Real world Kraken Drives

[EpicRootHairCell]

Assuming the universe is in fact a simulation would it be reasonable to assume there are physics bugs in the simulation E.G. floating point errors and that it would be at least in theory be possible to design a machine that is capable of exploiting these bugs for our own gains or is the simulation much like the kraken drive.

Edit: i do not believe that we live inside a simulation but i thought it might be a interesting discussion.

Edited March 25, 2014 by EpicRootHairCell

[AmpsterMan]

Are you asking if there are bugs in real world physics that can be exploited?

[Starwhip]

Actually, that makes sense.

@AmpsterMan -> he is assuming the Universe is actually a computer simulation, not that it is a physical reality, if that clears up anything.

Wouldn't really be very surprising to me. But it would be fairly hard to do.

[jfull]

I feel like the only thing in the universe that could be considered a "bug", "glitch", or "error" would be black holes

[Starwhip]

Hey, that's a theory, if I've ever seen one!

[Roastduck]

If the universe is a simulation, then we are not users, we are programs/sprites/whatever you wanna call us. If there are bugs that can be exploited, the bugs are in our programming, which we cannot detect without self-awareness (assuming our own "self-awareness" is a programmed character trait that isn't actually real)

[Ralathon]

How would we know we where observing bugs instead of features?

I could argue that magnetism is a bug caused by the unintended interactions between the relativity subroutine and the global electric field matrix. But it does illustrate the point. We're looking at the universe from inside the simulation so we have no way to distinguish bugs, we'd just assume that's how the universe is supposed to work and adjust our theories about the universe accordingly.

[andrewas]

We wouldn't necessarily know it was a bug or that we were in a simulation. The only way we could be sure we had a bug, is if we found a phenomenon that we could prove could not be included in a consistent theory.

[Sirrobert]

Well that explains that Deja Vu I just had.

I think there's an Agent watching me

[Rakaydos]

Bernuli's Law. Same atmospheric pressure on both sides of a wing, but because one side is moving laterally faster, a "phantom force" is generated.

[Sillychris]

I think they screwed up when they set the speed of light as the same for any observer in any inertial reference frame. That bug has a lot of kraken consequences throughout the entire simulation.

[Albert VDS]

Real world Kraken drives? I think not.

First you have to assume this is a simulation, which has as much merit as thinking that Santa or the Tooth fairy exists.

Then you need to find a bug in it's physics, with the universe's scale that shouldn't be hard to find.

But when a bug is found you wouldn't be able to use it, because anyone or thing using it would be destroyed going at those speeds.

As for the whole idea of this being a simulation; it's applying human inventions/characteristics to something we don't (fully) understand.

To me that sounds borderline religious. You could as well say that we are all a hallucination in some higher beings mind, it has

as much proof and makes as much sense.

It makes for a great sci-fi story, but that's all it is.

[Ralathon]

Bernuli's Law. Same atmospheric pressure on both sides of a wing, but because one side is moving laterally faster, a "phantom force" is generated.

That's not how wings work at all...

[Nibb31]

We wouldn't necessarily know it was a bug or that we were in a simulation. The only way we could be sure we had a bug, is if we found a phenomenon that we could prove could not be included in a consistent theory.

In that case, we pretty much adapt our theory. That's how quantum physics got theorized.

[TheGatesofLogic]

one could describe the appearance of quantizations in minutae as evidence of float rounding, where quantum mechanics is the function for rounding floating values. Furthermore one could argue that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle indicates a boundary at which the maximum data package held by descriptors of the rounded floats is reached.

[K^2]

That's not how wings work at all...

Forget about it. I've had to argue with some aeronautical engineers about the topic for hours. Trying to explain to them that Bernoulli effect on the wing surface is zero, because air is static at boundary layer usually results in response, "But we can approximate it as inviscid flow, so that boundary layer is infinitesimal." At which point I remind them that in inviscid flow, Kutta Condition and the turbulent layer go away, so there is no circulation, and lift is exactly zero. That usually gets me a few minutes of blank stare, at which point they seem to reset and go back to reciting Bernoulli principle.

Consider that my bug report for the universe. If you ever figure out a fix, let me know.

one could describe the appearance of quantizations in minutae as evidence of float rounding

Just the opposite. Quantization of fields relies on them being fields over real numbers. Lattice QCD has to jump through some hoops to get that stuff to work in a simulation. And even there, you usually end up with some errors because it's impossible to get exact quantization.

