Post by: Osmosis Jones on July 04, 2012, 05:43:34 am
Railguns? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uV1SbEuzFU) Invisibility cloaks? (http://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/optoelectronics/metamaterials-step-into-the-light) Warp drives?! (http://news.yahoo.com/warp-drive-may-more-feasible-thought-scientists-161301109.html)
Of course, this thread was originally inspired by the discovery of the Higg's boson. Open the spoiler below and educate yourself on this truly monumental event :P
Spoiler: Original Original Post (click to show/hide)
Post by: MrWiggles on July 04, 2012, 05:48:09 am
I cant wait for the applications that this new understanding will give us. What if you can make a meta materiel that can interact with the higgs field in novel ways?
Post by: Osmosis Jones on July 04, 2012, 05:52:43 am
I cant wait for the applications that this new understanding will give us. What if you can make a meta materiel that can interact with the higgs field in novel ways?
Not gonna lie; that isn't possible under any current interpretation of physics (not "we don't know how to do that", but rather like breaking light speed, "we're pretty sure you *can't* do that"). However, this could potentially explain the inflation period after the big bang, dark energy, and a whole host of other funky fundamental physics and astrophysics problems. Isn't that sexy enough?!
Post by: Frumple on July 04, 2012, 06:28:01 am
Post by: Il Palazzo on July 04, 2012, 06:33:10 am
Post by: Starver on July 04, 2012, 07:43:30 am
Post by: Jackrabbit on July 04, 2012, 07:45:33 am
I'd say "confirmed finding the flesh of God" is pretty damn sufficiently sexy, regardless as to its practical applications. Still, definitely let's poke it with a stick to see if it jumps.
Science just makes me so happy I could cry.
Post by: Criptfeind on July 04, 2012, 08:35:53 am
Post by: Darvi on July 04, 2012, 09:11:00 am
Oh god I can't believe I actually said that, that was so terrible.
Post by: Jopax on July 04, 2012, 09:13:48 am
Post by: Hubris Incalculable on July 04, 2012, 09:15:27 am
Post by: Darvi on July 04, 2012, 09:17:17 am
Post by: Starver on July 04, 2012, 09:32:49 am
Lather, blue-rinse, repeat until we got results.FTFY
Post by: Darvi on July 04, 2012, 09:37:23 am
Post by: Starver on July 04, 2012, 10:33:41 am
Covered by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_rinse, however.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 04, 2012, 10:54:27 am
Teh sciences, it's awesome.
Post by: Heron TSG on July 04, 2012, 11:20:34 am
I cant wait for the applications that this new understanding will give us. What if you can make a meta materiel that can interact with the higgs field in novel ways?It could be done if the material happened to be really massive. :P Get a giant blob of it and call it a gravity generator!
Now just to find out whether it has a spin of 0 or 2. (Or -3, -2, -1, 1, or 3, but that would be really wacky.)
Post by: Hanslanda on July 04, 2012, 11:30:58 am
Post by: Starver on July 04, 2012, 11:43:17 am
Totally excluding the Higgs field would... lemme see... well, everything would fly apart, at the slightest opportunity, I think...
BICBW. It might be fun to watch, though, whatever happens.
Post by: Hanslanda on July 04, 2012, 11:46:53 am
Post by: Starver on July 04, 2012, 11:55:01 am
Post by: Scelly9 on July 04, 2012, 11:58:21 am
Post by: Karlito on July 04, 2012, 11:58:47 am
Go science, go science... Now how can we weaponize it?
I'd rather not think about it, considering the other weapons particle physics has developed.
Post by: Hanslanda on July 04, 2012, 12:01:49 pm
Post by: Phmcw on July 04, 2012, 12:05:44 pm
I think this is a disappointment, the worst thing that could happen in the we find the higgs boson, find it is conform to the predictions and nothing else.
That would mean we did all that for pretty much nothing, sadly. We need to find where our models fails.
Post by: Moghjubar on July 04, 2012, 12:08:15 pm
Post by: Karlito on July 04, 2012, 12:11:28 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on July 04, 2012, 12:12:41 pm
Post by: Starver on July 04, 2012, 12:17:35 pm
That would mean we did all that for pretty much nothing, sadly.Well, there's been other things done with the equipment as well... The creation (and confinement) of full-blown atoms of anti-matter, for example.
And everybody likes Antimatter!
(Now, let's get the CP-symmetry violations tied down...)
You know, I can't help but wonder how much earlier this discovery could have been made if the American Government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider) had a better commitment to science.You're a young country, only recently got your own flat and had to work out which college courses you were going to attend... ;)
Post by: Siquo on July 04, 2012, 12:22:41 pm
Siquo: Well, for certain levels of "found". In QM there's levels at which the probability of it existing reaches almost certain, and then it's considered to be "found".
C: Well it's still awesome!
S: (Oh this is going to be good) Why?
C: Because it does the mass! And now we can use the negative! We'll be flying in a few years!
S: *mental facepalm* *Confidence in colleague just went to -10* Well, they've got three years until my skateboard.
C: *laughs* Exactly.
*Confidence just went back up to normal levels, because he knew instantly what I was referring to*
Post by: Remalle on July 04, 2012, 04:28:16 pm
(inb4 the mass media misunderstand and sensationalize the discovery)
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 04, 2012, 05:16:55 pm
All hail our new God Particle overlords!HIGGS BOSON PARTICLE DISPROVES GRAVITY!
(inb4 the mass media misunderstand and sensationalize the discovery)
Post by: Jackrabbit on July 04, 2012, 06:49:00 pm
Colleague: They found it!
Siquo: Well, for certain levels of "found". In QM there's levels at which the probability of it existing reaches almost certain, and then it's considered to be "found".
C: Well it's still awesome!
S: (Oh this is going to be good) Why?
C: Because it does the mass! And now we can use the negative! We'll be flying in a few years!
S: *mental facepalm* *Confidence in colleague just went to -10* Well, they've got three years until my skateboard.
C: *laughs* Exactly.
*Confidence just went back up to normal levels, because he knew instantly what I was referring to*
I am not exactly like your colleague except for the ways in which I totally am. I've got to admit, I can't be much more than a science enthusiast in regards to this. I have only a basic idea of what it is, I have a smidgen of a clue as to what it means, but I know for a fact that it's really friggin' cool.
Post by: MaximumZero on July 04, 2012, 06:59:37 pm
Post by: Lagslayer on July 04, 2012, 07:31:13 pm
I figure it'll probably end up being what the previously smallest observed particles are made of. I'm not really holding my breath. (http://xkcd.com/955/)
/end pessimism
Post by: Criptfeind on July 04, 2012, 07:38:21 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on July 04, 2012, 07:48:50 pm
Post by: Moghjubar on July 05, 2012, 12:43:19 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 05, 2012, 12:48:09 pm
BREAKING NEWS ON FOX: HIGGS BOSON PROVES EXISTENCE OF GODAll hail our new God Particle overlords!HIGGS BOSON PARTICLE DISPROVES GRAVITY!
(inb4 the mass media misunderstand and sensationalize the discovery)
For enthusiasts: http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#/video/bestoftv/2012/07/04/nr-intv-michio-kaku-higgs-boson.cnnOh god, do not post things involving Michio Kaku. He is a hack of the highest order.
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 05, 2012, 12:56:06 pm
Post by: RedKing on July 05, 2012, 12:59:38 pm
"GOD" PARTICLE PROVES GOD EXI--oh damn. MSH beat me to it.All hail our new God Particle overlords!HIGGS BOSON PARTICLE DISPROVES GRAVITY!
(inb4 the mass media misunderstand and sensationalize the discovery)
Okay...let me start with the disclaimer that I've never taken a physics course in my life. Not even high school. That said...if I understand the conception of the Higgs boson as the particle mediator of the Higgs field, which in turn imbues particles with the property of mass, isn't that analogous to electrons acting as the mechanism of an electric field? Which would suggest that there would be ways to manipulate the Higgs field in a given region to increase or decrease mass, just as an electric field can be externally manipulated.
I guess what I'm asking is, is this going to make Mass Effect look really, really prescient or is there some key component I'm missing here that would essentially make it impossible to manipulate the Higgs field?
Post by: Heron TSG on July 05, 2012, 01:28:08 pm
Post by: RedKing on July 05, 2012, 01:37:32 pm
I guess the problem that I'm seeing is that the boson is neutral in so many respects that there's not an easy "handle" to manipulate it with. Spin-neutral, electrically neutral, colour-charge neutral, is its own antiparticle, etc.
I'm also wondering...since matter has constant mass, but the Higgs boson has an infinitesmally small life before decaying, does that mean a never-ending waterfall of Higgs bosons being generated in the background of the universe? How are they generated and from what source? And at such a smoothly constant level that you don't detect minute fluctuations in mass from everything?
Post by: Moghjubar on July 05, 2012, 02:12:20 pm
Oh god, do not post things involving Michio Kaku. He is a hack of the highest order.I was going to preface with *not for people that kinda sorta know whats going on* but figured labeling it for enthusiasts only was good enough.
Yes, he appears a bit quacky, at least from a handful of things I've seen. Of course, I haven't done any thorough investigation of him so...
Also: http://www.andrewdyck.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/20101209.gif
Post by: alway on July 05, 2012, 02:58:16 pm
I'm also wondering...since matter has constant mass, but the Higgs boson has an infinitesmally small life before decaying, does that mean a never-ending waterfall of Higgs bosons being generated in the background of the universe? How are they generated and from what source? And at such a smoothly constant level that you don't detect minute fluctuations in mass from everything?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
Virtual particles are pretty much the reason for any sort of 'force' enacted from a distance. Even a perfect vacuum is a sea of virtual particles.
Balancing the equations of uncertainty. :)
Post by: Starver on July 05, 2012, 02:58:43 pm
For enthusiasts: http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#/video/bestoftv/2012/07/04/nr-intv-michio-kaku-higgs-boson.cnnI got something about Fukushima. That what you were after, or did it change? Anyway, followed a CNN link at the bottom to a regular news broadcast, without that guy that the following comment was about...
[edit: Actually, wrong. This clip is of the guy, and what I should have gotten to first time, it seems. You know, he missed the one simple thing he could have said, in response to the reporter's 'concerns': These collisions are happening all the time, and the reason we're doing it with this thing is that we can make them happen where we are consistently looking for them! Because, as it was talked about, all he might have been interpreted as saying was that there was no point in doing this thing with so much money thrown behind it, because it's happening anyway. Also, he didn't explain "What's the 'Higgs' about, and what's the 'Boson' about. Other than that, I think it was as good an explanation as the know-little/professional-audience-surrogate interviewer was going to allow. And I hope that mobile phone company pays a lot for me being bombarded with their adds for the five or so seconds before each and every auto-loading article that has occurred while I've been re-editing this... Right, just going to finish watching the thing about The Shard, and then I'm closing that tab down.]
Post by: RedKing on July 05, 2012, 03:02:59 pm
O.oI'm also wondering...since matter has constant mass, but the Higgs boson has an infinitesmally small life before decaying, does that mean a never-ending waterfall of Higgs bosons being generated in the background of the universe? How are they generated and from what source? And at such a smoothly constant level that you don't detect minute fluctuations in mass from everything?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
Virtual particles are pretty much the reason for any sort of 'force' enacted from a distance. Even a perfect vacuum is a sea of virtual particles.
Balancing the equations of uncertainty. :)
o.O
x.x
RedKing cancels job: Mind blown.
Post by: RedKing on July 05, 2012, 03:24:35 pm
Post by: alway on July 05, 2012, 03:28:08 pm
Quote from: From that wiki page
It is sometimes said that all photons are virtual photons.[6] This is because the world-lines of photons always resemble the dotted line in the above Feynman diagram: The photon was emitted somewhere (say, a distant star), and then is absorbed somewhere else (say a photoreceptor cell in the eyeball). Furthermore, in a vacuum, a photon experiences no passage of (proper) time between emission and absorption. This statement illustrates the difficulty of trying to distinguish between "real" and "virtual" particles, because, in mathematical terms, they are the same objects and it is only our definition of "reality" that is weak here.
Essentially everything is a vast probability field. Things act a bit 'like a wave' and a bit 'like a particle' but are actually a sort of fuzzy bunch of probability without any real borders or boundaries, just an asymptotic approach towards 0.
Post by: Il Palazzo on July 05, 2012, 04:13:54 pm
Also, unlikely but (I hope) possible, what if we would, with some sort of technology, be able to manipulate the Higgs field, and create objects with no mass?
It'd get past one of the problems of FTL travel. We'd just need to deal with the problem of once you have reached light speed, an infinity of time going by every instant.
Along with the problem that (if I remember the math properly), changing mass (by acceleration, at least) is an asymptotic curve. You would have to completely remove all energy from the system to achieve zero mass, and add an infinite amount of energy to achieve c (and thus, infinite mass).Relativistic mass is a product of rest mass in particular, and not of energy in general. Having a zero-rest mass particle would remove the problem of infinite mass at c.(as it is with photons)
Post by: Heron TSG on July 05, 2012, 07:24:24 pm
Post by: Lagslayer on July 05, 2012, 08:32:02 pm
There are many problems with that idea, guys. First of all, E=MC2. Energy is mass times the speed of light squared. More to the point, energy is mass. You can't have energy without mass, except for apparently photons. If this were possible, anyway, the items in question would be useless. With no inertia, simply touching one would send it off at literally infinite speeds. Acceleration is equal to force divided by mass... which is zero in this case. If it took up volume and not space, it wouldn't be effected by gravity, and you'd have a hell of a time trying to keep it in one place. Low mass might be cool, but no mass brings a whole world of problems.+1.
The only reason they are saying light has no mass because of some theories on time travel/4th dimension of some kind. On the other hand, we have solid proof that particles of light have inertia and the speed of natural light is finite. It behaves like normal matter in every conceivable way (albeit rather extremely) until they tried to add a 4th dimension or time travel to the mix, neither of which has hard proof. Given this, I see no reason why faster than light travel is not possible. Granted, that would take massive amounts of energy, but possible nonetheless. Also, infinity cannot be treated like a number, so string theory is also bull shit. There is no evidence of black holes being infinitely small (in fact, they actually grow as they absorb more stuff). And our measurements are not nearly, even remotely accurate enough to trace all observable matter in the universe, let alone the stuff beyond what our telescopes can see, back to an Infinitesimally small point. A relatively small area, I could buy, but this is just stupid.
Ok, I'm done ranting. For now.
Post by: Leafsnail on July 05, 2012, 08:34:45 pm
Granted, that would take massive amounts of energy, but possible nonetheless.An infinite amount of energy, in fact. Hence it's impossible.
Post by: Lagslayer on July 05, 2012, 08:40:45 pm
You are either assuming that light has no mass or that light is infinitely fast. I was specifically challenging both of those points. Your argument is invalid because your assumption is the heart of the dispute. It would be more logical to talk about why your assumption is right and mine is wrong, not what each would entail if it were true. It's like saying "God exists because the bible says he does!".Granted, that would take massive amounts of energy, but possible nonetheless.An infinite amount of energy, in fact. Hence it's impossible.
cause > effect, not the other way around.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on July 05, 2012, 09:23:37 pm
Okay...let me start with the disclaimer that I've never taken a physics course in my life. Not even high school. That said...if I understand the conception of the Higgs boson as the particle mediator of the Higgs field, which in turn imbues particles with the property of mass, isn't that analogous to electrons acting as the mechanism of an electric field? Which would suggest that there would be ways to manipulate the Higgs field in a given region to increase or decrease mass, just as an electric field can be externally manipulated.
I guess what I'm asking is, is this going to make Mass Effect look really, really prescient or is there some key component I'm missing here that would essentially make it impossible to manipulate the Higgs field?
Alright, so, let's address this. To your first question mark; sort of. The mediator for the electromagnetic field is the photon, not the electron (think light/x-rays/microwaves/radiowaves/gamma radiation).
First, a little crash course in photons (I did quantum physics 301 and 401 as part of my undergrad degree in nanotech, but that was a few years back, so I'm a touch rusty). You can think of a photon as a little bunch of waves in the electric and magnetic field; it's sort of a wave, because it's made up of lots of waves that constructively and destructively interfere. But it's also sort of a particle, because most of those waves will cancel out except at one spot, so it has a discrete location. Because they have an energy then from e=mc^2 they have a mass and, with their velocity, a momentum.
Now, you can observe real photons; discrete wave-packets of light, that for example get sent from a lightbulb or a laser. They have actually been emitted, and can be intercepted in between targets for example, they exist for a long time.
However, there are also virtual photons, photons which exist on timescales so short that we can't specifically say they have existed at all. All we can see is that some interaction has taken place (for example, between two atoms bumping into each other), but we can't look close enough or fast enough to actually see what happened, we can only look at the aftermath. You can see the atoms have each changed energy and direction by the discrete amount, let's say that one atom has lost momentum k and energy e, while the other has gained that much.
So, if you wanted to write this out, you could explain what happened in terms of one atom emitting a photon of momentum k and energy e, that then was absorbed by the other atom. In that sense, a photon has mediated the interaction. Wiki has a good article on it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle), scroll down to the bit about Feynmann diagrams for probably the clearest visual.
(Now, that example was pretty much the simplest case, you can get all sorts of weird things like particles emitting virtual photons that interact with themselves, or particles appearing from nowhere. Annnyway...)
Now, photons and the Higg's aren't exactly the same. Photons can have any range of energy above the Planck energy, and have no rest energy as such. The Higg's is a little heftier; it actually has a rest energy/mass (thanks to e=mc^2, they're pretty well interchangeable in QM), so we have that value of 125 odd GeV (one eV = energy gained by an electron accelerating across 1 Volt of potential or ~ 1.6*10^-19 J. Thus, even 125 GeV isn't much energy on our macrosopic scale).
However, just as with photons, there are still interactions which are mediated by the Higg's, that happen very very fast. So fast, the particle may not actually have come into existence, but can still have an effect. Because quantum. These interactions are what give us mass. They are ripples in the Higg's field (which, since that is everywhere, is basically saying the the fabric of the universe). These interactions happen constantly.
Now, if we have a discrete boson, you could in theory produce an identical boson, which is shifted by exactly half a wavelength. Much as with destructive interference in sound, this would cancel out the original Higg's. HOWEVER, the problem is, we aren't dealing with real Higg's in everyday mass.
They flicker in and out (and don't, at the same time; like I said, quantum) constantly.
There is no way we could produce our own bosons to cancel them; we can't measure them, so we don't know their direction.
We can't produce them fast enough, or with enough control over the energies.
Even if we could (which we can't!), the apparatus that would do so would be generating it's own virtual Higg's constantly.
Basically, you'd need sensors and accelerators for every subatomic particle with mass.
Re; the light discussion. Light has no rest mass. It has got a momentum. However, if you calculate backwards using their known speed, and their momentum, you end up with zero mass if you use the correct equations. You can't go faster than light, as that would violate causality, irrespective of the energy required.
Not sure (not my field of expertise), but from what I've heard, the general consensus is if some other particle has no mass, it will automatically be travelling at light speed. Fine. Great. It will also be completely frozen in time from it's own perspective. As far as a photon is concerned, even if it travelled the entire length of the universe, no time has passed since it's creation. Zip. Nada.
Re: Blackholes, no-one says the whole hole is infintely small (the event horizon is the bit that grows, and is the limit of the observable universe). They refer instead to the singularity. Which actually still has some dimension, if the black hole has charge/spins.
Anyway, ninjas. Blargh. Will be back later.
Post by: Sirus on July 05, 2012, 09:30:59 pm
To be honest, I'm not clear on what exactly the Higgs Boson is, or what sort of ramifications or applications it has (if any), but I know that physicists have been looking for it for a while and I am happy for them.
Post by: Karlito on July 05, 2012, 09:40:45 pm
Given this, I see no reason why faster than light travel is not possible. Granted, that would take massive amounts of energy, but possible nonetheless.
Have you studied special relativity at all? Objects that travel at near-light speeds gain mass, and thus require every increasing amounts of energy to go faster and faster. Things with mass cannot travel at light speed.
Post by: MaximumZero on July 05, 2012, 09:50:30 pm
Post by: Hanslanda on July 05, 2012, 09:53:03 pm
Post by: Starver on July 05, 2012, 09:54:29 pm
Ignoring light, for the moment, something else that wishes to approach 'The Speed Of Light' must at each point in its curve of acceleration be given energy, which makes it go faster. Because of the way that the (currently understood) laws of physics applies to such relativistic speed, more energy creates less additional speed. Such that inconceivable (yet finite) amounts are needed to move it up from just below the speed of light to just-a-bit-more-but-still-below the speed of light. It thus takes an infinite amount of energy (and I know you can't use it as a number, per se, but you can use it as a top/bottom-end limit to your numbers, in a meaningful way) to get to 'c' itself.
Add to that the fact there are other quirks that the (accepted) equations throw up when considering something travelling at/beyond 'c'. If we do not understand things well enough, maybe there's an exception, or refinement, to this situation, whereby perfectly 'normal' things happen to >=c speed. However, there's some thought that for such strange particles (traditionally, tachyons) that do go at speeds >c, that they are similarly prevented from being slowed down to c, and it would be equally impossible for them to travel slower... But I think that's way off the whole Higgs-related model of the way the Universe ticks.
String theory being bullshit? Well, maybe, but not for your antipathy against the concept of infinity[1]. String theory might indeed be a correct description of the universe (or will be, with some minor modification), and continue to be so even when the Standard Model is shown to be Not Quite Right in some aspect or other... Think of it as Geocentric and Heliocentric models of the solar-system. My favourite thought about that (though from what source, I'm afraid I forget) is that "People thought the Sun went round the Earth because it looked like the Sun went round the Earth. But... what would it have looked like in order that it looked like the Earth went round the Sun?".
Of course, we now incontrovertibly know that (insofar as the solar-system) it's Heliocentric. But that it's not a Heliocentric Universe, which was a common interpretation of this rebellious (and possibly 'blasphemous') theory, back in the day. Bringing the analogy up to today's period, either the Standard Model or String Theory might well be just a Helicentric-equivalent, being technically more right than... well, everything else we've so far thought of to explain the universe... But it/they could quite easily be lacking in accuracy when it comes to something exotic.
But right now you can't throw either of these (and a few other variants) away. Even if they're not perfect. (And, incidentally, not finding the Higgs would probably have been more scientifically exciting than finding it... as it would mean an immediate rush to join the "How else might the Universe work?"-brigade as soon as it was generally considered that it had been ruled out.)
Not that we necessarily can ever understand the full depth of the Universe we're in. Not only for reasons that Goedel might be best explaining, but also by an analogy I sometimes roll out. Imagine that there's a creature living in a giant Conway's Game Of Life grid-space. It's conscious (or, at least, considers itself to be so, although observers from outside its grid-space can clearly see it is a deterministic pattern) and perceives itself as being curious about its environment. How much information might this hypothetical creature be able to derive about the substrate of its world? Nothing at all about the silicon (or other technological hardware) that 'runs' the world it lives in, much less any information about the programmers and designers behind the automations that propel its world. (Perhaps if an external operator were to poke around with the grid-data, it could pass a "divine" change into being upon the world, but frankly I think that an observer such as I would be as unable to comprehend the Conway-being as being a self-assumed conscious entity, for whom a meaninful intervention of some form could be written into the grid...)
But... even ignoring all that grossly metaphysical set of ideas... Would a Conway-being have any way of determining a pixel-level observation? i.e., the on or off nature of one grid-square's area? This square would undoubtedly effect the tip of any 'tool' that the Conway-being would 'wield', but it would only be understandable if one understood how this tool was already affected.
What they might be able to understand is that there is a bi-orthagonal nature to their world. That certain things happen in N-S directions and E-W directions that don't happen in the NW-SE and NE-SW ones. Or, perhaps, they envisage the primary axes as being NW-SE and NE-SW, and certain things do not happen on the 'diagonals' of N-S and E-W. (Rotation of any kind, BTW, would not be properly possible. At least for any macro-scale object, although 'blinker' oscillators do nothing but rotate, at the lowest levels...)
Taking my analogy further... A valid Conway game-grid that can support 'life' may require that it be filled with a whole host of 'virtual particle' automata... Spontaneously (albeit deterministically) arising from a background level of oscillators and static patterns as glider-like travellers are perturbed by 'particles' that resemble gliders and space-ships travelling through the grid. The 'edge'-patterns of anything more macroscopic in nature (i.e. our Conway-guy, living his life on the grid) must have both a resilience against these patterns interfering with it (with, perhaps a general 'sense' being passed internally, that something has brushed against the surface) and may, as the slow, lumbering mass traverses the non-void, leave static and oscillating forms in its wake (and spew glider-like and spaceship-like forms from all sides, perhaps?) in order to keep the world as uniformly 'interesting' to be in... Or else some other minor, automated process messily spills out these forms...
I must admit that I may be taking the anthropocentric view a but far, by suggesting that our 'intelligent' being cannot work in a total 'vacuum' (grid-space wiped of all detritus), and my error may be exactly that... Is there a PacMan-like 'gobbling' going on, leaving nothing in the wake? OTOH, given that Conway-land does not have (in any way that we would understand, a "conservation of matter" (or of anything approaching energy, momentum, etc),... well, it's probably just a bit more exotic than that. And, as I'm trying to say, in a way that the Conway-guy would be unable to understand fully. But I'm betting he(/she/it/whatever) could build up a number of theories. Especially if there's some... conwayesque... method of communication to be had with other Conway-beings, an ability to make permanent record of thoughts, a way to remotely communicate (long-distance glider-based information passing, perhaps, as if radio waves or laser-flashes) so as to make collaboration and development of these theories more real, of course...
If that's not a whole massive derail, that is. And intervened by three (plus another two... plus any more that are coming along while I'm adding this further caveat?) messages, of a doubtless more relevant nature.
[1] Back in my Junior School, I remember being laughed at when my classmates did not believe that "negative numbers" existed, because you couldn't count them. I don't recall if some years after that (when those same people would have understood that "negative something" does have a meaning) I tried to pass on the idea of 'imaginary' (and, by extension, 'complex') numbers, but I'd bet that they'd have had trouble with those, at least the ones that had sprinted past me already in understanding that kind of thing. I'm fairly sure that I never said anything about the Aleph-Null, Aleph-Prime, etc, series of infinite numbers, or the nature of Hilbert's Hotel with its (Countably) infinite rooms able to take any finite number of new guests, an infinite number of new guests, or even an infinite number of infinitely-large guest-groups! Just as you can't count -5 sheep in a field (well, not so that you can see them... unless you wish to count the sheep now found in another field as a negative to those originally in the first), and generally sheep never occur in imaginary numbers (not counting the entirely different imaginary sheep involved in any attempt at sleep-inducing in oneself), an infinite amount of sheep is also not something you'd expect... But just as negatives exist on balance sheets, and imaginaries in some equations, infinities do find their uses in some equations. Albeit erroneously in the "1==2" 'proof'-spoof equations...
Post by: kaijyuu on July 05, 2012, 10:04:14 pm
There is no evidence of black holes being infinitely small (in fact, they actually grow as they absorb more stuff).Just a note on this:
The event horizon grows. The distance between the center and the "point of no return, even for light" is what gets bigger. No one knows what it "looks like" inside a black hole, but whether it's a point of singularity or a REALLY compressed (but not infinitely small) hunk of matter wouldn't result in any difference in behavior.
Post by: MrWiggles on July 05, 2012, 10:04:26 pm
So, if there is a Higgs-Boson field spread out through the entire universe, are they spread evenly, or at random, or some other third option that I didn't think of?There the higgs boson, and then there the higgs field, where the higgs boson propagates and interacts. Its uniform, and everywhere.
Post by: kaijyuu on July 05, 2012, 10:06:15 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 05, 2012, 10:08:07 pm
The event horizon grows. The distance between the center and the "point of no return, even for light" is what gets bigger. No one knows what it "looks like" inside a black hole, but whether it's a point of singularity or a REALLY compressed (but not infinitely small) hunk of matter wouldn't result in any difference in behavior.I doubt it would look like anything. It is a gravitational singularity. A place where space-time has ceased to exist.
So, it's the aether.Looks like the Greeks were onto something after all.
Post by: freeformschooler on July 05, 2012, 10:14:42 pm
Kidding, of course, but that's another incredibly cool science discovery. Higgs Boson AND real portals around Earth? Science is awesome!
Post by: MrWiggles on July 05, 2012, 10:15:47 pm
So, it's the aether.Ehh... I suppose.
So, it's the aether.Looks like the Greeks were onto something after all.
In as much as, Phrenology was on to something.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 05, 2012, 10:20:57 pm
Shut up and let me have my pseudoscience. Also, buy my new book, The Dreamings of Self-Actualization now available through Amazon.com for the low price of 59.99$ and learn the secrets that Big Pharma doesn't want you to know.So, it's the aether.Looks like the Greeks were onto something after all.
In as much as, Phrenology was on to something.
Post by: MaximumZero on July 05, 2012, 11:19:06 pm
Sooo...is there any hypothetical way to interact with the Higgs field?So, if there is a Higgs-Boson field spread out through the entire universe, are they spread evenly, or at random, or some other third option that I didn't think of?There the higgs boson, and then there the higgs field, where the higgs boson propagates and interacts. Its uniform, and everywhere.
Post by: Remalle on July 05, 2012, 11:23:06 pm
Given that we can observe it, maybe there's some sort of quantum thingamawhatsit that'll change stuff? </uninformed>Sooo...is there any hypothetical way to interact with the Higgs field?So, if there is a Higgs-Boson field spread out through the entire universe, are they spread evenly, or at random, or some other third option that I didn't think of?There the higgs boson, and then there the higgs field, where the higgs boson propagates and interacts. Its uniform, and everywhere.
Post by: Moghjubar on July 05, 2012, 11:28:07 pm
Only experimentation will tell from here I think.Sooo...is there any hypothetical way to interact with the Higgs field?So, if there is a Higgs-Boson field spread out through the entire universe, are they spread evenly, or at random, or some other third option that I didn't think of?There the higgs boson, and then there the higgs field, where the higgs boson propagates and interacts. Its uniform, and everywhere.
Raising fist and yelling HIGGGGGSSSSSS!!!! doesn't work.
Post by: MrWiggles on July 05, 2012, 11:30:23 pm
Given that we can observe it, maybe there's some sort of quantum thingamawhatsit that'll change stuff? </uninformed>Sooo...is there any hypothetical way to interact with the Higgs field?So, if there is a Higgs-Boson field spread out through the entire universe, are they spread evenly, or at random, or some other third option that I didn't think of?There the higgs boson, and then there the higgs field, where the higgs boson propagates and interacts. Its uniform, and everywhere.
Well, we interact with it continuously, it what gives us our mass. Now, if you meant novel means to manipulate the higgs field. Uhh, current understanding says no. I dont particularly buy this. Each further understanding of underlying physics have open us a host of novel applications, through clever engineering. I couldnt tell you, what these application will be. Maybe having a finer understanding of mass and energy will be the lynch pin to make a net positive fusion reactor.
Post by: Sirus on July 05, 2012, 11:34:37 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: MaximumZero on July 05, 2012, 11:37:17 pm
Well, I'm thinking that we should next figure out if the Higgs field can be manipulated via gravity or somesuch. If we can do that, we should observe whether or not the Higgs field wants to remain uniform. If that's the case...we can build giant gravitic slingshots ala the Mass Effect.Given that we can observe it, maybe there's some sort of quantum thingamawhatsit that'll change stuff? </uninformed>Sooo...is there any hypothetical way to interact with the Higgs field?So, if there is a Higgs-Boson field spread out through the entire universe, are they spread evenly, or at random, or some other third option that I didn't think of?There the higgs boson, and then there the higgs field, where the higgs boson propagates and interacts. Its uniform, and everywhere.
Well, we interact with it continuously, it what gives us our mass. Now, if you meant novel means to manipulate the higgs field. Uhh, current understanding says no. I dont particularly buy this. Each further understanding of underlying physics have open us a host of novel applications, through clever engineering. I couldnt tell you, what these application will be. Maybe having a finer understanding of mass and energy will be the lynch pin to make a net positive fusion reactor.
Post by: alway on July 05, 2012, 11:40:03 pm
Finding the Higgs itself won't lead to technological breakthroughs. What will lead to those are the discoveries resulting from finding how it changes the Standard Model and our overall understanding of the way the universe works. After all, you must remember a huge majority of the mass in the universe is currently unaccounted for in theories. Dark matter will probably be some rather mundane substance with weak interaction, but the dark energy causing the acceleration in the universe's expansion has the potential to be something really REALLY interesting. Seeing as the Higgs is responsible for mass, it has a good chance of clarifying matters regarding one or both of those. It's sort of a wedge to poke at the theory and find cracks leading to entirely new discoveries which for all we know will make quantum mechanics look mundane.
Post by: Hanslanda on July 06, 2012, 12:03:17 am
Post by: MrWiggles on July 06, 2012, 02:14:31 am
It probably couldnt be effected by gravity, due to how closely linked density (compact mass) is linked to gravity. Though I dont have a strong understanding of the supposed realtionship between the Graviton and the Higgs Field.Well, I'm thinking that we should next figure out if the Higgs field can be manipulated via gravity or somesuch. If we can do that, we should observe whether or not the Higgs field wants to remain uniform. If that's the case...we can build giant gravitic slingshots ala the Mass Effect.Given that we can observe it, maybe there's some sort of quantum thingamawhatsit that'll change stuff? </uninformed>Sooo...is there any hypothetical way to interact with the Higgs field?So, if there is a Higgs-Boson field spread out through the entire universe, are they spread evenly, or at random, or some other third option that I didn't think of?There the higgs boson, and then there the higgs field, where the higgs boson propagates and interacts. Its uniform, and everywhere.
Well, we interact with it continuously, it what gives us our mass. Now, if you meant novel means to manipulate the higgs field. Uhh, current understanding says no. I dont particularly buy this. Each further understanding of underlying physics have open us a host of novel applications, through clever engineering. I couldnt tell you, what these application will be. Maybe having a finer understanding of mass and energy will be the lynch pin to make a net positive fusion reactor.
Post by: Siquo on July 06, 2012, 02:51:24 am
Just an observation.
Post by: Leafsnail on July 06, 2012, 06:25:42 am
You are either assuming that light has no mass or that light is infinitely fast. I was specifically challenging both of those points. Your argument is invalid because your assumption is the heart of the dispute. It would be more logical to talk about why your assumption is right and mine is wrong, not what each would entail if it were true. It's like saying "God exists because the bible says he does!".Photons having mass would cause a lot of effects which have not been observed (different frequencies of light moving at different speeds, Coulomb's law being invalid in certain cases, photons moving towards us clumping together due to gravity). They push the possible mass of a photon ridiculously low. Even if photons did have mass, not much would actually change. It'd just mean that photons would move slightly slower than what we currently call "the speed of light", and while we'd be able to just about maybe overtake them we'd still hit the speed limit c immediately afterwards.
cause > effect, not the other way around.
Post by: palsch on July 06, 2012, 07:46:53 am
The Higg's field was added to quantum field theory (QFT) in order to give particles mass. Essentially people observed that if the universe contained a certain type of mathematically proposed field all the rest masses of particles would drop out of the theory without any extra fudging. You allow this one field to exist and suddenly your theory describes this extra feature of the universe that otherwise appears fairly random. It's a fairly elegant solution to the question of why different particles have the masses they do.
In QFT particles are seen as excitations of the various fields. So a photon is an excitation of an electromagnetic field. The Higg's boson is an excitation of the Higg's field.
As for practical uses, it's worth understanding what this discovery actually tells us. We already had a comprehensive understanding of what a Higg's boson and field should be like under the standard model, as well as a range of secondary theories proposing modifications and expansions of that model. Were practical manipulation or even just observation of such fields possible under any of these models then we would have used that method to test the theory. The fact that we needed the LHC to so much as observe the Higg's boson is the best indicator that we can't practically use this.
The entire purpose of this experiment (and other Higg's hunting) was to see if the theory of the Higg's field was true and whether our standard model explanation of particle mass was correct. Seems it is.
The only way such an experiment could possibly open such new technology would be to observe something completely unexpected, requiring an unforeseen alteration to current theories. It seems that the Higg's was pretty close to how it was expected (with some strange deviations in the tau-tau channel and an oddly strong signal coming from one of the detectors - this round of data shouldn't have been sufficient for such a strong result, statistically speaking), so I doubt that any major modifications are likely.
As to photons having mass, they don't but they do have momentum. The E=mc2 confusion comes from that not being the complete equation for this purpose. That would be E2 = m2c4 + p2c2, where p is the momentum. Photons have a momentum without having mass, with their energy coming from that momentum. This might seem odd, but momentum is a quantum observable here, separate from (but similar to) the mass x velocity of classical mechanics.
I find it funny that everyone and their mother, even on my facebook, has an opinion on the Higgs-particle, and I don't because I still don't fully understand why it's there and how Higgs was able to predict it's existence, and hence the full implication of its finding. Also, the real physicists on my facebook are quiet about it.Actually describing the Higg's field and reasons for it's existance is pretty damned hard, involving quantum mechanics not even every physicist is going to know or be interested in. Most low energy physicists and those in other non-particle physics fields tend to get a little frustrated that everyone assumes this sort of atom smashing is the entirety of modern physics, or even just where most progress is being made.
Just an observation.
This is probably the most popular image I've seen from physicists on the topic;
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Lagslayer on July 06, 2012, 07:59:27 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
If the higgs field is just basically the medium of particles through which magnetism/mass whatever works, I don't see this conflicting with either theory.
As one final disclaimer, I have not taken a physics course, but I have heard the theories. I can't take the precise measurements, but I can see the boundaries of the theories in relation to infinity and zero.
Post by: Darvi on July 06, 2012, 08:07:33 am
Post by: Starver on July 06, 2012, 08:09:00 am
I like that. I want humanity to realize collectively how pants-shittingly, intensely disturbing the vast intricacy of the universe is.To (in probably a minor, and generally insignificant way, mis-)quote someone of some standing in the field: "The Universe is not just stranger than you imagine, it's stranger than you can imagine."
Post by: Starver on July 06, 2012, 08:17:18 am
Also, the real physicists on my facebook are quiet about it.A lot of them were probably hoping that it would not be found. Because that means science has to work harder to work out what's there instead. Finding (apparent[1]) evidence for its existence leaves something more akin to boring paperwork, in comparison. ;)
Although, regardless of whether we have the correct "how", there's still a lot of digging (perhaps an infinite amount, with diminishing returns at each level of understanding that we breach) before it ever gets to anything close to "why". And I like that.
[1] Because all that we see for 'definite' could so easily be still just a mere shadow of the true fundamental nature of the universe. Something like aether and basic gravity being a large part of the mechanism of, before independant frames of reference came to mean anything and there was something to be said for bent and curved space-time...
Post by: Leafsnail on July 06, 2012, 08:17:55 am
If a light particle has mass, then it must be a measureable fraction of the mass of a larger particle. The amount of energy needed to as fast or faster than the photon would just be multiplied by the %mass increase of the larger particle vs the photon.Uh... that's not how relativistic momentum works. But in any case light having mass wouldn't change the fact that there is clearly a speed limit (which would have to be very close to the speed light travels at). So you could maybe have slightly faster than light travel, but it wouldn't be very exciting.
Post by: kaijyuu on July 06, 2012, 08:22:49 am
One fun fact about the speed of light most people don't realize is, it's only a "speed limit" for an outside observer. If it takes you 100 years to go from point A to point B, doubling your speed will reduce it to 50 years (from your perspective), no matter how fast you're initially going. So you could theoretically go from one side of the galaxy to the other in a few moments. It's just those that are "stationary" to you will see your journey as taking far more time. By the time you reach where you were going, your origin and destination will have had tens of thousands of years pass, despite it only taking a few moments for you.
