/sci/ - Science & Math

fucking what

are you talking about the game?

i dont know the details of the story, but as i recall humans have very poor space travel technology, it was just because they encounter the reapers or collectors (dont remember which) they were accepted into the confederation.

So, yeah its possible if we make contact with the federation of planets that we might get supertechnology.

>>2422771
You are in correct effectively. I hope. Initially the creating of the Mass Effect technology (see my pun of effectively?) would be hard. My question is can we build

If you mean mass effect fields, I've enterained this idea for fun. We'd need to alter the mass of ships somehow, not with eezo or something but some other way, maybe involving antimatter/ some other thing I dont know about.

>>2422789
Oh okay. FTL signalling. Cool

no

People here evidently have not played mass effect.

The mass effect (Same name as the title of the game) is basically caused by an element, that when energized, creates a mass effect field, that either raises or lowers mass around it, even under the mass of light, allowing for FTL travel.

Communication is still sketchy, not sure how they got that working.

>>2422821
>>2422821

In ME2 the illusive man said quantum entanglement, maybe that could be an option?

Well if there was an awful lot of aliens at one compact location, the effect of their mass would be detectable, yes.

>>2422832
In the real world, you can't send useful information by quantum entanglement. At least, not as far as we know.

Now, to produce a mass effect, we would need some way of manipulating mass (duh). As far as I know, the only way possible now is energy, and that only raises mass.

My guess, is it would involve anti-particles of some kind, or perhaps a sub atomic particle. Hell, maybe even tachyons.

No. I read the wikipedia that describe mass effect sorta like electric eels, but with gravity. The difficulty with this is that electric charges are mostly neutral everywhere, so making local differences in charge and "current" is as simple as moving some ions around. Also, the electron (which is one of the few particles with charge) happens to be really easy to move around.
With gravity, gravitational "charge" is, in fact, mass. Differences in mass are present everywhere, making it near impossible to control (imagine if voltages were present at random EVERYWHERE). Also, nearly every particle has mass, making gravitational "current" present whenever nearly anything moves.
If something had sensory organs that could detect small changes in gravitational pull on the order of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times more sensitive than an electromagnetic-based detector that could ALSO sift through an ENORMOUS amount of background "noise," then yes, it could work, maybe.

>>2422839
>>2422839

It's only been widely tested for a few years, so it could be an option. But more realistically, maybe they used the mass effect to send signals maybe?

>>2422839
>Real world
>Talking about hypothetical FTL travel via mass effect
>hypothetical

>>2422856
It's said in ME2 that FTL communication is accomplished by quantum entanglement. Perhaps they have more than one method, though.

>>2422863
1. Quantum entanglement exists in the real world.
2. It cannot, at current, be used to transmit useful information faster than light.
3. This thread is (I think) about real-world applications for Mass Effect technologies.
4. I conclude by insulting your intelligence and implying that I raped your parents, siblings, and bank teller.

op i said no, stfu

video games are not real, they just mash words until it sounds sciency enough for you to digest while looking at blue pussy

>>2422849
i no right?!

>>2422872
I seem to recall that in ME1 an article about comms told you that short-range communication (some light-years) was done by QE, while longer-range was done by sending messages through massless space between relays.

>>2422896
How does "massless space" enable FTL anything? I never got that.

Since energy is always conserved, I posit that local mass could be decreased by diffusion. Perhaps like Michio Kaku explained how FTL travel is possibly by inducing a wave in spacetime.

So summing up, you don't reduce mass, you skew it.

Pic related

>>2422901
I think they got their terminology wrong there.

The way I figured it, eezo is exotic matter, meaning negative gravity, leading to a sort of negative-mass or negative-inertia tunnel through space.

And since the mass relays had so much eezo and energy available, this led to the smallest possible travelling speed to be near infinite.

Yeah, I know that was bullshit. But like people have pointed out, it's fiction. My explanation isn't trying to make it scientifically accurate, just internally consistent.

>>2422901
>>2422901
>>2422901

There's no mass, so your mass never increases

To travel at lightspeed under normal circumstances you need infinite energy because you have infinite mass

No mass, no atmosphere for friction = Pic

>>2422942
But that would only let you travel at c, not faster.

>>2422901
Because mass equals inertia. As you approach the speed of light an object of positive rest mass approaches infinite relativistic mass. And infinity is bad unless you're a philosopher. Photons can travel at the speed of light because they have zero rest mass. This demonstrates that lightspeed is unachievable for any object of positive rest mass. If you go to negative mass (Which I've heard is theoretically possible) the equation starts to turn. However, you would also travel backwards in time! Which is supposedly what antimatter does.

I guess then if we did achieve this, the result would be one hell of an explosion.

>>2422929

if, big word i know, speed was attained that allowed the 'speeder' to become infinite, then all you have to do is decide where you want to be when you slow down.

get it yet?

and all you need to be infinite is an unlimited source of power.

actually quite simple when looked at from the right angle.

>>2422965

What the fuck am I reading

>>2422969
The speed of light is actually this. As you know as mass increases, local time slows down. At lightspeed, time does not pass. Photons don't experience the passage of time, they're everywhere at once.

>>2423005
Wonder why the speed of light is absolute irrespective of observational reference?

Whenever you get somewhere, photons are already there, asking "what took you so long?".

>>2422821
The Higgs field is supposed to control the mass of certain particles. It would be a very short range effect, though, so the Higgs field itself won't help. There would be some theoretical kinks to work out, but altering the mass of matter with some sort of field isn't entirely out of the question.

On the other hand, making the mass imaginary so that things could travel faster than light wouldn't work. When you make the mass of a field imaginary, you don't get tachyon particles; you get an unstable vacuum.

>>2423188

>>you get an unstable vacuum

speculation based on a lack of evidence. not very scientific of you, /sci/...

>>2423014

>>Wonder why the speed of light is absolute irrespective of observational reference?

ahem... because of the observational reference...

>>2423220
That's not speculation; that's standard quantum field theory. The Higgs field (or whatever field is responsible for electroweak symmetry breaking) is unstable when the field value is zero. Something similar happens with the quark and gluon fields too, although it's not as well understood.

>>2422965
>I guess then if we did achieve this, the result would be one hell of an explosion
>>2423188
>When you make the mass of a field imaginary, you don't get tachyon particles; you get an unstable vacuum.

Oh shi

We better not use the Mass Effect, because then the Reapers will come and fuck our shit up

>>2423237

>>that's standard quantum field theory...

unfortunately, and as it well be pointed out in the not-too-distant-future, as a theory, quantum theory doesn't hold up.

and the key to that phrase, anyway, is theory.

I like the part where we've come all the way back around to 'dark matter' (the ether, from years gone by).

warms the cockles of my heart to hear you kids talking that way!

>>2423279
Yes, dark matter, the hypothetical medium in which light propagates.

>>2423279
Gonna throw this out there. Dark Matter could be an overlapping dimension.

Also, antimatter. How does it work?

>>2423288

nah... just trying to get the weight of the universe correct.

so far... fail.

FTL is impossible. Anyone who says otherwise is butthurt.

>>2423292

dark matter IS the non visible part of our universe (overlapping) - which brings up my next diatribe (don't any of you skeziks swipe it, either...)

like I can trust you fuckers.

>>2423305

This diagram was the way I used to think of the universe, with two of the spirals being “real” space (where we live) and “anti” space (just like where we live, but opposite) and one of the spirals being the force that kept the other two halves apart. The hole in the middle (as depicted) wasn’t meant to be an entity, but where all three spaces constantly folded/flowed back in upon themselves; much like a torus whose skin is constantly rolling around the cylindrical part, through the donut ‘hole’, and back out the other side. As the years have gone by I’ve modified my position to encompass the following diatribe and conclusions which makes the above picture completely inaccurate. At this time I believe that the diagram would be more like the Azn yin-yang symbol, with the “line” dividing the two halves being the opposing force that both attracts and repels the two “real” halves.

oh, and you really have to have some idea of what the universe looks like before you can go making theories about it... i know it sounds petty, it's just the way it is...

but wait! there's more...

>>2423292
Some fields can have positive-frequency and negative frequency waves in them. The excited energy states of the positive-frequency waves are "matter," and the excited energy states of the negative-frequency waves are "antimatter." One is just the other with the time direction reversed.

>>2423313

A key universal number is not three, even though three is incredibly important to the universal structure from the macro to the micro. The number three as I believed it's importance in our universe is actually "two plus their offset of one, or, as in a couple of “real defined spaces” paired together at the exact point where the third "piece of space" pushes them apart (the neutral, if you will). The pair with an offset of one makes the universal constant of three more like { 1<(.)>0 }where (.) equals the exact point of propulsion/repulsion and either 1< or >0 are the physical place in which we, humanity with all our associated planets and such, reside. It's best to keep in mind that (.) is in constant flux, (sometimes more, sometimes equal, sometimes less than it's original state) and (by it's nature) cannot remain a constant force against/with the other two 'entities' else the whole mess would collapse (and could possibly lead to the start of the next "big bang" boom!).

(the "neutral" would constantly be switching - THAT would provide the state of tension/repulsion necessary to keep the two 'real spaces' apart - and would account for energy - pretty much all non-static energy. constant tension and relax - lot of power there)

>>2423314

>>One is just the other with the time direction reversed.

wrong. time has nothing to do with universal function other than keeping the cycle in motion...

now for more...

>>2423318

would 'pro-space', 1<, and anti-space, >0 (the sum of the two spaces - 'almost' half of each other - but not to include the "neutral space" which isn't without force but contains BOTH forces and oscillates to resonate with preventing/creating collisions between the two apparent " real halves of space". One-half-of-space is where we reside and so it is apparent to us here on the "old home ball of dirt" as "all-that-exists" (even though it's becoming abundantly clear that the part of space we can see and reside in doesn't seem like quite enough stuff. The neutral is both forces and neither, always reversing or fulfilling the charge then repelling then releasing then needing fulfillment and being requited... except reversed again so as to oppose the two real spaces while remaining a separate and equal and opposite entity. The function of "separator", (.), leads me to conjecture that (.) is actually caused be a/the convergence of the two forces.

accounting for the occurrence of the importance of the number, or grouping, of three in what appears to us to be physical space. three plays an important role in the interactions of our space - seemingly because three is an integral part of what our space is made from. makes sense that the whole is usually the sum of the components.

this would make the interaction of our physical space appear to be the anti -

where we have "vacuum" (for want of another term) - in that portion (anti's real space) has mass - (it would have to be "anti-mass", naturally - as that's the only way to balance the charges - well, considering the neutral items (which can't be neutral after all else they'd slip out of this space or whatever space they're in as the whole thing has to remain fairly balanced).

picture marginally related - like a torus but not...

>>2423314

think of time as entropy and you can get rid of that "everything moves in this direction" notion...

>>2423313
Your fascination with spirals and donuts does not help us explain the world we live in.

>>2423331

picture the big bang occurring across three completely interwoven, yet completely distinct, universal portions. the portions are completely in balance (charge-wise) but are completely 'apart'. there are places in space where these three portions touch. there is usually a lot of noise associated with that on one side and an almost complete lack of noise on the other and the addition and subtraction of the noise (in perfectly balanced 'charges', of course) in the third portion.

which would make the (plus) and (minus) portions slightly less than equal (if considered solely 'up against each other' because of the third portion containing equal amounts of the other two (space and anti-space, as it were) and 'reversing' those two 'pieces' in 'swapped' order.

this would account for the missing weight of the universe also.

you must also keep in mind that the micro resembles the macro resembles the micro res... you get the picture. it's why the 'quantum way to think' cannot be true if it does not directly cause the next step up. we are a product of the particles that we created and the particles we make up.

simple as that.

>>2423340

does your post ask a question?

>>2423347
Yes. It's "why should I read your shit?"

>>2423340

besides, my 'fascination' as you put it doesn't really concern what i think as much as it portrays 'what is'.

big difference.

reality is sitting there, just waiting to be discovered. can you discover something that already exists?

did the indians get pissed at columbus?

probably...

>>2423350

no one has forced you to read shit. why don't you cruise on over to /tv/ and be amused by the sparkly and shiny that you find there.

it sounds more suitable to your ability (or lack thereof) to think...

Way I see it is time is related to an action og a sub atomic particle.
In the beginning time and space were very small indeed and overlapped each other, meaning a sub atomic particle could duplicate itself as instances of it through time appeared within the same space time .
Duplicate itself quickly enough to amass a giant super dense star until it exploded and sent time and space outwards creating a stable universe or something...

>>2423359
>besides, my 'fascination' as you put it doesn't really concern what i think as much as it portrays 'what is'.

Which you know how?

>>2423361
>it sounds more suitable to your ability (or lack thereof) to think...

This is coming from a guy who just posted large amounts of text about his non-quantitative physics theory. Obviously you haven't thought very deeply about how one would justify anything you are saying.

and here i gave you the key to infinite power.

how silly of me.

have a wonderful evening.

>>2423314
You have helped me a great deal. Your contribution shall not go unrewarded.
>MFW

>>2423337
Entropy does have a direction, which is time. Aren't these inseparable?

>>2423342
Explain how your ideas relate to our understanding of spacetime or I shall slap you silly.

>>2422760
I dont get it. If you know you're English is bad, then why don't you take a little extra time to spell it out right? I know you can.

>>2423364
I think your tenance ov the term "particle" may limit your understanding. Particles in general is a misleading term since it implies really really -really- tiny pebbles.

>>2423422
I'll use the term binarieon then

Well, what the hell is the basic unit of energy anyway?

Quanta? I tried to research (on wikipedia of all things), but I didn't get a satisfying explanation even though it's supposedly the very basis of quantum mechanics.

I don't even know what Mass Effect is. Die in fire degenerate faggot and never come back.

Prove that <span class="math"> \phi, \{h\}, \{t\}, and \{h, t\} [/spoiler] are the only subsets of the set <span class="math"> \omega = \{h, t\} . [/spoiler]

Prove that <span class="math"> \phi, \{h\}, \{t\}, [/spoiler] and <span class="math"> \{h, t\} [/spoiler] are the only subsets of the set <span class="math"> \omega = \{h, t\} . [/spoiler]