Edited March 25, 2014 by K^2

[RuBisCO]

[Ralathon]

Forget about it. I've had to argue with some aeronautical engineers about the topic for hours. Trying to explain to them that Bernoulli effect on the wing surface is zero, because air is static at boundary layer usually results in response, "But we can approximate it as inviscid flow, so that boundary layer is infinitesimal." At which point I remind them that in inviscid flow, Kutta Condition and the turbulent layer go away, so there is no circulation, and lift is exactly zero. That usually gets me a few minutes of blank stare, at which point they seem to reset and go back to reciting Bernoulli principle.

Consider that my bug report for the universe. If you ever figure out a fix, let me know.

I usually ask them how a plane can fly upside down, going by their model it'd accelerate down with 2G. This is usually enough to get them to accept their model is wrong. Then again, I mostly need to explain it to people with grade school knowledge, so simple words are the key.

Tbh, it's rather disgraceful that aeronautical engineers don't know about the D'Alembert Paradox, that's something you learn in fluid physics 101. Where did you find those guys?

[Sillychris]

I too grow tired of hearing about the partial story of wing lift. Have these guys never heard of an angle of attack?

[78stonewobble]

Maybe the simulation is just really really good.

I know most people think that the graphics are rather HD, but I'm near sighted so what do I know.

Is the supposition that we are "brains in a jar" or is it a "universe in a jar"?

[K^2]

I usually ask them how a plane can fly upside down, going by their model it'd accelerate down with 2G. This is usually enough to get them to accept their model is wrong. Then again, I mostly need to explain it to people with grade school knowledge, so simple words are the key.

Tbh, it's rather disgraceful that aeronautical engineers don't know about the D'Alembert Paradox, that's something you learn in fluid physics 101. Where did you find those guys?

It's not that these people don't know Kutta-Joukowski theorem, or understand how angle of attack contributes to circulation. It's that they somehow don't realize that Bernoulli Principle isn't applicable to pressure differential on an airfoil. After all, technically, an air flow over a foil with no camber and positive angle of attack is still faster than flow bellow such a foil. Faster flow? Bernoulli! The misconception of "Lift is caused by Bernoulli" is hammered from so early on, that they have hard time overcoming it.

And I don't think it's the case of not being familiar with D'Alembert paradox (which, admittedly, I never knew by name). It just seems like the fact that there is no lift for same reason that there is no drag isn't as obvious as it maybe should be. But then again, they probably learn the concept long before they start thinking about lift in these terms, so that might be the reason for it. Still, I find it really funny that rather than just connecting and causing a "Doh!" moment, it causes more of a reset that I've mentioned.

And yeah, I've always been able to get through. Just never on the first try.

P.S., it should be noted that it's entirely fair to approximate lift via Bernoulli Principle at low mach numbers, since low viscosity and low compressibility approximations are fair, so the boundary layer is thin and pressure gradient across it is very small. Meaning pressure differential in flows a small distance away from the wing surface is a fair approximation for a pressure differential at the wing surface. But distinction is important to understand, as well as the fact that this breaks down at higher mach numbers, when compressibility of the flow becomes a significant factor.

Edited March 26, 2014 by K^2

[Seret]

The misconception of "Lift is caused by Bernoulli" is hammered from so early on, that they have hard time overcoming it.

That's true, it's routinely taught to aircrew. I think most of the engineering bods are well aware of angle of attack as you say, just looking at a picture of an aircraft flying inverted sorts that one:

Hell, old school water lifting wind turbines often use flat blades, and they seem to generate lift ok.

[NASAFanboy]

Maybe the simulation is just really really good.

I know most people think that the graphics are rather HD, but I'm near sighted so what do I know.

Is the supposition that we are "brains in a jar" or is it a "universe in a jar"?

Matrix, anyone?

You got my brain messed up now.

[nhnifong]

Perhaps there are other ways of simulating the physics of our universe on a digital computer. If it were somehow possible that the laws of our universe could be simulated exactly, and not just approximated, then if it were being simulated on a computer we would never know. Furthermore, that computer could be anything from a Game Boy to a Matrioshka brain, because the speed of the simulation in the host computer's universe is not related to any information in our own universe.

However, with quantum mechanics, it would seem that our universe cannot be exactly simulated.

[78stonewobble]

Matrix, anyone?

You got my brain messed up now.

Mostly 13th floor , but yeah matrix too...