti-particle creation and elimination... this creates light, albeit tiny, and that light exerts a tiny pressure. But, over centuries, that can add up... the more empty space, the more random energy in between objects... hence acceleration.
Y'see, even at Infinite J6 range (robot crew, AM PP and JD, TL21 or so, ala Annic Nova/MT Rules), you can only make (without some major accident) 312 Pc/year over light. ≅1017 C. That means that making inroads into astronomy is negligible (but important) for research purposes, but isn't going to do a whole lot for extragalactic studies.
I't possible for such a ship to get 6 times as far, but not bloody likely... at least in the OTU as defined in the MT rules.
Heck, at that speed, even the edge of the galaxy is a rough bit.
One could readily set up such a ship under the MT rules (No other has that high a TL set), and possibly build one capable of reaching the LMC... but we'd be talking a century-long mission, IIRC.
So, the "Beyond the edge" doesn't matter much to MTU, nor the OTU.
The other side of the coin, the inside of the "expanding shell" doesn't matter much, either, since we've already got a vague definition for it in Traveller terms... J-Space.
Now, one of the things put forth in the RW for the acceleration is not the "expansion of the universe" but random quantum-predicted particle anti-particle creation and elimination... this creates light, albeit tiny, and that light exerts a tiny pressure. But, over centuries, that can add up... the more empty space, the more random energy in between objects... hence acceleration.
Icosahedron
August 14th, 2006, 03:46 AM
Originally posted by princelian:
I, too, was greatly enjoying the discussion about the universe, and I happily invite anyone to disagree with any of the imagining I'll be doing on this thread.
I'm not out to prove anything; I'm not out to point fingers at ANYONE; I'm not out say that one way of looking at the universe, be it quantum mechanics, Newtonian physics, or the current flavor of hyperspatial physics is better than any other.
That being said, please leave personal matters and disagreements off this version of the thread. Please.
What I want to do with this thread is to learn if there are any of you who have some ideas about what the "expanding ball o' universe" implies for hyperspatial mechanics in Traveller. Could something about this giant ball with the physical universe paper macheed (sp?) to the outside have implications for either N- or J-space maneuvering?
And what is the nature, again, in Traveller adventure terms, of the inside of that sphere? Could it lead to alternate N-space/physical dimensions that are "paper macheed" to layers of that sphere (if its structure is layers as is our planet)?
How does it interact with what we perceive as the normal three_plus_time dimensions? Are there regions where space/time curves out- or in-ward and the barrier between the outside (N-space) and the inside (J-space) is stronger (outward curvature) or weaker (inward curvature)?
Could these be plotted by sufficiently advanced technology to allow jumps in more unusual circumstances, or jumps that don't obey the normal laws of Traveller jumpspace? The picture I posted of our universe plastered on the outside of a super-sphere should not be taken literally, it is just a simple analogy that takes you just one step closer to a reality that our tiny human minds may never fully understand. There is another idea (this word is used in a layman's tems to answer a layman's question) that a saddle is a better analogy than a sphere, depending on the amount of dark matter in the universe. However, a sphere is a clearer concept for most people to grasp and it answered the original question - just don't get too hooked on it. smile.gif
In that analogy, Space is the surface and Time is ALL radial directions. Inside is Past and outside is Future. different 'skins of the onion' would therefore represent different periods of the past, and I'm not sure that Jumping would be represented by 'burrowing through' the 'sphere' at all. At that point the simple analogy breaks down. I don't think you could take shortcuts through space by going back in time. Or forward. J-space would probably be a dimension that is simply not represented in this analogy.
IRL there is AFAWK no way of travelling faster than light, so whatever you decide the mechanics of Jump Space should be is entirely up to you IYTU(or the Canon, if you subscribe to the OTU).
Have fun and don't get too bogged down in reality. FTL travel works any way you say it does. It's a game - enjoy. smile.gif
I, too, was greatly enjoying the discussion about the universe, and I happily invite anyone to disagree with any of the imagining I'll be doing on this thread.
I'm not out to prove anything; I'm not out to point fingers at ANYONE; I'm not out say that one way of looking at the universe, be it quantum mechanics, Newtonian physics, or the current flavor of hyperspatial physics is better than any other.
That being said, please leave personal matters and disagreements off this version of the thread. Please.
What I want to do with this thread is to learn if there are any of you who have some ideas about what the "expanding ball o' universe" implies for hyperspatial mechanics in Traveller. Could something about this giant ball with the physical universe paper macheed (sp?) to the outside have implications for either N- or J-space maneuvering?
And what is the nature, again, in Traveller adventure terms, of the inside of that sphere? Could it lead to alternate N-space/physical dimensions that are "paper macheed" to layers of that sphere (if its structure is layers as is our planet)?
How does it interact with what we perceive as the normal three_plus_time dimensions? Are there regions where space/time curves out- or in-ward and the barrier between the outside (N-space) and the inside (J-space) is stronger (outward curvature) or weaker (inward curvature)?
Could these be plotted by sufficiently advanced technology to allow jumps in more unusual circumstances, or jumps that don't obey the normal laws of Traveller jumpspace? The picture I posted of our universe plastered on the outside of a super-sphere should not be taken literally, it is just a simple analogy that takes you just one step closer to a reality that our tiny human minds may never fully understand. There is another idea (this word is used in a layman's tems to answer a layman's question) that a saddle is a better analogy than a sphere, depending on the amount of dark matter in the universe. However, a sphere is a clearer concept for most people to grasp and it answered the original question - just don't get too hooked on it. smile.gif
In that analogy, Space is the surface and Time is ALL radial directions. Inside is Past and outside is Future. different 'skins of the onion' would therefore represent different periods of the past, and I'm not sure that Jumping would be represented by 'burrowing through' the 'sphere' at all. At that point the simple analogy breaks down. I don't think you could take shortcuts through space by going back in time. Or forward. J-space would probably be a dimension that is simply not represented in this analogy.
IRL there is AFAWK no way of travelling faster than light, so whatever you decide the mechanics of Jump Space should be is entirely up to you IYTU(or the Canon, if you subscribe to the OTU).
Have fun and don't get too bogged down in reality. FTL travel works any way you say it does. It's a game - enjoy. smile.gif
TheEngineer
August 14th, 2006, 04:20 AM
Hi princelian !
Thats a tough question.
