6494 réponses à ce sujet

[Someone With Mass]

Phaelducan wrote...

There is pretty good science in some games I suppose. Fallout comes to mind... although that series also goes out of it's way to be absurd at times. Assassin's Creed is pretty hokey, with the whole Animus thing. It's just weird for there to be this much obsession with the pseudo-science in Mass Effect. I wonder why? Bioware certainly never billed it as meant to be interpreted literally.

Side issue, and off topic. It just struck me as odd.

It's better than no explanations at all.

If they have an idea they think is good, but they haven't really narrowed down the technical parts of it, why stop them?

[Arkitekt]

iakus wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

"mass free space allowing instantaneous transit".

Wouldn't that be great. But wait a minute, light itself has no mass and is still confined to its own speed!

And iakus is fine with it because it has "verisimilitude"!

Stop it! Can't stop laughing! Please!

I'm fine with it because the relays are "Sufficiently Advanced" technology.  We aren't meant to understand them.  Heck the Reapers would probably prefer it if no one else ever figured out how they work.

Of course you are fine with it, since you are showing how you really do not understand how the explanation of FTL in mass effect is just insanely bad science. Hint: its not an engineering problem, it is a problem of being blatantly wrong, in the category of "earth is flat" wrong.

[100k]

Arkitekt wrote...

iakus wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

"mass free space allowing instantaneous transit".

Wouldn't that be great. But wait a minute, light itself has no mass and is still confined to its own speed!

And iakus is fine with it because it has "verisimilitude"!

Stop it! Can't stop laughing! Please!

I'm fine with it because the relays are "Sufficiently Advanced" technology.  We aren't meant to understand them.  Heck the Reapers would probably prefer it if no one else ever figured out how they work.

Of course you are fine with it, since you are showing how you really do not understand how the explanation of FTL in mass effect is just insanely bad science. Hint: its not an engineering problem, it is a problem of being blatantly wrong, in the category of "earth is flat" wrong.

I'm not understanding the problem...

Light speed = fast.
FTL = Faster than Light. So, a craft is traveling through a mass free corridor of space several times the speed of light...

[TuringPoint]

This interests me. How is it analogous to "earth is flat" bad science?  Please don't just say, "If you don't understand."  Humor me.

Modifié par Alocormin, 21 septembre 2011 - 12:10 .

[Someone With Mass]

Arkitekt wrote...

Of course you are fine with it, since you are showing how you really do not understand how the explanation of FTL in mass effect is just insanely bad science. Hint: its not an engineering problem, it is a problem of being blatantly wrong, in the category of "earth is flat" wrong.

You'd be amazed over how many people there are that believe the Earth is flat.

[Phaelducan]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

There is pretty good science in some games I suppose. Fallout comes to mind... although that series also goes out of it's way to be absurd at times. Assassin's Creed is pretty hokey, with the whole Animus thing. It's just weird for there to be this much obsession with the pseudo-science in Mass Effect. I wonder why? Bioware certainly never billed it as meant to be interpreted literally.

Side issue, and off topic. It just struck me as odd.

It's better than no explanations at all.

If they have an idea they think is good, but they haven't really narrowed down the technical parts of it, why stop them?

Nothing at all. I don't a rip about the scientific explanations. It's the forum reaction which I find intriguing. 

[TuringPoint]

Light has mass. E = MC ^2 .

Energy equals mass times acceleration. If you have something with 0 mass, you have something with zero energy?

In any case, it doesn't matter if it's bad science.  It's not a scientific treatise.  It does make use of known scientific theories, which, proven or unproven, makes the whole thing science fiction.

Mass Effect fields increase the speed of light itself.  Dark matter is theorized about.  So is FTL travel, which as far as the best science we have goes, is impossible.

From the codex/wiki:
Light travels slower through glass than it does through open air; light also moves slower in conventional space than it does in a high-speed mass effect field.

Modifié par Alocormin, 21 septembre 2011 - 12:26 .

[aznricepuff]

Alocormin wrote...

Light has mass. E = MC ^2 .

