I am writing a SciFi story but I don't like Rayguns

[SleipnirTheHorse]

Well, the reason is because of the opposite, the aliens don't want to kill unless they absolutely have to. They take prisoners according to Galactic Convention.

By the way the aliens are kinda in an accidental war with humanity. Basically we blewup a spaceship out of a misunderstanding and a Galactic WWI situation broke out with most of the Galaxy going to war.

 

[sbrothy]

1.) Any laser gun powerful enough to shoot a hole in somebody can probably instantly blind you if it hits your eyes. Even if it just reflected off something shiny. It is a danger to anybody nearby, with "nearby" defined as "closer than the horizon."
2.) It takes lots of tricky engineering to make a laser bolt do more damage than your average bullet. And to be more efficient than your average bullet
3.) Shooting a continual laser beam at somebody is like spitting into the wind. Vaporizing metal or flesh from the target will mess up the beam. Instead the beam should be a series of short pulses.
4.) Lasers need large batteries because they are power hogs
5.) A "heat-ray" is a continuous beam laser. It is like a flame-thrower. Made of energy beams
6.) A "blaser" is a pulsed beam laser. It is like a bullet. Made of energy beams
7.) A laser aimsight can be the actual weapon optics, much like an SLR reflex camera eyepiece. This makes the aimsight vastly more accurate than iron sights
8.) If you are having a raygun fight in an atmosphere, you want the laser gun to use some color of visible light or near-infrared frequencies
9.) Particle-beam weapons are far more efficient at doing damage to the target compared to lasers
10.) Particle-beam weapons can give serious doses of deadly radiation to the gunslinger, due to radiation backscatter
11.) Plasma weapons do not work

Energy Weapon Sidearms

EDIT: This is meant "tongue-in-cheek".

 

[DaveC426913]

By the way the aliens are kinda in an accidental war with humanity. Basically we blewup a spaceship out of a misunderstanding and a Galactic WWI situation broke out with most of the Galaxy going to war.

Well, the reason is because of the opposite, the aliens don't want to kill unless they absolutely have to. They take prisoners according to Galactic Convention.

I assume then you have an in-story reason why these (apparently) non-violent aliens didn't, or couldn't, try diplomacy and negotiation to try to de-escalate an impending war. Presumably, they are smart enough to know that (non-blaster weapons or no) galactic war is a very good way of getting of a lot of entities on both sides dead.

 

[DennisN]

Why not a rail gun?

I was about to post that too.

By the way, here are two of the most hilarious weapons in fiction (computer games):

1. BFG9000 (plasma gun in Doom):

The initials composing the weapon's name stand for "Big F***ing Gun."

https://doom.fandom.com/wiki/BFG9000

2. Shrinker (Duke Nukem)

https://dukenukem.fandom.com/wiki/Shrinker_(DN3D)

I remember laughing so much using that weapon against fellow players at work (and having it used against me). It shrinks the opponent to a tiny version and then you stomp on them with your foot to squash them.

Edit: here's a video showing it:

 

[BWV]

I was about to post that too.

By the way, here are two of the most hilarious weapons in fiction (computer games):

1. BFG9000 (plasma gun in Doom):

the BFG 9000 was great but there were never enough plasma cells to use it much. I do remember hacking the double barrel shotgun to
give it the same rate of fire as the chain gun, which would shred anything

 

[Mayhem]

If you have a sufficiently advanced civilization, then a projectile with an antimatter and matter compartment that combines upon impact.

 

[DaveC426913]

If you have a sufficiently advanced civilization, then a projectile with an antimatter and matter compartment that combines upon impact.

Utter and unilateral annilhilation of everything in a radius of the projectile's impact seems counterintuitive for a society who "don't want to kill unless they absolutely have to".

Not to mention the burst of high-energy gamma radiation ...

 

[ShadowKraz]

I have an advanced race of aliens, but I want them to use a Projectile Weapon.

I've written that they have high-density propelled by a plasma explosion, inside a chamber of a powerful and strong gun.

I highly recommend reading Larry Niven's 'Known Space' stories with particular attention to Ringworld. I think he does a great job of creating plausible alien cultures with different perspectives on what weapon to use when and why. Also does a great job of world building.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I want them to use a Projectile Weapon.

What sort of velocity would these weapons give the projectile? 'Realistically', they would not be near c and the transit time would make guidance difficult with a moving (dodging) target. You'd have a choice of projectile mass; heavy and you'd have recoil problems, light and atmospheric drag would slow them down over distances.

I have been 'put off' personal rayguns as an idea ever since a went to a lecture about practical laser weapons. Whilst they are probably useful as heavy weapons, the energy requirements for a hand weapon make them pretty impractical. So I can see how hand projectile weapons could be attractive.

However, in fantasy fiction, anything goes - so don't come to PF for serious advice; just write convincingly and get your readers to suspend disbelief (as do all good authors). That's the beauty of the Azimov generation; we accept cigarettes and impossibly high transport speeds and the books entertain us. Very little SciFi can survive detailed examination but why should it?.

