[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference noted::sf

Title:Arcana Caelestia
Notice:Directory listings are in topic 2
Moderator:NETRIX::thomas
Created:Thu Dec 08 1983
Last Modified:Fri Jun 06 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:1300
Total number of notes:18728

216.0. "Possibilities III: Plausibles" by MAGIC::BUFORD () Thu Jun 13 1985 16:04

I read in the August 1895 edition of _Analog_ that there is a book titled
_The_Inventions_of_Daedalus:_A_Compendium_of_Plausible_Schemes_ 
by David E. Jones.  Has anyone read it?  

In the mean time, I am asking for the plausible schemes that the "Possibilities"
note doesn't get.  As I understand the note, Steve is asking for 
existing phenomenon that hasn't been explained.  I am asking for plausible
explanations for phenomenon that hasn't been developed as yet.

Here's your change to explain hyperspace, energy webs, shape changers, and
any other schemes that your warped imagination can dream up.  Haven't you
ever said "Gee, I bet such-n-such would make a great story."  Give us a
plausible explanation and maybe someone will write it!  After all, 
James Hogan used to be a DECcie.  Maybe one of us will get inspired.


John B.  
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
216.1AVOID::REDFORDThu Jun 13 1985 23:4230
"Inventions of Daedalus" is a GREAT book, full of maniacal schemes 
for all sorts of sound industrial applications.  For example, 
Daedalus calculated that xenon gas at fifty atmospheres is as dense 
as water.  You could float in it, and in fact with only a 0.5% 
addition of oxygen, you could breathe it.  People could swim about in 
mid-air as easily as in zero-gee!  The subways could be pressurized 
with it and people could be pumped down them like slurry in a 
pipeline. He closes the piece this way:

"This ... would explain the enigmatic opening to the rare first draft
of Coleridge's masterpiece:
    In Xenodu did Kubla Khan 
    A stately pressure-dome decree..."

    But back to the subject at hand, plausible explanations for the as
yet unachieved.  How would one actually do, say, light sabers?  One
good suggestion that I heard was that a light sabre is actually a
plasma enclosed in a tubular magnetic field.  That would explain why
they can cut through anything (the plasma is at thousands of degrees),
but not through each other (the magnetic fields repel one another).  A
sabre can shield against a blaster bolt because the bolt is itself a
blob of plasma (that's why they move so slowly). As the sabre gets
longer, the field is weakened and the plasma cooler.  That's why Darth
Vader's sabre is long and red, while Luke's is short and blue. That's
also why the sabres can't be made indefinitely long (so you can't
spear someone across the room, not that a Jedi knight would ever stoop
to such a trick).   Now if the fusion energy people would just get on 
the stick, we might actually have these things.

/jlr
216.2ALIEN::POSTPISCHILFri Jun 14 1985 13:2726
Re .1:

That xenon idea sounds pretty interesting, but wouldn't a lot of people be
deterred by the 50 atmospheres?  Ouch!

I like the plasma description of light sabers.  I suspect you are going to have
problems explaining a tubular magnetic field, but here are some questions that
may be easier:

	What makes the noise?

	Why doesn't the magnetic field collapse when the light saber is place
	near or in metal?

	How much plasma is there?  (In current fusion reactors, the amount of
	plasma present is so small that stepping into it would not burn you; it
	would cool the plasma more.)

	Wouldn't the heat burn the wielder, whose hand would be only a few
	centimeters away?

	Since a tremendous amount of energy must be involved, I take it the
	light saber fuses the plasma to keep itself going.  Is this correct?


				-- edp
216.3PEN::KALLISFri Jun 14 1985 19:4931
	As I recall, in Williamson's _The_Humanoids_, he postulated another
"magnetism" based on Rhodium (rather than on iron [= ferromagnetism]) that
he called "rhodomagnetism."  This brings up the idea of other sorts of
energy spectra.  With regards to the Light Sabers, we will momentarily
postulate rhodomagnetism, so we can touch on other aspects of the idrea.
	Other-energy spectra have interesting (pardon pun) potential for
stories.  In Medieval times, any natural radio waves (e.g., lightningOP
-
induced static and/or "howlers") existed but were not perceived by even
the most gifted of people.  There just weren't the instruments (how many
people can perceive radio waves directly?).  it may be that the whole cos-
mos is saturated with energies that we haven't discovered how to detect
yet, much less tap.
	How to find them?  First, there's the unintentional method (such as
getting zapped while stroking a cat on a dry-air day in the discovery
of static electricity -- someone had to be the first to experience that).
Second is the rqandom-search method ("I know something's out there, and
I'm going to die trying to find it.").  the third is the anomalous
method ("Well, the experiment almost worked, but why did that radioactive
key fog up the photo plates?").  All have their uses.
(There is a fourth -- the "theoretical" method ["we can only explain the
spin disparity if we postulate the neutrino."].  This can be useful if you
don't take it too seriously or you are metaphysical enough to feel that
the neutrino sprang full-blown, so to speak, out of the brow of Enrico
Fermi and into a waiting cosmos.)
	Thoughts: current energy-transmission phenomena are (except for
radiative transfer) connected with the electromagnetism of substances; 
another energy spectrum would use a different means of transfer (e.g., a
different conductor).  That just makes it *more* interesting.