Energy equals mass times acceleration. If you have something with 0 mass, you have something with zero energy?

Wow... Ok go take a course in special relativity and maybe quantum mechanics before responding again. Light is massless. The formula E=mc^2 only applies to massive objects (objects that have mass, not really big objects).

The energy of light is measured differently. Specifically it is E=hf, where E is the energy of one photon, f is the frequency of the photon, and h is Planck's constant.

[TuringPoint]

I was asking a question, kind sir.

[aznricepuff]

Alocormin wrote...

Light has mass. E = MC ^2 .

Energy equals mass times acceleration. If you have something with 0 mass, you have something with zero energy?

In any case, it doesn't matter if it's bad science.  It's not a scientific treatise.  It does make use of known scientific theories, which, proven or unproven, makes the whole thing science fiction.

Mass Effect fields increase the speed of light itself.  Dark matter is theorized about.  So is FTL travel, which as far as the best science we have goes, is impossible.

From the codex/wiki:
Light travels slower through glass than it does through open air; light also moves slower in conventional space than it does in a high-speed mass effect field.

Pardon me, but that's not a question.

[TuringPoint]

aznricepuff wrote...

Alocormin wrote...


Energy equals mass times acceleration. If you have something with 0 mass, you have something with zero energy?

Pardon me, but that's not a question.

Pardon me, that is.  I realize why there was misunderstanding, though.

Is it true that Photons and Electrons both have wave-particle duality?

Modifié par Alocormin, 21 septembre 2011 - 12:43 .

[aznricepuff]

Alocormin wrote...

aznricepuff wrote...

Alocormin wrote...

Light has mass. E = MC ^2 .

Energy equals mass times acceleration. If you have something with 0 mass, you have something with zero energy?

Pardon me, but that's not a question.

Pardon me, that is.  I realize why there was misunderstanding, though.

Is it true that Photons and Electrons both have wave-particle duality?

Everything has wave-particle duality. It's just a matter of how much it behaves like a particle and how much it behaves like a wave. Simplistically, the greater the momentum of an object, the less it behaves like a wave.

[TuringPoint]

Wave-particle duality is what I was trying to mention; that's the part that wasn't a question. I've seen documentaries about it so the concept is a little vague for me.

So light has zero mass, but it has momentum? Like any fast, moving object would?

If we're going to argue the science behind this, might as well talk real science, if only in simple terms.

Is the "earth is flat' analogy because Dark Energy doesn't have the same properties in real life as it does in ME-verse?

Modifié par Alocormin, 21 septembre 2011 - 12:53 .

[aznricepuff]

Alocormin wrote...

Wave-particle duality is what I was trying to mention; that's the part that wasn't a question. I've seen documentaries about it so the concept is a little vague for me.

So light has zero mass, but it has momentum? Like any fast, moving object would?

If we're going to argue the science behind this, might as well talk real science, if only in simple terms.

The relativistic momentum of anything (massive or massless) is p=h/lambda, where lambda is the deBroglie wavelength of the object. So yes, light has nonzero momentum, which forms the basis behind the idea of solar sails.

[Arkitekt]

100k wrote...

I'm not understanding the problem...

And this is news because?...

It's fairly easy to understand, if explained properly though, and you'll probably won't understand it because I won't be able to express it well. Here's a basic attempt.

Light, as aznricepuff rightfully states has no mass. And still it doesn't travel faster than 300 thousand km per second. Thus the explanation of FTL being that there is a kind of a mass effect field that "changes" the mass of a given object, thus allowing it to travel faster than light is ****ing preposterous, i.e., outright stupid.

There's another assertion there, namely that light travels faster within a mass effect field. It's a completely different explanation and doesn't fit the first, but that's Mass Effect for you - you don't need any lowering-the-mass-of-the-ship shenanigan if you are able to change the universe's light speed at will. Still, it's a more interesting one (there were some theoretical hypothesis on how light has changed its speed in the past, albeit these theories never reached a good shape).

