For Questions That Don't Merit Their Own Thread

[FleshJeb]

18 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

A new particle, which I have dubbed the myalon

I'll just point out that George Lucas ruined the entirety of Star Wars by introducing Midi-Chlorians as a concept. I remember watching Episode 1 in the theater and thinking, "I'm gonna slap the beard off this man."

If you're going to explore the Anthropic Principle, there may be more elegant ways to go about it.

[SunlitZelkova]

1 hour ago, FleshJeb said:

I'll just point out that George Lucas ruined the entirety of Star Wars by introducing Midi-Chlorians as a concept. I remember watching Episode 1 in the theater and thinking, "I'm gonna slap the beard off this man."

If you're going to explore the Anthropic Principle, there may be more elegant ways to go about it.

I actually had to go and look up the reasons why the midichlorians are despised, because I haven’t heard this very often.

So what I’ve found is it basically adds up to this- don’t explain the unexplained if you don’t have to.

Note that this discovery is intended to evolve into the advent of telepathy, telekinesis, levitation, teleportation, time travel (to some extent, limited by the Novikov principle) and interuniversal travel.

Would it be better to hand wave these things away by saying “somehow they are possible based on experimentation conducted throughout the 2100s”?

The point was not to provide an “aha!” explanation of something already happening, but to set the stage for future stories. I feel like that might be different from the midichlorians being introduced and wrecking the previous majesty of the Force.

[FleshJeb]

5 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

The point was not to provide an “aha!” explanation of something already happening, but to set the stage for future stories. I feel like that might be different from the midichlorians being introduced and wrecking the previous majesty of the Force.

You're absolutely right, and I recognized that as a flaw in my argument. Perhaps a better example would be Star Trek making up the "particle of the week", such as the oft-used tachyons: https://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/database/particles4.htm#t

It's considered somewhat lazy writing / technobabble, but having magical particles is perfectly fine as long as that matches your story tonally or thematically. Or you just have more important things to get to, and don't want to belabor the mechanics of them. The issue is that your readers might spot the OBVIOUS LITERARY DEVICE , and it could break  their immersion.

So, you might want to bury the magic in something more subtle. What if it's just a heretofore unknown attribute of particles and quantum mechanics, and doesn't require anything new?

I was doing a little reading, because I hate walking into a conversation unarmed, and found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann–Wigner_interpretation

It contains this fun bit of text:

Quote

It can be predicted using quantum mechanics, absent a collapse postulate, that an observer observing a quantum superposition will turn into a superposition of different observers seeing different things. The observer will have a wavefunction which describes all the possible outcomes. Still, in actual experience, an observer never senses a superposition, but always senses that one of the outcomes has occurred with certainty.

So which of the multiple observers governs which way it collapses? The most powerful psychic, of course. Who most strongly wants Schrodinger's Cat alive or dead?

If I remember the plot of The Stars My Destination correctly, the main character is able to unlock his teleporting ability by being desperately angry and afraid. As it happens, he's the most angry and afraid person in the solar system, so he's really good at it.

Just giving you food for thought. Have fun.

See also: Moving Mars, or Blood Music by Greg Bear

Edited October 23, 2023 by FleshJeb

[kerbiloid]

The Jedi ability express test: a swab for Midi-Chlorians.

[SunlitZelkova]

3 hours ago, FleshJeb said:

Just giving you food for thought. Have fun.

Thanks! And thanks for sharing that interpretation of QM, I wasn't aware of it.

[FleshJeb]

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

The Jedi ability express test: a swab for Midi-Chlorians.

Spoiler

 

[kerbiloid]

"Take it, and use the force, Luke. No pain, no gain."

[Terwin]

On 10/22/2023 at 6:25 PM, SunlitZelkova said:

Would it be better to hand wave these things away by saying “somehow they are possible based on experimentation conducted throughout the 2100s”?

The point was not to provide an “aha!” explanation of something already happening, but to set the stage for future stories. I feel like that might be different from the midichlorians being introduced and wrecking the previous majesty of the Force.

Anne McCaffrey used the excuse of a higher-sensitivity EEG that happened to record a characteristic signal from the use of a psionic ability(called talents) as the reason to allow practical in-depth exploration of psionics.  Having a way to prove 'something' is happening is plenty of excuse to allow such things to come out of the 'crack-pot fringe' for serious research.

