I see, so despite the passing of hundreds of years & humanitys pension for advancing our technology (Quantum Computers). I should expect to see toasters, kevlar & technology we already possess now?!? (1)
All I am trying to say, is that after the passing of that much time & knowing what we know about ourselves as a culture, I would think we would have far more advanced technology then even the experimental weapons of today. (2)
If its something that has already been thought up or even tested (rail guns), it isnt likly to me that we would still be using it that far into the future, propbably (3)
some evolution of that technology yes, but would you use a torch 'cause it works' or a flashlight? (4)
Just because you cant imagine something worse, doesnt mean that someone else wouldnt eventually. (5)
(1) Yes, you should expect to see these things because they take advantage of physics that we understand incredibly well and will ALWAYS be true. When Einstein came in and basically told us all that Newton was wrong, did we stop using Newton's laws? Does F not equal ma anymore? It does in most cases, and it ALWAYS will in most cases. Does quantum mechanics (new and utterly insane at first glance) change the fact that a dropped object will fall at 9.8 m/s/s on the Earth?
Some things will always be with us. They'll become more impressive over time as we are able to use higher energies and throw more money at problems, but they'll still basically stay the same. Look at today's houses in comparison with caves. We'll get some new things too. Lasers are a weird coincidental rules-lawyering of quantum mechanics. That's certainly something I would call 'new' in that it can't be explained in ANY other way (in other words, using the stuff we knew BEFORE quantum mechanics). But it doesn't invalidate or supercede anything we've built before that. It's just something extra to add to our plaque on the wall.
(2) It's very likely that nothing will ever surpass our invention of the arrow. These days we still use these mechanisms, but our arrows are smaller and they are propelled with high-pressure gas instead of bows. It's all the same thing. We'll always have bullets. The bullets of the future will be smarter, stronger, faster, better etc.
(3) The thing is, the physics behind bullets will ALWAYS be true. It won't change even if we discover some new 'plateau' of science. Bullets will still be an incredibly cheap (compared with everything else) way of moving lots of energy around. Even though we little humans can't claim to know everything, we do know this.
The reason we talk about rail guns and Gauss canons is that they are mechanisms of movement. If I wanted to knock an apple off a table, I could just go up to it and strike it. Then again, I could get the same push in a 'remote' way by doing some tricky engineering and using my arm to push some other object and that other object will in turn push the apple. I could also rig up something that has stored energy so that I don't have to use the energy in my arm, something like a switch that unhooks a spring or something.
If I go about this long enough, I'll get to using gases to propel little metal bullets. There's a problem with those, though. There's a theoretical maximum force. So what doesn't have a theoretical maximum speed/force that I can use to push stuff? Magnetic fields. I can make arbitrarily strong magnetic fields given enough energy to create an electric current. Problem solved forever. More energy > more magnetic field strength > faster bullet > more damage. Maybe one day this process will be smoothed out, and we'll be using the energy of an entire star, but it'll be the same thing. We'll still be sending lumps of stuff from point A to point B.
(4) They're both the same thing. They both just excite stuff to emit photons. One just has more clever engineering than the other.
(5) There's a fine line to dance when imagining new things. I'm gonna go on the basis that this is considered a science fiction setting. In science fiction, you don't have magic, fireball spells conjured from nothing, gods to pray to for vengeful strength etc. etc. because it's not science. The remarkable thing about humans is that, while tiny and completely insignificant in our current state, we might as well worship ourselves because we are as gods when it comes to ideas.
Look at this, for a good example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere
We could build that thing right now given the energy, money, and engineering effort. 300 years ago, Isaac Newton figured out that if we could shoot a box out of a cannon fast enough, it would orbit the earth. 300 years later, we have finally made it into space. And we didn't use anything apart from Newton's laws (and some smart engineering) to do it.
We could already be arbitrarily powerful (godlike if you prefer) if it weren't for the constraint of our environment and our need to do other things (like eat food). The fundamental limiter of any civilization's power will be how much energy it has available to use. Anything beyond, anything that exists in a science fiction setting that goes beyond what we have already imagined and thought and written about - well it might as well be magic because it's either that or pure guesswork and buzzwords. So, yes, we can imagine lots of stuff, but if it disagrees with what we KNOW must be true, it's not science fiction, it's magic.
You might as well complain about the use of anti-matter for energy. Couldn't they have thought of something else? Yes, they could have. Would it be anything even remotely resembling scientific? No, it wouldn't. Matter/anti-matter annihilation is the best energy efficiency that science can imagine (theoretically 100% conversion). Any advance in this area would just be in overcoming practical limitations.
A good example of forward-thinking here is 'phase space'. Humans can see the regular world in a 3-1 dimensional way. But, with the help of mathematical systems today (especially areas like linear algebra), we can imagine (without any contradiction) that there are more fundamental spaces or dimensions which we just happen to be unable to see. Travelling faster than the speed of light? Nope, not in spacetime. In some higher-dimensional space? Possibly, we don't have instruments to measure stuff like that.
The presence of psionic powers like telekinesis and whatnot are not scientific, but the reason they are in the game is because of convention. A lot of scientific thinkers (mostly sci-fi authors) believe that one day we'll be able to systemize something resembling psionic 'powers' into a physical theory (note: I'm not of one of them).
Anyway, to sum up a rather long post
: when imagining new things, there are still rules you have to follow unless you want the equivalent of fireball spells in space. Additionally, to invent some new idea without using any of our current ideas, you'd have to think of a new system of physics, HOWEVER, a physicist would have already beat you to it - so to complete this circle, it's best to get new ideas from physicists - and that means the stuff we already know/can intelligently speculate about.
And no, it never hurts to post your thoughts. At best, you will add something to the discussion. At worst, someone will disagree with you and the proposal-disagreement will be there for everyone to think about and respond to.
