Maneuver Drives and Physics 101
- Thread starter atpollard
- Start date
Arthur Denger
SOC-12
As for me, I think I shall leave my ship's 'stern exhaust vents' in place, at least for the time being. They still seem to impress the heque out of the locals in the backwater Frontier Worlds... 
Since the Higgs field is an idea near and dear to my heart here some links on the idea that don't require any math or advanced degrees to enjoy.
http://hepwww.ph.qmw.ac.uk/epp/higgs1.html
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae304.cfm
http://p-i-a.com/Magazine/Issue10/Physics_10.htm
Here is quote from the second link to think about:
"All interactions/forces in nature (electromagnetism, weak, strong and gravity) are transmitted by particles called gauge bosons. For example electromagnetism is 'carried' by photons. This idea was carried on to explain mass."
In my reading this is an accurate description of The Standard Model. I note that gravity is explained in this model by the exchange of bosons. As you may have seen, some theories postulate gravity as being the exchange of more than one type of boson, say one anti-gravity boson and two gravity bosons. So "anti-gravity" supresses the exchange of at least one of the gravity bosons.
How can this apply to reactionless drives? Maybe the drive produces a field that modifies the exchange of the gravity force bosons, which from a relativity view warps space time to produce an acceleration in the direction one wishes to go. It doesn't need to be a symmetric warp as you see for a planet, but could be more of a localized gravity wave in front, behind, etc. Surfs up dude! So in the end, you are not throwing out mass, but interacting with a field that permeates space and time (like the Higgs field) to move forward.
All just a natural progression from manipulating the EM field boson (photons), to the nuclear damper (strong force) to gravity (anti-g, contra-g, M-drives).
I always thought a good place for a new Traveller weapon was some tech that manipulated the weak force (or electroweak force). Maybe a beam weapon that we can call a "phaser."
On thing I like to keep in mind when thinking about The Standard Model and the talk of fields and particles is to realize at the subatomic level they are really both (or niether). I particularily like this from the first link:
“In the mathematics of quantum mechanics describing creation and annihilation of elementary particles, as observed at accelerators, particles at particular points arise from "fields" spread over space and time.”
Finally to rant on, another low hanging fruit ripe for sci-fi use are mangnetic monopoles, artificaially made and maintained of course. Perfectly consistent with theory, and even arise from it, and we can even estimate their properties.
http://hepwww.ph.qmw.ac.uk/epp/higgs1.html
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae304.cfm
http://p-i-a.com/Magazine/Issue10/Physics_10.htm
Here is quote from the second link to think about:
"All interactions/forces in nature (electromagnetism, weak, strong and gravity) are transmitted by particles called gauge bosons. For example electromagnetism is 'carried' by photons. This idea was carried on to explain mass."
In my reading this is an accurate description of The Standard Model. I note that gravity is explained in this model by the exchange of bosons. As you may have seen, some theories postulate gravity as being the exchange of more than one type of boson, say one anti-gravity boson and two gravity bosons. So "anti-gravity" supresses the exchange of at least one of the gravity bosons.
How can this apply to reactionless drives? Maybe the drive produces a field that modifies the exchange of the gravity force bosons, which from a relativity view warps space time to produce an acceleration in the direction one wishes to go. It doesn't need to be a symmetric warp as you see for a planet, but could be more of a localized gravity wave in front, behind, etc. Surfs up dude! So in the end, you are not throwing out mass, but interacting with a field that permeates space and time (like the Higgs field) to move forward.
All just a natural progression from manipulating the EM field boson (photons), to the nuclear damper (strong force) to gravity (anti-g, contra-g, M-drives).
I always thought a good place for a new Traveller weapon was some tech that manipulated the weak force (or electroweak force). Maybe a beam weapon that we can call a "phaser."
On thing I like to keep in mind when thinking about The Standard Model and the talk of fields and particles is to realize at the subatomic level they are really both (or niether). I particularily like this from the first link:
“In the mathematics of quantum mechanics describing creation and annihilation of elementary particles, as observed at accelerators, particles at particular points arise from "fields" spread over space and time.”
Finally to rant on,
another low hanging fruit ripe for sci-fi use are mangnetic monopoles, artificaially made and maintained of course. Perfectly consistent with theory, and even arise from it, and we can even estimate their properties.So what happens IYTU when you turn the drive off? Does the ship continue at the same speed? Does it slow down so as not to violate conservation of energy and momentum? Is there another mechanism to preserve the conservation of energy and momentum?
Can I mount bigger thrusters, to get even higher acceleration, like 10's of G's or does the field collapse?
