Star Trek

This forum is for general discussion on topics that do not fall into one of the more specific forums.
Guest

New postby Guest » Tue Sep 14, 2004 10:50 am

Interesting. Try taking the garbage s, er, enterprise here:
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040913/full/040913-1.html

User avatar
Posts: 238
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 4:00 pm
Location: Galt's Gulch

New postby Greg Wendt » Tue Sep 14, 2004 10:01 pm

ok, whatever

Just had a thought regarding "warp" that might get around some of its impossibleness. Recently read "Hyperspace" which deals with the concept of higher dimensional math and physics.

One example discussed Flatland and how a 2 dimensional person, given the ability to become temporarily 3 dimension, could just walk across his 2 dimensional universe in no time.

So maybe "warp" temporarily allows an object to expand its number of dimensions

Sort of like a pyramid with a bunch of elevators (not going straight up but tilted in toward the point). Go up a few floors where the distance across is smaller, then drop back to the ground floor.

Or, the higher the warp factor, the smaller the universe becomes.

(I know the energy requirements are still beyond reason, but hey, that's why we can't do it)

It could also explain the transporter without actually dissasembling matter and reconstituting it using elements that are presumably readily available at the point of reintegration. Just expand the person and use the pattern transmitter to anchor the new location to re-contract the person.

Scale wise(with 10 being infinite)
Transport: Warp .000000000001
Starship Navigation: Warp 1-9.whatever
Energy Transmission(sub-space radio) : Warp 9.whatever-9.999999999999...

Wow, too much time on my hands tonight
"I swear by my life - and my love of it - that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

Posts: 652
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 5:45 am
Location: Sunny Florida

New postby MarkS » Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:51 am

Come back to reality George, it's all fanciful theory at best.
(but you already know that)

Posts: 3410
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 8:52 pm
Location: Sitting at the computer

New postby Bill » Fri Sep 17, 2004 6:34 am

Consternations uproar, George, you sure are intelligent...I mean Greg. :P

User avatar
Posts: 238
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 4:00 pm
Location: Galt's Gulch

New postby Greg Wendt » Fri Sep 17, 2004 7:07 am

thanks guys, but i was hoping to bait the amateur physicists in the group to tell me why i should go back to swinging on branches instead of coming up with practical applications for quantum physics.
"I swear by my life - and my love of it - that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

Posts: 652
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 5:45 am
Location: Sunny Florida

New postby MarkS » Fri Sep 17, 2004 9:20 am

Swinging on branches is more fun.

I have a question, one which will show I am in no way a physicist.
Is quantum physics anything beyond pure theory??

By asking that question is proves I AM just swinging on branches.
:P ook, ook :P

Site Admin
User avatar
Posts: 5937
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 11:12 pm
Location: Gilbert, AZ

New postby Bud » Fri Sep 17, 2004 10:14 am

OK, it's Friday - I'll bite. What the hell. As long as I'm just beating my head against another nearly impossible problem, I might as well address this one. Since I have (at one time) actually solved schrodinger's wave equitions (just for the Hydrogen atom, the simplest case) and used Einstein's equation for special relativity (not E=MC^2, that's matter-energy equivalence) I guess I'm somwhat qualified to give opinions on the topics. However, please do keep in mind that this was all done in college, my memory is swiss cheese, and I've never done this professionally. (However, I did get A's in all my physics - including modern physics, thermodynamics, and all my engineering mechanics classes.)

First off, you're mixing a few things here. Quantum physics is the study of the behavior of subatomic particles. For example, classical (Newtonian) mechanics can predict the orbit of the Moon around the Earth, but it cannot predict the orbit of an electron around the nucleus of a atom. Electrons orbit atoms at descrete dstances from the nucleus. In order to jump from one orbit to another, the atom either has to emit a particular amount (quantum) of energy or it has to gain a particular quantum of eneregy. You can't just give the electron a little more energy and expect it to orbit a little higher. It's the reason the rules for Chemistry are so arbitrary and has little to do with the idea of warpdrive. (I may become involved, along with matter-energy equivalence, in the transporter.)

The idea of hyper-dimensional space is one the theory behind warp drive. When predicting the motion of objects (using classical mechanics), you generally use 3 equations, one for each dimension (X, Y, an Z in cartesian coordinates), each dependent on time. Sometimes using a 4th or 5th equation representing a completely unrelated dimension is useful. (Sorry, I don't remember a specific example. Maybe someone else has one.) This leads to the theory of hyperspace (additional, independent dimensions, beyond the normal three).

