111 réponses à ce sujet

[JrayM16]

Had-to-say wrote...

On the very cutting edge of particle science they have accelerated particles really close to the speed of light and it had a clone effect where the particles seem to be in two places at once. But I do believe we will find a way to make a mass vaccum. ( really large natural/artificial electromagnetic field) to zip through space similar to what is found in Mass Effect. Bullet trains are the first step in the right direction.

Hey I saw this on a Quantum communication forum and thought it was funny. This is really a joke for the really nerdy. Tell me if you get the joke. Quantum communication is the method TIM uses to talk to Shepard. Tell me if you find it funny.

The joke:

I don't know if this idea will work or not, but this is what I thought up. Let's say we make two boxes of particles so that each particle has it's entangled pair in the other box. Then fly one of the boxes to let's say mars. When you want to send some info to mars, you examine particles in your box here in earth. That way you also convert corresponding particles in mars to their determined state. The question is is it possible in mars to determine the interval of entanglement chances happening? If it is, then the interval can be used to encode information. Let's say 1 millisecond between changes is 1 and 2ms is 0. Or what ever is more suitable way to encode the information to those intervals. This will use up the entangled particle pairs, but given enough at beginning, it should not matter.

I understood everything in that paragraph except in what way it was a joke.

[Aramintai]

Stensig wrote...

An exaple(random numbers) you be if you travel to a start with FTL speed. You say goodbye to your girl/boy-friend, and your journey takes 1 year to you, but when you get home, your soulmate has aged 10 years.
This means that you don't travel 100% back in time. You do travel forward in time, but slowlier then the rest of the world, so kind of "back in time" yet still forward, from the POV of the general mobe. 

What is this? An example from physics school book? It would be of some relevance if the time needed to travel from point A to point B in ME universe was that long. However, with FTL travel and Mass relays it usually takes no longer than few days max to travel across the galaxy while you're inside the ship, so time for the rest of the galaxy will not have passed that far either. Also, consider that in charted space FTL travel is usually used for relatively short distances, whereas long distances are covered through Mass relays, which can transport matter instantaneously. 
And lastly, as it was said before - this is sci-fi!

[Lumikki]

Spartas Husky wrote...

xentar wrote...

 According to current knowledge, we can't achieve anything faster no matter how much power we apply.

I need say nothing more.

Actually you do need to say little more, because you give impression that FTL travel is just knowledge issue as not knowing how it could be done, like we don't need to know to make it science fiction. That's not right.

Because there is difference between science fiction and fantasy as magic like invented imagination. Science fiction is based what could be possible, but what we can't yet do it  or prove that it can be done with current technology, but we have some teories how it could be done. Fantasy magic how ever doesn't require any teories how it's done, so it's invented action without any knowledge how it's done. So, if you can not tell any teories how it could be done, it's magic, not science fiction.

Modifié par Lumikki, 16 janvier 2011 - 05:36 .

[ME_Fan]

Just to state that ships in the game do not lower the speed of light. They use dark energy, (which theoretically has the capabilities to lower mass in everything, as astronomers found out a few years ago when they discovered the rate of expansion of the Universe varied and changed. 'Dark Energy' a new concept was created, for one of the only theories in how the rate of universe expansion increased was due to a decrease in gravity. Now the more mass an object has, the more gravity. Therefore the theory behind the varied universe expansion rate was invented, with scientist believing that an increased expansion was due to a flux of dark energy which decreased the mass of EVERYTHING in the universe. We cannot detect it though, for me and you theoretically are changing in mass all the time, however our instruments cannot detect this for it is all relative. Dark energy is running through you, me, and everything around you, constantly altering, constantly making Einstein roll in his grave.

Nerd Session over, now back to discussion.
Anyway the drive cores in the ships manage to harness dark energy somehow instantaneously decreasing it's mass to counter the effects of mass increase when an object gets close to the speed of light, allowing it to get to, and above, the speed of light. Phew.
Anyway, remember guys, it's just Sci Fi!

Modifié par ME_Fan, 16 janvier 2011 - 05:47 .