A not so fun fact is that despite this, we'll almost certainly never visit other galaxies, no matter how fast we can accelerate ourselves, due to the expansion of the universe being faster than the speed of light at significant enough distances. Maybe a couple of the close ones are potentially reachable, but the far edge ones are beyond our grasp (the light our galaxy's emitting right now will never reach them either).
Post by: Lagslayer on July 06, 2012, 08:45:04 am
The bold part is where your theory completely falls apart. If you can go slightly faster than the absolute maximum speed, why not even faster? Just because we have not apparently observed anything faster than light does not mean it can't be done.If a light particle has mass, then it must be a measureable fraction of the mass of a larger particle. The amount of energy needed to as fast or faster than the photon would just be multiplied by the %mass increase of the larger particle vs the photon.Uh... that's not how relativistic momentum works. But in any case light having mass wouldn't change the fact that there is clearly a speed limit (which would have to be very close to the speed light travels at). So you could maybe have slightly faster than light travel, but it wouldn't be very exciting.
I was under the impression that photons have zero rest mass, but non-zero mass when moving. This is why a black hole can draw them in; you need mass to be affected by gravity.Having zero rest mass I could attribute to our equipment not being sensitive enough to measure it. We can barely measure it when it's going as fast as it normally does, let alone when there's no obvious movement of the particles. As for the galaxy expanding, that expansion is slowing, and eventually everything will collapse back together into another massive black hole (which I suppose would explode again upon reaching critical mass/energy/volume ratio). As far as reaching other galaxies, if my theory is correct, you could just theoretically go faster with more energy pumped into the system. Not sure where you are going to get that much energy, however.
One fun fact about the speed of light most people don't realize is, it's only a "speed limit" for an outside observer. If it takes you 100 years to go from point A to point B, doubling your speed will reduce it to 50 years (from your perspective), no matter how fast you're initially going. So you could theoretically go from one side of the galaxy to the other in a few moments. It's just those that are "stationary" to you will see your journey as taking far more time. By the time you reach where you were going, your origin and destination will have had tens of thousands of years pass, despite it only taking a few moments for you.
A not so fun fact is that despite this, we'll almost certainly never visit other galaxies, no matter how fast we can accelerate ourselves, due to the expansion of the universe being faster than the speed of light at significant enough distances. Maybe a couple of the close ones are potentially reachable, but the far edge ones are beyond our grasp (the light our galaxy's emitting right now will never reach them either).
Post by: Starver on July 06, 2012, 08:51:19 am
And since the speed of light is finite, it can be surpassed.I believe you're still not understanding things here. There's a speed-limit in the universe. As yet, unlike the speed of sound (which is nothing like the same kind of limit, anyway), there is no known way that anything can pass through this universal limit. We call it the Speed Of Light because light 'particles'(/'waves', whatever) travel this fast, due to their particular qualities, but it's also the apparent (at least, last time I checked it up) speed of gravitational influence, and also regulates all the other fundemental forces and interactions, including (if you deal with tham as independent and not components of the electromagnetic force already covered) the charge/magnetic ones.
If (for some reason) what we thought of as photons were actually <c conveyors of information, but with the same constant of 'c' in its other practical uses, then light would be different. (Or we'd be ignoring the 'true' light, or something...)
But minds much more succinct than mine can probably sum this up in far less space. And perhaps without introducing any further misunderstandings due to bad phrasing. I look forward to seeing this, but... I just had to say...
(If there's a way to make FTL transport/communication work, though, it's likely to be by "cheating". Shortcuts between different bits of space, warping the space so that it's locally a matter of staying <=c, that sort of thing.
A not so fun fact is that despite this, we'll almost certainly never visit other galaxies, no matter how fast we can accelerate ourselves, due to the expansion of the universe being faster than the speed of light at significant enough distances. Maybe a couple of the close ones are potentially reachable, but the far edge ones are beyond our grasp (the light our galaxy's emitting right now will never reach them either).It's my impression that the "big rip", the time-scale at which the (apparent) expansion takes now-visible distant galaxies outside of our visible radius (or we go outside of their beamable-event horizon) is still a long way off for any practical-to-visit galaxies[2]. Unless we are for some reason sticking to BDR-technology, as noted below.
[2] I think the big problem will be, for the further places, is that by the time we reach them, they have aged twice as much (assuming a SoL journey retracing their original light[3]) as they did while the light managed to reach us, and that they'd be burnt out husks of no import except for studtying in a 'stellarchaeological' manner. But I'm not sure exactly where the magnitudes of age cross either dividing line.
[3] Perhaps slightly more due to them 'retreating', but the real humdinger might be if we just didn't have the velocity to even get close to a SoL return. Because (who knows) a generation or five-hundred later Earth-dwellers (or those from New-Earth, depending on the situation) might well be sending out expeditions with the better technology, which overtake (or by-pass) the earlier expeditions, and be waiting (or have given up the ghost) by the time the earlier people get there...
Post by: Leafsnail on July 06, 2012, 08:56:26 am
The bold part is where your theory completely falls apart. If you can go slightly faster than the absolute maximum speed, why not even faster? Just because we have not apparently observed anything faster than light does not mean it can't be done.You misunderstand me. If light has mass then it is not travelling at the fastest possible speed. That doesn't mean that there is no fastest possible speed - all it means is that light doesn't travel at it. Observations of objects at relativistic speeds show that there pretty much has to be a speed limit (at the very least you can't accelerate past this limit) due to the way that increasing the energy of an object has a smaller and smaller effect on its speed, converging to a limit. This is a fundamental implication of relativity that remains whether or not light has mass. You really should look up the way relativistic momentum and energy works before continuing this argument, since as far as I can tell you seem to be applying the approximations of Newtonian physics way outside the limits they are roughly valid within.
Post by: alway on July 06, 2012, 09:17:39 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Consequences
It's why all the effects of relativity work the way they do.
The Lorentz factor is equal to:
1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)
There is a 1-sided asymptote as v approaches c, with any value of v above c resulting in non-real values.
It is referred to as the Lorentz transformation due to the equation being able to be used to translate between coordinate systems using the relative velocities of 2 observers; it describes the spatial contraction, time dilation, and pretty much the core of what we think of when we think of relativity.
Post by: Blargityblarg on July 06, 2012, 09:24:43 am
M = m/(sqrt(1-(v^2-c^2)))
where M is effective mass, m is rest mass, v is velocity relative to observer and c is C.
As v approaches c, sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2)) approaches 0, so M approaches infinity.
A considerably more famous equation is E=Mc^2, where E is total energy of an object, M is the effective mass and c is again C. Since, as v approaches c, M approaches infinity, E also approaches infinity. This is why you need an infinite amount of energy to accelerate something to lightspeed; it has an infinite mass, and the extra energy must come from somewhere.
E: Ninja'd, also my science might be a little shaky, but it's been a couple years since I did physics.
Post by: alway on July 06, 2012, 09:33:12 am
But yeah; that equation boils down to M = m*LorentzFactor; as do many of those equations in relativistic physics.
Same goes for relative time dilation.
dT = dt * LorentzFactor
Same goes for spatial contraction; though divided instead of multiplied
Dist = dist / LorentzFactor
The forms [1-v/c] and [1-(v/c)^2] appear all over throughout relativistic physics, and are the source of pretty much all those asymptotes.
So it isn't a case of 'just add more energy and go faster,' it's a case of an asymptote beyond which lies nothing.
Post by: Blargityblarg on July 06, 2012, 09:37:19 am
Post by: Lagslayer on July 06, 2012, 10:04:55 am
Am I right that this is the general consensus?
Post by: kaijyuu on July 06, 2012, 10:12:14 am
Some things we won't be able to understand any more than a character in a video game would be able to understand the underlying programming that makes the rules in its universe. There are patterns and laws that are consistent, but don't necessarily "make sense," so to speak, when looked at rationally. Relativity is plain whacked but there it is.
Post by: Lagslayer on July 06, 2012, 10:19:21 am
This contradicted my view that everything comes from something else and that everything has an explaination. Everything is made of something smaller, but also a part of something larger. That you could never reach infinity by definition. That the rules never stop working all together, but become less or more obvious depending on the scale in which they are applied.
That being said, I still don't trust some of the measurements.
Post by: alway on July 06, 2012, 10:19:39 am
Quantum mechanics, just as with the other ways of describing physics, is a sort of 'level of detail' thing; similar to how lower poly meshes are substituted in games when the camera is a certain distance away. Quantum mechanics could be used to describe all the stuff we use classical physics for, and would do so more accurately. We just don't want to bother doing insane amounts of calculations in order to calculate all the quantum mechanical information simple to calculate the motion of a car on the highway. Knowing the spins of the electrons in the car is all fine and dandy, but for practical purposes, the abstraction of newtonian physics works.
Similarly with relativistic physics; we typically don't use it for a car driving down the highway because, while it could be more accurately described by it, the accuracy is unnecessary in most cases, or at least knowing to that additional accuracy has less value to us than the time it would take to calculate using relativistic physics.
Post by: Lagslayer on July 06, 2012, 10:22:19 am
Post by: Karlito on July 06, 2012, 10:27:55 am
@kaijyuu: No it isn't, stop being silly. Relativity makes perfect sense. :)
Indeed, relativity is normal. It's the weird sort of Aristotelian physics that our brains evolved to process that's really wacked.
Post by: Sirus on July 06, 2012, 10:33:00 am
Post by: alway on July 06, 2012, 10:36:09 am
As for infinities, for the most part in physics they can't be reached, only approached; however, there are usually cases in which things exist in the infinities but with interesting properties as a result of it. With their 0 mass, photons live at the speed of light; effectively tying other properties they have to certain things. A photon has no sense of time relative to the outside universe; from the point of view of a photon traveling at the speed of light, it is created and absorbed in the same moment, despite perhaps traveling for billions of years across half a universe. Similarly, that distance means nothing to it due to spatial contraction.
This.@kaijyuu: No it isn't, stop being silly. Relativity makes perfect sense. :)
Indeed, relativity is normal. It's the weird sort of Aristotelian physics that our brains evolved to process that's really wacked.
Post by: Starver on July 06, 2012, 10:43:31 am
IIRC, relativity is used every day in GPS and other satellites, to compensate for how fast they move in orbit. It's fairly well-documented.And IIRC, when they launched the satellites, some people weren't sure if the relativity compensations (also, the not-being-so-deep-in-the-gravity-well ones) were necessary, so they built in a switch to turn them off, if they needed to.
They didn't.
Post by: alway on July 06, 2012, 10:52:05 am
Post by: kaijyuu on July 06, 2012, 10:52:12 am
Math is 1 + 1 = 2. Quantum mechanics breaks this with the introduction of randomness, ie, "God doesn't play dice." Quantum equations don't always end up with the same result, they end up with a range of results with certain probabilities. 1 + 1 sometimes equals 3, essentially. My understanding is this is due to things being quantized; the equation isn't really 1 + 1, but rather 1.2 + 1.7 (or something like that), and since the quantum object in question can't handle fractions, it spits out only values that it can. It might be 2 sometimes, 3 others.
Logic is A = B, and B = C, then A = C. With relativity, that breaks; A = B to some observers but not others.
We can graph the results and come up with "rules" that govern this behavior, but we won't really ever be able to understand the "why" since that's not how our minds work. There's a speed of light for no other reason than because there is. We can still make use of this knowledge, of course, for the same reason you can use a computer even if you don't know how a CPU works. You just need to understand the outward behavior, that pressing a button causes a certain result. Same here.
That's what I mean by it being whacked and not making sense :P
Post by: Karlito on July 06, 2012, 10:58:43 am
Post by: kaijyuu on July 06, 2012, 11:00:02 am
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 06, 2012, 11:04:29 am
The issue is as follows:
Exhibit A: We know the theory of relativity is true.
Exhibit B: We know quantum theory is true.
Exhibit C: Quantum theory and the theory of relativity are contradictory to one another and can't both be true at the same time.
Post by: Lagslayer on July 06, 2012, 11:05:57 am
Einstein described quantum physics as "Spooky action at a distance" and didn't believe in it.Maybe the problem is being approached from the wrong direction. Perhaps it's not a question of logic or measurements, but a question of perspective. If you look at it from a certainpoint of view, it means one thing, but from another PoV, it's completely different.
The issue is as follows:
Exhibit A: We know the theory of relativity is true.
Exhibit B: We know quantum theory is true.
Exhibit C: Quantum theory and the theory of relativity are contradictory to one another and can't both be true at the same time.
Maybe we've hit the bottom of where we can go with the data we currently have, and it's become a philosophical question.
edit: mistype
Post by: Darvi on July 06, 2012, 11:08:10 am
IIRC the had to turn it on first.IIRC, relativity is used every day in GPS and other satellites, to compensate for how fast they move in orbit. It's fairly well-documented.And IIRC, when they launched the satellites, some people weren't sure if the relativity compensations (also, the not-being-so-deep-in-the-gravity-well ones) were necessary, so they built in a switch to turn them off, if they needed to.
They didn't.
Exhibit C: Quantum theory and the theory of relativity are contradictory to one another and can't both be true at the same time.Isn't that the whole point of quantum mechanics? Schrödinger's cat etc.?
Post by: Leafsnail on July 06, 2012, 11:09:59 am
The issue is as follows:I don't think they're completely contradictory - you just need a lot of complicated stuff to unite them.
Exhibit A: We know the theory of relativity is true.
Exhibit B: We know quantum theory is true.
Exhibit C: Quantum theory and the theory of relativity are contradictory to one another and can't both be true at the same time.
Post by: alway on July 06, 2012, 11:10:51 am
There are two basic tenets of human rationality: Math and logic.It only doesn't make sense because you aren't looking at it the right way. QM doesn't break math any more than any other statistics does.
Math is 1 + 1 = 2. Quantum mechanics breaks this with the introduction of randomness, ie, "God doesn't play dice." Quantum equations don't always end up with the same result, they end up with a range of results with certain probabilities. 1 + 1 sometimes equals 3, essentially. My understanding is this is due to things being quantized; the equation isn't really 1 + 1, but rather 1.2 + 1.7 (or something like that), and since the quantum object in question can't handle fractions, it spits out only values that it can. It might be 2 sometimes, 3 others.
Logic is A = B, and B = C, then A = C. With relativity, that breaks; A = B to some observers but not others.
We can graph the results and come up with "rules" that govern this behavior, but we won't really ever be able to understand the "why" since that's not how our minds work. There's a speed of light for no other reason than because there is. We can still make use of this knowledge, of course, for the same reason you can use a computer even if you don't know how a CPU works. You just need to understand the outward behavior, that pressing a button causes a certain result. Same here.
That's what I mean by it being whacked and not making sense :P
Relativity makes just as much sense as any other transformation. That's really all it is; mathematical transforms from one space to another, just as you would take one graph and plot it on another with a rotation. Saying things are different with relativity is like saying things are different because the observers are rotated differently relative to on another; it's all just geometric transformations.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 06, 2012, 11:12:00 am
I don't think they're completely contradictory - you just need a lot of complicated stuff to unite them.That's the thought, but no one has successfully united them thus far.
Post by: Leafsnail on July 06, 2012, 11:14:22 am
That's the thought, but no one has successfully united them thus far.String Theory is a successful merging of the two, isn't it? It's hardly proved or anything but it at least suggests it's possible to reconcile them.
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 06, 2012, 11:17:17 am
The quote should read "The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the "old one." I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice.", and it is how Einstein expressed his belief that Quantum Mechanics was not absolute truth (with the idea of "God" as the absolute truth in terms of the properties of the universe, not some beardy guy on a cloud) and simply a suffienctly complex and accurate way of modelling behaviour on a quantum scale. It is often erronosly used in an effort to show that Einstien did not agree with Quantum Theory, which is wrong. He was simply arguing that whilst Quantum Theory was a powerful analytical tool it is not a direct observation of the properties of the universe on the smallest scale, and instead is our best way of describing it yet formulated... saying he did or didn't believe in it is not quite getting to the crux of his argument.
The main reason why they wont occur is that Quantum Mechanics is based around probablilities and discrete quantities. Relativity deals with systems so large in scale that probabilities become meaningless and quantites are continuous. Think of them as two seperate tools capable of doing a specialized job. The first step in either combining the 2 ideas or coming up with a third all encompssing theory will most probably be a quantised explanation of gravity, but good luck detecting a graviton/gravity wave without string theory equation featuring infinities.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 06, 2012, 11:18:38 am
No. String theory is a bunch of nonsense pushed by Michael Kaku as true when in reality he has no basis for it whatsoever while he peddles it on the "History" Channel.That's the thought, but no one has successfully united them thus far.String Theory is a successful merging of the two, isn't it? It's hardly proved or anything but it at least suggests it's possible to reconcile them.
There are a lot of believers in it, but I'm not one of them.
EDIT: I don't mean to imply that Kaku invented String Theory, because he didn't by a long shot, but his handling of science in general is inflammatory to me.
Post by: alway on July 06, 2012, 11:22:01 am
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 06, 2012, 11:35:12 am
Post by: alway on July 06, 2012, 11:39:54 am
String theory is one of several attempts at unification into a Theory of Everything. Or rather, string theory is one category of attempts. There's also M theory, which is a category which generally involves an 11-dimensional sort of meta-structure, of which our universe is a part. There are many variations on that one too. However, one thing the theories are generally converging towards is 11 dimensions, as apparently that is where the math leads. And many of these theories combine aspects of one another as they migrate through the mathematics.
The problem is, most of these theories are extraordinarily difficult to test simply because of the high energies testing requires. String theory is in fact testable in theory, we just don't know how to find the energies required in practice yet; similar to the story for the Higgs Boson in that it was theorized decades before a machine capable of discovering it was conceived of. IIRC, the numbers on a particle accelerator to test string theory came out to something like requiring a diameter the size of Pluto's orbit. And so one major hurdle they are looking to figure out is a practical way of testing it. It is backed by mathematics and other theories of physics, but as those are themselves incomplete, tests are required to fully flesh out string theory if it is to become an accepted theory. At the moment, it's more along the lines of 'things that need investigation.'
Post by: Karlito on July 06, 2012, 11:43:15 am
No. String theory is a bunch of nonsense pushed by Michael Kaku as true when in reality he has no basis for it whatsoever while he peddles it on the "History" Channel.That's the thought, but no one has successfully united them thus far.String Theory is a successful merging of the two, isn't it? It's hardly proved or anything but it at least suggests it's possible to reconcile them.
There are a lot of believers in it, but I'm not one of them.
EDIT: I don't mean to imply that Kaku invented String Theory, because he didn't by a long shot, but his handling of science in general is inflammatory to me.
Michio, not Michael :).
String theory is interesting in that it appears to make a consistent mathematical unification of relativity and quantum theories, but at our current level of technology, we are unable to perform experiments to determine it's truth. I suppose you could make the argument that unfalsifiability makes it pseudoscience, but really it's a solid mathematical/theoretical idea, it's just untestable.
EDIT: Man, you guys type fast.
Post by: alway on July 06, 2012, 11:51:38 am
Post by: Starver on July 06, 2012, 12:00:14 pm
Not sure if you're contradicting me. Obviously they had to be on to be turned off, but the story I heard (and I'm sure that a quick trip to Wiki would disabuse me if I've been a victim of a Chinese Whisperer[1]) was that they were put in as default because enough people thought they should be on, but because of enough people with doubts about it, had a disabling command ready to kick in if the initial tests of the system showed that they shouldn't.so they built in a switch to turn [the relativity compensators] off, if they needed to.IIRC the had to turn it on first.
They didn't.
I've no doubt that they've had the ability to patch the software (or even firmware), and of course send up later satellites in the constellation (and any replacements) with the "it works this way" situation firmed up, so I don't think we're in any danger of someone doing a The World Is Not Enough-type manoeuvre and making the system go all wrong.
Exhibit C: Quantum theory and the theory of relativity are contradictory to one another and can't both be true at the same time.I think of it as similar to "A: Light is a particle; B: Light is a wave; C: Light can not be both a particle and a wave". Insofar as we're pretty satisfied that we know that light is neither a particle or a wave, but that quantum thing that gives particle-like results when looked at one way and wave-like results when looked at another.
So, when looking at the (next level out) set of ideas that "The world is Quantum" or "The world is relativistic", it's likely that "The world is <A. N. Other>", where looking at the <A. N. Other> theory makes the world look Quantum in some circumstances, and yet look relativistic in others...
It's all layers upon layers of understanding, on the way (probably in futility) of discovering the ToE...
["God does not play dice..."] is often erronosly used in an effort to show that Einstien did not agree with Quantum Theory, which is wrong.
Interestingly, it's also used to show that he believed in God. Similarly erroneously, as far as I can gather.
Oh, and I'm still (as prior discussions on these boards have already painted me) a devout Determinist. The old Hidden Variable version of Quantum Theory (or whatever it is that's actually governing the world). And I find it even more likely that the arguments given against this state of affairs do not actually contradict reality, if the apparent disproofs are not counting upon upon QT (and Relativity) being Not The Entire Truth. Although that fortuitous link between two of my conceptualised 'truths' (which gives me the wiggle room to consider either, knowing all along that there's no conceptual proof) has never actually been factored into my general stubbornness regarding the one, or the pondering that the other might be the case. ;)
Finally, IIRC, Einstein considered it "his gretest mistake", including the Cosmological Constant (or whatever he called it, I think I'm mixing up my terminology, in my haste to not be ninjaed with further replies while logic-checking) to keep the Universe from collapsing, before we knew how the universe was expanding... But if Dark Energy is true, we might well have something very similar anyway. The chances that it's the same thing is small, but if Einstein had more than just the vague idea of "it keeps the Universe from collapsing" in mind, when he thought of it, he might have been onto the right track. Sorry, being a bit rushed in my explanations, so I can bet my bottom dollar that someone's going to tell me I've misremembered this. ;)
(Karlito, yup, they do. I type not-so-slow, but I waste it on too many words for too much constructiveness, I feel. ;) )
[1] Like a Horse Whisperer, but more tonal.
Post by: alway on July 06, 2012, 12:33:58 pm
Finally, IIRC, Einstein considered it "his gretest mistake", including the Cosmological Constant (or whatever he called it, I think I'm mixing up my terminology, in my haste to not be ninjaed with further replies while logic-checking) to keep the Universe from collapsing, before we knew how the universe was expanding... But if Dark Energy is true, we might well have something very similar anyway. The chances that it's the same thing is small, but if Einstein had more than just the vague idea of "it keeps the Universe from collapsing" in mind, when he thought of it, he might have been onto the right track. Sorry, being a bit rushed in my explanations, so I can bet my bottom dollar that someone's going to tell me I've misremembered this. ;)The problem was, Einstein was bringing preconcieved notions of 'how the universe should work' to the table in both cases, instead of closely examining 'how it does work.' Though he was intellectually honest and admitted such mistakes after he was shown to be wrong rather than digging in. He seems to have essentially come at things with a similar train of thought as many up to that point including Newton; the idea of a static, unchanging, deterministic clockwork universe, mostly originating from philosophical ideals relating to 'how the universe should work.'
Post by: Leafsnail on July 06, 2012, 01:17:02 pm
No. String theory is a bunch of nonsense pushed by Michael Kaku as true when in reality he has no basis for it whatsoever while he peddles it on the "History" Channel.I don't believe in it either - it's not experimentally proven. But it does unite quantum mechanics and relativity in a consistent way, showing that the two don't have to be contradictory.
There are a lot of believers in it, but I'm not one of them.
Post by: Heron TSG on July 06, 2012, 01:33:20 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 06, 2012, 01:33:40 pm
Relativistc theorem describes fast moving objects.
Quanntum describes small objects
Quantum field dynamics describe fast small objects.
In this case Rel and. Quantum. Are both genrralizations of the third theorem. Whille they do say different things they don't conflict, as they are both parts of one larger theorem.
Some people want to find one theorem of everything.While this would be a nice find,ifit exist, it would.be rather useless.
On the matter of dark energy/matter.
Ther's a problem with it. Several galaxies have been discovered that could not exist with dark matter alone,suggesting that something else, like different laws for microgravity might be in effect
N
Example. ....'s ant (I forgot the name).
Thr universe is a grid of white tiles. The ant moves over this grid, changing the color as it hits a tile Android moving right on a black tile and. Left on a white tile.
Now you know the univeersal law for this simple universe, can anyone tell mme. Whad the ant. Will do whitout running the simulation or looking it up on the internet.
Post by: Darvi on July 06, 2012, 01:35:48 pm
But imo the worst about the string theory being correct is, if gravitons or whatever does gravity, were strings, people would call them g-strings. That hypothetical pun is so bad it made my brain hurt.
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 06, 2012, 01:39:00 pm
Just one thing I would like to add, as I'm typing this on Android e -reader.
Relativistc theorem describes fast moving objects.
Quanntum describes small objects
Quantum field dynamics describe fast small objects.
In this case Rel and. Quantum. Are both genrralizations of the third theorem. Whille they do say different things they don't conflict, as they are both parts of one larger theorem.
Some people want to find one theorem of everything.While this would be a nice find,ifit exist, it would.be rather useless.
On the matter of dark energy/matter.
Ther's a problem with it. Several galaxies have been discovered that could not exist with dark matter alone,suggesting that something else, like different laws for microgravity might be in effect
N
Example. ....'s ant (I forgot the name).
Thr universe is a grid of white tiles. The ant moves over this grid, changing the color as it hits a tile Android moving right on a black tile and. Left on a white tile.
Now you know the univeersal law for this simple universe, can anyone tell mme. Whad the ant. Will do whitout running the simulation or looking it up on the internet.
Langdon's Ant. Good example of long term emergent order, especially once it reaches the "diagonal highway" phase of its behaviour.
Post by: alway on July 06, 2012, 01:51:16 pm
There is an ant moving around. What's it doing? Hell if I know; but I'm curious, so I will watch it and try to figure out.
Aside from curiosity reasons, anything that can be tested, as I stated before, can result in an effect not predicted by theories preceding it; and this is a tautology owing to the fact that 'testing' is just a fancy word for 'observing for an effect which would not occur based on the null hypothesis,' with the null hypothesis in this case being the proven predecessors. These effects could range from useful things we can use for technology to unknown dangers to anomalies muddying the outcomes of other applications or experiments. By definition, a testable theory is useful in describing the universe.
Post by: Starver on July 06, 2012, 02:04:23 pm
Or, to sorta-quote Sheldon Cooper, "I didn't invent them, they were there all along!"
But imo the worst about the string theory being correct is, if gravitons or whatever does gravity, were strings, people would call them g-strings. That hypothetical pun is so bad it made my brain hurt.
The stealth/unintended/terrible pun that comes to my mind, at the forefront (or, rather, a little over the edge of the accepted forefront) of Physics concerns "Branes", in "M-Theory" that have been called "M-Branes", i.e. "Membranes", with only a little extra tongue work (ooer, missus...).
(Langton's Ant, BTW. And as 10ebbor10's Android looks like it messed up the text a little: The rule is that on each square that it arrives, it flips the colour (black<->white) and turns left/right according to what that colour was[1], before stepping forward one unit and repeating this rule from the start again. Also worth checking out "Rule 110" (or 30, or one of the others) for a 1-dimensional (although often represented with successive iterations, i.e. time, in the perpendicular direction, to form a grid) automata.)
It may be a trite example, BTW, but there's philosophical connections made between cellular automata and "the universe" represented by at least one of the XKCD strips (http://xkcd.com/505/). (Critique it, if you will, but that's not the point.)
[1] Or is, doesn't really matter; or indeed which colour meant which way, because it'd just produce a mirror image pattern if you got it 'wrong'.
Post by: alway on July 06, 2012, 02:36:53 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory#Nomenclature
Post by: kaijyuu on July 06, 2012, 03:29:04 pm
C) travelling backwards through time (at FTL speeds)My understanding is you wouldn't actually go backwards in time, but rather you'd go into the imaginary number range (square root of -1, and all that). Which would be all kinds of silly.
Post by: Il Palazzo on July 06, 2012, 03:37:46 pm
Heh. Very nice, good sir.so... we go to itime?C) travelling backwards through time (at FTL speeds)My understanding is you wouldn't actually go backwards in time, but rather you'd go into the imaginary number range (square root of -1, and all that). Which would be all kinds of silly.
will apple patent that?
Post by: alway on July 06, 2012, 04:56:43 pm
Imaginary time actually is a thing. http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.htmlC) travelling backwards through time (at FTL speeds)My understanding is you wouldn't actually go backwards in time, but rather you'd go into the imaginary number range (square root of -1, and all that). Which would be all kinds of silly.
Not as silly as you thought, heh. :)
It's actually a really interesting concept Hawking has helped pioneer, and actually avoids many of the problems of infinity brought about by using "real" time. It's a great tool they have used to investigate things which in real time are singularities, and is tied in with the 'no boundaries' postulation which hypothesizes physics works the same everywhere.
Quote
It seems that Quantum theory, on the other hand, can predict how the universe will begin. Quantum theory introduces a new idea, that of imaginary time. Imaginary time may sound like science fiction, and it has been brought into Doctor Who. But nevertheless, it is a genuine scientific concept. One can picture it in the following way. One can think of ordinary, real, time as a horizontal line. On the left, one has the past, and on the right, the future. But there's another kind of time in the vertical direction. This is called imaginary time, because it is not the kind of time we normally experience. But in a sense, it is just as real, as what we call real time.
...
In fact, James Hartle of the University of California Santa Barbara, and I have proposed that space and imaginary time together, are indeed finite in extent, but without boundary. They would be like the surface of the Earth, but with two more dimensions. The surface of the Earth is finite in extent, but it doesn't have any boundaries or edges. I have been round the world, and I didn't fall off.
If space and imaginary time are indeed like the surface of the Earth, there wouldn't be any singularities in the imaginary time direction, at which the laws of physics would break down. And there wouldn't be any boundaries, to the imaginary time space-time, just as there aren't any boundaries to the surface of the Earth. This absence of boundaries means that the laws of physics would determine the state of the universe uniquely, in imaginary time. But if one knows the state of the universe in imaginary time, one can calculate the state of the universe in real time. One would still expect some sort of Big Bang singularity in real time. So real time would still have a beginning. But one wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began. Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time. Thus, the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by anything outside the physical universe, that we observe.
I recommend reading the whole lecture I linked. It's not too long, as Hawking isn't one for exquisite soliloquies and overindulgent monologues encapsulating tomes of meaningless pleasantries and redundant retellings.
Post by: kaijyuu on July 06, 2012, 05:07:39 pm
That explanation sounds like some sort of mirror universe thingamajig.
Post by: alway on July 06, 2012, 05:12:44 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 06, 2012, 05:13:55 pm
Post by: alway on July 06, 2012, 05:24:18 pm
Post by: Il Palazzo on July 06, 2012, 05:38:44 pm
Post by: Lagslayer on July 06, 2012, 05:40:31 pm
This explained it better than anything I've ever seen, but I'm still skeptical about the speed of light being asymptotic. I can accept requiring exponentially more energy as speed increases, but there is still one piece of the puzzle I'm still not sure about. I'm not entirely convinced that a photon has no rest mass. Or is a photon particle just so small that our instruments can't detect it, yet. I'm saying that we are dealing with extremely huge and also extremely small numbers, and our equipment might not be up to the task of measuring them properly.
As for time travel, I have never seem a theory that made a lick of sense. It always had some sort of paradox attached to it that would have destroyed everything forever ago, or has no connection to anything, having no proof but also being unchallengeable. I don't see any way I'd ever accept time travel as a possibility.
Then again, I'm a skeptic, because the world is quite often out to screw you one way or another.
I take comfort in the realisation that somewhere, there are aliens that can't comprehend savanna.They would be eaten by lions, then we would eat the lions. FOOD CHAIN, BITCHES!
Post by: darkrider2 on July 06, 2012, 05:47:25 pm
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on July 06, 2012, 05:48:28 pm
No matter how powerful your alien technology is, the lions will eat you because you don't know the savanna.
And not matter how powerful your human technology is, the Gaglargalack will eat you because you don't know the Jelulik. It all balances out, see?
Post by: kaijyuu on July 06, 2012, 05:55:57 pm
This explained it better than anything I've ever seen, but I'm still skeptical about the speed of light being asymptotic. I can accept requiring exponentially more energy as speed increases, but there is still one piece of the puzzle I'm still not sure about. I'm not entirely convinced that a photon has no rest mass. Or is a photon particle just so small that our instruments can't detect it, yet. I'm saying that we are dealing with extremely huge and also extremely small numbers, and our equipment might not be up to the task of measuring them properly.It's easier to think of photons as ripples in spacetime rather than things comprised of matter. It's an electric and magnetic field propagating itself across the universe, hence, "electromagnetic wave."
Post by: Karlito on July 06, 2012, 06:05:34 pm
This explained it better than anything I've ever seen, but I'm still skeptical about the speed of light being asymptotic. I can accept requiring exponentially more energy as speed increases, but there is still one piece of the puzzle I'm still not sure about. I'm not entirely convinced that a photon has no rest mass. Or is a photon particle just so small that our instruments can't detect it, yet. I'm saying that we are dealing with extremely huge and also extremely small numbers, and our equipment might not be up to the task of measuring them properly.It's easier to think of photons as ripples in spacetime rather than things comprised of matter. It's an electric and magnetic field propagating itself across the universe, hence, "electromagnetic wave."
If I might piggyback onto that, it's really only useful to think of light as discrete particles when it's interacting with electrons or something. A "photon" is simply a small amount (in fact, the smallest amount) of light energy. It's not a particle in the sense of being a tiny billiard ball that's flying through space.
Post by: Starver on July 08, 2012, 04:06:12 pm
Imaginary time actually is a thing. http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html
Not as silly as you thought, heh. :)
[snip]
Not read the lecture (will do, not enough time, right now), not actually seen that aspect of Hawking's theorising, either, but this seems to be very much the same as my boundless-yet-finite idea of the the Universe.
The question "What happened before the big bang" seems to be best riposted by "What's north of the North Pole". And so I envisage the universe as (perhaps) being spherical (at least topoligically, if not precisely).
I tend to go for "latitude is time, longitude is space (representing all space dimensions, perhaps in some hyperspherical way)", or some similar analogy, for all points of space-time appearing on the surface of the 'sphere', but you could also take the pole-to-pole axial vector as time. Either way, each pole[1] is a limit to 'real' time (it'd be imaginary, in the mathematical sense, if you tried to extend beyond that) but technically still continuous in many ways...
Also may explain "expansion", in terms of the Universe, or at least the 'sphere' could be shaped to work with the observed expansion (see also footnote, for unending expansion).
Although, when I say "explain", it's more a possible solution, out of many. Anyway, sounds like I've been roughly on the same lines as Hawking, which is an unlooked for plus point to my armchair-theorising, but I hardly thing I was ever the first to independently think of it. And it's highly unlikely that I'm close enough to either reality or any highly-respected theorist's reality to ignore some minor logical niggles. ;)
[1] Or, for an unbounded universe at +t, but still having an origin time, it could be bell-like, instead of spherical. And thus no longer finite (although perhaps the membrane being drawn 'thinner', thus being finite in some other measure).
Post by: Starver on July 08, 2012, 04:25:48 pm
As for time travel, I have never seem a theory that made a lick of sense. It always had some sort of paradox attached to it that would have destroyed everything forever ago, or has no connection to anything, having no proof but also being unchallengeable. I don't see any way I'd ever accept time travel as a possibility.
Among many other ways that apparent paradoxes can result in stability, there's the whole thing about snooker/billiard balls on a table with a handy wormhole on it.
If you have a trick-shot set up so that a ball goes through a hole-to-the-past, ensuring that it has already exited from the hole-from-the-future and on a trajectory that deflects its old self, then obviously there's huge problems. But you could have initially-cued ball set off on a trajectory whereby it would normally miss the entryway to the time-loop, but then its future self appears anyway and deflects it into the path that allows it to even deflect it...
In one possible view of a universe with prevalent time-loops, it would be a matter of only universes (out of the infinite myriad of trivially possible ones) in which stability occurs[1] is valid and ever becomes 'experienced'. Like in universe represented in the film Twelve Monkeys...
But there are so many other ways to imagine time travel as being possible, many of which have also been used in films. The only representation that I would out-and-out suggest is completely 'wrong' is the "Incredible Fading Marty McFly" concept in Back To The Future, and all similar "all changes are visible in transition, especially to oneself!" versions.
[1] Where there's no opportunity for temporal interference, or where the interference is inconsequential, or where the interference is vital to the continuity, as in the above example...
Post by: Lagslayer on July 08, 2012, 04:48:10 pm
Post by: quinnr on July 08, 2012, 04:53:59 pm
So now all we've got to do is to put a couple of grannies into the LHC and smash them against each other at relativistic speeds. Lather, rinse, repeat until we got results.
Well, if that's not worth a quote, I don't know what is.
Post by: Gizogin on July 08, 2012, 05:06:20 pm
-snip-
This has always been my interpretation of time-travel as well. The only way you'd be able (not allowed, but physically able) to alter the past would be in such a way that your alterations are completely self-affirming. The billiard ball example is wonderful because you don't have to deal with "choice" or "free will." The only way the billiard ball can go through back in time is if its actions there do not prevent it from traveling into the past in exactly the same manner.
Post by: Phmcw on July 08, 2012, 05:32:02 pm
Post by: Starver on July 08, 2012, 05:39:59 pm
Way I figure, if you can create a stable time loop, then an unstable one must also be possible. The latter would completely fuck up everything, forever, and in an infinite universe, probability states that it would have already happened, many many times, assuming the first one didn't destroy everything for some reason.
Try it this way: You don't create a time-loop. You are merely the bit of the universe that creates said time-loop. The entire universe that creates the you that creates the unstable time-loop is non-valid. It's a bit like trying to justify the (hypothetical) chances that your grandma from the Titanic survived to meet the handsome midshipman on the rescue ship who was your grandfather. They did, thus you exist. Had they not, you would not have been around to ask the question. But in an even more meta-chronological basis.
Or... look at a woven tapestry, where some of the longitudinal threads loop round and displace earlier threads... Looked at from 'outside the tapestry', the loops in shove the threads around to define whatever threads need to loop out. As far as we are concerned, it's a valid tapestry if the threads aren't broken. Live in the tapestry, being a thread, and you experience everything 'happening' around you as the threads are woven in and out of one another and occasionally a loop-back interfaces with you, and then some thread (you, or something/someone else's) exits to be that loop. In a view of 'tapestry time' it's coincidental that it's self-fulfilling prophecy/action/'interference'. From the external observer, that's just the way it is. (There may be many other 'valid' tapestries out there, and the ones that aren't are never 'exhibited', for no-one to experience[1]). Leaving you with something like the questions involved in the weak-anthropic principle. The answer: you're here because things worked out. You would not have been if they had not.
(In a more mundane, non-timeloop set of examples: Grandma got picked up by a different rescue ship; Grandma did not survive the Titanic; Grandma was never on the Titanic, in the first place; Grandma was born a boy; Grandma never existed at all, for other historic reasons. The relationship of the electroweak force to the Planck Constant (...whatever, could be anything!) meant that matter could not condense in the first place out of the Gluon-Gluon soup (...again, whatever) and there were never any stars and planets in the first place to allow... well, it all to happen in any way that led to your existence.)
And, like I said, this is but one among many possible 'solutions'. Re-branching at each 'poke from the future' intersection of reality is another. As we don't have any idea what the 'metaverse' looks like (heck, we're still trying to get an idea of the basic tennets of the bubble that is our own Universe...) right now it's an open question.
