Battlestars

Terraformer · 2013-09-09 02:59:16

Especially since it would allow you to receive stock market updates before they happen...

RobertDyck · 2013-09-09 07:49:17

Terraformer: we've been over this. You are making a "divide by zero" error. Go talk to your high school math teacher about diving by zero.

GW Johnson · 2013-09-09 10:34:06

I don't pretend to understand quantum mechanics. I understand special relativity, except that I disagree that the infinite-mass result at V=c means there is a speed limit. I think it means there is an observation limit, speed itself is not limited. So I think FTL flight is possible, but navigation will be hell unless we find some new, better theories for this.

If I understood quantum mechanics, then I might be able to offer an opinion about FTL communication-by-entanglement. I do not understand that stuff. I know those are English words when I read about it, but I have no dictionary. It's gibberish to me.

That being said, all I do know is what I've read in the journals. The entanglement thing seems to be instantaneous, or what Einstein termed "spooky action at a distance". That by definition is FTL. The disagreement seems to be whether useful info can be sent by this technique. The consensus of what I read says no.

But, I don't believe it's settled. Nothing ever is. As we see experimental results that defy what we thought we knew, we develop new theories (or new versions of existing theories) that encompass the new result. That's been our history since we "invented" science.

Josh is right: by our current knowledge and theories, the consensus is that FTL communication is not possible (although FTL quantum entanglement effects certainly are). Once we have had time to play with this stuff and find out more about what can be done, our theories and knowledge base will be adjusted. That's the right way to do it.

Whether that will lead to FTL travel and communications, who knows? But, it is already clear that some quantum things really do happen FTL. That gives me hope for the rest (the travel and the communications).

GW

Terraformer · 2013-09-09 16:15:25

RobertDyck wrote:

Terraformer: we've been over this. You are making a "divide by zero" error. Go talk to your high school math teacher about diving by zero.

Robert, we've been over this. You're misunderstanding quantum entanglement. Go talk to a quantum physicist about quantum entanglement. Maybe Dr Aspect. He doesn't believe it results in classical communication transfer.

The connection is not just through space, it's also through time. They behave as one system, regardless of whether they're separated in time (which can occur if, say, one is accelerated to near light speed).

Of course, it's possible that the speed of light is simply an asymptote, and if something could be dropkicked over the limit it would be able to go FTL. That's the basis for tachyons. They're weird.

Or we could activate a sublight warp bubble within a sublight warp bubble, and go at nearly twice the speed of light. Then add in so many sublight warp tunnels nested within each other that we can go at several thousand times the speed of light...

JoshNH4H · 2013-09-10 12:34:18

RobertDyck wrote:

Josh, recently you appear to argue against everything I say. I don't know why. We're all members of the Mars Society. But specifically with quantum entanglement, current theories say it does transfer information. Besides, theory doesn't matter when even one person has already done it. Dr. Aspect did it in 1983. That experiment has been repeated by others since. And that is the end of that.

If I argue with something you say, it is only because you make statements that I feel are wrong. I certainly bear you no ill will.

Quantum entanglement works as follows: Two (or more) particles which have dependent but probabilistically indeterminate states are created, and then separated in space. As soon as one of the particles is forced to "choose" a state (I think they generally use spin direction because it's binary), the other particle will, when observed, have the corresponding property (for example, the opposite spin) as proscribed by quantum mechanics. This will happen regardless of the time difference between measurements.

On a macroscopic scale, one would never argue that this represented FTL communication. A corresponding example is as follows:

I have one red marble and one green marble. I put each in an opaque container. I invite John and Jane into a room and give them each a box. John and Jane then travel 1 light-minute in opposite directions. They open the boxes at the same time. Jane has the green marble, and concludes that John has the red one. Have John and Jane communicated? No, of course not.

This is complicated by quantum mechanics: According to the current interpretation, until a system is observed, it is in two or more states at the same time (unlike the marbles, which are either red or green and John and Jane don't know which). This, for example, is why even when one does the two-slit experiment with one particle at a time, one still observes interference patterns. I think what quantum entanglement shows us is that we need to think differently about duality and probabilistic characteristics in quantum mechanics, because our current interpretation leads to nonsense suggesting that putting marbles in boxes is akin to communicating Faster-Than-Light.

If you maintain your disagreement, I would like to hear you tell me exactly how quantum entanglement can be used to communicate at infinite speed over arbitrary distance.

And by the way, if we're talking about arguing against everything someone says, I'd like to note that I currently stand in agreement with Terraformer-- Possibly the person with whom I disagree on a more regular basis than anyone else I know.

Rxke · 2013-09-10 13:18:53

RobertDyck wrote:

Are you capable of tracking down the doctoral thesis of a researcher mentioned in the media? Then locating the library that archives doctoral theses, and ordering a copy? Neither the receptionist who answered the phone, nor the librarian, were able to speak English. Ordering that paper tested my grade school French. By the way, after reading the actual thesis, the media got it wrong.

Kudos on locating the libray, but then you could have made it easier for yourself by asking your local library to do the part of getting a copy to you, ILL or interlibraly loan, it a great thing.

(In practice, they often just scan an old thesis and send you a pdf)

Source: I work in a university Library, and chat a lot with the people of ILL, it's one of the very few international systems that actually work :-)

Tom Kalbfus · 2013-11-02 10:18:06

Seeing is believing, I heard of some article recently about some NASA scientist proposing a warp drive, I wouldn't bank on it though. Lots of people propose lots of things to get their names in the newspapers. Cold Fusion hasn't done me a lot of good in heating my home or in reducing my electricity bills. I also tend to be skepitcal of "shake and bake" ideas about Terraforming Mars, Mars is a big place, I don't think something as big as a planet is easily modified. Mars will require a massive amount of labor to make anything like Earth, I don't think producing a small amount of chlorofloro carbons would suddenly melt the ice caps which would thicken the atmosphere increasing the greenhouse effect to the point where the permafrost melts releasing more carbon-dioxide and water vapor which would in turn thicken the atmosphere in a chain reaction that would result in balmy temperatures and a northern boreal ocean. I think Mars requires a bit more work than that. I think Mars requires more water imports to make an ocean, I don't think it has enough water to make one now, because if there was enough water, Mars would be covered with ice much as Europa is. I think there is some water beneath the crust and in the ice caps, but not enough for an ocean. Mars is not easy, also I don't think the Earth is as fragile as some people say, it can't so easily be turned into a Venusian Hell, and Venus can't be turned into something like Earth without a lot of deliberate effort. If we are going to go to Mars, we can look forward to planetary conditions as they now exist, and I think it will take something more than mere human labor to alter those conditions.

Terraformer · 2013-11-02 11:16:26

What? If Mars was covered with ice like Europa is, terraforming it would give rise to a crushing world ocean. A snowball Terra wouldn't be anything like Europa, why would Mars be?

Tom Kalbfus · 2013-11-03 09:41:43

mars can be covered with ice without being covered with ice up to a depth of hundreds of kilometers, an ocean's full of water has to hide somewhere, and we don't see it by looking at Mars, I don't think it all can be under the surface. I find it hard to imagine a layer of rock and soil on top of a frozen ocean. I think their might be frozen ground water, but not an ocean's worth of frozen ground water, there just isn't enough space between the rocks and soil to hold that much water!

JoshNH4H · 2013-11-03 11:10:14

Well, it's concentrated in the North and South Poles. I think our best guess at this time is that Mars has enough water to cover the planet to a depth of 150 meters. Much of this is in the poles but it can also be found as "mantle" which are sheets of ice just below the surface at mid latitudes. There are extensive deposits. There is also water admixed in with the soil which would be unlikely to be accessible since it will probably keep that water content regardless.

Terraformer · 2013-11-03 11:33:58

Isn't much of the northern plain supposed to be a frozen ocean?

An ocean covered by regolith isn't that hard to imagine. Over time, these things get somewhat dusty, and with the surface water sublimating away... just look at Callisto. Deposits range from 50-90% coverage in parts.

JoshNH4H · 2013-11-03 12:26:43

It's very possible, but because of high levels of dust coverage and poor rover traversal of the area (we seem to be focusing on the drier equatorial regions, where we've been finding a good amount of water nevertheless) we don't really know yet.

Tom Kalbfus · 2013-11-03 23:53:40

I'm just trying to be realistic. Now if there was enough water to cover Mars to a depth of 150 meters, that would be good if Mars was mostly flat, but its not, the Oceans of Earth are after all kilometers deep, water on Mars would flow into the deepest parts and pool and Mars would remain mostly dry. I believe there's been water lost to space and its going to have to be replaced.

JoshNH4H · 2013-11-04 00:25:23

Have you seen this map?:

That's a whole lot of water.

Tom Kalbfus · 2013-11-06 07:55:37

Water is near the poles underground because those are the areas where the average temperature remains low enough so that the water doesn't sublimate. When water vapor enters the atmosphere it becomes Subject to disassociation that is water molecules are broken up into hydrogen and oxygen and the hydrogen escapes into space, just as it has on Venus as both planets have no magnetic field to protect them from the Solar Wind. Whats left is where the water ice didn't sublimate, those areas underground are better protected that above ground, If Mars warms up that water is still going to have to be pumped to the surface as there is not enough water to make an ocean. I can imagine artificial evaporation ponds to put water vapor in the atmosphere so it rains so plants can grow. I think ultimately more water is going to have to be imported. What important for the atmosphere is getting enough surface area of water so that most of the planet's surface is well watered. I figure about 50%-60% of the planet's surface covered with water would be a good number, it is a small planet after all.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2013-11-06 07:57:26)

JoshNH4H · 2013-11-06 23:31:12

Actually the water is very unlikely to sublimate unless it reaches the exosphere. It's much more likely to have frozen out by then. That instrument could probably only measure the first meter or so, by the way. Once terraforming begins in earnest much of the planet is likely to become a muddy mess for at least part of the year.

Tom Kalbfus · 2013-11-07 06:41:52

Your going to have to import a good deal of the atmosphere anyway. You can only get so much by heating up the crust with a solletta and getting it to release some gases. I remember a proposal to convert our Nations ICBMs into delivery vehicles for CFCs. The CFCs were supposed to be supergreenhouse gasses, you stack the ICBMs on top of each other to create multiple stages, junkyard spaceships, the top stages have payloads of CFCs, they are sent on interplanetary trajectories to they hit Mars and release their contents, those CFCs begin a runaway greenhouse effect that warms up Mars causing the crust to release CO2 and water vapor which in turn causes further global warming with in turn causes to crust to release more carbon dioxide and water, until there is enough gases released so that 100 years later, Mars has a nice thick atmosphere and an ocean in its Northern hemisphere. The obvious question is if Mars is this unstable, why hasn't it happened before? I am just skeptical that terraforming Mars would be this easy. For one thing if all the carbon dioxide was frozen out, why is there still a carbon dioxide atmosphere left, why didn't it all freeze? Titan has a mostly Nitrogen atmosphere as the carbon dioxide is in solid form in the crust as Titan is too cold for carbon dioxide to exist as a gas.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2013-11-07 06:46:23)

JoshNH4H · 2013-11-07 10:23:31

That's actually not true. Mars has reserves of Nitrogen and a carbon dioxide. Nitrogen is a good filler gas and there are a couple hundred millibars to maybe a bar or so, according to the most recent estimates. The Carbon dioxide will be transformed into oxygen using photosynthesis.

I remember that proposal by Zubrin, and I get the idea that even he thinks it's out there. Really just a publicity grab. Super greenhouse gases can be produced by materials on planet.

There's plenty of material on Mars to terraform, no need to import.

RobertDyck · 2013-11-07 12:08:09

I agree with Josh on this one. One argument I've made is before: first scientists claimed the atmosphere leaked into space. Then we discover there's enough dry ice on Mars to produce at atmosphere just by sublimating it. Estimates in the book I quoted say 200 to 300 mb, and recent discoveries hint at even more. That's enough for a human to walk on the surface of Mars without a spacesuit. You would need an oxygen mask, but no pressure suit. Then scientists claimed the water leaked into space. But ground penetrating radar on Mars Express (MARSIS) found enough water ice at the south pole alone that if it were melted would cover the entire planet 11 metres deep. But of course it wouldn't cover the planet evenly; tops of mountains would remain dry while low lying areas would fill deeper. And once you include the north polar ice cap, glaciers we have found in craters, frozen pack ice covered in dirt, and permafrost, there's enough water to fill the ancient ocean basin. Next some scientists claimed all the nitrogen escaped into space. Uh huh! >:-/ First they say no CO2, but it's still there. Then they say no water, but it's still there. Next they say no nitrogen. They fooled us twice already, so why should I believe it a third time? It must be there somewhere. Most likely as nitrates, buried in the soil somewhere.

The problem is scientists still haven't found nitrates. I keep looking for the announcement that they found it, but they haven't. They looked with Sojourner, Spirit, Opportunity, Phoenix, and now Curiosity. Still no nitrates. Because of all this, I suspect there's an active process to destroy nitrates right at the surface. So to find nitrates, you'll have to dig deep. I did come up with one hypothesis. I can't call this a theory, just hypothesis.

Scientists have already confirmed a process that forms superoxides in Mars soil. It was discovered by Viking landers. The experiment to soak Mars soil in water produced oxygen rapidly. It took a while to figure out why. When they replicated Mars conditions in a jar, called a Mars jar, they produced super oxides. This replicated pressure, atmosphere, temperature, and UV light. As soon as those super oxides touch water, oxygen is released. Is it possible that process strips oxygen from nitrates? If so, the result would be alkali metal nitride. We've already seen liquid water flow on Mars: permafrost melts in sides of gullies near the equator just after high noon. It's well known that if liquid water touches alkali metal nitride, then it will become metal oxide and ammonia will be produced. And Mars Express found traces of ammonia in Mars atmosphere. So the only missing piece is how do nitrates become nitride?

If this is so, then it means you won't find nitrogen compounds near the surface. To find nitrate you'll have to find soil that hasn't seen sunlight since Mars lost its thick atmosphere. That may require digging pretty deep.

If there are vast nitrate beds somewhere, then that's the last thing we need to terraform Mars. No need to import anything.

JoshNH4H · 2013-11-07 13:27:31

I would guess that the process has something to do with the effect of UV/X-rays on nitrates near the surface specifically with regards to the formation of free radicals. I think midoshi was saying that based on the isotope ratios there should still be a good amount of Nitrogen on the planet somewhere. Fortunately the MAVEN mission will answer this question pretty conclusively.

Tom Kalbfus · 2013-11-08 06:33:44

The water would be 11 meters deep if it didn't seep into the ground. That means if you could pump all that water out of the ground and prevent the ground from reabsorbing it and prevent that water from flowing to the lowest elevations, then the water would be 11 meters deep. If Earth's water was evenly redistributed over its surface, it would probably be about 4000 meters deep, most of that water is in Earth's oceans, if we could get that water to flow over the continents, it would be 4 km deep. The ice caps on Mars appear small, I don't see enough water there to fill the ocean basin. All this water is of course enough for many Mars bases and settlements, but for terraforming purposes, we'll need more. I don't see what the big deal is anyway, there is plenty of water in space to do it. I don't think in any case that Mars will be terraformed by a handful of people or with a budget that's similar to the Apollo Program. I think a terraformed Mars would be a forest world, as I see little point in making the effort and leaving large swaths of desert. I think that since Mars is a small world, those doing the terraforming will want to maximize the real estate available, which means not burying it with oceans or leaving it as deserts. Fortunately Mars doesn't need to be covered with 3/4ths oceans, we just need to make sure they are enough clouds in the sky to produce sufficient rains to support a global forest.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2013-11-08 06:35:31)

Terraformer · 2013-11-08 08:34:28

You don't actually need kilometer deep oceans, though, unless you're planning on importing whales (and how do you plan on doing that, Orion?) or deep sea life. Most sea life is perfectly happy with a few dozen meters, where there's sunlight and nutrients.

I don't think we have to worry about it seeping into the ground, either, because the ground already has a lot of water.

That's not to say I oppose importing more. Hitting the northern ocean with comets would help unfreeze it. There's probably quite a lot of atmosphere trapped in there...

But, we're talking about terraforming now, right, not battlestars?

RobertDyck · 2013-11-08 22:31:02

The figure "11 metres deep" is for the south polar ice cap alone. It doesn't include permafrost. If you heat Mars, that permafrost will become wet ground. Would it soak any deeper?

There's a lot at the south pole. Water ice 3.7km thick! It's not a smooth disk, but extends to 60° latitude. I linked an image somewhere.

JoshNH4H · 2013-11-09 00:57:23

I just posted it earlier in the thread. I believe current estimates of the amount of water in Mars are in the region of 150 m if distributed evenly across the surface of the planet, which would result in a pretty substantial ocean. I'd expect this number to increase with time as we find more and more sources of water. I've seen suggestions that the ancient ocean was made of enough water to cover the planet to 550 m. I would expect much of that to still be there in some form. Again, the MAVEN mission should inform us rather well on this, especially if Midoshi is willing to explain their results to us.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2013-09-09 02:59:16

Re: Battlestars

#27 2013-09-09 07:49:17

Re: Battlestars

#28 2013-09-09 10:34:06

Re: Battlestars

#29 2013-09-09 16:15:25

Re: Battlestars

#30 2013-09-10 12:34:18

Re: Battlestars

#31 2013-09-10 13:18:53

Re: Battlestars

#32 2013-11-02 10:18:06

Re: Battlestars

#33 2013-11-02 11:16:26

Re: Battlestars

#34 2013-11-03 09:41:43

Re: Battlestars

#35 2013-11-03 11:10:14

Re: Battlestars

#36 2013-11-03 11:33:58

Re: Battlestars

#37 2013-11-03 12:26:43

Re: Battlestars

#38 2013-11-03 23:53:40

Re: Battlestars

#39 2013-11-04 00:25:23

Re: Battlestars

#40 2013-11-06 07:55:37

Re: Battlestars

#41 2013-11-06 23:31:12

Re: Battlestars

#42 2013-11-07 06:41:52

Re: Battlestars

#43 2013-11-07 10:23:31

Re: Battlestars

#44 2013-11-07 12:08:09

Re: Battlestars

#45 2013-11-07 13:27:31

Re: Battlestars

#46 2013-11-08 06:33:44

Re: Battlestars

#47 2013-11-08 08:34:28

Re: Battlestars

#48 2013-11-08 22:31:02

Re: Battlestars

#49 2013-11-09 00:57:23

Re: Battlestars

Board footer