Steve Kallis, Jr.
216.4AVOID::REDFORDSat Jun 15 1985 01:1238
re .2:

The humming noise is the sound of the transformer in the handle.  The
cracking sound that a sabre makes when it cuts through something is caused by
the momentary shorting out of the plasma as it vaporizes what it's
cutting through.  The user's hand is not burned because the plasma is
actually very thin, only 100 um in diameter.  The larger glow around
it is caused by air ionization. Some sabres have guards on the
handle like regular swords because of just this problem, but Jedi
disdain such wimp safety features.  The magnetic fields are maintained
by currents in the plasma (some fusion reactors actually do this).
They are extremely strong, so nearby conductors don't affect them.
Some expert Jedi users can manipulate the fields in the sabre to hurl 
heavy objects at their opponents, thus appearing to have telekinesis.

The plasma itself isn't actually fusing (that would cause a dangerous
neutron flux); the fusion power source is in the handle.  It burns
heavy water, so light sabres have to be refueled every couple of
months.  

The high power levels and the tricky control problems make light
sabres expensive, and therefore unpopular.  Although many units were
sold at initial introduction of the product, they were later swept
away by the simpler and cheaper blaster.  Blasters need only produce a
pulse of plasma; they do not need to maintain or control a containment
field.  Shortly after the change in Administration, the GCC (Galactic
Communications Commission) put strict limits on the EMI produced by
plasma weapons, and no light sabre manufacturers could comply.  Some
complained that the limits were politically motivated, but visits by
the GCC inspector regiment of the Imperial Storm Troopers soon stopped
the complaints.  A few sabres remain in private hands, but are
strictly illegal.  Anyone possessing information on the whereabouts of
light sabres or their owners is requested to report it to the nearest
Imperial garrison.  Or else. 

Vigorously waving my hands,

/jlr
216.5BEING::POSTPISCHILTue Jun 18 1985 13:1935
Re .4:

Well done!  Did you think of those yourself, or are you getting help from some
sort of book? 

I'll accept the humming noise.  But don't light sabres also make a noise when
they hit each other, a sort of metallic sound?

What is "momentary shorting out of the plasma"?

Even if the plasma is thin, there must be a tremendous amount of heat in order
for it to cut through something.  This heat will still radiate and burn the
wielder's hand.  Consider the rates of cutting of a normal cutting torch and
a light sabre.  A torch is hot enough to create problems; a light sabre must
be orders of magnitude hotter.

Why is it called a light sabre instead of a plasma sabre?

You refer to "tricky control problems".  In what way is a sabre controlled,
other than turning it on or off and waving it around?

You are going to have to explain in more detail how objects can be hurled
with a light sabre.

You say the magnetic fields are very strong, so nearby conductors do not
affect them.  What about when the sabre is used against a metal object?  The
direct contact with the conductor should wreak havoc with the fields, no
matter how strong they are.  (Suggestion:  Computers in the handle measure
changes and correct the fields.)

On a non-technical note, I cannot accept that Jedi disdain "wimp safety
features".  "Jedi" does not mean "false-macho".


				-- edp
216.6SERF::POWERSTue Jun 18 1985 13:2917
re: .4

I compliment you on your hand waving!  This is an excellent case study
in how extrapolation can answer criticism.
I must point out, however, that the skill of your rebuttal is directly
related to the clarity of the original refutation - asking technologically
directed leads to the possibilties expounded.  Here the skills of the questioner
and those of the answerer were compatible.

Your comments about where light sabres come from is supported by movie
dialog.  Recall that in "The Empire Strikes Back" Luke loses both his hand and
his weapon in the battle beneath the city.  In "Return of the Jedi"
he is complimented by Darth Vader on his ability to build his own
replacement for the sabre (not the hand though).  "you have learned your skills
well, Skywalker."

- tom]
216.7PEN::KALLISTue Jun 18 1985 15:2629
Hyperspace:

	Mathematically, there's nothing against having an indefinite number
of spatial dimensions (a dimension being defined as a direction at right
angles to all other given dimensions).  Whether this is a theoretical
construct only or has physical reality is yet to be determined.
	If n-[spatial]dimensionality has a physical basis, the immediate
implications are that there are infinite numbers of hyperplanes (defined as
three-[spatial]dimensional spaces) parallel to and infinitesimally close
to the one we exist in.  If there were _no_ separation, however, it might
be fifficult to restrict existence to one of tgese hyperplanes; however, we
might suppose that there is a very large but finite number of these per 
given hypervolume (four-[spatial]dimensional region), separated by the
equivalent of quantum levels.
	Given this construct, it's possible to ask what the differences between
these spaces would be -- and one might be the characteristics of the space
(speed of light, fine structure constant, gravitational constant).  If the
inherent characteristics are different enough, but not totally alien, the
"space next door" mighe enable a voyager to go at speeds significantly in
excess of what we're stuck with.  
	Another possibility is that once one translates into "the space next
door," the quantum-jump back might place someone at a point of enery equi-
potential elsewhere in this space.  the "hyperspace jumps" of Asimov seem
more in this camp (though not completely), whereas the "hyperspatial tubes"
of Doc Smith's Lensmen Saga belong in the former.
	The question is: how do you jump "between" spaces?  Oddly, the late
George O. Smith came up with a novel answer in _Pattern For Conquest_.