Please keep it simple, as a Civil Engineer/Architect I still prefer Newton's Laws and view Einstein's relativity with some suspicion [Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are just a flash in the pan - we will eventually find a nice algebraic formula that will put this nonsense to rest.Originally posted by atpollard:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ptah:
I can throw out some quantum mechanics talk if you like. As advanced physics go that was my forte, it came with the spectroscopy territory.
] </font>[/QUOTE]Ditto - except for the Architect part. From what little I've read of the "proofs" of relativity, they don't seem to prove the model that's typically kicked around by non-physicists. For instance the "time changes" observed in aircraft depended on the direction they were going around the Earth and relied on a fixed reference point (center of the Earth) in a non-rotational environment for the equations to work. These seem like very weak "proofs" for a theory that says there is no fixed reference point. 
I'm sure the physicists have a more complex model that they say covers this, but I know at least some of them question the theory (not the accuracy of the model under certain circumstances - just whether the overall model really describes how things work versus providing yet another useful approximation ala Newtons laws.) 
But as a Civil Engineer - my general concept is if it's moving and it's not water - it's either really bad or someone else's department.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
If the drive is damaged or turned off then current velocity is retained.
The field "strength" is limited such that the best you can get is 6G.
Try to go higher and the field collapses.
IMTU it was research into pushing maneuver drive limits that lead to jump drive discovery.
TheEngineer
SOC-14 1K
Hi atpollard !
Hm, I would say its just a result of observation, and as such I would say a fact
Anything You could see moving in this world is either propelled by "reaction", kicked by something else or generally just a victim of momentum AND it follows its path defined by space time geometry > gravitation. Thats essentially true for any objects at any scales (well, at Planck scales everything starts to get a bit more weird).
So its just like looking at a Traveller starship, recognizing that it accelerates, but without a propellant. Now if there is no propellant, it could be moved by a kind of field. And the most important aspect is, that starships mass is not relevant considering the amount of accelaration.
The only concept, which somehow fits into these contraints is gravitation.
My m-drive creates a field (a relative of the jump field), by which the ship and its near surrounding connected to a remote gravitic environment. The field properties are able to control the overlay pattern of the remote gravity field. The directional component of the vector of the remote gravity field is always the same at a given time.
Anyway the strength might vary and its the job of the pilot and the engineers to tune the field in a way everybody feels comfortable (people and structures usually do not like gravity gradients in hteir inside).
Additional energy of the ships PP could be used to manipulate field properties more efficiently (-> agility). Turning the ship works by only affecting a seperate section with the remote field, causing a torque, but also stress to the hull and a
The amount of remote gravity, which could be blended in the local environment represented the m-drives performance. However, there is a maximum remote spacetime curvature, which could be blended, resulting in an upper performance limit of the drive.
Thats the major handwave bla-bla, but my players are always keen on details...
The just purely unphysical part in this Traveller drive interpretation is to affect an object at location A with a gravity field of location B
(basically a modified usage of a kind of wormhole - which is a theoretical object covered by the GRT). Physically thats just bullshit
But anyway, as long as there are anti-gravity and jump drives IMTU I will not get nervous because of another unphysical maneuver drive
Besides, Ptahs comments are as interesting as always, but appearantly the particle junky group of physicists still have problems to find a prove (or a hint for a prove) for their naughty graviton :=).
Regards,
TE
Hm, I would say its just a result of observation, and as such I would say a fact
Anything You could see moving in this world is either propelled by "reaction", kicked by something else or generally just a victim of momentum AND it follows its path defined by space time geometry > gravitation. Thats essentially true for any objects at any scales (well, at Planck scales everything starts to get a bit more weird).
So its just like looking at a Traveller starship, recognizing that it accelerates, but without a propellant. Now if there is no propellant, it could be moved by a kind of field. And the most important aspect is, that starships mass is not relevant considering the amount of accelaration.
The only concept, which somehow fits into these contraints is gravitation.
My m-drive creates a field (a relative of the jump field), by which the ship and its near surrounding connected to a remote gravitic environment. The field properties are able to control the overlay pattern of the remote gravity field. The directional component of the vector of the remote gravity field is always the same at a given time.
Anyway the strength might vary and its the job of the pilot and the engineers to tune the field in a way everybody feels comfortable (people and structures usually do not like gravity gradients in hteir inside).
Additional energy of the ships PP could be used to manipulate field properties more efficiently (-> agility). Turning the ship works by only affecting a seperate section with the remote field, causing a torque, but also stress to the hull and a
The amount of remote gravity, which could be blended in the local environment represented the m-drives performance. However, there is a maximum remote spacetime curvature, which could be blended, resulting in an upper performance limit of the drive.
Thats the major handwave bla-bla, but my players are always keen on details...