For further research: https://www.amazon.com/Ride-Pegasus-Talents-Saga/dp/0345336038

[StrandedonEarth]

5 hours ago, Terwin said:

Anne McCaffrey used the excuse of a higher-sensitivity EEG that happened to record a characteristic signal from the use of a psionic ability(called talents) as the reason to allow practical in-depth exploration of psionics.  Having a way to prove 'something' is happening is plenty of excuse to allow such things to come out of the 'crack-pot fringe' for serious research.

For further research: https://www.amazon.com/Ride-Pegasus-Talents-Saga/dp/0345336038

I enjoyed Talent series as well as her Pern series.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, which is generally only produced with validated scientific evidence. Reproducible scientific results are essential to prove the existence of phenomena previously thought impossible, fantasy , or scams. 

[Jacke]

On 10/22/2023 at 3:29 AM, SunlitZelkova said:

John Bell once said interpretations of quantum mechanics were “like literary fiction”.

But I’m curious, if I was to create a fictional interpretation of quantum mechanics, would there be any guidelines I would need to follow? Or could I just make it up pretty much?

Quantum Mechanics is an incomplete Quantum Theory.  Because it is background dependent and doesn't include Gravity.  The space-time of Special Relativity is assumed as its background.  It requires a macroscopic non-quantum observer to see values as a result of the "quantum waveform collapse" to make any sense.

General Relativity is an example of a background independent theory (for at least what's included in the theory).  There is no assumed coordinate system.  Its components, masses and space-time, affect each other.  The distribution of masses determines the shape of space-time and the shape of space-time determines how masses move.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_independence

All the attempts to make a theory of Quantum Gravity lack something (in many cases, many somethings).

The best books to read to get a grip on this at a simple level have been written by Lee Smolin,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Reborn
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein's_Unfinished_Revolution

Now, for a fictional story, I think trying to make a fictional extension or replacement of Quantum Mechanics isn't the best idea.  Rather than express it as "willing suspension of belief", I phrase it as "willing extension of belief".  Depending on the genre, you get to extend what's believable and real in your story.

If you spend that effect on making a fictional version of Quantum Mechanics, you're using up story space for something that's window dressing.

Does an author care about the details of internal or external ballistics.  Not usually.  They just have a gun that shoots, if loaded and in working order.  The closest likely thing to those would be worrying about someone in the story who hand-loads their own ammo, especially if overloaded and the round bursts the breech.

That's what you should worry about.  Not the Quantum Mechanics, which will confuse some readers and irritate others.  But what do you want to do, story-wise.  I'd say try to avoid introducing new particles.  That's been the problem with many particle physicists since the last true correct advance, the Higg's Mechanism and its particle.  Far too many conjectured particles in the literature.

What do you want to happen in your story?  Express it in simple, inter-personal terms, because stories are about the interaction of people in their environment.

Closest thing to what you're intending is what the late Isaac Asimov did in his fantastic story, "The Billiard Ball".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Billiard_Ball

Note that Asimov had one of the characters create a machine that flattens space-time.  He talks about the real physics known surrounded such effects but doesn't spend much time trying to explain how the machine makes that happens, because that level of detail doesn't matter to the story.  He just uses existing physics to decide what a likely outcome of that would be.

Edited October 25, 2023 by Jacke

[SunlitZelkova]

28 minutes ago, Jacke said:

Quantum Mechanics is an incomplete Quantum Theory.  Because it is background dependent and doesn't include Gravity.  The space-time of Special Relativity is assumed as its background.  It requires a macroscopic non-quantum observer to see values as a result of the "quantum waveform collapse" to make any sense.

General Relativity is an example of a background independent theory (for at least what's included in the theory).  There is no assumed coordinate system.  Its components, masses and space-time, affect each other.  The distribution of masses determines the shape of space-time and the shape of space-time determines how masses move.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_independence

All the attempts to make a theory of Quantum Gravity lack something (in many cases, many somethings).

The best books to read to get a grip on this at a simple level have been written by Lee Smolin,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Reborn
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein's_Unfinished_Revolution

Now, for a fictional story, I think trying to make a fictional extension or replacement of Quantum Mechanics isn't the best idea.  Rather than express it as "willing suspension of belief", I phrase it as "willing extension of belief".  Depending on the genre, you get to extend what's believable and real in your story.