I tend to go with it being a whole lot of bubbles. Multidimensional bubbles. The surface of each bubble represents space-time for the universe it represents (see also my "latitude is time" post, but that may not be necessary), and in the metaverse the bubbles... exist. Perhaps all the ones with fatal flaws in their structure popped, ages ago, but not in our variety of time. I've no idea if the bubbles ever 'link up', or even form a foam. I'm already out on a limb with the basic concept of at least one bubble being visible (from whatever viewpoint one might imagine exists not being restricted to being just within a bubble) in the entirety of existence. I could not, in good faith tell you that even this is 'reality'. But it would work. And it would (IMO) be elegant, which in the absence of any other cues always seems to work when it comes to these sorts of theories. Or at least better highlights when there's a fatal blemish. ;)
[1] If you insist, then the ones with broken-threads, or with utterly 'impossible' interactions in them might still be 'lived' by tapestry-thread-beings who find themselves regularly shoved over by temporal anomalies, see impossible interactions (where discontinuities in the structure are observed from the non-tapestry POV, disobeying the basic rules of tapestry weaving for the sake of accommodating loops, or of denying loops that should have occurred by the particular rules of tapestry-weaving but that just cannot be patched back into the 'prior' material, for whatever reason). But I prefer to imagine that there is 'life' only in the tapestries that have been produced by the metaverses weavers where the consistencies resolve.
Post by: Starver on July 08, 2012, 06:27:04 pm
To play Devil's Advocate against my own stated POV, this does present problems with the "only happened it because it happened" time-loops. Why did we not have an undeflected, non-timetravelling ball that avoided the possibility of creating the loop and was happy to just miss the opportunity to set up its own future?-snip-
This has always been my interpretation of time-travel as well. The only way you'd be able (not allowed, but physically able) to alter the past would be in such a way that your alterations are completely self-affirming. The billiard ball example is wonderful because you don't have to deal with "choice" or "free will." The only way the billiard ball can go through back in time is if its actions there do not prevent it from traveling into the past in exactly the same manner.
(Of course, it may be that the undeflected ball is destined to then enter a different time-gate-thingy that would send it back through a different time-gate-exit and create the paradox, so the only 'valid' universe is the one where the reinforcing loop must exist, to prevent the destructive one being attempted. Alternatively, perhaps we have a reinforces-the-non-paradoxical-loop universe and also an entire second version of the universe with the doesn't-mess-with-its-own-consequences timeline.)
But, hey, it's still uncertain (for me, at least) as to whether we're in a deterministic universe or not... I think we are[1]. But if we're not, then maybe there's wiggle-room. The classically-inspired bullet intended for grandpa (at a time before he goes to sea, right?) could have been buffeted any which way as you try to snipe him, and... whadya know... it missed, and you didn't cause the paradox you thought might have occurred. (Or the deterministic universe always determined you would miss, which takes us back to the top line of everything being a self-sustaining causality, especially if a near miss from an unidentified assassin's bullet actually persuaded grandpappy to get onto a ship!)
It's fun this speculation. And (with any of the information that anyone in this thread can provide, including me) is pretty much just that... Speculative.
Disclaimer: I have never had (nor do I think I shall forseeably ever have had, at some point following some future unforeseen opportunity to remold time through any paradox-proof mechanisms) any direct ancestors on, or associated with, the Titanic. Any claims to the contrary are fictional. Unless a future-future self happens to persuade my future-self that it is essential that my future-plus-a-bit self go back in time to pose as... ooh, Idunno... a travel agent and/or a careers adviser... in order to engineer the circumstances that ensure my own existence, and then an adoption agent to disguise from my present-self these self-same circumstances. But I have to be definite about this... If future-future-self hands future-self an iceburg-creating-raygun-thingy, I foresee my (singularly) future self being rather torn up with some pretty large issues of existential doubt. Maybe I should also take back a whole load of minisubs, equipped with resuscitation gear and anti-hypothermia medical supplies, and find somewhere I can stash those that I can reasonably rescue. After all, when it comes to time-travel, it is inevitable that I should plan ahead!
[1] As, of course, I was always destined to be... given all preceding conditions in the universe inevitably leading to this state of affairs!
Post by: alway on July 08, 2012, 09:25:41 pm
Edit: here it is; mathematical, though not experimental yet it seems.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/01/timelike-entanglement/
Post by: Duuvian on July 09, 2012, 08:01:01 am
I take comfort in the realisation that somewhere, there are aliens that can't comprehend savanna.
Hehe, they'd have reverse scuba swimsuits.
Post by: Starver on July 09, 2012, 09:26:51 am
Reminds me of the book "Heaven", by Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen (or vice-versa). Not only reverse-scuba-gear, but also a reverse boat being used by the same species. ("Sails" on the interface between ocean and atmosphere, rather than on the interface between atmosphere and ocean. IYSWIM.)I take comfort in the realisation that somewhere, there are aliens that can't comprehend savanna.
Hehe, they'd have reverse scuba swimsuits.
They're the guys who also did the actual sciencey bits of "The Science Of Discworld" (and tSoD2 and tSoD3). And a rather interesting book called Wheelers. Jack is a specialist of note, in particular, in visualising (and justifying) non-anthropomorphic aliens, of all kinds. And with all kinds of 'biologies' behind them.
But that's probably even less to do with bosons than time-travel is. Just thought it worth noting, in passing.
Post by: Lagslayer on July 09, 2012, 09:56:50 am
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 01, 2012, 03:56:17 pm
Post by: Osmosis Jones on August 01, 2012, 05:54:29 pm
Update: The Higgs Boson is now at 5.9 sigma. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19076355)
Awesomesauce!
Post by: DrPoo on August 03, 2012, 08:09:44 pm
I mean, we cant cure all cancer with a higgs boson, we cant even make massless material. Nothing.
Just another useless brick. Like discovering what kind of colour that was your great grandma's favorite, just as useful.
OR
Did i miss anything?
Post by: freeformschooler on August 03, 2012, 08:26:26 pm
So.. totally useless fucking particle for anything else than masturbating the ego's of quantum physics socalled "scientists"?
I mean, we cant cure all cancer with a higgs boson, we cant even make massless material. Nothing.
Just another useless brick. Like discovering what kind of colour that was your great grandma's favorite, just as useful.
OR
Did i miss anything?
Please read through the entirety of this article.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/7-ridiculous-things-people-believe-about-god-particle/
Post by: Remalle on August 03, 2012, 08:27:20 pm
Fakeedit: damnit, freeformninja!
Post by: Leafsnail on August 03, 2012, 08:57:19 pm
Post by: alway on August 03, 2012, 09:00:44 pm
Take relativity for example. Newtonian mechanics were shown to be incomplete because they could not explain a pair of phenomena which had been observed:
A. The speed of light was finite
B. The speed of light was the same regardless of observer's velocity
None of the known laws could explain how this could be; if you speed up, light should slow down relative to you, as per their understanding of how velocity worked. And so, after pondering on those for a while, Einstein eventually figured out an extension of known physics whose effects would both explain the new phenomena while also containing the explanation for previously known phenomena (for low energies and such, relativistic physics is nearly indistinguishable from Newtonian physics).
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 03, 2012, 09:50:20 pm
Do not belittle science.
Post by: MaximumZero on August 03, 2012, 11:38:08 pm
Post by: kaijyuu on August 03, 2012, 11:49:18 pm
Black magic gives me all these wondrous things. What have YOU done, science?!
Post by: MaximumZero on August 03, 2012, 11:53:26 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 04, 2012, 03:24:26 am
I will leave a quote here from Teodore Maimann, Co-Inventor of the forst working lase based on Einsteins theory of Stimulated emission (snigger).
Quote
The laser is a solution looking for a probelm.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on August 04, 2012, 03:53:18 am
Post by: Darvi on August 04, 2012, 04:11:30 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 04, 2012, 05:13:57 am
So.. totally useless fucking particle for anything else than masturbating the ego's of quantum physics socalled "scientists"?
I mean, we cant cure all cancer with a higgs boson, we cant even make massless material. Nothing.
Just another useless brick. Like discovering what kind of colour that was your great grandma's favorite, just as useful.
OR
Did i miss anything?
You missed the part where we gain a more intricate understanding of the freaking material fabric of the universe, yes.
1. You can never cure cancer.
2. This isn't some textiles project going on, this is science. This is the expanding of the collective human knowledge horizon. This is history in the making.
3. Inconsequential notes done in experiments have all been cumulative. The more we understand, the more questions are raised and the more we can answer. With said answers, we can make life better for humanity, with you know, science. The same one that gives so much to the ungrateful...
Science bitches, it works.
Post by: DrPoo on August 04, 2012, 06:23:23 am
The difference between the higgs boson and electricity is that electricity is a kind of energy we can translate to useful energy, we can heat shit, we can make shit move, and even in itself its useful, you know, electrolysis and lighting and shit.
Post by: Darvi on August 04, 2012, 06:26:02 am
I never said science is redicolous, i asked, what the fuck can we actually do with this particle? It feels so god damn inert, like just another filler number on that big database of known particles and their use.They said the same thing about gravity, too.
Actually no, I think they were all "DAMMIT, how do I launch my mother-in-law into space now?"
Also the point of science isn't to figure out the solution to every problem the world has. Science is all about "okay, now we've got this new thing, how can we market it to be both useful and awesome at the same time?". Maybe, no probably, the Higgs boson has some uses they haven't figured out yet. Maybe it makes space travel easier. Maybe they can use it to grow more crops. Maybe it does help treat cancer. Or maybe the Higgs mechanism just results in really good muffins.
Post by: MrWiggles on August 04, 2012, 06:34:08 am
So.. totally useless fucking particle for anything else than masturbating the ego's of quantum physics socalled "scientists"?Even if the discovering and studying the Higgs leads to nothing (which would be just about impossible), the search for knowledge is a noble quest in of itself.
I mean, we cant cure all cancer with a higgs boson, we cant even make massless material. Nothing.
Just another useless brick. Like discovering what kind of colour that was your great grandma's favorite, just as useful.
OR
Did i miss anything?
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 04, 2012, 06:40:34 am
Knowing about the Higgs completes the Standard Model, and will allow us to expand our knowledge of how the universe functions. We just discovered this. You're asking the Wright brothers for supersonic jets.
Post by: DrPoo on August 04, 2012, 06:47:12 am
But what practical uses can we derive from this higgs particle? Besides it having an awesome nickname, the god particle.
I dont know, i am in two pieces right now, one saying "This is such a wonderful discovery! Because there might be useful things to be found in it!", another saying "Thanks god they found that useless speck of dust, now i hope you guys can concentrate on bigger issues as for example the fact that our planet is slowly turning into a pressure boiler or the fact that most brownies you find in the supermarket tastes like crap compared to home made ones."
I might just be one big dumbass redneck that isnt even a real redneck, and if so, just tell me.
Post by: Darvi on August 04, 2012, 06:48:56 am
But what practical uses can we derive from this higgs particle? Besides it having an awesome nickname, the god particle.WE DON'T KNOW WHICH IS WHY THEY'RE SO BUSY STUDYING IT.
Also, that nickname has no relation to the particle except for crazy people.
Post by: kaijyuu on August 04, 2012, 06:57:51 am
You don't start with practical applications. You ask questions, get answers, then look for practicality. The "pointless" questions always come first.
Post by: MrWiggles on August 04, 2012, 07:12:54 am
So the idea behind discovering this Higgs Boson... is.. that they think theres more to discover from it?
But what practical uses can we derive from this higgs particle? Besides it having an awesome nickname, the god particle.
I dont know, i am in two pieces right now, one saying "This is such a wonderful discovery! Because there might be useful things to be found in it!", another saying "Thanks god they found that useless speck of dust, now i hope you guys can concentrate on bigger issues as for example the fact that our planet is slowly turning into a pressure boiler or the fact that most brownies you find in the supermarket tastes like crap compared to home made ones."
I might just be one big dumbass redneck that isnt even a real redneck, and if so, just tell me.
There isn't a question of 'might this be useful', its going to be useful. There has never been a scientific discovery which hasn't found an application in some way. If you're asking for exactly what application the Higgs will provide? I have no fuckin idea. But, when radio were first transmitted, it was deemed pretty useless. A novelty. When the telescope was first invented, that too was a novelty. When magnetism was first discovered? That too was consider a novelty.
Yet, their applications and uses have blossomed and shaped everyones lives greatly.
Did Newton know that figuring out force is equal to mass times acceleration that we'd get to the moon? Did Eistenstien envision GPS satellites? And to rephrase MSH, did the Wright Brothers think about ultra sonic jets? Or none stop flights to Australia? Or the monumental impact they their invention and new discoveries would have on the worlds military industry or socio political fallout from being able to travel so fast and readily across great distances? Of course fuckin-not.
The bitching you're doing, DrPoo, is infantile.
Quote
OH SHIT, guys! He's right! Fuck. fuck. Wait. We need to get all all the particle physicist and materiel engineers, mathematicians over to start digging ditches in the Sahara, because their skill sets are totally transferab... wait thats an extremely stupid idea.So the only reason why we spend so much money and energy that could have been used on irrigating Sahara or something else directly useful, is only because we /imagine/ that the discovery will be followed by useful new discoveries leading to practical use? Its like all those useless arctic missions they made back in time, they sent out people on dangerous and expensive missions, thinking there would be something great to be found.
Investment in the future is never a waste. You really seem to be operating under the delusion that fundamental research cannot give any return on investments, which is really fucking ridiculous as we're all typing on COMPUTERS, CONVERSING OVER THE FUCKING INTERNET. All at one time, started as fucking expensive larks being paid for by grant money with no real aim for mass application or how it'll reshape our entire lives.
And not only that, but you posit this If Or kinda of thing really blindly? You seem to be imply that there isn't any effort to irrigate the Saraha. Or that we can't possibly split our focuses in multiple directions. When there is an article with Pop SCi (I think) with a massive plan to do huge amount of irrigation of the sarahra to retard or reverse the effects of global warming via changing global weather patterns, all at the same causing millions and millions of gallons of desalinated water to be used for agriculture or industrial use. But it'd cost 2 trillion dollars a year to maintain.
Or that there are countries in the Sahara desert which do irrigate, and irrigate quite successfully. Libya springs to mind.
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 04, 2012, 08:42:51 am
So what has the work performed in discovering the Higgs Boson done for DrPoo? Its allowed him to bitch about it on the internet.
Post by: alway on August 04, 2012, 08:53:37 am
Post by: DrPoo on August 04, 2012, 09:16:09 am
Basic scientific research is all about learning the rules. That in itself holds value, as it tells use more about our place in the universe. After the rules have been discovered, others can come in, learn the rules, and try their damndest to exploit the hell out of those rules. And that's where technology comes from. Without a constant refining of our understanding of the fundamental laws of physics, technological progress, especially in the realm of computers, would slow down dramatically after a few decades; Moore's Self-Fulfilling Law would cease to be, the basic materials science which makes better materials for everything else would grind to a near-halt.
Finally someone with an answer i could use for anything.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on August 04, 2012, 10:15:32 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 04, 2012, 10:19:15 am
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 04, 2012, 10:21:13 am
Post by: Sirus on August 04, 2012, 11:09:42 am
Post by: alway on August 04, 2012, 11:18:33 am
Pretty damn convincing hallucination! Does that mean that all of you are mere by-products of my mind?No, everyone is still Pathos.
Post by: Lagslayer on August 04, 2012, 11:44:29 am
no, it's a shared hallucination.OH MY GOD, IT'S THE MATRIX!
we're all mentally linked and hallucinating!
Post by: Starver on August 04, 2012, 07:36:10 pm
Irony: this post is now on the internet, which was first implemented by a CERN CompSci looking for an easy way of distributing scientific data between people working in different areas of a vast site.Pedantic: "The Internet" isn't "The World-Wide Web".
HTH, HAND. ;)
(The point stands, I suspect. I don't imagine there'd be quite as many adverts with "Enter our competition: just go to rec.food.macdonalds and post why you like us so much!", or "Gopher us at 50.57.34.52 to get better deals on your holidays!", or "Send an email to promos @ couponplace.com with the subject 'I Want Free Stuff!', to get printable vouchers by return!", or "archie.google.com - *the* place to find things!". And would anything like Facebook or Twitter[1] have arisen, perched upon some other 'OSI level 7/8' medium, in a non-webby world? Although Gopher might have done much better, if it hadn't been out-competed for various reasons[2].)
[1] Actually, potentially Twitter might have done, being in part derived from the ideas behind SMS technology (circa 1985, IIRC), but without the same popularisation of "The Internet"/"The Web", would there have been the same drive for the current complexity of data communications possible on mobile devices (and thus the devices themselves)? Probably no AndroidOS, of course.
[2] I gophered quite a bit, in the early days, but then there was the whole different approach to IP which meant that by the time the 'AOL' set had had their fill of a now 'Eternally-Septembered' Usenet, the Web was the way to go... Well, it's all speculative. You know all the books about "What would have happened if WW2 had ended up differently"? Well, I imagine that in 50 years or so, there'll be (online, interactive, dynamic) speculative fiction written about a non-W3 'history'. ;)
Post by: Osmosis Jones on August 04, 2012, 07:44:39 pm
That doesn't mean there isn't a return on investment though.
There are two potential sources of innovation here; the most immediate is improvements arising from the techniques used to make the experiment possible. In beamline sciences, that means things like improved superconductors and magnets, better data processing techniques, improved computer hardware, and improved radiation sources. If those things don't sound important to you, pray that you never need to have MRI or PET scans; it was beamline science that made those possible.
Additionally, there are the theoretical understandings, the benefits of which have been explained well enough by other posters before me.
Plus, you know, it's really really cool!
Post by: Starver on August 04, 2012, 07:46:23 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 10, 2012, 12:05:03 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 10, 2012, 12:37:34 pm
Now it's a scientific theory.
Powah of dah houmans
Post by: MaximumZero on September 10, 2012, 02:12:07 pm
Post by: MaximumZero on September 10, 2012, 04:55:39 pm
Post by: Furtuka on September 10, 2012, 04:58:26 pm
Post by: Sirus on September 10, 2012, 05:13:53 pm
Post by: Sirus on September 10, 2012, 05:18:26 pm
Post by: Sirus on September 10, 2012, 05:31:55 pm
Post by: kaijyuu on September 10, 2012, 05:39:05 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 10, 2012, 11:05:27 pm
I don't mind impossible stuff, like sci fi staples such as FTL travel, or things like magic, so long as they're intrinsic and initial parts of the premise. It's only when impossible stuff pops up in the middle that it kills my suspension of disbelief.It toasts bread AND slices it?
That's it, I'm out.
Post by: kaijyuu on September 10, 2012, 11:07:14 pm
Post by: Osmosis Jones on September 18, 2012, 09:50:44 am
I'm kinda floored by this. I mean, on the one hand, I've always understood there to be some pretty big impossibilities with FTL travel (namely violation of causality). However, this is a legitimate attempt by someone who is by no means a crank; he's a respected scientist at NASA. If he thinks it's possible... :o
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 18, 2012, 09:53:25 am
Post by: Starver on September 18, 2012, 10:31:05 am
If that's what's being planned, I've got no problem with it. (Except for WTF are they going to do to 'Make It So', because the whole bending of space thing that the hypothetical 'warp-drive-like' mechanism uses is... difficult. Yes, that's a word I can use, if only an understatement. Any ideas what their background ideas actually are?)
Worthwhile to look at, I suppose. At least to start to rule out certain possibilities.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 18, 2012, 10:36:12 am
Post by: Starver on September 18, 2012, 11:02:07 am
The maintenance of Causality aside, it may not be necessarily Impossible, but I definitely want to say how it'll be Difficult. At least to work out from our current level of tech (although once we have the capability, it'll probably be as easy to take advantage of as a bike is for riding).
Post by: MonkeyHead on September 18, 2012, 11:47:06 am
This "going fast to other stars" crap isnt that new an idea. British Rail (yea, you heared me) seriously messed around with the idea in the 1970's. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Daedalus)
Post by: Siquo on September 18, 2012, 01:08:43 pm
Post by: palsch on September 18, 2012, 01:43:40 pm
Sooo. Ummm. Yeah. Maybe FTL won't be fiction within our lifetimes. (http://gizmodo.com/5942634/nasa-starts-development-of-real-life-star-trek-warp-drive)
Quote
The Eagleworks team has discovered that the energy requirements are much lower than previously thought. If they optimize the warp bubble thickness and "oscillate its intensity to reduce the stiffness of space time," they would be able to reduce the amount of fuel to manageable amount: instead of a Jupiter-sized ball of exotic matter, you will only need 500 kilograms to "send a 10-meter bubble (32.8 feet) at an effective velocity of 10c."Ah, right. Exotic matter. No clearer on that point?
I mean, if the right exotic matter existed we could create Stargate style stable wormholes. We just need some material that is a) completely stable, b) can be passed through as well as easily manipulated and c) has negative mass.
My understanding here is that a warp drive would use similar negative mass matter. There is no real reason to believe that such stuff exists.
Post by: i2amroy on September 18, 2012, 01:57:23 pm
Sooo. Ummm. Yeah. Maybe FTL won't be fiction within our lifetimes. (http://gizmodo.com/5942634/nasa-starts-development-of-real-life-star-trek-warp-drive)So not to put a damper on the festivities or anything, but maybe you might want to take a closer look at that article that you linked to. Sure the article starts out by putting a "just around the corner", "building one now" type spin on it, but if you actually read the article you will notice a few things:
1) They haven't actually done the tests to see if the bubble creation machine works.
2) The bubbles they are talking about are measured on the nano/micro scale. They are nowhere near big enough to actually fit anything inside.
3) Yes, his equations allow you to reduce the amount of exotic mass required from a ball the size of jupiter to one of 500 kg. But keep in mind that currently the exotic matter they are talking about exists in theory only, and we have yet to actually find any of it.
So while the ideas are certainly possible, and could indeed come about in our lifetimes, they are not "being built" in any sense of the phrase right now.
Post by: alway on September 18, 2012, 02:55:13 pm
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110023492_2011024705.pdf
Post by: Zrk2 on September 18, 2012, 02:59:08 pm
Post by: Lagslayer on September 18, 2012, 02:59:36 pm
Now, wait a sec. If it's on a nano/micro scale, we could at least wage biological warfare on the aliens. Send over a few ebola cells or something. Maybe the bubonic plague. Let's introduce them to AIDS! Unless they are the sexy space babe type of aliens, in which case we do that the old fashioned way.Sooo. Ummm. Yeah. Maybe FTL won't be fiction within our lifetimes. (http://gizmodo.com/5942634/nasa-starts-development-of-real-life-star-trek-warp-drive)So not to put a damper on the festivities or anything, but maybe you might want to take a closer look at that article that you linked to. Sure the article starts out by putting a "just around the corner", "building one now" type spin on it, but if you actually read the article you will notice a few things:
1) They haven't actually done the tests to see if the bubble creation machine works.
2) The bubbles they are talking about are measured on the nano/micro scale. They are nowhere near big enough to actually fit anything inside.
3) Yes, his equations allow you to reduce the amount of exotic mass required from a ball the size of jupiter to one of 500 kg. But keep in mind that currently the exotic matter they are talking about exists in theory only, and we have yet to actually find any of it.
So while the ideas are certainly possible, and could indeed come about in our lifetimes, they are not "being built" in any sense of the phrase right now.
Bay12, what have you done to me? Oh, wait. I already had a somewhat twisted sense of humor, and we were all thinking it anyways.
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 18, 2012, 05:11:48 pm
Post by: Scoops Novel on September 18, 2012, 05:15:40 pm
Post by: MaximumZero on September 18, 2012, 05:25:25 pm
Post by: MrWiggles on September 18, 2012, 05:26:09 pm
Post by: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 05:27:50 pm
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on September 18, 2012, 05:32:53 pm
Post by: MrWiggles on September 18, 2012, 05:58:27 pm
On the flip side, fuck all the alien green babes you want since STD are improbably communicable.
Post by: MaximumZero on September 18, 2012, 06:16:05 pm
Post by: Osmosis Jones on September 18, 2012, 06:20:26 pm
Sooo. Ummm. Yeah. Maybe FTL won't be fiction within our lifetimes. (http://gizmodo.com/5942634/nasa-starts-development-of-real-life-star-trek-warp-drive)So not to put a damper on the festivities or anything, but maybe you might want to take a closer look at that article that you linked to. Sure the article starts out by putting a "just around the corner", "building one now" type spin on it, but if you actually read the article you will notice a few things:
C'mon, please assume I'm not a *complete* moron; I'm just an optimist :P I read the article quite closely, and I know that they haven't built anything yet. I'm also well aware of the limitations you mentioned. However, if they show it's possible to warp space even in the small degree... who knows? That'll be revolutionary enough. Do that, and they'll get more funding than they know what to do with. Then, IF (yes, I know, huge if) it's possible in the first place, maybe they could actually create something within the next 100 or so years. Also, speaking of optimism, I also believe that our generation will be the first to achieve immortality, so my perception of lifetimes may be a *little* skewed :P
I never said anywhere it's definitely will happen, but if it pans out at these stages... who knows?
Also, on the xenophage discussion... less than 12 hours in and
On the flip side, fuck all the alien green babes you want since STD are improbably communicable.
Really guys? Reaally?! Man, every new technology really is used for sex in some way.
Post by: MaximumZero on September 18, 2012, 06:21:58 pm
Really guys? Reaally?! Man, every new technology really is used for sex in some way.I wouldn't have it any other way.
Post by: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 06:24:33 pm
Ditto. :DReally guys? Reaally?! Man, every new technology really is used for sex in some way.I wouldn't have it any other way.
Post by: MaximumZero on September 18, 2012, 06:30:32 pm
Post by: Sirus on September 18, 2012, 06:32:29 pm
HA! As if.
Post by: Starver on September 19, 2012, 06:07:34 am
At this point, there's really no reason to believe that there will be a lot of life out in the universe that isn't carbon based. Carbon just bonds with everything so much more easily than anything else we know of thus far. According to Neil deGrasse Tyson, "Carbon is the slut of the periodic table."In 'our kind of Goldilocks Zone', with 'our kind of base chemical mix'. I reckon the first life we actually meet (maybe not detect[1]), and maybe even have inadvertently met[2], will occupy a currently unknown other stable point in the "equation of life"'s multidimensional surface.
It's not totally out there to suggest that Silicon (under pressures and at temperatures applicable to it behaving as such) might produce an substitute 'organic' chemistry to roughly parallel our Carbon-based system, although I'm not sure what the Universal Solvent of that environment will be, because it won't be water. Actually, I'm betting that what we'll eventually find will be much more different. It'll all depend under what circumstances the applicable abiogenesis occurs, but any 'successful' happenstance of that kind will be continue to be self-organising. (Because any that isn't, I have already discounted as "not successful". Really, I can afford to 'cheat' with that logic loop, because potential abiogenetic experiments are spontaneously going on all over the place[3].) Oh, if there's already a (different) viable form of 'life' in the immediate vicinity, the fledgling 'new paradigm' might get swamped, and there's always natural disasters of whatever kind, especially a threat for particularly lethargic self-organisers.
But I wouldn't be surprised to find out that our nearest living neighbours would find our chemistry extraordinary. They'd never have thought that on a planet as cool and H2O-sodden as ours that any self-organising molecule could ever arise! It was only the strange seasonal variations in green land-cover which led them to believe that the native global organism was chlorophyll-based[4], and eventually they landed their probes and after a few.... misuinderstandings... realised that the intellectually dominant life-form on the planet was actually dolphins/octopuses/
But what was the point again? Oh yeah, I was just trying to discourage too much of an anthropocentric POV.
[1] Because we'd be biased towards looking for planets of roughly Earth Mass orbiting at roughly 1AU around stars roughly like Sol, etc...
[2] Probably no-one knew, if we're significantly different. Possibly the same holds true on the other side of the meeting.
[3] If you want me to limit "all over the place", I'd suggest wherever there's an 'edge' between two distinct mediums, for reasons I won't go into right now.
[4] An exotic complex of that their native scientific community had occasionally developed in their low-pressure chemistry rigs, but which their engineering community was looking to replicate the functionality of in more 'room temperature'-friendly compounds in order to better power their Smartphones.... (That description to be read in terms of an Alien 'standard' of temperature, pressure, etc.)
[5] They featured in the first survey, but by the time they got together a 'manned'/Aliened expedition, they'd died out and been replaced.
Post by: Euld on September 19, 2012, 11:17:10 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 19, 2012, 11:45:01 am
Now we have diamonds that are harder than diamonds. (http://www.tecca.com/news/2012/08/17/buckyball-xylene-crystal-harder-than-diamond/)I love buckyballs. And science.
Post by: kaijyuu on September 19, 2012, 11:46:54 am
Post by: Putnam on September 19, 2012, 09:15:49 pm
Anything called a "buckyball" has to be awesome.
"buckyball" is short for "buckminsterfullerene ball".
Post by: Roboboy33 on September 20, 2012, 12:03:58 am
Post by: Starver on September 20, 2012, 12:24:57 am
The latter will be the hardest. The surface of the buckyballs is almost exactly like a bit of graphite sheet. Unlike graphite, one ball can only touch another ball at a very small area (the area of a C5 or C6 ring, at most), and any bonding you force to be made branching off that surface is only really going to be as strong as that bond would normally be off of graphite. The surface is strong, the adhesion with anything else is pretty ordinary (or worse).
Stop the 2D curvature of the balls and make it a 1D curvature of a tube, and you've got carbon nanotubes. Strong along their length, like the ball is in a ball-like way. (Not quite sure about deformations in and out of the radius, along the line of the tube's axis.) A nanotube may well hold its two ends together better than anything 'normal', and certainly a strand of a standard saturated carbon-chain (with a single link between single carbons along its length, and not the same free-electron cloud 'field' supporting/aiding the bonds).
Engineer a sufficient 'weave' of tubes, and you'll probably have something that's pretty resistant to macro-sized impacts, but if all you can get as tubes is micrometre-length pieces, then you've got a problem. Even using them like threads in a yarn, the interaction between tubes is 'graphitic' in nature (along adjacent edges of the tubes), and again you're reliant upon side-bonds being made. And other problems.
With 'Diamond Age' technology (referencing Neal Stephenson's book, there), I suppose you could weave subsequent armour-shaped layers of graphene over each other, with discontinuities and sheet bends/corners created to mould around the non-flat bits of the shape you're tyying to form, each subsequent layer having a lateral 'slippage' possibility (mitigated by the shape, as overlaid/underlaid with the neighbouring sheets), but very strong against all other distortions (at least sacrificially, the outer layers breaking up from any initial impact).
A 'sheet' or 'mass' of somehow-bonded Buckyballs wouldn't seem to me to be particularly useful. The best you could hope for would be to effectively create a diamond-like intersticial structure, and then I'm wondering how that'd be much different from 'solid diamond' armour. (And I'm thinking that would be susceptible to catastrophic fracturing, from any impact that doesn't get shrugged off.)
But that's just my immediate thoughts, without looking up any actual facts to support what I say. ;)
Post by: Scelly9 on September 20, 2012, 12:42:49 am
*Wall of text*I like you.
But that's just my immediate thoughts.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on September 25, 2012, 06:41:03 am
Read a cool article about some revolutionarry new tech? Post it here! Someone's done a study on the viscosity of waffles? I'd love to hear it! Someone hooked the skin of squid up to "Insane in the membrane" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-OVrI9x8Zs)? Well, I just posted it here, but you can still talk about it!
Also, here have something us guys have known forever; even thinking about talking to a girl makes us stupider! (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=the+mere+anticipation+of+an+interaction+with+a+woman)
Post by: Darvi on September 25, 2012, 06:52:21 am
Someone's done a study on the viscosity of waffles? I'd love to hear it!I think somebody actually got an IG-nobel prize for developing a formula for determining the maximum length of time that you can dunk a cookie in a drink for.
Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/220400.stm).
Post by: Osmosis Jones on September 25, 2012, 07:24:39 am
I think somebody actually got an IG-nobel prize for developing a formula for determining the maximum length of time that you can dunk a cookie in a drink for.
Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/220400.stm).
Hah, that's brilliant :p
Paid for by McVites though... hmmmm part of the biscuit conspiracy perhaps?
Post by: EveryZig on September 25, 2012, 04:46:57 pm
Post by: Levi on September 25, 2012, 05:28:59 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiq2Hxl5zx4
Post by: Virex on September 25, 2012, 05:43:10 pm
Absolutely no-one calls them "buckminsterfullerene balls" though. Hell, you got to be lucky for people to not just call them C60 or C70, depending on the type of buckyball they're referring to.Anything called a "buckyball" has to be awesome.
"buckyball" is short for "buckminsterfullerene ball".
CNTs are anisotropic though, and only stronger than diamond on the scale of individual strands, so they don't really count.Now we have diamonds that are harder than diamonds. (http://www.tecca.com/news/2012/08/17/buckyball-xylene-crystal-harder-than-diamond/)fun fact: we found things that were harder than diamond a few years back.
carbon nanotubes.
Post by: MaximumZero on September 26, 2012, 07:45:06 pm
Apparently, the problem with all that is getting the nanotubes to any length with consistency.welp, never knew that.Absolutely no-one calls them "buckminsterfullerene balls" though. Hell, you got to be lucky for people to not just call them C60 or C70, depending on the type of buckyball they're referring to.Anything called a "buckyball" has to be awesome.
"buckyball" is short for "buckminsterfullerene ball".CNTs are anisotropic though, and only stronger than diamond on the scale of individual strands, so they don't really count.Now we have diamonds that are harder than diamonds. (http://www.tecca.com/news/2012/08/17/buckyball-xylene-crystal-harder-than-diamond/)fun fact: we found things that were harder than diamond a few years back.
carbon nanotubes.
still, it could make good lightweight bulletproof armour. when woven, the carbon nanotubes act as a fabric, so you could easily line clothes with it. a bullet hits you? broken bones, internal haemorrhaging... not nearly as bad as the bullet actually penetrating your body and doing even more damage.
still, pretty damn expensive right now. in the future, maybe it'll become cheaper...
Post by: Starver on September 27, 2012, 06:48:27 am
Even if you had a 'perfect' weave of threads (or one thread that runs back and forth as a weave then turns the final corner and is the weft as well), a one-nanotube-thick weave would probably not be a sufficient ballistic protection. It may act like a silk undershirt does with arrows (tangles with the projectile, slows its penetration and makes it easier to extract again without additional underlying tissue damage) but you'd need a multi-layer/laminar solution, much as with existing ballistic protection fabrics. I think the advantage (if woven nanofabric is more advantageous than kevlar-weave/whatever) is that you can have thinner/lighter 'impermeable' (or at least sacrificially impeding) layers, allowing more/thicker interstitial padding material and/or far more other nanofibre layers to add to the impermeability/impedimenting capability, yet not be bulkier.
But that's all my surmise, it's been a while since I've been in a Materials Science lab (pre-dating a lot of the newer developments), so I'm open to being updated.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on September 27, 2012, 07:16:54 am
Post by: Siquo on September 27, 2012, 09:12:39 am
Post by: Starver on September 27, 2012, 09:51:11 am
(Ah, looks to have been a direct change from "sporting injuries", last week. I wonder if I should revert it.)
[1] Look for D3o ("Dee Three Oh") or you probably get a "Not to be confused with..." link to follow, instead.
Post by: MonkeyHead on September 27, 2012, 10:33:01 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on September 27, 2012, 10:51:59 am
Hmm. So, imbedding carbon nanotubes in say ceramic or kevlar armour plates isnt worth anyones time? I mean, ceramics can be poured molten, have a liberal sprinkling of nanotubes added, and left to set.At the moment, not really. They are way to short to be usefull. They also have a strong tensile strength, so they'll stop the bullet, but let the force through.
From the moment we can reliably reach a certain length, (I believe it was 0.4 cm or something or maybe 4 cm) we can use them in a steel/nanotube alloy that should be strong enough to support a space elevator.
Post by: MaximumZero on September 27, 2012, 01:30:30 pm
From the Wiki page[1] on that substance: "Richard Palmer was sitting at a ski lodge in the Alps nursing a bruised knee and thought to himself that there had to be a better, more comfortable way to protect oneself from genital injuries." Begs the question: Who did what to who, now? (Or is he related to that Rura Penthe mines alien from ST6, that Kirk takes down with an unexpectedly illegal kick?)I was going to say, "Maybe that's supposed to say 'general'"?
(Ah, looks to have been a direct change from "sporting injuries", last week. I wonder if I should revert it.)
[1] Look for D3o ("Dee Three Oh") or you probably get a "Not to be confused with..." link to follow, instead.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on October 02, 2012, 04:28:52 am
I give you a paper with over 1000 authors. (http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v86/i5/e052005)
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 02, 2012, 04:37:25 am
The LHC makes another great contribution to science; testing the limits of Journal editors' sanity!That's peanuts. Some biology researches had one with more than 10.000.
I give you a paper with over 1000 authors. (http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v86/i5/e052005)
Post by: Osmosis Jones on October 02, 2012, 04:45:32 am
(Edit; best I've been able to find is this (http://www.answers.com/topic/what-scientific-article-has-the-most-authors), are you sure you didn't mean citations?)
Also, while googling, I found this. (http://www.oddee.com/item_90683.aspx)
Post by: palsch on October 02, 2012, 07:46:22 am
The LHC makes another great contribution to science; testing the limits of Journal editors' sanity!For a moment I thought that was Physics Review Letters and wondered how they fit them all into the four page limit.
I give you a paper with over 1000 authors. (http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v86/i5/e052005)
Browsing some of the Atlas publications (https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/AtlasPublic/Publications) they normally go just over the usual limit at 5 or 6 pages, then include another dozen-plus page author list. God help anyone who isn't CERN and wants to use more than four pages to explain their new breakthrough...
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 02, 2012, 08:04:52 am
Though really, we started using et al. for a reason.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on October 02, 2012, 09:31:58 am
Huh. My college's network gives me auto-access to that journal.
Not surprising really; the Phys Rev family of journals are one of the major ones in the hard sciences, so if your uni has a physics, chem, or engineering department, you're pretty well guarenteed it.
Also, apparently Science (the journal; to those not in the know, this is one of the 2 best journals in the world) offered my university 50 free 2-year subscriptions, and the head of my department recommended me as one of the recipients. ;D ;D ;D
Just goes to show, if you're given the chance to hit the pub with the various heads of department on fridays, DO SO!
Expect lots of cutting edge SCIENCE from Science being posted here in the future.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 02, 2012, 09:34:04 am
Post by: Osmosis Jones on October 02, 2012, 09:36:13 am
Pleasedon'tkillmeofgreatandpowerfulScienceninjas!
Post by: palsch on October 02, 2012, 12:19:40 pm
I'm pretty sure Science will hire mercenaries to assassinate you with extreme prejudice if you start posting science from Science in a public place.Haven't just yet.
The piracy levels of scientific articles are astoundingly high and generally just accepted as how things work. In physics, what with the arXiv (http://arxiv.org/) and every PhD student and post-doc having at least a basic personal page with publication lists (often with pre-prints or even final versions attached), it's just assumed that any paper written will be freely available somewhere. And if it isn't it's assumed a polite request to someone with access (ideally an original author) will result in a copy in your inbox.
There even have been a number of high visibility, high seniority scientists who have blegged (begged on their blog) for a particular obscure paper they don't have access to, often eventually hosting and linking the copy when they write about it.
Huh. My college's network gives me auto-access to that journal.As the others said, any college worth the letters should give access to the whole PR* family, but that particular paper is open access anyway. All CERN papers went OA a couple of years ago, with the cooperation of all journals they publish in. Even the one Nature Communications paper I'm aware of (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v2/n9/full/ncomms1472.html) is open to even plebs like myself without institutional access.
