Post by: aasimz on 01/04/2023 01:23:09
If we are drafting a story, can any of you produce a logical scientific justification for a being to exist in this universe with such strength, I don't think we can, and here is my approach.
One way to think of Superman's source of strength is his speed, as he races bullets and so on.
- The bullet typically moves at 792.48 meters per second, (some at 980m/s and some at more).
- A being that would be able to see this bullet moving will need to see -at least- in 120,000 fps, or even more if he wants to see it moving when he is close to the bullet. (Our human eye sees at 40-60 fps)
- His consciousness and perception of time would have to be the same as his ability to see 120,000 fps at least, therefore, our 1 second will feel like 33 hours and 20 minutes for him. (120,000 frames/602) = 33.33 hours)
- Most of the things moving around him will be frozen in his perception he wouldn't be able to communicate with them.
- His walk, if he walks like us at 4.54 km/h = 1.26 m/s (30-39 years old), in his perception, for us he will be moving at 151,318.2 m/s
- His punch will be much faster than his walk, average human punch is 24.1 km/h (= 803,253 m/s for him) but he should be stronger, the average boxer can do 32.1km/h but the record was 72.4km/h (= 2,413,092 m/s for him) he, -no matter how gently he tries to touch any of us- will tear us into pieces.
Now, is there any material that we know of (not just biological) which can tolerate that? I mean what would be the material that this being should have for the bone structure/muscles to be able to tolerate the immense pressure in his feet if he runs at that speed, or when he punches a rock on a mountain, what material can stand such an impact? an impact at speeds around 2,000,000 m/s (more than a hundred times faster than the average asteroid speed before impact)
Everyone, please feel free to hop in, we are just chatting.
Post by: evan_au on 01/04/2023 03:06:48
- Maybe neutronium (material from a neutron star) - but it would disintegrate in Earth's atmosphere
Reversing time by flying around the Earth is not compatible with our understanding of General Relativity,
Emitting X-Rays with your eyes to see through things has a tenchical problem: X-Rays do pass through many materials without getting absorbed - but the X-Rays pass through, so you have to detect the image on the other side (not on the same side as your X-Ray source).
- This would have to rely on X-Ray reflection, which I imagine is far less likely than absorption or transmission!
- Some X-Ray telescopes do use X-Ray reflection, but they use grazing angles from a crystalline surface; superman needs 180° reflection from bulk materials.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_optics#X-ray_techniques
Post by: aasimz on 01/04/2023 03:43:23
There is no solid material on Earth that can withstand getting hit by bullets or an anti-tank missile without getting dented.
Exactly, so my conclusion is correct. and it is a proven impossibility. wait let's see about the neutronium below:
Quote from: evan_au
- Maybe neutronium (material from a neutron star) - but it would disintegrate in Earth's atmosphere
Interesting, so let's say, we were able to capture some of it right outside of the atmosphere and brought it safely, could it be used to support/reinforce bones and muscles, is it toxic? would it work? Could this material be available inside a living organism? will it have electrons then and be able to integrate with other matter without disintegrating?
(Assuming we were able to stimulate our brain to be able to accommodate for higher frame rates. (Which is another impossibility as well)).
Quote from: evan_au
Reversing time by flying around the Earth is not compatible with our understanding of General Relativity,Ya this is an obvious impossibility, that's why I was talking only about his strength, not the ability to fly nor the laser that cuts through steel.
Quote from: evan_au
Emitting X-Rays with your eyes to see through things has a tenchical problem: X-Rays do pass through many materials without getting absorbed - but the X-Rays pass through, so you have to detect the image on the other side (not on the same side as your X-Ray source).
- This would have to rely on X-Ray reflection, which I imagine is far less likely than absorption or transmission!
- Some X-Ray telescopes do use X-Ray reflection, but they use grazing angles from a crystalline surface; superman needs 180° reflection from bulk materials.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_optics#X-ray_techniques
Yes, I agree, not only that, but also what kind of biological system exists that can withhold/store or tolerate the energy needed to generate X-Rays, or the condensed high energy laser that cuts through steel?
So, do we all agree that such strength cannot exist? It is an impossibility!
Post by: alancalverd on 01/04/2023 12:21:08
Reversing time by flying around the Earth is not compatible with our understanding of General Relativity,But if you fly eastwards from Samoa you can arrive yesterday, and 20,000 miles to the west, even in a light aircraft.
