Difference between revisions of "Ultimate limit"
m (→Limit to tensile strength (and to spinning stuff fast)) |
m (→Wishful thinking vs Exploratory engineering: some improvements) |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
'''go way above the tensile strength of diamond nanofibers and carbon nanotubes.''' <br> | '''go way above the tensile strength of diamond nanofibers and carbon nanotubes.''' <br> | ||
If something where to be stronger (beyond the bounds of currently known physics), | If something where to be stronger (beyond the bounds of currently known physics), | ||
| − | then it would need to be something very different than our known chemistry with | + | then it would need to be something very different than our known chemistry with atoms of the periodic table. |
A collary of the ultimate limit in tensile strength is the [[unsupported rotating ring speed limit]] which says that: <br> | A collary of the ultimate limit in tensile strength is the [[unsupported rotating ring speed limit]] which says that: <br> | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
'''It is not possible and will never be possible to'''<br> | '''It is not possible and will never be possible to'''<br> | ||
'''go way above the power densities of rocket fuels.''' <br> | '''go way above the power densities of rocket fuels.''' <br> | ||
| − | If something chemical where to be more energy dense dense ( | + | If something chemical where to be more energy dense dense (beyond the bounds of currently known physics), |
then it would need to be something very different than our known chemistry with atom of the periodic table. <br> | then it would need to be something very different than our known chemistry with atom of the periodic table. <br> | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
'''It is not possible and will never be possible to'''<br> | '''It is not possible and will never be possible to'''<br> | ||
'''go way above the power densities of hydrogen nuclei.''' <br> | '''go way above the power densities of hydrogen nuclei.''' <br> | ||
| − | If something where to be more energy | + | If something where to be more energy dense (beyond the bounds of currently known physics), |
then it would need to be something very different than our known nuclear physics. <br> | then it would need to be something very different than our known nuclear physics. <br> | ||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
Here's a paper by Robert A. Freitas Jr. on [[energy density]] in APM systems: | Here's a paper by Robert A. Freitas Jr. on [[energy density]] in APM systems: | ||
| Line 44: | Line 46: | ||
'''It is not possible and will never be possible to''' <br> | '''It is not possible and will never be possible to''' <br> | ||
'''go way above density of say [[osmium]] metal.''' <br> | '''go way above density of say [[osmium]] metal.''' <br> | ||
| − | If something where to to have more density of mass ( | + | If something where to to have more density of mass (beyond the bounds of currently known physics), |
then it would need to be something very different than our known chemistry with atom of the periodic table. <br> | then it would need to be something very different than our known chemistry with atom of the periodic table. <br> | ||
| Line 51: | Line 53: | ||
Nature can cross that density range only transiently in a non stable way during stellar collapses. | Nature can cross that density range only transiently in a non stable way during stellar collapses. | ||
| − | = No! Nothing is absolutely impossible. Everyone | + | = No! Nothing is absolutely impossible. Everyone who says so is wrong. = |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| + | '''See main page: [[Impossible]]''' <br> | ||
| + | In this regard there seems to exist an almost religious group mindset in society. <br> | ||
Yes, indeed, nothing is ever impossible with absolute certainty. '''BUT ...''' <br> | Yes, indeed, nothing is ever impossible with absolute certainty. '''BUT ...''' <br> | ||
Many things (lets call them X) are: | Many things (lets call them X) are: | ||
| Line 61: | Line 63: | ||
* Unknowable errors regarding X made in (1) (that is: errors that make X unexpectedly much more likely than expected) fall into (2). | * Unknowable errors regarding X made in (1) (that is: errors that make X unexpectedly much more likely than expected) fall into (2). | ||
| − | == | + | == Wishful thinking vs Exploratory engineering == |
| + | |||
| + | Speculating about things that would be '''VERY''' surprising if discovered when <br> | ||
| + | there is still absolutely no clue yet where to even start looking is a pointless and unproductive activity. <br> | ||
| + | Except maybe if it's done in the context of jelly-soft SciFi for entertainment purposes only. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Well, yes, no discovery, no matter how surprising, can ever be excluded with absolute certainty. <br> | ||
| + | (see page: [[impossible]]) but running with some wild baseless assumptions like <br> | ||
| + | (random pick) "the Earth will rotate the other way tomorrow" is just a clear sign of insanity. | ||
| − | + | This "everything is eventually possible" [[wishful thinking]] mindset <br> | |
| − | + | is in stark polar contrast to stringent usage of [[exploratory engineering]] (EE) methodology. <br> | |
| − | + | In EE one picks only problems where there are aspects that are exceptionally well amenable <br> | |
| − | + | to analysis via well established formal methods and models and one applies large safety margins to the results. <br> | |
| − | + | As a product one gains: | |
| − | to analysis via well established formal methods and models. | + | |
* highly attractive far term development targets (like advanced [[gemstone metamaterial on-chip factories]]) | * highly attractive far term development targets (like advanced [[gemstone metamaterial on-chip factories]]) | ||
* many construction-site open-ends where work is identified to be needed to eventually reach the identified target. See: [[bridging the gaps]] | * many construction-site open-ends where work is identified to be needed to eventually reach the identified target. See: [[bridging the gaps]] | ||
| − | == Some related philosophical | + | == Some related philosophical pondering == |
To prove the absolute impossibility of something one would need a complete and consistent formalized description of everything. <br> | To prove the absolute impossibility of something one would need a complete and consistent formalized description of everything. <br> | ||
| Line 82: | Line 91: | ||
that cannot yet be thought about because its completely beyond all our horizons. | that cannot yet be thought about because its completely beyond all our horizons. | ||
| − | So by pulling its own rug does the incompleteness proof disproof its own validity? | + | So by pulling its own rug does the incompleteness proof disproof its own validity? <br> |
Or rather does it make itself into an completely information devoid statement? | Or rather does it make itself into an completely information devoid statement? | ||
Fundamentally unanswerabel questions I guess? <br> | Fundamentally unanswerabel questions I guess? <br> | ||
| Line 99: | Line 108: | ||
* [[High performance of gem-gum technology]] | * [[High performance of gem-gum technology]] | ||
* [[For all practical purposes]] (FAPP) | * [[For all practical purposes]] (FAPP) | ||
| + | * [[Impossible]] | ||
Latest revision as of 13:28, 20 June 2023
Contents
List of ultimate technological/physical limits
Limit to tensile strength (and to spinning stuff fast)
Tensile strength of material faces ultimate limits.
It is not possible and will never be possible to
go way above the tensile strength of diamond nanofibers and carbon nanotubes.
If something where to be stronger (beyond the bounds of currently known physics),
then it would need to be something very different than our known chemistry with atoms of the periodic table.
A collary of the ultimate limit in tensile strength is the unsupported rotating ring speed limit which says that:
It is not possible and will never be possible to
rotate an usupported ring of matter (made from atoms) at speeds way above 3km/s without it rupturing from centrifugal forces.
Limit to energy density
Chemical energy density (energy per volume and energy per mass) faces ultimate limits.
It is not possible and will never be possible to
go way above the power densities of rocket fuels.
If something chemical where to be more energy dense dense (beyond the bounds of currently known physics),
then it would need to be something very different than our known chemistry with atom of the periodic table.
Well we have that very different thing now. That is nuclear energy.
And it was quite surprising when discovered.
Unfortunately termonuclear energy conversion comes with quite some restrictions.
- It is one way only. Storing excess energy in nuclear seems not possible.
- It inherently needs macroscale conversion devices (and quite big at that)
- Efficiency seems limited to Carnough cycle efficiency limit. There may be room for some improvement here ...
- (The known risks and challenges of nuclear power are just that. They are not fundamental limits.)
Nuclear energy density faces ultimate limits too.
It is not possible and will never be possible to
go way above the power densities of hydrogen nuclei.
If something where to be more energy dense (beyond the bounds of currently known physics),
then it would need to be something very different than our known nuclear physics.
Here's a paper by Robert A. Freitas Jr. on energy density in APM systems:
Limit to density of mass
Mass per volume density of materials faces ultimate limits.
It is not possible and will never be possible to
go way above density of say osmium metal.
If something where to to have more density of mass (beyond the bounds of currently known physics),
then it would need to be something very different than our known chemistry with atom of the periodic table.
It would be rather surprising though:
Even for nature there seems to be a huge inaccessible gap in densities between atomic matter and neutron star matter.
Nature can cross that density range only transiently in a non stable way during stellar collapses.
No! Nothing is absolutely impossible. Everyone who says so is wrong.
See main page: Impossible
In this regard there seems to exist an almost religious group mindset in society.
Yes, indeed, nothing is ever impossible with absolute certainty. BUT ...
Many things (lets call them X) are:
- (1) either known to be astronomically unlikely
- (2) or simply unknowable and not even yet intelectually approachable in any sensible way
- Unknowable errors regarding X made in (1) (that is: errors that make X unexpectedly much more likely than expected) fall into (2).
Wishful thinking vs Exploratory engineering
Speculating about things that would be VERY surprising if discovered when
there is still absolutely no clue yet where to even start looking is a pointless and unproductive activity.
Except maybe if it's done in the context of jelly-soft SciFi for entertainment purposes only.
Well, yes, no discovery, no matter how surprising, can ever be excluded with absolute certainty.
(see page: impossible) but running with some wild baseless assumptions like
(random pick) "the Earth will rotate the other way tomorrow" is just a clear sign of insanity.
This "everything is eventually possible" wishful thinking mindset
is in stark polar contrast to stringent usage of exploratory engineering (EE) methodology.
In EE one picks only problems where there are aspects that are exceptionally well amenable
to analysis via well established formal methods and models and one applies large safety margins to the results.
As a product one gains:
- highly attractive far term development targets (like advanced gemstone metamaterial on-chip factories)
- many construction-site open-ends where work is identified to be needed to eventually reach the identified target. See: bridging the gaps
To prove the absolute impossibility of something one would need a complete and consistent formalized description of everything.
A complete and consistent formalized description of everything is absolutely impossible though.
At least we know from math (incompleteness theorem) and we use math do describe physics.
Now we have a paradox which illustrates the point of the pointlessness of trying to think about stuff X
that cannot yet be thought about because its completely beyond all our horizons.
So by pulling its own rug does the incompleteness proof disproof its own validity?
Or rather does it make itself into an completely information devoid statement?
Fundamentally unanswerabel questions I guess?
But if we'd assume that it does break itself then so may go all the other math we have out the window.
And (suprise, suprise) we totally can't have that.
Math is ways too useful for actual practical purposes.
We can't scrap math (and physics) because we refuse to put faith upon its axiomatic fringes just
in order in to indulge in pipe dreams of wishful thinking about X being maybe possible after all.
That's only ok for soft fantasy SciFi for entertainment. Not for actual technology proposals.
Ignoring known math and physics in order to dream about X being possible is useless because
sensible development directions cannot be determined distilled and pursued.
Fantasy SciFi for the purpuse of stirring human emotions is a different story.