Actually we know the exact nature of the universe as well as the nature of jumpspace smile.gif
So we have to think about the implications of one vage thing to another....
At least this provides enough room for interpretation/speculation.
Well, in MTU the implications are non, meaning the astronomical model has no impact on anything in my gaming universe. The target scales are just too different.
E.g. IMTU jumpspace is another geometrical dimension subject to a long range spacetime-effect created by the inner rotation of milkyways central super black hole (bla bla bla).
This idea was inspired by the frame-dragging effect around rotating black hole.
But even in this degree it is a rather insignificant local effect in this universe.
regards,
TE
Thats a tough question.
Actually we know the exact nature of the universe as well as the nature of jumpspace smile.gif
So we have to think about the implications of one vage thing to another....
At least this provides enough room for interpretation/speculation.
Well, in MTU the implications are non, meaning the astronomical model has no impact on anything in my gaming universe. The target scales are just too different.
E.g. IMTU jumpspace is another geometrical dimension subject to a long range spacetime-effect created by the inner rotation of milkyways central super black hole (bla bla bla).
This idea was inspired by the frame-dragging effect around rotating black hole.
But even in this degree it is a rather insignificant local effect in this universe.
regards,
TE
sid6.7
August 14th, 2006, 04:38 AM
what i want to know is if everyone thinks
there is an "edge" of the universe whats
beyond that? there has to be "something"
there....even if there are no stars
and planets...it would be just empty
space right?...if there is something
that you run into and go splat or rebound
off of...to me that would mean there is
something more...for the "shield" would
have to some kind of physical structure.
trying to make something finite when its
infinite is futile yes? like numbers
surely there are some that dont believe
there is a maximum number right? there
maybe a maximum number that a person can
comprehend...but that doesnt mean there
arent greater numbers....
there is an "edge" of the universe whats
beyond that? there has to be "something"
there....even if there are no stars
and planets...it would be just empty
space right?...if there is something
that you run into and go splat or rebound
off of...to me that would mean there is
something more...for the "shield" would
have to some kind of physical structure.
trying to make something finite when its
infinite is futile yes? like numbers
surely there are some that dont believe
there is a maximum number right? there
maybe a maximum number that a person can
comprehend...but that doesnt mean there
arent greater numbers....
sid6.7
August 14th, 2006, 04:42 AM
Originally posted by Icosahedron:
IRL there is AFAWK no way of travelling faster than light, so whatever you decide the mechanics of Jump Space should be is entirely up to you IYTU(or the Canon, if you subscribe to the OTU).
Have fun and don't get too bogged down in reality. FTL travel works any way you say it does. It's a game - enjoy. smile.gif wow i didnt relieze you were here too!
howdy DM/GM! maybe the universe is finite.. graemlins/file_23.gif
so can thought travel faster then light?
IRL there is AFAWK no way of travelling faster than light, so whatever you decide the mechanics of Jump Space should be is entirely up to you IYTU(or the Canon, if you subscribe to the OTU).
Have fun and don't get too bogged down in reality. FTL travel works any way you say it does. It's a game - enjoy. smile.gif wow i didnt relieze you were here too!
howdy DM/GM! maybe the universe is finite.. graemlins/file_23.gif
so can thought travel faster then light?
ravells
August 14th, 2006, 07:13 AM
I think the officical version about J-Drives is something along the lines of 'they work, but we don't know why they work.'
For me it's better left as a mystery. When Lucas tried to give the Force a pseudo science grounding (miclorians?)it didn't do much for the story!
I can just about get my head around more than 4 dimensions. I still find it very difficult to get my head around the concept of 'nothing' - a (place?) where even space nor time do not exist.
Ravs
For me it's better left as a mystery. When Lucas tried to give the Force a pseudo science grounding (miclorians?)it didn't do much for the story!
I can just about get my head around more than 4 dimensions. I still find it very difficult to get my head around the concept of 'nothing' - a (place?) where even space nor time do not exist.
Ravs
TheEngineer
August 14th, 2006, 08:27 AM
Sid6.7, dont ask such questions !
They cost senity points smile.gif
Seriously, space is mostly considered to be open/infinite but of limited volume.
The typical model with one dimesion less for that is that sphere surface, which has no edge but a limited area.
So, for a 3(4) dimensional being there is (perhaps) no physical border.
But honestly I have the feeling, that to believe there are just 3(4) dimensions (those which we can experience) would be quite narrow-minded.
And as the string theories openen it up to 11+ dimesions everything is possible again.
But maybe just to complicate to fit in my 3D brain smile.gif
As I said, take care for senity smile.gif
TE
They cost senity points smile.gif
Seriously, space is mostly considered to be open/infinite but of limited volume.
The typical model with one dimesion less for that is that sphere surface, which has no edge but a limited area.
So, for a 3(4) dimensional being there is (perhaps) no physical border.
But honestly I have the feeling, that to believe there are just 3(4) dimensions (those which we can experience) would be quite narrow-minded.
And as the string theories openen it up to 11+ dimesions everything is possible again.
But maybe just to complicate to fit in my 3D brain smile.gif
As I said, take care for senity smile.gif
TE
princelian
August 14th, 2006, 11:11 AM
Icosahedron posted:
The picture I posted of our universe plastered on the outside of a super-sphere should not be taken literally, it is just a simple analogy that takes you just one step closer to a reality that our tiny human minds may never fully understand. I know that. However, I can take that analogy and make it "fact" for my Traveller campaign by handwaving, and then have it affect things if I want them to.
Just like in a fantasy campaign, if bronze is a metal mined from the bones of dead gods and not an alloy of copper and tin, then that's how it is. (That is how it is in RuneQuest, incidentally. In fact, in RQ, you CAN'T alloy copper and tin - they're both runemetals and will not combine.)
Anyhow, the hard science purists are probably all wincing, but the point is that I could create a storyline that takes advantage of the analogy by assuming that it's close enough to fact for gamemaster work.
The picture I posted of our universe plastered on the outside of a super-sphere should not be taken literally, it is just a simple analogy that takes you just one step closer to a reality that our tiny human minds may never fully understand. I know that. However, I can take that analogy and make it "fact" for my Traveller campaign by handwaving, and then have it affect things if I want them to.
Just like in a fantasy campaign, if bronze is a metal mined from the bones of dead gods and not an alloy of copper and tin, then that's how it is. (That is how it is in RuneQuest, incidentally. In fact, in RQ, you CAN'T alloy copper and tin - they're both runemetals and will not combine.)