Post by: aasimz on 01/04/2023 20:31:06
But if you fly eastwards from Samoa you can arrive yesterday, and 20,000 miles to the west, even in a light aircraft.
We instantly talk to someone who lives on yesterday via phone/chat, but it wouldn't mean that we are communicating with their past! It's their present, and they did not live in a future which I would then consider myself that I have travelled to (or communicated with) its past. This -by any means- cannot be considered time travelling.
Post by: Kryptid on 01/04/2023 20:49:54
Interesting, so let's say, we were able to capture some of it right outside of the atmosphere and brought it safely, could it be used to support/reinforce bones and muscles, is it toxic? would it work? Could this material be available inside a living organism? will it have electrons then and be able to integrate with other matter without disintegrating?
(Assuming we were able to stimulate our brain to be able to accommodate for higher frame rates. (Which is another impossibility as well)).
A sample of neutronium would be highly unstable on its own. What keeps it stable on a neutron star is the immensely crushing gravity that exists there. Try to isolate a sample and it would explode into a shower of free neutrons and atomic nuclei.
Post by: Eternal Student on 01/04/2023 20:54:53
......let's say, we were able to capture some of it (Neutronium) right outside of the atmosphere and brought it safely, could it be used to support/reinforce bones and muscles, is it toxic?Neutron star material or "Neutronium" exists only when it is in an extreme environment. Move it away from a Neutron star and it stops being Neutronium.
So you can't just scoop some of it up and bring it back to planet earth, sorry. You'd need to bring the extreme conditions back with it. Overall, if you have a Sci-Fi method to maintain these sorts of conditions but just locally, then you don't even need to go to a Neutron star to collect the Neutronium - put ANY ordinary element on the periodic table under thess extreme conditions and it will behave like Neutronium. For analogy, it's the extreme version of making a diamond out of what was just some well spread out carbon dust. Realistically you cannot confine a substance to such a small amount of space (e.g. put it under enough pressure) except in the extreme conditions of a Neutron star.
Unlike Diamond, Neutronium isn't stable and won't stay as Neutronium, lift the pressure off and it should expand and become some more conventional set of atoms on the periodic table. (Just to be clear - this is the theory, no experiments have been done and no-one could survive a journey to the star to get some).
Neutronium is also extremely dense (as you can guess), it's within a hair's breadth of being dense enough to form a black hole. Black Holes are just Neutron stars where the density has tipped over the limit. So, you need to keep in mind that Neutronium would be an extreme substance to have on planet earth. When you ask "is it toxic?" - I don't think we need to worry about some bicochemical or physiological poisioning. What is more important is that you have put a source of gravity similar to a black hole inside someones body. Atoms approaching the Neutronium will be ripped apart and you would have thought the damage will be unsurivable even for a superhero.
It's all arbitrary really... you needed some method to keep the Neutronium compressed so presumaby you already had the stuff contained in something that could hold it and that should keep other atoms of stuff far enough away from the Neutronium.
Best Wishes.
Overlap with @Kryptid who must have posted before I finished.
Post by: aasimz on 01/04/2023 23:48:28
Okay, forget about biology then, is it safe to say a material with such strength (which we can use only as a shield for example) does not exist?
Post by: alancalverd on 02/04/2023 00:03:03
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/04/2023 10:29:02
It would effectively be a liquid with a very high surface tension.
You couldn't build anything out of it anyway.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/04/2023 15:07:18
However if we restrict ourselves to organic materials, it's interesting to compare the ultimate strength of a limb with an exoskeleton compared with an endoskeleton. I get the feeling that Superman might be more lobster than mammal, probably with octopus-style hydraulic muscles. No wonder that Lois Lane finds him attractive - he can open the toughest jars, which as any woman will tell you, is why they still keep men around the house.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/04/2023 15:29:27
Post by: Petrochemicals on 02/04/2023 19:22:17
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/04/2023 19:46:33
Post by: Zer0 on 03/04/2023 21:25:06
Meaning?
Post by: Kryptid on 03/04/2023 21:42:37
The same goes for that machine he's lifting against as well as the floor he's standing on.
Post by: evan_au on 03/04/2023 22:24:06
Quote from: bored chemist
I'm pretty sure that neutronium would collapse into a sphere under its own gravityThis is true for a stellar-mass drop of neutronium.
I haven't seen a phase diagram of neutronium, but it is reportedly a solid on the surface of a neutron star (if you ignore the millimeter or so of atmosphere).
- Remove a spoonful of this solid, and it will have the mass of a mountain - not enough gravity to move very much
- But remove it from the immense gravitational pressure of a neutron star, and I imagine that it will sublimate explosively into a neutron gas
- Even if the strong nuclear force were enough to hold the neutrons in a solid lump, the half-life of a free neutron (on the surface) is around 12 minutes, so there will be an immense nuclear reaction, with neutrons decaying into protons and electrons: much more radioactive than plutonium 239, with a half-life of 24,000 years.
Post by: Eternal Student on 04/04/2023 01:16:14
Plenty of info about Neutronium, thank you @evan_au .
I was just going to comment on one thing because it's vaguely related to something mentioned earlier.
Remove a spoonful of this solid, and it will have the mass of a mountain - not enough gravity to move very muchIt's not the ability to pull things toward it that is a problem, not until they get too close. Indeed a 1Kg lump of Iron, a 1Kg lump of Neutronium or a black hole with a 1kg mass parameter will all exert the same force of gravity on something that remains 1 metre away, i.e. not much.
It's the density of the material that is a problem. For the lump of Iron you cannot get too close to it, you would be in contact with the surface and electrostatic repulsion would keep you away. Let's just have the thing spherical and assume the 1Kg can be treated as being at the centre - you can't get too close to it. However, for a lump of Neutronium you can get closer. For a black hole you can get all the way up to the Schwarzschild radius and then you are certainly doomed. However, you don't need to get that close. For a small black hole once you are close to the Schwarzschild radius the gradient that exists in the force,
is extreme. So the difference in force at your (or a particle's) head is very different to that at your (or the particle's) feet and you (or the particle) are pulled apart. (I've deliberately over-simplified this and used terminology based on Newtonian gravity. In GR you try not to consider gravity as a force, you just find a collection of Local Inertial Frames and consider an object in free fall to be at rest in the frame local to it. However near the Schwarzschild radius all inertial frames lose their inertial property even over the smallest distances, you cannot find a frame that would approximate a LIF across all of the particle's length. As such there are seen to be tidal forces on the particle that cannot be removed no matter what set of co-ordinates you try to use).Anyway, the main point is just that the density isn't causing a gravitational problem because of the total mass that the Neutronium has. The density is a problem because of how close another particle can get to it.
Best Wishes.
Post by: aasimz on 04/04/2023 04:06:51
Umm...Why is there a Yellow Circle with a Red Exclamation mark depicted near the OP?
Meaning?
Changed to a question mark. 😊
Post by: aasimz on 04/04/2023 04:10:16
Superman's bones and muscles couldn't be made of any known material that would allow him to do this:
The same goes for that machine he's lifting against as well as the floor he's standing on.
Thank you.
Post by: aasimz on 04/04/2023 04:37:59
We know that while we sleep this happens in terms of thoughts, but I don't know about body parts functions.
The assumption is, the higher our perception of time goes (while we are awake) the stronger our body parts need to be, no doubt that all body parts will need to function faster, and the lungs, muscles and the heart all need to be stronger to be able to function faster.
How many more fps (of consciousness rate) would our current body parts withstand with their current structure, and would we be able to make them stronger?
Post by: Kryptid on 04/04/2023 06:54:27
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/04/2023 13:23:02
Remove a spoonful of this solid, and it will have the mass of a mountain - not enough gravity to move very muchI think you overlooked the inverse square law.
All of the teaspoonful is within a few cm of the rest of it.
I think it would have time to "fall" into a sphere before radiation destroyed it.
There's nothing else much causing it to expand.
It would, very quickly, be "evaporated" by the heat generated by its own decay.
But my fundamental point was that you don't get to decide what shape it is, so you can't "make" anything out of it unless you want a super-dense marble. (or spheroid, if you spin it).
Post by: alancalverd on 04/04/2023 17:45:43
Artificial intelligence based on a photonic computer could thus think many orders of magnitude faster than us.Only if it can employ massively parallel processing and content-addressable memory. And then what do you do with the result? You can't move anything faster than the speed of sound in your arms.
Post by: Kryptid on 04/04/2023 21:03:57
And then what do you do with the result? You can't move anything faster than the speed of sound in your arms.
Perhaps not, but thinking that fast could still make you an excellent free style rapper.
Post by: Halc on 04/04/2023 23:23:26
Superman needs none of this. He can just apply reactionless force at his fingertips and not even expend effort on the rest of his body.
All the talk about neutron star stuff and other strong materials is irrelevant to something which can apply reactionless force.
I really don't like the X-ray vision because it's made to be something that he does rather than something he detects. Sure, if he can emit some kind of penetrating radiation, he can cook eggs by looking at them, but he can't tell when they're done that way. He can't tell if Lois has cancer, but he can certainly make sure she does.
It's like trying to eavesdrop on the conversation inside the building over there by screaming at them. Doesn't work that way.
How many more fps (of consciousness rate)Our brains don't really process fps. It isn't a camera with a shutter. We can detect frame rates (blinking lights say) slower than a certain level, but that's different than actually processing vision in a series of frames.
Yes, a machine can have a vastly quicker reaction time to external stimuli than can a person, so no violation for superman to have better reflexes.
You can't move anything faster than the speed of sound in your arms.I don't see where this restriction comes from. I mean sure, I can't think of an animal which can accelerate a part of itself to supersonic speeds relative to another part of it, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Machines do it.
Post by: aasimz on 05/04/2023 04:57:51
Our brains don't really process fps. It isn't a camera with a shutter.
I certainly know that, :)
but since there is no unit of measurement for the rate of which we perceive time which I know of, I used the eyes vision frame rate, my thoughts were since all our senses agree in the rate, (no delay or difference) it resulted in our consciousness perception of time which is coordinated with all senses including the brain's transmitting/processing speed, which generated a perception that is equal to the rate of our vision, which is told to be variated from 40 to 60 fps as the body needed. So, what I am saying here is not actually about the brain speed process as it is about the rate which we perceive time with.
PS:
The assumption is that any being that can see in higher frame rates will need higher brain process speed to process more data at the same time and must reflect on him having a higher perception of time.
Post by: Zer0 on 05/04/2023 23:08:53
(It's a Tough job swatting a Fly!)
Post by: Eternal Student on 06/04/2023 04:16:40
Now in terms of biology and the brain, is there any research or study on adjusting the rate which our consciousness perceives time?Yes. Here's a wikipedia link that should start you off in the right direction. It has many references to more authoritative texts within it, if you are really keen to get more information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_perception#
If you want to make your own search of the internet then "Chronoception" and "Tachypsychia" might be keywords worth including, although "time perception" can also get you results.
From a biological or physiological stand point, adrenaline and noradrenaline are the most obvious things to consider (these can also be called "epinephrine" and "norepinephrine"). These are natural substances released by the human body as part of what is usually called the fight or flight reaction. Quite a bit of research exists to suggest that subjective time (how long you think it has been between two events in your surrounding) is dilated relative to the actual real time that has elapsed. This is just saying what you probably already know form your own personal experiences: When you are adrenalized, then external time seems to slow down, you can do slightly more physical things in 1 real second and you can also complete more thinking or reasoning tasks in 1 real second.
NOTE that there is a counter-argument and research that opposes the time dilation effect of adrenaline: The time dilation may be a retrospective phenomena - specifically the fear or anxiety has made you more aware and your memory of the incident is stronger. You may just be creating very strong and detailed memories of everything you saw, heard or thought about during the time you were adrenalized. You are then falsely interpreting the amount of information you have available for the incident as an indication of how much time it must have taken and how much information you would usually have for events of that timescale. You may not have thought about anything faster than usual, you just have a much more detailed memory of it.
Next on the list are other stimulants and for the opposite effect (making your subjective time contracted relative to real time), then research seems to be available suggesting that some sedatives do create that effect. The Wikipedia article has all the references for this.
Best Wishes.
Post by: aasimz on 06/04/2023 07:41:41
You are then falsely interpreting the amount of information you have available for the incident as an indication of how much time it must have taken and how much information you would usually have for events of that timescale. You may not have thought about anything faster than usual, you just have a much more detailed memory of it.