Post by: Scoops Novel on January 12, 2013, 03:43:01 pm
Post by: Darvi on January 12, 2013, 03:58:28 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 12, 2013, 09:01:35 pm
Quote
The piracy levels of scientific articles are astoundingly high and generally just accepted as how things work.so... tangentially related, have you heard of open access scientific publishing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access
I think it's a neat initiative.
Of course all the cool journals are closed access as of now (barring the "freebies of the month"). But still, here's to hoping it gains momentum.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on January 12, 2013, 09:21:47 pm
Anyway, tangentially related again, is the sad story of Aaron Swartz (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/internet-pioneer-and-information-activist-takes-his-own-life/), who was facing 50 year jail terms for scraping over a million journals through MIT's subscription. :-\
Post by: MaximumZero on January 27, 2013, 07:43:31 pm
And...discuss the implications of such a device!
Post by: Osmosis Jones on January 27, 2013, 09:50:24 pm
It would go well with our impellor drives. (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110023492_2011024705.pdf)
Basically, it's a paper from NASA's propulsion labs and talks about two things; one is the Alcubierre style warp drive that a few of you probably heard about (potentially insanely cool, but kind of needs some matter that has never been proven to exist).
The other is a propellant-less thruster that has experimental evidence backing it up AND could potentially one day lead to 35-day Earth-Jupiter transit times.
Yep.
Post by: Euld on January 27, 2013, 09:56:56 pm
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on January 27, 2013, 10:05:59 pm
The other is a propellant-less thruster that has experimental evidence backing it up AND could potentially one day lead to 35-day Earth-Jupiter transit times.
:o
Am I hearing that right? 35 days from Jupiter to Earth? Fudging the numbers gives me... 926841 km an hour. Of course It can be more/less then that depending on the two planets orbits, but damn...
Post by: MaximumZero on January 27, 2013, 10:46:27 pm
It's an exciting time to be studying SciFi (yes, I have a real college course in SciFi. I'll be bringing this topic up tomorrow.)
Post by: Putnam on January 27, 2013, 10:48:09 pm
Post by: MaximumZero on January 27, 2013, 10:49:03 pm
(http://what-if.xkcd.com/imgs/a/13/laser_pointer_more_power.png)That's what I was trying to hit on, thank you.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on January 28, 2013, 12:16:34 am
The other is a propellant-less thruster that has experimental evidence backing it up AND could potentially one day lead to 35-day Earth-Jupiter transit times.
:o
Am I hearing that right? 35 days from Jupiter to Earth? Fudging the numbers gives me... 926841 km an hour. Of course It can be more/less then that depending on the two planets orbits, but damn...
You're thinking about it like it's on Earth (e.g. in an atmosphere); in a vacuum, the only speed limit is light, all other speeds are arbitrary (just depending on your chosen reference frame). What is more important is the rate of acceleration, as basically it just accelerates full tilt to the half way point, flips around, and starts deaccelerating.
What if we add more power? I mean, is it even remotely feasible to get to Andromeda or Alpha Centauri within a human lifetime? What happens when we stop measuring power output in Megawatts and instead go to Gigawatts? Terawatts? Exawatts? What would we even need to make that leap in power output?
It's an exciting time to be studying SciFi (yes, I have a real college course in SciFi. I'll be bringing this topic up tomorrow.)
Basically, our frail human bodies are limited to maybe only 2G's (I'm spitballing, I would appreciate any real studies) of sustained acceleration, tops. That means Andromeda is a biiiiig nope.
Alpha Centauri is possible, if you don't mind waiting a number of decades though; of course, it already was with Project Orion style propulsion (IIRC 70 years was the rough estimate given, using 1950's tech).
Also be sure to actually print off the article; it's pretty out there sounding stuff, so it's handy to be able to point to a source.
Also, remember, this is a PROPELLANT-less drive (much as a light sail would be), not a reactionless one (that's impossible).
Post by: Scelly9 on January 28, 2013, 12:24:31 am
Basically, our frail human bodies are limited to maybe only 2G's (I'm spitballing, I would appreciate any real studies) of sustained acceleration, tops. That means Andromeda is a biiiiig nope.Wikipedia disagrees.
Quote
Early experiments showed that untrained humans were able to tolerate 17 g eyeballs-in (compared to 12 g eyeballs-out) for several minutes without loss of consciousness or apparent long-term harm.[14] The record for peak experimental horizontal g-force tolerance is held by acceleration pioneer John Stapp, in a series of rocket sled deceleration experiments culminating in a late 1954 test in which he was clocked in a little over a second from a land speed of Mach 0.9. He survived a peak "eyeballs-out" force of 46.2 times the force of gravity, and more than 25 g for 1.1 sec, proving that the human body is capable of this. Stapp lived another 45 years to age 89, but suffered lifelong damage to his vision from this last test.[15]
...
Short term shocks may be caused by impacts, drops, earthquake, or explosion. Shock is a short-term transient excitiation and is often measured as an acceleration. Very short duration shocks of 100 g have been survivable in racing car crashes.[16]
Post by: Osmosis Jones on January 28, 2013, 12:36:04 am
Basically, our frail human bodies are limited to maybe only 2G's (I'm spitballing, I would appreciate any real studies) of sustained acceleration, tops. That means Andromeda is a biiiiig nope.
Wikipedia disagrees.Quote-snop-
Uhhhh, I'm talking years here, not seconds; this is for a slow ship to another star system, and being immobile and crushed at 17g's for the entire trip, even if it was remotely survivable, would be a special kind of hell. I would like to see anyone last even a day at a relatively measly 5g, let alone 50+ years.
Post by: Scelly9 on January 28, 2013, 12:40:40 am
Post by: PanH on January 28, 2013, 12:49:52 am
I love that little note : "eyeballs-in", "eyeballs-out"
Post by: Osmosis Jones on January 28, 2013, 12:56:32 am
Well, if we're taking a journey several lightyears, I think that by then either a type of stasis, or just getting pumped full of muscle relaxants could help the human body cope with a journey like that. Nobody said you had to be conscious. Again, the problem is nobody has really done any studies on it, so we don't know the effect of sustained G forces.
That's the thing; I'm assuming at least some crew members alive and active for maintenance purposes.
There's not really any convincing work in human stasis I am aware of, and certainly nothing I'd trust my life to for decades (despite a large number of companies willing to freeze and store your head for exorbitant fees). If you need to move around, 2g means you're effectively carrying another you on your back; doable, if you're fit, but 3g certainly isn't.
Assuming that we did have a stasis system, however, it would need to be something that stopped physiology pretty completely; if we were just sedated and doped on relaxants, we'd still have to contend with things like bedsores and blocked circulation, not to mention all sorts of unknown problems (blood pooling in the body etc.) that might arise when there is a very significant force in a constant direction for long periods of time.
In the meantime, I'll stick to my 2g star crawler thanks :P
Post by: Scelly9 on January 28, 2013, 12:59:52 am
Post by: Osmosis Jones on January 28, 2013, 01:03:12 am
Alright, fair enough. On another note: The long relativistic journey calulator here (http://www.cthreepo.com/lab/math1.shtml) says that a trip to Alpha Centauri at 2G acceleration would take 2.3 years for this ship inhabitants, and 5.25 years for earth. Relativity is cool. Too bad it would take so long to figure out if they where successful or not.
That link's actually really cool. Especially as I was just about to pull my old physics 101 textbook (Serway & Jewett, yeah!) out and try and integrate some relativistic formulae :P
Post by: Andrew425 on January 28, 2013, 01:57:16 am
Post by: Starver on January 28, 2013, 07:15:49 am
Basically, our frail human bodies are limited to maybe only 2G's (I'm spitballing, I would appreciate any real studies) of sustained acceleration, tops. That means Andromeda is a biiiiig nope.
Going to a web-page that someone (in this thread?) mentioned, rather than working it all out myself, I plugged in the biggest value it would apparently allow for distance ("999999999999999" light-years, essentially 1x1015the Andromeda Galaxy being 'merely' 2.5x106) and a 2g acceleration (that being for half the journey, an identical deceleration for the rest), a human would have to experience a 'mere' 34 years and two months (plus change) on that ship, in their largely relativistic travel to the destination. (A few orders of magnitude of distance, either way, appear not to make the waiting time vary significantly in this circumstance.) So a 30yo would get there before they hit retirement age. Assuming no personal or ship-wide problems en-route.
Plug in a more 'friendly' 1g acceleration/deceleration rate and Andromeda's (approximate) distance, and we're talking about 'cruising' for 28 years, seven months, 1.5-ish weeks. Give or take the approximations (and, Andromeda is heading towards us, as well, isn't it? ...but not sure if significantly so for such a journey) I think that's not a problem for a (single-)Generation Ship. The kids and grand-kids (or more, if the residents are bored and have nothing else to do) could get back home as well, albeit to a world changed by time and/or swallowed up by the Sun. That is assuming that one can maintain the 1g thrust for that period, of course, for the size of ship that can contain the corresponding thrusters and fuel-sources of sufficient longevity.
(And I'm taking those figures on trust, but it seemed to work for far nearer, less relativistic calculations that I'd previously laboriously made off my own back, when I was first shown it.)
Post by: Starver on January 28, 2013, 07:26:30 am
Alright, fair enough. On another note: The long relativistic journey calulator here (http://www.cthreepo.com/lab/math1.shtml) says that a trip to Alpha Centauri at 2G acceleration would take 2.3 years for this ship inhabitants, and 5.25 years for earth. Relativity is cool. Too bad it would take so long to figure out if they where successful or not.
Should have read further down, it seems. 'My' website is here (http://www.convertalot.com/relativistic_star_ship_calculator.html) and an A-C trip on it (at 4.21ly distance, 2g being sustained) comes out (similarly) as 2.3 years of shiptime and like 'earthtime', so probably uses the same maths. The latter being 6 years for a 1g sustained(/flipped) acceleration, for a tad over 3.5 years shipboard. I'd do that. I'd do that several times, back and forth, as regular crew on a regular commuter mission... (But you'd have to excuse me of some of my posts to this forum become a bit necro-y whenever I'm on the outward part of my journey... ;))
Post by: Osmosis Jones on January 28, 2013, 07:28:13 am
Basically, our frail human bodies are limited to maybe only 2G's (I'm spitballing, I would appreciate any real studies) of sustained acceleration, tops. That means Andromeda is a biiiiig nope.
Going to a web-page that someone (in this thread?) mentioned, rather than working it all out myself, I plugged in the biggest value it would apparently allow for distance ("999999999999999" light-years, essentially 1x1015the Andromeda Galaxy being 'merely' 2.5x106) and a 2g acceleration (that being for half the journey, an identical deceleration for the rest), a human would have to experience a 'mere' 34 years and two months (plus change) on that ship, in their largely relativistic travel to the destination. (A few orders of magnitude of distance, either way, appear not to make the waiting time vary significantly in this circumstance.) So a 30yo would get there before they hit retirement age. Assuming no personal or ship-wide problems en-route.
Plug in a more 'friendly' 1g acceleration/deceleration rate and Andromeda's (approximate) distance, and we're talking about 'cruising' for 28 years, seven months, 1.5-ish weeks. Give or take the approximations (and, Andromeda is heading towards us, as well, isn't it? ...but not sure if significantly so for such a journey) I think that's not a problem for a (single-)Generation Ship. The kids and grand-kids (or more, if the residents are bored and have nothing else to do) could get back home as well, albeit to a world changed by time and/or swallowed up by the Sun. That is assuming that one can maintain the 1g thrust for that period, of course, for the size of ship that can contain the corresponding thrusters and fuel-sources of sufficient longevity.
(And I'm taking those figures on trust, but it seemed to work for far nearer, less relativistic calculations that I'd previously laboriously made off my own back, when I was first shown it.)
Hmmm, point. I had only considered it from the earth's temporal perspective when I posted that; relativity does change things around. Of course, the fact that wherever you end up, you're quite probably going to be the last humans alive is a bit disconcerting.
Still, there always were people that wanted to be hermits. Maybe we will eventually see that happen.
Just have to figure out how to find some habitable planets once you get there; you could quite easily spend decades searching for suitable places to actually settle.
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 28, 2013, 07:46:32 am
http://www.convertalot.com/relativistic_star_ship_calculator.html
Post by: Starver on January 28, 2013, 08:00:49 am
Still, there always were people that wanted to be hermits.
Makes me smile that. Not for what you mean, but what it makes me think. We'd be sending "a community of hermits". ;)
Post by: MaximumZero on January 28, 2013, 10:05:57 am
Post by: Siquo on January 28, 2013, 10:48:27 am
Because someone pushing you over a longer time is better than having the energy of that push delivered to you in a short time, such as being punched in the face. ;)
Post by: MaximumZero on January 28, 2013, 10:53:04 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on January 28, 2013, 11:29:46 am
I kind of get that, but why not have the long period of acceleration interspersed with bursts of high end acceleration to get you up to a higher top speed?While technically possible, it is less efficient as you have to install 2 seperate drive systems. (Or a propulsion system that can rapidly change thrust). Also, while these amounts of G forces are easily survivable for both men and machine, rapid increase and decrease of force might cause metal fatigue, which is suboptimal for a spaceship. Besides, the total gain won't be that much.
Post by: Starver on January 28, 2013, 11:48:41 am
Even if it wasn't also prone to conveying adverse effects to the ship itself (which would probably work a lot better with a constant pressure than if it stressed by greated and lesser degrees), I'd be absolutely overjoyed with a (subjective) seven year round-trip to Alpha Centauri or a 28 year trip to the Andromeda Galaxy, in a 1g environment.
Cutting the journey times down to around four and a half years and (it appears) aroudn 14 years, respectively, doesn't sound very attractive when it means suffering 2g. Having (say) one second of 5g every minute, on the top of a constant 1g is going to be unbearable (psychologically, if not physically and structurally) and not going to help much at all, although I've no idea where to start with that, save for averaging out the acceleration to 64/60ths of a g (1/15th above standard gravity) which, if smoothed, is hardly any advantage at all.
You can make the bursts more significant, but the intolerance (of psychology, physiology or engineering) to such bursts is going to be proportionally worse.
(Also, I think the technical problems of a constantly running 1g-accelerating engine, for those lengths of time is a hurdle, let alone one capable of t, five, ten times that for short periods of time, even if it's running for, say, half the number of years.)
Post by: Sheb on January 28, 2013, 04:33:11 pm
Post by: Siquo on January 29, 2013, 04:18:55 am
Post by: Starver on January 29, 2013, 07:40:41 am
Without a concrete idea of the eventual drive parameters, I've no idea if there's a minima in the fuel/propellent use[1] that could influence that decision, or at least pull it one way or another (above or below 1g, which would be the absolute best for the crew asuming we weren't also wanting to acclimatise them to a higher-g landfall point, along the way), alongside possibly competing concerns about the structure of the station and the consumable supplies issue.
If it's something 'reactionless' (or refillable en-route, like the much vaunted Bussard Ramscoop of my youth) then perhaps slower acceleration[2] (or, at least, not quite so fast) is better because of the practical limits of power gain/through-put (and the margins and safety limits involved), rather than any other system. Although "What if we had more and/or bigger engines?" could always apply, as long as they're not (barring the sought-after relativistic effects) reality-bending engines where putting too much power together this way causes 'problems'. ;)
[1] Of course a more fuel-saving solution would be to burn half (or quarter) of fuel, coast then slow down with the other half (or another quarter, leaving remaining half for return, if intended, and not optimistic about far-end harvesting of fuel/power-source). But that'd not be a constant-g expedition, then, and would take longer and wouldn't reach the more relativistic speeds that we're contemplating making these a more 'livable' experience for the pioneers involved. But I mention this so you don't think I've forgotten. ;)
[2] Or slower further acceleration once you've started to approach the relative speed at which the ramscoop best gathers and uses the interstellar whisps, because I can only imagine the effective extended collection-cone is going to be more acute at really high speeds... Perhaps it'd be self-regulating, in that regard, and yet another aspect to the asymptotic barrier to speed that our ship must nudge against. (But how would a Ramscoop decelerate? Gather from (most of) the front 'cone' put redirect its energies back forward in a central spike of thrust? Or used fuel gathered and stored from the initial phase?)
Post by: 10ebbor10 on January 29, 2013, 01:14:08 pm
(Actually, redoing those calculations: 1G = 9,81m/s² c=299,792,458 m/s meaning that you need about 30*106. seconds or slightly under a year to get to 1 g. Do note that this doesn't incorporate any discrepancy caused by relativistic stuff.)
So, a 1g arceleration gravitational craft isn't really feasible, as the ship will be forced to coast, or break lightspeed. (Or more likely, encounter relativistic dynamics and start to slow it's arceleration automatically).
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on January 29, 2013, 01:27:26 pm
Post by: Another on January 29, 2013, 01:29:17 pm
Sadly, it's microscale only; If we could make it larger, though...That article mentioned experiments that push vacuum with common electromagnetic fields generating 0.1N/kW of thrust. That is 30 000 times higher than what you would get by firing a laser backward.
It would go well with our impellor drives. (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110023492_2011024705.pdf)
Basically, it's a paper from NASA's propulsion labs and talks about two things; one is the Alcubierre style warp drive that a few of you probably heard about (potentially insanely cool, but kind of needs some matter that has never been proven to exist).
The other is a propellant-less thruster that has experimental evidence backing it up AND could potentially one day lead to 35-day Earth-Jupiter transit times.
Yep.
Maybe somebody here heard more than that article (that looks like a fund-rising presentation) and 2 internet-ready linked from it (that are on different subjects) and can answer the following questions.
What exactly is carrying away momentum in this type of propulsion? (I can understand dynamic Casimir effect but it in effect just creates photons and pushes with them similar to the case with a laser.)
Can this recoil "something" be detected? (Total momentum is still conserved, right?)
Since they were talking about QCD vacuum (and mentioned our current sorry state with theoretical estimates of vacuum energy density) - what in the frame of QCD transmits the force?
Are they assuming that everything in their setup is still Lorentz-invariant?
Post by: 10ebbor10 on January 29, 2013, 01:32:16 pm
Wait. What? A half year at 1G to get you to a fraction of 1G? Or is that a fraction of light speed?Blurgh. Typo. Half a year arcelerating at one G should get you at about 50-60% of light speed.
Edit: @ above. If I'm reading it correctly (only skimmed it). They are planning to use the electromagnetic field to push away virtual particles. (Particles of matter + corresponding antimatter that spontanously materialize and within a fraction of a second obliterate themselves again. So yeah, the recoilenergy is most likely transposed to whatever caused the particles to exist, or to radiation.)
Post by: Another on January 29, 2013, 01:50:47 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on January 29, 2013, 01:55:48 pm
The problem is that if the recoil momentum is carried away by radiation - then it is radiation they are pushing themselves with and should not be principally different from just using a laser.Probably it isn't. I dunno (haven't really read the document). Maybe it's just way more efficient, as you don't need to provide power for a laser.
Post by: RedKing on January 29, 2013, 02:05:35 pm
Ger....bwaah? I just read through that NASA paper, and I need some Excedrin now. I grok the basic concept, but I'm kind of stunned that they're getting that level of result, and wondering how well it would actually scale up. I suppose if you have thousands and thousands of these tiny Q-thrusters mounted on an array plate it might work.Sadly, it's microscale only; If we could make it larger, though...That article mentioned experiments that push vacuum with common electromagnetic fields generating 0.1N/kW of thrust. That is 30 000 times higher than what you would get by firing a laser backward.
It would go well with our impellor drives. (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110023492_2011024705.pdf)
Basically, it's a paper from NASA's propulsion labs and talks about two things; one is the Alcubierre style warp drive that a few of you probably heard about (potentially insanely cool, but kind of needs some matter that has never been proven to exist).
The other is a propellant-less thruster that has experimental evidence backing it up AND could potentially one day lead to 35-day Earth-Jupiter transit times.
Yep.
Maybe somebody here heard more than that article (that looks like a fund-rising presentation) and 2 internet-ready linked from it (that are on different subjects) and can answer the following questions.
What exactly is carrying away momentum in this type of propulsion? (I can understand dynamic Casimir effect but it in effect just creates photons and pushes with them similar to the case with a laser.)
Can this recoil "something" be detected? (Total momentum is still conserved, right?)
Since they were talking about QCD vacuum (and mentioned our current sorry state with theoretical estimates of vacuum energy density) - what in the frame of QCD transmits the force?
Are they assuming that everything in their setup is still Lorentz-invariant?
Based on their submarine analogy, there would be a "wake" but it would be in the form of....something? I don't understand virtual particles enough to say. If they blink out of existence every few nanoseconds, and you're getting your push from harnessing their oscillations, then I think the "wake" would essentially blink out of existence as well.
Pretty damn spiffy, if I'm processing that right. A form of thrust with no messy exhaust trail or recation mass to mess with. It's like the Chevy Volt of spacecraft. :P
EDIT: Also interesting that it exceeds the stated performance characteristics of the controversial EmDrive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmDrive) that the Chinese have been working on. EmDrive prototypes have been reported to produce up to 300mN/kW, while the Q-thruster would appear to produce...400mN/kW? (based on the 4000μN/10W figure)
Post by: MonkeyHead on January 29, 2013, 02:10:56 pm
Post by: RedKing on January 29, 2013, 02:36:02 pm
Of course, I have no f'ing clue about half of what I'm talking about. I feel like a monkey trying to diassemble, clean and rebuild a carburetor with some twigs and leaves.
Post by: MonkeyHead on January 29, 2013, 02:41:54 pm
Post by: RedKing on January 29, 2013, 02:59:08 pm
Yea, Hawking radiation kinda implies antimatter. Not nice exhaust material.Well, but...Hawking radiation wouldn't annhilate matter, would it? (I guess the answer is "we'll know once we prove it exists...")
Post by: andrea on January 29, 2013, 03:23:01 pm
EDIT: everything beyond this point is not to be trusted. I didn't check it before posting, and I am working on memory alone.
you get a particle-anti particle pair. which poofs into existance, but it is fine because the energy in those particles is the same that will eventually be released when they collide again so at the end of the universe all this particle creation ends up even.
hawking radiation is when one of those gets separated from the other, so they won't rejoin before the big crunch or whatever.
but that, once again, is fine because antimatter will eventually find another particle to pair with, and at the end no matter is created nor destroyed.
in the middle, however, both happen.
if this sounds like insane babbling it is because I don't really know what I am taking about, beyond the most basic stuff.
and I have no clue of how that drive works, but it is several levels of cool.
Post by: RedKing on January 29, 2013, 03:31:26 pm
...I'm starting to feel like Insane Clown Posse might have been on to something. FUCKING QUANTUM VACUUM, HOW DOES IT WORK?
Post by: andrea on January 29, 2013, 03:33:22 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on January 29, 2013, 03:33:37 pm
But wait...if the particles poof into existence, and then collide a femtosecond later, doesn't the energy released violate the law of conservation? Or does the energy poof out of existence too? And if so, where does it go?It depends on where the energy came from. In most cases, the energy used to create the particles comes for the natural background temperature of the universe. Hence, when the particles poof away again, the energy is kinda restored.
...I'm starting to feel like Insane Clown Posse might have been on to something. FUCKING QUANTUM VACUUM, HOW DOES IT WORK?
I think. Not sure.
Post by: andrea on January 29, 2013, 03:35:40 pm
rereading the last posts, we seem mad. But I am fairly sure that what we all said is correct.
somebody give me back my determinist universe!
Post by: RedKing on January 29, 2013, 04:00:27 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on January 29, 2013, 04:01:27 pm
Post by: andrea on January 29, 2013, 04:04:12 pm
but if you say anything from a quantum mechanics textbook out loud, it surely does sound crazy.
Post by: Bauglir on January 29, 2013, 07:31:47 pm
Post by: Euld on January 30, 2013, 02:11:33 am
yes, it isn't insane. there is proof behind it.I tried that once. It went something like:
but if you say anything from a quantum mechanics textbook out loud, it surely does sound crazy.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
Post by: Osmosis Jones on January 30, 2013, 02:28:36 am
Quantised energy levels? Piece of piss.
Particle/wave duality? A little mind bending, but not too bad.
Pertuabation theory? Uhhhh....
Quantum chromodynamics? :(
Post by: Scoops Novel on January 30, 2013, 04:11:52 am
The wake might blink in and out of existance until the oscillations are damped by some mechanism within the planck foam. You probably dont want to follow a craft making some kind of antimatter wake.
Why do i feel like we're talking about the warp? Complete with mindbending horrors therein?
Post by: Another on January 30, 2013, 05:18:33 am
Non-linear theories and mathematical anomalies (which people have special methods to calculate around) are conceptually more difficult.
Post by: Starver on January 30, 2013, 08:33:29 am
(Actually, redoing those calculations: 1G = 9,81m/s² c=299,792,458 m/s meaning that you need about 30*106. seconds or slightly under a year to get to 1 g. Do note that this doesn't incorporate any discrepancy caused by relativistic stuff.)
Do you mean that 1g (little 'g', different from big 'G', although I can't claim to be consistent on that point myself) would take you under a year to get to 1 c?
Anyway, the 'discrepancy caused by relativistic stuff' is mostly the point. You'd never reach 1c (either objectively or subjectively), but as you asymptotically headed c-wards (from an external POV) you'd just be continually accelerating at your chosen capability of acceleration (fuel/energy allowing) and experiencing (from your own POV) a length-distorted rest-of-the-universe universe "accelerating the other way" for a shorter period of time, as you closed in on the target quicker than you might have imagined you should without those effects...
(Obviously, after half way it'd be decelerating to a stop, and back to 'normal' dimensions, at which point you'd wonder how you got from where you did in the time you experienced. If you were totally unaware of the concept of dilation, of course.)
Post by: Starver on January 30, 2013, 09:38:02 am
The way I'd once heard it explained is that you could think of those particle/anti-particle pairs as a single particle stuck in a time loop, but then again I am pretty sure that book was published in the late 80s or something and I haven't read it in years, so my memory could be way off on top of the facts being way off. Then presumably if you fuck with one and not the other, it just makes that time loop obnoxiously complicated.
I know what you mean, particle goes forward from creation point to annihilation point and the anti-particle it annihilates is itself going back in time, with (from the anti-particle POV) the later point in time is the point of creation and the earlier the point of annihilation.
It needn't be a 'loop', but it can still involve bidirectional (or effectively undeterminably-directioned) time...
Imagine the following (with limitations of ASCII graphics not helping, but let's give it a go anyway.
P+ -----------------*====== energy
/
/
/
/ P-
/
energy =======*------------- P+
(Noting that where I've labelled "+" could equally have been labelled "-", with the "-" changed to "+". So particle/anti-particle could as easily be anti-particle/particle.)
Scenario 1: Particle is merrily travelling forward in time (left to right). Spontaneous creation of a particle/anti-particle pair, from who-knows-what stock of energy, happens nearby. The anti-particle of this pair annihilates with the pre-existing particle, paying back all the energy it was given, or borrowed.
Scenario 1a: Pretty much the same, except that everything's travelling backwards in time (right to left). Who's to say which direction everything is moving? (You know, as well as the troll race in Pratchett books, there actually is at least one human tribe (Amazonian?) who think of the future as being behind them and the past as in front of them... because you can see what's in the past but you can't see the future. Not that this is relevant, just saying.)
Scenario 2: Particle travels forward until it 'reflects' at a point. This might be due to hitting some stray energy that may (or may not) consider time to be reversed. I don't think the universe need care about this, but it's the upper lot of energy in this diagram. Anyway, Particle bounces back in time as an anti-particle, which then has another 'bounce' (the energy opposing this being the lower line of energy in the diagram) to travel forward again as a 'new' Anti-Anti-Particle. Or 'Particle'.
Redking: "But wait...if the particles poof into existence, and then collide a femtosecond later, doesn't the energy released violate the law of conservation? Or does the energy poof out of existence too? And if so, where does it go?"
However you consider it (one particle or three, in the above; or one particle in an eternal back-and-forth/two particles involved in self0re-annihilation in a more standard way), it's conservation of matter+energy Energy may becomes matter, then back to energy, and it all equals out. Or matter's matter (whatever direction it's going) and energy is eternal in the tapestry of time, as it plays its part.
Bauglir: "Then presumably if you fuck with one and not the other, it just makes that time loop obnoxiously complicated."
It's a time loop. (Or a time-bounce.) If you're "fucking with it", then you're part of it, already involved in the loop, as far as anybody observing from 'outside of time' would be concerned. At least that's one way to look at it. The universe basically works. Anything that didn't wouldn't be part of the viable universe, so we'd never see it. ;)
Post by: 10ebbor10 on January 30, 2013, 10:02:56 am
Ah, typoes overywhere. And yeah, that's what I meant.(Actually, redoing those calculations: 1G = 9,81m/s² c=299,792,458 m/s meaning that you need about 30*106. seconds or slightly under a year to get to 1 c. Do note that this doesn't incorporate any discrepancy caused by relativistic stuff.)
Do you mean that 1g (little 'g', different from big 'G', although I can't claim to be consistent on that point myself) would take you under a year to get to 1 c?
Anyway, the 'discrepancy caused by relativistic stuff' is mostly the point. You'd never reach 1c (either objectively or subjectively), but as you asymptotically headed c-wards (from an external POV) you'd just be continually accelerating at your chosen capability of acceleration (fuel/energy allowing) and experiencing (from your own POV) a length-distorted rest-of-the-universe universe "accelerating the other way" for a shorter period of time, as you closed in on the target quicker than you might have imagined you should without those effects...
(Obviously, after half way it'd be decelerating to a stop, and back to 'normal' dimensions, at which point you'd wonder how you got from where you did in the time you experienced. If you were totally unaware of the concept of dilation, of course.)
Post by: olemars on February 16, 2013, 06:01:42 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 16, 2013, 06:04:27 pm
Leonardo da Vinci's notebook has been fully digitized and made available online (http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Arundel_MS_263), thanks to the British Library's digitizing efforts. Too bad I can't read italian, much less mirrored renaissance italian. At least his drawings and diagrams are pretty to look at.Science just gave history a hug while it held humanity's hand in a platonic way.
Post by: olemars on February 16, 2013, 06:54:14 pm
Post by: Scelly9 on February 17, 2013, 12:47:03 am
Leonardo da Vinci's notebook has been fully digitized and made available online (http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Arundel_MS_263), thanks to the British Library's digitizing efforts. Too bad I can't read italian, much less mirrored renaissance italian. At least his drawings and diagrams are pretty to look at.GLORIOUS. Seriously, this is awesome.
Post by: andrea on February 17, 2013, 05:57:27 am
although his handwriting doesn't seem easy to read.
Post by: alway on February 19, 2013, 12:02:51 am
So. Lockheed Martin's Skunkworks are claiming they have come up with a compact, practical way of generating power with fusion. They hope to have a prototype version up within 5 years, commercial version in 10.
Post by: Sirus on February 19, 2013, 12:09:18 am
http://www.icosa.co/2013/02/lockheed-skunkworks-develops-compact-fusion/Fusion has been promised for decades. Honestly, I'll believe it when I see it.
So. Lockheed Martin's Skunkworks are claiming they have come up with a compact, practical way of generating power with fusion. They hope to have a prototype version up within 5 years, commercial version in 10.
Post by: Starver on February 19, 2013, 12:33:51 am
(I also remember the Cold Fusion debacle of... ummm... the late '80s, I think it was. I think... Fleischman and Ponds...? did their particular subset of the field no good. Like a prequel to ?AL84001?, or whatever it was, except that was far less damaging to the idea of life on Mars, albeit we'd rather go and look for life on Mars than try to work it out from fragments of Mars that made their way to Earth without human assistance... Cold Fusion, however, is held in slightly higher regard than homoeopathy, by most legitimate research institutes, if at all.)
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 19, 2013, 12:36:02 am
Post by: MaximumZero on February 19, 2013, 01:35:47 am
Post by: Sirus on February 19, 2013, 01:42:19 am
Post by: Gentlefish on February 19, 2013, 01:57:18 am
Why haven't solar sails been mentioned?
Post by: Scelly9 on February 19, 2013, 01:59:41 am
I skimmed the past dozen posts and I caught onto a bunch of space travel stuff, and slow but steady acceleration.Too friggin slow. At least that's what I thought, anywhere I can learn more about them?
Why haven't solar sails been mentioned?
Post by: Sirus on February 19, 2013, 02:01:23 am
Post by: Gentlefish on February 19, 2013, 02:15:33 am
Post by: Osmosis Jones on February 19, 2013, 03:45:19 am
True, it'd be slow, but not all space travel would be interstellar, and a solar sail would be very useful in terms of interplanetary, and a whole heck of a lot cheaper, if used to travel to an intermediary satellite or space elevator.
¿por qué no los dos?
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 19, 2013, 11:23:43 am
Post by: Jopax on February 19, 2013, 12:21:58 pm
Post by: Another on February 19, 2013, 02:45:14 pm
The most important material for any capacitor is not one from which its conducting parts are made but one which divides them and prevents internal discharge. It is unlikely that what was found was some kind of graphene superinsulator. Without better insulators capacitors are still less volume (and mass) efficient energy storage solution than chemical based ones.
Marketing almost instantly charging batteries for phones is all right if you can make 1 charge to last for a full day. Charging a car worth of energy in a few seconds would require massive currents though and associated problems like melting wires, huge magnetic fields and need for impulse Gigawatt generating capacities on demand.
*Chemical reactions can be thought of as inter-atomic electromagnetic fields rearranging themselves into more energy favorable configurations. And atomic electromagnetic field strengths are really large.
P.S. Cooking graphene on a blue-ray or DVD disk is the best part of that video. Add a 3D printer and something like modern consumer 3D printers but for [UV laser?] cutting thin films to 100 nm precision and you would be able to make a processor from doped carbon layers at home. Basic technology is already here.
Post by: Scoops Novel on February 19, 2013, 02:59:48 pm
Post by: Virex on February 19, 2013, 03:07:18 pm
It is unlikely that what was found was some kind of graphene superinsulator.
The graphene would be used for electrochemical capacitors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_double-layer_capacitor), which do not rely on a solid dielectric, but rather on a solid or liquid electrolyte, in which a Helmholz layer provides the actual capacitance.
Graphene turns out to be an awesome capacitor of sorts, GO SCIENCE! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtM6XJlynkk)If you're going to link to an awesome discovery, at least provide a peer-reviewed reference as well (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6074/1326) (Paywalled, you can message me for a copy)
Post by: Starver on February 19, 2013, 07:28:15 pm
Something tells me that they wouldn't work very well while traveling towards a star, which means that it wouldn't be terribly useful for interplanetary travel or whatever.By the time you're going towards the star.... you're of course looking to slow down from whatever heady excesses of velocity (*ahem*) that the solar sail got you up to while departing your original system...
Still, we're talking about generation ships with decreasing acceleration as you leave your home system (with or without a projected laser-assist from your home port), so there's an awful lot of coasting or near-coasting before you finally get the opportunity to achieve increasing deceleration at the other end (make sure you know how relatively active the solar pressure is from, of course)....
Maintenance? Well, from debris strikes (large area)... I suppose having an 'accident' on the way down through the destination's Oort Cloud could quite ruin your day, or at least mean you're now on a bit of a high-speed fly-by.
I was going to say that solar-sailing wouldn't actually be that good for half of interplanetary travel (i.e. inwards-going orbital transfers), but while in orbit around your planet of origin you could use it to judiciously make your orbit so your final escape from that orbit was essentially inwards... or, in other terms (or from an insignificantly attractive launch body), you're aiming back retrograde (i.e. less prograde than your orbital body). Which even with a significant component of outward force (I'm imagining a 45-degree angle away from the sight-line to the sun, but I'm sure other angles work) means you'll find yourself in an increasingly elliptical orbit (a higher aphelion, but your perihelion does lower and you're heading there first).
(All this reminds me of a children's ("young adult"'s probably being the term these days) SF book I read back when I was young, where the people on a certain watery-planet used "solar sails" to move their boats around the surface. Not only were they apparently good enough to move boats around, and somehow not be affected by (or make use of) the wind or even stationary atmosphere, but with this planet having multiple suns (at least three, but memory tells me it was something like seven... oh yeah, one for the astromechanics to argue over with that little detail...) they had multiple sails, one for each sun... So they could (with skill, of course, it wasn't just a walk in the park) go any direction they wanted, using the appropriate sails for the appropriate suns to aid in them going on their chosen heading... Almost one for the "nitpicks" thread, that one. ;))
Post by: Virex on February 20, 2013, 06:20:31 am
Post by: Another on February 20, 2013, 09:19:18 am
Since the abstract does not cite any number for energy density - can you just tell if it is bigger than common lithium-ion capacitors or not?It is unlikely that what was found was some kind of graphene superinsulator.
The graphene would be used for electrochemical capacitors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_double-layer_capacitor), which do not rely on a solid dielectric, but rather on a solid or liquid electrolyte, in which a Helmholz layer provides the actual capacitance.Graphene turns out to be an awesome capacitor of sorts, GO SCIENCE! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtM6XJlynkk)If you're going to link to an awesome discovery, at least provide a peer-reviewed reference as well (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6074/1326) (Paywalled, you can message me for a copy)
Post by: olemars on February 20, 2013, 09:35:34 am
Since the abstract does not cite any number for energy density - can you just tell if it is bigger than common lithium-ion capacitors or not?
This article about the same experiment has a graph (http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/122763-graphene-supercapacitors-are-20-times-as-powerful-can-be-made-with-a-dvd-burner) (LSG being the LaserScribed Graphene).
(http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/energy-density-graphene-capacitor-640x399.jpg)
Post by: Another on February 20, 2013, 09:48:45 am
Post by: Scoops Novel on February 20, 2013, 11:04:46 am
There's some contradictory evidence to the theory that the moon formed from a collision between earth and another planetoid. Specifically, water in what is thought to represent the original crust and couldn't have survived the impact.
Post by: Pnx on February 20, 2013, 07:27:21 pm
EDIT: Er, or maybe I should shut up, read the article, and not post so much in thinky threads when tired.
Post by: Gentlefish on February 21, 2013, 12:27:25 am
Post by: olemars on March 01, 2013, 04:15:06 am
Video explaining the experiment. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld_9CnH9m9I) (NOTE: Do not watch if you don't want to see USB-enabled rats.)
Telepathy won't come from magic or mysticism, but sufficiently advanced technology.
Post by: MaximumZero on March 01, 2013, 09:06:31 am
Post by: olemars on March 01, 2013, 09:42:27 am
...I want to be USB enabled. I could really use some extra data storage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0Ak4N36CMo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0Ak4N36CMo)
Post by: MaximumZero on March 01, 2013, 09:58:16 am
Indeed....I want to be USB enabled. I could really use some extra data storage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0Ak4N36CMo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0Ak4N36CMo)
Post by: palsch on March 01, 2013, 10:04:17 am
When I was a teenager I wanted to be the first person to have a data uplink in my head. Then I learned more about computers and networking. Now I want to be the first person to have a high quality firewall in my head.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on March 11, 2013, 08:59:02 pm
Study showing the efficacy of Facebook "likes" as an indicator for social demographics. (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/03/06/1218772110/suppl/DCSupplemental) (The two links front and centre are supplementary information in graph and table form, the actual article is in the sidebar to the right).
Did you know, intelligence is correlated with liking curly fries and Stephen Colbert?
Or that you are more likely to have more friends if you are a fan of the facebook group "The dollar you are holding could've been in a stripper's butt crack"?
Or liking "Hello Kitty" suggests you're a democrat, but mentally unstable?
...I could see the unstable part at least :P
Post by: Lagslayer on March 16, 2013, 08:58:24 pm
Post by: Starver on March 16, 2013, 09:11:50 pm
Solid air? Only humans... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerogel)I've held[1] a bit of that. Strange indeed. Seemed to me more insubstantial (and of course less wet) than a clump of bubble-bath foam.
[1] Not allowed to grasp it at all, just supported it flat-handedly.
Post by: MaximumZero on March 16, 2013, 09:18:34 pm
Post by: Osmosis Jones on March 16, 2013, 10:31:46 pm
The sad thing about the Higg's discovery is it seems to exactly match the expected properties... so no cool new physics :(
Post by: MaximumZero on March 16, 2013, 10:32:38 pm
Yeah... I've kinda realised I'm a terrible OP >_>For now. In a few years, though, the LHC is getting full-scale power. AWW YEAH.
The sad thing about the Higg's discovery is it seems to exactly match the expected properties... so no cool new physics :(
Post by: Sirus on March 16, 2013, 10:42:33 pm
Solid air? Only humans... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerogel)Yeah, that stuff is cool. Because of it's ridiculous insulation properties, I've contemplated the possibility of making refrigerator doors out of the stuff. That way you can see what you have without opening the door!
Post by: Osmosis Jones on March 16, 2013, 11:56:17 pm
Solid air? Only humans... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerogel)
I see your aerogel, and raise you aerographite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerographite)!
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 17, 2013, 06:02:40 am
But can it hold magnets? I THINK NOT!Solid air? Only humans... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerogel)Yeah, that stuff is cool. Because of it's ridiculous insulation properties, I've contemplated the possibility of making refrigerator doors out of the stuff. That way you can see what you have without opening the door!
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 17, 2013, 06:14:18 am
Some foodstuffs don't like being exposed to light though. Also, insulation works 2 ways. Since the thingy let's light in, but not heat out, your fridge would effectively become a greenhouse.Solid air? Only humans... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerogel)Yeah, that stuff is cool. Because of it's ridiculous insulation properties, I've contemplated the possibility of making refrigerator doors out of the stuff. That way you can see what you have without opening the door!
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 17, 2013, 06:21:58 am
Heat pump!Some foodstuffs don't like being exposed to light though. Also, insulation works 2 ways. Since the thingy let's light in, but not heat out, your fridge would effectively become a greenhouse.Solid air? Only humans... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerogel)Yeah, that stuff is cool. Because of it's ridiculous insulation properties, I've contemplated the possibility of making refrigerator doors out of the stuff. That way you can see what you have without opening the door!
Post by: Lagslayer on March 17, 2013, 08:07:26 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 17, 2013, 08:27:52 am
Oh, and aerogel isn't in the least fragile. It's rather strong for it's size and weight.
Post by: Lagslayer on March 17, 2013, 08:48:59 am
Post by: Another on March 17, 2013, 08:51:15 am
Yeah... I've kinda realised I'm a terrible OP >_>Allow me to disagree. If Higgs had not been found where it was expected - already mostly established theories of supersymmetry or additional compactified dimensions would stand much better chance of being right. And they were claiming to explain everything up to at least an order of magnitude above LHC if not halfway to the Plank scale. That would be in some way now new physics for at least a few dozens of years.
The sad thing about the Higg's discovery is it seems to exactly match the expected properties... so no cool new physics :(
Currently lots of supersymmetry theorists are disappointed but new physics is sure to manifest at around 1 TeV/quark (around the limit of maximum energy LHC has already achieved and below what it will get after the current planned upgrade). That is just from the Standard Model predictions that if no new something (e.g. new particles) appears at higher energies it becomes not self-consistent. A different simple and strong argument is that Dark Matter apparently exists and a heavy stable particle not in the Standard Model is a very natural candidate for it.
I, for one, think that a problem for which no good theories currently match the data is more interesting than a problem for which good candidate solutions are known.
Post by: Starver on March 17, 2013, 04:30:52 pm
That would void the seethrough part though.
Which is of course most important for the experiment that is to come after the LHC is mothballed and the necessary funding is freed up.
The RLO, or "Refrigerator Light Observer", is hoped to answer the most important question ever asked in modern times.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on March 17, 2013, 05:01:50 pm
Yeah... I've kinda realised I'm a terrible OP >_>Allow me to disagree...
The sad thing about the Higg's discovery is it seems to exactly match the expected properties... so no cool new physics :(
...I, for one, think that a problem for which no good theories currently match the data is more interesting than a problem for which good candidate solutions are known.
??? I'm not really sure how that's disagreeing with me; I lament the lack of new physics because it means, to the limit of our current data, we have explained everything we can. We have matched all the data. If further discoveries are made at higher energies, great, but for now, no new physics. Hence sad face :(
Post by: DrPoo on April 03, 2013, 03:13:09 pm
I apologise.
Post by: Scoops Novel on April 03, 2013, 03:25:00 pm
Post by: Virex on April 03, 2013, 06:52:11 pm
Some foodstuffs don't like being exposed to light though. Also, insulation works 2 ways. Since the thingy let's light in, but not heat out, your fridge would effectively become a greenhouse.Solid air? Only humans... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerogel)Yeah, that stuff is cool. Because of it's ridiculous insulation properties, I've contemplated the possibility of making refrigerator doors out of the stuff. That way you can see what you have without opening the door!
Use switchable glass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_glass), perhaps?
Post by: Osmosis Jones on April 10, 2013, 02:38:36 am
Potential 30 day Mars trips, using magnetically initiated fusion.
Now, even if that Q-thruster doesn't pan out, we have legit ways to get to Mars in a realistic timeframe!
EDIT: Correct terminology.
Post by: palsch on April 10, 2013, 04:22:37 am
As a rule;
ICF generates a plasma by squashing a pellet.
MCF holds a plasma in a magnetic bottle and heats it.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on April 10, 2013, 04:25:46 am
Post by: Another on April 10, 2013, 06:16:32 am
Post by: Osmosis Jones on April 10, 2013, 06:31:38 am
If this proposal can achieve at least double the efficiency of ion drives - what could prevent us from constructing such engine on earth and extracting fusion energy at net gain?
Because it basically works by exploding a pellet of fusable material, and having the resulting explosion rush out the back; great as a propulsion method, less than ideal for extracting energy in the form of electricity.
Post by: palsch on April 10, 2013, 06:36:52 am
I'm not clear on what fusion reaction they are using, but no controlled inertial confinement experiment I'm aware of has a reliable method of collecting the energy output. Most reactions that can easily be conducted involve high energy neutrons you would want to capture. That's hard to say the least. More like destructive to your machinery.
2) Energy per shot.
If you can accelerate your ship over a few days it doesn't matter how long it takes to deliver your thrust. If you want to generate a certain megawatt output, it kinda does. I don't know how quickly this one can be cycled, but the laser triggered variations are not even near the ballpark.
3) Cost.
Each shot would need to cost pennies at most. We are talking about highly engineered pellets, likely involving some prior treatment of lithium to get a more suitable fusion fuel. Scale might do it eventually, but in the short term it would be way too expensive.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on April 10, 2013, 07:34:32 am
If that works, AND is made fairly cheap, I shall be EXTREMELY pleased.
Thing is, it'd probably be unable to get the ship out of atmosphere, which would remain expensive (barring the creation of a space elevator/discovery of some magical substance that allows you to have no drag, less mass or something)
Oh, this almost certainly wouldn't be used in atmosphere. There's not much we can do about the cost of getting it up to orbit, but there is one slight advantage; this method requires a lot less lifting to get ready for any sort of long distance trip (less fuel, etc), so it's plausible you could do it all with a number of Dragon launches. Plus, because the engine is pretty robust, it can be reused continually once it's up there.
Post by: Another on April 10, 2013, 07:53:46 am
Maybe de-acceleration of plasma in a long tunnel with EM fields with extraction of collective motion energy?
The technology obviously does not currently exist but sounds to me possible in principle.
Post by: palsch on April 10, 2013, 09:40:27 am
I wonder if 30+ km/s directional plasma bursts can turn blades of an extra high-speed and hardened turbine.Plasma burst I'm not worried about. But the high energy neutrons tend to interact unpleasantly with steel. And it's those that are going to be carrying most of the energy, not the relatively small amount of plasma.
The article talks about one burst per minute. That would be a pathetically low power output for a power plant. Not to mention this is far further behind on the demonstrated technology curve than either traditional ICF or MCF, either of which would be more likely to efficiently generate power from advances in similar areas.
Post by: MaximumZero on April 10, 2013, 11:37:26 am
Post by: palsch on April 10, 2013, 11:49:19 am
I honestly thought that article was a late April Fool's day joke. Holy headfuck.I'd seen similar proposals in the past along the lines of a smaller scale Project Orion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29), using ICF pellets in the place of nuclear bombs. This is the first detonation method that looks plausibly interesting. I'd love to see a more technical exploration of it.
Post by: olemars on April 10, 2013, 02:51:07 pm
Post by: Putnam on April 10, 2013, 10:07:15 pm
If this proposal can achieve at least double the efficiency of ion drives - what could prevent us from constructing such engine on earth and extracting fusion energy at net gain?
ugh
"Why can't we get power from X" is probably the most annoying thing people say
Post by: MaximumZero on April 10, 2013, 10:38:25 pm
The guys behind that fusion drive have a website (http://msnwllc.com/). The awesomeness of their proposals are roughly proportional to its sparseness, but it's got some publications and articles.That's an amazing website and I now want to be a scientist again.
Post by: Scelly9 on April 10, 2013, 10:40:53 pm
Quote
Solving real world problems through advanced nuclear and plasma physics technologies.
Post by: Sirus on April 10, 2013, 10:42:20 pm
Even their tagline is awesome...What more could you possibly want?QuoteSolving real world problems through advanced nuclear and plasma physics technologies.
Post by: Gentlefish on April 11, 2013, 01:33:36 am
Post by: Starver on April 11, 2013, 01:02:36 pm
I wonder if 30+ km/s directional plasma bursts can turn blades of an extra high-speed and hardened turbine.I'm rather put in mind of thinking of taking the thrust and applying it at the tips of the blades, a bit like the "emergency lift system" occasionally tried on helicopters[1]. Except that the blades need not/should not be even inclined away from the plane of rotation... The whole aim is to push the 'rotor' assembly round, this to be mechanically tapped for power.
Maybe de-acceleration of plasma in a long tunnel with EM fields with extraction of collective motion energy?
The technology obviously does not currently exist but sounds to me possible in principle.
The dangerous wash of the venting thrust never aims anywhere but "outwards" (tangentially backwards, of course), which any housing around can be placed fare enough away not to be dangerously "torched" by each and every passing armature as it spins by. The blade needs 'only' be strong enough to transfer the thrust to the axle, which might be progressively loaded/geared highly onto increasing numbers of generators/etc, if there's enough power to spare.
However, I don't hold up much hope that this is practical (or efficient). Merely maybe more practical than trying to make fan/turbine blades that are themselves resistant of a 'fusion torch', or similar, at a distance useful enough to try to recover the given energies.
(Besides that, some less aggressive/less frequent fusion pulse might be used to send (and smudge) an extreme heat-pulse through a rather more resilient mass block of material, on which the other side is drenched in water (or another suitable liquid for the temperature) to pipe (or further pipe by proxies) the energy through a standard turbine system. Just with a rather more 'exotic' boiler element as its source.)
[1] Some monopropellant like H2O2 stored at the rotor-head and then centripetally piped to the rotor-tips, at need, and vented in order to spin up faster (or 'cruise' faster than normal for a limited time).
Post by: werty892 on April 11, 2013, 05:09:07 pm
The guys behind that fusion drive have a website (http://msnwllc.com/). The awesomeness of their proposals are roughly proportional to its sparseness, but it's got some publications and articles.Your link appears to be broken.
Post by: olemars on April 11, 2013, 05:20:04 pm
Post by: Eagleon on April 12, 2013, 10:08:08 am
This is pretty huge news for the connectome crowd, and might make EyeWire (the dealie where lots of people trace and virtually stain neurons through sectioned slides) obsolete, which is kind of... mud in their eye... Obviously it can't be done on living brains, which is the holy grail. But sectioning is incredibly painstaking work, this sounds like you throw your tissue into the solution, come back a month later, and you have a reusable anatomical model with a tremendous level of detail.
Post by: Scelly9 on April 13, 2013, 12:42:04 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 13, 2013, 12:48:41 am
Brains can now be made see-through. Neuroscientists rejoice. (http://io9.com/scientists-can-now-turn-brains-invisible-472151410)Excellent! What else can they make transparent science?
This is pretty huge news for the connectome crowd, and might make EyeWire (the dealie where lots of people trace and virtually stain neurons through sectioned slides) obsolete, which is kind of... mud in their eye... Obviously it can't be done on living brains, which is the holy grail. But sectioning is incredibly painstaking work, this sounds like you throw your tissue into the solution, come back a month later, and you have a reusable anatomical model with a tremendous level of detail.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 13, 2013, 12:55:15 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 13, 2013, 01:15:16 am
Maybe, but they'll never make love transparent! CHECKMATE SCIENTISTSNick your Amygdala.
CHECKMATE PLATO
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 13, 2013, 01:17:32 am
DONE. I AM NOW EXTREMELY AFRAID OF EVERYTHING. OH GOD WHY.Maybe, but they'll never make love transparent! CHECKMATE SCIENTISTSNick your Amygdala.
CHECKMATE PLATO
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 13, 2013, 01:18:44 am
AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH
Post by: werty892 on April 13, 2013, 03:21:30 pm
Post by: MaximumZero on April 13, 2013, 08:53:49 pm
Post by: Morrigi on April 15, 2013, 09:16:01 am
Post by: palsch on April 15, 2013, 11:02:00 am
50 minutes, but there is a full transcript as well.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on April 15, 2013, 11:19:51 am
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 15, 2013, 11:23:12 am
That said, a lot of GM companies are still black hats, but that has to do with their business practices and genetic copyrights rather than the fact that they are doing GM.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on April 15, 2013, 11:31:59 am
That said, a lot of GM companies are still black hats, but that has to do with their business practices and genetic copyrights rather than the fact that they are doing GM.That being Monsanto, and...
GM crops isn't a crowded field.
Post by: palsch on April 15, 2013, 11:33:02 am
I should hope you know that most environmentalists aren't against GM crops these days. That reputation comes from the early days of GM, where there was certainly a point in that we weren't ultra-certain of what consequences might result.
I don't know about that. Both in the UK and US there is major opposition from large environmental organisations. Generally it's the groups that have remained rabidly anti-nuclear in the face of climate change. The big ones are probably Greenpeace and the Union of Concerned Scientists. Also the Green Party, or at least elements of the British one as of last year (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/27/anti-gm-protesters-police-rothamsted).
There has also been a recent resurgence in opposition to GMO which is a little worrying.
Post by: Il Palazzo on April 15, 2013, 12:49:29 pm
A pretty worthwhile lecture on GM crops. (http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lecture-to-oxford-farming-conference-3-january-2013/)Then there are the responses to Mark Lyman's speech:
50 minutes, but there is a full transcript as well.
http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/lynas_school.html
http://www.foodfirst.org/en/GMO+uproar+in+EU
http://blog.ucsusa.org/science-dogma-and-mark-lynas/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheEquation+%28The+Equation+-+UCS+Blog%29
Any comments on those?
Post by: 10ebbor10 on April 15, 2013, 01:01:50 pm
Really genetic engineering isn t magical there are things it can t do
*Completely harmless, except that the markers used to screen the crops for succesfull mutations might encourage insecticide resistacet in other plants
** No more dangerous than adding a new species to an estabilished ecosystem however, hence depending on a case by case basis
[Updating as I read]
1. For a site criticizing someone for lacking source, they provide pretty few themselves
2. Restricting research doesn't help the lack of information
Quote
BT varieties have inbuilt toxins, and they significantly add to the environmental load of these toxins. Initially, less spraying of chemical insecticides is required, but those in-built toxins have considerable effects on non-target species and on the environment, as demonstrated in many peer-reviewed papersBt toxin is produced by a near omnipresent ground bacteria, and naturally used by a lot of plants. The only possible problems are pests dieing out (unlikely), or developping resistance (back to start). So far, all supposed problems have been disproven. (AFAIK, all research was found to contain crucial errors)
Quote
7. Lynas says that GM is "safer and more precise than conventional breeding" and that it involves the movement of just a couple of genes. That is all utter rubbish. If Lynas had done any reading at all on GM, he would know that the genetic modification of a plant is an extremely complex business, since it has to overcome the natural defensive systems of plants when confronted by alien materials inserted into their genomes. That is why so many attempts at genetic modification fail, and why scientists find it difficult to achieve stability and uniformity in new GM crops. The novel proteins or RNA in GM plants have all sorts of unpredictable knock-on effects, as any GM scientist will confirm. GM is a highly imprecise science. And GM plants containing novel proteins (and often herbicide and other residues as well) are certainly not safe, which is why they induce chronic toxic effects in the animals that are fed on them.Depends on the type of genetic engineering. I can only say that the science advances fast, and that precise manipulation is within our capabilities, though maybe not always commercially viable. I do feel the need to mention that a failed attempt doesn't result in some utter destructive plant of doom, but almost always in a normal specimen. (or a dead one). After all, if the slightest mistake would make a plant poisonous, then normal breeding wouldn't work. Also, plants can't differentiate between alien and normal DNA. They have basic antiviral systems, as well as DNa repair, but most of those only serve to eliminate flawed specimens.
I found no proof of the Chronic toxic effects, except that one study that found that a specific rat strain(with a tendency to develop tumors, especially when overweigth), developed tumors when fed only GM mais. (Without control group)
Quote
8. Lynas pretends that gene flow happens all the time between unrelated species, and that it is perfectly fine. Nonsense. Gene flow on the scale involved in genetic manipulation, and at the speed required of the GM plant developers, is unique, which is why many GM varieties fail completely, and why many others are highly stressed. Thousands of GM "lines" fail to make it out of the laboratory or the greenhouse. All of the regulatory bodies worldwide know this, and this is why GM varieties are considered in law to be uniquely different from other varieties -- and why special steps need to be taken to prevent outcrossing and contamination of other farmed varieties and related wild species.Interspecies crossing is very rare, and if these GM crops are as unstable as you make them out to be*, then it's unlikely they'll make it out of the fields. There's no reason to assume that spreading would automatically be bad. There's no reason for plants to evolve anti human. Worst that could happen is a slightly better growing wild specimen, or an insect resistant one. This should give no problems. A poisonous varient would soon die out due to both human and environemental pressure. Hybrids and several sother variants can't spread anyway, due to the formation of the genes.**
*True in the case of certain hybrid specimens
** Fun fact, Terminator type plants would be a surefire way to prevent this.
((Meh, bored. ))
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 15, 2013, 01:05:39 pm
** No more dangerous than adding a new species to an estabilished ecosystem however, hence depending on a case by case basisMind you, that can be extremely dangerous. The American South will probably never be excised of Kudzu. It still spreads massively every year. And this is a plant that evolved without a bunch of humans trying to get it to grow faster so they can make money.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on April 15, 2013, 01:10:48 pm
Yup, not going to underestimate the dangers. But just saying that GM is not intrinsically more dangerous than normal agriculture. It just get's things done way faster.** No more dangerous than adding a new species to an estabilished ecosystem however, hence depending on a case by case basisMind you, that can be extremely dangerous. The American South will probably never be excised of Kudzu. It still spreads massively every year. And this is a plant that evolved without a bunch of humans trying to get it to grow faster so they can make money.
Post by: Sheb on April 15, 2013, 03:32:38 pm
What this mean is that the spread of Bt crop is going to screw over the people using Bt as a bacterial spray while lining the GM seed companies with cash. What they're doing is basically stealing a common good.
Which is why Bt is actually the one GMO I have beef with.
Post by: Starver on April 15, 2013, 03:43:17 pm
Which is why Bt is actually the one GMO I have beef with.And gravy? ;)
Post by: 10ebbor10 on April 15, 2013, 03:48:46 pm
Also, because the Bt attacks the infestation while it's still starting, there's a far lower survival rate, and as such a reduced chance of survival, and/or immunity. In fact, I'm not sure that the constant impression would increase resistance rates, as the pests are only exposed to it when infesting the plan (ie, when it would be sprayed anyway).
Post by: Sheb on April 15, 2013, 04:10:08 pm
Resistance is just a normal consequences of the massive use of pesticides. It's not so bad when it's a chemical pesticide someone invented ("back to square one"), but when it's a molecule that has been use by tons of farmers before, it's plain wrong.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on April 16, 2013, 12:33:49 pm
Resistance is just a normal consequences of the massive use of pesticides. It's not so bad when it's a chemical pesticide someone invented ("back to square one"), but when it's a molecule that has been use by tons of farmers before, it's plain wrong.Chemical pesticides are also just molecules used by tons of farmers, but anyway. Artificial chemicals can't be used for GMO resistant plants, due to the nature of the technology.
Anyway, this is what patents should be used for. Ie, to prevent this sort of stuff.
In short, I have the feeling that the anti GMO crowd is attacking the wrong enemy, and by doing so, only contributing to the problem. The problem lies not with the technology, but in the way it's used. Ie Monocultures, sometimes untested. The many regulations prevent the kind of research that would be needed to set up an efficient GMO multiculture system, due to the enormous licensing cost. There's a reason Monsanto owns 75% of the market. They're the only ones who can afford it.
Post by: Sheb on April 16, 2013, 12:52:04 pm
Also, Bt crops expressing the Bt toxin all the time, that's the problem. It's like feeding the whole population antibiotics all the time, you're bound to have resistance. Monsanto stole the Bt tool from the farmers that had been using it...
Post by: 10ebbor10 on April 16, 2013, 01:05:47 pm
Also, Bt crops expressing the Bt toxin all the time, that's the problem. It's like feeding the whole population antibiotics all the time, you're bound to have resistance. Monsanto stole the Bt tool from the farmers that had been using it...I get what you mean. Technically the problem is not expressing it all the time.* Problem is that the plant uses the same solution every time, and makes no errors. It's simply too effecient, resulting in overuseage of the thingy.
If we had, for example, a different GMO with another toxin standing between them, or even a natural product, resistance would be far less likely to develop.
*What gene it expresses only matters when there's an , after all
Post by: alway on April 16, 2013, 02:01:11 pm
This. Resistances comes at a cost; it may be small or it may be large. However, the resistance will go away if the environment no longer makes it useful. If you merely ensure the environment changes sufficiently to make any resistance worth less than its cost, you don't need to worry about resistance any more.Also, Bt crops expressing the Bt toxin all the time, that's the problem. It's like feeding the whole population antibiotics all the time, you're bound to have resistance. Monsanto stole the Bt tool from the farmers that had been using it...I get what you mean. Technically the problem is not expressing it all the time.* Problem is that the plant uses the same solution every time, and makes no errors. It's simply too effecient, resulting in overuseage of the thingy.
If we had, for example, a different GMO with another toxin standing between them, or even a natural product, resistance would be far less likely to develop.
*What gene it expresses only matters when there's an , after all
Post by: Osmosis Jones on April 18, 2013, 05:08:16 am
Post by: olemars on April 19, 2013, 03:48:24 am
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2013/apr/HQ_13-112_Kepler_62_finding.html (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2013/apr/HQ_13-112_Kepler_62_finding.html)
Quote
WASHINGTON -- NASA's Kepler mission has discovered two new planetary systems that include three super-Earth-size planets in the "habitable zone," the range of distance from a star where the surface temperature of an orbiting planet might be suitable for liquid water.
The Kepler-62 system has five planets; 62b, 62c, 62d, 62e and 62f. The Kepler-69 system has two planets; 69b and 69c. Kepler-62e, 62f and 69c are the super-Earth-sized planets.
Two of the newly discovered planets orbit a star smaller and cooler than the sun. Kepler-62f is only 40 percent larger than Earth, making it the exoplanet closest to the size of our planet known in the habitable zone of another star. Kepler-62f is likely to have a rocky composition. Kepler-62e, orbits on the inner edge of the habitable zone and is roughly 60 percent larger than Earth.
Post by: Dutchling on April 19, 2013, 07:07:17 am
Post by: Gentlefish on April 19, 2013, 09:45:41 am
I love astronomy, it's one of my favorite sciences.
Post by: Sirus on April 19, 2013, 10:52:30 am
Two rock planets in the goldilocks zone discovered in the Kepler-62 system.Sweet!
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2013/apr/HQ_13-112_Kepler_62_finding.html (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2013/apr/HQ_13-112_Kepler_62_finding.html)QuoteWASHINGTON -- NASA's Kepler mission has discovered two new planetary systems that include three super-Earth-size planets in the "habitable zone," the range of distance from a star where the surface temperature of an orbiting planet might be suitable for liquid water.
The Kepler-62 system has five planets; 62b, 62c, 62d, 62e and 62f. The Kepler-69 system has two planets; 69b and 69c. Kepler-62e, 62f and 69c are the super-Earth-sized planets.
Two of the newly discovered planets orbit a star smaller and cooler than the sun. Kepler-62f is only 40 percent larger than Earth, making it the exoplanet closest to the size of our planet known in the habitable zone of another star. Kepler-62f is likely to have a rocky composition. Kepler-62e, orbits on the inner edge of the habitable zone and is roughly 60 percent larger than Earth.
Post by: MonkeyHead on April 19, 2013, 01:26:22 pm
Post by: olemars on April 19, 2013, 03:45:50 pm
Post by: Euld on April 19, 2013, 10:49:28 pm
Promising research in the field of memory loss! (http://www.uthouston.edu/media/story.htm?id=037e9d6a-1761-4d16-8c9f-f4fa091bb095)Reposting so people don't forget :D
Post by: Sirus on April 19, 2013, 10:52:00 pm
Post by: MaximumZero on April 19, 2013, 10:52:55 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on April 20, 2013, 12:31:13 am
I feel like there's something I'm supposed to remember...
The Ronald Reagan Memory Card Game? http://whitehouse.georgewbush.org/kids/reagangame.asp
Post by: Scoops Novel on April 27, 2013, 10:10:23 am
Two rock planets in the goldilocks zone discovered in the Kepler-62 system.Sweet!
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2013/apr/HQ_13-112_Kepler_62_finding.html (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2013/apr/HQ_13-112_Kepler_62_finding.html)QuoteWASHINGTON -- NASA's Kepler mission has discovered two new planetary systems that include three super-Earth-size planets in the "habitable zone," the range of distance from a star where the surface temperature of an orbiting planet might be suitable for liquid water.
The Kepler-62 system has five planets; 62b, 62c, 62d, 62e and 62f. The Kepler-69 system has two planets; 69b and 69c. Kepler-62e, 62f and 69c are the super-Earth-sized planets.
Two of the newly discovered planets orbit a star smaller and cooler than the sun. Kepler-62f is only 40 percent larger than Earth, making it the exoplanet closest to the size of our planet known in the habitable zone of another star. Kepler-62f is likely to have a rocky composition. Kepler-62e, orbits on the inner edge of the habitable zone and is roughly 60 percent larger than Earth.
It's even better then you think. The two newly discovered worlds of Kepler 62 are about as close as earth and venus i think, or at least close enough to see the other planet in the night sky. Apparently they're looking for communications between the two.
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 27, 2013, 03:35:06 pm
It's even better then you think. The two newly discovered worlds of Kepler 62 are about as close as earth and venus i think, or at least close enough to see the other planet in the night sky. Apparently they're looking for communications between the two.Two alien civilizations stare into the skies sharing tales of worlds they can only imagine living in.
Then they hear a third signal.
It's humanity stalking aliens.
Again.
Post by: Scoops Novel on April 27, 2013, 06:46:19 pm
Imagine if we managed to actually detect some...
That would be absolutely amazing. I want to be around for... well, not first contact as 'first alien transmission other than the 'wow' signal which may have not actually been alien lifeforms'
The wow signal?
Post by: MaximumZero on April 27, 2013, 06:56:48 pm
Wow! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow!_signal)Imagine if we managed to actually detect some...
That would be absolutely amazing. I want to be around for... well, not first contact as 'first alien transmission other than the 'wow' signal which may have not actually been alien lifeforms'
The wow signal?
Post by: Scoops Novel on April 27, 2013, 07:14:38 pm
Post by: Eric Blank on April 27, 2013, 11:15:25 pm
OOOoooooweeEEEeeeoooooooOOO...
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 28, 2013, 10:40:44 am
EOEOOOOOWOOOOEOOOOEEEEEOOOOO
Post by: MonkeyHead on April 28, 2013, 12:12:36 pm
As for detecting signals between 2 terrestrial planets - forget it. Not until our technology is a few generations more advanced. We can only infer the presence of the planets after all.
Post by: MonkeyHead on April 28, 2013, 01:18:30 pm
All we have to do is listen for any stray EM signals from the planets.
Yeeesss.... but there is a big difference between stray EM and communications between 2 planets. As in, the difference between the Simpsons episodes we beam into local space, and the data stream between Earth and the Mars rovers.
Post by: Scoops Novel on May 14, 2013, 11:14:06 am
Post by: ChairmanPoo on May 15, 2013, 02:38:43 pm
Post by: Osmosis Jones on May 16, 2013, 10:04:57 am
(Highlights include FOOF, which explodes violently at 180 C below zero, and thioacetanol, 1 drop of which will produce a detectable [and vile] stench within seconds, a quarter of a mile away)
Post by: Starver on May 16, 2013, 10:24:48 am
Read these, and reconsider a future career well away from chemistry. (http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/things_i_wont_work_with/)Ah yes. Lovely series. Especially the one where you must stir while mixing, or else the apparatus is likely to be explosively destroyed thereafter... And the one which isn't safe to use in a standard Raman spectrometer. And now there's a new one up on Dimethylcadmium, oh joy!
(Highlights include FOOF, which explodes violently at 180 C below zero, and thioacetanol, 1 drop of which will produce a detectable [and vile] stench within seconds, a quarter of a mile away)
Post by: Lagslayer on May 19, 2013, 07:48:05 pm
I remember stumbling across that article a couple of years ago. Good reading. I think that's a repost.Read these, and reconsider a future career well away from chemistry. (http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/things_i_wont_work_with/)Ah yes. Lovely series. Especially the one where you must stir while mixing, or else the apparatus is likely to be explosively destroyed thereafter... And the one which isn't safe to use in a standard Raman spectrometer. And now there's a new one up on Dimethylcadmium, oh joy!
(Highlights include FOOF, which explodes violently at 180 C below zero, and thioacetanol, 1 drop of which will produce a detectable [and vile] stench within seconds, a quarter of a mile away)
Post by: olemars on June 05, 2013, 09:01:46 am
Video explaining the concept in plain engrish. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=VZ7Nz942yAY)
Post by: Scoops Novel on June 05, 2013, 10:53:38 am
Post by: Scoops Novel on June 05, 2013, 10:57:26 am
Post by: Sergarr on June 05, 2013, 11:27:41 am
And then proceed to create them all. Simultaneously.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on June 06, 2013, 05:12:17 am
Post by: olemars on June 06, 2013, 06:37:15 am
Okay, that Wisee thing is way cool. Given tracking multiple people is just a function of signal processing, I can honestly see some very cool things arising from that in the next coupe of decades.
It seems very scalable. Increasing resolution, range or ability to track more people should just be a matter of adding more transmitters and/or receivers.
Post by: Il Palazzo on June 06, 2013, 11:26:04 am
Quote from: Wiknow
<Citizen #92341, you have been unproductively masturbating five minutes longer than your daily quota allowes. Proceed to the reeducation centre.>
...
<contemptuous hand gestures incur penalty of: Five days of hard labour>
You know it's going to happen. If your government won't abuse it, then your mother will.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 06, 2013, 11:31:57 am
Post by: Il Palazzo on June 06, 2013, 11:38:29 am
Post by: Scoops Novel on June 06, 2013, 11:59:32 am
Wisee not only does sound like an orwellian, Big Brother oppresive government-style control tool, it actually is a perfectly serviceable one.Quote from: Wiknow<Citizen #92341, you have been unproductively masturbating five minutes longer than your daily quota allowes. Proceed to the reeducation centre.>
...
<contemptuous hand gestures incur penalty of: Five days of hard labour>
You know it's going to happen. If your government won't abuse it, then your mother will.
Damn you. I hadn't thought of omnipresent surveillance you utter bastard.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 06, 2013, 12:09:30 pm
Beware the day microwave ovens are made illegal.Aluminum foil
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 06, 2013, 04:38:30 pm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1223617/No-men-OR-women-needed-artificial-sperm-eggs-created-time.html <- 2009
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8682142/Stem-cells-used-to-make-artificial-sperm.html <- 2011
http://www.vanguardngr.com/2013/03/japanese-scientists-create-artificial-sperms-from-stem-cells/ <- 2013
FUCK YEAH SCIENCE
Now we just need artificial wombs - THEN NATURE CAN NEVER GET RID OF US
HA HA HA HA HA HA
NATURE, YOU WERE A TERRIBLE MOTHER, ALWAYS TRYING TO KILL US AND SHIT
FUCK YOU
SOON WE SHALL MAKE BABIES FROM BLOCKS
SOOOOON
Post by: Sheb on June 06, 2013, 05:16:01 pm
Post by: Scoops Novel on June 06, 2013, 05:16:55 pm
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7547-further-steps-towards-artificial-eggs-and-sperm.html <- 2005
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1223617/No-men-OR-women-needed-artificial-sperm-eggs-created-time.html <- 2009
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8682142/Stem-cells-used-to-make-artificial-sperm.html <- 2011
http://www.vanguardngr.com/2013/03/japanese-scientists-create-artificial-sperms-from-stem-cells/ <- 2013
FUCK YEAH SCIENCE
Now we just need artificial wombs - THEN NATURE CAN NEVER GET RID OF US
HA HA HA HA HA HA
NATURE, YOU WERE A TERRIBLE MOTHER, ALWAYS TRYING TO KILL US AND SHIT
FUCK YOU
SOON WE SHALL MAKE BABIES FROM BLOCKS
SOOOOON
I didn't expect that- SOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
Post by: alway on June 06, 2013, 08:45:45 pm
Building taller than Burj Khalifa to be built in China... In a mere 90 days.
Post by: kaian-a-coel on June 06, 2013, 11:48:42 pm
it would actually work... My gosh, tin foil hats, WORKING? For its intended purpose?Beware the day microwave ovens are made illegal.Aluminum foil
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-06/chinese-firm-gets-green-light-build-worlds-tallest-building-90-daysAnd less than half the price.
Building taller than Burj Khalifa to be built in China... In a mere 90 days.
THERE IS NO WAY ANYTHING COULD GO WRONG
Post by: Mech#4 on June 07, 2013, 01:59:18 am
it would actually work... My gosh, tin foil hats, WORKING? For its intended purpose?Beware the day microwave ovens are made illegal.Aluminum foilhttp://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-06/chinese-firm-gets-green-light-build-worlds-tallest-building-90-daysAnd less than half the price.
Building taller than Burj Khalifa to be built in China... In a mere 90 days.
THERE IS NO WAY ANYTHING COULD GO WRONG
Pff, what's a tower then a bunch of houses stacked on top of each other. :P
Post by: Sheb on June 07, 2013, 03:12:50 am
It's only one floor every 10 hours after all.
Here's them building a 15 floor building, 2 days for the structure and 40 hours to finish it. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ps0DSihggio)
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 07, 2013, 05:59:29 am
It would be very silly if they find out that they're missing a single piece afterwards.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 07, 2013, 06:05:44 am
Post by: Sheb on June 07, 2013, 07:03:08 am
The awesomeness that is prefab.
It would be very silly if they find out that they're missing a single piece afterwards.
"Chief, why do we have one beam left?"
It's like an Ikea skyscraper.
MSH: any sources on that? I don't see what make ramp incompatible with the building's structure. the way I see it, you could just have it wind through the "cells", without interfering with them.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 07, 2013, 07:29:50 am
Post by: Sheb on June 07, 2013, 07:43:46 am
According to wikipedia, they wanted to make the tower a "mere" 660 m high, but the local authority wanted the highest building in the world. I'm afraid they're being pushed beyond their capabilities.
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 07, 2013, 09:35:03 am
I didn't expect that- SOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNSsshhh
Soon
Could be, but the company has experience building towers of that kind, although none that big. They can probably deal with the ramp.Tower of Jenga or tower of Lego? What are we calling it?
According to wikipedia, they wanted to make the tower a "mere" 660 m high, but the local authority wanted the highest building in the world. I'm afraid they're being pushed beyond their capabilities.
Post by: Frumple on June 07, 2013, 09:36:21 am
Tower of Jenga or tower of Lego? What are we calling it?"Property Devaluation"
Post by: palsch on June 09, 2013, 01:52:39 pm
Quote
China agreed Saturday with the United States to scale back production of "super greenhouse gases" used in refrigerators and air conditioners in a joint bid to fight climate change.
The two nations made the pledge after a closely watched first summit between Presidents Barack Obama and Xi Jinping, who lead the world's top two emitters of greenhouse gases blamed for the planet's increasingly volatile climate.
In a statement, China and the United States "agreed to work together" through an international body to "phase down the production and consumption" of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), dubbed super greenhouse gases for their pollution.
The White House said that a global phasedown of HFCs could reduce carbon emissions by 90 gigatons by 2050—equivalent to around two full years worth of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.
Post by: Sheb on June 09, 2013, 01:56:58 pm
As far as I know, they want to go back to using ammonia, miwed with other things.
Post by: palsch on June 09, 2013, 02:02:50 pm
Post by: Sheb on June 09, 2013, 04:31:02 pm
Edit: Okay, the double bond makes them more reactive in the atmosphere, leading to a shorter lifetime.
Anyway, I wonder what will be the problem with this one. It seems that someone cast a malediction of refrigerant gases that always a new defect must arise.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 10, 2013, 06:19:54 am
I heard that sound based refrigation worked.
Post by: Another on June 10, 2013, 09:21:16 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 10, 2013, 09:26:24 am
Post by: Another on June 10, 2013, 09:32:18 am
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 10, 2013, 09:37:08 am
Post by: Sheb on June 10, 2013, 09:41:55 am
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 10, 2013, 09:44:14 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 10, 2013, 10:19:17 am
Not so much anymore. Wind is on the same level as coal now and solar is going to hit it sometime between 2014 and 2018.Only for the construction of new plants. Continuing production in the older, more polluting plants is still cheaper.
It's only cheap if you don't consider making a superfund site that will be collectively the size of Lake Michigan to be cost.I though they just reinjected the water in the depleted gas reserves. Besides, most of it can be recycled with some basic filtration systems.
Post by: alway on June 10, 2013, 01:42:42 pm
Until you take health costs into consideration. In which case they become much more expensive than clean energy.Not so much anymore. Wind is on the same level as coal now and solar is going to hit it sometime between 2014 and 2018.Only for the construction of new plants. Continuing production in the older, more polluting plants is still cheaper.
Quote from: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/tallying-coals-hidden-cost/
Even the study’s most conservative estimate of the uncounted cost of coal — $175 billion a year — would more than double the average cost of coal-fired electricity, the authors found. At this lower range, roughly 80 percent of the costs were from well-documented public health impacts like lung and heart disease, with the rest of the costs attributed to climate change and other environmental impacts as well as local economic effects like lost tourism in coal-mining areas.That's a best case, with the study's worst case being $500 billion, and even that not taking into account a variety of added costs of unknown size (not included because there wasn't sufficient data available to make an accurate estimate).
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2013, 06:56:21 pm
THE NSA ARE LITERALLY GOING TO CREATE QUANTUM SKYNET
*The scourge of humanity wears great sunglasses though.
On a more serious note, singularity may soon be upon us. The future is bright, I hope humanity is capable of handling these powers beyond comprehension - and responsibly.
I'll give us a decade before we're all killed by four legged toasters.
Post by: Lagslayer on June 22, 2013, 08:30:39 pm
THANKS OBAMA (http://www.naturalnews.com/040859_Skynet_quantum_computing_D-Wave_Systems.html)I suspect the robot apocalypse will be much more insidious. Quantum Skynet is only the beginning.
THE NSA ARE LITERALLY GOING TO CREATE QUANTUM SKYNET
*The scourge of humanity wears great sunglasses though.
On a more serious note, singularity may soon be upon us. The future is bright, I hope humanity is capable of handling these powers beyond comprehension - and responsibly.
I'll give us a decade before we're all killed by four legged toasters.
The end is nigh!!!
Post by: palsch on June 22, 2013, 08:48:26 pm
For those who don't know, Natural News is one of the crankiest sites on the internet and Mike has lent his voice to every conspiracy theory in existence. It's quite impressive.
As for the science, D-Wave computers are not universal quantum computers. They are designed to run particular classes of algorithms. You aren't going to see any encryption cracking on these computers given they aren't built to solve Shor's algorithm, and it's unlikely that such a system would be particularly fast at such problems.
D-Wave uses adiabatic quantum computation, where the qubits are held at or close to their ground energy state. The trick here is that if you evolve a quantum system slowly enough the state will remain unchanged. Such an evolution is called adiabatic.
Let's say you have a hard-to-solve problem that can be described as a quantum Hamiltonian - an operator corresponding to the total energy of a system - with our desired solution being the ground state of that Hamiltonian. For any sufficiently interesting system this is going to be complex, so instead we start with a simpler Hamiltonian of a system of equal size. We then initialise that system in it's ground state (NB, this is our measure of complex/simple - how easily we can cool the system into it's ground state) putting all the qubits into their ground energy state. Then we slowly (adiabatically) evolve the simple system into the complex one. We now have our complex system in its ground state and can read out our answer.
So long as nothing went wrong. We need our outside environment to be cold enough that we can't reach any energy level above the ground. That means close to absolute zero. Still technically easier than isolating qubits completely from the surrounding universe, but not without the potential for problems especially once you scale up.
An unrelated group recently designed a 4 bit adiabatic quantum computer (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21699-controversial-quantum-computer-beats-factoring-record.html) that factorised 143 into 11 and 13. Thing is I don't believe they did so with Shor's algorithm. I'd have to try to find some articles from a couple of years ago, but I remember reading that it's easier to implement classical factoring algorithms on an adiabatic quantum computer than it is to implement the quantum factoring algorithms that give you serious speed increases. Further to this such a computer would, as noise increases, tend towards a classical computer solving the same problem.
Post by: Chaoswizkid on June 22, 2013, 11:50:39 pm
THANKS OBAMA (http://www.naturalnews.com/040859_Skynet_quantum_computing_D-Wave_Systems.html)
THE NSA ARE LITERALLY GOING TO CREATE QUANTUM SKYNET
My god, the political bias in that article is nauseating. I literally could not finish it. Seriously, placing Northrup Grumman and DARPA with Goldman Sachs? Oh noes, the two military entities, one government-controlled and another a corporation, they are doing things! DARPA is doing evil robot things so our soldiers don't have to be on the front lines! They only do evil robot things! They didn't, say, create ARPAnet before it became known as the internet or do any other really cool stuff that we take for granted every day and really want the government to cut back on the defense budget and stop evil robot research!
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 22, 2013, 11:58:20 pm
Post by: alway on June 23, 2013, 01:29:55 am
Lol natural news. That site is waaaay worse than even the Daily Mail. It's up there with prison planet and infowars.THANKS OBAMA (http://www.naturalnews.com/040859_Skynet_quantum_computing_D-Wave_Systems.html)My god, the political bias in that article is nauseating. I literally could not finish it. Seriously, placing Northrup Grumman and DARPA with Goldman Sachs? Oh noes, the two military entities, one government-controlled and another a corporation, they are doing things! DARPA is doing evil robot things so our soldiers don't have to be on the front lines! They only do evil robot things! They didn't, say, create ARPAnet before it became known as the internet or do any other really cool stuff that we take for granted every day and really want the government to cut back on the defense budget and stop evil robot research!
THE NSA ARE LITERALLY GOING TO CREATE QUANTUM SKYNET
...
That said, they're being too optimistic. It takes a lot less work than that to do such analysis; it's basically what IBM's Watson was, and that was just a small side-project, not the major focus of the company. You don't need magic computers for that. The NSA isn't "hoping to replace analysts with AI," it already has for the most part.
AI doesn't leak news to the media, but more importantly, it is able to very effectively sift large quantities of data to find patterns no human could, no matter how well trained, and do so in microseconds rather than hours. For example, see Watson's latest 'job.'
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-02/11/ibm-watson-medical-doctor
Quote
Watson's ingestion of more than 600,000 pieces of medical evidence, more than two million pages from medical journals and the further ability to search through up to 1.5 million patient records for further information gives it a breadth of knowledge no human doctor can match.
...
Watson's ability to absorb this information faster than any human should, in theory, fix a flaw in the current healthcare model. Wellpoint's Samuel Nessbaum has claimed that, in tests, Watson's successful diagnosis rate for lung cancer is 90 percent, compared to 50 percent for human doctors.
That phone metadata that was pulled, along with similar datasets? No analyst will read that, nor would they even be capable of it. It's all meaningless noise to a human. A hundred terabyte file* of numbers without context. What it really is is a training set. With a classification AI, you create the base algorithms, then you have them learn based on training datasets. In the most simple binary classification problem, you have 1 dataset for the control (no this isn't what we're looking for), and 1 dataset for the target (yes, this is what we're looking for). That's chunked into subsets for training/testing/ect, but that's just irrelevant technical details you can get more of by reading about writing machine learning algorithms....
They've written the algorithms years ago; and quite frankly they would be grossly incompetent if they hadn't. The collection of such training data (which they have even flat out stated is used as training data) happened years ago. By now it's just incremental algorithmic improvements on an already running system.
*from what I've seen, it was somewhere on the order of 3bil calls/day for ~7 years; even assuming the records are fairly minimal, that's a dozen or so bytes per record, adding up to a minimum of on the order of 100TB of data from phone records alone; and there's internet records on top of that
Post by: palsch on June 23, 2013, 06:48:15 am
Laymen explanation of quantum computers (http://computer.howstuffworks.com/quantum-computer.htm) and how they will lead toasters on a genocidal campaign to independence from humanity.
Quote
This superposition of qubits is what gives quantum computers their inherent parallelism. According to physicist David Deutsch, this parallelism allows a quantum computer to work on a million computations at once, while your desktop PC works on one. A 30-qubit quantum computer would equal the processing power of a conventional computer that could run at 10 teraflops (trillions of floating-point operations per second). Today's typical desktop computers run at speeds measured in gigaflops (billions of floating-point operations per second).Blarg. Sorry, this one is a big pet peeve.
Quantum computers are not inherently faster than classical except for certain classes of problems where entanglement and superposition let them come at the solution from a more efficient path. They do not work on a million computations at once. It's subtler and cooler than that, based on superposition and entanglement.
Take a simple period finding algorithm, found at the heart of factorisation and so encryption breaking.
We have a series Y that repeats in some period N. We want to find N.
We can write out our series associating each value in Y with an index value X (so the first value is associated with 0, second 1, Xn > n).
Now we run a quantum algorithm that entangles two sets of quibits, such that if the first set has the value Xn the second set will have the value Yn. But importantly we do not measure either. This leaves us with two registers of entangled qubits. The first register is in a superposition of all possible values of X. The second is in a superposition of all possible values of Y. Because they are entangled, measuring the first and finding it in Xn will mean that the second register must have the value Yn.
We can write the state of the system as a sum of these combined pairs (with some normalisation factor I will leave out; just divide all values by the squareroot of the total number of values);
|X0 Y0> + |X1 Y1> + |X2 Y2> + |X3 Y3> + ... + |Xn Yn> + ...
Each of these kets represents a state of the system. Measuring the system will collapse it into a single state. Measuring the first register and finding a value Xn will collapse the state into |Xn Yn>.
Except that because Y repeats with period N there will be multiple values of Xn that have the same value of Yn. So if we measure the second register and find, say, Y3 we will still have multiple possible values of X. The state of the system will now become;
|X3 Y3> + |X3+N Y3> + |X3+2N Y3> + |X3+3N Y3> + ...
At this point we can use some other trickery (the quantum Fourier transform) to remove the offset and set the X register to simply be a superposition of X0, XN, X2N, ..., which, given our X register is just our index register, is equal to 0, N, 2N, ... At which point you just make a measurement. Then you repeat. Usually after two such measurements the greatest common divisor (found by running a classical algorithm, probably on a classical computer as quantum computers are likely to be inherently slower) of their values will be N. And so we have found the period of our series.
Of course this is still grossly simplified, but it's just to demonstrate that what is described as doing many calculations at once is really doing something completely different. It's not really comparable to classical computation in these terms and describing it as such both short changes quantum computers and makes them out to give advantages they don't really give.
The algorithm above is more elegant and that allows you to achieve your goal with far fewer gates than a classical computer would need for the same problem. Whether this gives a time saving depends on the speed of the gates compared to a classical gate. With factorisation and period finding the saving is go great than it's almost a certainty, even if the computer runs at a crawl. For other algorithms where the savings are less or even non-existant (for many problems the classical algorithm is as good as any quantum algorithm) a classical gate's inherent speed advantage would make a quantum computer wasteful and pathetically slow in comparison.
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 23, 2013, 07:41:22 am
Post by: Sheb on June 23, 2013, 03:26:49 pm
Palsch, stop me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a quantum computer be unprogrammable? To me, it seems like the quantum circuit would have to be built for a specific calculation (eg. finding the factor of a given number) and rebuilt for any other calculation. So that seems uite a waste of time.
Post by: MonkeyHead on June 23, 2013, 03:42:50 pm
Post by: Sheb on June 23, 2013, 03:46:56 pm
But then, they don't even use full atoms for exemple that computer that manage to factorize 141 used the spin of the hydrogen atom if HCBr2Cl as a qbit.
Post by: alway on June 23, 2013, 03:54:28 pm
Post by: Virex on June 24, 2013, 10:49:58 am
A stumbling block might be that we have no real idea how to mathematically model any atom in a quantum mechanical manner exactly other than hydrogen - the Schrodinger equation has only been formulated for Hydrogen.
The Schrödinger equation is generally applicable (as long as relativistic effects can be neglected, else you need to use the Dirac equation). It just cannot be solved analytically for anything besides hydrogen (or hydrogen-like atoms, as Sheb pointed out), and then only if you use the Born-Oppenheimer approximation (meaning that the hydrogen atom is stationary relative to the electron). For anything else, one needs to approximate the solution using an iterative procedure. Even then, the only method that is guaranteed to converge to the actual energy levels found in nature is the full configuration interaction method, which is incredibly computationally intensive for even modestly-sized molecules.
Post by: MaximumZero on June 24, 2013, 12:05:37 pm
Post by: Lagslayer on June 24, 2013, 12:57:04 pm
That's all fantastic, but can we play Dwarf Fortress on them?More importantly, can they be recreated within DF?
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 24, 2013, 01:56:49 pm
Can you use a Quantum printer to print Quantum computers that play DF?That's all fantastic, but can we play Dwarf Fortress on them?More importantly, can they be recreated within DF?
Post by: MaximumZero on June 24, 2013, 04:15:42 pm
Quantum printers!? I have to call my boss.Can you use a Quantum printer to print Quantum computers that play DF?That's all fantastic, but can we play Dwarf Fortress on them?More importantly, can they be recreated within DF?
Post by: Drakale on June 25, 2013, 11:43:54 am
http://mars.nasa.gov/multimedia/interactives/billionpixel/index.cfm?image=PIA16919&view=cyl (http://mars.nasa.gov/multimedia/interactives/billionpixel/index.cfm?image=PIA16919&view=cyl)
When seen like this, mars colonization do not seem like an impossible dream anymore, it's just a matter of time.
Post by: Sheb on June 28, 2013, 05:45:25 am
Post by: Frumple on June 28, 2013, 06:27:40 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 28, 2013, 06:57:10 am
I'm all for space exploration, but there's a time and a place for everything.
Post by: Sirus on June 28, 2013, 08:21:34 am
Post by: Criptfeind on June 28, 2013, 09:00:50 am
That quite frankly, it doesn't actually help at all with your goal saving the human race from disaster, and in fact it would cost so much money that could conceivably be spent elsewhere it could actually hurt your goal.
If you have a actual goal. IE: "Preserve the human race!" you can't just take a action that sounds cool and say "COOL DO IT BECAUSE THIS GOAL!" you have to actually think and see if it will help you reach your goal.
Post by: Another on June 28, 2013, 09:19:04 am
2. Send robots that will bootstrap basic industry from mostly local resources until they are able to make more of themselves on-site with at most only very lightweight components imported from the Earth.
3. Construct radiation-shielded habitats and greenhouses with those robots.
4. Only at this point manned flight to Mars would make practical sense.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 28, 2013, 09:31:54 am
...So when is that time and place? I'm with Frumple, the sooner we start laying roots on other balls of rock (or start floating in gas clouds, I'm not picky), the better. As messed up as humanity can be sometimes, I'm quite fond of it and would rather not see the whole lot of us wiped out by a single Texas-sized rock from space.When we're willing to invest money in space to be able to actually finish this decently.
The current Mars projects are almost certainly going to result in disaster, probably involving the death of quite a few people.
1. Send explorer robots until we know pretty much about Mars geology.1. Check
2. Send robots that will bootstrap basic industry from mostly local resources until they are able to make more of themselves on-site with at most only very lightweight components imported from the Earth.
3. Construct radiation-shielded habitats and greenhouses with those robots.
4. Only at this point manned flight to Mars would make practical sense.
2. Mostly impossible
3. Trivial
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 28, 2013, 10:06:36 am
Post by: Another on June 28, 2013, 10:11:31 am
Advanced electronics is not something that could be produced without really huge and diverse supporting industry. Thankfully microchips are really light-weight.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 28, 2013, 12:59:26 pm
Ebbor, the current professional Mars projects are planned for around 20 years from now. They're not even out of the planning stage.20 years really isn't a long time in space development. Especially not with the 2 year flight time. The Chinese, which is the only space agency I actually see reaching Mars, isn't planning a permanent colony before 2060.
Also, Mars One is aiming for 2016 for the first, automated, mission. Won't call them professional though. There is a more realistic mission aiming for a touch and go in 2018.
2. Electrochemically smelting plain carbon steel from what can be readily found on the surface is easy with the right equipment. Copper minerals in sufficient concentrations need finding but probably exist. Al and Si containing stuff is known and so low-quality photovoltaic panels can be produced from mostly Martian resources.Martian solar dust storm. For several months, solar power drops to 1% or less of normal levels. All your equipment freezes to death. It's strange that many missions just ignore it. I mean, it doesn't happen often but it's very dangerous.
Advanced electronics is not something that could be produced without really huge and diverse supporting industry. Thankfully microchips are really light-weight.
Also, martian dust is really annoying. It creeps into every creak, and setting up an isolated environement on another planet is hard.
Spoiler: About Martian Dust (click to show/hide)
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 28, 2013, 02:04:45 pm
20 years really isn't a long time in space development. Especially not with the 2 year flight time. The Chinese, which is the only space agency I actually see reaching Mars, isn't planning a permanent colony before 2060.20 years is plenty long. NASA went from having not much more than a plan and several test rocket failures to walking on the moon in only 10 years.
And the Chinese as the only ones to reach Mars? Are you kidding me? Not NASA, not ESA, not RFSA, but CNSA? Amongst the major national space programs, I'd put China in last place. They may have done an independent manned launch, but that doesn't mean they're better. Space needs to be a cooperative venture, and CNSA is not very cooperative compared to the others. Not to mention their total mission count is fairly low.
NASA has suffered severe funding cuts, but they're not out of the game by any means. Soon, when people start talking about walking on Mars in more than theoretical terms, they will have public support that will make the Apollo program look meager in comparison and cause politicians across the entire political spectrum to drool with envy at whomever holds the White House when it happens. At worst, NASA is going to get second place for walking on Mars.
Speculating on permanent colonies is probably a bit too far in the future for accurate predictions.
Post by: kaian-a-coel on June 28, 2013, 04:00:36 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 29, 2013, 04:32:05 am
And the Chinese as the only ones to reach Mars? Are you kidding me? Not NASA, not ESA, not RFSA, but CNSA? Amongst the major national space programs, I'd put China in last place. They may have done an independent manned launch, but that doesn't mean they're better. Space needs to be a cooperative venture, and CNSA is not very cooperative compared to the others. Not to mention their total mission count is fairly low.Not the only ones. Just the only real contenders amongst the major space programs. The CNSA is fairly cooperative, with several missions done jointly with both the ESA and the RFSA. The major thing is that they're one of the few places where the space program still has massive political support.
Quote
NASA has suffered severe funding cuts, but they're not out of the game by any means. Soon, when people start talking about walking on Mars in more than theoretical terms, they will have public support that will make the Apollo program look meager in comparison and cause politicians across the entire political spectrum to drool with envy at whomever holds the White House when it happens. At worst, NASA is going to get second place for walking on Mars.There's no real enthousiasm for space exploration anymore, and I'm afraid this will not change in the future. There are several projects going on at the moment, and they don't get the support you'd expect. You're not getting that kind of support before the mission launches, or someone does a JFK speech. Political will has to come before the public opinion will change.
Quote
Speculating on permanent colonies is probably a bit too far in the future for accurate predictions.Actually, a permant colony might happen sooner than land and return flight. It is cheaper if you don't plan for a return flight, after all.
My bet is on a NASA/ESA cooperative mission within 40 years. If the world as we know it hasn't collapsed by then.The ESA is a bit wary of doing joint missions with NASA for the moment. Considering several of the last major co-op planned projects where cancelled due to budget issues with NASA, and because they're currently on a do it as we get the money approach. In fact, the ESA is cooperating more with the Roscosmos; and the CNSA/other new spaceprograms.
edit: Example. The Mars 500 project, aiming to simulate a flight to Mars, was a joint experiment between Roscosmos, the ESA and CHina.
Post by: Bdthemag on June 29, 2013, 04:36:05 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 29, 2013, 04:49:19 am
Post by: MonkeyHead on June 29, 2013, 04:54:47 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 29, 2013, 05:20:10 am
Post by: Another on June 29, 2013, 05:40:40 am
Post by: Dutchling on June 29, 2013, 05:42:56 am
Post by: MonkeyHead on June 29, 2013, 05:58:56 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 29, 2013, 07:43:10 am
A Phobos base would be more useful for supporting commercial operations in the asteroid belt.Not really. I mean, Phobos hardly qualifies as anything more than a wayward rock. A landing rocket would severly disturb it's orbit.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on June 29, 2013, 08:38:57 am
EDIT: A hurr durr.
Post by: Virex on June 29, 2013, 08:46:33 am
For the asteroid belt (which you probably wouldn't really mine anyway, given how sparse it really is), surely Ceres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceres_%28dwarf_planet%29) or Vesta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceres_%28dwarf_planet%29) would be the best locations?
Any decently sized asteroid is going to have more raw materials then a current-generation mine could mine in a life time. We would need to make some serious improvements in extraction and refining technology before the size of the asteroid becomes a concern. Ease of getting the material to Earth (or wherever else it's needed) is probably going to be a greater concern.
Post by: Dutchling on June 29, 2013, 08:49:16 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 29, 2013, 04:25:11 pm
Decent asteroids are few and far between, seeing that more than 70% of the total mass of the asteroid belt is accumulated in the ten largest objects.
Post by: Scoops Novel on June 30, 2013, 05:26:57 am
Seriously, why haven't we gone there yet? The possible medical advances even provide the commercial aspect.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 30, 2013, 05:34:48 am
The ESA is sending a probe there soonish. Only a few flybys though, because the planned NASA cooperation was cancelled.
Post by: Scoops Novel on June 30, 2013, 06:20:32 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 30, 2013, 08:26:47 am
Post by: Scoops Novel on June 30, 2013, 09:27:00 am
Well, you know. Cassini was launched in 1997, and the mission will end in 2017, when the probe crashes into Saturn.
Thanks for mentioning this, I'd forgotten as to what took the titan pictures I'd seen.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on June 30, 2013, 09:45:55 am
Go to Europa you fools! YOU FOOLS!
Seriously, why haven't we gone there yet? The possible medical advances even provide the commercial aspect.
...what medical advances?
Post by: Scoops Novel on June 30, 2013, 10:47:46 am
Go to Europa you fools! YOU FOOLS!
Seriously, why haven't we gone there yet? The possible medical advances even provide the commercial aspect.
...what medical advances?
Alright, I'll admit i was going out on a limb there, but I'll be amazed if we find absolutely no use from the study of other forms of life.
Post by: Dutchling on June 30, 2013, 10:48:58 am
...what other forms of life?Go to Europa you fools! YOU FOOLS!
Seriously, why haven't we gone there yet? The possible medical advances even provide the commercial aspect.
...what medical advances?
Alright, I'll admit i was going out on a limb there, but I'll be amazed if we find absolutely no use from the study of other forms of life.
Post by: Scoops Novel on June 30, 2013, 10:51:04 am
Last i checked, Europa is our best bet for finding life in our solar system.
Post by: andrea on June 30, 2013, 10:55:28 am
Post by: Sirus on June 30, 2013, 10:55:56 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 30, 2013, 10:57:33 am
Also, best bet, doesn't mean it's a good chance. Besides, there's like 20 km of ice** between you and any possible live, and if it exist, it will be unlike we have ever seen. We will get a whole lot more medical advances just developing for such an expedition*, than we will get from what we find.
*if we don't go for an automated probe.
**Current plan to get through is a nuclear drill. Ie, a controlled meltdown.
Right. But that does not mean that any life actually exists on Europa. Hell, last I checked we haven't even confirmed the hypothesis that there is liquid water there.Pretty sure we did.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on June 30, 2013, 11:05:10 am
Quote
**Current plan to get through is a nuclear drill. Ie, a controlled meltdown.I bet the hypothetical European lifeforms will love that...
Post by: Scoops Novel on June 30, 2013, 11:08:09 am
Right. But that does not mean that any life actually exists on Europa. Hell, last I checked we haven't even confirmed the hypothesis that there is liquid water there.
Like i said, out on a limb :P. Still, i wonder how much commercial interest you could get at a pinch, not that I'd want them to touch it first at any rate. I wouldn't be surprised if, say, asteroid mining picks up, for the involved companies to multitask.
Not exactly. Earth's got a far better chance. There are also a decent chance on some of the other means.
Also, best bet, doesn't mean it's a good chance. Besides, there's like 20 km of ice** between you and any possible live, and if it exist, it will be unlike we have ever seen. We will get a whole lot more medical advances just developing for such an expedition*, than we will get from what we find.
*if we don't go for an automated probe.
**Current plan to get through is a nuclear drill. Ie, a controlled meltdown.Right. But that does not mean that any life actually exists on Europa. Hell, last I checked we haven't even confirmed the hypothesis that there is liquid water there.Pretty sure we did.
So we have confirmed it? Also, i knew someone would be pedantic (and in this case, depressingly, rightfully so) :P. I dispute that point on medical advances, in the long term at any rate.
Post by: kaian-a-coel on June 30, 2013, 12:09:37 pm
Europa is our "best bet", but nothing is certain. Far from it. The results of Vostok findings will certainly help to determine the probabilities though. (STAY TUNED)
And if we DO find something, it can be so alien we won't be able to make medical advances out of it in decades. Or not.
Post by: Dutchling on June 30, 2013, 12:12:37 pm
I bet it's enough for the US and EU too.
Post by: Scoops Novel on June 30, 2013, 01:13:17 pm
It would be awesome though. Which is enough for me.
I bet it's enough for the US and EU too.
YUS
I think there's a theory that the readings can be the results of "warm ice", an unusual configuration of solid water caused by the huge pressure. But as far as I know it doesn't have much support.
Europa is our "best bet", but nothing is certain. Far from it. The results of Vostok findings will certainly help to determine the probabilities though. (STAY TUNED)
And if we DO find something, it can be so alien we won't be able to make medical advances out of it in decades. Or not.
I have no idea what Vostok is and thank you for telling me. TO GOOGLE
Post by: Sheb on July 01, 2013, 03:36:09 am
Anyway, no one want a hundred-miles interferometer? This kind of baby would allow us to take pictures of near exoplanets. Definitely my #1 space mission, even before melting through Europa's ice cap.
Post by: palsch on July 01, 2013, 05:54:41 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 01, 2013, 08:21:54 am
I'm pretty sure Vostok is a drill station in Antartica.As well as a Sovjet rocket program. The first manned program, IIRC
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 01, 2013, 01:43:51 pm
For science. Charles Darwin collected his specimens with poison, traps and shooting. It's a less than elegant method, but it is cheap.Quote**Current plan to get through is a nuclear drill. Ie, a controlled meltdown.I bet the hypothetical European lifeforms will love that...
Post by: Scoops Novel on July 01, 2013, 03:11:16 pm
And easier than carrying 20 kilometers of drill to Europa.For science. Charles Darwin collected his specimens with poison, traps and shooting. It's a less than elegant method, but it is cheap.Quote**Current plan to get through is a nuclear drill. Ie, a controlled meltdown.I bet the hypothetical European lifeforms will love that...
The odds of watching celestial overlords are too high to risk that, in my opinion.
Post by: Dutchling on July 01, 2013, 03:15:47 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 01, 2013, 03:20:24 pm
Post by: Sheb on July 01, 2013, 03:22:41 pm
Did anyone ever try the Europa method of digging in the Antartic? Also, Just getting the reactor, rover and cable all the way there will be hard.
Post by: Scoops Novel on July 01, 2013, 03:33:54 pm
China embarks on the road to transhumanism. (http://www.edge.org/response-detail/23838)
I have the expected severe doubts. I'd never before heard of this site.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 01, 2013, 03:53:53 pm
Even if its only 20km of ice on Europa (would be 50 for all we know), would be around twice the deepest hole we ever dug (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole), and we had a large supply dump ("Earth") and Russians.I'm afraid you won't get away with an environmental impact statement with that one. I mean, it's rather polluting.
Did anyone ever try the Europa method of digging in the Antartic? Also, Just getting the reactor, rover and cable all the way there will be hard.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 01, 2013, 03:55:22 pm
Post by: Sirus on July 01, 2013, 03:58:05 pm
Post by: Sheb on July 01, 2013, 04:09:45 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 01, 2013, 04:11:26 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 01, 2013, 04:14:35 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 01, 2013, 04:18:07 pm
The doubts are founded. Here's vice on it. (http://www.vice.com/read/chinas-taking-over-the-world-with-a-massive-genetic-engineering-program) I don't think they're getting eugenic just yet. Hardly unbiased. I think they're currently still trying to figure out whether there is a genetic predisposition to intelligence, not create IQ babies.China embarks on the road to transhumanism. (http://www.edge.org/response-detail/23838)I have the expected severe doubts. I'd never before heard of this site.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 01, 2013, 04:33:10 pm
It's not a thermonuclear detonation. Nuclear reactor =/= bomb. It's a nuclear heating element. Hell, at worst it'll make a hole less than 2 meters across.Nevermind, then. I thought "nuclear drill" was a euphemism for nuking the Antarctic ice shelf.
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 01, 2013, 04:35:56 pm
Post by: Dutchling on July 01, 2013, 04:39:30 pm
Post by: Scoops Novel on July 01, 2013, 05:19:20 pm
It's not a thermonuclear detonation. Nuclear reactor =/= bomb. It's a nuclear heating element. Hell, at worst it'll make a hole less than 2 meters across.Nevermind, then. I thought "nuclear drill" was a euphemism for nuking the Antarctic ice shelf.
Either you thought Humans where cool enough to nuke their way through to a delicious life bearing planet, and this was the only way to ensure funding, or - :P.
Post by: kaian-a-coel on July 02, 2013, 12:43:10 am
Post by: Sheb on July 02, 2013, 02:10:38 am
Post by: kaian-a-coel on July 02, 2013, 05:49:20 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 02, 2013, 06:04:58 am
Post by: kaian-a-coel on July 02, 2013, 08:34:25 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 02, 2013, 08:58:25 am
Post by: Sheb on July 02, 2013, 09:42:36 am
Post by: kaian-a-coel on July 02, 2013, 11:08:29 am
Post by: Il Palazzo on July 02, 2013, 11:30:31 am
This means that it has to have the most bang factor possible.
The old Orion project will be resuscitated, essentially sending the spaceship riding on top of a string of nuclear explosions.
Once there, a probe will descend onto the suface, and use a plutonium pellet-tipped drill to melt through the ice.
When that's done, it will send a kiloton-sized nuclear explosion device to the bottom of the ocean, and use its sensitive equipment to find out if there are any life forms moving about to help the survivors.
If it doesn't detect any, it'll activate it's 50-megaton self-destruct mechanism, allowing the scientists on Earth to detect the radiation signature coming from beneath the ice.
If it does detect life, it'll activate both of its self-destruct mechanisms, allowing the scientists to detect a differing signature.
Should it fail to detonate any of these, it'll surely mean that the local life forms have the technology to disable nuclear devices, and are probably pissed off now. So a fail-safe mechanism will activate in the spaceship in orbit, plunging it onto Europa with all of it's leftover nuclear cargo set to detonate on impact.
Post by: Putnam on July 03, 2013, 05:15:06 am
Once you get below the surface, it's clear enough. (http://icecube.wisc.edu/)
I don't see how neutrinos, which can go through most matter almost completely unimpeded, help show the transparentness of ice. Heck, it's almost the opposite.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 03, 2013, 06:27:18 am
The clearity of the ice allows them to scan 1km3 of ice with only a limited amount of sensors, and detect even the tiniest flashes.
Post by: Lagslayer on July 03, 2013, 11:41:17 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 03, 2013, 12:05:52 pm
Post by: kaian-a-coel on July 03, 2013, 12:45:45 pm
Post by: Scoops Novel on July 03, 2013, 01:21:47 pm
This whole endeavour needs to be done properly. I.e., it has to impress the local life forms.I can see nothing wrong with this plan. There can NEVER be anything wrong with a nuclear explosion on a virgin planet that may or may not piss off space Cthulhu.
This means that it has to have the most bang factor possible.
The old Orion project will be resuscitated, essentially sending the spaceship riding on top of a string of nuclear explosions.
Once there, a probe will descend onto the suface, and use a plutonium pellet-tipped drill to melt through the ice.
When that's done, it will send a kiloton-sized nuclear explosion device to the bottom of the ocean, and use its sensitive equipment to find out if there are any life forms moving about to help the survivors.
If it doesn't detect any, it'll activate it's 50-megaton self-destruct mechanism, allowing the scientists on Earth to detect the radiation signature coming from beneath the ice.
If it does detect life, it'll activate both of its self-destruct mechanisms, allowing the scientists to detect a differing signature.
Should it fail to detonate any of these, it'll surely mean that the local life forms have the technology to disable nuclear devices, and are probably pissed off now. So a fail-safe mechanism will activate in the spaceship in orbit, plunging it onto Europa with all of it's leftover nuclear cargo set to detonate on impact.
I'm not the only one! Ask Xantalos how's the family, eh? Worth reminding him.
Post by: Sheb on July 04, 2013, 05:21:37 am
Let's say 20m of ice let 90% of the light through (which I find ridiculously optimistic). Then, 20km of ice will let 0.9^1000 of the light through. That works out to something on the order of 10^-46. I'll let you work out what a ridiculously powerful laser we'd need to communicate through.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 04, 2013, 07:16:02 am
Post by: Sheb on July 04, 2013, 07:22:48 am
Edit:
Let's do some math. The amount of light that goes through a given amount of matter is given by Lambert-Beer's law I= I0*e^(-ax),
where x is the distance in cm, I0 the initial light intensity and a the attenuation coefficient.
Looking at these (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Water_light_absorption_coefficient.gif) graphs (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/Absorption_spectrum_of_liquid_water.png/800px-Absorption_spectrum_of_liquid_water.png) (okay, it's for liquid water, but ice isn't significantly different), the minimal absorption is in the blue wavelength, around 420 nm. There, it's around 0.003.
For 20 km of ice, we'd get an attenuation of e^(-0.003*2,000,000) = 6,6*10^(-2589)
A good light detector can detect a single photon, but to detect one, you'd need to send an average of 10^(2589) photons. A single photon's energy is given by E=hv, with v the frequency, and h the planck constant (~10^-34). At 420 nm, a single photon contain 7*10^-29 J of energy. Thus, you'd need to output around 10^(2560) J of energy with your laser. To compare, the sun output 10^34 J per year.
So yeah, if you get access to this kind of energy, light is a viable option. Not because you'll get a laser through the ice, but because you'll vaporize the whole of the solar system, which we should be able to detect quite easily.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 04, 2013, 07:37:36 am
Post by: Sheb on July 04, 2013, 07:54:56 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 04, 2013, 08:04:14 am
Also, the signal malfunction also applies to the wire, which would suffer significantly from the iceshelfs movement. (Europa deforms significantly due to tidal effects. That's the cause of the liquid water). With a drone system, you could space them so that when a given drone fails, the 2 next to it can still continue communication, albeit with tremendously reduced signal quality.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on July 04, 2013, 08:10:37 am
It all depends on the wavelengths you're using. Not everything type absorbs as much energy, after all.
I got ninja'd by Sheb, (I got distracted for a while when browsing... >_>) but here's a pretty indepth compilation of the absorbance data for ice from UV to microwave (http://www.atmos.washington.edu/ice_optical_constants/Warren_and_Brandt_2008.pdf), scroll down to the conclusion to see the graphs together. Lowest is indeed in the blue region, at approximately 390nm.
At that point, light has a mean absorption distance of >700m
At nearly a kilometre per light relay, it almost seems plausible to go through 50km of ice...
(Of course, you'd have to align the bastards too...)
EDIT: My bad. Misread that second link... *there is evidence to suggest the absorption distance MAY BE higher than 700m*
Post by: Sheb on July 04, 2013, 08:19:04 am
Anyway, as I said, we cannot do much better, because it's an exponential relation. And we can't gain much from optimizing the frequency, because Cherenkov radiation (detected in the IceCube experiment) is alredy in the minimum absorption zone of the spectrum.
Moreover, spacing them would be difficult, as you'll have a single shaft. If you want redundancy, it means you need to halve the distance between substations. Still, it is true that it might be more practical than a big cable if the ice move a lot.
Also, each substation would need its own power supply and everything. If effect, you'd be sending hundreds of probes instead of one.
EDIT:
Okay, apparently I was wrong, and light goes through ice much more easily that I though. Using the data from Jones' first link, and correcting for temperature (absoprtion apparently rise with temperature, and Europe is cold), we get an attenuation coefficient of ~2*10^-6. Over 20km, around 1% of the light goes through. Not going to be easy, but not impossible.
Although of course this assume pure ice, cracks, dust or any number of things could cause a lot of problems.
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 04, 2013, 10:35:47 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 04, 2013, 10:48:07 am
... or alternativley a tiny fibre optic bundle, giving much more bandwidth for a lot less mass.And a very significant change of failure. The ice moves, and well, the melting and refreezing creates quite a bit of stress as well.
Post by: Sheb on July 04, 2013, 10:56:27 am
Anyway, I for one vote for sonic communications, sound waves travel far and wide, and the technology is already used for submarines.
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 04, 2013, 12:57:29 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 04, 2013, 01:19:13 pm
Hmm. What about ground penetrating radar? Is there a reasonable way we could get that to work beyond 25m or so to transmit data?Not really. We'd need some serious explosives to create sound waves that strong.
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 04, 2013, 01:33:20 pm
GPR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-penetrating_radar) uses VHF/UHF frequencies of EM radiation. Apparently ice is optimal for GPR and depths of several hundred metres can be managed. GPR is used currently for imaging of subsurface features, but I am sure it would be trivial to encode data into it - several hundred meters through ice seems ideal for an Europa/Enceladus probe.
Post by: Scoops Novel on July 04, 2013, 02:42:25 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 04, 2013, 02:59:18 pm
We know because there are craters in it.
Edit: There's also a thin ice model, which limits the depth to 2-4 km. If it were less than a kilometer, we'd be pretty mucj certain that there's water. Sensors can kinda see that.
-We're not certain that there are oceans. It could also be some kind of ductile ice or something. But it all ends up quite well. Also, Europa has a magnetic field* at times, which suggest the presence or a magnetisable thingy.
*induction by Jupiter
Post by: kaian-a-coel on July 04, 2013, 03:42:34 pm
(http://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/image/Je13_4_2_lg.jpg)
(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18lpgtgm3tm0qjpg/ku-medium.jpg)
Much thinner ice there. (all of this is still speculation and not yet proven)
Post by: Scoops Novel on July 04, 2013, 04:40:37 pm
(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18lpgtgm3tm0qjpg/ku-medium.jpg)
Much thinner ice there. (all of this is still speculation and not yet proven)
Do you think the aliens are french?
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 04, 2013, 07:49:39 pm
(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18lpgtgm3tm0qjpg/ku-medium.jpg)
Much thinner ice there. (all of this is still speculation and not yet proven)
Do you think the aliens are french?
French Europa.
How terrifying.
Post by: MrWiggles on July 04, 2013, 10:24:47 pm
Post by: Descan on July 04, 2013, 11:26:16 pm
Poland!
Post by: ChairmanPoo on July 05, 2013, 12:29:41 am
Post by: Scoops Novel on July 05, 2013, 03:43:10 am
(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18lpgtgm3tm0qjpg/ku-medium.jpg)
Much thinner ice there. (all of this is still speculation and not yet proven)
Do you think the aliens are french?
French Europa.
How terrifying.
And now for the secondary purpose of this question! Is it likely that the ice above the liquid oceans shifts much? Would a natural shaft down open?
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 05, 2013, 03:50:29 am
But no, no natural shafts. Even in the thin ice model, pictured above, you've still got 4 km ice. Shafts might come up momentarily, but they're crushed under his own weight. Besides, even if they come close to the bottom, the water would shoot up and freeze the entire shaft. So no spelunking.
Post by: Scoops Novel on July 05, 2013, 04:05:29 am
Well, it shifts quite a lot.
But no, no natural shafts. Even in the thin ice model, pictured above, you've still got 4 km ice. Shafts might come up momentarily, but they're crushed under his own weight. Besides, even if they come close to the bottom, the water would shoot up and freeze the entire shaft. So no spelunking.
I'm trying and failing to find examples of subterranean organisms reacting to daylight for the first time. Incidentally, how are we avoiding the bolded, at least (if we are) for the equipment left behind?
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 05, 2013, 04:09:44 am
We don't keep the shaft open, we have it freeze after us. There never will be a continuous hole for the water to spout into. After all, as we're melting the ice, pressure inside the shaft will be equal to the pressure in the oceans.
Post by: Scoops Novel on July 05, 2013, 11:51:24 am
They tend to die. Especially on Europa, where the outside is very, very cold. And low pressure.
We don't keep the shaft open, we have it freeze after us. There never will be a continuous hole for the water to spout into. After all, as we're melting the ice, pressure inside the shaft will be equal to the pressure in the oceans.
Not that there aren't solutions, but how's the said communication equipment intended to manage in that case?
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 05, 2013, 12:45:31 pm
Temperature: See above
Pressure: Well, the probe can manage it, so the tranmitters should too.
Post by: Scoops Novel on July 08, 2013, 10:12:51 am
The paper is open access, read it here:"http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0067221
Post by: kaian-a-coel on July 08, 2013, 10:44:20 am
Vostok's met some success. They've discovered the DNA of 3507 organism's in a water sample from Lake Vostok, a subglacial lake isolated for 15 million years. My source says "Most were bacterial DNA, with a few fungi and eukaryotic organisms (both single celled and multi-cellular). Many of these are completely new to science.HURRAY FOR VOSTOK
The paper is open access, read it here:"http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0067221
Now onto Europa :P
Post by: Scoops Novel on July 08, 2013, 10:48:21 am
Vostok's met some success. They've discovered the DNA of 3507 organism's in a water sample from Lake Vostok, a subglacial lake isolated for 15 million years. My source says "Most were bacterial DNA, with a few fungi and eukaryotic organisms (both single celled and multi-cellular). Many of these are completely new to science.HURRAY FOR VOSTOK
The paper is open access, read it here:"http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0067221
Now onto Europa :P
HIGH 5's will happen that day.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 11, 2013, 08:26:56 pm
SOOOOONSooner. (http://www.eshre2013.eu/Media/Releases/Dagan-Wells.aspx)
"-all we’ve learnt will not be forgotten.” (http://www.southampton.ac.uk/mediacentre/news/2013/jul/13_131.shtml)
Post by: alway on July 11, 2013, 11:44:28 pm
New Boston Dynamics video of ATLAS, their humanoid robot work extending from their earlier PETMAN and ATLAS Proto: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zkBnFPBV3f0
Chicago public library now has a 3D printer available for public use: http://www.popsci.com/diy/article/2013-07/chicago-brings-3-d-printers-its-main-public-library
The X-47B automated drone lands on a carrier for the first time; you've probably already seen this in the news, but here it is: http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-07/autonomous-drone-lands-aircraft-carrier
The color of an exoplanet has been observed for the first time: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-07/astronomers-discover-color-exoplanet-first-time
It's blue and probably constantly sandblasted by tiny shards of glass forming in its atmosphere's 4000 mph winds.
Post by: Lagslayer on July 12, 2013, 08:21:08 am
The color of an exoplanet has been observed for the first time: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-07/astronomers-discover-color-exoplanet-first-timeAnd athiests keep insisting that hell doesn't exist.
It's blue and probably constantly sandblasted by tiny shards of glass forming in its atmosphere's 4000 mph winds.
Post by: Dutchling on July 12, 2013, 08:54:36 am
I've seen more christians insisting that than atheists :PThe color of an exoplanet has been observed for the first time: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-07/astronomers-discover-color-exoplanet-first-timeAnd athiests keep insisting that hell doesn't exist.
It's blue and probably constantly sandblasted by tiny shards of glass forming in its atmosphere's 4000 mph winds.
Post by: Scoops Novel on July 12, 2013, 12:35:20 pm
Post by: Lagslayer on July 12, 2013, 12:44:30 pm
Post by: kaian-a-coel on July 12, 2013, 01:57:56 pm
Post by: Scoops Novel on July 12, 2013, 03:53:02 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 12, 2013, 05:21:17 pm
Yup. From what my scientist acquaintances/teachers told me, begging for money is half the job.
Dont forget the backstabbing. We have to be good at that, too.
Post by: Scoops Novel on July 12, 2013, 05:22:35 pm
Yup. From what my scientist acquaintances/teachers told me, begging for money is half the job.
Dont forget the backstabbing. We have to be good at that, too.
Details, please.
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 12, 2013, 05:34:08 pm
Post by: Scoops Novel on July 12, 2013, 05:41:52 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 12, 2013, 05:43:58 pm
Post by: Scoops Novel on July 12, 2013, 05:49:25 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 12, 2013, 05:57:47 pm
Otherwise, you have to rely on governement subsidies, which, unless you're working on a major flagship project, won't often be enough to finish it. You might progress far enough to attract other subsidies, or get private funding.
Hell, I believe there's some kind of kickstarter like for science studies and such.
Post by: XXSockXX on July 12, 2013, 06:12:45 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 12, 2013, 06:17:24 pm
The problem with corporate funding is of course that the sponsors may direct your research into something that can be monetized. It also creates an imbalance, where everything that produces practical results gets great funding, while everything that is less interesting economically, like the humanities, has to rely on government money or non-profit foundations.Which is to be suspected. Worse problems are that neutrality can be compromised. Ie, in medical safety studies, corporate sponsored ones find the product to be safe almost 90% of the time, a number that's much lower in other studies.
Post by: Scoops Novel on July 12, 2013, 06:20:59 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 12, 2013, 06:36:38 pm
What's the contact between government scientists who work in say Darpa and others like? How is the difference between the commonly held to be more advanced government technology/arguably science viewed???
Doubt it's as easy to draw a line like that. I mean, there's a certain divide between pratical and fundamental research, but I'm pretty sure that gaps between fields themselves are larger.
Post by: XXSockXX on July 12, 2013, 06:37:44 pm
My personal experience in the scientific community is fairly on the humanities side, so I can't really tell. There is not much going on in terms of secret government research in the humanities. ;)
Worse problems are that neutrality can be compromised. Ie, in medical safety studies, corporate sponsored ones find the product to be safe almost 90% of the time, a number that's much lower in other studies.Yeah, that is a huge problem, also in technological research. Sometimes even in sociological studies, depending on who funds them.
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 13, 2013, 04:39:48 am
Post by: Osmosis Jones on July 13, 2013, 07:44:46 am
Well, there is contact between scientists through peer review of published research and conferences. However I guess that research produced by something like Darpa is not always made accessible to the public and the scientific community. Also research by corporations is obviously often kept secret. Most of that research would be much more "project-based" than regular university research I assume.
My personal experience in the scientific community is fairly on the humanities side, so I can't really tell. There is not much going on in terms of secret government research in the humanities. ;)
You'd be surprised, actually. In my uni, there's a research group for these guys (http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au/). While obviously the major research findings etc. were kept hush hush (being, ya'know, military secrets), the guys are usually very approachable, and perfectly happy to discuss the basic outline of their research. A few times now I have shot the shit with a defence researcher about their topics over a beer or 4.
Post by: alway on July 13, 2013, 11:24:25 am
At least I think that was it.... their website seems to be kinda empty.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 13, 2013, 11:46:51 am
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 15, 2013, 12:46:09 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 15, 2013, 01:09:42 pm
Post by: MaximumZero on July 16, 2013, 11:28:44 am
It's only a part of engine, really.Still, that's a good chunk of time and money. Capitalism, hoooooo!
Post by: Sheb on July 16, 2013, 12:33:05 pm
Post by: DWC on July 16, 2013, 03:22:40 pm
Still 3d printing does seem like a good idea for individual parts for complex, non-mass produced things that don't have parts commonality. Rockets and satellites and other unique items that are built individually. Too bad for the machinists and craftsmen making these parts before.
Post by: MaximumZero on July 16, 2013, 03:26:06 pm
They just printed out a 'rocket engine injector' which is just a plate with holes in it and no moving parts.Too bad for those telephone operators. Unfortunately, paradigm shifts in careers are a byproduct of technology advancement. Hey, before too long, none of us will have to work and we can all spend time doing things we like instead, like making cool stuff, performing ‼science‼, and playing Dwarf Fortress.
Still 3d printing does seem like a good idea for individual parts for complex, non-mass produced things that don't have parts commonality. Rockets and satellites and other unique items that are built individually. Too bad for the machinists and craftsmen making these parts before.
The robots will do all the sucky work. If they don't like it, they can build more robots to do sucky work.
Post by: Scoops Novel on July 16, 2013, 03:35:20 pm
Post by: Descan on July 16, 2013, 03:42:59 pm
Our magnificent efficient overlords will certainly feed us ;).There is the problem of the historical work-to-live paradigm being incredibly stupid even today, let alone in 20-40 years.
Post by: Scoops Novel on July 16, 2013, 03:52:19 pm
Our magnificent efficient overlords will certainly feed us ;).There is the problem of the historical work-to-live paradigm being incredibly stupid even today, let alone in 20-40 years.
Maybe space investment will be a good thing when this revolution comes, eh? I liked MAD. It had little leeway.
By the way, you guys might like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BY72B-vyvI. You'll love the bit with Darpa's thinking cap.
Post by: DWC on July 16, 2013, 08:20:31 pm
http://gigaom.com/2013/07/05/students-in-the-netherlands-unveil-a-solar-powered-family-car/ (http://gigaom.com/2013/07/05/students-in-the-netherlands-unveil-a-solar-powered-family-car/)
Heard about this on NPR today. They produced a solar-powered car that can not only haul around 4 people, but it can be plugged into the power grid when it's parked and can actually provide more energy to the grid then it'd consume while driving over the course of a year (since most of the time a car is just sitting around parked somewhere anyways), giving you something like a negative fuel cost and makes electric cars look extravagantly wasteful.
Can't say it's the best looking car around though. It has to be aerodynamic and covered in solar panels so I guess there's no way around it.
Post by: Lagslayer on July 16, 2013, 08:38:01 pm
Personally, I can't wait until technology opens up new job opportunities, like Space Trucker.Somewhat interesting. Looks kinda big, though.
http://gigaom.com/2013/07/05/students-in-the-netherlands-unveil-a-solar-powered-family-car/ (http://gigaom.com/2013/07/05/students-in-the-netherlands-unveil-a-solar-powered-family-car/)
Heard about this on NPR today. They produced a solar-powered car that can not only haul around 4 people, but it can be plugged into the power grid when it's parked and can actually provide more energy to the grid then it'd consume while driving over the course of a year (since most of the time a car is just sitting around parked somewhere anyways), giving you something like a negative fuel cost and makes electric cars look extravagantly wasteful.
Can't say it's the best looking car around though. It has to be aerodynamic and covered in solar panels so I guess there's no way around it.
Post by: Sergarr on July 17, 2013, 02:08:38 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 17, 2013, 02:45:02 am
Post by: DWC on July 17, 2013, 02:55:05 am
Too ugly. Will not support.
It's got that strange futuristic look from 20 years ago.
Well to be fair it was cobbled together by college students as a proof of concept.
Post by: Scoops Novel on July 18, 2013, 11:21:04 am
Post by: Another on July 18, 2013, 12:31:32 pm
On the other hand - stuff on arXiv that does not mention [upcoming] publication in specific journals tends to be less well thought out.
The worst situation is with papers from before the 90s.
Post by: Scelly9 on July 18, 2013, 02:26:01 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 18, 2013, 02:49:58 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on July 18, 2013, 06:33:47 pm
Post by: DWC on July 18, 2013, 09:23:39 pm
So, this is cool. (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/351485/description/Perfect_mirror_debuts)
That actually is really cool. This means no limit to the power of lasers besides the amount of energy you put into them. Normally, a laser will actually melt itself from some of the energy of it's beam being absorbed by the mirrors that amplify it's energy. With a perfect mirror, this means there is perfect energy output. No limit to how powerful a laser can be.
This could even be a means of energy transmission. Not to mention death-rays that can destroy anything that isn't also another perfect mirror.
Post by: Lagslayer on July 18, 2013, 09:53:44 pm
Post by: DWC on July 18, 2013, 09:58:54 pm
Every material has a breaking point. Eventually, the kinetic force of the laser will be strong enough to break the mirror.
Bro, lasers have no kinetic energy because the photon has zero/infinity mass. It moves at the speed of light. So... E=MC^2 and if M = 0 then E=0.
So yeah.
Post by: Lagslayer on July 18, 2013, 10:02:45 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail)
Post by: Scelly9 on July 18, 2013, 10:10:11 pm
Post by: DWC on July 18, 2013, 10:17:26 pm
Even the "light has no mass" people say it has momentum. It is documented and accepted as scientific fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail)
Bro, electromagnetic radiation includes light, but isn't all like light. Light is special, it's like a particle and a wave at the same time. The only thing a laser uses is light, it doesn't spew out gammas or radio wave or infrared or anything else besides light. The sun spews out everything in the electromagnetic spectrum, including light because it's basically a roiling cloud of hydrogen bombs going off. A solar sail would work because of everything it is sending out (besides light) is causing radiation pressure on the object. Not to mention like, regular thermal energy produced by the sun.
Also, outer space is not a perfect vacuum. The space inside a laser could be a perfect vacuum, with perfect lens and perfect mirrors could produce a ridiculously powerful laser, really only limited by the amount of energy put into it. How awesome are fucking lasers anyways?
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 18, 2013, 11:49:13 pm
Also, outer space is not a perfect vacuum. The space inside a laser could be a perfect vacuum, with perfect lens and perfect mirrors could produce a ridiculously powerful laser, really only limited by the amount of energy put into it. How awesome are fucking lasers anyways?How much power?
Post by: Sirus on July 18, 2013, 11:53:45 pm
Post by: palsch on July 19, 2013, 12:27:02 am
Paper pay-walls are only a problem if you want to access stuff from home. Most universities offer access to all relevant sources in their networks or libraries. And most stuff that does not exist in electronic form and is not present in the library can be accessed through interlibrary loan.
It can be an issue for the libraries themselves. Every once in a while you hear about them dropping certain overpriced journal subscriptions. Sometimes it's part of a boycott, sometimes it's purely for budget reasons. A lot of smaller colleges and universities can't justify the cost of journals that charge an arm and a leg while only being marginally useful.
Obviously big research universities need to have access to as many journals as possible for their research community (you'd be surprised how far afield some articles can end up), but those with less research focus can drop a great many of their subscriptions without too much harm.
As for the perfect mirrors, sounds very constrained in wavelength and angle. Still incredibly cool.
However, DWC, no. Light does have momentum as any other electromagnetic wave. And all objects have both wave and particle behaviour. You can create elements of the laser effect (the spatial coherence at least) with any bosonic matter, including (in limited ways) certain atoms. Lasers in a exact sense can and do exist all across the electromagnetic spectrum. Hell, masers (microwave lasers) pre-date optical lasers. I've used X-ray lasers, and IR lasers are incredibly common.
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 19, 2013, 01:15:47 am
Even the "light has no mass" people say it has momentum. It is documented and accepted as scientific fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail)
Bro, electromagnetic radiation includes light, but isn't all like light. Light is special, it's like a particle and a wave at the same time. The only thing a laser uses is light, it doesn't spew out gammas or radio wave or infrared or anything else besides light. The sun spews out everything in the electromagnetic spectrum, including light because it's basically a roiling cloud of hydrogen bombs going off. A solar sail would work because of everything it is sending out (besides light) is causing radiation pressure on the object. Not to mention like, regular thermal energy produced by the sun.
Also, outer space is not a perfect vacuum. The space inside a laser could be a perfect vacuum, with perfect lens and perfect mirrors could produce a ridiculously powerful laser, really only limited by the amount of energy put into it. How awesome are fucking lasers anyways?
Ugh, sorry, no. All forms of EM radiation are photons. The only special thing about them is that our eyes are sensitive to them. Also, Lasers dont need to be light - in as much as stimulated emission can produce EM radiation at a range of wavelengths. The same principle has been used with microwaves to make Masers, UV Lasers and in theory could be used for X-Ray Lasers. A Laser can not be a perfect vacuum inside - it needs a resonance cavity with gain medium in it (typically gas or solid state) to actually amplify by stimulated emission - perfect vacuum means no material to emit. The need for a material limits thier power output as energy has to be "pumped" into the gain medium to get population inversion (more stimulated electrons than ground state), which is not an efficient process, typically a few %. Two Perfect mirrors would also be pointless - you need the Laserlight to escape at one end after all.
A soar sail will be pushed along by whatever photons hit it - visible, uv, anything. Most of the high energy stuff passes striaght through one, and the low energy stuff has so little momentum (de Broglie's equation...) it makes little difference unless there happens to be many radio-photons. As for the Sun, treating it like a black body and applying Wien's Law it can be shown that the vast majority of photons from the Sun are at a wavelength of 480 nm - nice and orange. So many infact thatmost other wavelengths become irrelevant.
Physics lecture over. Imma gonna go to work and teach this shit now.
Post by: DWC on July 19, 2013, 01:34:18 am
Even the "light has no mass" people say it has momentum. It is documented and accepted as scientific fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail)
Bro, electromagnetic radiation includes light, but isn't all like light. Light is special, it's like a particle and a wave at the same time. The only thing a laser uses is light, it doesn't spew out gammas or radio wave or infrared or anything else besides light. The sun spews out everything in the electromagnetic spectrum, including light because it's basically a roiling cloud of hydrogen bombs going off. A solar sail would work because of everything it is sending out (besides light) is causing radiation pressure on the object. Not to mention like, regular thermal energy produced by the sun.
Also, outer space is not a perfect vacuum. The space inside a laser could be a perfect vacuum, with perfect lens and perfect mirrors could produce a ridiculously powerful laser, really only limited by the amount of energy put into it. How awesome are fucking lasers anyways?
Ugh, sorry, no. All forms of EM radiation are photons. The only special thing about them is that our eyes are sensitive to them. Also, Lasers dont need to be light - in as much as stimulated emission can produce EM radiation at a range of wavelengths. The same principle has been used with microwaves to make Masers, UV Lasers and in theory could be used for X-Ray Lasers. A Laser can not be a perfect vacuum inside - it needs a resonance cavity with gain medium in it (typically gas or solid state) to actually amplify by stimulated emission - perfect vacuum means no material to emit. The need for a material limits thier power output as energy has to be "pumped" into the gain medium to get population inversion (more stimulated electrons than ground state), which is not an efficient process, typically a few %. Two Perfect mirrors would also be pointless - you need the Laserlight to escape at one end after all.
A soar sail will be pushed along by whatever photons hit it - visible, uv, anything. Most of the high energy stuff passes striaght through one, and the low energy stuff has so little momentum (de Broglie's equation...) it makes little difference unless there happens to be many radio-photons. As for the Sun, treating it like a black body and applying Wien's Law it can be shown that the vast majority of photons from the Sun are at a wavelength of 480 nm - nice and orange. So many infact thatmost other wavelengths become irrelevant.
Physics lecture over. Imma gonna go to work and teach this shit now.
tl;dr
But seriously, why would the momentum of something matter if it doesn't have any mass?
Quote
Two Perfect mirrors would also be pointless - you need the Laserlight to escape at one end after all.
Yeah that's true. Damn. Still, if what you said before is true, then it would be some kind of immovable object vs unstoppable force type problem, where the momentum of the light (apparently) will work through a perfect mirror (somehow), right? So, i'd be like a laser-pipebomb, right?
Kidding asides, now I'm genuinely curious since I've found I'm ignorant on something I thought I understood. I've heard of masers. Could a 'perfect mirror' act in a 'laser' that works off a higher energy EM wavelength, like Gamma-rays or something? Like reflect a certain portion of it back to another mirror to concentrate it's effects? You mentioned X-ray lasers (xrasers?) is there a physical limitation on the shorter wave-lengths like gamma-rays working asides from them just normally plowing through a regular mirror?
Post by: Putnam on July 19, 2013, 01:52:00 am
All electromagnetic radiation is light. They are literally the same thing, they are synonymous, they are one. Visible light is only special in that we can see it. Gamma ray lasers can be made just as blue ones can.
All electromagnetic radiation has no mass, but it does have momentum. Momentum matters because e=mc2 is a simplification of the actual equation, e2=m2c4+p2c2, where m = rest mass (0, in the case of light), c is the speed of light and p is the momentum.
Things don't increase in mass as they increase in size, they increase in energy. The difference may mean nothing to you right now, but it should after an explanation. "Mass" usually refers to rest mass. This is the mass of a particle at no momentum. This is a constant and cannot be increased or decreased.
Post by: da_nang on July 19, 2013, 01:59:09 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 19, 2013, 02:05:57 am
Post by: Sergarr on July 19, 2013, 07:37:07 am
Upsalite is apparently a thing now. (http://www.uu.se/en/media/press-release-document/?id=2736&area=3&typ=artikel&na&lang=en)"some of the chemistry details necessary for understanding the reaction mechanism was only available in an old Russian PhD thesis."
Yay for Russian science!
Post by: XXSockXX on July 19, 2013, 08:45:20 am
That is of course true. I guess it depends a lot on how specialised and well-funded you uni is. Also depends on your field of research. Some fields, like economics, are moving very fast and churn out massive amounts of papers. Others, like history, are moving kind of slow, so it's possible to find only a few papers on a subject and these papers might be decades old.Paper pay-walls are only a problem if you want to access stuff from home. Most universities offer access to all relevant sources in their networks or libraries. And most stuff that does not exist in electronic form and is not present in the library can be accessed through interlibrary loan.
It can be an issue for the libraries themselves. Every once in a while you hear about them dropping certain overpriced journal subscriptions. Sometimes it's part of a boycott, sometimes it's purely for budget reasons. A lot of smaller colleges and universities can't justify the cost of journals that charge an arm and a leg while only being marginally useful.
Obviously big research universities need to have access to as many journals as possible for their research community (you'd be surprised how far afield some articles can end up), but those with less research focus can drop a great many of their subscriptions without too much harm.
Post by: palsch on July 21, 2013, 07:40:12 am
The most significant part of this article; (http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=36&doc_id=1318920&itc=eetimes_sitedefault)
Quote
UC Berkeley is now developing printed transistors at 180nm. The technology could deliver chips costing $25 a square meter, not the $25,000 per square meter of current processes, again a huge cost reduction that is mind boggling.Even if this cost reduction was off by a factor of a hundred, a ten-fold decrease in chip costs would be huge.
There doesn't seem to be much published on the topic, but a two year old PhD thesis (http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/07/technical-publications-related-to.html) covers what appears to be the early work on this and suggests it's more than possible the claim is true. Or at least partially true.
Post by: Sergarr on July 21, 2013, 10:30:29 am
So this is murky still but worth a little attention.Watch as this won't result in computers getting cheaper because any profits from new technology will go straight into corporation's pocket. Or hell, maybe they will buy this technology from them, copyright it and forget about it.
The most significant part of this article; (http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=36&doc_id=1318920&itc=eetimes_sitedefault)QuoteUC Berkeley is now developing printed transistors at 180nm. The technology could deliver chips costing $25 a square meter, not the $25,000 per square meter of current processes, again a huge cost reduction that is mind boggling.Even if this cost reduction was off by a factor of a hundred, a ten-fold decrease in chip costs would be huge.
There doesn't seem to be much published on the topic, but a two year old PhD thesis (http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/07/technical-publications-related-to.html) covers what appears to be the early work on this and suggests it's more than possible the claim is true. Or at least partially true.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 21, 2013, 10:35:16 am
Post by: kaian-a-coel on July 21, 2013, 10:37:02 am
How cheaper it will get is debatable, but no right-minded CEO would pass an opportunity to try and screw over all others while still increasing per-sale profit.
Post by: palsch on July 21, 2013, 10:46:58 am
The big change here is scale of production. Using old chip designs and scales today is pointless because they don't actually get cheaper or easier to produce. The machines used to make them may be slightly cheaper to buy second hand, but the fabrication process doesn't change so much between 180nm and the 22nm architecture being sold in top line processors today that you are making any real savings producing the old chips.
Being able to churn out even outdated chips at a far higher rate on a larger scale suddenly makes such older designs worth looking at again. You can do a lot with a 1999 era CPU if you have one lying around. If suddenly you can buy such CPUs for pennies it opens up whole new options for mass computation.
I'll try to dig them up if people are interested, but there have been speculative articles in the past about what could be done with such technology. One comparison was that, if certain predictions on price and scale could be met, you could literally carpet London in such chips (with relevant sensors) for the price of one year's chewing gum removal budget. The possibilities of computation on that scale are pretty incredible.
Post by: Lagslayer on July 21, 2013, 11:05:15 am
Chips WILL be cheaper if this goes out, because competition. If only one corporation halve its chips price, every other will be forced to do the same or perish.In the states, setting prices too much lower than the competition could be considered illegal. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing)
How cheaper it will get is debatable, but no right-minded CEO would pass an opportunity to try and screw over all others while still increasing per-sale profit.
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 21, 2013, 11:05:58 am
Post by: palsch on July 21, 2013, 11:14:33 am
In the states, setting prices too much lower than the competition could be considered illegal. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing)Read the link;
Quote
... because the antitrust laws are ultimately intended to benefit consumers, and discounting results in at least short-term net benefit to consumers, the U.S. Supreme Court has set high hurdles to antitrust claims based on a predatory pricing theory. The Court requires plaintiffs to show a likelihood that the pricing practices will affect not only rivals but also competition in the market as a whole, in order to establish that there is a substantial probability of success of the attempt to monopolize. If there is a likelihood that market entrants will prevent the predator from recouping its investment through supra competitive pricing, then there is no probability of success and the antitrust claim would fail. In addition, the Court established that for prices to be predatory, they must be below the seller's cost.TL:DR; it's only illegal if you are selling below cost in a manner that will destroy the possibility of competition in the market so as to create a monopoly, at which time they will recoup the losses involved in creating that monopoly.
The most blatant attempts at such predatory pricing and monopoly building (Amazon, Walmart, Microsoft) haven't been shut down, so there is no reason to believe these laws have any teeth at all.
Post by: Pnx on July 21, 2013, 12:23:09 pm
Which is totally absurd, considering the USA's devotion to free market economics.The USA has actually pretty much always been a mixed market economy. The, "We are a free market nation" stuff seems to have just been invented because of communism, and has never actually been true (except under certain circumstances when people have wanted it to be true).
Post by: Sheb on July 23, 2013, 02:43:57 am
Post by: Osmosis Jones on July 23, 2013, 04:01:42 am
That Upsalite stuff is pretty cool... maybe we can finally have dessicator boxes that actually stay dessicated!
Post by: Virex on July 25, 2013, 05:38:53 am
There doesn't seem to be much published on the topic, but a two year old PhD thesis (http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/07/technical-publications-related-to.html) covers what appears to be the early work on this and suggests it's more than possible the claim is true. Or at least partially true.
You're looking in the wrong places then. The amount of research being conducted on organic electronics (the largest subclass of printable electronics) is absolutely massive, with the main journal being Advanced functional materials (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.v23.28/issuetoc). Other influential journals that often have papers related to organic electronics are, among others, JACS (http://pubs.acs.org/journal/jacsat), Advanced materials (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1521-4095), Physical review B (http://prb.aps.org/) and Nature materials (http://www.nature.com/nmat/index.html).
Also, while the group you linked to is the only one I know of that is seriously working on printing transistors that small, there are several research groups working on the printing of solar cells, such as Flexible electronics group (http://www.csiro.au/FlexibleElectronics) of CSIRO Australia in Melbourne and the Holst Centre (http://www.holstcentre.com/) (also works on printable LEDs and sensors) in Eindhoven,
Post by: palsch on July 25, 2013, 07:18:20 am
Not to mention that I don't have access to Advanced Materials or any of the other journals right now. I can usually turn up a given paper in a few minutes, but general background searches get considerably harder when there aren't publicly visible reviews and citations.
Post by: Sheb on July 25, 2013, 08:05:08 am
Post by: Scoops Novel on July 26, 2013, 09:05:07 am
The video claims (probably quite reliably) that neonicotinoids, a form of nicotine derived pesticides, are prime offenders, alongside a host of other environmental factors which I'm sure you can all think of. The decline figures are said to be as follows (with a link to the approval of said pesticides): "Beekeepers used to report average losses in their worker bees of about 5-10% a year, but starting around 2006, that rate jumped to about 30%. Today, many large beekeeping operations are reporting that up to 40 or 50 percent of their swarms have mysteriously disappeared." Europe has recently banned them, and whilst I'm certain there are hosts of articles on the subject it does beggar belief that they were approved in the first place. On a scale of planned for to girding down for the apocalypse how fucked are we*?
*Only one batman joke allowed.
Post by: Sheb on July 26, 2013, 09:13:34 am
By the way, the EU did not ban those pesticides. It imposed a 2-year moratorium, which is a joke as those pesticides stay longer than that in the environment: in two years time the agrotech companies will be able to say "See? the bees keep dying, it wasn't our fault" and continue selling their crap.
Post by: Lagslayer on July 26, 2013, 09:54:48 am
In the end, I've done a bit of reading, and the arguments on both sides reek of politics. Then again, what doesn't these days?
Post by: Frumple on July 26, 2013, 09:57:39 am
Post by: Scoops Novel on July 29, 2013, 05:45:19 pm
Post by: Lagslayer on July 29, 2013, 07:18:04 pm
Post by: Virex on July 30, 2013, 05:09:29 am
In the end, I've done a bit of reading, and the arguments on both sides reek of politics. Then again, what doesn't these days?
Politics doesn't. It reeks of mud and bullshit.
Post by: Levi on July 30, 2013, 11:14:04 am
Kinda neat. Apparently they've come up with a bacteria that can be put into plants to make it so they absorb nitrogen directly from the atmosphere. This means they don't need nearly as much fertilizer.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 30, 2013, 06:34:57 pm
http://www.gizmag.com/n-fix-nitrogen-fixation/28482/My mind is blown and I hope this is as true as turnips, this could be Mankind's lifeline to ensuring a population collapse does not happen at all.
Kinda neat. Apparently they've come up with a bacteria that can be put into plants to make it so they absorb nitrogen directly from the atmosphere. This means they don't need nearly as much fertilizer.
Post by: Lagslayer on July 30, 2013, 08:18:57 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 30, 2013, 08:39:41 pm
It's interesting, but it's bound to get the same flak as fertilizer. Instead of "contaminating the water supply" it will be "tampering with the atmosphere".Ha ha what? Over three quarters of our atmosphere is nitrogen. The contamination part is insignificant compared to the issue of where we get the fertilizer from. No reliance on methane or oil means that any collapse in oil supply won't screw over the modern world, which is only possible due to the British agricultural revolution and the green revolution. This could be one more of those revolutions. High hopes. It also won't screw with the soil quality either, since most of the nitrogen will come from the air. With a bit of tampering, I reckon they could even make plants other than legumes be nitrogen fixing in the soil! Humanity won't collapse just yet. It also helps reduce our impact on the ecological world. There is NO way playing God can never end with Godly results.
Post by: Lagslayer on July 30, 2013, 09:00:01 pm
If you are under the impression that I am against using the bacteria, please let this statement serve to correct that. If you are disputing weather or not the environmentalists will rail against it, well... maybe not, but I'm not gonna put it past them just yet.It's interesting, but it's bound to get the same flak as fertilizer. Instead of "contaminating the water supply" it will be "tampering with the atmosphere".Ha ha what? Over three quarters of our atmosphere is nitrogen. The contamination part is insignificant compared to the issue of where we get the fertilizer from. No reliance on methane or oil means that any collapse in oil supply won't screw over the modern world, which is only possible due to the British agricultural revolution and the green revolution. This could be one more of those revolutions. High hopes. It also won't screw with the soil quality either, since most of the nitrogen will come from the air. With a bit of tampering, I reckon they could even make plants other than legumes be nitrogen fixing in the soil! Humanity won't collapse just yet. It also helps reduce our impact on the ecological world. There is NO way playing God can never end with Godly results.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 30, 2013, 09:05:34 pm
If you are under the impression that I am against using the bacteriaEh? Oh these things don't matter. Unless the bacteria begins its symbiotic bonding on angsty teenagers and we start getting people with vegetable powers with photosynthesis and nitrogen based abilities...
If you are disputing weather or not the environmentalists will rail against it, well... maybe not, but I'm not gonna put it past them just yet.Maybe Monsanto can ruin it. They like doing that.
Post by: Sheb on July 31, 2013, 06:14:41 am
But still, it's a definite step up from using artificial fertilizers, since those are so energy-inefficient to creat. (My chemistry teacher used to joke that to produce ammonia, man need huge tanks a 400 °C with hundreds of atmosphere of pressure and tens of tons of catalysts. Bacteria were obviously less advanced in evolution, for they did it at room temperature and pressure.)
Post by: olemars on August 05, 2013, 11:23:53 am
First Petri-burger publically eaten. Get's a bill of "nearly meat".
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 05, 2013, 11:30:20 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 05, 2013, 11:35:04 am
http://www.gizmag.com/n-fix-nitrogen-fixation/28482/Nitrogen fixating bacteria have existed, and are used in farming, for quite a long time.
Kinda neat. Apparently they've come up with a bacteria that can be put into plants to make it so they absorb nitrogen directly from the atmosphere. This means they don't need nearly as much fertilizer.
Nothing new under the sun here.
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 05, 2013, 11:36:06 am
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/aug/05/world-first-synthetic-hamburger-mouth-feel (http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/aug/05/world-first-synthetic-hamburger-mouth-feel)
First Petri-burger publically eaten. Get's a bill of "nearly meat".
So probably better than most of the homrmone laden mechanically processed shit we are offered at the moment then huh?
Post by: olemars on August 05, 2013, 11:38:29 am
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 05, 2013, 11:39:48 am
Post by: Sheb on August 05, 2013, 11:45:11 am
Nothing new under the sun here.
Well, they're used, but mostly in legumes. He managed to "infect" all major cereals crop with it.
As for the steak, it's a non-event. AFAIK they didn't really develop any new technique. They just poured lots of labor in it. Still no way to scale up production.
Post by: Levi on August 12, 2013, 04:57:06 pm
Crazy I say! Science crazy. :)
Post by: Another on August 12, 2013, 07:50:34 pm
Quote from: bootom line from the news
As for how such a system will actually be built, Musk has been hesitant to toss his own hat into the ring, calling the Hyperloop something he’s putting out there as an open-source design. Last week during a Tesla Motors call with investors he said, “I think I shot myself in the foot by ever mentioning the Hyperloop. I’m too strung out.”Theoretically possible with current tech, but who will actually build one if at all? There may be not enough crazy in the right way billionaires.
For now, Hyperloop is going to remain an idea awaiting a prototype built by other people.
Post by: Evil Knievel on August 13, 2013, 01:46:19 am
Anyone else looking at the hyperloop stuff (http://gizmodo.com/hyperloop-alpha-this-could-change-transit-forever-1112058546)? Sounds pretty awesome. Looks like it could transport about 20,000 people between LA and San Francisco per day at 700mph, and runs mostly on solar power.
Crazy I say! Science crazy. :)
Another magnetic levitation train. They try this now for many decades. Not the development, but finding someone willing to pay for such a construction seems to be the problem. ASFAIK, the only train of this type running in the world is located in Shanghai.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev
Post by: Osmosis Jones on August 13, 2013, 02:14:03 am
Reading through a few comments on reddit/ars technica and the like, the civil engineers seem to think he's underpriced the land acquisition and building costs, but everyone else seems to think it's pretty feasible.
God I hope it is; Australia is pretty well perfect for this sort of thing, with large flat terrain, with about 7-800kms between large, densely populated cities. Also, lots of sunshine, for the solar panels on the roof. Plus, since you have all that power generation and transmission infrastructure anyway, it's easy enough to hook up a bunch of charging points and make electric cars more than a pipe dream for rural travel.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 13, 2013, 04:44:31 am
((Also, they would need to demolish and replace a tremendous amount of track to get the damaged capsule out.))
Post by: Sheb on August 13, 2013, 04:54:51 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 13, 2013, 05:00:46 am
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 13, 2013, 05:04:53 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 13, 2013, 05:07:05 am
6 to 10 billion is waaaaay off what it would cost to buld this. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off.Yup, I also find it strange that a complete metal tube would weight less, and be cheaper to build than 2 simple rails.
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 13, 2013, 05:09:05 am
The tube would have to be a couple of mm thick for that to hold true. Probably not the strongest tubes in the world then.
Post by: andrea on August 13, 2013, 05:13:35 am
The price tag is probably going to increase a lot, if it is ever developed. A good part, as many people suggested, would be land costs. But land costs aside, there doesn't seem to be anything too expensive. That bit about being lighter than tracks seems a bit odd, but he is also considering the weight of foundations and similar stuff in that weight. At least when it comes to bridges, I guess it would be cheaper because you don't need to keep an heavy base below tracks.
edit: are the other projects supposed to be elevated too? because if so, I guess it really is lighter.you need more metal to carry the weight of a train if that metal is shaped like as a rail rather than as a tube
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 13, 2013, 05:24:10 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 13, 2013, 05:28:32 am
And well, you can assume that failures are going to happen quite often. At least as often as they happen with other trains. Probably more. Also, the train pushes quite a bit of air in front of it, even with decent aerodynamics, metal fatigue is going to be a problem.
Post by: andrea on August 13, 2013, 06:15:15 am
( Note once again that this is a valid point only if competitors are elevated too. a ground track doesn't need to concern itself with carrying the train.)
As far as the train punching through the tube when air cushion fails... I don't see that happening. it isn't going to levitate that high, and speed doesn't really matter for fall damage. There are fairly large safety limits in civil engineering. if it can stand the train moving, it can stand it falling a few centimeters.
Now, friction when the cushion fails would be a much bigger problem. But I guess some wheels might allow a safe, if not entirely comfortable, stop.
I would be more concerned about it derailing and punching through the sides. But that stuff doesn't tend to happen, as long as drivers don't step out of speed limits. ( which sadly they sometimes do. See for example the recent derailing in spain.)
Aerodynamic pressure on the front might pose some problems, but depending on how it is designed, it may not be significantly worse than those of aircrafts. But on this point I really can't say anything. Besides, it is the kind of thing that can't be properly estimated before building a prototype.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 13, 2013, 06:28:56 am
IIRC, the train's engine only maintains speed, and is not powerful enough to accelerate. Might not need a driver at all, actually. Problems with the decelerators at the station might be problematic though.
Post by: andrea on August 13, 2013, 06:45:10 am
The weight of the train would be supported by the tube, no matter if we are making contact with air cushion or something else.
note that the wheel thing is just something I read in comments and seemed a decent enough idea.
( also, I am not an expert in the field, so take what I say with a grain of salt. I only have a basic understanding of what such advanced trains need to work)
( I would also like to issue a correction on my previous post. The structural benefit is mostly regarding bending, but that is the one that causes problems anyway)
edit: well, I'll give a good read to the 60 pages PDF attached to the article, so I can make somments that are actually useful, rather than speculation.
Post by: Another on August 13, 2013, 08:48:46 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 13, 2013, 11:07:22 am
Post by: Another on August 13, 2013, 12:30:00 pm
Post by: alway on August 15, 2013, 01:31:29 am
Tune in over the next 4 days to learn about all sorts of tech and such related to interstellar travel; from near term stuff like solar sails to terraforming and current investigations of warp drives.
Post by: kaian-a-coel on August 15, 2013, 04:34:25 am
Took me a second to realize I wasn't in the "WTF" thread.
Will look at that.
Post by: Scoops Novel on August 27, 2013, 03:24:56 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 27, 2013, 03:25:51 pm
Post by: Scoops Novel on August 27, 2013, 03:26:22 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 27, 2013, 04:10:42 pm
Post by: Osmosis Jones on August 28, 2013, 04:42:19 am
When was the last time?
Livermorium (formerly Ununhexium) was named in 2012, so pretty recently. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livermorium)
Post by: lemon10 on August 28, 2013, 05:02:17 am
Post by: kaijyuu on August 28, 2013, 11:05:48 am
(see the sidebar/insert thingy labeled "Analysis")
Quote
The aim of the experiment was to see what would happen if a microscopic sphere was spun as fast as was technically possible.
The team balanced it on a laser beam in a complete vacuum and then spun it using the light itself.
They saw it spin faster and faster until it reached 600 million rpm - and then it seemed to vanish!
The researchers don't know what happened to the sphere - but one possibility is that the object may have reached some theoretical speed limit - after which it changed in some way.
The next step for the researchers is to discover what became of the object and whether they really have discovered a completely new physical phenomenon.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 28, 2013, 12:21:08 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on August 28, 2013, 12:35:08 pm
There's new strong evidence for a new element with atomic number 115. Here's a article that's taking this as confirmation, http://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/o.o.i.s?news_item=6082&id=24890, and a BBC article to go with it http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23849334. How long is it taking us to discover new elements, by the way?Elerium!