Anyhow, the hard science purists are probably all wincing, but the point is that I could create a storyline that takes advantage of the analogy by assuming that it's close enough to fact for gamemaster work.
archhealer
August 14th, 2006, 11:16 AM
i thought part of the mythos of the J-Drive was that it didn't actually achieve FTL travel; nothing travelled faster than light, or even all that fast, in J-space. It was more like a prolonged teleportation. So, in theory, perhaps the FTL rules aren't being broken at all (Of course, that brings into question what laws of physics ARE being broken; J-Travel just seems too good to be true).
RainOfSteel
August 14th, 2006, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by sid6.7:
what i want to know is if everyone thinks
there is an "edge" of the universe whats
beyond that? there has to be "something"
there....even if there are no stars
and planets...it would be just empty
space rightAfter the Big Bang, space itself was smaller than it is now.
Current thoughts are that a very short fraction of an instant after time 0, space itself grew vastly larger at titantic speeds, and this idea is called "inflation". It is an idea that revolutionized cosmological thought when Alan Guth introduced it in the late 70s.
This does not violate general relativity, as space itself is quite capable of expanding at huge multiples of the speed of light.
But that is exactly the point, space is expanding. Where that space isn't you can't go.
Most cosmologists/astrophysicists believe there is no locatable edge, and that it would be extremely difficult to locate the point of the big bang itself.
One of the reasons it is so hard to determine the exact shape of the universe (space-time shape, here) in relation to where it all started is that the entire observeable universe, all of it that we can see with the best telescope, the Hubble, is so tiny a fraction of the actual whole that studying it to find the shape of space is like staring face down at the sand on a beach and trying to determine the shape of the Earth from seeing just one grain of sand.
what i want to know is if everyone thinks
there is an "edge" of the universe whats
beyond that? there has to be "something"
there....even if there are no stars
and planets...it would be just empty
space rightAfter the Big Bang, space itself was smaller than it is now.
Current thoughts are that a very short fraction of an instant after time 0, space itself grew vastly larger at titantic speeds, and this idea is called "inflation". It is an idea that revolutionized cosmological thought when Alan Guth introduced it in the late 70s.
This does not violate general relativity, as space itself is quite capable of expanding at huge multiples of the speed of light.
But that is exactly the point, space is expanding. Where that space isn't you can't go.
Most cosmologists/astrophysicists believe there is no locatable edge, and that it would be extremely difficult to locate the point of the big bang itself.
One of the reasons it is so hard to determine the exact shape of the universe (space-time shape, here) in relation to where it all started is that the entire observeable universe, all of it that we can see with the best telescope, the Hubble, is so tiny a fraction of the actual whole that studying it to find the shape of space is like staring face down at the sand on a beach and trying to determine the shape of the Earth from seeing just one grain of sand.
princelian
August 14th, 2006, 02:14 PM
And we're back to the beach of my primitive tribe again. :D
(Just a reminder that insofar as the big bad universe is concerned, we are those ignorant savages.)
(Just a reminder that insofar as the big bad universe is concerned, we are those ignorant savages.)
sid6.7
August 15th, 2006, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
But that is exactly the point, space is expanding. Where that space isn't you can't go.
wow..i think i actually inderstand this... :eek:
i think i understand what people are trying
to say now from the sceince side anyways...
your not just talking the planets expanding
outwards your talking about the very fabric
of space itself moving outwards?...right?
at least for the "you can't go" where its
not part...i guess i didnt releize the
whole story of "big bang"...
im more of the belief that the fabric is
static but infinite, but yes planets
and such are moving "/around/outwards"...
thanks for a better clarifcation....
But that is exactly the point, space is expanding. Where that space isn't you can't go.
wow..i think i actually inderstand this... :eek:
i think i understand what people are trying
to say now from the sceince side anyways...
your not just talking the planets expanding
outwards your talking about the very fabric
of space itself moving outwards?...right?
at least for the "you can't go" where its
not part...i guess i didnt releize the
whole story of "big bang"...
im more of the belief that the fabric is
static but infinite, but yes planets
and such are moving "/around/outwards"...
thanks for a better clarifcation....
princelian
August 16th, 2006, 12:16 AM
No, the fabric is not static, at least according to current theory. It is bent, curved, even stretched by matter and energy, the simplest analogy being that space is a big sheet of black cloth and planets and stars are balls on its surface. Whereever they are, space curves "downward," and draws other balls toward them if the curvature (the depression made by the ball) is big enough.
The expansion we've been talking about is somewhat (but not entirely) analagous to that sheet being made of elastic material and it keeps getting stretched in all directions so the balls are further and further apart.
Hmm....using that analogy... as the universe expands and the galaxies get further and further apart, does the gravitational constant get smaller because space is under more and more tension? And does this tension eventually force space to spring back inward (or rupture)?
More pondering is needed.
The expansion we've been talking about is somewhat (but not entirely) analagous to that sheet being made of elastic material and it keeps getting stretched in all directions so the balls are further and further apart.
Hmm....using that analogy... as the universe expands and the galaxies get further and further apart, does the gravitational constant get smaller because space is under more and more tension? And does this tension eventually force space to spring back inward (or rupture)?
More pondering is needed.
sid6.7
August 16th, 2006, 01:12 AM
well i have heard that before that everything
will fall back to a center point(big bang spot?)
so that means even after the bang there was
still "something left" there thats still
exerting gravity of some sort on the whole shebang? right?
cuase now if there is "nothing" at the
center there would be nothing to draw
it back given the general law of gravity
or is there another law i am missing?... :(
will fall back to a center point(big bang spot?)
so that means even after the bang there was
still "something left" there thats still
exerting gravity of some sort on the whole shebang? right?
cuase now if there is "nothing" at the
center there would be nothing to draw
it back given the general law of gravity
or is there another law i am missing?... :(
TheEngineer
August 16th, 2006, 02:15 AM
Really, no one knows that, but I guess You will find any possible speculation about that out there.
But anyway, your definition "something left" should be always right smile.gif
In the extreme moments of a bigbang its likely, that physics as we know it today were not valid (well, its had to be different, or the whole show could not have happened as it seems to had happened).
Besides, obviously there was no center of the bigbang, just as there is no center of the known universe today.