An easy example is to compare 1 dimensional space with 2 dimensional space. One dimension can be represented as a number line. Two dimensions by two numberlines at 90-degrees from each other. An object in one dimension is just a point on a number line. If you draw a circle (a 2-dimensional object) and intersect it with a number line, it can appear as a point (if it just touches the line) or 2 points as the line intersects the circle in 2 places. So, a higher-dimensional object can appear to "magically" be in 2 places at the same time in a lower dimensional system. Thus, if you can move in an additonal dimension, you could theoretically just "exist" in multiple places at the same time or dissapear from one place and re-appear in another without passing through the intervening "numbers".

Another theory of warp drive uses Einstien's special relativity that says that length contracts and time dialates (expands) as an object's speed (in a given frame of reference) comes closer to the speed of light (I'd have to look up the equation). So if you had a propulsion system that could get you close to the speed of light, you could cover great (contracted) distances in practically no (dialated) time at all. Giving you an effective rate of travel, greately exceeding the speed of light. Problem, as George alluded, is the power required to reach that speed. (And the change of frame of reference, since speed is relative to that frame. Anybody want to explain the "twin paradox"?)

The issue is that these are all mathematical models that may or may not apply to a particular physical situation. It's kind of like dropping a feather and a bowling ball from the same height. "Theoretically" (ie. according to the model of gravity) they will fall at the same rate since mass is not involved in the equation. However, without an effective model for air friction, you'd simply be wrong.

There, amature-geek physicist enough for you? Did I make any mistakes?

Guest

New postby Guest » Fri Sep 17, 2004 12:25 pm

I do defer to one who has actually taken classes (you really got to get together with my brother McClean, he talks the same way).

I wasn't really trying to relate QP with Warp technology, just that it and Hyper-math are the areas creating the biggest challenges to our current knowledge of physics. Mayhaps, the next 100 years of study in Hyper-math could produce a method of subjectively "shrinking" the universe to allow interstellar travel. (Fanciful thinking right now, but I recall you once wanting to live in a tesseract [Mark, quick translation- a Tardis])

Site Admin
User avatar
Posts: 5937
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 11:12 pm
Location: Gilbert, AZ

New postby Bud » Fri Sep 17, 2004 1:02 pm

Yeah, math is a great tool when applied carefully. The trouble I have with special relativity and hyperspace theories is that the verifications I've seen commit a mistake we're warned about in basic engineering: be careful interpreting any value obtained by the subtraction of two large values.

Basically, every physical measurement has some margin of error. Proper engineering design allows the design to work even when the margins are taken into account. Well, things like time dialation have been verified by, guess what... measuring two large physical quantities and subtracting them to see if there is a difference. How meaningful are the resulting numbers? I don't know, but I have doubts about the conclusions.

Hell, anybody who's taken enough math can fit a curve to nearly any desired shape. My question is, "is it the right math to predict the physical phenomena?"

User avatar
Posts: 3711
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 11:48 pm

New postby Jeff » Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:27 am

We dance in a circle and suppose,
while the secret sits in the center and knows.
-Thereau or Whitman, I can't remember which.

Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much no suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.
-Theodore Roosevelt

Paragon City is Under attack, calling all Heroes!

:o
Jeff
It's a great day to be with my wife,
my friends and alive on my planet!

Posts: 3410
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 8:52 pm
Location: Sitting at the computer

New postby Bill » Sun Sep 19, 2004 1:33 pm

JeffHughes wrote:We dance in a circle and suppose,
while the secret sits in the center and knows.
-Thereau or Whitman, I can't remember which.

~ Robert Frost

User avatar
Posts: 3711
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 11:48 pm

New postby Jeff » Sun Sep 19, 2004 8:28 pm

If I were right all the time, it would prove that I am the center of the universe.
So, TY to you Bill for keeping me my humble self.


The money's on it's way.
Jeff
It's a great day to be with my wife,
my friends and alive on my planet!

Posts: 652
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 5:45 am
Location: Sunny Florida

New postby MarkS » Mon Sep 20, 2004 3:50 am

Damn people, does it hurt to know that much. Remember, I have been working in the media for the past 5 years. Everone knows that will sap a persons IQ.

:oops: I ain't talking to y'all no more, your all just to damn smart for me. :shock:

My point is the use of the word "theory".

come on people, Hypermath??????

Site Admin
User avatar
Posts: 5937
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 11:12 pm
Location: Gilbert, AZ

New postby Bud » Mon Sep 20, 2004 8:25 am

MarkS wrote:Damn people, does it hurt to know that much?


LOL. Yes, as a mater of a fact, it does. (Not that I really know that much. See previous comment about "swiss cheese".)

MarkS wrote:come on people, Hypermath??????


No such animal. He's just referring to matrix algebra with more then 3 dimensions.

User avatar
Posts: 238
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 4:00 pm
Location: Galt's Gulch

New postby Greg Wendt » Mon Sep 20, 2004 8:41 pm

Actually Hypermath is an acute anxiety condition most of us experienced in Chainsaw Joe's College Algebra & Trig class.
"I swear by my life - and my love of it - that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest