99 réponses à ce sujet

[devon c greenwell]

Eezo is a fictional, for now, massing of the higgs bosson particles from what ive managed to put together. Only thing is that you need a monster power source. Hence the mass rellays. But that far from the sun? So real question is not weather its possable to produce a mass effect field or higgs bosson field, but how to power ot enough to step thru and come out the other side

Modifié par devon c greenwell, 11 juillet 2012 - 02:32 .

[SimKoning]

Sumthing wrote...

SimKoning wrote...

Ruined Requiem wrote...

AHadley23 wrote...

ME violates known physical laws in a variety of ways. So no, probably not gonna happen.

[/buzzkill]

So do Black Holes.

Yes, but there is actually a theory that blackholes don't actually contain a singularity, but rather an entire universe : )

That is just speculation. There is no real evidence for that.

http://www.insidesci...ew-universe/566

It actually explains some of our observations, such as the lopsided ratio of matter to antimatter, dark energy and the flatness of the universe.

Modifié par SimKoning, 11 juillet 2012 - 03:01 .

[Swordfishtrombone]

SimKoning wrote...

http://www.insidesci...ew-universe/566

It actually explains some of our observations, such as the lopsided ratio of matter to antimatter, dark energy and the flatness of the universe.

Thanks for the link - a very interesting article indeed.

I've known about Lee Smolin's idea of evolving universes which includes the idea that black holes produce baby universes. He proposes a sort of Darwinian selection process that would explain the constants of nature, but I find his analogy to evolution lacking, since as I understand it, there's no selection process that would weed out universes.

Essentially, what he proposes is that the baby universes inherit the constants of the parent universe, with slight variation - and that this process leads to those universes which produce more black holes to become more common. Which is analogous to how natural selection works in biology - with one significant difference: Smolin's idea does not include limited space or resources for new baby universes, and thus this process would lead to an infinity of universes, where those universes that produce the most black holes would be much more common than the universes that produce fewer black holes.

Smolin predicts that if his idea is true, our universe's laws and constants are such as to maximize the number of black holes produced, but I really don't see how that prediction would follow from his idea - simply because the universes where this is not the case are not weeded out in any way, but are free to proliferate to infinity.  Thus while it is more likely that we'd be in a universe with a near maxium number of black holes, it may well be that such a universe could not support the emergence of life and intelligence, and thus we'd necessarily be in a universe that was less optimal at producing "offspring". So I don't think Smolin's idea is testable, really; it may be true whether or not we are in a universe with maximized black hole production.

I'd not read of the ideas presented in this article though - that was all new to me, and very fascinating. This model looks like it may be testable, and that's exiting.

[Sumthing]

SimKoning wrote...

Sumthing wrote...

SimKoning wrote...

Ruined Requiem wrote...

AHadley23 wrote...

ME violates known physical laws in a variety of ways. So no, probably not gonna happen.

[/buzzkill]

So do Black Holes.

Yes, but there is actually a theory that blackholes don't actually contain a singularity, but rather an entire universe : )

That is just speculation. There is no real evidence for that.

http://www.insidesci...ew-universe/566

It actually explains some of our observations, such as the lopsided ratio of matter to antimatter, dark energy and the flatness of the universe.

So, the universe we are in is in another black hole, which is in another universe which is in turn in another black hole in another universe? So, there are really an infinite number of universes which are all accesssible from the previous universe? If that is so, then how was the first universe created? That just boggles the mind to even think about such a prospect.

[SimKoning]

So, the universe we are in is in another black hole, which is in another universe which is in turn in another black hole in another universe? So, there are really an infinite number of universes which are all accesssible from the previous universe? If that is so, then how was the first universe created? That just boggles the mind to even think about such a prospect.

It might actually be more mind boggling than that. There may be an infinite number of universes, and each one of those universes may be infinite in spacial extent. Even if this isn't correct, you have models like the eternal inflationary model which results in an infinite fractal multi-verse. The implications are even more brain-sploding with string theory. If the universe is infinite, then you've read this an infinite number of times, an infinite number of 'yous" are reading this right now, and an infinite number of versions of you will read this again. My head....  To answer your question: the universe (multiverse) may not have had a beginning, and it might never end. 

This is part of the reason that I "pretend" that Mass Effect takes place in another universe with different laws... a fifth force if you will. 

You might run into ummm certain people, that say actual infinities can't exist, but there is no real mathematical basis for this. Their arguments usually involve fallacies that conflate infinity as a concept with its use as an imaginary number. For example, infinity - infinity can equal infinity, but it could also equal 3, 4 or any number. However, you can't expect something that isn't a number in the first place to act like a number. You might also hear Hilbert's hotel get brought up, but the important thing to remember is that the Hilbert hotel paradox is not actually a paradox in the sense that it contains a logical contradiction, it doesn't. It's a "paradox" in the sense that it has an extremely counter intuitive result, but it doesn't actually contain any contradictions.

Here is something to help you visualize the nature of an infinite fractal universe 

Modifié par SimKoning, 11 juillet 2012 - 06:08 .

[MoonsKisu]

Jonesey2k wrote...

Not in our lifetime anyway!
Was anyone else hoping that when they thought nuetrinos had went FTL it was true?

I was so disappointed when it turned out to  be false. Also, I wouldn't definitely say that this won't happen in our lifetime. Science has made huge leaps on the last few decades alone. It's an exciting time to be a science geek. 

[SimKoning]

I new the FTL neutrino thing would be false, because I understand how thoroughly verified the theory of special relativity is. No particle or information can travel faster than the speed of light. If it did, it would travel backwards in time.

[Swordfishtrombone]

SimKoning wrote...

So, the universe we are in is in another black hole, which is in another universe which is in turn in another black hole in another universe? So, there are really an infinite number of universes which are all accesssible from the previous universe? If that is so, then how was the first universe created? That just boggles the mind to even think about such a prospect.

It might actually be more mind boggling than that. There may be an infinite number of universes, and each one of those universes may be infinite in spacial extent. Even if this isn't correct, you have models like the eternal inflationary model which results in an infinite fractal multi-verse. The implications are even more brain-sploding with string theory. If the universe is infinite, then you've read this an infinite number of times, an infinite number of 'yous" are reading this right now, and an infinite number of versions of you will read this again. My head....  To answer your question: the universe (multiverse) may not have had a beginning, and it might never end. 

This is part of the reason that I "pretend" that Mass Effect takes place in another universe with different laws... a fifth force if you will. 

You might run into ummm certain people, that say actual infinities can't exist, but there is no real mathematical basis for this. Their arguments usually involve fallacies that conflate infinity as a concept with its use as an imaginary number. For example, infinity - infinity can equal infinity, but it could also equal 3, 4 or any number. However, you can't expect something that isn't a number in the first place to act like a number. You might also hear Hilbert's hotel get brought up, but the important thing to remember is that the Hilbert hotel paradox is not actually a paradox in the sense that it contains a logical contradiction, it doesn't. It's a "paradox" in the sense that it has an extremely counter intuitive result, but it doesn't actually contain any contradictions.

Here is something to help you visualize the nature of an infinite fractal universe 

Good post. The eternal inflation model is actually the one that I've kinda liked the best, though liking it of course doesn't make it any more (or less) likely to be true.

I'd like to add another of the objections to actual infinities you often hear: that if there was an actual infinity before this point in time, you never could have reached this point in time, because of the infinite distance.

Of course, that line of thinking is falacious because it beggs the question - infinite distance from where? In a truly infininite universe, you wouldn't START counting anywhere, because any point is as good as the next point, and all points have previous points. Wherever you DID choose to start counting would be arbitrary, and, you could reach any other point in the future.

Of course, there are also models in which the time-line within each universe is separate, so that within the context of any universe, there was a beginning to time, but there'd be some infinite state from which universe-creating events would spring.

[Swordfishtrombone]

SimKoning wrote...

I new the FTL neutrino thing would be false, because I understand how thoroughly verified the theory of special relativity is. No particle or information can travel faster than the speed of light. If it did, it would travel backwards in time.

Indeed. That was the expectation of the physicists generally, and the scientists who did the experiment themselves. That's why they didn't go to the press with "Einstein was wrong, and we proved it!", but instead, went to the scientific community with "we've probably made some mistake here, but can't find it, could you help us look?"

And indeed, the expectation turned out to be correct.

When a theory as firmly established as relativity gets contradicted by an experimental result, it's 99.99999999999999% likely that it's due to an error in the experiment, or equipment failure, and correcting those errors and repeating the experiment gives the expected result.

That doesn't prevent the media from picking up the story and blowing it out of proportion though, creating false expectations.

[mcneil_1]

When I first heard about this article Martian Successor Nadesico sprung to mind with its Boson Jumps.

[Little Princess Peach]

Naugi wrote...

Looking forward to the first contact war when we finally make out there ...

How do you know we have not all ready had it? and this is all a dream like state thing

But I wish something could be possible in this age be very intresting to see events unfolded

[Little Princess Peach]

Tazzmission wrote...

for those who dont know we did find buildings,ruins on mars


same with the moon


i highly suggest you look into it

I thaught they only found water ways on the moon indicating that water was once presant, nothing bout buildings and such, and as for mars did they only find crators?

Modifié par Tali-vas-normandy, 12 juillet 2012 - 10:48 .

[7Nemesis]

Fozee wrote...

Tokion wrote...

Naugi wrote...

Looking forward to the first contact war when we finally make out there ...

First contact war with M4A1 and AK47? WE ARE NOT READY PEOPLE!!

Not exactly the cutting edge of our weaponry

All we have to do is kill a few aliens, grab their weapons, bring'em home and come up with our versions of their weapons. I don't think turians are bulletproof. There is also the problem of ships though...they might obliterate us before we make it home with their guns...

[EricHVela]

Nope. The first thing that came to my mind was not Element Zero but, rather, Half-Life.

[Naughty Bear]

SimKoning wrote...

So, the universe we are in is in another black hole, which is in another universe which is in turn in another black hole in another universe? So, there are really an infinite number of universes which are all accesssible from the previous universe? If that is so, then how was the first universe created? That just boggles the mind to even think about such a prospect.

It might actually be more mind boggling than that. There may be an infinite number of universes, and each one of those universes may be infinite in spacial extent. Even if this isn't correct, you have models like the eternal inflationary model which results in an infinite fractal multi-verse. The implications are even more brain-sploding with string theory. If the universe is infinite, then you've read this an infinite number of times, an infinite number of 'yous" are reading this right now, and an infinite number of versions of you will read this again. My head....  To answer your question: the universe (multiverse) may not have had a beginning, and it might never end. 

This is part of the reason that I "pretend" that Mass Effect takes place in another universe with different laws... a fifth force if you will. 

You might run into ummm certain people, that say actual infinities can't exist, but there is no real mathematical basis for this. Their arguments usually involve fallacies that conflate infinity as a concept with its use as an imaginary number. For example, infinity - infinity can equal infinity, but it could also equal 3, 4 or any number. However, you can't expect something that isn't a number in the first place to act like a number. You might also hear Hilbert's hotel get brought up, but the important thing to remember is that the Hilbert hotel paradox is not actually a paradox in the sense that it contains a logical contradiction, it doesn't. It's a "paradox" in the sense that it has an extremely counter intuitive result, but it doesn't actually contain any contradictions.

Here is something to help you visualize the nature of an infinite fractal universe 

My god...

Is there any books on this? This is simply fascinating. We could be a universe inside a universe that is inside a universe within a universe.

There is an infinite amount of me! Nothing can possibly go wrong with that.

[Swordfishtrombone]

Tali-vas-normandy wrote...

Tazzmission wrote...

for those who dont know we did find buildings,ruins on mars


same with the moon


i highly suggest you look into it

I thaught they only found water ways on the moon indicating that water was once presant, nothing bout buildings and such, and as for mars did they only find crators?

Tazzmission needs to widen his sources where he does his research. And look up "pareidolia" - the phenomana that is behind all the "builiding" and "ruin" finds.

What generally happens is that the first images of a planet that we get tend to be blurry and low quality, and it is easy for our pattern-seeking minds to conjure up all sorts of things - like the "canals on Mars" WAY back when all we had was telescope images.

The "Face on Mars" is another good example - this time from a more recent time when one of the probes to mars returned images of the surface, and one seemed to show something that looked like a humanoid face looking upwards.

Of course, the pseudoscience crowd went nuts, and immediately claimed it as proof of an ancient civilization on Mars - later, when we got more detailed, better quality images of the area, the "face" turned out to be a rather unremarkable hillside, with the "face" effect being a play of shadows when you look at it from a certain angle, at a certain time of the Martian day.

If you have a very large, random, rocky surface, and lots of images of it, it would be remarkable if we DIDN'T see some features that reminded us of something familiar. Our minds are fine-tuned to see faces, and to see familiar patterns, even in noise.