Theoretically the pure existence of matter of energy inside a volume of space motivates its contraction (even without a contraction center), but appearently there is another unknown "force", which increases universe expansion rate and perhaps someday everything gets ripped apart....weird world.
But anyway, your definition "something left" should be always right smile.gif
In the extreme moments of a bigbang its likely, that physics as we know it today were not valid (well, its had to be different, or the whole show could not have happened as it seems to had happened).
Besides, obviously there was no center of the bigbang, just as there is no center of the known universe today.
Theoretically the pure existence of matter of energy inside a volume of space motivates its contraction (even without a contraction center), but appearently there is another unknown "force", which increases universe expansion rate and perhaps someday everything gets ripped apart....weird world.
signless
August 16th, 2006, 03:21 AM
Okey dokey. Since I am now officially drunk with power and mad with success after successfully acing my GRE's, I submit the following for your mental mastication (note the use of several "second-semester" words there, eh?)
Every time a jump is made, the bubble which surrounds the ship actually lifts it above and beyond the universe itself. As the bubble "evaporates" and a ship re-appears in normal space, microcosmic bits of flotsam and jetsam are blown free into that utter void outside the borders of our current universe.
These tiny little quantum packets suddenly find themselves in a new setting...one which possesses none of the constraints of the "old" universe. No longer bound by the laws of physics, they liberate their energy in a gigantic release of information, and shazam!...the birth of a "new" universe.
This could be a cool, although heretical, explanation of how Grandfather created "pocket" universes. The utter and complete lack of any coherent information in such a vast emptiness could also explain some aspects of "jump sickness".
Anyhow....time for some more Mexican cough syrup and maraschino cherries!
Every time a jump is made, the bubble which surrounds the ship actually lifts it above and beyond the universe itself. As the bubble "evaporates" and a ship re-appears in normal space, microcosmic bits of flotsam and jetsam are blown free into that utter void outside the borders of our current universe.
These tiny little quantum packets suddenly find themselves in a new setting...one which possesses none of the constraints of the "old" universe. No longer bound by the laws of physics, they liberate their energy in a gigantic release of information, and shazam!...the birth of a "new" universe.
This could be a cool, although heretical, explanation of how Grandfather created "pocket" universes. The utter and complete lack of any coherent information in such a vast emptiness could also explain some aspects of "jump sickness".
Anyhow....time for some more Mexican cough syrup and maraschino cherries!
TheEngineer
August 16th, 2006, 03:35 AM
Sounds completely logical..... smile.gif
RainOfSteel
August 16th, 2006, 04:16 AM
Originally posted by sid6.7:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
But that is exactly the point, space is expanding. Where that space isn't you can't go.
your not just talking the planets expanding
outwards your talking about the very fabric
of space itself moving outwards?...right?
</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, that's exactly it.
The expansion of space is why so many objects in all directions appear to all be moving away from each other.
Only a few objects are actually headed toward each other despite the expansion of space. Current estimates show that the Milky Way and Andromeda are headed for a collision quite some distant time from now (I forget the exact number of years). Their vectors towards each other overcomes the vector of the expansion of space that is actually pushing both galaxies away from each other.
For quite some time cosmolologists have wondered if the rate at which space was expanding was declining, staying the same, or accelerating.
A few years ago, they were finally able to come to the conclusion that it was accelerating.
This means that the universe will not end in a "Big Crunch" ("as far as is currently known") because space's expansion will beat gravity in the end. This news made all the papers a few years back.
Originally posted by sid6.7:
at least for the "you can't go" where its
not part...i guess i didnt releize the
whole story of "big bang"...
If gravity was going to beat the expansion of space, then in some unimaginably distant future, when space was much smaller once more and the end of all was imminent, I personally believe that you would still have great difficulty in determining the center of the universe because of all the matter and energy collected into such a small volume would make astronomy quite difficult. This assumes you could survive the conditions of the then-largely collapsed universe. And you still couldn't find the "edges". Not even at some crazily small fraction of an instant before the end. (At that point you'd be Carl Sagan's famous space-ship of the imagination, because nothing we can conceive of today could survive in those conditions.)
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
But that is exactly the point, space is expanding. Where that space isn't you can't go.
your not just talking the planets expanding
outwards your talking about the very fabric
of space itself moving outwards?...right?
</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, that's exactly it.
The expansion of space is why so many objects in all directions appear to all be moving away from each other.
Only a few objects are actually headed toward each other despite the expansion of space. Current estimates show that the Milky Way and Andromeda are headed for a collision quite some distant time from now (I forget the exact number of years). Their vectors towards each other overcomes the vector of the expansion of space that is actually pushing both galaxies away from each other.
For quite some time cosmolologists have wondered if the rate at which space was expanding was declining, staying the same, or accelerating.
A few years ago, they were finally able to come to the conclusion that it was accelerating.
This means that the universe will not end in a "Big Crunch" ("as far as is currently known") because space's expansion will beat gravity in the end. This news made all the papers a few years back.
Originally posted by sid6.7:
at least for the "you can't go" where its
not part...i guess i didnt releize the
whole story of "big bang"...
If gravity was going to beat the expansion of space, then in some unimaginably distant future, when space was much smaller once more and the end of all was imminent, I personally believe that you would still have great difficulty in determining the center of the universe because of all the matter and energy collected into such a small volume would make astronomy quite difficult. This assumes you could survive the conditions of the then-largely collapsed universe. And you still couldn't find the "edges". Not even at some crazily small fraction of an instant before the end. (At that point you'd be Carl Sagan's famous space-ship of the imagination, because nothing we can conceive of today could survive in those conditions.)
RainOfSteel
August 16th, 2006, 04:22 AM
Originally posted by princelian:
[...] the simplest analogy being that space is a big sheet of black cloth and planets and stars are balls on its surface. Whereever they are, space curves "downward," and draws other balls toward them if the curvature (the depression made by the ball) is big enough.
Yup, that's Einstein's general relativity combined with Newton's gravity.
Originally posted by princelian:
Hmm....using that analogy... as the universe expands and the galaxies get further and further apart, does the gravitational constant get smaller because space is under more and more tension?
I'm not positive about this one. My knee-jerk answer is that the gravitational constant is not changing. (My apologies if it turns out that I am incorrect.)
Originally posted by princelian:
And does this tension eventually force space to spring back inward (or rupture)?
Current thought is that the expansion of space will beat out gravity and win in the Big Goodbye where everything eventually runs down and goes black ("The universe will end with a wimper.").
[...] the simplest analogy being that space is a big sheet of black cloth and planets and stars are balls on its surface. Whereever they are, space curves "downward," and draws other balls toward them if the curvature (the depression made by the ball) is big enough.
Yup, that's Einstein's general relativity combined with Newton's gravity.
Originally posted by princelian:
Hmm....using that analogy... as the universe expands and the galaxies get further and further apart, does the gravitational constant get smaller because space is under more and more tension?
I'm not positive about this one. My knee-jerk answer is that the gravitational constant is not changing. (My apologies if it turns out that I am incorrect.)
Originally posted by princelian:
And does this tension eventually force space to spring back inward (or rupture)?
Current thought is that the expansion of space will beat out gravity and win in the Big Goodbye where everything eventually runs down and goes black ("The universe will end with a wimper.").
RainOfSteel
August 16th, 2006, 04:44 AM
Originally posted by sid6.7:
well i have heard that before that everything
will fall back to a center point(big bang spot?)
The Big Crunch/Big Expansion war seems to have come down on the Big Expansion.
Originally posted by princelian:
so that means even after the bang there was
still "something left" there thats still
exerting gravity of some sort on the whole shebang? right?
No. Exactly what happened before the big bang, and what would have happened in the "Big Crunch", no one knows.
As they say, "The math breaks down at that point and gives answers that make no sense."
However, there are those who posit, in all seriousness, that there was literally nothing prior to the Big Bang.
This is why the M-"theory" development of String-"theory" has a lot of pysicists interested. It actually has an explanation for what caused the Big Bang. (There's just no way currently to test/verify anything in these "theories".)
well i have heard that before that everything
will fall back to a center point(big bang spot?)
The Big Crunch/Big Expansion war seems to have come down on the Big Expansion.
Originally posted by princelian:
so that means even after the bang there was
still "something left" there thats still
exerting gravity of some sort on the whole shebang? right?
No. Exactly what happened before the big bang, and what would have happened in the "Big Crunch", no one knows.
As they say, "The math breaks down at that point and gives answers that make no sense."
However, there are those who posit, in all seriousness, that there was literally nothing prior to the Big Bang.
This is why the M-"theory" development of String-"theory" has a lot of pysicists interested. It actually has an explanation for what caused the Big Bang. (There's just no way currently to test/verify anything in these "theories".)
aramis
August 16th, 2006, 10:18 PM
No need to put quotes on theories... They are theories. They fit the data, and have survived the "Best Fit to Data" test within constituencies of peer review. Just because the 4 most popular ones are all at odds, and require 9+dimensions... and outside their constituencies very few people have a real clue as to what the fuss is about...
It's all still conjecture, but it is conjecture that closely fits the data and produces many results that we know are possible by virtue of their existence.
If M-Theory is right, however, J-Space might be a parallel 'brane, one with a different speed for light.
To be honest, Michio whats-his-name almost makes it make sense... key word "almost"
It's all still conjecture, but it is conjecture that closely fits the data and produces many results that we know are possible by virtue of their existence.
If M-Theory is right, however, J-Space might be a parallel 'brane, one with a different speed for light.
To be honest, Michio whats-his-name almost makes it make sense... key word "almost"
RainOfSteel
August 16th, 2006, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by Aramis:
No need to put quotes on theories...
They're called theories only in common usage. In the technical usage of the scientific method, they aren't. We just had a flamewar that resulted in a couple of bannings, so I was attempting to be . . . I don't know, careful.
No need to put quotes on theories...
They're called theories only in common usage. In the technical usage of the scientific method, they aren't. We just had a flamewar that resulted in a couple of bannings, so I was attempting to be . . . I don't know, careful.
aramis
August 17th, 2006, 02:58 AM
Actually, they are... as far as the scientific method applies in non-experimental sciences (Astronomy, Sociology, History, certain branches of physics, Archaeology, Anthropology.)
Hypothesize, Predict, and see if the predictions say something you have data to prove isn't possible. They can't become laws; that requires proving some action theorized to be impossible doesn't occur.
Understanding this dichotomy of science is important (and underemphasized in current educations.)
Hypothesize, Predict, and see if the predictions say something you have data to prove isn't possible. They can't become laws; that requires proving some action theorized to be impossible doesn't occur.
Understanding this dichotomy of science is important (and underemphasized in current educations.)
TheEngineer
August 17th, 2006, 08:19 AM
Just a sidenote:
This is perhaps a funny text, which shows a scientific dialog about "theories" and their value smile.gif
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0310/0310077.pdf
regards,
TE
This is perhaps a funny text, which shows a scientific dialog about "theories" and their value smile.gif
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0310/0310077.pdf
regards,
TE
Plankowner
August 17th, 2006, 12:17 PM
I think one of the problems is in the terminology. There are theories and there are Theories.
The Theory of Relativity is not just an idea. It seems to really explain reality.
The String Theory seems to be a little fuzzier and, like the article that TheEngineer linked to above, doesn't do so well at predicting reality.
THEORY is the same word in both cases, but they really have very different meanings. There are VERY few people who doubt that the Theory of Relativity is wrong, so it should really be more than a Theory, but I don't think we have a word for that yet.
The Theory of Relativity is not just an idea. It seems to really explain reality.
The String Theory seems to be a little fuzzier and, like the article that TheEngineer linked to above, doesn't do so well at predicting reality.
THEORY is the same word in both cases, but they really have very different meanings. There are VERY few people who doubt that the Theory of Relativity is wrong, so it should really be more than a Theory, but I don't think we have a word for that yet.
RandyT0001
August 17th, 2006, 06:42 PM
The problem arises by the improper usage of the terminology. In the scientific method the word 'theory' has a specific meaning asociated with having been proved by experimentation. The Theory of Relativity is an example of this. Within the scientific method what has been popularly touted as "String 'Theory'" is the first stage, the hypothesis. There has been alot of work in the effort to formulize String hypothesis into something that can be verified by experimentation but this has been difficult.
What scientists (of all types, physicists, chemists, biologists, etc.) should do is use the proper terminology when presenting their ideas and hypotheses to the masses and not mislead them by using the word 'theory' (even though some definitions of 'theory' are somewhat similar in meaning to hypothesis) in a effort to popularize their pet idea.
IMO
What scientists (of all types, physicists, chemists, biologists, etc.) should do is use the proper terminology when presenting their ideas and hypotheses to the masses and not mislead them by using the word 'theory' (even though some definitions of 'theory' are somewhat similar in meaning to hypothesis) in a effort to popularize their pet idea.
IMO
aramis
August 17th, 2006, 06:54 PM
Randy:
In the observational sciences, there is no "Experimental Proof" You hypothesize, rejection hypothesis, observe for rejection criteria, post for peer/oversight review, then publish.
Relativity is only partially proven. We can't test it to Natural law, because it is beyond our technological capability to approach light-speed.
Very little science anymore ever progresses to "Accepted Natural Law"
Fundamentally, Most of Astronomy, History, Sociology, Anthropology, Archaeology, Astrophysics, and a few others is non-experimental; by insisting upon an experimental subset, one precludes 90% of these sciences.
In the observational sciences, there is no "Experimental Proof" You hypothesize, rejection hypothesis, observe for rejection criteria, post for peer/oversight review, then publish.
Relativity is only partially proven. We can't test it to Natural law, because it is beyond our technological capability to approach light-speed.
Very little science anymore ever progresses to "Accepted Natural Law"
Fundamentally, Most of Astronomy, History, Sociology, Anthropology, Archaeology, Astrophysics, and a few others is non-experimental; by insisting upon an experimental subset, one precludes 90% of these sciences.
TheEngineer
August 18th, 2006, 02:33 AM
Usually a theory is thought to be "proper" if no evidence is found, that she's not true. Its called "Falsifiability".
Thats a bit vice verse but done, because you can never can set up tests for all circumstances to prove the truth of a theory.
Anyway, if you find one point, where the theory does not work, its usually broken, at least for this topic.
It was a kind of enlightment in science history to step away from the believe in the absolute truth to the believe in the chance of truth smile.gif
Refering to General Relativity, it has passed ALL falsification tests successfully so far.
Thats why it is considered to be a pretty good
theory. Though that does not mean, that there is an experiment someday, that reveals a weakness.
But until then, its status is "clean".
Just keep in mind one central aspect, which perhaps becomes visible in my last document link.
A theory should have content, which is actually useful to predict or describe some aspect of physics/nature. The way it works, the extensiveness etc. is a secondary aspect.
Thats a bit vice verse but done, because you can never can set up tests for all circumstances to prove the truth of a theory.
Anyway, if you find one point, where the theory does not work, its usually broken, at least for this topic.
It was a kind of enlightment in science history to step away from the believe in the absolute truth to the believe in the chance of truth smile.gif
Refering to General Relativity, it has passed ALL falsification tests successfully so far.
Thats why it is considered to be a pretty good
theory. Though that does not mean, that there is an experiment someday, that reveals a weakness.
But until then, its status is "clean".
Just keep in mind one central aspect, which perhaps becomes visible in my last document link.
A theory should have content, which is actually useful to predict or describe some aspect of physics/nature. The way it works, the extensiveness etc. is a secondary aspect.
Icosahedron
August 18th, 2006, 06:58 AM
Originally posted by Archhealer:
i thought part of the mythos of the J-Drive was that it didn't actually achieve FTL travel; nothing travelled faster than light, or even all that fast, in J-space. It was more like a prolonged teleportation. So, in theory, perhaps the FTL rules aren't being broken at all (Of course, that brings into question what laws of physics ARE being broken; J-Travel just seems too good to be true). It achieves FTL travel in the sense that you can reach a destination more quickly than light can - by taking a shortcut through Jump Space. So no, FTL rules are not being broken. As people have explained to death elsewhere, the laws of physics are never broken, they are simply corrected in the light of experience. Of course it's too good to be true - that's what puts the F in SF. smile.gif
Ravs: I agree, the J-drive, along with a lot of other stuff, is left unexplained IMTU. Saves getting bogged down in petty arguments and explanations when you could be playing.
Princelian: IYTU you can handwave anything, that's what makes the game popular. smile.gif
I am a hard science person, I am wincing, but you can do what you like in YTU, It can border on science-fantasy if that's what you want. smile.gif
More pondering than we have here has already been done by the scientific community over the past few decades. You could Google this stuff for months. Watch your sources, though.
Sid: I am everywhere!
Thought, in terms of electrical impulses in neurones, is limited to light-speed, but AFAWK it doesn't travel outside of a single human head. Maybe it depends on your definition of thought, but please don't let's get hooked on definitions again. ;) Hardcore science has nothing to say about telepathy.
i thought part of the mythos of the J-Drive was that it didn't actually achieve FTL travel; nothing travelled faster than light, or even all that fast, in J-space. It was more like a prolonged teleportation. So, in theory, perhaps the FTL rules aren't being broken at all (Of course, that brings into question what laws of physics ARE being broken; J-Travel just seems too good to be true). It achieves FTL travel in the sense that you can reach a destination more quickly than light can - by taking a shortcut through Jump Space. So no, FTL rules are not being broken. As people have explained to death elsewhere, the laws of physics are never broken, they are simply corrected in the light of experience. Of course it's too good to be true - that's what puts the F in SF. smile.gif
Ravs: I agree, the J-drive, along with a lot of other stuff, is left unexplained IMTU. Saves getting bogged down in petty arguments and explanations when you could be playing.
Princelian: IYTU you can handwave anything, that's what makes the game popular. smile.gif
I am a hard science person, I am wincing, but you can do what you like in YTU, It can border on science-fantasy if that's what you want. smile.gif
More pondering than we have here has already been done by the scientific community over the past few decades. You could Google this stuff for months. Watch your sources, though.
Sid: I am everywhere!
Thought, in terms of electrical impulses in neurones, is limited to light-speed, but AFAWK it doesn't travel outside of a single human head. Maybe it depends on your definition of thought, but please don't let's get hooked on definitions again. ;) Hardcore science has nothing to say about telepathy.
aramis
August 18th, 2006, 07:07 AM
Icosahedron: Nerve signals travel WELL below C. They can readily measure travel times of nerve signals (I know, I've had 3 EMG's... OUCH!!!).
Also, while the laws of physics are never broken, they are also unknown, except by approximation.... (IIRC, heisenberg.)
