NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's a lsit I've compiled of tech levels in NS, seeing as there is some debate in another thread about what is acceptable in certain tech levels:


Ancient Tech
Breaks into 3 sub groups. Medical knowledge is limited, and weaponry is meek.


-Stone Age Tech: Consisting of rocks and clubs, with the occasional spear.
-Medieval Tech: Catapults, knights in armor, swords, shield, etc.
-Post Medieval Tech: Basically 1700's tech, with muskets, cannons, cavalry, etc.


Fantasy Tech

Consists of wizards, dragons, magic, etc.


Modern Tech
Breaks into 3 sub groups. Medical technology is way better. Limbs can be reattached and lives are easier to save. Weaponry is more precision.

-Pre Modern Tech: WW1 era weapons. Semi automatic/some full auto weapons (Maxim gun).
-Modern Day Tech: Abrams tanks, M16A2's, cruise missiles, etc.
-Post Modern Tech: More advanced modern day weapons, but operate under the same priciples. Bullets are still used, as well as bombs. Basically, just suped up modern day tech.


Future Tech
Breaks into 4 sub groups. Medical technology is superb, and such things as limb regeneration are available. Weaponry is way more refined, advanced, and precise.

-Beginning Future Tech: Some space craft, mostly exploring vessels, no hardcore battlecruisers. Bullets may still be used. Flying cars may even be around.
-Mid Future Tech: "Starship Troopers" tech level. Bullets and bombs may still be used, along with other more advanced weaponry.
-Advanced Future Tech: Space fighters are common place, and "light speed" is another frill on space cruisers.
-Planetary Utopia: A nation that has advanced to the upper levels of technology and is considered better than 1st world. While the technology would seemingly point to having a space fleet, these nation have none, instead concentrating on improving the standard of living of their people. If a fleet is present it is usually not FTL capable and is not large


Nano-Tech
Nano Tech stands alone, as it is the highest tech bracket. FTL drives, space armadas, and other almost incomprehensible "toys" are in existance.



Did I miss anything?

Does anyone RP at the Nanotech or Stone Age level? I've never seen it.

Yes you missed one.

In Future Tech there is one after Advanced.

-Planetary Utopia: A nation that has advanced to the upper levels of technology and is considered better than 1st world. While the technology would seemingly point to having a space fleet, these nation have none, instead concentrating on improving the standard of living of their people. If a fleet is present it is usually not FTL capable and is not large.

Nanotech is only the begining. Hylonanotech, Piconanotech, Picotech, Femtotech, and Hypofemtotech. Basically, technology based off of smaller and smaller quantum processors, eventually achieving perfect technology at a "godtech" level. At this point, miracles, magic, and technology are all completely indistinguishable, and EVERYTHING is possible.*
*
Of course, I do not think that anyone has progressed begond Picotech, at least not Angelus, Menelmacar, or the Triumvirate Nations

Nanotech is only the begining. Hylonanotech, Piconanotech, Picotech, Femtotech, and Hypofemtotech.

Those would be sub categories of Nano-tech.

Has anyone here ever played Traveller?

That game had a very good breakdown of tech levels. Let me dig through my gaming crap and see if I can find it.

you forget Fantasy

I think I've also seen ancient Greece.
I think anything with fleets of spaceships should be in another category - Godmode Tech.
Nanotechnology is is a modern thing.

Those would be sub categories of Nano-tech.I would beg to differ, as Femtotech requires a complete dissimilation of all nanotech knowledge. It progresses beyond the First Singularity, and processes are completely not understandable by baseline umans. Even geneticly superior superbrights and cybotech organics would have a hard time grasping the concepts behind Femtotech as doing so would require thought on a complete post-Singularity level.*
*
However, as was stated before, Femotech does not exist within the NS universe, and will never exist because it would be ignored, regardless of the RP base behind it.

Those would be sub categories of Nano-tech.I would beg to differ, as Femtotech requires a complete dissimilation of all nanotech knowledge. It progresses beyond the First Singularity, and processes are completely not understandable by baseline umans. Even geneticly superior superbrights and cybotech organics would have a hard time grasping the concepts behind Femtotech as doing so would require thought on a complete post-Singularity level.*
*
However, as was stated before, Femotech does not exist within the NS universe, and will never exist because it would be ignored, regardless of the RP base behind it.

Well, for people that aren't as into sci-fi as you, I guess they could be classified under Nano for simplicities sake. I didn't know half of that uber shit existed.

Traveller lists 18 Tech levels (0 being the lowest), broken down by category (Personal weapons, armor, computers, communication, fuel sources, and transportation).

Tech Level 5 (from Traveller) would be roughly equivalent to WWI technology.

By this scale, the real world is currently hovering between tech level 7 and 8. Fusion power, man-portable energy weapons, and gravitics start to appear at Tech level 9. Starships appear around 10, matter transport around 16, and anti-matter drives and artificial intelligence at 17.

Well, for people that aren't as into sci-fi as you, I guess they could be classified under Nano for simplicities sake. I didn't know half of that uber shit existed.*
*
For simplicity's sake then. And not all of it is "SciFi", but merely the result of hardcore mathematical/physical/metaphysical theorists putting their collective heads together and trying to predict the future of technology as we know it.
*
There are a lot of incredible theories based off of mathematical and physics research that cannot be put into functionality simply because mecahnical engineering has not caught up with it yet.*
*
extra-Singularity studies have GOT to be out of this world...

By this scale, the real world is currently hovering between tech level 7 and 8. Fusion power, man-portable energy weapons, and gravitics start to appear at Tech level 9. Starships appear around 10, matter transport around 16, and anti-matter drives and artificial intelligence at 17.

What is level 18? Hyperspatial distortion? Dimensional travelling? hypersentient AI?

There's also "Such ridiculously advanced technology as to be absolutely pointless to RP with since one can just wank any conceivable problem away."

Freebodnik (pick one, any one) would be an example.

~Siri

By this scale, the real world is currently hovering between tech level 7 and 8. Fusion power, man-portable energy weapons, and gravitics start to appear at Tech level 9. Starships appear around 10, matter transport around 16, and anti-matter drives and artificial intelligence at 17.

What is level 18? Hyperspatial distortion? Dimensional travelling? hypersentient AI?

Start at 0 and count to 17. Counting zero, there are 18 tech levels.

Ah. I was not including zero in my numbering. *sighs softly and shrugs*

Did I miss anything?

Stone Age - People live in caves, and are hunter gatherers
Copper Age - People live in huts and are early farmers
Bronze Age - People have bronze weapons and armor - eg. Ancient Greeks
Iron Age - People have mastered the use of iron - eg. Vikings, Romans
Feudal Age(1100-1300) - The time of knights and castles
Renassance(1300-1500) - The time when gunpowder came to use
Imperial Age(1500-1700) - The time of muskets and cannons
Steam Age(1700-1900) - The time of the industrial revolution
WWI Age(1900-1925) - The time when electricity and telephones first came to use
WWII Age(1925-1950) - The time when cars, lorries and other veicles took over form horses and carts
Modern Age(1950-2000) - The time when computers and information technology came to use
Digital Age(2000-2100)
Nano Age(2100 2200)
Space Age(2200-?)

The above are just a summary of the main changes which mark the technological epochs.

The ideas above came from the game Empire Earth

Powered battle armor appears at Tech level 13 in the Traveller scale

There's also "Such ridiculously advanced technology as to be absolutely pointless to RP with since one can just wank any conceivable problem away."
Freebodnik (pick one, any one) would be an example.

~Siri

You can also add nano soft who is playing with millions of invincible robots without asking anybody if they aggree with future tehcs and then stops RPing when he meets some problems...

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=85382

Has any nation hit the Time Travel barrier yet? What are the NS rules on that? (Obviously not in an RP, to keep things anywhere near sane, but what about story driven stuff?)

By this scale, the real world is currently hovering between tech level 7 and 8. Fusion power, man-portable energy weapons, and gravitics start to appear at Tech level 9. Starships appear around 10, matter transport around 16, and anti-matter drives and artificial intelligence at 17.

What is level 18? Hyperspatial distortion? Dimensional travelling? hypersentient AI?

Hmm, yes but does spaceship mean FTL cabable??

Has any nation hit the Time Travel barrier yet? What are the NS rules on that? (Obviously not in an RP, to keep things anywhere near sane, but what about story driven stuff?)

I think it's generally agreed that time travel is a godmod.

Just imagine hundreds of n00bZ screwing with ancient history....*trails off to "Back to the Future"*...

Steel Butterfly was doing something with time/space distortion, but generally time travel, at least backwards, is near-universally ignored. Physical and temporal laws pretty much forbid the actual step back in time, as the resulting temporal paradox would pretty much rip everything apart.*
*
Go back in time, shoot yourself, and watch the universe collapse in on itself in an eternal temporal loop. Paradox, the only fundamental law that can never be changed.

Steel Butterfly was doing something with time/space distortion, but generally time travel, at least backwards, is near-universally ignored. Physical and temporal laws pretty much forbid the actual step back in time, as the resulting temporal paradox would pretty much rip everything apart.*
*
Go back in time, shoot yourself, and watch the universe collapse in on itself in an eternal temporal loop. Paradox, the only fundamental law that can never be changed.

If some one did go back in time, well, see Steel's latest thread where some one REALLY screws up time. Muliple univerces are created. And imagine this, in one, Menelmacar got conquered by the Dominion...

scarry, the Dominion actualy won something.

Steel Butterfly was doing something with time/space distortion, but generally time travel, at least backwards, is near-universally ignored. Physical and temporal laws pretty much forbid the actual step back in time, as the resulting temporal paradox would pretty much rip everything apart.*
*
Go back in time, shoot yourself, and watch the universe collapse in on itself in an eternal temporal loop. Paradox, the only fundamental law that can never be changed.

If some one did go back in time, well, see Steel's latest thread where some one REALLY screws up time. Muliple univerces are created. And imagine this, in one, Menelmacar got conquered by the Dominion...

scarry, the Dominion actualy won something.

By this scale, the real world is currently hovering between tech level 7 and 8. Fusion power, man-portable energy weapons, and gravitics start to appear at Tech level 9. Starships appear around 10, matter transport around 16, and anti-matter drives and artificial intelligence at 17.

Hmm, yes but does spaceship mean FTL cabable??

I assume that it would be somewhere between 10 and 16, as matter transmission is using a modified form of FTL. You know, the event horizon between energy and matter? Light existing as the razored edge between them by existing as both a wave and a particle...

Has anyone here ever played Traveller?

That game had a very good breakdown of tech levels. Let me dig through my gaming crap and see if I can find it.

Traveller rocks. Actually, there is a defined TL 18 (somewhere although that may or may not be from the true, original Traveller). Based entirely on quarks (the building blocks of existence, at least as we currently know them) and the bonds between them. A la Ewok Pride's gluon disruptors :p By definition, the smallest possible - er - 'stuff' there is, and the manipulation of it.

I know, I was just wondering. (Shooting grandfather before your father was conceived is the classic paradox.) I was thinking more along dimensional travel lines though, time/space hop (not your own, but into another at a fixed point which progresses forward at a fixed rate to all others, if you know what I mean).

*Shudders in fear at thought of n00bs with time l00ps*

Nanotech is only the begining. Hylonanotech, Piconanotech, Picotech, Femtotech, and Hypofemtotech. Basically, technology based off of smaller and smaller quantum processors, eventually achieving perfect technology at a "godtech" level. At this point, miracles, magic, and technology are all completely indistinguishable, and EVERYTHING is possible.*
*
Of course, I do not think that anyone has progressed begond Picotech, at least not Angelus, Menelmacar, or the Triumvirate Nations

Hyalonano Age(2200-2400)
Piconano Age(2400-2800)
Pico Age(2800-3600)
Femto Age(3600-5200)
Hyperfemto Age(5200-?)

My predicted times for such ages to occur are summarised above. As you can see, as the human mind is limited, technology is also limited, and so the time between the ages will increase exponentally.

Steel Butterfly was doing something with time/space distortion, but generally time travel, at least backwards, is near-universally ignored. Physical and temporal laws pretty much forbid the actual step back in time, as the resulting temporal paradox would pretty much rip everything apart.*
*
Go back in time, shoot yourself, and watch the universe collapse in on itself in an eternal temporal loop. Paradox, the only fundamental law that can never be changed.

I've been reading up on this, and apparently the paradox doesn't actually occur, for a variety of reasons. One of the most interesting reasons would be that since apparently quantums react to things in the future as well as in the past; there is thus the potential for a paradox, but it doesn't occur. There is also an argument involving quantum entaglement that indcates paradox wouldn't occur; as well as the 'mulitverse' argument.

According to all physical theories, including relativity, there is nothing that seems to prevent time travel. It's a very interesting subject, and one which I really don't understand at all, unfortuantely.

If some one did go back in time, well, see Steel's latest thread where some one REALLY screws up time. Muliple univerces are created. And imagine this, in one, Menelmacar got conquered by the Dominion...

scarry, the Dominion actualy won something.

The hyperspacial distortions that spread from that thread are too unpredictable and unstable for it to provide interesting roleplay without iron fisting your way through all physical and temporal laws.

Basically, it would represent a single event setting off a cascading series of events ending with the ultimate distruction of the multiverse, as REALITY tried vainly to put things back in order...

I wont touch that thread with a ten-foot pole.

Nanotech is only the begining. Hylonanotech, Piconanotech, Picotech, Femtotech, and Hypofemtotech. Basically, technology based off of smaller and smaller quantum processors, eventually achieving perfect technology at a "godtech" level. At this point, miracles, magic, and technology are all completely indistinguishable, and EVERYTHING is possible.*
*
Of course, I do not think that anyone has progressed begond Picotech, at least not Angelus, Menelmacar, or the Triumvirate Nations

Hyalonano Age(2200-2400)
Piconano Age(2400-2800)
Pico Age(2800-3600)
Femto Age(3600-5200)
Hyperfemto Age(5200-?)

My predicted times for such ages to occur are summarised above. As you can see, as the human mind is limited, technology is also limited, and so the time between the ages will increase exponentally.

What a bizarre hypothesis.

History (http://www.cds.caltech.edu/~shane/text/humanhistory.html) shows quite the reverse. As society increases in size, information production increases exponentially. We've made more scientific breakthroughs in the 20th century the rest of history put together.

If some one did go back in time, well, see Steel's latest thread where some one REALLY screws up time. Muliple univerces are created. And imagine this, in one, Menelmacar got conquered by the Dominion...

scarry, the Dominion actualy won something.

The hyperspacial distortions that spread from that thread are too unpredictable and unstable for it to provide interesting roleplay without iron fisting your way through all physical and temporal laws.

Basically, it would represent a single event setting off a cascading series of events ending with the ultimate distruction of the multiverse, as REALITY tried vainly to put things back in order...

I wont touch that thread with a ten-foot pole.

Unless reality doesn't care and paradox is impossible, which I think may be more true.

Steel Butterfly was doing something with time/space distortion, but generally time travel, at least backwards, is near-universally ignored. Physical and temporal laws pretty much forbid the actual step back in time, as the resulting temporal paradox would pretty much rip everything apart.*
*
Go back in time, shoot yourself, and watch the universe collapse in on itself in an eternal temporal loop. Paradox, the only fundamental law that can never be changed.

I've been reading up on this, and apparently the paradox doesn't actually occur, for a variety of reasons. One of the most interesting reasons would be that since apparently quantums react to things in the future as well as in the past; there is thus the potential for a paradox, but it doesn't occur. There is also an argument involving quantum entaglement that indcates paradox wouldn't occur; as well as the 'mulitverse' argument.

According to all physical theories, including relativity, there is nothing that seems to prevent time travel. It's a very interesting subject, and one which I really don't understand at all, unfortuantely.

read Stephen Hawking "The Universe in a Nutshel". I think the general agreement among theoretical physicists is that time travel is generally impossible, and in those few instances where you could do it it wouldn't be predictable or useful.

Unless of course by time travel you mean sleeping. Or being knocked unconscious (or diapause), in which case i think we can all agree that those are possible.

Steel Butterfly was doing something with time/space distortion, but generally time travel, at least backwards, is near-universally ignored. Physical and temporal laws pretty much forbid the actual step back in time, as the resulting temporal paradox would pretty much rip everything apart.*
*
Go back in time, shoot yourself, and watch the universe collapse in on itself in an eternal temporal loop. Paradox, the only fundamental law that can never be changed.

I've been reading up on this, and apparently the paradox doesn't actually occur, for a variety of reasons. One of the most interesting reasons would be that since apparently quantums react to things in the future as well as in the past; there is thus the potential for a paradox, but it doesn't occur. There is also an argument involving quantum entaglement that indcates paradox wouldn't occur; as well as the 'mulitverse' argument.

According to all physical theories, including relativity, there is nothing that seems to prevent time travel. It's a very interesting subject, and one which I really don't understand at all, unfortuantely.

read Stephen Hawking "The Universe in a Nutshel". I think the general agreement among theoretical physicists is that time travel is generally impossible, and in those few instances where you could do it it wouldn't be predictable or useful.

Unless of course by time travel you mean sleeping. Or being knocked unconscious (or diapause), in which case i think we can all agree that those are possible.

I've been reading up on this, and apparently the paradox doesn't actually occur, for a variety of reasons. One of the most interesting reasons would be that since apparently quantums react to things in the future as well as in the past; there is thus the potential for a paradox, but it doesn't occur. There is also an argument involving quantum entaglement that indcates paradox wouldn't occur; as well as the 'mulitverse' argument.

According to all physical theories, including relativity, there is nothing that seems to prevent time travel. It's a very interesting subject, and one which I really don't understand at all, unfortuantely.

Here we see represented two sides of the same arguement, something which has been argued for years. Basically, neither side can be proven, as time travel is not (yet?) possible. The side of the arguement you are referring to is the split-particle quantum theory where two particles move exactly the same, no matter where in space they are located. Thus, the quantum stream does not apply to time.

However, this only represents instantaneous middle ground, not historical time travel.

All in all, we could both be wrong, both correct, or one of us correct... It really does not matter, for there is no way to prove either arguement.

Damn so I won't live to see any of that nano stuff :(

read Stephen Hawking "The Universe in a Nutshel". I think the general agreement among theoretical physicists is that time travel is generally impossible, and in those few instances where you could do it it wouldn't be predictable or useful.*

Now THERE is a book that is worth reading... Sometimes it can be VERY hard to understand, other times it is like reading a children's book. Very informative, very well thought-out.

Stephen Hawking is god.

Damn so I won't live to see any of that nano stuff :(

Nanotech will be here in 20yrs, to some degree. Trust me on this. We are accelerating, and once the quantum computer debuts, we will leap forward again. Nanotech is ALREADY being worked on, and should be all over the civilian world in about 30 or less years. But don't expect the Builder Swarms yet...

Nanotech will be here in 20yrs, to some degree. Trust me on this. We are accelerating, and once the quantum computer debuts, we will leap forward again. Nanotech is ALREADY being worked on, and should be all over the civilian world in about 30 or less years. But don't expect the Builder Swarms yet...*
*
Nanotech is already here, to some degree, but not to the level where we can create nanite swarms, or hyperadvanced nanobots capable of celluar reconstruction... However, microprocessors are already verging on the nanotech level, and I am sure there are projects in the works that will go even smaller.

Nanotech will be here in 20yrs, to some degree. Trust me on this. We are accelerating, and once the quantum computer debuts, we will leap forward again. Nanotech is ALREADY being worked on, and should be all over the civilian world in about 30 or less years. But don't expect the Builder Swarms yet...*
*
Nanotech is already here, to some degree, but not to the level where we can create nanite swarms, or hyperadvanced nanobots capable of celluar reconstruction... However, microprocessors are already verging on the nanotech level, and I am sure there are projects in the works that will go even smaller.

Exactly, but I was talking about visible nanotech use (like medicine and engineering and military weapons). This will be the premier field of the 21st century and what I hope to get my degree in.

Atto Age(5200-8400)
Zepto Age(8400-14800)
Yocto Age(14800-?)

Nano tech has one boundry, precision of equipment control. That has proven to be problematic. We may have to actually create the first real self correcting AI's before we can do it.

Nano tech has one boundry, precision of equipment control. That has proven to be problematic. We may have to actually create the first real self correcting AI's before we can do it. *
*
*is obviously all about AIs*
*
The thing with self-correcting AIs is that we have NO IDEA where that could take them...

Angelus, your full of BS.

FTL is, by definition, time travel. It includes all the traditional temporal paradoxes in its use...at least mathematically in the real world (obviously not in NS).

An event horizon has absolutely nothing to do with wave-particle duality. It has to do with the mathematical boundry around a black hole inside of which all space-time is bent inwards (all directions lead in)...the point where light can not escape.

Wave-particle duality does not exist "on a razor's edge". It has to do with quantum theory, energy packets. Basicaly, these "packets" show properties of both waves and particles at the same time. There is no definitive edge.

And a ton of other mistakes.

Angelus, I am not a physicist, but I can plainly tell that you lack even high school level physics.

I suggest you get away from Star Trek and either read some "hard sci-fi" or better yet, some books on modern physics meant for us average blokes (like Hawking's books). Until then, quit passing yourself around as knowledgeable about modern and potential future physics and engineering, because those "metaphysicists" you mention always get it wrong.

Wow, thank you Wazzu! You are always good for making someone feel good. *rolls her eyes**
*
What the hell is your problem? So I am wrong, it happens, everyone is wrong all the damn time. There is no reason for you to flamebait in this thread about it. Berate me elsewhere if you like, but doing so here is completely inappropriate. State I am wrong, state your reasons for why I am wrong, and we'll have a discussion about it.
*
Adding personal insult to a discussion thread will get your point nowhere.

lame delayed double post of lameness

*TAG*

Angelus, your full of BS.

FTL is, by definition, time travel. It includes all the traditional temporal paradoxes in its use...at least mathematically in the real world (obviously not in NS).

An event horizon has absolutely nothing to do with wave-particle duality. It has to do with the mathematical boundry around a black hole inside of which all space-time is bent inwards (all directions lead in)...the point where light can not escape.

Wave-particle duality does not exist "on a razor's edge". It has to do with quantum theory, energy packets. Basicaly, these "packets" show properties of both waves and particles at the same time. There is no definitive edge.

And a ton of other mistakes.

Angelus, I am not a physicist, but I can plainly tell that you lack even high school level physics.