If you spend that effect on making a fictional version of Quantum Mechanics, you're using up story space for something that's window dressing.

Does an author care about the details of internal or external ballistics.  Not usually.  They just have a gun that shoots, if loaded and in working order.  The closest likely thing to those would be worrying about someone in the story who hand-loads their own ammo, especially if overloaded and the round bursts the breech.

That's what you should worry about.  Not the Quantum Mechanics, which will confuse some readers and irritate others.  But what do you want to do, story-wise.  I'd say try to avoid introducing new particles.  That's been the problem with many particle physicists since the last true correct advance, the Higg's Mechanism and its particle.  Far too many conjectured particles in the literature.

What do you want to happen in your story?  Express it in simple, inter-personal terms, because stories are about the interaction of people in their environment.

Closest thing to what you're intending is what the late Isaac Asimov did in his fantastic story, "The Billiard Ball".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Billiard_Ball

Note that Asimov had one of the characters create a machine that flattens space-time.  He talks about the real physics known surrounded such effects but doesn't spend much time trying to explain how the machine makes that happens, because that level of detail doesn't matter to the story.  He just uses existing physics to decide what a likely outcome of that would be.

Thanks! This is excellent advice.

I didn’t really understand what the problem with certain levels of stuff was, but now I see. I think I’m going to abandon the particle and try something else.

[SunlitZelkova]

Why didn’t anyone care about spaceflight in the 2000s?

I’ve been reading about why the Constellation program was cancelled, and it was summed up by an engineer who worked on Altair as “the President didn’t ask for the required money”.

Like, it’s not that we have evidence people opposed Constellation until 2010, it’s just that nobody even talked about it.

I’m asking this question because I’m trying to figure out if the Constellation program could have somehow succeeded.

[Spaceception]

19 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Why didn’t anyone care about spaceflight in the 2000s?

I’ve been reading about why the Constellation program was cancelled, and it was summed up by an engineer who worked on Altair as “the President didn’t ask for the required money”.

Like, it’s not that we have evidence people opposed Constellation until 2010, it’s just that nobody even talked about it.

I’m asking this question because I’m trying to figure out if the Constellation program could have somehow succeeded.

I think Constellation, as it stood, was probably always going to evolve into something like we see in Artemis today. Even Ares V was looking to switch over to RS-25s before it was cancelled. But it is an interesting question if it could've happened earlier

The Aerospace industry was pretty stagnant at the time. Next generation vehicles like Vulcan and Ariane 6 weren't being actively worked on, and evolved variants of existing vehicles were loosely tossed around but didn't get traction, while commercial spaceflight was in its infancy. Furthermore, NASA and the US were reeling from the Columbia tragedy, which did anything but endear the public to a brand new, and expensive program.

Constellation was also a slightly bigger Apollo (if with explicity more ambition in shooting for Mars), for a roughly equal total cost, and no ferver within the government or public to support spaceflight like during the space race. NASA rolling along with its usual funding, and eventual redirection to SLS/Orion, then into Artemis was working within this environment, and making use of what was available. So something would have to change to make this happen earlier.

Maybe certain politicians/NASA directors are elected/appointed over others who are able to provide more funding and direction. But there aren't really any space race revivals happening around this time. China was in the middle of maturing its space program, and Russia was still recovering its economy. So there would have to be something else to drive public and government support, and you might have to reach further back to create the knock on effects that change the early 2000s. Mars direct stirs up more support, successful Shuttle upgrades bring public interest back, Energia isn't cancelled and survives the USSR's collapse, leaving Russia with a SHLV, and has some inertia to work with, etc.

[AckSed]

They cared, but not enough to spend the staggering amounts of money needed. Elon Musk was weird enough and committed enough to plough money and time into a private rocket company when it was seen as a sure-fire way to lose your shirt. Given the previous track record of the 7 or 8 companies that went bankrupt, they were not wrong, and Musk did almost lose his shirt.

My most likely (but still not that likely) bet for a brighter aerospace 2000s: Kistler Aerospace finding an angel investor to pull their behind out of the fire when Iridium went under, and hitching their wagon to NASA, enough to make the K-1 as promised. There would be trouble ahead with the use of the NK-33, but given they planned for full reuse it might have worked.