[Ulzeraj]

You guys saying that general relativity is "just a theory" are just ignoring the all observational data we gathered so far all pointing to the theory as plausible. All the assumptions about speed, mass and gravity so far has been proved exact... who are you to say its just a theory?



General relativity explained mercury's orbit. General relactivity explained light's behaviour, general relactivity predicted black holes and the big bang. Who are you sir to tell its not a serious theory?



If some phyisicist says its outdated its because it doesnt take into account the default model of quantum mechanics.

[ME_Fan]

Ulzeraj wrote...

You guys saying that general relativity is "just a theory" are just ignoring the all observational data we gathered so far all pointing to the theory as plausible. All the assumptions about speed, mass and gravity so far has been proved exact... who are you to say its just a theory?

General relativity explained mercury's orbit. General relactivity explained light's behaviour, general relactivity predicted black holes and the big bang. Who are you sir to tell its not a serious theory?

If some phyisicist says its outdated its because it doesnt take into account the default model of quantum mechanics.

You talking to me? I have a deep respect for the theory of relativitey and so far it has held up true, but as of scientific fact, it's still a theory.

[SinDr0me]

Mister Mida wrote...

Mass Effect is fiction.

And concerning Einstein's theory: It's still a theory. So far no one we know off has been able to actually test it.

:innocent:

[Ulzeraj]

ME_Fan wrote...

Ulzeraj wrote...

You guys saying that general relativity is "just a theory" are just ignoring the all observational data we gathered so far all pointing to the theory as plausible. All the assumptions about speed, mass and gravity so far has been proved exact... who are you to say its just a theory?

General relativity explained mercury's orbit. General relactivity explained light's behaviour, general relactivity predicted black holes and the big bang. Who are you sir to tell its not a serious theory?

If some phyisicist says its outdated its because it doesnt take into account the default model of quantum mechanics.

You talking to me? I have a deep respect for the theory of relativitey and so far it has held up true, but as of scientific fact, it's still a theory.

Not with you directly.

You can say its a theory but I would say: do we have a better idea?

Its the best thing we have to understand great masses, speed and energy. It is as far as we know accurate. There are things the theory cant explain like the distribution of mass vs the rate of the universe expansion (people create crazy stuff to counter that like cosmologic constants and dark matter/energy). If the theory was not accurate with observational data it would have been discarded long ago.

Mister Mida wrote...

Mass Effect is fiction.

And concerning Einstein's theory: It's still a theory. So far no one we know off has been able to actually test it.

One of the most famous experiments are of the observed eclipse in 1925 showing a star that should be behind the sun but wasnt... meaning the light was bended by the gravity of the sun.

Black holes are a prediction of general relativity. A body whose mass is so great that you need a scaping velocity faster than 300.000 m/s to escape it. Today we confirmed the existence of radiation by examining the Hawking Radiation (its about how the black hole breaks some particles around thus creating energy. Not sure.)

It also explained to us the apparently wacky orbit of Mercury that Nwetonian physics werent able to explain.

BTW sorry for bad english. Not my native language.

Modifié par Ulzeraj, 16 janvier 2011 - 06:04 .

[Walker White]

Mister Mida wrote..
And concerning Einstein's theory: It's still a theory. So far no one we know off has been able to actually test it.

This is false.  There are many tests of relativity dating as far back to Eddington's light deflection experiments back in 1919.   See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

[Walker White]

The problem with these discussions is that it is difficult to have them without a proper understanding of the science. To say relativity is "just a theory" is to misunderstand what scientific theories are, and can quickly collapse into solipsism.



As I mentioned earlier, there are many FTL theories that are consistent with relativity. However, to understand them, you have to understand the difference between changing reference frames and changing location. The latter requires the former in current forms of transport, but they are not equivalent.

[Lumikki]

Ulzeraj wrote...

You can say its a theory but I would say: you have a better idea?

Its the best thing we have to understand great masses, speed and energy. It is as far as we know accurate. There are things the theory cant explain like the distribution of mass vs the rate of the universe expansion (people create crazy stuff to counter that like cosmologic constants and dark matter/energy). If the theory was not accurate with observational data it would have been discarded long ago.