Notice however that the codex explanation is amazingly stupid and irrelevant and yet telling - they tell us that light travels slower in more massive objects than in lighter ones. This is perhaps the initial formation of the silly idea that if you lower the mass of the ship, then light will travel faster in the space it inhabits or some **** like that. I mean wow! It's laughable. Of course the real reason why light travels slower within glass than open air has nothing to do with the properties of SPACE or lack of FIELDS, or anything of the sort. It has to do with the so easily understandable notion that when light enters an object filled with atoms, the photons get pinballed between the atoms or molecules quite a lot. The worse these interactions are the more refracted the object will be, and probably less transparent. Case in point, these "pinball maneuvers" make the photons travel not in a straight line but in a zig zaggian way, and if the lenght of the path is bigger, then it will seem that light is indeed travelling "slower".

Extreme example of the above: photons from the sun's core will take between thousands to millions of years reaching the surface of the sun! Hey, if only they were inside a mass effect field! 

[aznricepuff]

Arkitekt wrote...

100k wrote...

I'm not understanding the problem...

And this is news because?...

It's fairly easy to understand, if explained properly though, and you'll probably won't understand it because I won't be able to express it well. Here's a basic attempt.

Light, as aznricepuff rightfully states has no mass. And still it doesn't travel faster than 300 thousand km per second. Thus the explanation of FTL being that there is a kind of a mass effect field that "changes" the mass of a given object, thus allowing it to travel faster than light is ****ing preposterous, i.e., outright stupid.

There's another assertion there, namely that light travels faster within a mass effect field. It's a completely different explanation and doesn't fit the first, but that's Mass Effect for you - you don't need any lowering-the-mass-of-the-ship shenanigan if you are able to change the universe's light speed at will. Still, it's a more interesting one (there were some theoretical hypothesis on how light has changed its speed in the past, albeit these theories never reached a good shape).

Notice however that the codex explanation is amazingly stupid and irrelevant and yet telling - they tell us that light travels slower in more massive objects than in lighter ones. This is perhaps the initial formation of the silly idea that if you lower the mass of the ship, then light will travel faster in the space it inhabits or some **** like that. I mean wow! It's laughable. Of course the real reason why light travels slower within glass than open air has nothing to do with the properties of SPACE or lack of FIELDS, or anything of the sort. It has to do with the so easily understandable notion that when light enters an object filled with atoms, the photons get pinballed between the atoms or molecules quite a lot. The worse these interactions are the more refracted the object will be, and probably less transparent. Case in point, these "pinball maneuvers" make the photons travel not in a straight line but in a zig zaggian way, and if the lenght of the path is bigger, then it will seem that light is indeed travelling "slower".

Extreme example of the above: photons from the sun's core will take between thousands to millions of years reaching the surface of the sun! Hey, if only they were inside a mass effect field! 

To expand on this. The speed of light in a vacuum is determined by two universal constants: the permittivity of free space and the permeability of free space. Using these constants, and Maxwell's equations, you can mathematically derive the speed of light. Because we can assume the laws of physics and those two constants aren't dependent on how fast you're going, this means that the speed of light in a vacuum will always have the same value no matter what your velocity is. This is the central underpinning of special relativity. And hence why (locally) FTL travel is impossible.

[El Diablo]

This can quite Clearly only be solved through ...Epic Rap Battle.

Modifié par El Diablo, 21 septembre 2011 - 01:47 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

111987 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

111987 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

111987 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

111987 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
Getting the science wrong:  see also, "Humans are genetically diverse".  

Mordin was saying humans are genetically diverse compared to other organic species. Since we don't know the genetic structure of other species, we have to take his word for it. This doesn't seem like an issue.

Compared to the vast majority of species on earth, at least, we're not genetically diverse.  So, unless those other species are all REALLY genetically homogenous... 

Not all species, just the species that have developed human or near-human intelligence. I personally don't see why this is a problem. Just because humans aren't genetically diverse compared to animals on Earth doesn't mean we aren't genetically diverse compared to Asari, Salarians, Krogan, etc...

It's not impossible, it's just that if it's true, then every other sapient species in the galaxy is VERY not diverse genetically.   VERY.

