tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post1445787374436575543..comments2024-03-18T13:11:39.192-07:00Comments on Rocketpunk Manifesto: FTL Part I: An Honest Cheat?Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comBlogger321125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-32509389135998479512012-03-02T19:36:29.322-08:002012-03-02T19:36:29.322-08:00I should really make a more intelligent response t...I should really make a more intelligent response than 'my head is exploding.' But ... my head is exploding.<br /><br />Having said that, the broader question of immersive sims is of theological interest - think of Tolkien's remark on fiction writing as 'sub-creation.'Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-64307735915917533312012-02-28T10:22:40.938-08:002012-02-28T10:22:40.938-08:00(continued)
The catch in the first ep is that th...(continued) <br /><br />The catch in the first ep is that the simulation is based entirely on events from his own memory: to break the sim, he simply has to go someplace he'd never gone before. (That's a basic programming error - a lot of games these days that aren't nearly so immersive have ways around it - but in this case, the ones who set up the sim are not exactly hostile, so it's a little justifiable.) <br /><br />In the second ep, the simulation is intentionally unrealistic, created by hostiles. Because it's unrealistic, there's no real way to "break out": something that would break known laws might be allowed to occur, or it might be modified, or it might just reset the sim. (Crichton escapes only through the help of a virtual character, one who's inside the sim but also aware of its true nature and how it's being run on the outside.)<br /><br />I think those eps reveal some of the challenges with setting up a sandbox. In the first case, given restrictions that I think readers would follow (although I'm highly biased in this respect, being a programmer, so I might be overlaying my own expectations on my view of the "average" reader), it only makes sense to have an "easy" way out, or any way out at all, if the sandbox is run by non-hostiles. (If they're hostile and monitoring the sandbox, why wouldn't they just reset it any time you get close to escaping?) In that case, the purpose of the sandbox is likely more for inspection and evaluation than for discovery, although it can serve for both. (In this case, the non-hostiles were looking for a new planet on which they could coexist and were wondering how well Earth would work.)<br /><br />In the second case, with hostiles running the sandbox, it's really hard to get your character out without a large can of handwavium. If there's a reasonable exit, then how competent are the bad guys if they can steal your clone and trap it but can't contain it? (Like how Lex Luthor is a criminal mastermind who keeps going to the same temp agency to hire assistants.) If there's no reasonable exit, someone on the outside has to help the clone, and if they can manage that, a) why did they let the clone get caught in the first place and b) why didn't they use that power earlier to discover what the clone knows themselves? (Particularly relevant in Farscape. Ironically, that situation is about Crichton's knowledge - or lack thereof - of wormhole travel.)<br /><br />I'm sure there are ways you can work the latter case to make it plausible-in-your-universe, but I think it's difficult.zlionsfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02966540737106797756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-76692789355578858242012-02-28T10:22:11.594-08:002012-02-28T10:22:11.594-08:00Re clones, existence and theft of: Farscape touche...Re clones, existence and theft of: Farscape touched on these topics at different points in the series. At the end of one episode, Crichton is cloned ... but we don't see exactly how it happens, so there's no way for the viewer to tell which one is the original and which is the clone. Of course both believe themselves to be the original, and are treated as such going forward. <br /><br />In the next episode, the cast and thus the Crichtons are split up: now that they have considerably different experiences, from their perspective, they become substantially different: however, from the reference of outside observers, even knowing there are two of them, the difference is not so obvious ... it's almost like they become identical twins with the same name in that they're different once you know what to look for, but it's easy to forget if you're not careful. (One Crichton is killed off; it takes a bit for some of the other characters to match their experiences with the correct Crichton - assuming he was present when such-and-such happened when really it was the now-dead one who was there.)<br /><br />Eventually the thread is pretty much forgotten, probably for convenience as much as anything else, but it does make you wonder what the long-term effects of limited cloning would be. Would you remember that zlionsfan-beta was not the "original"? Would it matter, if he were the only survivor?