Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-07-2010, 05:01 PM   #61
vicky_molokh
GURPS FAQ Keeper
 
vicky_molokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
Default Re: [Spaceships] Your preferences regarding plausible/playable Reactionless Drives

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
Black holes can also have electromagnetic charge and thus engage in electromagnetic interactions, which we know are moderated by photons.
*Starts wondering whether the entire Lovecraftian Horror genre was vaguely inspired by the slow discovery of QM*
__________________
Vicky 'Molokh', GURPS FAQ and uFAQ Keeper
vicky_molokh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2010, 05:35 PM   #62
teviet
 
Join Date: May 2005
Default Re: [Spaceships] Your preferences regarding plausible/playable Reactionless Drives

Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding View Post
This a problem with any model of gravity that requires particles. I think it's becoming increasingly clear that "gravitons" probably don't exist.
"Gravitons", like "photons", are just a way to describe the quantization of energy and angular momentum in a field. We don't yet have a full theory of quantum gravity, but such a theory most likely will include gravitons. From "semiclassical" models of gravitational waves on a nearly-flat nearly-static background, it's predicted that gravitons are "spin-2 tensor bosons"; that is, they carry twice as much angular momentum as a photon.

Regarding the tractor/pressor beam, this will violate local energy/momentum conservation unless the beam itself has significant rest mass in the frame of whatever you're pushing against. (That is, it's more like the "beam" of a building than the "beam" of a laser.)

Otherwise what you have is a gravitational rocket, which has the same performance characteristics as a photon or a neutrino drive, except that the exhaust stream consists of gravitons. For a given wattage, a graviton beam is even less detectable than a neutrino beam, so a graviton rocket is actually an ideal "reactionless" thruster, if you want something whose exhaust passes intangibly through the interior of your ship, planet, or star.

TeV
teviet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2010, 05:43 PM   #63
teviet
 
Join Date: May 2005
Default Re: [Spaceships] Your preferences regarding plausible/playable Reactionless Drives

Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh View Post
Gravitons? Who knows. Supposedly time slows to a halt in a singularity, yet singularities emit gravitons, which somehow manage to 'get somewhere' in time. So they seem to be able to jump over the fences that slow down or stop even the mighty photon.
This is actually one of the standard misconceptions of black hole physics. The static field of a star or planet or black hole does not propagate from the object, and does not involve the emission of gravitons. Or, looking at it another way, it involves the transmission of "virtual gravitons", which are not limited to the speed of light (and carry no information). Really, "virtual particles" are just a mathematical bookkeeping device.

In the same way, the force between two static electric charges can be described as an exchange of "virtual" photons, but no actual photons are emitted.

TeV
teviet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2010, 05:55 PM   #64
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: [Spaceships] Your preferences regarding plausible/playable Reactionless Drives

Quote:
Originally Posted by teviet View Post
Regarding the tractor/pressor beam, this will violate local energy/momentum conservation unless the beam itself has significant rest mass in the frame of whatever you're pushing against.
Pressor beams don't require rest mass, they just require the same amount of energy as creating photon pressure between two mirrors (which is a special case of the photon rocket, and can theoretically be vastly more efficient than a conventional photon rocket). Tractor beams are messier, because what they really require is an energy debt of the same magnitude.
Anthony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2010, 06:19 PM   #65
Nymdok
 
Nymdok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Houston
Default Re: [Spaceships] Your preferences regarding plausible/playable Reactionless Drives

I havent run a sci-fi game, but if I did, Id use Paul March/Woodward/Mach's reactionless thrusters.

Heres an Interview
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/09/mac...aul-march.html

The Second PArt of the interview

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/09/mac...t-part-ii.html

with comments from Paul March in the comments section.

Also a lengthy slide show presentation with lots of pictures :)

http://www.cphonx.net/weffect/STAIF-...20Appendix.ppt

Im not nearly well enough researched to speak on it fully which is why I leave the links.

I attended a 'brown bag talk' over lunch on it he had one day (Paul March works in my building and is a nice guy!) and was pretty impressed with the idea.

To use this in a game, the only leap you need to make is that SOMEONE gets a functional version fo this working and that you can extrapolate it to the nth degree of speed.

Nymdok

ETA: When I saw the devices that March was building and then I saw the primitive arc-reactor in the Iron Man movie, I freaked!

Last edited by Nymdok; 10-07-2010 at 06:28 PM.
Nymdok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2010, 09:05 PM   #66
teviet
 
Join Date: May 2005
Default Re: [Spaceships] Your preferences regarding plausible/playable Reactionless Drives

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
Pressor beams don't require rest mass, they just require the same amount of energy as creating photon pressure between two mirrors (which is a special case of the photon rocket, and can theoretically be vastly more efficient than a conventional photon rocket). Tractor beams are messier, because what they really require is an energy debt of the same magnitude.
Well, technically an EM standing wave or laser cavity does have rest mass (standing wave energy/c^2) and a rest frame (the frame in which the wave is stationary). So what you've really got is a maximally stiff medium, exerting a a pressure of 2*(energy density)*c on either end.

So to get some thrust T, you need to build up a stored energy of 0.5*T*D where D is the distance to the "anchor". And of course there's the startup time of 2*D/c while the beam is "reaching out" to the anchor and reflecting back, during which time you don't get the full reaction force, but you do still get the photon rocket thrust.

So suppose you've got a 1MW repulsor drive some distance from the Earth, say one lightsecond (about as far as the Moon). You turn it on. For the first two seconds, you just get the 0.003N photon drive thrust. Then the return wave reaches you. Thrust builds up steadily: after a minute it's at 0.2N, after an hour it's at 12N, after a day it's at 288N (and the total rest mass of the beam is about a microgram). This can increase indefinitely, except that more and more of the energy is going into the ship's kinetic energy and not into increasing the stored energy of the beam, eventually asymptoting at a velocity of sqrt(2*P/M) where P=1MW is the power and M is the mass of the ship.

For those of you that care, the motion of the ship is a hyperbolic function:

x(t) = sqrt[ D^2 + 2*(P/M)*t^2 ]

The tractor beam effect is harder to model, but will probably scale similarly.

TeV
teviet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2010, 10:53 AM   #67
cmdicely
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: [Spaceships] Your preferences regarding plausible/playable Reactionless Drives

Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh View Post
*Starts wondering whether the entire Lovecraftian Horror genre was vaguely inspired by the slow discovery of QM*
That is well-known as an influence on Lovecraft's work, and explicitly referenced in some of them.
cmdicely is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2010, 10:55 AM   #68
sir_pudding
Wielder of Smart Pants
 
sir_pudding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
Default Re: [Spaceships] Your preferences regarding plausible/playable Reactionless Drives

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmdicely View Post
That is well-known as an influence on Lovecraft's work, and explicitly referenced in some of them.
His problems with relativity are known from his letters, what evidence do you have that he had any understanding of quantum physics?
sir_pudding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2010, 11:17 AM   #69
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: [Spaceships] Your preferences regarding plausible/playable Reactionless Drives

Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding View Post
His problems with relativity are known from his letters, what evidence do you have that he had any understanding of quantum physics?
Who says you have to understand QM to find it disturbing?
Anthony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2010, 11:26 AM   #70
teviet
 
Join Date: May 2005
Default Re: [Spaceships] Your preferences regarding plausible/playable Reactionless Drives

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
Who says you have to understand QM to find it disturbing?
"Anyone who claims to understand quantum mechanics has not studied it deeply enough"

--Richard Feynman (?)
teviet is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
reactionless drive, spaceships, warp drive


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.