Also, while the laws of physics are never broken, they are also unknown, except by approximation.... (IIRC, heisenberg.)
princelian
August 18th, 2006, 10:15 AM
Sorry I made you wince, there, Icosahedron. :D
I'm actually going to shoot for more of a hard science feel than my earlier post implied. What I meant about MTU was rhetorical, not that I was actually going to use that as the in-campaign "hard facts" on how the universe works.
I'm actually going to shoot for more of a hard science feel than my earlier post implied. What I meant about MTU was rhetorical, not that I was actually going to use that as the in-campaign "hard facts" on how the universe works.
Icosahedron
August 18th, 2006, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by Aramis:
Icosahedron: Nerve signals travel WELL below C. They can readily measure travel times of nerve signals (I know, I've had 3 EMG's... OUCH!!!).
Also, while the laws of physics are never broken, they are also unknown, except by approximation.... (IIRC, heisenberg.) Yes, nerve signals (and horses!) are limited to the speed of light as the original question asked.
You're right, they nowhere near achieve it.
Hmm. The laws of physics are not completely known, but as a certain friend of ours correctly stated, the approximations are generally very close. In many cases, much closer than we can actually make use of.
Heisenberg was talking about a specific case there, and even so his findings only modified existing theories, in certain circumstances. If you want to find out more, I can recommend Heisenberg's own book on the Uncertainty Principle (I forget it's title) it's pretty cool. :cool:
Icosahedron: Nerve signals travel WELL below C. They can readily measure travel times of nerve signals (I know, I've had 3 EMG's... OUCH!!!).
Also, while the laws of physics are never broken, they are also unknown, except by approximation.... (IIRC, heisenberg.) Yes, nerve signals (and horses!) are limited to the speed of light as the original question asked.
You're right, they nowhere near achieve it.
Hmm. The laws of physics are not completely known, but as a certain friend of ours correctly stated, the approximations are generally very close. In many cases, much closer than we can actually make use of.
Heisenberg was talking about a specific case there, and even so his findings only modified existing theories, in certain circumstances. If you want to find out more, I can recommend Heisenberg's own book on the Uncertainty Principle (I forget it's title) it's pretty cool. :cool:
RainOfSteel
August 18th, 2006, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by Icosahedron:
[...] Yes, nerve signals (and horses!) are limited to the speed of light as the original question asked.
Just FYI on how I read that.
Super car X is limited to 200 MPH.
Horse Y is limited to 50 MPH.
Both of these statements indicate to me that these classes of nouns are capable of going the listed speeds.
"Nerve signals are limited to the speed of light," reads exactly the same way to me, it appears to be an assertion that nerve signals can move at the speed of light.
I agree with several others who have piped in, Nerve signals are limited to a mircoscopic fraction of the speed of light. They do not propagate at the speed of electicity through a wire, they propagate at the speed of millions of independent electrochemical transactions, each one building up more and more time used the farther and farther the signal travels.
Originally posted by Icosahedron:
You're right, they nowhere near achieve it.
I apologize that I do not see this qualifying addendum as meshing with the previous statement, although it certainly appears to me that you also agree with what the others said.
[...] Yes, nerve signals (and horses!) are limited to the speed of light as the original question asked.
Just FYI on how I read that.
Super car X is limited to 200 MPH.
Horse Y is limited to 50 MPH.
Both of these statements indicate to me that these classes of nouns are capable of going the listed speeds.
"Nerve signals are limited to the speed of light," reads exactly the same way to me, it appears to be an assertion that nerve signals can move at the speed of light.
I agree with several others who have piped in, Nerve signals are limited to a mircoscopic fraction of the speed of light. They do not propagate at the speed of electicity through a wire, they propagate at the speed of millions of independent electrochemical transactions, each one building up more and more time used the farther and farther the signal travels.
Originally posted by Icosahedron:
You're right, they nowhere near achieve it.
I apologize that I do not see this qualifying addendum as meshing with the previous statement, although it certainly appears to me that you also agree with what the others said.
Icosahedron
August 19th, 2006, 03:18 AM
"Nerve signals are limited to the speed of light," reads exactly the same way to me, it appears to be an assertion that nerve signals can move at the speed of light.
I agree with several others who have piped in, Nerve signals are limited to a mircoscopic fraction of the speed of light. They do not propagate at the speed of electicity through a wire, they propagate at the speed of millions of independent electrochemical transactions, each one building up more and more time used the farther and farther the signal travels.
I apologize that I do not see this qualifying addendum as meshing with the previous statement, although it certainly appears to me that you also agree with what the others said. Yes, we all seem to be in general agreement. I apologise if my choice of words caused some confusion. The original question asked whether thought could travel faster than light. That was what my reply referred to.
Not wishing to offend, but I am not interested in discussing semantics any further - only gaming and science. smile.gif
I agree with several others who have piped in, Nerve signals are limited to a mircoscopic fraction of the speed of light. They do not propagate at the speed of electicity through a wire, they propagate at the speed of millions of independent electrochemical transactions, each one building up more and more time used the farther and farther the signal travels.
I apologize that I do not see this qualifying addendum as meshing with the previous statement, although it certainly appears to me that you also agree with what the others said. Yes, we all seem to be in general agreement. I apologise if my choice of words caused some confusion. The original question asked whether thought could travel faster than light. That was what my reply referred to.
Not wishing to offend, but I am not interested in discussing semantics any further - only gaming and science. smile.gif
mike wightman
August 20th, 2006, 04:30 PM
Interesting article in today's Sunday Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2320877,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2320877,00.html
RainOfSteel
August 21st, 2006, 12:44 AM
Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Interesting article in today's Sunday Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2320877,00.html I found the article to be scattershot in concept, weaving its way between a scientific controversy spat between physicists, to wildly inaccurate descriptions of physics (probably as a result of abysmal editing).
"Rather than challenge the idea that time and space began with the Big Bang, he suggested the new universe had suddenly expanded trillions of times in a millionth of a second. That idea, called inflation, did such a good mathematical job of explaining the shape of the universe that it was adopted far and wide."
Balderdash!
Inflation isn't the idea that our new universe suddenly expanded trillions of times in a millionth of a second . . . it's that it expanded at huge velocities in a tiny fraction on an instant, and those are two totally different statements.
This goes straight to my general gripe about journalism in general, lately. The writing and editing quality seems to keep spiraling down.
Interesting article in today's Sunday Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2320877,00.html I found the article to be scattershot in concept, weaving its way between a scientific controversy spat between physicists, to wildly inaccurate descriptions of physics (probably as a result of abysmal editing).