So no, there have not been any ruins or buildings found on Mars or the Moon - I wish there were; that would be absolutely awesome.

But if one really CARES about what is true, and not just about what sounds good, and what one would like to be true, one has to be skeptical, and be aware of the psycological pitfalls that lead us into false conclusions.

[Swordfishtrombone]

Naughty Bear wrote...

My god...

Is there any books on this? This is simply fascinating. We could be a universe inside a universe that is inside a universe within a universe.

There is an infinite amount of me! Nothing can possibly go wrong with that.

I don't know of any books on this particular idea - Lee Smolin has a cosmological model that is somewhat similar. I think this idea is too new to have made it into any books aimed at interested laymen.

If you enjoy really mind bending ideas like this though, you might want to look up "The Goldilocks Enigma" by Paul Davis. Davis, as I understand it, is a theist (or a deist?), but for the most part, he does a really good and fair exposition of a whole host of different cosmological models and ideas on the big questions.

There's only one small passage in the book that made me so frustrated I had to put the book down for a week; it's where he claims that since multiverse models assume other universes that we can't see, and theistic ideas assume intelligent agents we can't see, they are pretty much equal in the unfounded assumption department. But his OWN BOOK contradicts that statement - earlier he has explained how the multitude of universes follows from much smaller assumptions, so multiverse models don't assume a multitude of universes, they assume some much smaller things, which result in a multiverse.

Aside from that one bizarre misstep, the book quite outstanding, and the best layman-aimed introduction to these great ideas I've read.

[SimKoning]

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

Naughty Bear wrote...

My god...

Is there any books on this? This is simply fascinating. We could be a universe inside a universe that is inside a universe within a universe.

There is an infinite amount of me! Nothing can possibly go wrong with that.

I don't know of any books on this particular idea - Lee Smolin has a cosmological model that is somewhat similar. I think this idea is too new to have made it into any books aimed at interested laymen.

If you enjoy really mind bending ideas like this though, you might want to look up "The Goldilocks Enigma" by Paul Davis. Davis, as I understand it, is a theist (or a deist?), but for the most part, he does a really good and fair exposition of a whole host of different cosmological models and ideas on the big questions.

There's only one small passage in the book that made me so frustrated I had to put the book down for a week; it's where he claims that since multiverse models assume other universes that we can't see, and theistic ideas assume intelligent agents we can't see, they are pretty much equal in the unfounded assumption department. But his OWN BOOK contradicts that statement - earlier he has explained how the multitude of universes follows from much smaller assumptions, so multiverse models don't assume a multitude of universes, they assume some much smaller things, which result in a multiverse.

Aside from that one bizarre misstep, the book quite outstanding, and the best layman-aimed introduction to these great ideas I've read.

www.youtube.com/watch  Fractals

http://www.youtube.com    Infinity


I've been wondering if Davies is a theist, or deist, because I've seen hints of it here and there in his writing. He seems fond of describing life as a virtually impossible miracle. To do this, he seems to fall back on a strawman of abiogenesis. Nobody is arguing that life evolved from amino acids and nucleotides to bacteria in one big step. We've already created self replicating lipid vesicles and ribozymes in the lap, the formation of both of which can potentially be catalyzed by montmorillinite clay. The Urey-Miller experiment, once discredited, has not only been validated for environments such as Titan, but they also discovered the results of a lost experiment that replicated volcanic gas which actually produced *more* amino acids and other complex molecules. And if course, there is now evidence that life existed on Earth as early as 4.4 billion years ago... basically as soon as there were oceans. Life appears to have been easy. On top of this, there is now faint evidence that there may be methanogenic life on Titan of all places! Imagine a hydrogen breathing organism that uses methane as a solvent.

Modifié par SimKoning, 13 juillet 2012 - 05:52 .

[Naughty Bear]

Anyone know what this theory is? I don't know where I read it but it explains that the reason we found no life is because we are the first known civilization. And that we are essentially the Protheans/Precursors which I found to be very interesting to read and quite cool that alien civilisations depend on us not nuking ourselves. I don't know where I read it from but I'm hoping someone tells me where I can find more information on it. I love reading theorys like this.

Modifié par Naughty Bear, 13 juillet 2012 - 06:19 .