So? The science isn't technically wrong

No, it's just unlikely.

Unless you know the genetic variance of the other sapient species, you can't make a judgement call like that.

Sure you can. 

Rate genetic diversity of all species Earth on a scale from 1-100. 

Say ****** sapiens rates a 25.

You're asserting that it's perfectly reasonable that every other known sapient species in the galaxy rates under a 25 -- significantly so from the sound of Mordin's comments. 

[Killjoy Cutter]

aznricepuff wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

100k wrote...

I'm not understanding the problem...

And this is news because?...

It's fairly easy to understand, if explained properly though, and you'll probably won't understand it because I won't be able to express it well. Here's a basic attempt.

Light, as aznricepuff rightfully states has no mass. And still it doesn't travel faster than 300 thousand km per second. Thus the explanation of FTL being that there is a kind of a mass effect field that "changes" the mass of a given object, thus allowing it to travel faster than light is ****ing preposterous, i.e., outright stupid.

There's another assertion there, namely that light travels faster within a mass effect field. It's a completely different explanation and doesn't fit the first, but that's Mass Effect for you - you don't need any lowering-the-mass-of-the-ship shenanigan if you are able to change the universe's light speed at will. Still, it's a more interesting one (there were some theoretical hypothesis on how light has changed its speed in the past, albeit these theories never reached a good shape).

Notice however that the codex explanation is amazingly stupid and irrelevant and yet telling - they tell us that light travels slower in more massive objects than in lighter ones. This is perhaps the initial formation of the silly idea that if you lower the mass of the ship, then light will travel faster in the space it inhabits or some **** like that. I mean wow! It's laughable. Of course the real reason why light travels slower within glass than open air has nothing to do with the properties of SPACE or lack of FIELDS, or anything of the sort. It has to do with the so easily understandable notion that when light enters an object filled with atoms, the photons get pinballed between the atoms or molecules quite a lot. The worse these interactions are the more refracted the object will be, and probably less transparent. Case in point, these "pinball maneuvers" make the photons travel not in a straight line but in a zig zaggian way, and if the lenght of the path is bigger, then it will seem that light is indeed travelling "slower".

Extreme example of the above: photons from the sun's core will take between thousands to millions of years reaching the surface of the sun! Hey, if only they were inside a mass effect field! 

To expand on this. The speed of light in a vacuum is determined by two universal constants: the permittivity of free space and the permeability of free space. Using these constants, and Maxwell's equations, you can mathematically derive the speed of light. Because we can assume the laws of physics and those two constants aren't dependent on how fast you're going, this means that the speed of light in a vacuum will always have the same value no matter what your velocity is. This is the central underpinning of special relativity. And hence why (locally) FTL travel is impossible.

You appear to have left a step out of your explanation.  How does the speed of light having the same velocity no matter your own velocity cause (local) FTL travel to be impossible? 

[111987]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Sure you can. 

Rate genetic diversity of all species Earth on a scale from 1-100. 

Say ****** sapiens rates a 25.

You're asserting that it's perfectly reasonable that every other known sapient species in the galaxy rates under a 25 -- significantly so from the sound of Mordin's comments. 

There are dozens, if not hundreds of sapient species in the galaxy (the ME galaxy is only 1% of the Milky Way Galaxy). That Humans are more genetically diverse than say, a dozen of them, isn't all that extreme.

[Arkitekt]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

You appear to have left a step out of your explanation.  How does the speed of light having the same velocity no matter your own velocity cause (local) FTL travel to be impossible? 

Imagine a photon of light coming at you from behind (he). Now imagine that you try to outrun it (travelling faster than light). You can't, since we've already established that the speed of light has "the same velocity no matter your own velocity". It runs towards you as fast as it would if you stayed put. This may seem to harbor a contradiction, until you realise that when you travel very very fast, time and space dilate and contract (from a passerby, the beam of light will take ages to get you, but in your own POV, it takes as little as it would if you stayed put).

If you can't outrun a photon, you can't travel faster than light (it's saying the same thing).