<br /><br />In two other episodes, Crichton finds himself in a situation very close to what jollyreaper describes, although it is he and not a (possible) clone who is involved. (This happens before the cloning ep.) In both cases, he has to figure out that he's in a simulation and also determine how to escape it ...zlionsfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02966540737106797756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-5306063992746615402011-04-23T11:36:40.787-07:002011-04-23T11:36:40.787-07:00I think that most here would agree that unless the...I think that most here would agree that unless the details (or a detail) of the inner workings of your FTL drive is central to the story, just show the effects...kinda like a stew; spices in the background, meat and potatoes in the foreground.<br /><br />FerrellAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-6647634776940592602011-04-23T10:01:17.156-07:002011-04-23T10:01:17.156-07:00Undoubtedly so. But given that even non-violating ...Undoubtedly so. But given that even non-violating FTL is purely speculative, the practical question - as I mentioned in the Space Warfare XV thread - is how visible it is to the story.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-56010822371567641722011-04-22T22:52:06.863-07:002011-04-22T22:52:06.863-07:00Thinking about the two extremes of FTL (expecially...Thinking about the two extremes of FTL (expecially in fiction), you either have a big gray box with a 'here we are' display, a 'we want to go there' input, and a big red button; the 'Warp-o-matic', or you have a massive tangle of gizmos that require the engineers to explain how it works, constantly, for it to work properly.<br /><br />If (or when) we come up with a real life method of FTL, it will most likely not involve time-travel, casuality violation, will involve a whole set of rules/laws/theories unique to the proccess, and a plethera of thechnical headaches...<br /><br />FerrellAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-57236598875353172122011-03-18T14:58:45.059-07:002011-03-18T14:58:45.059-07:00But how'd we go from FTL to Ayn Rand?
Luke e...<i>But how'd we go from FTL to Ayn Rand?<br /></i><br /><br />Luke explained this mathematically upthread, but it is really due to entering the wrong frame of reference while avoiding a CTC.<br /><br />;)Thucydideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09828932214842106266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-91659878695347507212011-03-18T14:26:38.681-07:002011-03-18T14:26:38.681-07:00Rand's ideal man didn't show up in Atlas S...Rand's ideal man didn't show up in Atlas Shrugged, he only shows up in her diaries because she had not gotten around to writing about him.<br /><br />paraphrasing, because I can't find the reference right now: 'A great man, that is, one unencumbered by the weight of society's expectations...'<br /><br />The man she was writing about was in the newspapers of the day for being a kidnapper, murderer, and rapist. Ick.<br /><br />But how'd we go from FTL to Ayn Rand?<br /><br />=====<br />@Milo and Byron: Cool, this means that you can mathematically determine the minimum separation of two FTL portals based on their time-dilations. A useful thing to have for a writer!Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08876828579688122237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-35303796209556336622011-03-18T12:40:30.478-07:002011-03-18T12:40:30.478-07:00My main comment on Ayn Rand is that the book of he...My main comment on Ayn Rand is that the book of hers I read must have been <i>The Fountainhead,</i> not <i>Atlas Shrugged.</i> <br /><br />Because if I had read a book involving railroads and trains I'd probably remember it just for that, but whatever Rand book I did read made essentially no impression on me.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-30001155989174148492011-03-17T21:09:53.712-07:002011-03-17T21:09:53.712-07:00My Rand objections mainly come from her ideas bein...My Rand objections mainly come from her ideas being developed in isolation from human compassion and reality. She writes novels in which she can construct "take thats!" against supposed real world analogues that are really just strawman fantasy constructs. <br /><br />Her ideas work only so long as they're kept in isolation from the real world. When put into practice, they yield sociopathic results.jollyreaperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05673007647719726846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-26682230596099067732011-03-17T20:54:32.244-07:002011-03-17T20:54:32.244-07:00From the literary side, Rand seems to be telling p...From the literary side, Rand seems to be telling people to look deeper into first principles and the origin of things. Truckers on strike are an inconvenience, but Rand's point is without the people who conceptualized and invented trucks (and all the associated infrastructure), there would be no truckers in the first place!<br /> <br />The passage about the trucker who works in Ellis Wyatt’s shale oil rig hints that she is well aware that not everyone is on the same level as John Galt (and there are other supporting characters who are also hard workers but not intellectual giants ), but since this <i>is</i> a story, the drama comes not from the thousands of people who go Galt towards the end of the book but the first few people who lead the way. ("I will stop the motor of the world!")