Are you talking about our limitation as observe about reality, what could lead false assumption, because our observation limits our ability to "see" the reality as it would be. So, we invent teories to explain what we observe, because we could no other ways to explain the univese behavior with our observation?

It's like question does the object go faster than light and can we actually with our limited observation abilities even see it to happen. Or do we make conclusions that something is limited, because our observation ability is limited?

[ME_Fan]

I believe relativity is 99.99999% likely to be true, as evidenced by your earlier examples. This may sound likely a really nerdy thing to say but E=MC squared, is in fact quite possibly the ultimate restriction on how far the human race can progress. It's quite sad really, knowing that humanity will most likely neverreach across the galaxy. Alpha Centauri? Maybe.



Anyway this definetly is theory, philosophy even. Sometimes I forget about the scientific bit, LOL.

[Aramintai]

Ulzeraj wrote...

Very very very very wrong sir. It has been tested and retested countless of times: http://en.wikipedia....eral_relativity

It also explained to us the apparently wacky orbit of Mercury.

I can throw in a wiki link too:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy . I think this one had much more influence on the ME universe creation that Einstein's relativity theories. The matter of practical implementation of dark energy as of now is left to the Reapers' genius . 

Modifié par Aramintai, 16 janvier 2011 - 06:10 .

[Had-to-say]

JrayM16 wrote...

Had-to-say wrote...

On the very cutting edge of particle science they have accelerated particles really close to the speed of light and it had a clone effect where the particles seem to be in two places at once. But I do believe we will find a way to make a mass vaccum. ( really large natural/artificial electromagnetic field) to zip through space similar to what is found in Mass Effect. Bullet trains are the first step in the right direction.

Hey I saw this on a Quantum communication forum and thought it was funny. This is really a joke for the really nerdy. Tell me if you get the joke. Quantum communication is the method TIM uses to talk to Shepard. Tell me if you find it funny.

The joke:

I don't know if this idea will work or not, but this is what I thought up. Let's say we make two boxes of particles so that each particle has it's entangled pair in the other box. Then fly one of the boxes to let's say mars. When you want to send some info to mars, you examine particles in your box here in earth. That way you also convert corresponding particles in mars to their determined state. The question is is it possible in mars to determine the interval of entanglement chances happening? If it is, then the interval can be used to encode information. Let's say 1 millisecond between changes is 1 and 2ms is 0. Or what ever is more suitable way to encode the information to those intervals. This will use up the entangled particle pairs, but given enough at beginning, it should not matter.

I understood everything in that paragraph except in what way it was a joke.

Probability when relating to either yes or no, up or down, 1 or 2 ,a or b ,111100000111110001. This is a fail. There is also a third party in the conversation that has something to say.

[Drowsy0106]

Stensig wrote...

ok so one of the things Mr. Albert Einstein talked about in his Teory of relativity was that if you were albe to travel with a speed close to the speed of light, or even faster, you would actually travel through time, since the time you experience is different from the time for those observing "you", thus traveling through time.

An exaple(random numbers) you be if you travel to a start with FTL speed. You say goodbye to your girl/boy-friend, and your journey takes 1 year to you, but when you get home, your soulmate has aged 10 years.
This means that you don't travel 100% back in time. You do travel forward in time, but slowlier then the rest of the world, so kind of "back in time" yet still forward, from the POV of the general mobe.

So actually if they DO travel with FTL speed in ME, which they are saying all the time, how are they able to compensate for that, and does this invoulve dimension theories?

hehe hope this gave you a bit to think about, bc to me, this seem like a big fail in the series actoually, if you look at it with an realistic POV =)

Dicusssion OPEN!

Damnit, BW lied to us, again! FTL travel not possible. And how would this effect my fish?!

[Megakoresh]

I am sure that if Einstein would actually play ME series, he would change his theory and abandon science to help Bioware with their next release!

[ME_Fan]

WOW I'm impressed. You guys are all actually highly intelligent people, unlike many other threads I've been on in the past where they are all dumbassess, I almost feel quite impressed with myself for being in such an intellectual thread. It seems that Bioware games have a very smart target crowd. (This is not sarcasm, this is genuine respect for the physicists in this thread.)