[SimKoning]

@ Naught Bear

At the risk of sounding pedantic, that's not a theory in the scientific sense, just a guess. Some argue that if space faring civilizations evolve fairly easily, then we should have seen them already. This is known as the Fermi paradox. The places life can live seem abundant, and a STL space faring civilization could have colonized the entire galaxy in a few million years, which is a small fraction of the galaxy's age, yet they are nowhere to be seen. There are many possible answers to this however. I personally think the most likely one is a combination of several factors: the speed of light limit to communications would tend to prevent, if not preclude, the existence of galaxy spanning space empires; space travel is likely a major commitment and is likely quite difficult and expensive for any organic species; advances in communications technology may mean the lesser civilizations such as ourselves are sitting right in the middle of a two way communication and not even know it; radio communications may eventually become so efficient that signals can not even make it out of a star system before becoming indistinguishable from background radiation; there may be a huge number of habitable planets, making a planet like ours nothing special; there is no reason to think that interstellar civilizations would have a homogeneous distribution; we could be in a unpopulated backwater area of the galaxy.

Modifié par SimKoning, 13 juillet 2012 - 06:35 .

[Adugan]

How Mass Effect uses... "Mass effect" is not how it would be used in real life. Objects with lower mass would have lower impact force, and if an object gains mass in transit its velocity would decrease to conserve force. There is no way to weaponize the effect unless you just want faster projectiles.

[Lotion Soronarr]

galaxy366 wrote...

So the Higgs Boson really reminds me of Element Zero, while it doesn't increase or decrease mass the Higgs does control it.

So maybe in 10 years we can master the Higgs to have a mass less vessel !!

What do you people think? Is the Higgs the key to unlocking faster then light?

BWHAHAHAHAHAAa.......No.

ME FTL makes no sense for one. Reducing your mass doesn't allow you to go FTL.

Secondly, even detecting a higgs boson took billions and a giagantic facility with the greatest scientists on the planet.
Manipulating them? Yeah, dream on. We can't even manipulate bigger particles than that, let alone bosons.
Not even in a 100 years..

[Lotion Soronarr]

Taht idea that because someone in the far past was wrong about future science, that everything is possible and we can alos ignore scientists today is bollocks.

First of all, people in the odler days were stupider and had a far worse knowledge base and understanding of the scientific principle. As our knowledge increases, so do our prediction become more accurate.


There is no going faster than light. Mathematicly, it is the fastest speed one can reach in-universe.


Of course, some other ways to get around, like wormholes, MIGHT be possible, but in that case you aren't really going faster than light insomuch as you are taking a shortcut.

[Sumthing]

SimKoning wrote...

So, the universe we are in is in another black hole, which is in another universe which is in turn in another black hole in another universe? So, there are really an infinite number of universes which are all accesssible from the previous universe? If that is so, then how was the first universe created? That just boggles the mind to even think about such a prospect.

It might actually be more mind boggling than that. There may be an infinite number of universes, and each one of those universes may be infinite in spacial extent. Even if this isn't correct, you have models like the eternal inflationary model which results in an infinite fractal multi-verse. The implications are even more brain-sploding with string theory. If the universe is infinite, then you've read this an infinite number of times, an infinite number of 'yous" are reading this right now, and an infinite number of versions of you will read this again. My head....  To answer your question: the universe (multiverse) may not have had a beginning, and it might never end. 

This is part of the reason that I "pretend" that Mass Effect takes place in another universe with different laws... a fifth force if you will. 

You might run into ummm certain people, that say actual infinities can't exist, but there is no real mathematical basis for this. Their arguments usually involve fallacies that conflate infinity as a concept with its use as an imaginary number. For example, infinity - infinity can equal infinity, but it could also equal 3, 4 or any number. However, you can't expect something that isn't a number in the first place to act like a number. You might also hear Hilbert's hotel get brought up, but the important thing to remember is that the Hilbert hotel paradox is not actually a paradox in the sense that it contains a logical contradiction, it doesn't. It's a "paradox" in the sense that it has an extremely counter intuitive result, but it doesn't actually contain any contradictions.

Here is something to help you visualize the nature of an infinite fractal universe 

If there are an infinite number of universes than a mass effect scenario would take place an infinite number of times?

[SimKoning]

Only if such a universe is physically possible. Even physically impossible worlds might be able to exist in a simulated form... so who knows.

Modifié par SimKoning, 17 juillet 2012 - 09:30 .