[FleshJeb]

On 10/24/2023 at 11:26 PM, SunlitZelkova said:

Why didn’t anyone care about spaceflight in the 2000s?

If I had to go back to the root causes? Well, let me relay that in as politically neutral and factual a manner as I can muster:

Some very ugly events happened in 2001, and the U.S. got busy invading at least one country that had absolutely nothing to do with it. Several trillion dollars and approximately a million innocent lives were wasted as a result.

Then some comically stupid and greedy bankers caused a recession that just barely avoided turning into a second Great Depression, burning up even more trillions of dollars.

Now imagine that was written with 50% of the words not making it past the forum filter and my NSA/FBI file becoming actionable.

[kerbiloid]

On 10/25/2023 at 9:26 AM, SunlitZelkova said:

I’ve been reading about why the Constellation program was cancelled, and it was summed up by an engineer who worked on Altair as “the President didn’t ask for the required money”.

He has been ordered to stop by the Greater Good.

Btw, there were also strange unrelated events a year before 2001 and a couple of years later.

Edited October 27, 2023 by kerbiloid

[DDE]

35 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Btw, there were also strange unrelated events a year before 2001 and a couple of years later.

Eh, don't forget the Asian-Russian financial crisis and the Dotcom bubble. Basically, I get the feeling the politico-financial planning window has been shrinking relative even to what it was at the time of Vietnam.

[darthgently]

8 hours ago, FleshJeb said:

Then some comically stupid and greedy bankers caused a recession that just barely avoided turning into a second Great Depression, burning up even more trillions of dollars

State guarantees of mortgage loans no sane banker would otherwise have made could be seen as a root cause also

[DDE]

31 minutes ago, darthgently said:

State guarantees of mortgage loans no sane banker would otherwise have made could be seen as a root cause also

"MY profits, OUR losses"

Free market capitalism my a... Why does everything that has to do with subsidized housing (and state guarantees are a stealth subsidy) always turns into such a quagmire?

[darthgently]

6 hours ago, DDE said:

"MY profits, OUR losses"

And so we find the difference between free market capitalism and "crapitalism"

[kerbiloid]

They call it "capitalism" when they allow you to share a tiny part of their money and call it "yours".

 

[DDE]

Are older rocket engines with development costs already amortized still more expensive than new engines? Assuming we stick to the same propellant pair, perhaps.

(Arising from an off-site discussion how everyone except SpaceX is too obsessed with saving costs and time by using legacy tech... which doesn't seem to work)

[magnemoe]

10 hours ago, DDE said:

Are older rocket engines with development costs already amortized still more expensive than new engines? Assuming we stick to the same propellant pair, perhaps.

(Arising from an off-site discussion how everyone except SpaceX is too obsessed with saving costs and time by using legacy tech... which doesn't seem to work)

I say lots of older engines had an single focus on performance and reliability, cost was not an factor. Saturn 5 to the space shuttle is the trope here. 
Modern engines are designed and simulated on computers and modern manufacturing as in CNC and 3d printing help cut cost. But scale is also critical. You need an launch frequency before reuse start to make sense. 
This also let you refine the engine, look how aircraft engines and car engines has evolved because its an arm race for better engines. 
And aircraft has extremely strict reliability requirements. For an car its mostly annoying, but if engine fails they will not buy the brand again even if their fault. 

Edited October 28, 2023 by magnemoe

[StrandedonEarth]

2 hours ago, magnemoe said:

For an car its mostly annoying, but if engine fails they will not buy the brand again

Like ford and their plastic water pump impeller, breaks, overheats, and warps the heads. Or the plastic oil pump piece that toasts the engine when it breaks…

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

On 10/25/2023 at 2:26 AM, SunlitZelkova said:

Why didn’t anyone care about spaceflight in the 2000s?

You actually have to go back to the end of the Soviet Union and the Clinton administration.  Not that I'm blaming either; but America quit looking outward about that time and started navel gazing.  Domestic affairs became the focus of politics.  Yes, that changed with 9/11, but then we decided to go on adventures in the Middle East - and spent the staggering amounts of money in that endeavor and not space (which had already declined).

Buying cheap rockets from Russia solved two problems; it was a way to send money to Russia without annoying the old Cold War hawks, as well as trying to keep rocket tech from proliferating.

Edited November 10, 2023 by JoeSchmuckatelli