 

[Algr]

Why not a rail gun?

Rail is spelt much too closely to Ray, which is what OP is trying to avoid. So instead you can use a psychology rifle that projects delta waves and makes the subjects fall asleep. Other settings can make the enemy too depressed to fight, or have overwhelming sexual desire. I've heard of a brown note generator, but I don't remember what it does. Tasers could be improved with carbon nanotubes to have much higher range. Or people could throw flying robot snakes around. They would pursue the enemy and try to entangle them, or inject them with things.
A more lethal weapon might fire wrinkles in space-time, causing parts of the enemy to face the other direction or go somewhere else. A gun that shoots black holes has been done.

 

[DaveC426913]

I've heard of a brown note generator, but I don't remember what it does.

It loosens the bowels of the hapless targets.

 

[ShadowKraz]

It lossens the bowels of the hapless targets.

"Well, we know what his red laser does. I wonder what other lasers he has."
"I just don't want to know what a brown laser does."

 

[Algr]

I confess. I just didn't _want_ to remember what the brown note did.

 

[ShadowKraz]

I've been reading this thread and I think OP's alien culture would want to use something along one of two lines; a) a sonic gun that renders the non-autonomous nervous system either useless or at a lower level of function (pacification) or, 2) a gun that fires tranquilizer-crystal flechettes, perhaps metal tipped to penetrate armor.

 

[Nik_2213]

I gave ' Expansionist Imperial' antagonists in a story-arc 'Hybrid Rocket Guns'.
Down-side of 'trad' rocket guns is slow exit from barrel.
The 'Gyrojet' lacked lethality at short range. And, when it 'got going', was sub-optimally accurate due aiming / spin issues.
Reloading required external power, such as a revolver's cylinder turning when trigger next pulled.

Notion flipped: IIRC, some real artillery has a 'sustainer' burn to supplement 'Trad' launch.
And these 'Range Extended' projectiles are big enough to have a guidance system...
Note liquid / gel gun propellant was 'investigated' for several decades, separating passive-ish 'warhead' from noisome 'propellant', simplifying storage, loading etc etc. eg Gavin Lyall's 'UNCLE TARGET'
IIRC, system needed MUCH larger breech as gel-fuel was less 'energy dense'...
The bigger, heavier breech-system some-what mitigated recoil, but claimed much turret space...
And, um, gel propellant did not appreciate being pumped into a hot breech...

I gave my 'Uppity Imperials' case-less ammunition with a 'kick-start' to launch, impart spin if barrel rifled. This 'reduced charge' mitigates recoil yet provides enough back-pressure for reliable auto-load of next round. Rocket takes over when clear of barrel. Served their hand-guns, 'Assault AKs', pintle-mounts, 'Pom-Poms', mortars and so on....

 

[sbrothy]

I think projectile weapons are here to stay. Can you even make beam or particle guns so compact you can hold them in your hand? Also, because a cartridge (read: a firearm round) comes with it's oxygen "build in", so to say, it'll work in a vacuum and the caliber and power can be adjusted if you're afraid of explosive decompression. It's a versatile choice.

EDIT: OK, richocheting is a problem. But again the power and nature of the bullet can be adjusted.

 

[sbrothy]

[...] case-less ammunition [...]

Isn't the case expelled almost a necessity for transporting heat away from the weapon? I mean wouldn't heat quickly become a problem if not disposed of barring some other mechanism serving the same purpose?

 

[Nik_2213]

Not necessarily.
Don't forget some 'big' guns use 'bagged' charges. Technically, case-less...

A magazine may include a small can of 'coolant' to better flush breech.
Barrel heating is a bane of repeated firing, but a limited 'kick-charge' would mitigate that...
Also see:
https://www.forgottenweapons.com/caseless-ammunition-overview/

 

[sbrothy]

Not necessarily.
Don't forget some 'big' guns use 'bagged' charges. Technically, case-less...

A magazine may include a small can of 'coolant' to better flush breech.
Barrel heating is a bane of repeated firing, but a limited 'kick-charge' would mitigate that...
Also see:
https://www.forgottenweapons.com/caseless-ammunition-overview/

I see. Is this an equivalent to, or perhaps a variant of, flechette rifles like the Steyr ACR?

EDIT: The APS might be a better example...

 

[Hornbein]

If space had 4 Euclidian dimensions instead of 3 then rifles would require flechetted bullets. A 4D bullet has two planes of rotation and rifling will stabilize only one plane, leaving it free to rotate in the other plane. The flechettes would resist that. But if you have flechettes then it's not clear whether the rifling gains anything. I would guess it does not.

It's one of very few things that are effective in 3D but not in 4D. The only other example I know of is rack and pinion steering.

 

[DaveC426913]

It's one of very few things that are effective in 3D but not in 4D. The only other example I know of is rack and pinion steering.

Knots.

 

[Hornbein]

Knots.

I often see that knots are impossible in 4D. But these are mathematical knots, 1D closed curves floating freely in space. In real life knots are never closed curves and are held together by friction. The friction comes from the compressibility of the string, which a mathematical knot does not have. Friction knots can exist in any number of dimensions. The friction immobilizes the string.

Theoretical mathematical knots can exist in 4D, they are 2D instead of 1D. In 4D our 2-sphere is the simplest knot. It's equivalent to a ring or grommet, so 4D chain is made of 2-spheres.

 

[DaveC426913]

I often see that knots are impossible in 4D. But these are mathematical knots, 1D closed curves floating freely in space. In real life knots are never closed curves and are held together by friction. The friction comes from the compressibility of the string, which a mathematical knot does not have. Friction knots can exist in any number of dimensions. The friction immobilizes the string.

Theoretical mathematical knots can exist in 4D, they are 2D instead of 1D. In 4D our 2-sphere is the simplest knot. It's equivalent to a ring or grommet, so 4D chain is made of 2-spheres.

TIL.

I had heard that 4D knots don't work because they "fall apart". but I had always assumed that was a geometry thing (i.e. their extra degree of freedom means they aren't really knotted), but you're saying that they fall apart because friction is ignored?

I know much of our world would fall apart without friction, but I had not connected that with 4D knots.

But that seems kind of cheating. If friction is not ignored in 3D knots, why would they hold 4D knots to a different standard?


Now I'm all confused again.

 

[Hornbein]

TIL.

I had heard that 4D knots don't work because they "fall apart". but I had always assumed that was a geometry thing (i.e. their extra degree of freedom means they aren't really knotted), but you're saying that they fall apart because friction is ignored?

I know much of our world would fall apart without friction, but I had not connected that with 4D knots.

But that seems kind of cheating. If friction is not ignored in 3D knots, why would they hold 4D knots to a different standard?


Now I'm all confused again.

In 3D two perpendicular lines can't move past one another. In 4D they can do it easily. Basically to get around something you need two dimensions. One to sidestep in and the other to go forward past the object. In 3D if you have two strings [x,0,0] and [0,y,1] then you can't get to [0,y,-1] because [x,0,0] and [0,y,0] intersect at [0,0,0] which is verboten.
But with [0,x,0,0] and [0,0,y,1] you just go [0,0,y,1] -> [1,0,y,1] -> [1,0,y,-1] -> [0,0,y,-1] because [1,0,y,0] doesn't intersect [0,x,0,0]. So freely floating closed curves always can become circles, chains of circles fall apart, and so forth.

 

[DaveC426913]

In 3D two perpendicular lines can't move past one another. In 4D they can do it easily. Basically to get around something you need two dimensions. One to sidestep in and the other to go forward past the object. In 3D if you have two strings [x,0,0] and [0,y,1] then you can't get to [0,y,-1] because [x,0,0] and [0,y,0] intersect at [0,0,0] which is verboten.
But with [0,x,0,0] and [0,0,y,1] you just go [0,0,y,1] -> [1,0,y,1] -> [1,0,y,-1] -> [0,0,y,-1] because [1,0,y,0] doesn't intersect [0,x,0,0]. So freely floating closed curves always can become circles, chains of circles fall apart, and so forth.

And there's no 4D equivalent of a knot?

Oh, that's why you're talking about 2-spheres. You need the 4D equivalent of 3D's "line" - which will be at least 2D. Right?

Just like 1D "knots" (eg. train couplers) will fall apart in 2D because they have an extra dimension to "sidestep". Yes?

 

[Hornbein]

Just like 1D "knots" (eg. train couplers) will fall apart in 2D because they have an extra dimension to "sidestep". Yes?
View attachment 370416

Those couplers look 2D to me. They'd be unreliable in a 3D world.

 

[DaveC426913]

Those couplers look 2D to me. They'd be unreliable in a 3D world.

Sorry. Yes. I meant 2D.

 

[Algr]

If the aliens are peaceful, maybe they use ordinary gunpowder bullets because they were good enough. They didn't want to bother spending money developing something that rarely got used.

So bullets, and not many aliens are skilled at shooting them.

 

[kochanskij]

I often see that knots are impossible in 4D. But these are mathematical knots, 1D closed curves floating freely in space. In real life knots are never closed curves and are held together by friction. The friction comes from the compressibility of the string, which a mathematical knot does not have. Friction knots can exist in any number of dimensions. The friction immobilizes the string.

Theoretical mathematical knots can exist in 4D, they are 2D instead of 1D. In 4D our 2-sphere is the simplest knot. It's equivalent to a ring or grommet, so 4D chain is made of 2-spheres.

An N dimensional manifold can be tied into a knot only in N+2 dimensional space. So a 2D surface, like a plane or surface of a sphere, can be tied in a knot in 4 dimensional space. A 1D string can only form a knot in 3D space. In 2D space, a string can not pass over itself. In 4D space, a knot in a string will just slip apart, like a figure 8 loop of string in 3D space is just a circular loop.