Star Army
Star ArmyⓇ is a landmark of forum roleplaying. Opened in 2002, Star Army is like an internet clubhouse for people who love roleplaying, art, and worldbuilding. Anyone 18 or older may join for free. New members are welcome! Use the "Register" button below.
Note: This is a play-by-post RPG site. If you're looking for the tabletop miniatures wargame "5150: Star Army" instead, see Two Hour Wargames.
-
If you were supposed to get an email from the forum but didn't (e.g. to verify your account for registration), email Wes at [email protected] or talk to me on Discord for help. Sometimes the server hits our limit of emails we can send per hour.
-
Get in our Discord chat! Discord.gg/stararmy
Gluon Mesh / Yarvex discussion thread.
- Thread starter Zack
- Start date
https://stararmy.com/starchan/humor/src/1134439135993.jpg (Not work safe)Cora said:
Okay, then, Mr. Vesper, YOU explain it. How can you have somewhat malleable armour that resists basically everything, up to and including gamma radiation bursts? Science fiction is bringing the imagination into the realms of the theoretically possible, right? The objective here is not to show why something couldn't exist, but to adjust the idea so that it could exist.
Cora
Well-Known Member
The basic problem here is the use of an object that cannot be used as the medium at all.
Quarks are for one thing, too small, and for another, too random to be used to make a cloth/mesh capable of blocking everything. That's the jist of this argument.
Uso is trying to argue they can be used, without citing sources or any information, while Vesper is countering with sources and information.
The basic tenits of the technology Wes wants here is making it physically belevable. Using a theroetical pertical in ways that violate known laws of physics and thermodynamics is far byond the realm of suspending disbeleif. It's just ignoring established science.
Quarks are for one thing, too small, and for another, too random to be used to make a cloth/mesh capable of blocking everything. That's the jist of this argument.
Uso is trying to argue they can be used, without citing sources or any information, while Vesper is countering with sources and information.
The basic tenits of the technology Wes wants here is making it physically belevable. Using a theroetical pertical in ways that violate known laws of physics and thermodynamics is far byond the realm of suspending disbeleif. It's just ignoring established science.
Zack
Inactive Member
This is actually untrue. Making a structure out of particles that can theoretically be combined into different shapes is well within the suspention of disbelief rule which covers the how things are made and done part of all tech used on this site. Because the material in question isn't breaking any laws of physics it can be considered part of the useable tech on the site.
Suspention of disbelief also covers things that aren't currently possible with present day mathamatics and understanding such as wormholes, FTL, and ect as long as they don't violate the laws of physics and behave in a predictable manner according to their characteristics.
Cora
Well-Known Member
As written from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics
And: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark
A quark cannot take a shape beyond a spheroid, because each quark pulls on all other quarks equally. Thus making a sheet of material impossible.
And: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark
A quark cannot take a shape beyond a spheroid, because each quark pulls on all other quarks equally. Thus making a sheet of material impossible.
Zakalwe
Inactive Member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_gluon_plasma
This shows that quarks can be deconfined.
So they can be seperated.
Which shows that free quarks can exist, but not for very long. They soon have to be in a particle. However I still see nothing preventing large latices of quark-gluon.
This shows that quarks can be deconfined.
So they can be seperated.
Which shows that free quarks can exist, but not for very long. They soon have to be in a particle. However I still see nothing preventing large latices of quark-gluon.
Zack
Inactive Member
That is simply untrue. Quarks tend to want to connect with only one or two other quarks making a spheroid an unlikely shape. Quarks confined inside of particles and the like tend to be in a triangleish line sort of shape.
(thank you liberated copy of Hyperspace by Michio Kaku)
There is also a fundamental problem with your logic. Gravity makes all particles pull on eachother as well but there are clearly more shapes made of matter possible than simply a sphere.
So...as long as the armour is capable of producing a restoring pressure roughly equal to the strong nuclear force at a distance just under that required for the virtual quarks to coalesce?
Also, (basing myself partly on Wikipedia, and partly on my copy of A Brief History of Time+The Universe in a Nutshell - I'm not going to give links because you all know how to use the wikipedia and I think you all should by those books) it seems that for a baryon (standard elementary particles - electrons, neutrons, protons) the shape would actually be a pretty RGB triangle. Ne? And for a meson (quark-antiquark pairs) it would be just like a binary star - two particles orbiting each other very fast.
So, you take a proton, for example. You have two up quarks (red and blue; charge +2/3 ) and a green down quark (charge -1/3). So, there should be a tiny degree of repulsion between the red and blue quarks, though many orders of magnitude smaller than the strong nuclear force, right? What happens if you try to pull them apart? Put them into a linear 'red, green, blue' thing...What happens then?
Also, (basing myself partly on Wikipedia, and partly on my copy of A Brief History of Time+The Universe in a Nutshell - I'm not going to give links because you all know how to use the wikipedia and I think you all should by those books) it seems that for a baryon (standard elementary particles - electrons, neutrons, protons) the shape would actually be a pretty RGB triangle. Ne? And for a meson (quark-antiquark pairs) it would be just like a binary star - two particles orbiting each other very fast.
So, you take a proton, for example. You have two up quarks (red and blue; charge +2/3 ) and a green down quark (charge -1/3). So, there should be a tiny degree of repulsion between the red and blue quarks, though many orders of magnitude smaller than the strong nuclear force, right? What happens if you try to pull them apart? Put them into a linear 'red, green, blue' thing...What happens then?
Vesper
Inactive Member
['Fraid I'm going to have to keep this short, have to get back to Calc studying and whatnot.]
Theories do exist for wormholes, warp travel, etc. (including zero-point energy, i.e. the Aether, those many scientists believe this will be proven false) [For those who care, both Wormholes and warping of space-time for a warp drive would require insane amounts of energy, to make a traversable wormhole would require more energy than 100 billion stars].
Zakalwe, that quote is meaning they are being pulled away from each other, not that the attraction has suddenly stopped. The potential of the strong force simply reaches such a level that it turns into two quarks to bond with the seperating quarks. And no, free quarks do not exist in normal environments (see Quark-Gluon plasma). They pop into existence bonded with another quark. They instantly form two hadrons, at no point is there a quark floating around not attached to another quark.
Uso, this is because, by mass, the electromagnetic force is 42 magnitudes (or a million, trillion trillion trillion times) stronger than gravity. That is what allows complex shapes to exist.
Also, uso, what I mean by "spheroid" is that the probability cloud of the quarks locations would resemble a spherical shape, not that it is physically a sphere.
The general thing here is that, irrelevant of whether you could form the quarks into a complex shape (you can't, and any large particle would [baring strange matter] would decay into hadrons almost instantly), the lowest potential state for the quark arrangement is a spherical probability cloud. Random motion and formation of bonds would insure this.
What you are saying goes well beyond just defing quatnum and high-energy physics. You are saying that this Yarvex has the magical probperty to ignore what may be the most fundamental theory in physics (possibly science), that being thermodynamics. All things tend towards the lowest energy state. End of story.
Theories do exist for wormholes, warp travel, etc. (including zero-point energy, i.e. the Aether, those many scientists believe this will be proven false) [For those who care, both Wormholes and warping of space-time for a warp drive would require insane amounts of energy, to make a traversable wormhole would require more energy than 100 billion stars].
Zakalwe, that quote is meaning they are being pulled away from each other, not that the attraction has suddenly stopped. The potential of the strong force simply reaches such a level that it turns into two quarks to bond with the seperating quarks. And no, free quarks do not exist in normal environments (see Quark-Gluon plasma). They pop into existence bonded with another quark. They instantly form two hadrons, at no point is there a quark floating around not attached to another quark.
Uso, this is because, by mass, the electromagnetic force is 42 magnitudes (or a million, trillion trillion trillion times) stronger than gravity. That is what allows complex shapes to exist.
Also, uso, what I mean by "spheroid" is that the probability cloud of the quarks locations would resemble a spherical shape, not that it is physically a sphere.
The general thing here is that, irrelevant of whether you could form the quarks into a complex shape (you can't, and any large particle would [baring strange matter] would decay into hadrons almost instantly), the lowest potential state for the quark arrangement is a spherical probability cloud. Random motion and formation of bonds would insure this.
What you are saying goes well beyond just defing quatnum and high-energy physics. You are saying that this Yarvex has the magical probperty to ignore what may be the most fundamental theory in physics (possibly science), that being thermodynamics. All things tend towards the lowest energy state. End of story.
Zack
Inactive Member
That is like saying explosives violate the laws of physics, or that the rock towers out in the rockies couldn't exsist because they would have fallen over. Just because all things tend to want to move to the lowest energy state, dosen't mean they do. In actuality getting things to want to move to a higher energy state under stress is a basic part of engeneering.
You still haven't provided anything that disproves the material.
You still haven't provided anything that disproves the material.
Zack
Inactive Member
No, he hasn't. Most of his arguments simply don't even apply to the subject at hand and those that do fall into the area of suspention of disbelief where advanced technology covers the problem of ordering and constructing.
As it is, there are no arguments that are valid against the material.
As it is, there are no arguments that are valid against the material.
Cora
Well-Known Member
Kimura said:
This is why Bonichi wins in the end. He's funny. We all love the funny man.
Vesper
Inactive Member
USO, READ THE DAMN POSTS AND THINK!!
*takes a breath*
I'm sorry to have to lash out at you in such a way, but you seem to be purposefully being ignorant of what I'm saying.
The reasons explosives generate there energy is the electromagnetic energy potential changes due to the formation an dissolution of bonds. The reason mountains stay up is that (as I said) the electromagnetic force bonding the atoms in its structure are attracted into there crystal structure by a force 42 magnitudes (1x10^42 times) stronger than gravity. None of this is some mystical aspect of physics. It's just how the shit works.
No, Uso, that is not the a basic part of engineering. Unless your trying to get energy out of something, higher states are bad. Higher energy state things tend to be more unstable, and this is the exact opposite of what you want in a structure.
Now, your "Yarvexâ€
*takes a breath*
I'm sorry to have to lash out at you in such a way, but you seem to be purposefully being ignorant of what I'm saying.
The reasons explosives generate there energy is the electromagnetic energy potential changes due to the formation an dissolution of bonds. The reason mountains stay up is that (as I said) the electromagnetic force bonding the atoms in its structure are attracted into there crystal structure by a force 42 magnitudes (1x10^42 times) stronger than gravity. None of this is some mystical aspect of physics. It's just how the shit works.
No, Uso, that is not the a basic part of engineering. Unless your trying to get energy out of something, higher states are bad. Higher energy state things tend to be more unstable, and this is the exact opposite of what you want in a structure.
Now, your "Yarvexâ€
Vesper
Inactive Member
(Note: the post I'm replying to seems to have now been removed, but is a valid point anyhow.)
Kimura, I have suggested alternate things (not in this thread mind you, but I have said it). Realistically a ultra strong weave would probably be some sort of polymer compound, though alloy weaves may be possible. More remotely, it might be possible to make stiff threads from diamond (note though that I'm not sure about the tensile strength of diamond, or how it would do in a thin thread, which would make it much weaker I believe). [Second note, I'm not sure how well the diamond threads would bond with a adhesive, so this idea might be a no-go]
Either of these would probably be more like small rods, so it would probably be incorporated with a cementing agent into something much like a futuristic fiberglass.
Another option would be to weave threads of carbon nanotubes into a cloth like substance. This would probably approximate what you're trying to get here better than a diamond-thread composite (and would probably be much cheaper).
Of these ideas, the nanotube one would probably be the best (assuming they can entangle with each other properly or would work with a adhesive) and would be the closest to what Yarvex is supposed to do. A advantage to nanotubes is a high heat tolerance
Kimura, I have suggested alternate things (not in this thread mind you, but I have said it). Realistically a ultra strong weave would probably be some sort of polymer compound, though alloy weaves may be possible. More remotely, it might be possible to make stiff threads from diamond (note though that I'm not sure about the tensile strength of diamond, or how it would do in a thin thread, which would make it much weaker I believe). [Second note, I'm not sure how well the diamond threads would bond with a adhesive, so this idea might be a no-go]
Either of these would probably be more like small rods, so it would probably be incorporated with a cementing agent into something much like a futuristic fiberglass.
Another option would be to weave threads of carbon nanotubes into a cloth like substance. This would probably approximate what you're trying to get here better than a diamond-thread composite (and would probably be much cheaper).
Of these ideas, the nanotube one would probably be the best (assuming they can entangle with each other properly or would work with a adhesive) and would be the closest to what Yarvex is supposed to do. A advantage to nanotubes is a high heat tolerance