[Mister Mida]

I'll admit I'm no expert on general relativity, but I tend to have an open mind and don't think that physics experts are always right. I mean think about. 500 years ago, mankind thought the Earth was flat. Over a hundred years ago mankind thought people would never to able to fly and mankind would never get itself on the moon. Assume nothing.

[Ulzeraj]

Dark energy is kinda like a reincarnation of the cosmologic constant. It tries to patch a loophole about the mass of the universe vs its expansion rate. I don't have opinion on that aside that observational data suggests it exists.

Lumikki wrote...

Ulzeraj wrote...

You can say its a theory but I would say: you have a better idea?

Its the best thing we have to understand great masses, speed and energy. It is as far as we know accurate. There are things the theory cant explain like the distribution of mass vs the rate of the universe expansion (people create crazy stuff to counter that like cosmologic constants and dark matter/energy). If the theory was not accurate with observational data it would have been discarded long ago.

Are you talking about our limitation as observe about reality, what could lead false assumption, because our observation limits our ability to "see" the reality as it would be. So, we invent teories to explain what we observe, because we could no other ways to explain the univese behavior with our observation?

It's like question does the object go faster than light and can we actually with our limited observation abilities even see it to happen. Or do we make conclusions that something is limited, because our observation ability is limited?

Its pretty damn good observational data sr/miss. Lets just say that people are trying to say "Einstein was wrong" for almost 100 years and we still rely on that on astronomy and other areas.

People may say its a "toy" theory because it is very incompatible with the default model of quantum mechanics. Take note that doesn't mean its innacurate. Quantum mechanics set the default model for explaining 3 of the 4 forces of the universe: eletromagnetism, the strong force (thing that keeps protons and neutrons glued) and the weak force (energy generated by the decay of matter).
Quantum mechanics can't explain gravity very well (theories exists but those are overcomplicared and full of loopholes like supergravity or are so advanced that can't be tested like string theories) and also doesn't work with general relativity... it goes BOOM... it gives infinites and absurd results (the reason black holes and the big bang are a mistery its because you have to use the 2 theories to be able to explain it).

That is why you may see a physicist saying general relativity is a toy theory. It is not compatible with QED but its too accurate to be discarded. Other example of "toy theory" is that Newton's laws became obsolete after relativity but it still accurate enough that all space missions still rely on Newton's laws and schools stil teach it.

The holy graal of cience today is a theory that unifies quantum mechanics and general relativity.

Modifié par Ulzeraj, 16 janvier 2011 - 06:24 .

[Fiery Phoenix]

Ulzeraj wrote...

You guys saying that general relativity is "just a theory" are just ignoring the all observational data we gathered so far all pointing to the theory as plausible. All the assumptions about speed, mass and gravity so far has been proved exact... who are you to say its just a theory?

General relativity explained mercury's orbit. General relactivity explained light's behaviour, general relactivity predicted black holes and the big bang. Who are you sir to tell its not a serious theory?

If some phyisicist says its outdated its because it doesnt take into account the default model of quantum mechanics.

The thing is, GR is an incomplete theory because it doesn't explain how gravity works. That's really about its only drawback as of yet; it has been theorized that if GR ever succeeds at explaining gravity as it did mass, light, and energy, then that would mean a significant revolution in science.

[RedKnight410]

Turbooggyboy wrote...

xentar wrote...

Huh, give me an example of a setting where FTL is done RIGHT.

Turbooggyboy wrote...

As the Mass Effect core lowers the mass of the ship, the speed of light is essentially raised thus allowing for fast travel with relatively small effects of time dilation. At least according to fluff/codex entry.

You can't "essentially raise" the speed of light by lowering the mass of a body (it would help it reach the speed of light easier, though).

I know. There is also talk about some kind of Mass Effect envelope. Probably similar to the warp field of the Star Trek universe. Though in Mass Effect the core is most certainly only allowing for this "envelope" to be created as the ships uses regular thrust for achieving speed.

Einstein's theory is oudated, so far the only reason we still believe FTL is impossible is because the amount of energy required to accelerate an object to that speed is impossible with today's tech. Also it would be almost impossible to sense/observe an object moving at that speed with today's tech. The "mass effect envelope" would merely solve the problem of the near infinite number of collisions between the ship and any particles in its path, that would ordinarily disintegrate the ship.