I have experienced critical situations (accidents or others) throughout my life myself, but not once did I feel time was moving slower! So, nothing here is based on my personal experience. Okay, that been said, I just learned about some of what you mentioned here yesterday when I was reading this article (below link), and I was astonished by the fact that people have been reporting experiencing that! to the point where they had to do research on the matter?
https://www.arrowheadclinic.com/category/blog/car-accidents-slow-motion
I was searching online to see if there were any research results that would show any change of vision rate in relation to the times of adrenaline rush. couldn't find any, but instead I found the above article, I find it remarkably interesting!
Quote from: Zer0
(It's a Tough job swatting a Fly!)
Didn't research conclude that bees and flies have a higher perception of time than us? and we are moving slow for them?
Isn't that also why it is tough to hit a pigeon with a speeding car? (Said to be around 140 fps vision rate for some birds)
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/04/2023 10:55:07
I don't see where this restriction comes from.The muscles of my arm are attached to my forearm and elbow.
No matter how hard they pull, the "signal" to move my hand travels down my forearm at the speed of sound in the bone.
Applying larger forces just bends the bone more (until it breaks).
Technically, you might be able to get my hand moving faster, but only if I could rotate the elbow freely and yet still accelerate it.
The same idea is usually presented as "if I had a really long rod and I rotate it (like a majorette twirling a baton), why doesn't the tip of the rod move faster than light?"
Post by: Petrochemicals on 06/04/2023 18:24:17
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_fusion_thresholdMakes you wonder if our perception of time increace as we become larger. Is childhood a significantly different time frame. It does seem the smaller the animal the faster it moves, time you would logically think is similarly different.
(It's a Tough job swatting a Fly!)
Post by: aasimz on 06/04/2023 20:42:05
Makes you wonder if our perception of time increace as we become larger.
You mean decrease, right? as you perceive more of "time" when you are smaller.
Just found about another superhero, he is called Ant-man, he can be ridiculously small and exceptionally large,
When he is small, he moves extremely fast, and things seem to move slow for him, and when he is huge, he is awfully slow.
Interesting, ha, must be based on the concept discussed here.
PS:
if you remember, in my original post I mentioned:
but is it possible for any brain to accommodate such high frame rates (120,000 fps and above)? especially a big brain?
Post by: Zer0 on 10/04/2023 21:16:09
🐜
Personally, i like QuickSilver alot!
Post by: Petrochemicals on 10/04/2023 23:37:06
Any way you wish to read it.Makes you wonder if our perception of time increace as we become larger.
You mean decrease, right?
Post by: aasimz on 18/04/2023 23:13:38
At times, i Wonder, how does Ant-Man breathe in a Sub Microscopic Environment.Ya, and BTW, does he get to the level where he is smaller than a protein molecule? That would be impossible to explain.
🐜
I heard a new movie is out for Ant-Man, I must watch that.
Personally, i like QuickSilver alot!
I had never heard about him before, but in a quick search it looked like his superpower is speed. but I am sure they have not considered the immense pressure required to do such high speeds just like in superman.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/04/2023 12:16:54
Short answer, No.
Long answer
Still no.
Post by: Zer0 on 19/04/2023 21:19:18
Hope you are keeping Well.
Stay Safe & Secure...
& Just hang on tight in there..
Even this shall Pass.
☮️
Post by: aasimz on 20/04/2023 01:05:56
@OP
Hope you are keeping Well.
Stay Safe & Secure...
& Just hang on tight in there..
Even this shall Pass.
☮️
Thank you very much for your concerns. We live in Khartoum, the war is still going, so far, my family is safe, today an air strike hit two blocks away from us. It's terrifying. The most terrifying thing for me is the fact that I am not with them. (I am now in Saudia Arabia).
My wife and kids, my parents, two of my brothers, and their families, they are all trapped in the same building in Khartoum (our home) they have good supplies, but it won't last forever. I hope they will just stop this anarchy immediately.
Post by: Eternal Student on 20/04/2023 05:12:19
I hadn''t noticed your location was listed as Sudan until after @Zer0 's post. The situation at the moment sounds awfull and I'm sure everyone wishes you well.
Post by: aasimz on 20/04/2023 08:41:25
Hi.
I hadn''t noticed your location was listed as Sudan until after @Zer0 's post. The situation at the moment sounds awfull and I'm sure everyone wishes you well.
Thank you Eternal Student, and thanks to everyone for their concern.