Timeline for How difficult would it be to reverse engineer a device whose function is based on unknown physics?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 5 at 5:23 | comment | added | JBH | ... Frankly, the assumption that one might be able to simplify such a complex object as the OP describes is, honestly, insane. That much power without so much as a secure password. From my perspective, it's becoming a childish (sorry) argument. But, ultimately, the real point is that this entire discussion cannot be resolved by anyone but the OP, which you are not. It's their world and all I can do is explain my point from the perspective of my experience in the Real World. If you disagree so much, you're welcome to write your own answer. That would benefit the OP and other worldbuilders. | |
| Dec 5 at 5:20 | comment | added | JBH | @Questor My experience is that isn't normally the case. Let's compare the fairly complex function of a modern cellphone (which you likely grew up with) to the function of a rotary dial phone (which I grew up with). That cellphone is actually rediculously complex. But to make the point more obvious, let's compare that cellphone to the operation and user interface of the primary function integrated circuit inside. Which you don't understand how to build or use (but, as an electrical engineer, I do). Some things can, some things can't, some things should, some things shouldn't. ... (*Cont.*) | |
| Dec 4 at 20:52 | comment | added | Questor | Just because something is complex to build/make function, doesn't mean using it needs to be hard to use. Look at tablets they are extremely advanced devices that have capacitive touch LCD screens and chips that contain 2^40+ more transistors than than the ones used to send people to the moon. But a 2 year old can figure out how to use them because a lot of time/energy was spent on making them easy to use. | |
| Dec 4 at 20:47 | comment | added | Questor | @JBH if you designed a wormhole gate than I guess It would have security systems, no monitoring protocols, and as complex as a power utility room. If I were to design a wormhole device that was used regularly to transmit people to multiple destinations I would design it to be as easy to use as an elvator. Maybe make it ring shaped and have people dial the target gate. Using a 27 character address system and 6 characters for each address + a final dial button. | |
| Dec 4 at 3:12 | comment | added | JBH | @Questor Since others are using your comment as a reference - you're suggesting a controlled wormhole would have more in common with an elevator than it would a Boeing 747. That's remarkably unrealistic. No security systems, no monitoring protocols.... just the proverbial switch to turn it on. Nope. | |
| Dec 4 at 3:09 | comment | added | JBH | @Bitsplease The assumption is fantastically incorrect. Just because a complex thing has a simple purpose doesn't mean it will have a simple interface. A controlled wormhole is far more likely to have more in common with an electical utility control room than it will a rotary dial telephone. Do you have any experience designing user interfaces? I have. Yes, we do make them as simple as possible - but they always have all the controls and indicators they need. | |
| Dec 4 at 0:49 | comment | added | Bitsplease | Hard Agree with @Questor - Most of the answer is excellent, but there are a ton of day to day items that are horrifically complicated under the hood with relatively simple interfaces. If the device is intended to be used by layman, "Security and Safety" being concerns are really arguments in FAVOR of a simple interface with lots of safeguards hardcoded in and not accessible by users, as opposed to being an argument against it as OP suggests. An internal combustion engine is extremely complicated and dangerous, but I only use a few very simple levers, buttons, and wheels to drive my car. | |
| Feb 15 at 17:40 | comment | added | Questor | I agree with you in regards to the difficulty of reverse engineering.. But gotta disagree with you in regards to the user interface.... A wormhole drive is probably used to move people from a to b... The designer of such a device would probably want to design it to be as easy to use as possible... And as hard to use incorrectly as possible. This means a simplified interface... Put in destination and it goes perferbly from a set of fixed destinations... Don't want to allow someone to accidently create a wormhole that opens up in the middle of a blackwhole etc... | |
| Nov 21, 2022 at 8:27 | comment | added | jwenting | @akostadinov they couldn't do it because from just having a piece of metal you can't figure out the exact manufacturing process, the composition of the alloy, the heat treating, etc. etc. | |
| Nov 19, 2022 at 12:04 | comment | added | Hobbamok | @akostadinov it hasn't stopped humans from TRYING, no, you're right on that. But it HAS stopped them on succeeding a LOT of times. Greek fire? Lost to the ages, despite a LOT of people and effort was spent to reverse engineer the recipe, back then and now. Roman mortar? Gone. Glas blowing took about a hundred years, and that's basically "make sand hot". Btw. We still do not know how medieval coppersmelters got to the purity that they did. Despite us having the ovens and so on still intact. We, with our modern equipment and science cannot reverse engineer their process. We do it differently | |
| Nov 18, 2022 at 18:45 | comment | added | JBH | @akostadinov My answer does not contradict history. You are inappropriately redefining the concept of reverse engineering. In engineering, the phrase "reverse engineer" has a specific meaning. Traditional innovation through careful thought, trial-and-error, and testing, is NOT reverse engineering, it's engineering. The discovery of combustion engines was not an act of reverse engineering something nature already did. It was engineering nature in a way it had never been used before. If you feel strongly that I am in error, it would be more appropriate for you to post an answer. | |
| Nov 18, 2022 at 15:14 | comment | added | akostadinov | @jwenting, not prooving anything, they just took the easier route. Obie, many believe that previous civilizations knew more than us. There are still unexplained things from the past. So not sure your figure is correct. Anyway, it very much depends. But saying that it is impossible - that hasn't stopped humans ever. | |
| Nov 18, 2022 at 13:17 | comment | added | Obie 2.0 | @akostadinov - Sure, it is possible. It only took a hundred billion humans...300,000 years? Give or take? | |
| Nov 18, 2022 at 11:57 | comment | added | jwenting | @akostadinov not really. Reverse engineering can certainly be done, sometimes, maybe even most times, given enough resources and a level of technology close enough to that being reverse engineered. But even then it's often pointless. E.g. the Israelis tried reverse engineering the Mirage III jet fighter after France stopped supplying them. They couldn't, despite having dozens sitting on their runways. They in the end decided it was easier to steal the original design drawings and smuggle them to Israel, which is what they ended up doing. | |
| Nov 18, 2022 at 9:12 | comment | added | akostadinov | This answer contradicts history. Humans have reverse engineered so many things. The whole science can be reduced to reverse engineering Nature. Well, how much it would take is another story. | |
| S Nov 17, 2022 at 21:07 | history | mod moved comments to chat | |||
| S Nov 17, 2022 at 21:07 | comment | added | L.Dutch♦ | Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. | |
| Nov 17, 2022 at 16:33 | history | edited | JBH | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 4219 characters in body
|
| Nov 17, 2022 at 0:31 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Nov 17, 2022 at 3:25 | |||||
| Nov 16, 2022 at 23:37 | vote | accept | TehKaoZ | ||
| Nov 16, 2022 at 18:04 | history | answered | JBH | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