However if the mass effect tech has the ability to convert mass to energy than achieving FTL speeds should be possible.

[Ulzeraj]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

Ulzeraj wrote...

You guys saying that general relativity is "just a theory" are just ignoring the all observational data we gathered so far all pointing to the theory as plausible. All the assumptions about speed, mass and gravity so far has been proved exact... who are you to say its just a theory?

General relativity explained mercury's orbit. General relactivity explained light's behaviour, general relactivity predicted black holes and the big bang. Who are you sir to tell its not a serious theory?

If some phyisicist says its outdated its because it doesnt take into account the default model of quantum mechanics.

The thing is, GR is an incomplete theory because it doesn't explain how gravity works. That's really about its only drawback as of yet; it has been theorized that if GR ever succeeds at explaining gravity as it did mass, light, and energy, then that would mean a significant revolution in science.

GR explains how gravity works. GR doesnt explain how gravity works on subatomic level. On the other side not even QEM can't explain gravity on the subatomic level.

In a very rough way to explain QEM is the best theory for the realm of the very small and GR is the best theory for the realm of the very big. When you take into account singularities like the big bang and black holes you need a theory that encompass both realms. A theory that unifies QEM and GR is the Grand Unified Theory of Everything™.

Thats what I'm trying to say.

Modifié par Ulzeraj, 16 janvier 2011 - 06:30 .

[PillarBiter]

Mister Mida wrote...

Mass Effect is fiction.

And concerning Einstein's theory: It's still a theory. So far no one we know off has been able to actually test it.

it has been tested and found true.

your first sentence, however, is brilliance.

[xentar]

RedKnight410 wrote...

Turbooggyboy wrote...

xentar wrote...

Huh, give me an example of a setting where FTL is done RIGHT.

Turbooggyboy wrote...

As the Mass Effect core lowers the mass of the ship, the speed of light is essentially raised thus allowing for fast travel with relatively small effects of time dilation. At least according to fluff/codex entry.

You can't "essentially raise" the speed of light by lowering the mass of a body (it would help it reach the speed of light easier, though).

I know. There is also talk about some kind of Mass Effect envelope. Probably similar to the warp field of the Star Trek universe. Though in Mass Effect the core is most certainly only allowing for this "envelope" to be created as the ships uses regular thrust for achieving speed.

Einstein's theory is oudated, so far the only reason we still believe FTL is impossible is because the amount of energy required to accelerate an object to that speed is impossible with today's tech. Also it would be almost impossible to sense/observe an object moving at that speed with today's tech. The "mass effect envelope" would merely solve the problem of the near infinite number of collisions between the ship and any particles in its path, that would ordinarily disintegrate the ship.

However if the mass effect tech has the ability to convert mass to energy than achieving FTL speeds should be possible.

Where do you suggest we get more than infinite energy to accelerate an object to ftl speeds within special relativity? No, to go ftl we need some tricks (and mass has nothing to do with it). More likely wormholes or some other kind of spatial distortions.

[szkasypcze]

Mister Mida wrote...

Mass Effect is fiction.

And concerning Einstein's theory: It's still a theory. So far no one we know off has been able to actually test it.

On the contrary. There has been an experiment, where 2 atomic clocks (they are very very accurate) were set off. One was placed on the ground and the other one onboard a plane. After some time it was revealed that the clock on the ground is 0,001 part of a second (don't know exactly) ahead of the clock in plane. This is actually amazing, but this is how the universe works.

If you travel closer to the speed of light the time slows for you. It's a rule the nature uses to prevent you from travelling faster than light. So for example, if you are on board a train that travels with the speed of light and run through the corridor you may think that you travel FTL. But thisis wrong beacuse time for you will slow down preventing you from reaching FTL speed.

Even though Mass Effect is fiction, it is also a SCIENCE fiction. This does not mean that they can sell any stupid idea and say: Hey, it's a fiction, anything is possible. IMHO mass effect field is a great idea for going around the Einstein's speed barrier.