What you can, however, is dilate and contract space-time (as mentioned). If you travel sufficiently fast (near c), you'll get anywhere you want in very little time. Problem is, this "time" is measured in your own POV. From the Earth's point of view, it may have passed thousands, millions of years.

[Killjoy Cutter]

111987 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Sure you can. 

Rate genetic diversity of all species Earth on a scale from 1-100. 

Say ****** sapiens rates a 25.

You're asserting that it's perfectly reasonable that every other known sapient species in the galaxy rates under a 25 -- significantly so from the sound of Mordin's comments. 

There are dozens, if not hundreds of sapient species in the galaxy (the ME galaxy is only 1% of the Milky Way Galaxy). That Humans are more genetically diverse than say, a dozen of them, isn't all that extreme.

Mordin's statements are either sloppy, or imply that humans are diverse when compared to all known species as a whole.  Given the distinct lack of human genetic diversity, this is still unlikely.  There's just no way around it. 

http://news.sciencem...0/01/19-02.html

Or are we going to suppose that every known sapient species went through a near-extinction at some point in their early development? 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 21 septembre 2011 - 02:36 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Arkitekt wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

You appear to have left a step out of your explanation.  How does the speed of light having the same velocity no matter your own velocity cause (local) FTL travel to be impossible? 

Imagine a photon of light coming at you from behind (he). Now imagine that you try to outrun it (travelling faster than light). You can't, since we've already established that the speed of light has "the same velocity no matter your own velocity". It runs towards you as fast as it would if you stayed put. This may seem to harbor a contradiction, until you realise that when you travel very very fast, time and space dilate and contract (from a passerby, the beam of light will take ages to get you, but in your own POV, it takes as little as it would if you stayed put).

If you can't outrun a photon, you can't travel faster than light (it's saying the same thing).

What you can, however, is dilate and contract space-time (as mentioned). If you travel sufficiently fast (near c), you'll get anywhere you want in very little time. Problem is, this "time" is measured in your own POV. From the Earth's point of view, it may have passed thousands, millions of years.

Indeed. 

That's not what I asked or why I asked it, however. 

At any rate, the only argument against FTL that makes no sense whatsoever and strikes me as utterly suspect is the whole "FTL is always time travel"... thing.  Not important, certainly not enough to derail the thread with it, in retrospect. 

[TuringPoint]

According to Codex lore, light can be distorted.  Slowed down.  Its speed, momentum, energy can be affected.  The "Mass Effect" is supposedly a field that distorts light such that its speed, and everything within it, is much faster.  Not  a reasonably scientific assumption at all, it does succeed - debatably? - in avoiding conflict with our theories about FTL travel, which is that it's impossible except for maybe with worm holes.  

How does this compare to other theories of FTL travel as seen in SF?

Modifié par Alocormin, 21 septembre 2011 - 02:53 .

[aznricepuff]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

You appear to have left a step out of your explanation.  How does the speed of light having the same velocity no matter your own velocity cause (local) FTL travel to be impossible? 

Imagine a photon of light coming at you from behind (he). Now imagine that you try to outrun it (travelling faster than light). You can't, since we've already established that the speed of light has "the same velocity no matter your own velocity". It runs towards you as fast as it would if you stayed put. This may seem to harbor a contradiction, until you realise that when you travel very very fast, time and space dilate and contract (from a passerby, the beam of light will take ages to get you, but in your own POV, it takes as little as it would if you stayed put).

If you can't outrun a photon, you can't travel faster than light (it's saying the same thing).

What you can, however, is dilate and contract space-time (as mentioned). If you travel sufficiently fast (near c), you'll get anywhere you want in very little time. Problem is, this "time" is measured in your own POV. From the Earth's point of view, it may have passed thousands, millions of years.

Indeed. 

That's not what I asked or why I asked it, however. 

At any rate, the only argument against FTL that makes no sense whatsoever and strikes me as utterly suspect is the whole "FTL is always time travel"... thing.  Not important, certainly not enough to derail the thread with it, in retrospect. 

Well what was it that you were asking? And btw it is true that every scheme that allows for FTL travel also allows for time travel under special and general relativity.