The just purely unphysical part in this Traveller drive interpretation is to affect an object at location A with a gravity field of location B
(basically a modified usage of a kind of wormhole - which is a theoretical object covered by the GRT). Physically thats just bullshit
But anyway, as long as there are anti-gravity and jump drives IMTU I will not get nervous because of another unphysical maneuver drive
Besides, Ptahs comments are as interesting as always, but appearantly the particle junky group of physicists still have problems to find a prove (or a hint for a prove) for their naughty graviton :=).
Regards,
TE
For the record, I was making a joke about Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. I do not really believe that they are not true science.
On the other hand, I have read some of the published papers on wormholes and warp drives and I REALLY DO prefer simple algebra to higher math equations. My goal is to understand the concept and it's limitations, not to actually build the thing.
On the other hand, I have read some of the published papers on wormholes and warp drives and I REALLY DO prefer simple algebra to higher math equations. My goal is to understand the concept and it's limitations, not to actually build the thing.
TheEngineer
SOC-14 1K
Don't make that kind of jokes here .... the effects might be devasting
It's a good joke, just because theories don't explain everything doesn't make them bad science, just incomplete theories. Newtonian physics aren't bad science (in fact they are incredible science for their day) just incomplete.
I think the links on the Higgs field were mathless. Pretty much a good concept overview. If they are at the level your looking for I can find some more.
Unfortunately everything I can think of for reactionless drives will be physics 601.
The Higgs field/boson, gravitons, and magnetic monopoles are all areas that fall out of current theories. Theories that have worked very well at explaining observations and, even more importantly, at making predictions. So I always find these to be good starting points.
They sure do. As much as I like it, the particle theory of gravity has problems. But it does provide a nice ahndy way to explain the difference between contra-grav, anti-grav, and reactionless drives, even gravitational focusing of lasers.
Gravity is the big problem in the current unification of theories if my understanding is correct.
My personal view is that particle theories are a legacy of our Newtonian world view. I don't think physicists really believe an electron or meson is really a little spinning particle, but the physics of spining particles explain quite a lot. It's the whole area of quantum mechanics that's convinced me that at the sub-stomic level is becomes very important what you are looking for and how you look. It's not like things are a certain way X ( e.g., a wave or perticle) and if you look you see X. Rather, how you look determines the way things are. Very strange and non-intuitive but many experiments bear out this strange reality.
Anyway where wre we? In the end I think a theory of reactionless dirve sould start with the performance we want. Then we can pick from the physics we know and tailor it for a consistent and robust game-play.
I liked Millis’s hypothetical "Space Drives". It described WHAT might be possible without locking down too hard on any one HOW it could be done. I have found it a useful yardstick for evaluating many possible Sci-Fi drives and their design cosequences.
[This section is excerpted from Millis' "Challenge to Create the Space Drive," in the AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol.13, No.5, pp. 577-582, Sept.-Oct. 1997. This 6 page report uses 7 hypothetical space drive concepts to highlight the unsolved physics and candidate next steps toward creating a propellantless space drive.]
This is, of course, not directly related to the goal of my original post, but I have the confirmation of the basics of force vs acceleration as well as several thoughts on a non-force based Maneuver drive.
Now we are just "talking" because it is interesting stuff.
[This section is excerpted from Millis' "Challenge to Create the Space Drive," in the AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol.13, No.5, pp. 577-582, Sept.-Oct. 1997. This 6 page report uses 7 hypothetical space drive concepts to highlight the unsolved physics and candidate next steps toward creating a propellantless space drive.]
I would be interested in any thoughts on Updates for these concepts based on post 1997 discoveries.
This is, of course, not directly related to the goal of my original post, but I have the confirmation of the basics of force vs acceleration as well as several thoughts on a non-force based Maneuver drive.
Now we are just "talking" because it is interesting stuff.
Scott Martin
SOC-13
You pesky functionalist you!
I'm afraid that we continue to thnk a bit too much alike
I think that the easiest "game mechanic" drive is a gravity field inducer and I'd prefer to keep it in "handwavium" land, since there are some "interesting" potential side effects of "Higgs exclusion fields" like inducing weightlessness. "Correcting" this can cause even more fun (and gives you the technology for things like gravitic imploder bombs: not something I'd want my PC's to get their hands on...)
Scott Martin
Arthur Denger
SOC-12
You pesky functionalist you!
I'm afraid that we continue to thnk a bit too much alike
I think that the easiest "game mechanic" drive is a gravity field inducer and I'd prefer to keep it in "handwavium" land, since there are some "interesting" potential side effects of "Higgs exclusion fields" like inducing weightlessness. "Correcting" this can cause even more fun (and gives you the technology for things like gravitic imploder bombs: not something I'd want my PC's to get their hands on...)
Scott Martin </font>[/QUOTE]
Originally posted by Scott Martin:
You pesky functionalist you!