<br /><br />As for why Galt's Gulch exists, it is a literary device for the purposes of the story. (in the world outside, people are chained to their jobs by an "Equalization Board"). It would be more difficult to explain the concept of "internal emigration" in a dramatic fashion (the old Soviet era trope where people pretend to work and never get mentally or emotionally engaged in order to get by. To really understand this mentality you don't need Rand, rather you need <i>Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn</i>)<br /><br />As a BTW, politically I am a small l libertarian, which my friends in both the Objectivist "Freedom Party" and the "Canadian Conservative Party" find annoying...Thucydideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09828932214842106266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-70316922260320311302011-03-17T09:02:44.110-07:002011-03-17T09:02:44.110-07:00Thucydides:
"I would dispute the idea Rand’s...Thucydides:<br /><br /><i>"I would dispute the idea Rand’s ideal man is a “psychopathic sociopath”, her intent is to celebrate creative individuals working at their capacity and able to freely interact with others.<br /><br />There is a passage where Dagny is being introduced to the strikers in Galt’s Gulch. After meeting scientists, industrialists and artists she is brought to Ellis Wyatt’s shale oil rig and asks one worker:<br /><br />'What were you outside? A professor of comparative philology I suppose?'<br /><br />'No ma’am, I was a truck driver. But that’s not what I wanted to remain'"</i><br /><br />The big fly in the soup is that one doesn't need Galt's Gulch to realize one's aspirations. Not even when Rand was writing <i>Atlas Shrugged</i>. My mother's father, for example, grew up in truck and cow farming rurla SOuthern Missouri. He went to work in the 1930s as a hard rock miner. By the late 1940s, after serving as a SeaBee in WWII, he was a tunnel digging supervisor on a major power project in British Columbia. After that he supervised on mine tunnels in Wyoming and Colorado, dams in Bangladesh and Afghanistan, the Pali tunnel on Oahu, and the Eisenhower Tunnel on I-70 in Colorado. Everywhere he went after about 1960 he was a trouble shooter that fixed jobs other men couldn't do.<br /><br />On the basis of that description, one would think he was very much a self-made Randian man. But he was hardly John Galt. He never had more than an eigth grade education, he was a union Democrat (even after he became a job superintendant), and he would rather play cribbage or poker than talk philosophy with you.<br /><br />He wasn't dumb by any means, but he was a practical man that didn't GAS about book learning. What his tunnelers knew from digging the rock, and what he knew from similar experience, meant more to him than any engineering analysis. He drove tunnels with determination and experience that other men had failed to drive by the book with Gantt charts. And those were the jobs he hated the most, because men died in the messes he was called in to clean up. <br /><br />And Rand simply never got that. For all of the high ideals and intellectual heat that men like Ford and Eddison brought to the table, the actual people who got things done were very often rought men, up through the ranks, that would consider the big name men's best day in the shop or at the bench a light day's work.<br /><br />All of which is not to sing the praises of the working class hero. It's just to recognize that great men start great things, but it's the men who know the work and how to get it done that finish them.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-72511631677819355362011-03-16T22:25:22.178-07:002011-03-16T22:25:22.178-07:00I would dispute the idea Rand’s ideal man is a “ps...I would dispute the idea Rand’s ideal man is a “psychopathic sociopath”, her intent is to celebrate creative individuals working at their capacity and able to freely interact with others.<br /><br />There is a passage where Dagny is being introduced to the strikers in Galt’s Gulch. After meeting scientists, industrialists and artists she is brought to Ellis Wyatt’s shale oil rig and asks one worker:<br /><br />“What were you outside? A professor of comparative philology I suppose?”<br /><br />“No ma’am, I was a truck driver. But that’s not what I wanted to remain”<br /><br />From a literary POV, Atlas Shrugged is a dense polemic, and like most polemics pushes ideas to extremes. Add a peculiar writing style and passages like the one above really do stand out. (I am re reading Atlas Shrugged in anticipation of the movie. A Philosophical “Lord of the Rings” is a pretty cool idea, and I am interested to see if they can pull it off)Thucydideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09828932214842106266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-84494498240421297522011-03-16T15:37:27.609-07:002011-03-16T15:37:27.609-07:00mithril:
basically, i'm wondering if you can ...mithril:<br /><br /><i>basically, i'm wondering if you can open ends in two different places using actions occuring in only one ends referance frame.</i><br /><br />Almost certainly not, but this is fiction so lets ignore this and just focus on what the consequences would be if known physics still holds.<br /><br /><i>so for example, you open one end on earth, and (reletively) the same time, the other end opens at alpha centauri as a reaction to the action on earth.</i><br /><br />In relativity there is no such thing as "the same time". What is the same time to one observer can involve one thing happening before the other to another observer - in either order, depending on positioning and relative velocity.<br /><br />If the other end opens in the same frame of reference as the machine used to open the wormhole, then your causality problem becomes much worse. It becomes trivial to create a time machine by opening a wormhole from earth, going through, closing the wormhole, changing your velocity, and then opening a wormhole back to earth. Examples of this, with worked out numbers even, were posted by myself and Milo in the comment section to Rick's blog post immediately subsequent to this one - you can read those to see how easy it is to use FTL in arbitrary reference frames to go back in time to change the past.Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09617890536562434320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-41341207945426997762011-03-16T15:15:34.841-07:002011-03-16T15:15:34.841-07:00basically, i'm wondering if you can open ends ...basically, i'm wondering if you can open ends in two different places using actions occuring in only one ends referance frame.<br /><br />so for example, you open one end on earth, and (reletively) the same time, the other end opens at alpha centauri as a reaction to the action on earth.<br /><br />or could it be possible to "prime" an end at one or the other place, using a slowboat ship to bring a wormhole-generator-thingy to the destination, then power up but not create an actual wormhole. then send a message back for earth to do the same, then create the link between the two?<br /><br />as long as you don't have one end undergoing more than normal reletivity effects (normal in this case being as a result of stellar and orbital motion), you should be able to side step the issue if time travel. even if you do have continuity issues, they'd presumably be far smaller than the years/centuries of the "conventioanl" approach..mithrilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03088999203605302318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-7385333019711472422011-03-16T15:06:16.198-07:002011-03-16T15:06:16.198-07:00mithril:
here is my question. is there anything i...mithril:<br /><br /><i>here is my question. is there anything in wormhole physics that would REQUIRE the two ends to be generated at the same point in space? in other words, do you have to make the two ends at earth then move one? is it possible to open on at earth and one at the destination at the same time?</i><br /><br />The same time in which reference frame? This gets to the problem again of choosing your reference frame to allow time travel.Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09617890536562434320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-60815221686284124702011-03-16T15:03:34.043-07:002011-03-16T15:03:34.043-07:00Scott:
"Let me clarify a statement here: If ...Scott:<br /><br /><i>"Let me clarify a statement here: If you have enough STL transit time between FTL startpoints, might *that* be enough to keep the Causality Police from reducing you to your constituent atoms?"</i><br /><br />Sort of, yes.<br /><br />More accurately, <i>any</i> FTL, even one which does not actually cause a causality violation, would appear to do what you say (travel back in time, but to somewhere too far away to care about in STL) from some frame of reference.<br /><br />It is more useful, however, to measure things from the frame of reference where this does not happen.Milonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-46344145585338102442011-03-16T14:44:55.981-07:002011-03-16T14:44:55.981-07:00if i understand the issue correctly, the main prob...if i understand the issue correctly, the main problem comes from the "dragging" one end into place, since the reletivistic effects of the trip combined with the nature of the wormhole end up with time effectively moving at different rates at each end, allowing time travel. and that if you have a "round trip" option that doesn't re-use the same wormhole, you result in potential paradoxes.<br /><br />here is my question. is there anything in wormhole physics that would REQUIRE the two ends to be generated at the same point in space? in other words, do you have to make the two ends at earth then move one? is it possible to open on at earth and one at the destination at the same time?