"Rather than challenge the idea that time and space began with the Big Bang, he suggested the new universe had suddenly expanded trillions of times in a millionth of a second. That idea, called inflation, did such a good mathematical job of explaining the shape of the universe that it was adopted far and wide."
Balderdash!
Inflation isn't the idea that our new universe suddenly expanded trillions of times in a millionth of a second . . . it's that it expanded at huge velocities in a tiny fraction on an instant, and those are two totally different statements.
This goes straight to my general gripe about journalism in general, lately. The writing and editing quality seems to keep spiraling down.
TheEngineer
August 21st, 2006, 02:40 AM
Guess the author feels more comfortable with bio-chemistry than theoretical astrophysics smile.gif
Anyway the article stresses the existence of a kind of new "frontier" in astrophysics...
TE
Anyway the article stresses the existence of a kind of new "frontier" in astrophysics...
TE
aramis
August 21st, 2006, 03:59 AM
Agreed, Chris, Journalism is sucking and spewing forth a lot more ill wind than in times past. Some other board I'm on was commenting upon that.
ravells
August 21st, 2006, 06:37 AM
Heh....some poor journo with an 'o' level in maths probably got collared and was told: you're now our science correspondent.
aramis
August 22nd, 2006, 04:45 PM
"o level"?
Што ето?
Што ето?
Gruffty
August 22nd, 2006, 06:02 PM
"Nerve signals are limited to the speed of light".
Erm, only in as much as they can never get near to the speed of light.
Nerve signals are actually limited by the speed of the electrochemical processes that are involved.
Nerves are not continuous fibres; they are broken up into "lengths", with tiny gaps in between. A tiny electrochemically produced current runs down the "length" of one part of the nerve, hits the end of the nerve, causes a chemical reaction (at the end of that "length" of nerve) that bridges the gap between the two "lengths" of the nerve. The chemcials cross the "gap" to the beginning end of the next "length" of nerve, which causes another electrochemical reaction that sends another small charge down the next "length" of nerve, and so on.
Admittedly, this all happens extremely fast, but the speed is nowhere near the speed of light. The same process occurs in the brain, on a bigger scale (due to the complexity and closeness of the nerves in the brain) but, again, the process doesn't achieve near-C speeds.
In my line of work (mental health nursing) we see direct evidence of these processes breaking down in the brain, to the extent that some patients can take incredibly long times to answer simple questions. They appear to "go blank" and there does not appear to be any conscious recognition of the question that has been asked. However, the patient has heard the question; it is just that they physically cannot respond in a timely manner.
Their physical movements are significantly slowed due to the deterioration in the electrochemical processes, resulting in reduced coordination of limbs, reduced speed of movement and action and a degree (in some cases) of muscle wasting.
These symptoms are commonly evident in severe cases of psychosis, untreated deep depression and many of the trauma-induced conditions (such as "shell shock", which is a hysterical conversion disorder that can result in an individual not being able to see, use a limb or walk, without evidence of physical injury).
The classic syndrome that displays all of these symptoms of the slowing of the body's electrochemical processes is the state of psychotic catatonia, where the individual is unable to move of their own free will. Their limbs can be placed in various positions and will remain in that position, until the position is changed by someone. The limbs or position can be held in that way for sometimes up to days at a time.
Erm, only in as much as they can never get near to the speed of light.
Nerve signals are actually limited by the speed of the electrochemical processes that are involved.
Nerves are not continuous fibres; they are broken up into "lengths", with tiny gaps in between. A tiny electrochemically produced current runs down the "length" of one part of the nerve, hits the end of the nerve, causes a chemical reaction (at the end of that "length" of nerve) that bridges the gap between the two "lengths" of the nerve. The chemcials cross the "gap" to the beginning end of the next "length" of nerve, which causes another electrochemical reaction that sends another small charge down the next "length" of nerve, and so on.
Admittedly, this all happens extremely fast, but the speed is nowhere near the speed of light. The same process occurs in the brain, on a bigger scale (due to the complexity and closeness of the nerves in the brain) but, again, the process doesn't achieve near-C speeds.
In my line of work (mental health nursing) we see direct evidence of these processes breaking down in the brain, to the extent that some patients can take incredibly long times to answer simple questions. They appear to "go blank" and there does not appear to be any conscious recognition of the question that has been asked. However, the patient has heard the question; it is just that they physically cannot respond in a timely manner.
Their physical movements are significantly slowed due to the deterioration in the electrochemical processes, resulting in reduced coordination of limbs, reduced speed of movement and action and a degree (in some cases) of muscle wasting.
These symptoms are commonly evident in severe cases of psychosis, untreated deep depression and many of the trauma-induced conditions (such as "shell shock", which is a hysterical conversion disorder that can result in an individual not being able to see, use a limb or walk, without evidence of physical injury).
The classic syndrome that displays all of these symptoms of the slowing of the body's electrochemical processes is the state of psychotic catatonia, where the individual is unable to move of their own free will. Their limbs can be placed in various positions and will remain in that position, until the position is changed by someone. The limbs or position can be held in that way for sometimes up to days at a time.
Gruffty
August 22nd, 2006, 06:04 PM
P.S. HTH :D
RainOfSteel
August 22nd, 2006, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by Gruffty:
P.S. HTH :D This is a game board . . . HTH is the universal abbreviation for Hand to Hand (as in combat).
<thinking, thinking, thinking . . . oh!>
Was it, "Hope that helps?"
P.S. HTH :D This is a game board . . . HTH is the universal abbreviation for Hand to Hand (as in combat).
<thinking, thinking, thinking . . . oh!>
Was it, "Hope that helps?"
Gruffty
August 22nd, 2006, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gruffty:
P.S. HTH :D This is a game board . . . HTH is the universal abbreviation for Hand to Hand (as in combat).</font>[/QUOTE]Thank you for enlightening me! I learn something new every day.
<thinking, thinking, thinking . . . oh!>
Was it, "Hope that helps?" Yup, sho' was. ;)
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gruffty:
P.S. HTH :D This is a game board . . . HTH is the universal abbreviation for Hand to Hand (as in combat).</font>[/QUOTE]Thank you for enlightening me! I learn something new every day.
<thinking, thinking, thinking . . . oh!>
Was it, "Hope that helps?" Yup, sho' was. ;)
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét