I know that a lot of sci-fi media presents futures with laser and energy weapons. But who's to say that's actually going to happen? A good example is Stargate SG-1 where the humans where able to help out super advanced aliens kill some even more advanced evil robot alien race. Thanks to the crude kinetic projectile weapons. I think in Star trek they had a similar issue with the Borg, but then again I don't like star trek so much. Except for the reboot, that I liked.
Even if we get energy weapons which are more powerful. Who's to say they will be just as versatile, cost effective, easily mass produced as future bullet based weapons?
<!--quoteo(post=1782110:date=Jul 23 2010, 08:03 AM:name=a_civilian)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (a_civilian @ Jul 23 2010, 08:03 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1782110"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm not sure I buy that argument. The modern firearm operates on the same principle as a cannon, a slingshot or even a fist in that it launches a macroscopic projectile toward a target, utilizing the kinetic energy of the projectile to cause damage. Conceptually only the means of propulsion differs. If one were to try to extend this comparison to the future, it would lead to such weapons as railguns and coilguns, which accelerate macroscopic projectiles using electromagnetic means.
The main problem that I see with laser and particle beam weapons, at least in comparison to projectile weapons, is that they are easily stopped. A particle traveling at or near the speed of light has a much lower ratio of momentum to kinetic energy than a bullet moving only at several times the speed of sound. Whereas a bullet can penetrate the outer surface of a target and cause damage to its interior, a laser or particle beam weapon would transfer all of its energy to the outer surface - to damage the interior, you would have to completely vaporize all matter along the way. (Of course, the very vaporization of the surface would carry explosive force, which may damage the interior through shockwaves, and this could be considered the primary purpose of the weapon.) Additionally, light can be reflected (imagine using a laser against a white target) and charged particles tend to be stopped by intervening atmosphere.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Bogus argument in the first paragraph. Not only that, but you seem to have only the most tenuous grasp on the simplest of particle physics. And made another bogus argument about momentum.
Allow me to prove you wrong.
Your argument that "simpler principle = better weapon" is countered by my argument "Setting stuff on fire is the same level of coolness as punching holes through it or blowing it away". I think we can agree on that.
For the second problem, you decided you knew anything about particle physics. In general, thinking that macroscopic physics applies to subatomic particles is a very, very, very bad idea. Ever head that quantum mechanics is crazy? Yeah, that's why. You were talking about photons. Comparing their momentum to bullets is insanity. Photons never, ever, ever, ever, ever EVER slow down. EVER. Speed of light is constant. Photons may be absorbed and then shot back out by substances in a process known as reflection, but they never ever slow down.
Not only that, but a bullet travelling at muzzle velocity has the same momentum as a tennis ball flying at tennis velocity (yes, they really do). Momentum is not the word you wanted to use. Pressure is what you were looking for. Why? Sword > Club for the same reason Bullet > Tennis Ball. Same momentum, more penetrative power.
In any case, using a macroscopic concept like pressure is super fallacious when we're talking about subatomic particles.
Why? Electron neutrinos. Those things are called weakly interacting. That means they literally pass through everything without stopping much at all. The only reason they don't go straight through the earth and out the other side is because of their 800 second half life. And that's the tame stuff. We didn't even have to tinker with neutrinos to make them act in a special way. And we already do that and have been doing that. All household microwaves fry anything with water in it and leave everything else completely alone. Imagine a ray-gun which only fried brain matter or muscle tissue, completely leaving bone alone. Special military tech utilizing the weirdness of subatomic particle behavior is a scarily effective idea. And the principle is already there, waiting to be utilized some time or another.
So lasers (streams of subatomic particles) do cool things. Things that bullets can't do and will never do. They will literally fry your brain in half a second, bypassing your silly skull's protections. Or fry your heart. And if that doesn't kill you, we'll probably have secondary systems in the form of crazy amounts of radiation piggy backing on the organ-frying particles. And just so you know, some types of radiation cannot be stopped except by very powerful magnetic fields. Talk about an expensive body armor. Without it, one dissolves via radiation sickness in a couple of days.
Now you were absolutely correct to compare rail guns and coil guns to laser guns. By the time we have laser guns out of the Ineffective Cannon stage (we have that already, except its effective) and into the Soldier Use stage, we'll also have totally scary rail guns and coil guns also at the Soldier Use stage (we also have those in the Ineffective Cannon stage, except its effective).
Which would be more effective? Who knows. That's the future. All I know is lasers can do stuff bullets can never do. That's why I think laser guns are a plausible future weapon. But good ole fashion bullets will still a good answer for everything. There'll be a point where frying brains or hearts will be more effective. Just like using bolt action rifles eventually became more effective than bows. And just like when Bow tech got more effective than spear tech. And when spear tech got more effective than club tech. And when club tech got more effective than fist tech. Changes in tech supremacy happen all throughout our history.