I'm afraid that we continue to thnk a bit too much alike
I think that the easiest "game mechanic" drive is a gravity field inducer and I'd prefer to keep it in "handwavium" land, since there are some "interesting" potential side effects of "Higgs exclusion fields" like inducing weightlessness. "Correcting" this can cause even more fun (and gives you the technology for things like gravitic imploder bombs: not something I'd want my PC's to get their hands on...)
IIRC you have player's that are physicists, so that's got to be tough. Of course a reponse to the player observation.
Player: "We'll then that makes gravitic imploder bombs possible. I want to build one." (assuming PC with Physics-6)
Might be...
GM:"You'd think so. So do Imperial military scientists, they've been trying to make it work for decades. By the way, the Imperial Secret Police want to talk to you about where you heard of these bombs and your interest in them. You don't mind a little psionic probing in the interest of Imperial security do you? They also say they may have to take the ship apart to search it."
None of my players are physicists, but one worked for Sierra Games, so I tremble that our sessions don't meet the requirements of good game design.
Google on "process physics". The Lorentz contraction is good, but Michaelson-Morely may hae got it wrong. So Einstein was working from bad assumptions and relativity may be a crock. Aether is back, although perhaps as a "quantum foam".Originally posted by atpollard:
For the record, I was making a joke about Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. I do not really believe that they are not true science.
On the other hand, I have read some of the published papers on wormholes and warp drives and I REALLY DO prefer simple algebra to higher math equations. My goal is to understand the concept and it's limitations, not to actually build the thing.
I can't help with your algebra, but I sympathise. Quantum I can't invalidate, but say "eigenvectors" very softly around me or my head will explode. Maxwell is still intact, and this might resurrect some of the later work by Tesla (Dynamic Gravity?) so you still need differential equations.
Scott Martin
SOC-13
Hiya Uncle Bob: Long time no see!
There's a fair amount of evidence that Michaelson-Moreley may have done it right, but not been able to build an appropriate frame-of-reference experiment. IIRC the Voyager probes are generating some "Interesting" results (as in the scientist saying "That's Interesting", often just before something goes "boom") which are making the Aether arguments look more persuasive.
I'd never thought that the solar system might be a "frame of reference" but then I guess I don't think big enough
I'll have to go take a look at Tesela again, when I last did that I remember my head hurting. Recent advances in capacitors (and high-density energy storage) may result in some of his experiments generating measurable results.
YAY Mad Scientists with "Beaker" hair! <BZZZT!>
Ptah
Some of my issues with the Traveller universe are due to technological implications being "half" thought out: Gravitic control gives you "deflectors" as a side effect, which (IIRC) are a lot more "hard SF" than a free electron laser in reverse (AKA a black globe)
There's also a whole pile of nasty implications of jump / dimensional physics (a "minor" example would be to build a jump grid and deliberately misjump a 15-story deep basement-shaped chunk of bedrock: Insta-construction! Alternately if this goes "boom" insta high-energy field-expedient explosives)
Scott Martin
________________
The only dangerous weapon is one that doesn't neutralize its target.
There's a fair amount of evidence that Michaelson-Moreley may have done it right, but not been able to build an appropriate frame-of-reference experiment. IIRC the Voyager probes are generating some "Interesting" results (as in the scientist saying "That's Interesting", often just before something goes "boom") which are making the Aether arguments look more persuasive.
I'd never thought that the solar system might be a "frame of reference" but then I guess I don't think big enough
I'll have to go take a look at Tesela again, when I last did that I remember my head hurting. Recent advances in capacitors (and high-density energy storage) may result in some of his experiments generating measurable results.
YAY Mad Scientists with "Beaker" hair! <BZZZT!>
Ptah
Some of my issues with the Traveller universe are due to technological implications being "half" thought out: Gravitic control gives you "deflectors" as a side effect, which (IIRC) are a lot more "hard SF" than a free electron laser in reverse (AKA a black globe)
There's also a whole pile of nasty implications of jump / dimensional physics (a "minor" example would be to build a jump grid and deliberately misjump a 15-story deep basement-shaped chunk of bedrock: Insta-construction! Alternately if this goes "boom" insta high-energy field-expedient explosives)
Scott Martin
________________
The only dangerous weapon is one that doesn't neutralize its target.
I agree with deflectors, if you combined them with some sort of electromagnetic field would you get something like a "shield" found in SF? IMTU you would.
I can't explain black globes except to say in The Mote in God's Eye the description of their use was pretty cool. I'm not even sure what a black globe is, but really haven't thought about it as they are beyond TL15 IMTU.
It sounds bad. How does that work, I thought if you misjumped you just never returned, or ended up far away.