I suggest you get away from Star Trek and either read some "hard sci-fi" or better yet, some books on modern physics meant for us average blokes (like Hawking's books). Until then, quit passing yourself around as knowledgeable about modern and potential future physics and engineering, because those "metaphysicists" you mention always get it wrong.

First, you must have had a better physics program than my highschool.

However, we get into an intresting notion if FTL is 'time' travel or not. The problem is that my understanding of space-time physics is a bit shaky. If an object transported itself from a point 100 Lt years away (B) from it's starting point (A) faster than the speed of light, or say arrives 5 years later. Although the point A is 95 years earlier than you saw at (A). Now then relativity says that if you traveld at the speed of light there is a time dilation effect (such that two people would see a diffrent amount of time), but what is that effect beyound the light barrier? And if you turned around and returned to point A would 10 years have passed or 200?

Damn so I won't live to see any of that nano stuff :(

Nanotech will be here in 20yrs, to some degree. Trust me on this. We are accelerating, and once the quantum computer debuts, we will leap forward again. Nanotech is ALREADY being worked on, and should be all over the civilian world in about 30 or less years. But don't expect the Builder Swarms yet...

Ha ha. ha. ha ha ha.

Did you just say quantum computer?

(1) Nanotech does currently exist, but only to a very limited degree, only in experimental settings, and doesnt really do much yet.

(2) Quantum computing is a pipe dream, and if it is possible, it will be at least 50 years, if not 200 years, before we manage to make it work. Bio-computing is more likely (HD and RAM use DNA/RNA for data storage). Actually, bio-processors are also possible, and i think this is where the next jump in higher computing will be (because base 4 would allow many more computations per gate than base 2), but will probably have little impact on desktop computing. And bio-computing is at least 20 years away.

(3) While i'm at it - nanotech is not extendable to smaller scales. Nanotech works by constructing chemical molecules that function as small machines in combination with other chemical molecules. The features of organic chemical molecules that this depends on to not extend to smaller scales. Below the chemical scale would be the atomic scale, and atoms are tightly regulated by bonding rules, orbital positions, and charge. There is simply not enough flexibility to create machines where the individual bits are atoms. (We know all the stable atoms that exist, take a look at a periodic table and notice that all the stuff at the bottom decays). Scales lower than the atomic become even more constrained and less flexible. Ie, the chemical scale represents the smallest scale at which units are flexible enough in shape and properties to be made into functional machines.

(4) From an energy standpoint, even if we were to assume that we could continue to make smaller and smaller machines, the energy required to make each individual machine would get prohibitively expensive. We can't even detect gravitons because they are so small that it we can't focus enough energy to bounce off one, and you name enough scales of size that we'd be beyond gravitons.

I leave it as an open challenge for someone to explain a realistic way in which smaller than nanotech would work. I expect full technical detail for you to consider the point proved... and if for some reason i can't understand it (unlikely), i know plenty of theoretical physicists who can.

<snip>

I leave it as an open challenge for someone to explain a realistic way in which smaller than nanotech would work. I expect full technical detail for you to consider the point proved... and if for some reason i can't understand it (unlikely), i know plenty of theoretical physicists who can.

/cheer.

Although this link will send you blind (http://uk.arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0304/0304112.pdf). It's pretty recent, as yet unchallenged (mm well there's always Thompson's (http://uk.arxiv.org/format/quant-ph/9903066) argument, but she's just a bit biased.

First, you must have had a better physics program than my highschool.

However, we get into an intresting notion if FTL is 'time' travel or not. The problem is that my understanding of space-time physics is a bit shaky. If an object transported itself from a point 100 Lt years away (B) from it's starting point (A) faster than the speed of light, or say arrives 5 years later. Although the point A is 95 years earlier than you saw at (A). Now then relativity says that if you traveld at the speed of light there is a time dilation effect (such that two people would see a diffrent amount of time), but what is that effect beyound the light barrier? And if you turned around and returned to point A would 10 years have passed or 200?

As you approach the speed of light, time passes slower for you, true. It is also true that your mass increases (with an asymptote at c on the velocity axis), and your length decreases (with an asymptote at c), as your speed increases.

Should you actually reach the speed of light, you would have length = 0 and mass = infinity. Both of these are bad.

Assuming you somehow managed to accelerate past c, your mass would become imaginary, and i believe your length becomes negative and imaginary (though i don't recall on length in particular). I have no idea what this would mean, but it is likely bad. Time also slows down, and stops at c (and reverses at speeds > c), but that is irrelevant for the future discussion.

Consequences: (1) you can never accelerate to c because it would take infinite energy, and thus cannot be generated within the universe. Ie, the needed energy to accelerate from some velocity v1 is a function of your mass (how much stuff you have to move) and v1 (the faster you are going, the more energy you need to expend to increase your speed, regardless of mass). The fact that mass is increasing at an approx. exponential rate means you would need exponentially more fuel for each increment of speed. (Think of an increment, dv/dt, the change of velocity in some incredibly small length of time). The mass of fuel you would need alone to exceed 1/30c is prohibitive, much less get anywhere near c. Then, since accelerating to c means accelerating infinite mass, you would need infinite energy, which you can't possibly generate. So there is no travelling at c, much less past c.
(2) It has been hypothesized that enough hydrogen is floating around in space that you wouldn't need to carry fuel, you'd just pull H2 in through intakes and use it as fuel. Given any generous estimate of the density of H2 in free space, this increases the fraction of c that may be achievable to 1/8c at best. (Been there, calculated that, turned in the physics homework).
(3) It is not possible to accelerate past some velocity v without going through v. Thus, one cannot jump past c.

Therefore: FTL is timetravel, and is impossible for reasons of energy requirements.

(3) It is not possible to accelerate past some velocity v without going through v. Thus, one cannot jump past c.

Therefore: FTL is timetravel, and is impossible for reasons of energy requirements.

That's through simple acceleration. What about theories such as the Alcubierre warp - that use prophesied 'loopholes' in relativity?

If you want to get really technical, we stepped into the nanotech age six months ago with the introduction of the new Pentium 4 0.09 micron processers. It's kind of funny how we had computers by WWII but nobody recognized that we were in the digital age until practically everybody had PCs and laptops, the same thing is happening here with nanotech.

We're inbetween postmodern tech and beginning future tech. No FTL drive, three sublight explorers, primitive beam weapons, plasma bombs, etc.

I'm at nano-tech level and proud of it! If you don't like my toys, don't play with me!

Angelus, everyone makes mistakes, not everyone poses as an expert. You deserve to be flamed for it.

------

I have no problem with people using unrealistic technology in NS, as long as they keep to a couple rules.

1: Use it to enhance roleplay rather then to win wars. The effects of lasers on a battlefield as far as a common soldier is concerned are interesting. 5 billion lasers of umpteen megawatts that never miss is boring.

2: If you don't understand the physics behind it, don't pretend to. Just say "it works." Saying "I have a jumpgate" is OK...it can even make for some interesting strategic situations (the jumpgate being a strategically valuable resource/target). Saying "This jumpgate uses nano-poly-dissemblers to turn matter into a quantum state, thus transporting it lightyears in only seconds" is technobabble worthy of the worst ST Voyager episode. So if you don't understand it, just say "it works."

What would lightsabers be classified as, if they are mass-produced instead of handmade by a psychic? (doesn't have to be a Jedi, IMO, it can be any good psychic that can concentrate hard enough to build one; still would take a couple weeks for an apprentice, though.) I'd say at least 2200+ tech, if not higher.

Wave-particle duality does not exist "on a razor's edge". It has to do with quantum theory, energy packets. Basicaly, these "packets" show properties of both waves and particles at the same time. There is no definitive edge.

So does that mean that light is an energy packet?

On the issue of time travel, there are two instances where I'll accept it (and, in fact, I plan to make use of it myself).

1. Travel to the future, either via cryocrastination, or realtivistic effects.

2. Travel to the past that obeys the Novikov Consistency Principle. To dumb this down obscenely, Hawking says that exponentially increasing quantum fluctuation would destroy the mechanisms of any paradoxical loops before the paradox even occured. In other words, if you try to use a set of wormholes or Krasnikov tunnels to alter the past, say good bye to your wormholes. However, an internally consistent loop should be entirely possible. Example- A ball travels through a wormhole, and, as it comes out the other end into the past, knocks its past self into the wormhole, which goes through and knocks its past self into the wormhole....

So, you have three options with a backward time travel RP: You can either send someone back as an observer who has absolutely no influence on the outcome of events, and therefore can't screw with himself, you can send someone back to change minor details that in no way affect the time traveler or his associates, or you can place inexplicable events early on, and then have your time traveler go back and cause them later, all of which are internally consistent loops.

But would you say that the FTL flight system you use is time travel?

But would you say that the FTL flight system you use is time travel?

Mine? Nah. With the exception of Krasnikov Tunnels. Alcubierre-Broeck Waprs eliminate the troubles of relativity, thus no time travel. 'Cept for the perfectly normal process of moving forward as usual.

People, no one on this thread is wrong, even less are right.
Before you go around dumping on other peoples minds please take the following into consideration:
-Can you demonstrate?
If the answer is no, then what you are saying is not science. before you argue, remember that this is posted by the guy that thinks Einstien is an idiot, and all science is rubish.

True, I use a creative concept developed by a fiction author, not a scientist why?

I like the limitations and responsiblites that it forces on my characters and their technology. Makes life for the people of L.O.W not so utopian...

(3) It is not possible to accelerate past some velocity v without going through v. Thus, one cannot jump past c.

Therefore: FTL is timetravel, and is impossible for reasons of energy requirements.

That's through simple acceleration. What about theories such as the Alcubierre warp - that use prophesied 'loopholes' in relativity?

Would you like to point me at a real physicist who has seriously made such a claim? The only 'real' method of macro time-travel i've heard of involves two cosmic strings moving past each other. The fact that cosmic strings may or may not exist, have never been observed, and have only been postulated because 'this particular mathematical description predicts them', cast doubt on its applicability. Especially since, given everything is moving away from each other (big bang), even if they do exist they would never pass each other.

So how would you pass c without accelerating?

<snip>

I leave it as an open challenge for someone to explain a realistic way in which smaller than nanotech would work. I expect full technical detail for you to consider the point proved... and if for some reason i can't understand it (unlikely), i know plenty of theoretical physicists who can.

/cheer.

Although this link will send you blind (http://uk.arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0304/0304112.pdf). It's pretty recent, as yet unchallenged (mm well there's always Thompson's (http://uk.arxiv.org/format/quant-ph/9903066) argument, but she's just a bit biased.

Quantum computing and nanotech are different. What i want was warrant for the assumption that one can make physical machines smaller than molecules, not that quantum computing is theoretically possible. The challenge is entirely unrelated to quantum computing.

My beef with quantum computing is that the engineering capability does not currently exist to create it, nor have any hypothetical designs been proposed that i am aware of. Certainly not any that are close to feasible. Quantum computing remains entirely theoretical (though this article was good at hashing out some of the theory).

If you want to get really technical, we stepped into the nanotech age six months ago with the introduction of the new Pentium 4 0.09 micron processers. It's kind of funny how we had computers by WWII but nobody recognized that we were in the digital age until practically everybody had PCs and laptops, the same thing is happening here with nanotech.

Nanotech is not just small. Nanotechnology involves molecules-as-machines. There is some fascinating research being done on it right now (chemistry), people on this thread should check that out. There is nothing extraordinary about making that processor other than the state of production techniques... its the same thing they've been doing before, just smaller. When nanotech becomes viable for applications, it will change a lot of things, not just incrementally increase the speed of your computer.

what about futuristic fantasy. like a plasma cannon with a bound demon in it :D

what about futuristic fantasy. like a plasma cannon with a bound demon in it :D

Actually yeah, i'm ok with all the stuff I've been criticizing, so long as you admit its magic rather than pretending its science. Fantasy Sci-fi is a fine genre in my book, i mean, it gave us StarWars. And you can't hold magic to rules. =)

Would you like to point me at a real physicist who has seriously made such a claim?

Certainly. Miguel Alcubierre, as well as Broeck, Novikov, and Krasnikov.

Wave-particle duality does not exist "on a razor's edge". It has to do with quantum theory, energy packets. Basicaly, these "packets" show properties of both waves and particles at the same time. There is no definitive edge.

So does that mean that light is an energy packet?

Yes. Think about it for a moment.

Quantum...quanta...counting.

According to quantum theory, all energy, including light, is quantized. It comes in energy packets. These packets exibit the properties of both waves and particles...though it really is impossible to think of them as both at once (because we did not evolve at that scale...we can't feel the difference in tiny bits of light or heat on our skin. It is too small. Our bodies can't detect it, so our brains did not evolve to understand it).

Example: With light.

Have you ever seen a laser shine through a small hole? It makes a pattern on the opposite wall. Diffraction is explained by wave interference (much like throwing two stones in the water and seeing where the waves cross...a pattern). This can not be explained in particle theory, only through wave theory.

But photovoltaics (solar cells) can only be described using particle theory. I won't get into this because I don't remember enough of it...but feel free to look it up if your that interested.

So light (like other types of energy) is quantized, it comes in packets that can be described either as particles (photons) or waves (electro-magnetic waves)...it exibits properties of both.

Make any sense? If so, your off to a good start...but thats the easy stuff. It really gets confusing later on.

Oh, and by the way, particles like electrons, protons, neutrons, and even full atoms and molecules also exibit properties of both waves and particles. It is just that the hotter or more massive an object gets, the shorter its wavelength gets...to the point where we can no longer detect its wave nature.


EDIT: A note on quantum computing. In the last couple of years, we have figured out how to do simple addition in quantum computing. Since then, we may have figured out subtraction (the article I read said researchers were close). I would say that quantum computing will be a reality. The problem is that it requires you keep the "processor" very very cold (we are talking about such things as laser cooling...and other methods). That means that the first quantum computers may be quite large (sorry folks, your freezer just can't get it cold enough).

According to quantum theory, all energy, including light, is quantized.

Oo! You've reminded me of something! I read an article just last week about someone who thought they had finally figured out how magnetism is quantized (magnetic monopoles). I'll have to try to find the link.

[whizzes past in piston-engined low-wing monoplane fighter]

A note on quantum computing. In the last couple of years, we have figured out how to do simple addition in quantum computing. Since then, we may have figured out subtraction (the article I read said researchers were close). I would say that quantum computing will be a reality. The problem is that it requires you keep the "processor" very very cold (we are talking about such things as laser cooling...and other methods). That means that the first quantum computers may be quite large (sorry folks, your freezer just can't get it cold enough).

They have the Condensate needed to lay the atomic lines, too. And to show the power of Quantum computing: base 32 as compared to base 2. Think about it.

Very off topic: Wazzu, you are a person I could really get allong with.

From a person who understands string theory... and likes to learn about it.

[quote=Angelus]Hmm, yes but does spaceship mean FTL cabable??

I believe I said Starship, not spaceship. In the game, that's a profound difference. Starships are FTL spaceships.

Wow, I think all this quantum physics stuff is so interesting, but I'd never in a million years understand 1/10th of it (even if the theories didn't change in a milion years). I know some of the theories, but I'd be damned if I knew how they worked.

Oh well, I guess I'll stick with economics.

Very off topic: Wazzu, you are a person I could really get allong with.

From a person who understands string theory... and likes to learn about it.

Hear hear.

Wazzu has officially been added to my dossier

1. Prehistoric Age
2. Stone Age People live in caves, and are hunter gatherers
3. Copper Age People live in huts and are early farmers
4. Bronze Age People have bronze weapons and armour - eg. Ancient Greeks
5. Iron Age People have mastered the use of iron - eg. Vikings, Romans
6. Feudal Age(1100-1300) The time of knights and castles
7. Renaissance(1300-1500) The time when gunpowder came to use
8. Imperial Age(1500-1700) The time of muskets and cannons
9. Steam Age(1700-1900) The time of the industrial revolution
10. WWI Age(1900-1925) The time when electricity and telephones first came to use
11. WWII Age(1925-1950) The time when cars, lorries and other vehicles took over from horses and carts
12. Modern Age(1950-2000) The time when computers and information technology came to use
13. Digital Age(2000-2100) The time of the first use of artificial intelligence(cybers), and genetic engineering
14. Nano Age(2100-2200) The time of nanomachines, which could build anything from anything
15. Hyalonano Age(2200-2400) By manipulating space-time, it is now possible to teleport very long distances in very short times, hence spaceships could go to other planets in the solar system
16. Piconano Age(2400-2800) Now being able to work at even smaller scales, and so manipulating individual protons and neutrons, teleportation was extended so that it was possible to travel to solar systems of other stars
17. Pico Age(2800-3600) At the pico scale, individual quarks could be manipulated, hence the invention of galactic hyperspace, which meant that it was possible to travel to different galaxies
18. Femto Age(3600-5200) Getting to an even smaller scale, not only it was now possible to travel to the edge of the universe, but it was also possible to make detectors, which could be connected to atoms at the edge of the universe. This allowed for the age and future of the universe to be accurately measured
19. Atto Age(5200-8400)
20. Zepto Age(8400-15000)
21. Yocto Age(15000-28000)
22. Harpo Age(28000-53000)
23. Groucho Age(53000-105000)
24. Zeppo Age(105000-210000)
25. Gummo Age(210000-412000)
26. Chico Age(412000-?)

If you are still interested in all the futuristic technological epochs, then here is my summary of them.

Nano means 10 e-9
Pico means 10 e-12
Femto means 10 e-15
Atto means 10 e-18
and so on

As you can see, at each epoch, technology has enabled people to work at smaller scales.

But bear in mind, that because the human mind is limited, technological advancement is also limited, and so the time between epochs increases.

I think that fantasy era's have gotten a little summarised in the classifications here. There are all sorts of different fantasy paradigms out there, but the three main ones tend to be Low Fantasy, High Fantasy and MagiTech...

Low Fantasy: Magic is there, but it tends to be rare and more backgroundy. A few wizards in the world are mysterios and feared people. The dark lord strikes the heroes by sending out armies of orcs.

High Fantasy: Magic is two a penny... everybody knows at least one adventurer and the dark lord turns up to lob fireballs at people, before teleporting away. "My lord, I regret to tell you that your wife has been killed!" "Damnit! Do you know how expensive ressurections are these days?"

MagiTech: Both magic and technology exist... sometimes the former is used to power the latter, other times they conflict and compete.

There are obviously degrees between the extremes, expecially in high fantasy: not every world is Greyhawk. :)

There are also a few plug-in fantasy elements for other era's of technology just to make a paradigm more interesting. If done to a very minor extent, they really don't interfere with the tech level of the nation... done strongly, you tend to be a fantasy nation with tech stuff.

@Races -> My nation are elves/orcs/walrusses/penguins/aliens.
@Creatures -> We have vampires/werewolves/dragons.
@Gods -> My priests can do stuff.
@Mages -> People can do card tricks for real :)

Quantum computing and nanotech are different. What i want was warrant for the assumption that one can make physical machines smaller than molecules, not that quantum computing is theoretically possible. The challenge is entirely unrelated to quantum computing.


Actually, nanotechnology is anything that involves a complete process on the nanometer level, not just the 'grey goo'.

Example of nanotechnology:
You.

;)

Or me. Or any other organism.

Would you like to point me at a real physicist who has seriously made such a claim?

Certainly. Miguel Alcubierre, as well as Broeck, Novikov, and Krasnikov.

For those who don't know, they argue that you can make space-time travel faster than c, but not matter. They say that if you were to form a bubble of spacetime around an object (say by expanding space-time in front of you and contracting it behind you), you could get this to travel faster than c without violating general relativity, because the space-time around the object is the frame of reference for the object.

Problems: 1. This requires negative matter. Not anti-matter (which does exist), but negative matter. As no one even knows what negative matter means, much less what it is or has observed it, this solution is only a mathematical formal solution and not realistic.

2. Doing this requires excessively more energy than is available in the universe, and is hence impossible.

Quantum computing and nanotech are different. What i want was warrant for the assumption that one can make physical machines smaller than molecules, not that quantum computing is theoretically possible. The challenge is entirely unrelated to quantum computing.


Actually, nanotechnology is anything that involves a complete process on the nanometer level, not just the 'grey goo'.

Example of nanotechnology:
You.

;)

Or me. Or any other organism.

Except no scientist uses nanotechnology in that sense. The nanotech field is all about small physical machines. All the exciting things people claim can be done with nanotech would be due to said machines.

Further, it would be hard to argue that anything about me is a complete process on the nanometer level, as there is centralized signalling and i am bigger than a nm.

14. Nano Age(2100-2200) The time of nanomachines, which could build anything from anything
15. Hyalonano Age(2200-2400) By manipulating space-time, it is now possible to teleport very long distances in very short times, hence spaceships could go to other planets in the solar system
16. Piconano Age(2400-2800) Now being able to work at even smaller scales, and so manipulating individual protons and neutrons, teleportation was extended so that it was possible to travel to solar systems of other stars
17. Pico Age(2800-3600) At the pico scale, individual quarks could be manipulated, hence the invention of galactic hyperspace, which meant that it was possible to travel to different galaxies
18. Femto Age(3600-5200) Getting to an even smaller scale, not only it was now possible to travel to the edge of the universe, but it was also possible to make detectors, which could be connected to atoms at the edge of the universe. This allowed for the age and future of the universe to be accurately measured
19. Atto Age(5200-8400)
20. Zepto Age(8400-15000)
21. Yocto Age(15000-28000)
22. Harpo Age(28000-53000)
23. Groucho Age(53000-105000)
24. Zeppo Age(105000-210000)
25. Gummo Age(210000-412000)
26. Chico Age(412000-?)

If you are still interested in all the futuristic technological epochs, then here is my summary of them.

Nano means 10 e-9
Pico means 10 e-12
Femto means 10 e-15
Atto means 10 e-18
and so on

As you can see, at each epoch, technology has enabled people to work at smaller scales.

But bear in mind, that because the human mind is limited, technological advancement is also limited, and so the time between epochs increases.

I would contest that nano-machines could build anything from anything. Without iron, you are not going to get a steel i-beam.

I would still like to see warrants for scales smaller than nano. Read some actual science and not sci-fi authors who know little to nothing about science (describes most of them). Most of that is just wishful thinking, and is either patently impossible (scales much smaller than quarks?) or requires too much energy to be done in the context of the universe (hyalo- see my previous post on space-time bubbles in this thread). Further, many of your explanations don't even make sense. Why would smaller scales increase travelling ranges in 16 and 17? And 18 is a direct violation of special relativity. 25 and smaller are sizes lower than Planck's constant, h, which is the smallest possible size (space is quantized, and the smallest distance is h), hence impossible.

Problems: 1. This requires negative matter. Not anti-matter (which does exist), but negative matter. As no one even knows what negative matter means, much less what it is or has observed it, this solution is only a mathematical formal solution and not realistic.

2 words: Casimir Effect.

2. Doing this requires excessively more energy than is available in the universe, and is hence impossible.

Broeck, and another guy whos name escapes me right now, fixed that problem. While the Alcubierre metric requires more energy than is available in the universe, the Broeck metric can be made to work with a very miniscule amount.

Except no scientist uses nanotechnology in that sense.

Sure they do. See here (http://www.techcentralstation.com/050703A.html),here (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/01/19/1042911268269.html),here (http://www.newscentre.bham.ac.uk/release.htm?releaseId=580&latest=6),here (http://nanotechweb.org/articles/news/1/11/5/),here (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-09/nsf-nic090303.php),here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A33454-2002Jun23&notFound=true), and here (http://news.com.com/2100-1008_3-1016653.html), for a few examples. Microelectromechanical systems (i.e., nanites/nanobots) may get all the good press, but they're only one section of nanotechnology.

Oh, and here (http://physicsweb.org/article/news/7/10/2) is that article on magnetic monopoles that I mentioned earlier.

Problems: 1. This requires negative matter. Not anti-matter (which does exist), but negative matter. As no one even knows what negative matter means, much less what it is or has observed it, this solution is only a mathematical formal solution and not realistic.

2 words: Casimir Effect.

Has nothing to do with negative matter. The Casimir effect has to do with elimination of energy potential infinities in free space, which involves the creation of matter and antimatter in small quantities and their subsequent elimination. Note that antimatter and negative matter are not the same thing.

2. Doing this requires excessively more energy than is available in the universe, and is hence impossible.

Broeck, and another guy whos name escapes me right now, fixed that problem. While the Alcubierre metric requires more energy than is available in the universe, the Broeck metric can be made to work with a very miniscule amount.

Yeah, they managed to reduce it from excessively more energy than exists to merely more energy than exists. Big accomplishment. They do this by shrinking the space-time bubble to the size of an atom... not sure if i'd want to be in it when that happened. And still requires more energy than available.

Except no scientist uses nanotechnology in that sense.

Sure they do. See here (http://www.techcentralstation.com/050703A.html),here (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/01/19/1042911268269.html),here (http://www.newscentre.bham.ac.uk/release.htm?releaseId=580&latest=6),here (http://nanotechweb.org/articles/news/1/11/5/),here (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-09/nsf-nic090303.php),here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A33454-2002Jun23¬Found=true), and here (http://news.com.com/2100-1008_3-1016653.html), for a few examples. Microelectromechanical systems (i.e., nanites/nanobots) may get all the good press, but they're only one section of nanotechnology.
[/quote]

First, only two of those are by scientists (the first and the third to last), and of those two, the first uses nanotech in the restricted sense that i am, and the second uses nanoscale when referring to small objects, rather than nanotech. That he distinguishes is important.

That the others aren't scientists merely demonstrates how terminology gets corrupted by the media to mean whatever they want it to mean. Nanotech is not just a buzz word.

Even accepting your definition of nanotech, if anyone would like to justify smaller than planck length manipulations, i'd be highly amused (and you'd be provably wrong). And outside of quantum computing (which i believe uses particle-sized objects anyway) if anyone can give warrants for below particle size i'd also be amused. I doubt particle-size manipulations would be useful beyond computing (and then the gates are still nano sized at best - note we use smaller than nano size object right now for computing - they're called electrons). Ie, i want warrants for making of structures below molecular scales, so this applies to any smallscale technology at all.

2 words: Casimir Effect.

Has nothing to do with negative matter. The Casimir effect has to do with elimination of energy potential infinities in free space, which involves the creation of matter and antimatter in small quantities and their subsequent elimination. Note that antimatter and negative matter are not the same thing.

Has everything to do with negative matter. Well, actually, negative energy, but that's just as good. I am well aware that negmat and antimatter are not the same thing, as I have had to defend that point many times myself. The Casimir effect reduces the energy density of a small region of space to a negative value, and has been used to prove that negative energy and mass can exist. Perhaps not in useful quantities, but that's another discussion.

Yeah, they managed to reduce it from excessively more energy than exists to merely more energy than exists. Big accomplishment. They do this by shrinking the space-time bubble to the size of an atom... not sure if i'd want to be in it when that happened. And still requires more energy than available.

You exaggerate. The smallest figures for energy requirements that I can verify is only a few solar masses of negmat. I recall reading somewhere about a possible method of reducing the requirements to an amount that could actually be produced, but I can't find the article at the moment, so I may be incorrect on that point.

First, only two of those are by scientists (the first and the third to last), and of those two, the first uses nanotech in the restricted sense that i am, and the second uses nanoscale when referring to small objects, rather than nanotech. That he distinguishes is important.

That the others aren't scientists merely demonstrates how terminology gets corrupted by the media to mean whatever they want it to mean. Nanotech is not just a buzz word.

All of my best sources for this stuff have gone vaporlink... but I shall find more! Among the cooler applications of nanotechnology that I've seen is a new type of teflon that is even less sticky, due to nanoscale spikes that prevent water from touching the flat surface. And that, most definitely, has nothing to do with MEMS. While I'm looking for this stuff, here's what my dictionary has to say on the matter:

[code:1:2d5d4d7151]1. The science and technology of building electronic circuits and devices from single atoms and molecules.

2. Any fabrication technology in which
objects are designed and built by the specification and
placement of individual atoms or molecules or where at least
one dimension is on a scale of nanometers.

The first unequivocal nanofabrication experiments took place
in 1990, for example with the deposition of individual xenon
atoms on a nickel substrate to spell the IBM logo.[/code:1:2d5d4d7151]

Any fabrication technology. Not just making or using nanites.
EDIT: One of the sites I was looking for can be found here: http://www.foresight.org/

Even accepting your definition of nanotech, if anyone would like to justify smaller than planck length manipulations, i'd be highly amused (and you'd be provably wrong). And outside of quantum computing (which i believe uses particle-sized objects anyway) if anyone can give warrants for below particle size i'd also be amused. I doubt particle-size manipulations would be useful beyond computing (and then the gates are still nano sized at best - note we use smaller than nano size object right now for computing - they're called electrons). Ie, i want warrants for making of structures below molecular scales, so this applies to any smallscale technology at all.

There, we agree. Creating machines or any other artificial structures at scales below molecular is patently absurd.

2 words: Casimir Effect.

Has nothing to do with negative matter. The Casimir effect has to do with elimination of energy potential infinities in free space, which involves the creation of matter and antimatter in small quantities and their subsequent elimination. Note that antimatter and negative matter are not the same thing.

Has everything to do with negative matter. Well, actually, negative energy, but that's just as good. I am well aware that negmat and antimatter are not the same thing, as I have had to defend that point many times myself. The Casimir effect reduces the energy density of a small region of space to a negative value, and has been used to prove that negative energy and mass can exist. Perhaps not in useful quantities, but that's another discussion.

Yeah, they managed to reduce it from excessively more energy than exists to merely more energy than exists. Big accomplishment. They do this by shrinking the space-time bubble to the size of an atom... not sure if i'd want to be in it when that happened. And still requires more energy than available.

You exaggerate. The smallest figures for energy requirements that I can verify is only a few solar masses of negmat. I recall reading somewhere about a possible method of reducing the requirements to an amount that could actually be produced, but I can't find the article at the moment, so I may be incorrect on that point.