Stating that the way we do things now will never be superceded by superior tech is super arrogant and ignorant. And I bet you every society who had a top weapon tech said that.
a_civilianLikes seeing numbersJoin Date: 2003-01-08Member: 12041Members, NS1 Playtester, Playtest Lead
edited July 2010
<!--quoteo(post=1782261:date=Jul 23 2010, 04:36 PM:name=yourbonesakin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yourbonesakin @ Jul 23 2010, 04:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1782261"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Your argument that "simpler principle = better weapon" is countered by my argument "Setting stuff on fire is the same level of coolness as punching holes through it or blowing it away". I think we can agree on that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What? I never argued that. Are you reading a different post?
In response to the rest of your post, thanks for the insults but I actually do know a bit about physics. I'm talking about the <i>momentum to (kinetic) energy ratio</i>. The ratio for a photon is 1. For a bullet it's closer to 10^6. The point here is that, <i>per unit energy</i>, it is much easier, by which I mean it takes a much smaller force, to stop a stream of lightspeed or near lightspeed particles than to stop a bullet. (And no, momentum was the term I intended to use, but thanks. Pressure matters, but I wanted to avoid using it for the reason you already described.)
There are indeed particles that will pass through any armor. The problem, of course, is that they will also pass through the target itself. You're not going to damage a target with neutrinos. There's a reason I explicitly mentioned charged particles - you need them to interact with the target. (Particles with strong interaction (as in strong nuclear force), such as neutrons, can also damage a target, but accelerating neutral particles is much more difficult.)
Finally, perhaps I wasn't clear on this but I was referring to the use of laser/particle weapons in the same role as firearms. We have the technology now to kill people through almost any amount of armor (see neutron bombs), but it could take weeks for them to die from the radiation exposure. (Incidentally, a magnetic field won't protect you from a neutron bomb, since neutrons are electrically neutral.) The point of a firearm is to incapacitate someone quickly, which neutron bomb exposure won't do.
There are certainly roles for laser and particle weapons, but it was my intention to comment specifically on the likelihood of them replacing projectile weapons.
<!--quoteo(post=1782278:date=Jul 23 2010, 05:44 PM:name=a_civilian)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (a_civilian @ Jul 23 2010, 05:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1782278"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->thanks for the insults but I actually do know a bit about physics.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> aww, boo. see now you edited it out, you just destroyed your credibility. It was much more fun the way you had it before.
<!--quoteo(post=1782278:date=Jul 23 2010, 06:44 PM:name=a_civilian)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (a_civilian @ Jul 23 2010, 06:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1782278"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What? I never argued that. Are you reading a different post?
In response to the rest of your post, thanks for the insults but I actually do know a bit about physics. I'm talking about the <i>momentum to (kinetic) energy ratio</i>. The ratio for a photon is 1. For a bullet it's closer to 10^6. The point here is that, <i>per unit energy</i>, it is much easier, by which I mean it takes a much smaller force, to stop a stream of lightspeed or near lightspeed particles than to stop a bullet. (And no, momentum was the term I intended to use, but thanks. Pressure matters, but I wanted to avoid using it for the reason you already described.)
There are indeed particles that will pass through any armor. The problem, of course, is that they will also pass through the target itself. You're not going to damage a target with neutrinos. There's a reason I explicitly mentioned charged particles - you need them to interact with the target. (Particles with strong interaction (as in strong nuclear force), such as neutrons, can also damage a target, but accelerating neutral particles is much more difficult.)
Finally, perhaps I wasn't clear on this but I was referring to the use of laser/particle weapons in the same role as firearms. We have the technology now to kill people through almost any amount of armor (see neutron bombs), but it could take weeks for them to die from the radiation exposure. (Incidentally, a magnetic field won't protect you from a neutron bomb, since neutrons are electrically neutral.) The point of a firearm is to incapacitate someone quickly, which neutron bomb exposure won't do.
There are certainly roles for laser and particle weapons, but it was my intention to comment specifically on the likelihood of them replacing projectile weapons.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In any case, using a pressure analogy just doesn't apply to lasers. We're talking quantum physics here. Lasers aren't supposed to simulate bullets. <i>They're supposed to set you on fire and fry your brains</i>. Comparing a photon's penetrative force as if it performed the same role as a bullet is ignorant, mostly because we already have the technology to selectively choose which materials are bombarded and which are ignored (see microwave oven). And that's just the "fry your brains" part. The "set you on fire part" works regardless of selective tech. And lasers could one day melt holes through people. Pressure be damned, heat is an entirely different concept.
And we already lasers that burn things really well. If you don't believe me, watch this video in which the US Navy's tests their Laser Cannon on a flying drone. Its metal hull bursts into flames (!) and it goes into a death spiral (I assume because either it got physically deformed or its computers got fried). Pretty effective.
That's the Ineffective Cannon I was talking about before. It's only a matter of time (200 years or so) before we have laser guns in the Soldier Use stage.
I do believe we're talking about a Sci Fi game whose setting involves teleportation devices, jet packs with infinite fuel, and nanites of all things. I think we'll have Soldier Use laser guns before teleportation at least. Probably before super efficient jetpacks with recharging energy source (but who knows?). Not before nanites.
So I think I've proven that laser guns can be and will be 1) effective and 2) Setting appropriate for NS2.
Will they be better than the inevitable Soldier Use rail guns? Ionno. They do different things.
I think the main point that you "boffins" all seem to have missed is that beam and pulse laser type weapons as depicted in science fiction have one big inherrant flaw in there operation. you can see where that beam/pulse orignates with the naked eye alot easier than you can see a muzzle flash of a projectile weapon thus giving away its users exact position. Theres something to be said for the uncertianty of projectile weaponry in that regard as you cannot see the projectile as it travels.
<!--quoteo(post=1782321:date=Jul 23 2010, 10:04 PM:name=BlitzThose)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BlitzThose @ Jul 23 2010, 10:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1782321"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think the main point that you "boffins" all seem to have missed is that beam and pulse laser type weapons as depicted in science fiction have one big inherrant flaw in there operation. you can see where that beam/pulse orignates with the naked eye alot easier than you can see a muzzle flash of a projectile weapon thus giving away its users exact position. Theres something to be said for the uncertianty of projectile weaponry in that regard as you cannot see the projectile as it travels.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You raise a very good point.
We could use invisible lasers in laser guns for a video game (see mircowave oven and mircowave weapons), but then what's the point of a laser gun? If it looks pretty, it's too obvious and thus stupid (NS2 has a serious tone, this doesn't work). If its inconspicuous, it doesn't look pretty. And looking pretty is the entire point of putting laser guns in a video game instead of regular guns.
We could just make the lasers be invisible but create heat mirages and air lens effects. That'd suck for visibility and thus doesn't make any sense for a weapon.
<!--quoteo(post=1782138:date=Jul 23 2010, 02:40 PM:name=Kouji_San)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kouji_San @ Jul 23 2010, 02:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1782138"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Except they are no in space, but in a life support system tailored for us fragile human. And guessing from drilling sites or other mineral extraction shizzle, I wouldn't want to call that particular a dust free environment. I won't even go into what the aliens do with their humid environment and what that does to weapon reliability :P<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah obviously inside a spaceship or colony you have exactly the same problems you do on earth. As well as the added problem of blowing holes in the walls resulting in your air disappearing.
By 'in space' I assumed 'in a vacuum between stellar bodies' was meant.
<!--quoteo(post=1782324:date=Jul 23 2010, 10:20 PM:name=yourbonesakin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yourbonesakin @ Jul 23 2010, 10:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1782324"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You raise a very good point.
We could use invisible lasers in laser guns for a video game (see mircowave oven and mircowave weapons), but then what's the point of a laser gun? If it looks pretty, it's too obvious and thus stupid (NS2 has a serious tone, this doesn't work). If its inconspicuous, it doesn't look pretty. And looking pretty is the entire point of putting laser guns in a video game instead of regular guns.
We could just make the lasers be invisible but create heat mirages and air lens effects. That'd suck for visibility and thus doesn't make any sense for a weapon.
Hmm....<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How about we make the laser invisible because that seems realistic [where firing the laser = sound from the weapons circuitry like sound of high-voltage buzz and stuff], and we make it where the aliens start smoking (immediate effects from being shot at), and all the while they scream in pain. At that point seeing the laser beam from your weapon to target is overrated [but i still want a laser sight to aim the thing like in Alien Swarm... funny Alien Swarm has a mining laser].
On the other hand, the laser beam effects in the movie Congo were pretty damn good.
An infrared image of the Missile Defense Agency's Airborne Laser Testbed destroying a threat representative short-range ballistic missile, left, Feb. 11, 2010. A high-energy laser mounted on a U.S. military aircraft shot down a ballistic missile in the first successful test of the weapon, the agency said on Feb. 12. The experiment was carried out off the central California coast at Point Mugu Naval Air Warfare Center.
<b>Aliens</b>. That is all. We've all seen it. Future, space travel, machine guns and flamethrowers. That's what is going on here, i can't imagine what is confusing about that /thread
tankefuglOne Script To Rule Them All...Trondheim, NorwayJoin Date: 2002-11-14Member: 8641Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
<!--QuoteBegin-yourbonesakin+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yourbonesakin)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Comparing their momentum to bullets is insanity. Photons never, ever, ever, ever, ever EVER slow down. EVER. Speed of light is constant. Photons may be absorbed and then shot back out by substances in a process known as reflection, but they never ever slow down.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yet photons carry momentum, and this is a very real and measurable quantity which has real effect and is incorporated into quantum mechanics. a_civilian isn't wrong in what he says, and this attempt to redicule his statement is inherently flawed. In adition, the pressure force you claim does not apply is very much existant and measurable in photons, from starlight to lasers.
While you two argued different things, you might want to check up on the absoluteness of your own statements before you launch in with guns blazing.
a_civilianLikes seeing numbersJoin Date: 2003-01-08Member: 12041Members, NS1 Playtester, Playtest Lead
edited July 2010
In any event I suspect that humans will be obsoleted by artificial intelligence within the not too distant future, which would render the entire premise of the game implausible.
<!--quoteo(post=1782355:date=Jul 24 2010, 03:15 PM:name=zex)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (zex @ Jul 24 2010, 03:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1782355"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>Aliens</b>. That is all. We've all seen it. Future, space travel, machine guns and flamethrowers. That's what is going on here, i can't imagine what is confusing about that /thread<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Agreed.
<!--quoteo(post=1782372:date=Jul 24 2010, 04:43 AM:name=tankefugl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tankefugl @ Jul 24 2010, 04:43 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1782372"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yet photons carry momentum, and this is a very real and measurable quantity which has real effect and is incorporated into quantum mechanics. a_civilian isn't wrong in what he says, and this attempt to redicule his statement is inherently flawed. In adition, the pressure force you claim does not apply is very much existant and measurable in photons, from starlight to lasers.
While you two argued different things, you might want to check up on the absoluteness of your own statements before you launch in with guns blazing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're right about momentum and pressure actually existing in the case of photons. Hell, the sun hits the earth with ~5 pounds of light every year. My point was that it doesn't matter in this case due to the weirdness of quantum mechanics.
Am I right? Technically yes. Should I have been less of a jerk? Absolutely. Do I feel bad about it? No. I don't like people making absolute claims about things they don't have enough knowledge about to make any authoritative claims much less absolute claims. Especially about the future. Especially about Sci Fi.... in the future... When they are wrong <i>here and now</i>.
I'll stop being a boffin now, as my British colleague pointed out :D
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited July 2010
<!--quoteo(post=1782321:date=Jul 24 2010, 04:04 AM:name=BlitzThose)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BlitzThose @ Jul 24 2010, 04:04 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1782321"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think the main point that you "boffins" all seem to have missed is that beam and pulse laser type weapons as depicted in science fiction have one big inherrant flaw in there operation. you can see where that beam/pulse orignates with the naked eye alot easier than you can see a muzzle flash of a projectile weapon thus giving away its users exact position. Theres something to be said for the uncertianty of projectile weaponry in that regard as you cannot see the projectile as it travels.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Murphy's laws adapted for lAzOrs :P
<!--quoteo(post=1782261:date=Jul 23 2010, 09:36 PM:name=yourbonesakin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yourbonesakin @ Jul 23 2010, 09:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1782261"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Comparing their momentum to bullets is insanity. Photons never, ever, ever, ever, ever EVER slow down. EVER. Speed of light is constant. Photons may be absorbed and then shot back out by substances in a process known as reflection, but they never ever slow down.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Amusingly that is 100% inaccurate.
Photons slow down when they change medium, a photon going from vaccum to air will slow down quite a lot. The speed of light is also not even remotely constant given that you can actually stop it completely if you have enough bose-einsteinian condensate. Density changes in the material will also affect the speed.
<!--quoteo(post=1782466:date=Jul 24 2010, 12:35 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jul 24 2010, 12:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1782466"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Amusingly that is 100% inaccurate.
Photons slow down when they change medium, a photon going from vaccum to air will slow down quite a lot. The speed of light is also not even remotely constant given that you can actually stop it completely if you have enough bose-einsteinian condensate. Density changes in the material will also affect the speed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Photons go at the maximum speed the permeabilty and permitivity of space will allow (among other things...). Those values can change (like with Snell's Law as you referenced).
Bose-Einstein condensate is just more fancy medium stuff.
Then again, we are talking about Sci Fi and Kharaa filling their epidermis with whatever material (super cold temperatures or not) to completely stop lasers is in the realm of possibility. Just about as much as laser guns being effective against them.
So I concede the point. "Khara have laser deflection systems! They can slow light! By the Hammer Of Thor! We need ancient guns!"
I'm not entirely averse to laser guns, it makes as much sense as giving marines automatic sniper rifles to fight an indoor battle with.
I just like to pick science holes in things, figure I should probably use my A levels for something.
Some laser technology might fit in NS, a big industrial looking mining laser or something carried around with the exosuit and used like a cannon would be pretty cool. As long as you shy away from the pew pew phaser beams it still keeps the NS feel.
a_civilianLikes seeing numbersJoin Date: 2003-01-08Member: 12041Members, NS1 Playtester, Playtest Lead
<!--quoteo(post=1782472:date=Jul 24 2010, 12:54 PM:name=yourbonesakin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yourbonesakin @ Jul 24 2010, 12:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1782472"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Photons go at the maximum speed the permeabilty and permitivity of space will allow (among other things...). Those values can change (like with Snell's Law as you referenced).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's actually not true either - the speed of light in a medium does not impose a limit for other particles. It is possible to particles to move faster than the speed of light in some medium (a common example would be the Cerenkov radiation phenomenon).
<!--quoteo(post=1782488:date=Jul 24 2010, 01:42 PM:name=a_civilian)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (a_civilian @ Jul 24 2010, 01:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1782488"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=1782472:date=Jul 24 2010, 12:54 PM:name=yourbonesakin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yourbonesakin @ Jul 24 2010, 12:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1782472"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Photons go at the maximum speed the permeabilty and permitivity of space will allow (among other things...). Those values can change (like with Snell's Law as you referenced).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's actually not true either - the speed of light in a medium does not impose a limit for other particles. It is possible to particles to move faster than the speed of light in some medium (a common example would be the Cerenkov radiation phenomenon). <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Damnit, I love Cherenkov radiation. "Faster than light electrons! BY THE HAMMER OF THOR!!!"
In any case, speed of photons = speed of light. Things other than photons can go faster than the speed of light if it has been reduced to less than "c", but photons never can. That's because photons are light.
So you misunderstood. I was clearly talking about photons and only photons. Never did I say other things couldn't go faster than photons. You were right, but you were refuting something I never said.
<!--quoteo(post=1782488:date=Jul 24 2010, 07:42 PM:name=a_civilian)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (a_civilian @ Jul 24 2010, 07:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1782488"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's actually not true either - the speed of light in a medium does not impose a limit for other particles. It is possible to particles to move faster than the speed of light in some medium (a common example would be the Cerenkov radiation phenomenon).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your phrasing make it sound, like Cherenkov radiation would be the reason for faster than light movement.
But tell me, as far as i know Cherenkov radiation is caused when particles travel through a medium at a higher speed than the light speed for that medium.
And for the sake of not going mad please tell me, that you also deem the vacuum light speed as the top speed any particle can achieve.
<!--quoteo(post=1782355:date=Jul 24 2010, 01:15 AM:name=zex)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (zex @ Jul 24 2010, 01:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1782355"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>Aliens</b>. That is all. We've all seen it. Future, space travel, machine guns and flamethrowers. That's what is going on here, i can't imagine what is confusing about that /thread<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro--> Hudson: Check it out. I am the ultimate bad-ass! State of the badass art. You do not want to ###### with me. Check it out. Hey Ripley, don't worry. Me and my squad of ultimate badasses will protect you. Check it out...Independently targeting particle-beam phalanx. Vwap! Fry half a city with this puppy. We got tactical smart missiles, phased plasma pulse rifles, RPGs. <u>We got sonic electronic ballbreakers</u>!...We got nukes, We got knives, sharp sticks. Apone: Knock it off Hudson.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
a_civilianLikes seeing numbersJoin Date: 2003-01-08Member: 12041Members, NS1 Playtester, Playtest Lead
edited July 2010
<!--quoteo(post=1782497:date=Jul 24 2010, 02:00 PM:name=Faskalia)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Faskalia @ Jul 24 2010, 02:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1782497"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Your phrasing make it sound, like Cherenkov radiation would be the reason for faster than light movement.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's why I added the word "phenomenon", to indicate that I was referring to the associated phenomenon, rather than the radiation itself.
<!--quoteo(post=1782496:date=Jul 24 2010, 01:59 PM:name=yourbonesakin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yourbonesakin @ Jul 24 2010, 01:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1782496"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So you misunderstood. I was clearly talking about photons and only photons. Never did I say other things couldn't go faster than photons. You were right, but you were refuting something I never said.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You said "photons go at the maximum speed...", which doesn't make much sense if "maximum speed" refers to that of photons. Well, perhaps it's a convoluted way of saying they move at one speed. Shrug.
<!--quoteo(post=1782593:date=Jul 24 2010, 05:15 PM:name=a_civilian)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (a_civilian @ Jul 24 2010, 05:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1782593"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well, you said "photons go at the maximum speed...", which doesn't make much sense if "maximum speed" refers to that of photons. It's a vacuously true statement. Shrug.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fair enough.
I wouldn't look too deeply in my word choice... especially not try to figure what I was thinking at the time of writing, lol.
Comments
Even if we get energy weapons which are more powerful. Who's to say they will be just as versatile, cost effective, easily mass produced as future bullet based weapons?
Most armies wouldn't deploy a weapon in the field if it couldn't handle it. (M16's in Vietnam not withstanding)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You would think that, but JOE, your common front line soldier will find a way to break it......
The main problem that I see with laser and particle beam weapons, at least in comparison to projectile weapons, is that they are easily stopped. A particle traveling at or near the speed of light has a much lower ratio of momentum to kinetic energy than a bullet moving only at several times the speed of sound. Whereas a bullet can penetrate the outer surface of a target and cause damage to its interior, a laser or particle beam weapon would transfer all of its energy to the outer surface - to damage the interior, you would have to completely vaporize all matter along the way. (Of course, the very vaporization of the surface would carry explosive force, which may damage the interior through shockwaves, and this could be considered the primary purpose of the weapon.) Additionally, light can be reflected (imagine using a laser against a white target) and charged particles tend to be stopped by intervening atmosphere.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bogus argument in the first paragraph. Not only that, but you seem to have only the most tenuous grasp on the simplest of particle physics. And made another bogus argument about momentum.
Allow me to prove you wrong.
Your argument that "simpler principle = better weapon" is countered by my argument "Setting stuff on fire is the same level of coolness as punching holes through it or blowing it away". I think we can agree on that.
For the second problem, you decided you knew anything about particle physics. In general, thinking that macroscopic physics applies to subatomic particles is a very, very, very bad idea. Ever head that quantum mechanics is crazy? Yeah, that's why. You were talking about photons. Comparing their momentum to bullets is insanity. Photons never, ever, ever, ever, ever EVER slow down. EVER. Speed of light is constant. Photons may be absorbed and then shot back out by substances in a process known as reflection, but they never ever slow down.
Not only that, but a bullet travelling at muzzle velocity has the same momentum as a tennis ball flying at tennis velocity (yes, they really do). Momentum is not the word you wanted to use. Pressure is what you were looking for. Why? Sword > Club for the same reason Bullet > Tennis Ball. Same momentum, more penetrative power.
In any case, using a macroscopic concept like pressure is super fallacious when we're talking about subatomic particles.
Why? Electron neutrinos. Those things are called weakly interacting. That means they literally pass through everything without stopping much at all. The only reason they don't go straight through the earth and out the other side is because of their 800 second half life. And that's the tame stuff. We didn't even have to tinker with neutrinos to make them act in a special way. And we already do that and have been doing that. All household microwaves fry anything with water in it and leave everything else completely alone. Imagine a ray-gun which only fried brain matter or muscle tissue, completely leaving bone alone. Special military tech utilizing the weirdness of subatomic particle behavior is a scarily effective idea. And the principle is already there, waiting to be utilized some time or another.
So lasers (streams of subatomic particles) do cool things. Things that bullets can't do and will never do. They will literally fry your brain in half a second, bypassing your silly skull's protections. Or fry your heart. And if that doesn't kill you, we'll probably have secondary systems in the form of crazy amounts of radiation piggy backing on the organ-frying particles. And just so you know, some types of radiation cannot be stopped except by very powerful magnetic fields. Talk about an expensive body armor. Without it, one dissolves via radiation sickness in a couple of days.
Now you were absolutely correct to compare rail guns and coil guns to laser guns. By the time we have laser guns out of the Ineffective Cannon stage (we have that already, except its effective) and into the Soldier Use stage, we'll also have totally scary rail guns and coil guns also at the Soldier Use stage (we also have those in the Ineffective Cannon stage, except its effective).
Which would be more effective? Who knows. That's the future. All I know is lasers can do stuff bullets can never do. That's why I think laser guns are a plausible future weapon. But good ole fashion bullets will still a good answer for everything. There'll be a point where frying brains or hearts will be more effective. Just like using bolt action rifles eventually became more effective than bows. And just like when Bow tech got more effective than spear tech. And when spear tech got more effective than club tech. And when club tech got more effective than fist tech. Changes in tech supremacy happen all throughout our history.
Stating that the way we do things now will never be superceded by superior tech is super arrogant and ignorant. And I bet you every society who had a top weapon tech said that.
What? I never argued that. Are you reading a different post?
In response to the rest of your post, thanks for the insults but I actually do know a bit about physics. I'm talking about the <i>momentum to (kinetic) energy ratio</i>. The ratio for a photon is 1. For a bullet it's closer to 10^6. The point here is that, <i>per unit energy</i>, it is much easier, by which I mean it takes a much smaller force, to stop a stream of lightspeed or near lightspeed particles than to stop a bullet. (And no, momentum was the term I intended to use, but thanks. Pressure matters, but I wanted to avoid using it for the reason you already described.)
There are indeed particles that will pass through any armor. The problem, of course, is that they will also pass through the target itself. You're not going to damage a target with neutrinos. There's a reason I explicitly mentioned charged particles - you need them to interact with the target. (Particles with strong interaction (as in strong nuclear force), such as neutrons, can also damage a target, but accelerating neutral particles is much more difficult.)
Finally, perhaps I wasn't clear on this but I was referring to the use of laser/particle weapons in the same role as firearms. We have the technology now to kill people through almost any amount of armor (see neutron bombs), but it could take weeks for them to die from the radiation exposure. (Incidentally, a magnetic field won't protect you from a neutron bomb, since neutrons are electrically neutral.) The point of a firearm is to incapacitate someone quickly, which neutron bomb exposure won't do.
There are certainly roles for laser and particle weapons, but it was my intention to comment specifically on the likelihood of them replacing projectile weapons.
aww, boo. see now you edited it out, you just destroyed your credibility. It was much more fun the way you had it before.
In response to the rest of your post, thanks for the insults but I actually do know a bit about physics. I'm talking about the <i>momentum to (kinetic) energy ratio</i>. The ratio for a photon is 1. For a bullet it's closer to 10^6. The point here is that, <i>per unit energy</i>, it is much easier, by which I mean it takes a much smaller force, to stop a stream of lightspeed or near lightspeed particles than to stop a bullet. (And no, momentum was the term I intended to use, but thanks. Pressure matters, but I wanted to avoid using it for the reason you already described.)
There are indeed particles that will pass through any armor. The problem, of course, is that they will also pass through the target itself. You're not going to damage a target with neutrinos. There's a reason I explicitly mentioned charged particles - you need them to interact with the target. (Particles with strong interaction (as in strong nuclear force), such as neutrons, can also damage a target, but accelerating neutral particles is much more difficult.)
Finally, perhaps I wasn't clear on this but I was referring to the use of laser/particle weapons in the same role as firearms. We have the technology now to kill people through almost any amount of armor (see neutron bombs), but it could take weeks for them to die from the radiation exposure. (Incidentally, a magnetic field won't protect you from a neutron bomb, since neutrons are electrically neutral.) The point of a firearm is to incapacitate someone quickly, which neutron bomb exposure won't do.
There are certainly roles for laser and particle weapons, but it was my intention to comment specifically on the likelihood of them replacing projectile weapons.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In any case, using a pressure analogy just doesn't apply to lasers. We're talking quantum physics here. Lasers aren't supposed to simulate bullets. <i>They're supposed to set you on fire and fry your brains</i>. Comparing a photon's penetrative force as if it performed the same role as a bullet is ignorant, mostly because we already have the technology to selectively choose which materials are bombarded and which are ignored (see microwave oven). And that's just the "fry your brains" part. The "set you on fire part" works regardless of selective tech. And lasers could one day melt holes through people. Pressure be damned, heat is an entirely different concept.
And we already lasers that burn things really well. If you don't believe me, watch this video in which the US Navy's tests their Laser Cannon on a flying drone. Its metal hull bursts into flames (!) and it goes into a death spiral (I assume because either it got physically deformed or its computers got fried). Pretty effective.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTpP412fM8U" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTpP412fM8U</a>
That's the Ineffective Cannon I was talking about before. It's only a matter of time (200 years or so) before we have laser guns in the Soldier Use stage.
I do believe we're talking about a Sci Fi game whose setting involves teleportation devices, jet packs with infinite fuel, and nanites of all things. I think we'll have Soldier Use laser guns before teleportation at least. Probably before super efficient jetpacks with recharging energy source (but who knows?). Not before nanites.
So I think I've proven that laser guns can be and will be 1) effective and 2) Setting appropriate for NS2.
Will they be better than the inevitable Soldier Use rail guns? Ionno. They do different things.
you can see where that beam/pulse orignates with the naked eye alot easier than you can see a muzzle flash of a projectile weapon thus giving away its users exact position. Theres something to be said for the uncertianty of projectile weaponry in that regard as you cannot see the projectile as it travels.
you can see where that beam/pulse orignates with the naked eye alot easier than you can see a muzzle flash of a projectile weapon thus giving away its users exact position. Theres something to be said for the uncertianty of projectile weaponry in that regard as you cannot see the projectile as it travels.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You raise a very good point.
We could use invisible lasers in laser guns for a video game (see mircowave oven and mircowave weapons), but then what's the point of a laser gun? If it looks pretty, it's too obvious and thus stupid (NS2 has a serious tone, this doesn't work). If its inconspicuous, it doesn't look pretty. And looking pretty is the entire point of putting laser guns in a video game instead of regular guns.
We could just make the lasers be invisible but create heat mirages and air lens effects. That'd suck for visibility and thus doesn't make any sense for a weapon.
Hmm....
Yeah obviously inside a spaceship or colony you have exactly the same problems you do on earth. As well as the added problem of blowing holes in the walls resulting in your air disappearing.
By 'in space' I assumed 'in a vacuum between stellar bodies' was meant.
We could use invisible lasers in laser guns for a video game (see mircowave oven and mircowave weapons), but then what's the point of a laser gun? If it looks pretty, it's too obvious and thus stupid (NS2 has a serious tone, this doesn't work). If its inconspicuous, it doesn't look pretty. And looking pretty is the entire point of putting laser guns in a video game instead of regular guns.
We could just make the lasers be invisible but create heat mirages and air lens effects. That'd suck for visibility and thus doesn't make any sense for a weapon.
Hmm....<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How about we make the laser invisible because that seems realistic [where firing the laser = sound from the weapons circuitry like sound of high-voltage buzz and stuff], and we make it where the aliens start smoking (immediate effects from being shot at), and all the while they scream in pain. At that point seeing the laser beam from your weapon to target is overrated [but i still want a laser sight to aim the thing like in Alien Swarm... funny Alien Swarm has a mining laser].
On the other hand, the laser beam effects in the movie Congo were pretty damn good.
<img src="http://www.ericdsnider.com/images/congo1.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<img src="http://www.ericdsnider.com/images/congo2.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
"Put them on the endangered species list!" Haha fits so well with the whole Darwin natural selection theme.
<img src="http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2010/05/13/laser2x-large.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
An infrared image of the Missile Defense Agency's Airborne Laser Testbed destroying a threat representative short-range ballistic missile, left, Feb. 11, 2010. A high-energy laser mounted on a U.S. military aircraft shot down a ballistic missile in the first successful test of the weapon, the agency said on Feb. 12. The experiment was carried out off the central California coast at Point Mugu Naval Air Warfare Center.
/thread
Yet photons carry momentum, and this is a very real and measurable quantity which has real effect and is incorporated into quantum mechanics. a_civilian isn't wrong in what he says, and this attempt to redicule his statement is inherently flawed. In adition, the pressure force you claim does not apply is very much existant and measurable in photons, from starlight to lasers.
While you two argued different things, you might want to check up on the absoluteness of your own statements before you launch in with guns blazing.
/thread<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed.
While you two argued different things, you might want to check up on the absoluteness of your own statements before you launch in with guns blazing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're right about momentum and pressure actually existing in the case of photons. Hell, the sun hits the earth with ~5 pounds of light every year. My point was that it doesn't matter in this case due to the weirdness of quantum mechanics.
Am I right? Technically yes. Should I have been less of a jerk? Absolutely. Do I feel bad about it? No. I don't like people making absolute claims about things they don't have enough knowledge about to make any authoritative claims much less absolute claims. Especially about the future. Especially about Sci Fi.... in the future... When they are wrong <i>here and now</i>.
I'll stop being a boffin now, as my British colleague pointed out :D
you can see where that beam/pulse orignates with the naked eye alot easier than you can see a muzzle flash of a projectile weapon thus giving away its users exact position. Theres something to be said for the uncertianty of projectile weaponry in that regard as you cannot see the projectile as it travels.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Murphy's laws adapted for lAzOrs :P
Tracers work both ways.
Amusingly that is 100% inaccurate.
Photons slow down when they change medium, a photon going from vaccum to air will slow down quite a lot. The speed of light is also not even remotely constant given that you can actually stop it completely if you have enough bose-einsteinian condensate. Density changes in the material will also affect the speed.
Photons slow down when they change medium, a photon going from vaccum to air will slow down quite a lot. The speed of light is also not even remotely constant given that you can actually stop it completely if you have enough bose-einsteinian condensate. Density changes in the material will also affect the speed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Photons go at the maximum speed the permeabilty and permitivity of space will allow (among other things...). Those values can change (like with Snell's Law as you referenced).
Bose-Einstein condensate is just more fancy medium stuff.
Then again, we are talking about Sci Fi and Kharaa filling their epidermis with whatever material (super cold temperatures or not) to completely stop lasers is in the realm of possibility. Just about as much as laser guns being effective against them.
So I concede the point. "Khara have laser deflection systems! They can slow light! By the Hammer Of Thor! We need ancient guns!"
I just like to pick science holes in things, figure I should probably use my A levels for something.
Some laser technology might fit in NS, a big industrial looking mining laser or something carried around with the exosuit and used like a cannon would be pretty cool. As long as you shy away from the pew pew phaser beams it still keeps the NS feel.
That's actually not true either - the speed of light in a medium does not impose a limit for other particles. It is possible to particles to move faster than the speed of light in some medium (a common example would be the Cerenkov radiation phenomenon).
Photons go at the maximum speed the permeabilty and permitivity of space will allow (among other things...). Those values can change (like with Snell's Law as you referenced).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's actually not true either - the speed of light in a medium does not impose a limit for other particles. It is possible to particles to move faster than the speed of light in some medium (a common example would be the Cerenkov radiation phenomenon).
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Damnit, I love Cherenkov radiation. "Faster than light electrons! BY THE HAMMER OF THOR!!!"
In any case, speed of photons = speed of light. Things other than photons can go faster than the speed of light if it has been reduced to less than "c", but photons never can. That's because photons are light.
So you misunderstood. I was clearly talking about photons and only photons. Never did I say other things couldn't go faster than photons. You were right, but you were refuting something I never said.
I'll have you know I use wikipedia, good madam!
Your phrasing make it sound, like Cherenkov radiation would be the reason for faster than light movement.
But tell me, as far as i know Cherenkov radiation is caused when particles travel through a medium at a higher speed than the light speed for that medium.
And for the sake of not going mad please tell me, that you also deem the vacuum light speed as the top speed any particle can achieve.
Let's just link to the wikipedia page so everyone can join in :D!
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation</a>
/thread<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Everyone is still on topic...
<a href="http://thedaarkone.tripod.com/a2_cut-scenes.html" target="_blank">http://thedaarkone.tripod.com/a2_cut-scenes.html</a>
<img src="http://thedaarkone.tripod.com/a2_cut_06.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->
Hudson: Check it out. I am the ultimate bad-ass! State of the badass art. You do not want to ###### with me. Check it out. Hey Ripley, don't worry. Me and my squad of ultimate badasses will protect you. Check it out...Independently targeting particle-beam phalanx. Vwap! Fry half a city with this puppy. We got tactical smart missiles, phased plasma pulse rifles, RPGs. <u>We got sonic electronic ballbreakers</u>!...We got nukes, We got knives, sharp sticks.
Apone: Knock it off Hudson.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
That's why I added the word "phenomenon", to indicate that I was referring to the associated phenomenon, rather than the radiation itself.
<!--quoteo(post=1782496:date=Jul 24 2010, 01:59 PM:name=yourbonesakin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yourbonesakin @ Jul 24 2010, 01:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1782496"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So you misunderstood. I was clearly talking about photons and only photons. Never did I say other things couldn't go faster than photons. You were right, but you were refuting something I never said.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You said "photons go at the maximum speed...", which doesn't make much sense if "maximum speed" refers to that of photons. Well, perhaps it's a convoluted way of saying they move at one speed. Shrug.
Fair enough.
I wouldn't look too deeply in my word choice... especially not try to figure what I was thinking at the time of writing, lol.