<br /><br />if you can open the two ends in the desired locations at the same time (ideally through one set of actions), you side step the time travel issue since the rate time is moving at each end is effectively the same. then you could make a true network of wormholes and not have to worry about time travel issues.mithrilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03088999203605302318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-65153410173924106862011-03-16T14:02:27.135-07:002011-03-16T14:02:27.135-07:00If your FTL points are far enough apart that light...If your FTL points are far enough apart that light can't arrive back at the origin before it left, then you don't have a CTC. If I have a wormhole at earth, and another one at the Earth-Sun L3 that I can loop to and arrive 10 minutes before I left, I don't have a CTC because any message will get to me a minimum of 6 minutes late.Byronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07778896782683765138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-68213558819589606412011-03-16T13:55:21.024-07:002011-03-16T13:55:21.024-07:00Let me clarify a statement here: If you have enou...Let me clarify a statement here: If you have enough <b>STL</b> transit time between FTL startpoints, might *that* be enough to keep the Causality Police from reducing you to your constituent atoms?<br /><br />This way, even though the FTL portions of your journey would apparently cause a CTC, the realspace travel times would prevent you from actually arriving before you left... If I've done the time-distance equations right.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08876828579688122237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-52752833250490634452011-03-16T13:16:16.034-07:002011-03-16T13:16:16.034-07:00Actually, I should ammend the above statement. It...Actually, I should ammend the above statement. It's not closing the wormhole, it's making it impossible to transit. The really good part is that the it's easy for you to go out. If you want, the other end has pretty much the starting mass of both ends. That might not matter much if it's supermassive, and your entire fleet is 1%. However, if the wormhole is small, then it could be a big deal.Byronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07778896782683765138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-7367144713735312642011-03-16T13:09:43.280-07:002011-03-16T13:09:43.280-07:00You leave enough mass in to get home. Drain the w...You leave enough mass in to get home. Drain the wormhole to minimum+your fleet's mass, then come back. The point is that you can close a wormhole from the other side.Byronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07778896782683765138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-88109126161066083362011-03-16T13:05:26.936-07:002011-03-16T13:05:26.936-07:00Tony:
"Ummm...how do you get home?"
Fi...Tony:<br /><br /><i>"Ummm...how do you get home?"</i><br /><br />Fire a comm laser back through, telling the minder on your side to shove the asteroids back through.<br /><br />"Come home with your shield, or on it."Raymondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18103471451043461302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-72779296179735107162011-03-16T13:00:54.224-07:002011-03-16T13:00:54.224-07:00Byron:
"Static wormholes could lead to inter...Byron:<br /><br /><i>"Static wormholes could lead to interesting military tactics. When the war starts, pile through to the opponet's side, and drag a bunch of asteroids through to drain your side low enough to make it impossible to launch a fleet through."</i><br /><br />Ummm...how do <i>you</i> get home?Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-45651583202916280152011-03-16T12:52:01.500-07:002011-03-16T12:52:01.500-07:00On expansion speed:
If we throw the wormhole mouth...On expansion speed:<br />If we throw the wormhole mouthes out at .999 c, then the apparent expansion rate for someone on Earth will be about 22 c (if I did the math right). At .99 c it will be around 7 c. If we can get the wormhole to the sort of speed particle have in the LHC (0.999999991 c), then it will be about 7450 c. <br />These ignore colony time and slowing the mouth down, but should give some idea of expansion speeds.<br /><br />On contact:<br />I can see problems with this being fairly extensive. While I believe that being at the same tech level is fairly plausible, there are large chances for wormhole disasters. Take the following:<br />Humans and Andromedans meet in System A, with t=0. The humans are from System B, with t=-4. The Andromedans are from System C, with t=-3. The Humans are also in System D, t=-1. The Andromedans are sending a wormhole from C to D, and it will be at 0 as well. There is no malice, just different species.<br /><br />I would immagine that if you desired, it would be easy to make a technobabble time machine detector. "Quantum fluctuations increasing, sir. We have indications of a CTC forming." or "This is my timey-wimey detector. It goes ding when there's stuff."<br />And I just destroyed my reputation as a hard sci-fi fan.<br /><br />Static wormholes could lead to interesting military tactics. When the war starts, pile through to the opponet's side, and drag a bunch of asteroids through to drain your side low enough to make it impossible to launch a fleet through.Byronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07778896782683765138noreply@blogger.com