Steve Kallis, Jr.
216.8GLIVET::BUFORDThu Jun 20 1985 13:1543
Re .7:

> (a dimension being defined as a direction at right angles to all other 
>  given dimensions).
   
That is only true for the three spatial dimensions.  Time is a fourth dimension.
How do you propose to measure the 90 degrees?

OK, that was just a nit to make a point that the commonly held belief (at
least in pulp SF) is that the N-dimensions are "somewhere else".  Not so for
two reasons:

(1)  A dimension is just another state-measurement; anything to distiguish two
otherwise identical states.  Time is a good example.  Radioactivity level,
temperature, and light level are equally good.  Since the three spacial
dimensions are still in affect, there is "no separation".

(2)  Even if someone did find a "space next door," why would it be compatible
with the time/space universe?  Depending on the author, one travels thought
hyperspace instantaneously (or nearly) in which one "jumps" from one locale
to another, OR one voyages though some grey void for a finite amount of time.
In the first case, hyperspace is a short-cut (sort of like drilling a hole
in the floor instead of walking down a flight of stairs).  In the second,
none of the here-and-now exists -- its a different set of dimensions in the
strictest sense.

Personally, I like the instantaneous hyperspace because your quantum jump
fits in nicely.  (Would the traveler need to jump once or twice?)  But I
think you are referring to the grey-void hyperspace.  Would it really have
to be grey-void?  I think so if you are planning to go FTL.

There's a less romantic, though more mathematical version of hyperspace.
Going back to the idea that a dimension is just another measurement, radio
waves qualify as a dimension.  Maybe there is a yet-undiscovered form of
transmission that is FTL.  In that regard, what do you know about gravity 
waves?

OK, I bite -- what was the novel answer that the late George O. Smith came
up with in _Pattern For Conquest_?


John B.   
                         
216.9PEN::KALLISThu Jun 20 1985 15:2144
re .7:

	Er, I'm aware that dimensions are any quantifiable measure (and more);
I *thought* I'd mde it clear I was referring strictly to spatial dimensions,
not anything whatever.

	Actually, I was just speaking in terms of a physical hyperspace; there
are plenty of models once one has decided that hyperspace is a legitimate
concept.  I think I covered both quantum-jump and "gray void" versions in
the previous note.

	One of the fascinating points about hyperspace is since it would be
outside our cosmos, its fundamental characteristics could be quite dif-
ferent, enabling FTL travel (as far as _this_ space is concerned) even if
the basic structure were similar with a much faster propogation-of-signal
characteristic of space (i.e., suppose c in a hyperspatial plane was 
3 gigamiles/second:  Even if relativity held, if a ship popped out of 
this space into H-space, accelerated to 1/2 c, decelerated at the other
end, then popped back into our space, the time-to-travel as far as this
space would be concerned would be *much* faster.  Would this cause para-
doxes?  Maybe, but there are insufficient data to do aught but guess.

	George O. Smith's solution was that our heroes gadgeted around a field
that locally altered the condition of space so they "fell" from this space
to a parallel space next door.  Since they already had FTL travel in the
story, the hyperspace was used to enhance the fact, and a few other things.
The hyperspace was not central to the story (which was one of his better,
particularly if you keep reminding yourelf it was written in the 40s, so
the personal relationships were a little restricted compared to what is
accepted today).  The mechanism's detailed in the book, which you might
enjoy reading.  I know I did.

	Finally, there was a story a number of years ago in _Analog_ where our
heroes decided the only legitimate FTL methodolofy would be through a
hyperspace (or next-door space), nearly broke their heads open finding a way
to reach that space and discovered that c there had a slower propogation
than in this space ....

Steve Kallis, Jr.

P.S.:  This discussion doesn't include voyages into the fourth dimension of
the type found in _Skylark of Valeron_; that's another matter.

SK
216.10ALIEN::POSTPISCHILThu Jun 20 1985 15:4117
Re .8:

Gravity waves travel at the speed of light.

Re .8, .9:

You two are talking about different kinds of dimensions.  Specifying spatial
dimensions is not sufficient to distinguish them.

I believe Steve is thinking of some sort of dimension which people can "enter",
rather than just a description of space, which is what the current 10- and
11-dimensional theories of physicists are about.

What is a dimension outside our cosmos?


				-- edp
216.11PEN::KALLISThu Jun 20 1985 17:5575
Re .10:
>You two are talking about different kinds of dimensions.  Specifying spatial
>dimensions is not sufficient to distinguish them.

Yes, but I don't think I have to be more explicit if I'm talking in terms
of hypervolumes.

>I believe Steve is thinking of some sort of dimension which people can "enter"
>rather than just a description of space, which id what the current 10- and
>11-dimensional theories of physicists are about.

Yes, which I will expand upon in answer to:

>What is a dimension outside our cosmos?

Here's where there's a terminological stumbling block.  If "we" assume that
our physical space has n *spatial* dimensions, "spatial" being defined as
being describable by establishing a point (origin) and extending n lines
(rays) from it all of which are mutually perpendicular, then a dimension
outside our cosmos would be yet another line (ray) perpendicular to all
the others.  the analogies are clear through the first three (line-to-a-
point, second-line-to-a-line [defining a plane], line-to-a-plane [defining
a volume]), it's after there where some people have trouble.  On a purely
mathematical/geometric basis, it's perfectly possible to construct models
with n+1 dimensions for any n-dimensional set.

Here's an example.  Everyone's familiar with tic-tac-toe:

                    x x x
                    x x x
                    x x x

The plane of a tic-tac-toe (TTT for the sake of my fingers) can be defined
as a 9-square array.  Now suppose we want a three-dimensional version:


             x x x     y y y     z z z
             x x x     y y y     z z z
             x x x     y y y     z z z

Here, one could play on each plane (X, Y, or Z) as presented, or, say,
starting at a corner, could play a diagonal from an x to a y to a z, in
a straight line.  x-y-z  is a legitimate linear direction.

Expanding it to a four-dimensional game is as easy:

             x x x     y y y     z z z
             x x x     y y y     z z z
             x x x     y y y     z z z

             a a a     b b b     c c c
             a a a     b b b     c c c
             a a a     b b b     c c c

             d d d     e e e     f f f
             d d d     e e e     f f f

Here, we can from any corner, draw lines x-x-x, x-y-z, x-a-d, x-b-f
(oh, sorry: one line dropped out of the bottom arrays, but you get the idea,
I hope:), etc.  As there are 11 playable planes in three-space, there are
(drat! that's *nine* playable planes in three-space; must have has 11
dimensionality on the mind) 81 in four-space.

If we define a cosmos as having either an infinite number of spatial
dimensions or all possible spatial dimensions, then the question "What's
a dimension outside our cosmos?" is meaningless.  Otherwise, we can call it
a part of the, er, metacosmos.

Assuming a metacosmos, the various cosmos would lie "next to" each other,
parallel in the higher space (as -- using the cliche, pages of a book can
be considered two-dimensional spaces [though they're really not] lieing
parallel in the third dimension).  Then, it might be possible to translate
an object from one such cosmos to another.

Steve Kallis, Jr.
216.12GLIVET::BUFORDThu Jun 20 1985 20:3712
re last three replys:

OK, that sounds like the stuff alternate universes are made of.  Instead
of using X, Y, and Z for your axes (pl. of axis, or so sez the dictionary
-- it looks funny to me) you want to use X', Y', and Z'.

Thought from left field:  what if you only "jump" one dimension?  In other
words, use X, Y, and Z' for your axes.  That would make you look like a sheet
of paper in X, Y, Z-land!


John B.
216.13GLIVET::BUFORDThu Jun 20 1985 20:4312
I believe I once read a story in which artifical gravity was generated just
in front of a space ship which "sucked" the ship along.  Since the ship and
its contents were pulled more or less equally (have to remember inverse-square
rule here) the occupants would not notice the acceleration, so acceleration
rates could far exceed 9.8 m/sec with no adverse effects.

(Was this in _Giant's Star_ by Hogan???)

Any ideas on how to accomplish this???


John B.
216.14BEING::POSTPISCHILThu Jun 20 1985 20:5911
Re .11:

I don't really think most of us needed the concept of four or more dimensions
explained.  The problem is, how can it apply to our space?

The three normal dimensions are an integral part of our theories, which is
why inverse-square laws are so common.  How can more dimensions be woven into
our framework?


				-- edp
216.15ALIEN::POSTPISCHILThu Jun 20 1985 21:1434
Re .13:

I recall something similar to this, but the gravity in front of the ship was
not artificial.  It was in several of the McAndrew stories by Charles
Sheffield.

The idea is fairly simple:  Take a large piece of very dense matter.  It should
be rather flat.  For instance, it might be a rectangular parallelepiped with
relative dimensions 1 * 80 * 80.  (These are probably not the dimensions given
by Sheffield.)  This matter is so dense that the gravitational force at the
middle of one of its largest faces is 50 gravities.  Attach a column at this
point, running from the face out to a point where the gravitational force is
only 1g.  Put a cabin on this column.  At a constant velocity, the cabin should
be at the end of the column, so the crew and passengers feel a force of one
gravity.  When the ship is accelerating, move the column closer to the matter,
so that the difference between the force from the engines and the gravitational
force is one gravity (or whatever is desired).

In the stories, this is termed a balanced drive, because the forces on the
passengers are balanced to produce a comfortable environment.

For propulsion, Sheffield hypothesizes engines mounted on the four corners
of the piece of matter.  The engines draw energy from the vacuum, so they do
not need refueling.

The most amazing thing about this is that Sheffield is a physicist and he
claims that the described ship, including the engines, is not impossible under
today's theories.  One of the collections (possibly _The McAndrew Chronicles_)
includes an appendix which gives equations for the gravitational field around
the matter and does some explaining of how energy might be obtained from
vacuum. 


				-- edp
216.16GLIVET::BUFORDFri Jun 21 1985 18:1021
Re .14:

> The three normal dimensions are an integral part of our theories, which is
> why inverse-square laws are so common.  How can more dimensions be woven into
> our framework?
       
Is that supposed to be a real question or a rhetorical one?
      

Re .15

Not a bad idea, by a stucture as dense as you describe would need 
aheckavalota (technical term derived from the Italian word meaning "much")
energy to move it.  Which is easier: inventing artifical gravity or 
megathrusters?  (That's a rhetorical question.)

On the other hand, would the senario in .13 work?  It sounds like putting
a fan on a sailboat to make it go faster.


John B.
216.17ALIEN::POSTPISCHILFri Jun 21 1985 20:4922
Re .14:

>> How can more dimensions be woven into our framework?

> Is that supposed to be a real question or a rhetorical one?

Rhetorical questions _are_ real.  However, the question was not asked merely for
effect; I am seeking some sort of answer.  The way Steve, and many authors,
describes extra dimensions does not seem to make any sense; the ways in which
the terms are used are without meaning.

> Not a bad idea, but a structure as dense as you describe would need
> aheckavalota (technical term derived from the Italian word meaning "much")
> energy to move it.  Which is easier: inventing artificial gravity or
> megathrusters?  (That's a rhetorical question.)

The energy is free, why not use it?  The best thing is, it could be possible
under current theory, so it would, hopefully, be easier to invent
megathrusters than artificial gravity.  (So much for rhetorical questions.)


				-- edp
216.18PEN::KALLISMon Jun 24 1985 15:3922
Re .14:
>  ... Thr problem is, how can it apply to our space?
>
>The three normal dimensions are an integral part of our theories, which is
>why inverse-square laws are so common.  How can more dimensions be woven into
>our framework?

Glad you asked.  In 3-space (common way to express it), the inverse square
law holds because the origin is a point source (real or virtual) with a
finite flux.  For any arbitrary radius, r, the flux is effectively "spread"
over a spherical surface of area 4*pi*r^2.  Thus it's thinned out to the
inverse square (the other terms being constants).  For 2-space, this would
be represented by the "surface" (i.e., periphery) of a circle coming from
a point source, and the intensity would be inversely proportional to the
distance.  In higher spaces, the hypersurfaces would be one dimension
less than the space they were in, and the law would be "inversely propor-
tional to the (n-1)th power of the distance (for n-space).

However, this might not affect "substances" made of only 3-space material.
There's lots of room for modeling here!

Steve Kallis, Jr.
216.19PEN::KALLISMon Jun 24 1985 15:5317
Re .17:
> ... The way Steve, and many authors,
>describes esxta dimensions does not seem to make any sense; the ways in which
>the terms are used ae without meaning.

C'mon!  I've never used "dimensions" in any of my published stories. :-)

Actually, unfortunately, a lot of early stories take the hyperdimensional
model of parallel 3-space cosmos in 4-space and called each cosmos a 
"dimension."  My explanation (.18) is mathematical, and I hope coherent
enough.  I call other-cosmos stories "extra-planar," if pressed, rather
than "other-dimensional."  As noted earlier, I differentiated between
other 3-space cosmos and 3-space pople visiting a 4-space continuum (the
incident in _Skylark of Valeron_ is the most notable attempt of the latter
story type).

Steve Kallis, Jr.
216.20ALIEN::POSTPISCHILMon Jun 24 1985 21:2636
Re .19:

>>  ... The way Steve, and many authors,
>> describes extra dimensions does not seem to make any sense; the ways in which
>> the terms are used are without meaning.

> C'mon!  I've never used "dimensions" in any of my published stories. :-)

You have written about dimensions in this notes file.  I said "many authors",
not "many other authors".  (Although, of course, you have authored notes and,
undoubtedly, letters, reports, and so on.)

Re .18:

> In higher spaces, the hypersurfaces would be one dimension less than the space
> they were in, and the law would be "inversely propor- tional to the (n-1)th
> power of the distance (for n-space).

I am not questioning the structures of laws in hyperspaces.  The problem is
getting such things to interact with things in our space.  Inverse-square laws
are a direct result of conservation of energy (and other things) and closure of
space.  If there are more dimensions, how can one interact with them? Something
has to give.  How does one get something to move in a dimension other than the
normal ones?  Where in our space will effects from other dimensions appear? 
What laws control such effects?  If there are more dimensions, why does energy
seem to stay here?  That is, why do we observe that energy is conserved,
instead of leaking in or out of our space?

Incidentally, if you have a graphics terminal, it is interesting to simulate
orbits in hyperspaces.  Although some interesting patterns can be observed in
space with three objects (try it, with approximately equal masses), with only
two objects in four- or five-space, the orbit can cross itself in different
directions, producing some very interesting patterns.


				-- edp
216.21PEN::KALLISTue Jun 25 1985 13:1751
re .20:

trivia first (I don't want this to become a "sez you" exchange) --
>You have written about dimensions in this notes file.  I said "many authors",
>not "many other authors". (Although, of course, you have authored notes and,
>undoubtedly, letters, reports, and so on.)

Yes, including a few modest things published in _Analog_, _Scientific Ameri-
can_, and so on.  Point is I put a ":-)" notation after my statement; I'm
surprised it was taken seriously.

Now to the serious stuff:
>I'm not questioning the structures of laws in hyprspaces.  The problem is
>getting such things to interact with things in our space.  Inverse-square
>laws are a direct result of conservation of energy (and other things) and
>closure of space.  If there are more dimensions, how can one interact
>with them?  Something has to give.  How does one get something to move in
>a dimension other than the normal ones?  Where in our space will effects
>from other dimensions appear?  What laws control such effects?  If there are
>more dimensions, wseem to stay here?  That is, why do we observe that energy
>is conserved, instead of leaking in or out of our space?

Good questions.  I'd suspect that the most likely manifestations of any
hypothetical effects from other dimensions would be in the vicinity of
greatest "space curvature," such as in the vicinity of a black hole.  Get-
ting things to move into a dimension other than the normal ones (addition-
al dimensions would be "normal," too -- i.e., normal to the ones we're
familiar with. :-) [little math joke, there]) would be by finding some
form of energy that can be used analogously to the Hall Effect, but with
the deflection normal to three-space (and if I knew what that was, I'd be
knocking on the door of the Nobel committee).  Obviously, displacing an ob-
ject from our space to another would require energy, which would *seem* to
violate the laws of conservation (though it would just extend them to high-
er spaces): things would have to be pretty stable naturally or things in-
deed would be "leaking in or out of our space".  

Getting to natural manifestations:  the only known (reasonably) stable 
fusion reactors are the stars.  Hydrogen fusion has been done in the labor-
atory many times using different methodologies, but Nature showed us it
was possible to fuse things in the first place.  Likewise, there is no
*known* naturally occurring natural fission reactor, but that didn't
stop us from building some.

If there is some way to translate into or interact with hyperspaces, I
suspect that somewhere Out There is a natural example of it.  If such a
thing can be found, then it might give us clues on how to achieve similar
results on a small scale.

This file is, after all "possibilities," not "certainties."

Steve Kallis, Jr.
216.22ALIEN::POSTPISCHILTue Jun 25 1985 15:4532
Re .21:

> Point is I put a ":-)" notation after my statement; I'm surprised it was
> taken seriously.

It wasn't taken seriously, I just interpreted it differently.

When was your most recent publication in _Analog_? 

> Good questions.  I'd suspect that the most likely manifestations of any
> hypothetical effects from other dimensions would be in the vicinity of
> greatest "space curvature," such as in the vicinity of a black hole.

I'm not sure I agree with this.  First, curvature in our space does not
necessarily have anything to do with curvature in another dimension -- our
space can be considered self-contained.  Second, suppose hyperspace has a
structure similar to paper.  If you take a piece of paper and bend it
horizontally, it is going to resist bending vertically -- you would have to
crease it.  Perhaps the effects of hyperspace would be felt best far away from
masses. 

The Hall Effect is a good analogy.

> Likewise, there is no *known* naturally occurring natural fission reactor, but
> that didn't stop us from building some.

Yes, there is.  There was an article in Scientific American several years ago
about a place where a concentration of radioactive deposits was fissioning at
a low level.


				-- edp
216.23PEN::KALLISTue Jun 25 1985 16:0120
re .22

My most recent _Analog_ thing was a short story, "Murphy," a year or so
ago.  I don't happen to remember the issue number offhand.

>>Likewise, there is no *known* naturally occurring natural fission reactor,
>>but
>>that didn't stop us from building some.

>es, there is.  There was an article in Scientific American several years ago
>about a place where a concentration of radioactive deposits was fissioning at
>a low level.

well, sonovagun, I missed that one!  However, I don't think it really in-
validates my point: we made reactors from theory before the "natural
reactor" was discovered, and implemented a design that included control
rods or boreated water.  It's easy to find something after you have a
working model ....

Steve Kallis, Jr.
216.24PEN::KALLISWed Jun 26 1985 13:5044
"Force Fields":

In many SF stories, people come up with "screens," "force fields," "shields,"
and the like.  Usually, these are broken down into two subcategories:

1)  the "dome" or "plane" that's used to deflect or otherwise prevent an
object or energy from reaching the protected item.

2)  the disintegrating type that destroys an incoming whatever (as opposed
to merely shunting it aside).

From our understanding of physics, a few things can partially fill the bill
for type 1 or 2 shields, though very incompletely:

both magnetic and electrostatic flelds can deflect charged particles and
some (in the case of magnetic fields) some metallic objects.  However, these
effects can only be done on small scales in laboratory conditions.  Can these
be extended out of the laboratory?

Maybe, but not without a lot of work.

One approach -- a practical but kludgey type 2 "screen" might be constructed
with the following ingredients:  one high-powered laser, a revolving platform,
and corner reflector return targets.  Thought experiment -- assume the laser
is oriented to a reflector so that the latter is in, and therefore returns,
the beam.  Anything within the beam (save highly reflective onjects) would,
for purposes of our discussion, be vaporized.  Now set laser and reflector
on a revolving platform.  At every sweep of the beam, a region would be "pro-
tected" by the laser (assuming CW operation).  If thw scan were fast enough,
it could "shield" a conical or cylinderical area.

Problem:  a) *can* the scan be "fast enough"?  Probably not -- the acceler-
ation forces would tear our model apart before it would afford full "pro-
tection."  b) what about unprotected areas?  Easier -- flat reflectors
could be used to "bens" the beam in straight segments.

If we make our laser powerful enough, we might be able to use a circular
dihedral reflector and spread the beam to a conical sheet.  But would such
a powerful laser be stable?  Who knows?  If so, the only weak points would
be at the reflectors.  Since such a unit would be useless against anything
really reflective, it would be the sort of "screen" used against natural
rather than fabricated objects, or as a glorified bug zapper.

Steve Kallis, Jr.
216.25GLIVET::BUFORDWed Jun 26 1985 18:3125
Re .24:

I played with the idea of some sort of "standing wave" projector, but it
was full of holes.  Perhaps someone can help fill them in.

One way of thinking about this standing wave is to watch a lot of water moving
through a narrow gorge.   The water moves very fast, but there are stationary
walls of water called standing waves.

Now turn your attention to the phenomenon of beat frequencies.  Two wave
generators emit their waves (sound for example) at close but distinctly
different frequencies.  The two simple waves combine to form a more complex
wave that "beats" as the two simple waves alternately re-enforce and cancel
each other.  

If these two ideas could be combined, the complex wave would "stand" at a
fixed distance from the projector.  In other words, the maximum wave amplitude
would exist at a fixed radius, so it would be most effective (or destructive as
the case may be) at that range, but "harmless" closer or farther. 

As I said, the idea is not complete...  suggestions about how to make the
wave stand are needed.


John B.
216.26PEN::KALLISThu Jun 27 1985 14:1611
Re .25:

If memory serves, an approach was suggested by Doc Smith in _Skylark III_,
where Seaton and Crane are talking about a screen that blocks out *all*
"radiation" {including gravity [!]} in the early chapters.  However, most
standing waves really require some sort of reflective mechanism -- that's
why they can "stand."  What you really may want is a so-called "binary"
mechanism, where each of two components is relatively harmless in itself,
but together could be quite deadly.

Steve Kallis, Jr.
216.27AVOID::REDFORDMon Jul 01 1985 01:5636
re .24 and laser destructo screens:

Air contains carbon dioxide, and CO2 is the lasing medium for the 
most powerful lasers in use today.  This raises the possibility of 
lasers that operate in free air, without enclosing tubes.  Two posts 
with mirrors on them would be set up some distance apart.  Wires 
would be strung between them, and a high voltage applied.  The 
voltage would pump the CO2 in the air between the posts, and presto! 
we have a hundred meter long sheet of high intensity infrared light.

Suppose we wanted this screen to be able to, say, vaporize 
incoming bullets.  Unfortunately, the light intensity needed for that
is incredibly high, on the order of 10^7 W/cm^2.
That's mainly because a fast bullet would cross the screen in a 
couple of hundred microseconds.  The screen doesn't have much time to 
burn it up.  The only way this would work is if a lot of energy could 
be stored in the screen.  We would need perfectly reflecting mirrors, 
and the heating of the air in between the posts would have to cause 
very little loss.

I mentioned this idea to a friend of mine, and he said that Robert 
Forward had already thought of it as a Star Wars weapon.  Forward's 
idea was to have two orbiting mirrors.  The beam between them would 
cut a chord through the Earth's upper atmosphere  Because the beam 
would be so long and would contain so many CO2 molecules, there would 
no chance of saturating the CO2 population.  Apparently, one limit on 
the power of present lasers comes about because no more power can be 
gotten out of them when all the CO2 molecules are in an excited state.
Since there would be cubic kilometers of lasing medium in Forward's scheme,
there would be little chance of that happening.  I don't know how 
he planned to pump this laser, though.  Perhaps with redirected 
charged particles from the Van Allen belts.  There are 
naturally ocurring masers in the atmospheres of other planets, so 
there should be some natural source of energy for it.

/jlr
216.28AVOID::REDFORDMon Jul 01 1985 02:3127
More on force fields:

Why is solid matter solid?  Because of the powerful electric fields 
that bind its atoms together.  Why is solid matter poor for defenses?
Because you have to pile up such a mass of it to stop anything.  Why 
is it so massive?  Because of all those protons and neutrons in its nuclei.
The electrons have thouands of times less mass.  What can be done?  
Why, build atoms out of electrons and positrons instead.  Positrons 
have the same mass as electrons but the opposite charge.  A wall 
built out of positronium could have the same strength as an ordinary 
wall since the forces binding it together would be the same, but far 
less mass.  If it could be made as dense an ordinary matter, a foot 
of positronium would be equivalent to thousands of feet of granite.

Positronium can actually be made, but it has a half-life of about ten 
microseconds. It decays into gamma rays when the electron and 
positron annihilate each other.  Hmmm. How could it be made stable?
Only if the gamma rays can be induced to reform into electrons and positrons.
Two gamma ray photons can collide to produce an electron-positron pair, 
but only if there is a nearby atom to absorb the excess momentum.  So 
we salt the positronium with some normal matter, and confine it all 
between two walls of gamma-ray reflecting material.  Piece of cake.

/jlr

PS Break those gamma-ray mirrors and you're in for more than seven 
years of bad luck.
216.29PEN::KALLISMon Jul 01 1985 12:2824
re .27:

	One of the things that makes lasers possible is that the tube acts
as an optical barrier (i.e., the ray exceeds the critical angle for the
refractive indices involved) that quasicollimates the light.  However, if
instead of standard mirrors, one used corner reflectors or other retrore-
flective material .....

	Naturally, more has to be done, but it's an approach.

Re .28:

	The positronium doesn't sound like an appropriate form of "matter."
However, please to note that the "fundamental building blocks" are growing
thick and fast these days.  From the simple Rutherford (modified miniSolar
System) model composed of electrons, protons, and nwutrons, we're now at the
rather absurd state of having more than a score of "fundamental particles."
Unless you accept Gamov's "nuclear fluid" model, it seems that the quest for
*real* fundamental particles is still a long way from realization.  (Rather
like a converging infinite series, one would think.)
	However, thid brings up some marvelous speculations on other forms of
matter that perhaps belongs in another "Possibilities" filenote.

Steve Kallis, Jr.
216.30Taking the UMPH out of protonsSTONED::KELLEHERSun Sep 21 1986 03:0882
    Hi gang, I'm new in town.
    
    
    Steve, you sure get around!  If you can do so without wandering
    from the "POSSIBILITES" of this file, could you describe the 
    Gamow fluid theory..?
    
    Now:
    	Big problem with controlled fusion--the durned particles with
    their tiny little charges are just too adamant about staying away
    from one another.  This proton and that proton, though their
    cooperation and union would spell lower heating bills for all of
    us this winter, have to be brought to tremendous temperatures to
    give them the velocity they need to fuse.  I find it academically
    and conceptually insulting that their electrostatic forces could
    be so damn TINY (macroscopically speaking) and still be the principal
    stumbling-block between us and controlled fusion.  Rather like:
    the Titanic cannot sail because the cook's mother's brother's servant's
    friend's daughter has a hangnail.  [Inhale...!]
    
    Larry Niven suggested (in RINGWORLD and RINGWORLD ENGINEERS) the
    charges on protons and electrons could be suppressed.  (Nice word
    there, suppressed...I can see the conservation-of-charge-ists going
    "AH-HAH! You can't...oh...mmble mmble...")
    
    I'm not a physicist, I'm a tech writer.  Tell me, is it a violation
    of the sacrosanct to suggest this would be possible?
    
    Some thoughts:
    	If it could be done as conveniently as Niven proposes (a hand-held
    	device) our homes and bath-water could be heated by personal
    	fusion reactors.  No problem with criticality, as fusion
    	researchers suggest for commercial reactors as well--just turn
    	off the fields if things get too "hot" and plorp, reaction ends.
    
    	It could be dangerous.  It occured to me while musing on RINGWORLD
    	that if you suppressed the charge on the protons, yes, the matter
    	in the field would blow away as monatomic dust (with electron-
    	repulsion dominating) but wouldn't *nuclear* forces between
    	the protons draw them together?  I don't have the statistical
    	mechanics background to work this out, because nuclear forces
    	only come into play when protons are within about 2x their
    	radii of one another (whereas electrostatic forces are "felt"
    	to infinity).  Dangerous?  Yeah, imagine firing your suppression
    	beam at a piece of steel or whatnot and watching through the
    	wind and dust as a single nucleus the size of a golf-ball formed.
        
    	Would YOU turn off the field?  Not me.
    
    	Dangerous in another way.  You suppress the protons.  (Or the
    	electrons--I'm equal-opportunity, here.)  Suddenly all the 
    	electrons are free to fly off and do whatever electrons do 
    	when they have no commitments.  When lots of electrons go in
    	one direction, don't we call that lightning?  What, then, do
    	we call it when *LOTS* of electrons all zip off radially from
    	one another?  Something like a spherical static-ball, I guess,
    	and a nasty-powerful one!  I'm addressing Niven's notion that
    	what would fly off from the volume of the field would be
    	monatomic dust--those individual particles forming atoms once
    	they're able.  I suggest that the electrons would so outdistance
    	the protons when the field went on (remember, the electrons
    	are repelled--the protons are just kinda doing nothing) that
    	the electrons are "out of range" once the protons are
    	clear of the field.  We're back to my static-fireball.
    	I'm less sure about this dangerous point than the previous
    	dangerous point and I welcome information and correction.
    
    	I also love to muse out loud and love to hear myself write.
    	
    	
        
    The question: is it so nuts a notion that we could turn down the
    proton-electrostatic repulsion?
    
    And: anyone else think up any neato-keen side-effects?
    
    
    Tom Kelleher