First, only two of those are by scientists (the first and the third to last), and of those two, the first uses nanotech in the restricted sense that i am, and the second uses nanoscale when referring to small objects, rather than nanotech. That he distinguishes is important.

That the others aren't scientists merely demonstrates how terminology gets corrupted by the media to mean whatever they want it to mean. Nanotech is not just a buzz word.

All of my best sources for this stuff have gone vaporlink... but I shall find more! Among the cooler applications of nanotechnology that I've seen is a new type of teflon that is even less sticky, due to nanoscale spikes that prevent water from touching the flat surface. And that, most definitely, has nothing to do with MEMS. While I'm looking for this stuff, here's what my dictionary has to say on the matter:

[code:1:92a725ce1d]1. The science and technology of building electronic circuits and devices from single atoms and molecules.

2. Any fabrication technology in which
objects are designed and built by the specification and
placement of individual atoms or molecules or where at least
one dimension is on a scale of nanometers.

The first unequivocal nanofabrication experiments took place
in 1990, for example with the deposition of individual xenon
atoms on a nickel substrate to spell the IBM logo.[/code:1:92a725ce1d]

Any fabrication technology. Not just making or using nanites.
EDIT: One of the sites I was looking for can be found here: http://www.foresight.org/

Even accepting your definition of nanotech, if anyone would like to justify smaller than planck length manipulations, i'd be highly amused (and you'd be provably wrong). And outside of quantum computing (which i believe uses particle-sized objects anyway) if anyone can give warrants for below particle size i'd also be amused. I doubt particle-size manipulations would be useful beyond computing (and then the gates are still nano sized at best - note we use smaller than nano size object right now for computing - they're called electrons). Ie, i want warrants for making of structures below molecular scales, so this applies to any smallscale technology at all.

There, we agree. Creating machines or any other artificial structures at scales below molecular is patently absurd.

The quote nesting got too confusing for me to care to separate it all out.

(1) Casimir effects... *goes and rereads*... ok, you're right, it does involve negative energy (and therefore negative mass as you pointed out). But also as you pointed out, how you would do something useful with it is beyond any modern predictions.

(2) I'm pretty sure that by shrinking the space-time bubble to the size of the atom was the reduction they achieved, and that still involved more energy than was present in the universe. This is from talking with a theoretical physicist friend of mine, so i haven't read the actual sources myself. I think we can agree that, due to (1), it would be hard to assemble the negative mass to make it happen (especially since we'd have to convert negative energy into negative mass... ach!), and that manipulating space-time (or even forming) bubbles is well beyond our present capabilities, if possible at all. I mean, sure, if you have such a set up then i might grant its possible, but no one has even proposed a way in which one could actually construct such a thing (to the best of my, albeit incomplete, knowledge). That Hawking doesn't even discuss this in 'The Universe in a Nutshell' suggests that it isn't considered likely to ever be achieved at this standpoint, despite dedicating a whole chapter to time travel.

(3) I'll accept your definition of nanotech. Its really not relevant to the original point i was making. So i will stand corrected, and am happy that we can agree on things smaller than nanotech.

I think we can agree that, due to (1), it would be hard to assemble the negative mass to make it happen (especially since we'd have to convert negative energy into negative mass... ach!), and that manipulating space-time (or even forming) bubbles is well beyond our present capabilities, if possible at all. I mean, sure, if you have such a set up then i might grant its possible, but no one has even proposed a way in which one could actually construct such a thing (to the best of my, albeit incomplete, knowledge). That Hawking doesn't even discuss this in 'The Universe in a Nutshell' suggests that it isn't considered likely to ever be achieved at this standpoint, despite dedicating a whole chapter to time travel.

Quite so. All I can say right now is that all of the elements necessary can exist- actually putting them together is a project for my great great (great great great...?) grandchildren, if anyone can do it at all.

what about futuristic fantasy. like a plasma cannon with a bound demon in it :D

Actually yeah, i'm ok with all the stuff I've been criticizing, so long as you admit its magic rather than pretending its science. Fantasy Sci-fi is a fine genre in my book, i mean, it gave us StarWars. And you can't hold magic to rules. =)
cool look into warhammer 40k it gave us...ORCS IIIIIIIIIIIIN SPAAAAAAAAACE!

Nano-Tech
Nano Tech stands alone, as it is the highest tech bracket. FTL drives, space armadas, and other almost incomprehensible "toys" are in existance.

How, exactly, does that work? Just because one can construct incredibly small robots, doesn't mean you can do anything. In fact, scientists are already making huge jumps in this field. Although the results couldn't quite be called nano-tech yet, maybe micro-tech would be more accurate.

I fail to see how making smaller and smaller robots would automatically give us the secret of FTL travel. Space armadas yes - they could make hips out of asteroids given enough sufficiently clever nanobots - but they'd still need to design them themselves, including the drives.


Haven't read the whole thread, so someone may have already covered this. If so, ignore this.

Anyhow...you forgot combination Tech...I have FTL travel and space armadas, yet my main focus is internal aspects of the empire.

Naturally I have some VERY high tech toys...but only a few things...and they're non-military....

Also...I RP in different times...from past to future in relation to my present (which is different than most's)

Steel Butterfly was doing something with time/space distortion, but generally time travel, at least backwards, is near-universally ignored. Physical and temporal laws pretty much forbid the actual step back in time, as the resulting temporal paradox would pretty much rip everything apart.*
*
Go back in time, shoot yourself, and watch the universe collapse in on itself in an eternal temporal loop. Paradox, the only fundamental law that can never be changed.

If some one did go back in time, well, see Steel's latest thread where some one REALLY screws up time. Muliple univerces are created. And imagine this, in one, Menelmacar got conquered by the Dominion...

scarry, the Dominion actualy won something.

Thread: http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1930286#1930286

I love time travel personally...and this is just a set up thread for something much larger...

What happens is that in the future of SB...time travel is..uh...invented/discovered.

I will continue to do my time travel and time distortion RP's...although I will not sink to such a low level that I would use it in wars or the like. Naturally the future "time patroll" people or whatever of Steel Butterfly know the consiquences of such an action. :P

If some one did go back in time, well, see Steel's latest thread where some one REALLY screws up time. Muliple univerces are created. And imagine this, in one, Menelmacar got conquered by the Dominion...

scarry, the Dominion actualy won something.

The hyperspacial distortions that spread from that thread are too unpredictable and unstable for it to provide interesting roleplay without iron fisting your way through all physical and temporal laws.

Basically, it would represent a single event setting off a cascading series of events ending with the ultimate distruction of the multiverse, as REALITY tried vainly to put things back in order...

I wont touch that thread with a ten-foot pole.

Lol...well...like all threads with potential...

I will be answering all of my loop holes created...however...I hope others can answer theirs...

Naturally I broke a few laws...but hey... :roll:

As for the ten foot pole...bah...like I said...I need it to set up my next roleplay...which will be about time travel and not time distortion...a much more structured way of doing things.

*runs off to think of ways to solve other people's problems in the RP...*

Would you like to point me at a real physicist who has seriously made such a claim?

Certainly. Miguel Alcubierre, as well as Broeck, Novikov, and Krasnikov.

For those who don't know, they argue that you can make space-time travel faster than c, but not matter. They say that if you were to form a bubble of spacetime around an object (say by expanding space-time in front of you and contracting it behind you), you could get this to travel faster than c without violating general relativity, because the space-time around the object is the frame of reference for the object.

Problems: 1. This requires negative matter. Not anti-matter (which does exist), but negative matter. As no one even knows what negative matter means, much less what it is or has observed it, this solution is only a mathematical formal solution and not realistic.

2. Doing this requires excessively more energy than is available in the universe, and is hence impossible.

That's ST's theory