Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Iduno]

This is arguably a bit off topic, but I've been kicking around an idea in my head for a little while now to try to write a sci-fi story that takes place in a nonrelativistic universe, and I've had a bit of trouble finding a summary of known phenomena that are caused by relativistic effects that I'd need to change or remove.  Does anyone know of such a reference?  Skimming the Wikipedia articles didn't really help a lot, but if it's the best there is I can go back and reread in more depth.

Naturally, quite a lot depends on how said universe works differently from ours, but it would be a start.  Things get really weird if you can do stuff like outrun gravity and electromagnetic fields (ignoring that magnetism probably doesn't exist without relativity), but it might be fun to imagine what that's like.  That would be completely different from a universe where forces travel infinitely fast.

Maybe it's too much to try to imagine a realistic nonrelativistic universe that's recognizably similar to ours.  I'm guessing almost all of chemistry and quantum physics would have to work so differently that it might as well be magic at that point.

Probably the more you understand how those things works and impact everything else, the better your story without them will be. You also want to pretty narrowly define what exactly is different (in-story or as an introduction to the reader), so everyone knows what is the same/different and know what is and is not reasonable. For example, if you don't have covalent bonds in your story, you don't have molecules, which makes your protagonists somewhat less interesting.

[Telgin]

That's pretty much were I am right now: trying to figure out how much should work differently and how much can be hand waved or swept under the rug.  I can deal with simple things like magnetism not existing, having no universal speed limit, mercury being a solid at room temperature and so on, but I know that pretty much everything should be different.  Maybe it's possible to just say that atoms and chemistry happen to work very similarly to our universe, but it's pretty unsatisfying to say that without at least considering as many aspects as I can.

Starting with atoms, for that matter, would covalent bonds not exist?  I actually don't know.  I strongly suspect the orbitals would be different at the very least, which impacts chemistry in profound ways, but for all I know relativity is fundamentally important to the idea of electrons even entering into orbitals instead of just colliding with nuclei and turning the universe into a soup of boring neutrons.  And yet, would neutrons even exist?  Again, for all I know, the strong force, quarks and so on are entirely different without relativity...  I've heard that time dilation has important consequences on the decay rate of what I believe were charge carrying particles, which impacts the strength and range of those force fields, but this is all have remembered details from something I read a long time ago.  Can't remember if it was the strong force or weak force, or something else entirely.

Hmm... that gives me thoughts to file away for future consideration - what would a universe without particle decay be like?  Unrecognizable, I'm sure.  Or a deterministic universe without uncertainty?  Again, probably unrecognizable.

[Madman198237]

Quantum mechanics prevents electrons from spiraling into nuclei. As for the other consequences of a lack of relativity...…

First unite quantum mechanics to relativity and then move on to a unified theory of all physics, and we should be good to start considering how changing relativity might affect that!

[Iduno]

That's pretty much were I am right now: trying to figure out how much should work differently and how much can be hand waved or swept under the rug.  I can deal with simple things like magnetism not existing, having no universal speed limit, mercury being a solid at room temperature and so on, but I know that pretty much everything should be different.  Maybe it's possible to just say that atoms and chemistry happen to work very similarly to our universe, but it's pretty unsatisfying to say that without at least considering as many aspects as I can.

Starting with atoms, for that matter, would covalent bonds not exist?  I actually don't know.  I strongly suspect the orbitals would be different at the very least, which impacts chemistry in profound ways, but for all I know relativity is fundamentally important to the idea of electrons even entering into orbitals instead of just colliding with nuclei and turning the universe into a soup of boring neutrons.  And yet, would neutrons even exist?  Again, for all I know, the strong force, quarks and so on are entirely different without relativity...  I've heard that time dilation has important consequences on the decay rate of what I believe were charge carrying particles, which impacts the strength and range of those force fields, but this is all have remembered details from something I read a long time ago.  Can't remember if it was the strong force or weak force, or something else entirely.

Hmm... that gives me thoughts to file away for future consideration - what would a universe without particle decay be like?  Unrecognizable, I'm sure.  Or a deterministic universe without uncertainty?  Again, probably unrecognizable.

You're going too complex for science fantasy, and not complex enough (or, arguably, too complex for you...or anyone with an incomplete understanding of relativity) for science fiction.

[Telgin]

Yes, you're probably right about that.  I'm probably best off just sticking to having no universal speed limit and calling it a day.

This does make me curious if anyone with the needed knowledge has tried to design a recognizable universe with changes to the natural laws like this.  It's probably too much work for what you get since very few would be able to appreciate it.

[Trekkin]

Yes, you're probably right about that.  I'm probably best off just sticking to having no universal speed limit and calling it a day.

This does make me curious if anyone with the needed knowledge has tried to design a recognizable universe with changes to the natural laws like this.  It's probably too much work for what you get since very few would be able to appreciate it.

It's also just really hard to write in a satisfying way. In a sense, it's a greatly exacerbated version of the more common problem with writing realistic space travel stories: automata are the most efficient and least exciting way to do the overwhelming majority of things in space, so if you want people to do exciting things for your audience to care about, you have to find some way to need them without overburdening the story with an explanation.

Here, I fear, you'd run a considerable risk of producing a physics textbook with a story squeezed in edgewise, because the premise has so many counterintuitive effects you'd spend ages explaining them. Plus which, as you say, most of your audience won't recognize you've changed anything anyway. EDIT: And of the rest, the majority will be deeply and fundamentally unhappy little pissants who will gleefully assume you don't understand physics, rather than deliberately departing from it, and do little but make snide "corrections" on that basis.

[Eric Blank]

Videos of slime mold sporangia development;

https://youtu.be/A0__v5nMGaI

https://youtu.be/B8dl_CuwQhk

Very wiggly, much rhythmic pulsation. Such reproduction. Wow.

[Kagus]

I got some blood drawn today, which is going to get sent off to a lab that will test for genetic markers to see how my body breaks down and metabolizes various medications, allowing us to accurately measure dosages to best suit my specific, individual way of absorbing them.

And I just think that that's pretty fucking rad.

[Sanctume]

My son had AML leukemia, and had a stem cell transplant more than 100+ days ago. 

The donor is from a non-relation. 

Son said majority of his DNA is from donor, except the lining of his guts. 

He is doing well, thankfully, and will resume 2nd year of his college. 

[ChairmanPoo]

Son said majority of his DNA is from donor, except the lining of his guts.

Well it doesn't actually work like that, but I assume he means he has a complete donor chimera, which is a good thing.

[Arx]

I can guess at what that phrase is meant to represent, but "complete donor chimera" just has too many unnerving connotations to be entirely comfortable.

[wierd]

https://phys.org/news/2020-01-biological-scientists-pathways-lifespan.html

The boomers might be able to live forever...

[Telgin]

$5 says it doesn't translate well or at all to humans, and $20 says that even if it does, there's no easy or effective way to treat living people with it.

I'm still hopeful though.  I'd be surprised if it doesn't have any benefits for humans, but I'd be surprised if the effects are as pronounced or if there's a way to treat people short of gene edits in embryos.

[Kagus]

And while the quick turnover rate of a nematode that normally lives three to four weeks is great for certain test (such as measuring average lifespan), there's a hell of a lot more cellular fuckery that can go on in 500 years than in five months.

[Jimmy]

Will Any Crap We Put into Graphene Increase Its Electrocatalytic Effect?

"It has become almost a paradigm that the once fantastic graphene for electrocatalysis is not so fantastic anymore and that we need to add something to it to make it great again."

Also, they actually used crap in their demonstration of the truth of their position. Bravo, good sirs and/or madams.