Superscience in my lifetime?

[Tom Mazanec]

I was born in 1958. Would a quantum computer be an example of superscience from the viewpoint of that year?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeli...ntum_computing

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec

I was born in 1958. Would a quantum computer be an example of superscience from the viewpoint of that year?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeli...ntum_computing

No. It doesn't violate any conservation laws. It doesn't invalidate causality.

[Stormcrow]

No. Superscience in GURPS means technologies that break the laws of physics as we know them in the real world. The principles behind quantum computing don't break any known laws of physics as they were understood in 1958. Technologies that don't break any known laws of physics but are based on as-yet undiscovered principles aren't superscience.

[David Johnston2]

Mind you it would be superscience if someone built such a device in 1958 because given the technology at that moment, it would be impossible then. But if TL 9 aliens paid a visit quantum computers would just be more advanced technology.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec

I was born in 1958. Would a quantum computer be an example of superscience from the viewpoint of that year?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeli...ntum_computing

You would need to go much farther back. Possibly before Heisenberg publishes. Without quantum theory, quantum computing looks like outright magic.

[Daigoro]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Mind you it would be superscience if someone built such a device in 1958 because given the technology at that moment, it would be impossible then. But if TL 9 aliens paid a visit quantum computers would just be more advanced technology.

I think that's a "it depends."

If they built it on contemporary scientific principles, that's just "technology advanced for its time."

If the Professor built one out of coconut shells and palm leaves on Gilligan's Island, that'd be superscience.

[Agemegos]

Sometimes (e.g. in Spaceships) there is "limited superscience" that doesn't outright violate a conservation law etc., but that "merely" requires materials that exceed the strength or melting/subliming temperature of the strongest and most refractory materials known (e.g. torch drives). I think of that as technology where physicists don't know why it is impossible, but engineers do.

Curiously, there are some things that were believed possible in 1958 but that are limited superscience now, such as solid-core fission rockets with thrust/mass and exhaust velocities like those of NSWR. People had unreasonably high expectations of NERVA back then.

I think there are some things listed as superscience in Spaceships not because they violate a conservation law or causality, but because they have no operating principle with even the vaguest connection with any physical principle. Force Screens, for instance. Tractor beams. But maybe they are fundamentally impossible for a reason I'm not aware of.

[DangerousThing]

Originally Posted by Daigoro

I think that's a "it depends."

If they built it on contemporary scientific principles, that's just "technology advanced for its time."

If the Professor built one out of coconut shells and palm leaves on Gilligan's Island, that'd be superscience.

Wouldn't that be sillyscience? Though even as a kid, I recognized that he really couldn't have made a radio out of those ingredients, but it wasn't as ridiculous as Mr. Howl bringing his entire fortune with him. Great show, if you don't look at it carefully.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

I think there are some things listed as superscience in Spaceships not because they violate a conservation law or causality, but because they have no operating principle with even the vaguest connection with any physical principle. Force Screens, for instance. Tractor beams. But maybe they are fundamentally impossible for a reason I'm not aware of.

Both tractor beams and force screens just require something that resembles matter (it's not like you can't do what they do with a sheet of armor or a harpoon) but has very low mass relative to its binding energy, and that can be readily produced and annihilated. We could come up with the math for particles that would let you do that, but we would have seen them already in particle accelerators.

[Celjabba]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

Sometimes (e.g. in Spaceships) there is "limited superscience" that doesn't outright violate a conservation law etc., but that "merely" requires materials that exceed the strength or melting/subliming temperature of the strongest and most refractory materials known (e.g. torch drives). I think of that as technology where physicists don't know why it is impossible, but engineers do.

Something like an Alcubierre drive would be right at the edge ... Possible in theory (the conjecture that invalid it is unproven), practically impossible.
---
Superconductor at room-temperature (and room pressure) may be a contender for "Superscience in my lifetime" however.
They are getting closer (very very close, according to some reports), but some theorician are still arguing if it is possible - and I think the theory involved is tied to superstring theory and the like, possibly not yet developed in 1958 ?