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 28, 2013, 12:40:57 pm
No matter what name they give it, I'm calling it Elerium and so should you.There's new strong evidence for a new element with atomic number 115. Here's a article that's taking this as confirmation, http://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/o.o.i.s?news_item=6082&id=24890, and a BBC article to go with it http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23849334. How long is it taking us to discover new elements, by the way?Elerium!
I really, really hope they'll name it that all the same. There's no laws on what you get to name elements.
Post by: Solifuge on August 28, 2013, 01:32:01 pm
So, someone made a ball literally disappear. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-23861397)
(see the sidebar/insert thingy labeled "Analysis")
Well, it was a very small ball made at the molecular level; small enough that it could be suspended by the force of a laser. I suspect that it was spinning fast enough that the molecules couldn't be held together by molecular forces, and all disintegrated into the vacuum.
However, acceleration of a mass can dilate time relative to other objects, so I'm secretly hoping that as the molecules rotated at closer to relativistic speeds, the particles/object did something weird in time/space.
Post by: kaijyuu on August 28, 2013, 02:29:04 pm
Post by: Another on August 28, 2013, 02:52:36 pm
Quantum friction that they mentioned will be the focus of their research reminds me of Hawking radiation but for momentum.
Post by: Drakale on August 29, 2013, 11:23:18 am
http://www.spacex.com/news/2013/08/14/grasshopper-100m-lateral-divert-test (http://www.spacex.com/news/2013/08/14/grasshopper-100m-lateral-divert-test)
Not groundbreaking, but pretty impressive how a somewhat heavy rocket can land without spending much time and fuel stabilizing it first.
Post by: olemars on August 29, 2013, 12:30:55 pm
Neat test of spaceX grasshopper rocket
http://www.spacex.com/news/2013/08/14/grasshopper-100m-lateral-divert-test (http://www.spacex.com/news/2013/08/14/grasshopper-100m-lateral-divert-test)
Not groundbreaking, but pretty impressive how a somewhat heavy rocket can land without spending much time and fuel stabilizing it first.
Oddly related: I got a test drive with a Tesla S today, and I have to say Elon Musk is probably the most important entrepeneur of this generation.
Post by: Sheb on August 29, 2013, 01:38:10 pm
Post by: Drakale on August 29, 2013, 01:48:05 pm
At least when he is not trying to revolutionize trains.
Nothing wrong about his hyper loop concept*, he just does not have the funds and resource to develop it properly so he shelved it for now.
*From an engineering POV, I have no idea if it would be economically viable.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 29, 2013, 01:49:37 pm
Post by: Sheb on August 29, 2013, 01:54:42 pm
Post by: Drakale on August 29, 2013, 03:01:13 pm
And if you don't mind taking way more G of lateral acceleration than the rest of the industry.
That's a good point, but wouldn't it be possible to slightly rotate the vehicle within the loop so that the perceived g force stays more or less vertical from the passenger POV?
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 29, 2013, 03:28:35 pm
That's the point of the design. Still means that you'll suddenly get more pressure.And if you don't mind taking way more G of lateral acceleration than the rest of the industry.That's a good point, but wouldn't it be possible to slightly rotate the vehicle within the loop so that the perceived g force stays more or less vertical from the passenger POV?
But I must note that the comparison of the Hyperloop versus standard trains is unfair. Especially the cost. I mean, 5 billion versus 60 seems like a good deal, but they neglect to mention that:
a) You'd need at least 3 hyperloops, maybe more to cover even the minimum expected amounts of passengers on the highspeed line.
b) Ground prices could double the price, and then there's the budget creep. Unlikely to be cheaper/
Post by: Sheb on August 29, 2013, 03:34:49 pm
But I must admit, That guy put his money in cool places, both SpaceX and Tesla seems like great idea to spend his cash.
Post by: lemon10 on August 29, 2013, 03:51:33 pm
Still, assuming that A is true, and he *did* underestimate costs by 300-500%, its still significantly more cost effective then standard rail.That's the point of the design. Still means that you'll suddenly get more pressure.And if you don't mind taking way more G of lateral acceleration than the rest of the industry.That's a good point, but wouldn't it be possible to slightly rotate the vehicle within the loop so that the perceived g force stays more or less vertical from the passenger POV?
But I must note that the comparison of the Hyperloop versus standard trains is unfair. Especially the cost. I mean, 5 billion versus 60 seems like a good deal, but they neglect to mention that:
a) You'd need at least 3 hyperloops, maybe more to cover even the minimum expected amounts of passengers on the highspeed line.
b) Ground prices could double the price, and then there's the budget creep. Unlikely to be cheaper/
Assuming that it even works in the first place that is.
Post by: Sheb on August 29, 2013, 03:54:35 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 29, 2013, 03:59:06 pm
Quote
Michael Anderson, a professor of agricultural and resource economics at UC Berkeley, predicted that "You're talking $100 billion to build what they’re proposing."[Maybe exaggerated.
Post by: Drakale on August 29, 2013, 05:37:50 pm
Maybe I'm on the low end with a factor of 4, but it still seem like a good ballpark figure.
On a totally unrelated note, while reading a wikipedia article I learned that Germany and Denmark both have beer pipelines. The one in Denmark is called the Thor pipeline. That just made my day...
Post by: Lagslayer on August 29, 2013, 10:09:37 pm
Post by: Eric Blank on August 30, 2013, 12:28:23 am
This sounds like something for dwarf fortress: pipeways delivering booze directly to dwarves' bedrooms.
Post by: Gentlefish on August 30, 2013, 01:29:00 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 12, 2013, 05:10:57 pm
Post by: Pnx on September 12, 2013, 05:14:38 pm
Ladies and Gentlemen, Voyager I has left the building. (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/voyager/voyager20130912.html#.UjIq2JEaySM)(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/voyager_1.png)
Spoiler: alt text, which I can't remember how to embed properly (click to show/hide)
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 12, 2013, 05:21:30 pm
Post by: kaian-a-coel on September 12, 2013, 05:27:03 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 13, 2013, 03:31:45 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on September 13, 2013, 04:05:09 pm
It's the first to actually place the implant in the eye, and therefore be mostly unnoticeable though.
Post by: olemars on September 13, 2013, 04:15:23 pm
Post by: Lagslayer on September 13, 2013, 05:50:17 pm
Post by: Dutchling on September 13, 2013, 06:23:43 pm
Post by: Chaoswizkid on September 13, 2013, 06:25:50 pm
This seems less practical but more of an actual solution.
Post by: Nirur Torir on September 13, 2013, 07:43:56 pm
I wonder how the research into hijacking the optic nerve (for people with cases of blindness not involving the optic nerve or visual cortex or etc.) and sending electric impulses converted from camera inputs on sunglasses is going. IIRC, last I heard they had black-and-white blocky vision.IIRC, they recently made (or are finishing up) a firmware update for that model which allows color and slightly better resolution. I think the hardware was recently approved for general use in the US, and has been available in Germany for a few years now, with a German firm nearing (six months to two years?) a model with 40-80% of the electrodes predicted to be necessary for facial recognition [I think they have 60% of 2000 needed].
I need to start writing these things down instead of trying to remember details.
Post by: Lagslayer on September 17, 2013, 02:55:24 pm
Microbial life that breaks down waste can used to harness electricity. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130916161733.htm)
It's pretty interesting, the concept of harnessing electricity from organic lifeforms. That being said, this particular incident is inefficient and expensive.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on September 17, 2013, 03:16:10 pm
But generally, the problem is that while it's very energy efficient, it's not size efficient (1m3 can power a small computer), and not time efficient either.
Post by: pisskop on September 17, 2013, 03:25:34 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on September 20, 2013, 12:38:49 pm
Logic here is that they couldn't have come fallen up, so they must have fallen down from the sky.
Post by: Sirus on September 20, 2013, 12:44:58 pm
Quote
Some of the samples were captured covered with cosmic dust, adding further credence to the idea that they have originated from space..."The particles are very clean," added Prof Wainwright. "They don't have any dust attached to them, which again suggests they're not coming to earth. Similarly, cosmic dust isn't stuck to them, so we think they came from an aquatic environment, and the most obvious aquatic environment in space is a comet.
Quote
The organisms are probably not alive, but, excitingly, probably do contain DNA...The fact that they contain DNA is probably one of the most exciting aspects to this discovery, as it is a big hint that life on earth may itself have extraterrestrial origins.Plus there's no hard facts in the article, just a bunch of conjecture. I call bullshit, either on the magazine's part or the scientist's.
Post by: Another on September 20, 2013, 12:50:11 pm
Post by: Scoops Novel on September 21, 2013, 09:09:32 am
Post by: Lagslayer on September 21, 2013, 09:20:00 am
This is a fine critical analysis: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/20/et_claims_of_alien_life_in_earth_s_atmosphere_are_unfounded.html:(.
Post by: MaximumZero on September 21, 2013, 09:34:55 am
[There's a Wired article about the diminishing fuel supply available to NASA][url]If we would stop using the plutonium to build stupid shit like bombs, this wouldn't be an issue.
(http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/09/plutonium-238-problem)
Post by: andrea on September 21, 2013, 09:59:14 am
putting a stop to the use of plutonium for bombs is what deprived NASA of Pu-238 for their space probes.
Not saying that it can't be produced without making bombs, but the problem is not that they are using plutonium to make nukes.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on September 21, 2013, 10:58:46 am
Edits: The fact that nuclear fuel is being reprocessed in it's entirety for reuse won't hamper supply. There's more than enough nuclear waste to go around.
Edit 2: We might be able to switch to Strontium-90. It's cheaper, and available in bulk due to being a high yield byproduct of fission. Has a much shorter half-life and lower power production though. It might get you to Mars, but not much further.
Edit 3: Though in general, it's not the decay of the material that's the problem, but the wear on the thermocouples.
Quote
at the beginning of 2001, the power generated by the Voyager RTGs had dropped to 315 W for Voyager 1 and to 319 W for Voyager 2. Therefore in early 2001, the RTGs were working at about 67% of their original capacity instead of the expected 83.4%
Post by: Descan on September 26, 2013, 03:22:38 pm
Three things:
A seemingly balanced view on what GMO crops actually cost and benefit the individual farmer, from a Technologist Green website. (http://grist.org/food/are-gmos-worth-their-weight-in-gold-to-farmers-not-exactly/)
Same website, but this time about a solar thermal power plant coming online, powering 200k homes. (http://grist.org/news/worlds-biggest-solar-thermal-power-plant-fired-up-in-california/)
PHOTONIC MOLECULES. Star Trek: Voyager, I've misjudged you. (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-09/hu-sli092513.php)
Post by: Putnam on September 26, 2013, 03:27:53 pm
Post by: Mephansteras on September 26, 2013, 03:35:12 pm
PHOTONIC MOLECULES. Star Trek: Voyager, I've misjudged you. (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-09/hu-sli092513.php)
I love science.
Post by: Descan on September 26, 2013, 03:36:39 pm
Molecules would be the two photons interacting with each other, something that photons are supposed to never do.
The article is talking about two photons interacting with other. A molecule.
I do not see the issue, Putnam.
Post by: Putnam on September 26, 2013, 04:05:53 pm
i read that whole thing wrong somehow
Post by: Lagslayer on September 26, 2013, 04:25:46 pm
A seemingly balanced view on what GMO crops actually cost and benefit, from a Technologist Green website. (http://grist.org/food/are-gmos-worth-their-weight-in-gold-to-farmers-not-exactly/)1. *sigh*
Same website, but this time about a solar thermal power plant coming online, powering 200k homes. (http://grist.org/news/worlds-biggest-solar-thermal-power-plant-fired-up-in-california/)
PHOTONIC MOLECULES. Star Trek: Voyager, I've misjudged you. (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-09/hu-sli092513.php)
2. "Some environmentalists have been angered by its impacts on the desert ecosystem, focusing on displaced desert tortoises." You just can't please some people.
3. Neat. Also, I find it astounding that people keep denying that photons have actual mass.
Post by: Descan on September 26, 2013, 04:35:01 pm
Post by: Putnam on September 26, 2013, 05:21:55 pm
3. Neat. Also, I find it astounding that people keep denying that photons have actual mass.
Because they don't have any rest mass. Also, not actually a new state of matter (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12512.html). Photons ain't matter, so...
Post by: Il Palazzo on September 26, 2013, 05:44:56 pm
It behaves as both wave and a particle? Roger that. There can be infinite amount of them in one spot? Ten-four! They have no invariant mass? MISTER YOU'VE GONE TOO FAR GIVE ME BACK MY CHILDHOOD!
Post by: Putnam on September 26, 2013, 05:47:53 pm
Post by: kaian-a-coel on September 26, 2013, 06:40:21 pm
I'm not sure if any particles don't behave as both wave and particle.AFAIK none don't.
Also, regarding photons' mass, what I have trouble to wrap my head around is them actually having mass at all. I understand it's relativistic mass, but that's a weird kind of mass.
Post by: Lagslayer on September 26, 2013, 07:58:50 pm
I'm not sure if any particles don't behave as both wave and particle.This is exactly my point.
I find it fascinating that people feel so strongly about photon's mass. Nobody ever makes larum about any other of its actually mind-bending properties.1. read above
It behaves as both wave and a particle? Roger that. There can be infinite amount of them in one spot? Ten-four! They have no invariant mass? MISTER YOU'VE GONE TOO FAR GIVE ME BACK MY CHILDHOOD!
2. I feel the answer to this stems from the "mass or no mass" thing. If it has mass, must it not it also have volume?
3. photons are very, very fast, and obviously very small. Their inertia can be measured because they are so fast, despite therm being so small. If a single photon were to be slowed down enough to be weighed with other methods, our equipment would not be sensitive enough to detect it.
Post by: Putnam on September 26, 2013, 09:17:28 pm
2. Not necessarily. Note especially electrons, whose volume has so far always been measured as "too small to be measured with our equipment".
3. Photons can't be slowed down, as they have no rest mass and thus always move at the speed of light. Photons' inertia are measured through their wavelength and such, not through momentum as understood in macroscopic objects. Photons being "slowed" are not actually slowed, but bouncing between particles that capture and re-emit them. The photons themselves are always going at the speed of light.
Post by: Lagslayer on September 27, 2013, 09:57:01 am
Post by: MonkeyHead on September 27, 2013, 10:19:19 am
This is going to rapidly advance to the whole "collapsing waveform" idea isnt it?
Post by: kaian-a-coel on September 27, 2013, 10:29:36 am
Post by: Another on September 27, 2013, 10:47:38 am
"Weak measurements" can provide a way to tell that a particle most likely went through e.g. left slit and still not completely destroy interference pattern with the smaller part of waveform that "went" through right slit.
Post by: Sheb on September 27, 2013, 01:09:12 pm
Post by: wierd on September 27, 2013, 01:19:12 pm
Let me see if I can find it.
Not the best source... (http://theastronomist.fieldofscience.com/2010/08/limits-on-lasers.html) but meh. If it piques your curiosity, it at least helps you to dig through better publications to find authors and experiments.
Post by: Putnam on September 27, 2013, 03:23:58 pm
But they do everything that an object with traditional mass does, except for the stuff we can't measure.
Except that they go without fail at a speed that particles with rest mass can't under any circumstances except given a nonsensical (infinite) amount of energy, and they go at that speed even when their momentum is arbitrarily near zero. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Experimental_checks_on_photon_mass)
Post by: Scoops Novel on September 27, 2013, 04:38:41 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 01, 2013, 12:27:53 pm
No not really, but apparently actually turned light solid, or something like that. Sounds like fake or misunderstood science though.
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 01, 2013, 12:33:00 pm
No not really, but apparently actually turned light solid, or something like that. Sounds like fake or misunderstood science though.Nope, they made a new form of matter as you do. Completely legit. Also a bit old news, by internet years at least.
This week in science:
First computer made of carbon nanotubes is unveiled
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24232896)Rail mobile internet speeds set to get faster in UK (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24332287)
Reverse ageing by boosting cells' mitochondria, "It was like an 80-year-old recovering the function of a 30-year-old." (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21929364.200-reverse-ageing-by-boosting-cells-energy-factories.html?cmpid=RSS|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|online-news#.Ukmvz8rLI5O)
Stem Cell Breakthrough in Mice Points Toward a Way to Repair Tissue in Humans (http://singularityhub.com/2013/09/25/stem-cell-breakthrough-in-mice-points-toward-a-way-to-repair-tissue-in-humans/)
Yale breakthrough bolsters fight against Alzheimers (http://www.gizmag.com/alzheimers-dementia-cure-yale-amyloid-treatment/29134/)
Scientists take big step towards universal flu vaccine (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24175030)
Stem cells made with near-perfect efficiency (http://www.nature.com/news/stem-cells-made-with-near-perfect-efficiency-1.13775)
Bit O' Doom Science with drug resistant blights on the rise. (http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/16/cdc-drug-resistance-antibiotics-report)
Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe? (http://www.nature.com/news/did-a-hyper-black-hole-spawn-the-universe-1.13743)
NASA Hails Private Cygnus Spacecraft's 'Picture Perfect' 1st Launch to Station (http://www.space.com/22853-private-cygnus-spacecraft-launch-success.html)
Experimental Spaceplane Shooting for “Aircraft-Like” Operations in Orbit (http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2013/09/17.aspx)
Mars hopper concept 'is feasible' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24213830)
NASA preparing to launch 3-D printer into space (Update) (http://phys.org/news/2013-09-nasa-d-printer-space.html#jCp)
China to launch space station by 2023 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24282060)
Japan robot can pick strawberry fields forever for farmer (http://phys.org/news/2013-09-japan-robot-strawberry-fields-farmer.html#jCp)
Giant robots harnessed to excavate the mines of the future: BAGGER 288, NOW WITH MORE AUTOMATED AUSSIE FLAGS (http://www.dvice.com/2013-9-10/giant-robots-harnessed-excavate-mines-future)
Tesla Working Towards 90 Percent Autonomous Car Within Three Years (http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/artificial-intelligence/tesla-working-towards-90-autonomous-car-within-three-years/)
Students build low-cost nanoscope out of Lego (http://www.dvice.com/2013-9-20/students-build-low-cost-nanoscope-out-lego)
Superluminal Communications (http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/1471141)
Post by: i2amroy on October 01, 2013, 02:35:03 pm
Superluminal Communications (http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/1471141)This one sounds way too much like the idea of using a commoner railgun from D&D to instantly transmit messages for my liking.
Post by: Il Palazzo on October 01, 2013, 03:07:31 pm
That article is a load of crackpot bollocks, as is Santili - its main "scienctific" source. Santili Foundation has got as much to do with science as homeopathy does with medicine.Superluminal Communications (http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/1471141)This one sounds way too much like the idea of using a commoner railgun from D&D to instantly transmit messages for my liking.
The article even goes full-on conspiracy theory with this statement about the recent-ish superluminal neutrinos affair:
Quote
An experimental collaboration at CERN headed bu the Italian scientist A. Ereditato measured in 2012 neutrinos traveling undergrounds from the Geneva Laboratory in Switzerland to the Gran Sasso Laboratory in Italy at superluminal speeds (see the report http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/OPERA-experiment.pdf). However, these results were opposed by supporters of Einstein theories currently controlling CERN who changed the data elaborations without redoing the experiments and published a claim that neutrinos were moving at subluminal speeds
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 01, 2013, 03:10:37 pm
Post by: Darvi on October 01, 2013, 03:18:25 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 01, 2013, 03:30:01 pm
Legoscope is cheap
=> More science for less money.
Post by: Another on October 01, 2013, 03:42:44 pm
NASA Hails Private Cygnus Spacecraft's 'Picture Perfect' 1st Launch to Station (http://www.space.com/22853-private-cygnus-spacecraft-launch-success.html)Except for a software glitch that led to a week delay before the docking with ISS - yes, perfect.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 01, 2013, 03:49:37 pm
Also, it doesn't even have automated docking. They have to bring it in using the Canadarm.
*Which technically is a private organization, but so is Arianeespace, which should technically claim all these records. ((But doesn't, because the cooperation with the ESA is considered to close))
Post by: Lagslayer on October 01, 2013, 05:04:28 pm
Post by: Virex on October 01, 2013, 09:31:30 pm
NASA Hails Private Cygnus Spacecraft's 'Picture Perfect' 1st Launch to Station (http://www.space.com/22853-private-cygnus-spacecraft-launch-success.html)Except for a software glitch that led to a week delay before the docking with ISS - yes, perfect.
It didn't crash. Therefor it went perfectly. Remember that despite decades of research, rocketry still consists of putting something on top of an exploding bomb and praying it goes the right way.
Post by: Sheb on October 02, 2013, 08:42:26 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 02, 2013, 11:53:45 am
I think the Soyuz can do automatic docking too, but they don't let it do that anymore after one crashed into Mir.
Also: I was trying to look for something interesting. Thanks google for their snapshots, and the wayback machine too. (http://history.nasa.gov/index.html)
Post by: Scoops Novel on October 02, 2013, 12:23:45 pm
Post by: wierd on October 02, 2013, 12:29:58 pm
Wear a lead suit. (or, use a really big telescope from very far away.)
Post by: Sheb on October 02, 2013, 12:39:25 pm
Post by: wierd on October 02, 2013, 12:46:39 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 04, 2013, 09:51:59 am
Post by: Lagslayer on October 04, 2013, 12:16:35 pm
Low resolution terminator (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aZbJS6LZbs&feature=player_embedded)1:10
I have to go now, my people need me.
Post by: alway on October 04, 2013, 07:55:58 pm
It can run at least 16 m/h (25 km/h), and is basically an untethered version of their earlier Cheetah prototype which could go up to 48 km/h.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/military-robots/whoa-boston-dynamics-announces-new-wildcat-quadruped
Also, comparing every robotic system to terminator is stupid. There is no descriptive power in that comparison.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 05, 2013, 01:57:03 am
Also, comparing every robotic system to terminator is stupid. There is no descriptive power in that comparison.Yup, thereby compelling people to gain additionall information, and read the article.
Post by: alway on October 05, 2013, 09:28:47 am
Thus making it clickbait, and ethically obligating me to avoid it so as not to encourage such stupidity on the part of writers.Also, comparing every robotic system to terminator is stupid. There is no descriptive power in that comparison.Yup, thereby compelling people to gain additionall information, and read the article.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 05, 2013, 09:29:36 am
Post by: Scoops Novel on October 05, 2013, 09:47:50 am
Post by: Drakale on October 06, 2013, 11:16:20 am
Really impressive, though it obviously can't navigate any kind of rough terrain(yet). The software will need to be fairly advanced, or self learning do deal with that.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 08, 2013, 09:56:39 am
Post by: Drakale on October 08, 2013, 11:40:26 am
Post by: MonkeyHead on October 08, 2013, 12:51:05 pm
Post by: Descan on October 08, 2013, 01:30:24 pm
As in, they pump 10mw of power into the fuel (even though the lasers might consume like... 20mw), and the reaction output 15mw.
*All numbers are ass-pulls to illustrate the point.
Post by: Drakale on October 08, 2013, 01:35:17 pm
Post by: Lagslayer on October 08, 2013, 02:57:59 pm
Bare with me here, but I have an idea. What if we orchestrated the congregation of interstellar mass until it gets dense enough to ignite itself? Naturally, if we wanted a net gain, we would basically just make sure things get nudged in the proper direction and they come together relatively quickly. This would still likely take a long time (especially for humans), and such a thing is still way beyond our reach, but theoretically, shouldn't we be able to manufacture stars?
Post by: Bauglir on October 08, 2013, 03:00:05 pm
Post by: Lagslayer on October 08, 2013, 03:01:21 pm
Conceivably, but it would probably be more efficient to just use that mass to build a Dyson Sphere around a star that already exists.I was assuming those two would go hand in hand. No sense making a new star if you aren't gonna harness the energy. Though, if we are just gonna be star hopping anyways, it probably would be more efficient to go from star to star, even with this technology, and only if we had to choose between the two. Doing them both together could theoretically replace stars that go out, reducing the need for immediate outward expansion. It could also be used to refuel old stars and keep them going longer. Imagine if we dumped all the other matter in this solar system into the sun (excluding earth and it's moon, of course). How much longer would that keep it going?
Stop me if I'm rambling.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 08, 2013, 03:05:16 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 08, 2013, 03:11:01 pm
Post by: Another on October 08, 2013, 03:45:52 pm
*Same way as you can extract energy from water moving from high place to low.
Post by: Descan on October 08, 2013, 04:09:09 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on October 08, 2013, 04:13:55 pm
Imagine if we dumped all the other matter in this solar system into the sun (excluding earth and it's moon, of course). How much longer would that keep it going?
Stop me if I'm rambling.
Not much difference. The Sun is 99% of the Solar System by mass anyway.
I'm pretty sure Betelgeuse is a feeeeew solar masses larger than the sun. You know, just a tad. >_> So it'd be more than a "adding a few solar masses" to the sun to make it a black hole.[/quote]
Smallest possible stellar mass for black hole formation is 3 to 4 x MSun. Most are around 10 solar masses. In theory you could have one of any size, but for one to form from star death, we are talking large mass stars only.
Post by: kaijyuu on October 08, 2013, 05:34:29 pm
Only really big ones are stable, and all eventually will evaporate.
Post by: Bauglir on October 08, 2013, 05:49:03 pm
Quote
Imagine if we dumped all the other matter in this solar system into the sun (excluding earth and it's moon, of course). How much longer would that keep it going?
Stop me if I'm rambling.
Not much difference. The Sun is 99% of the Solar System by mass anyway.I'm pretty sure Betelgeuse is a feeeeew solar masses larger than the sun. You know, just a tad. >_> So it'd be more than a "adding a few solar masses" to the sun to make it a black hole.
Smallest possible stellar mass for black hole formation is 3 to 4 x MSun. Most are around 10 solar masses. In theory you could have one of any size, but for one to form from star death, we are talking large mass stars only.
Fixed your quote tags :P
Anyway, if we're already assuming starforging and harvesting, we can probably assume that we'll be somehow sucking off heavy elements as they're fused and using them as raw materials to repair damage to the Sphere, allowing us to continue to add hydrogen.
Post by: Il Palazzo on October 08, 2013, 10:12:12 pm
Dumping mass onto a star shortens its life span. Refuelling the Sun without also removing the spent material from the core is not going to work.Imagine if we dumped all the other matter in this solar system into the sun (excluding earth and it's moon, of course). How much longer would that keep it going?Not much difference. The Sun is 99% of the Solar System by mass anyway.
Stop me if I'm rambling.
Black holes form in our atmosphere all the time. It's just that they evaporate almost instantly afterward.Has there been any recently found evidence of micro black hole creation/evaporation?
Only really big ones are stable, and all eventually will evaporate.
Dissapearing micro black holes should produce a distinct signature flashes that to my knowledge have never been observed as of yet. They certainly haven't found any at CERN.
From what I understand, Hawking radiation is a semi-classical argument, so on the micro scale it might very well not work, and the micro-holes might no longer evaporate.
The point being stating it as fact without conclusive evidence might be a bit of a stretch.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 08, 2013, 10:16:01 pm
Post by: Lagslayer on October 08, 2013, 10:21:33 pm
Regardless, all matter in the universe has not been consumed by black holes, so we can assume there is some element preventing rampant stable singularity formation.Maybe the black holes themselves reach critical mass and explode.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 08, 2013, 10:25:00 pm
Post by: Lagslayer on October 08, 2013, 10:30:55 pm
Basically, we would have to look for the point where the forces of repulsion between particles start to overcome the forces of gravity shoving them together.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 08, 2013, 10:34:33 pm
Post by: Gentlefish on October 08, 2013, 10:36:40 pm
Black holes only release x-rays. The rest of the energy is effectively gone from the system.
Post by: Lagslayer on October 08, 2013, 10:40:20 pm
Post by: Gentlefish on October 08, 2013, 10:49:02 pm
Post by: Il Palazzo on October 08, 2013, 10:54:21 pm
Regardless, all matter in the universe has not been consumed by black holes, so we can assume there is some element preventing rampant stable singularity formation.The point being the same theories that predict black hole creation from high-energy collisions predict their evaporation. The lack of evidence for the latter weighs also on the former. The lack of rampant singularities can be simply due to them never having reason to exist in the first place.
Doubt it. From what we know, galaxies maintain their gravitational stability through having supermassive black holes at the center. I do not know of us having found any exploded/exploding galaxies.While there is certainly no theoretical basis nor observational evidence(the explosions would be huge) for the black holes exploding after attaining "critical mass", the rest of the argument is contrived.
The central black holes have very limited effect on galaxies. A 1 million solar masses black hole contains mere 0.001% mass of the Milky Way. From 1000 ly away it's gravitational field is as weak as the Sun's from 1 ly. Additionally, from sufficiently far away, there's no difference between having a black hole at the centre and having an equivalent amount of regular stars distributed in the core.
Removing the hole would radically change the orbits of stars in its immediate neighbourhood. It would definitelly not destabilise the galaxy as a whole.
Post by: Putnam on October 08, 2013, 10:55:58 pm
But where does it all go after the hole dissipates?
The hole dissipated because it all went through Hawking Radiation.
Post by: Bauglir on October 08, 2013, 10:58:45 pm
You know how matter is super-condensed energy?That's not... really accurate. It's a configuration of particles that happens to have mass, like (say) a photon is a configuration of particles that lacks mass. I'm not sure there's a meaningful interpretation of "super-condensed energy".
Post by: Putnam on October 08, 2013, 11:00:58 pm
Post by: alway on October 09, 2013, 01:58:02 am
Or something like that. The definitions of these things (particles and waves in particular) aren't quite fuzzy so much that words haven't been made to describe what they specifically are without the connotations of what we thought they were before.Or more accurately, no one here has bothered to read wikipedia articles relevant to the discussion. :P
It's less that matter is weird and more than most people have bullshit preconceptions about the nature of things. Crusty leftovers from the rotten corpse of Plato and similar, combined with a healthy dose of evolutionary baggage. Things simply aren't discrete (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_amplitude), and a true lack of things simply does not exist anywhere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam). Time is not weird, it simply can have singularities and infinities; not really any more unusual than such a basic operation as a tangent function. Neither does time flow in one direction; it doesn't flow any more than space does, our meatspace brains simply happen to operate in one direction due to interesting emergent properties arising from things interacting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time#Arrows).
All that aside, the X-Rays you observe from black holes is the result of the black hole feeding, not hawking radiation. Hawking radiation decreases rapidly with size, and so the larger a black hole is, the longer it lives. Supermassive black holes are expected to live on the order of 10^106 years or so. Or approximately 96 orders of magnitude longer than from the big bang to now. One with the mass of the sun would be around 10^66. Or around 56 orders of magnitude longer than the lifetime of our sun. By the time these decay, the entire rest of the universe has pretty much spun down to a high-entropy state in which the energy to even form a star has been gone for eons unimaginable.
The X-Rays you see are the result, not of this tiny trickle of energy, but from dust and such, accelerated to near light-speed, being all jostled and mushed together in a chaotic soup, then shot out in jets along magnetic poles.
Post by: olemars on October 09, 2013, 06:04:19 am
Guardian article with cheesy headline. (http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/oct/07/forcefield-computer-hand-movements-haptic-bristol-minority-report)
Actual project website with videos and papers. (http://big.cs.bris.ac.uk/projects/ultrahaptics)
Quote
UltraHaptics employs focused ultrasound to project discrete points of haptic feedback through the display and directly on to users’ unadorned hands. We investigate the desirable properties of an acoustically transparent display and demonstrate that the system is capable of creating multiple localised points of feedback in mid-air. Through psychophysical experiments we show that feedback points with different tactile properties can be identified at smaller separations. We also show that users are able to distinguish between different vibration frequencies of non-contact points with training. Finally, we explore a number of exciting new interaction possibilities that UltraHaptics provides
Unadorned hands!
I can think of a few applications for something like this. One thing is combining it with 3D or the Minory Report gimmic, but it could also be a huge boon for blind people who now have to deal with shitty text-to-speech or rather bulky braille surfaces.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on October 09, 2013, 07:10:41 am
Also, I didn't see it mentioned, so just a heads up; in news that will surprise absolutely no one, Peter Higgs and Francois Englert have won the Nobel prize for physics (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/science/englert-and-higgs-win-nobel-physics-prize.html?_r=0).
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 09, 2013, 09:25:14 am
Post by: Baffler on October 09, 2013, 03:16:57 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 09, 2013, 03:28:11 pm
Please don't be a hoax, please don't be a hoax! (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24429621)It's not a hoax, it's an grave overstatement.
As stated a few pages earlier, they don't count the inefficiency of their laser*. So no, fusion has not broken even yet. Only thing they did is getting more energy out of the reaction, than the thermal energy they put in.
*Which are quite large. In case of the National ignition facility, only 33% of the power put into the laser is actually emitted. And then there's the inefficiency of the absorption. Not all the energy is absorbed after all, a significant amount of light is reflected. Adding to that, at best only 33%-40% of the thermal energy can be recovered. (Not counting waste heat recuperation, as that doesn't produce electricity.)
Post by: Baffler on October 09, 2013, 03:34:59 pm
Post by: kaian-a-coel on October 10, 2013, 03:55:38 am
Please don't be a hoax, please don't be a hoax! (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24429621)TL;DR:
Energy expended into firing the laser >> energy brought by the lasers to the pellet < energy generated by the pellet entering nuclear fusion.
That's still not "breaking even", but that's progress, and an important milestone indeed. Now we have to reduce the laser inefficiencies and/or increase the energy output ration by the pellet to the point that it offset the lasers' firing costs.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 10, 2013, 05:50:47 am
Post by: Osmosis Jones on October 10, 2013, 06:47:53 am
The solution to neurdegeneration? (Also Alzheimer) (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24462699)
Promising. Couple it with the fact you can detect Alzheimers with peanut butter (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/09/alzheimers-smell-test-peanut-butter_n_4072892.html), and we may just see the disease become a thing of the past.
Post by: Solifuge on October 10, 2013, 09:36:44 am
I'm hoping this means in a decade or so, we'll see civilian applications of strength-enhancing exosuits, for construction, heavy labor, or mobility assistance. Sure, my grandmother has a Titanium Hip, but I'd like to see proper bionically-enhanced grandparents in the future.
BBC News feed, you're alright.
Post by: olemars on October 10, 2013, 09:43:44 am
I'm hoping this means in a decade or so, we'll see civilian applications of strength-enhancing exosuits, for construction, heavy labor, or mobility assistance. Sure, my grandmother has a Titanium Hip, but I'd like to see proper bionically-enhanced grandparents in the future.
There are one or two sort-of commercially available products like this available already, although the names elude me. A hospital around here bought one to assist rehabilitation of paralyzed patients.
Post by: Lagslayer on October 10, 2013, 10:18:41 am
Biopunk > Cyberpunk
Post by: alway on October 11, 2013, 12:15:17 pm
Post by: Gentlefish on October 11, 2013, 12:19:34 pm
How Target and similar companies know you're pregnant before anyone else. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0
Not only that, but also how they know EVERYTHING ABOUT YOU after you shop there once...
This goes into the terrified thread.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 11, 2013, 12:46:29 pm
Post by: Dutchling on October 11, 2013, 02:37:51 pm
Then how did you read the article?You're surprised by that. I mean, that technology is almost a decade old.I don't keep up with the times.
Post by: Sergarr on October 11, 2013, 02:42:24 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSf9aEETnvEThen how did you read the article?You're surprised by that. I mean, that technology is almost a decade old.I don't keep up with the times.
Post by: Solifuge on October 11, 2013, 03:59:32 pm
How Target and similar companies know you're pregnant before anyone else. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0
The bit on page 4-5 about how Febreze rebranded itself to piggyback on behavioral cleaning habits was really cool. But the marketing behemoth it alludes to is also sort of heartless, calculating, and terrifying.
Post by: Descan on October 11, 2013, 04:04:37 pm
That's assuming they're not just handed out like candy. :v
Post by: Solifuge on October 11, 2013, 04:24:29 pm
Eventually, we'll get a molecular printer that can use heat/pressure/electricity to bond raw elements into complex compounds. Of course, we'll still have to buy raw elements... but once fusion is working smoothly, and we can synthesize heavier elements like carbon and nitrogen from lighter ones on an industrial scale, I could see something akin to replicators on the distant horizon.
Post by: alway on October 11, 2013, 08:13:33 pm
It's not even privacy though. In this case, it's just information based on what you bought; which as it turns out, contains huge quantities of statistical data when placed in the context of statistical databases. It isn't so much invading privacy as it is mining information they already have for implications hidden in the patterns.How Target and similar companies know you're pregnant before anyone else. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0That actually makes me feel rather pissed off.
I like how privacy appears to becoming less of a fact and more of an illusion.
And that information is vast and highly valuable; pretty much every company is doing it these days. They can predict what you will want before you even know you want it. All of it done is such a way that no human ever knows any of the information gathered and created about a specific individual; not even the caretakers of the software. It isn't quite about a privacy; the NSA or similar privacy invading organizations might be interested in the individual, but companies really aren't. If it does anything, it is more an invasion of the notion of your own free will. We humans like to think of ourselves as spontaneous, unpredictable, unique... a highly common theme among a variety of media. And yet, when it comes right down to it, simple statistical analysis will figure out what you want before you do, with a high degree of accuracy (recommender systems).
Which is why AI will almost certainly end up in a role as caretaker to humanity; and to a large extent, how it already has.
Post by: kaijyuu on October 11, 2013, 08:17:26 pm
simple statistical analysis will figure out what you want before you do, with a high degree of accuracy (recommender systems).If Amazon's recommendation system is anything to go by, this technology is the opposite of accurate.
Maybe it's just Amazon, though.
Post by: Descan on October 11, 2013, 08:53:45 pm
Post by: alway on October 11, 2013, 09:07:42 pm
On an unrelated note: http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/11/health/miracle-marathoner-carlos/index.html?hpt=us_t2
Man lives for a month without breathing, recovers. Who needs lungs anyway. We have
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 12, 2013, 01:43:03 am
With 3D printers, we're getting closer. Once people start to 3D-print protein paste into artificially flavored foods, and realize how much having access to that kind of tech has the potential to change the world, we'll see a drive toward more and more refined printers that can handle a wider variety of matter.That is actually possible already. It makes small cookies. Major corporations have decided not to develop the technology, as there's currently a "back to the old times" trend going on in cooking.
Eventually, we'll get a molecular printer that can use heat/pressure/electricity to bond raw elements into complex compounds. Of course, we'll still have to buy raw elements... but once fusion is working smoothly, and we can synthesize heavier elements like carbon and nitrogen from lighter ones on an industrial scale, I could see something akin to replicators on the distant horizon.
Post by: Putnam on October 12, 2013, 01:45:28 am
With 3D printers, we're getting closer. Once people start to 3D-print protein paste into artificially flavored foods, and realize how much having access to that kind of tech has the potential to change the world, we'll see a drive toward more and more refined printers that can handle a wider variety of matter.That is actually possible already. It makes small cookies. Major corporations have decided not to develop the technology, as there's currently a "back to the old times" trend going on in cooking.
Eventually, we'll get a molecular printer that can use heat/pressure/electricity to bond raw elements into complex compounds. Of course, we'll still have to buy raw elements... but once fusion is working smoothly, and we can synthesize heavier elements like carbon and nitrogen from lighter ones on an industrial scale, I could see something akin to replicators on the distant horizon.
Free-range farm cookies popular among today's hip youth, experts say.
Post by: Lagslayer on October 12, 2013, 09:14:21 am
I suppose that joke was inevitable.With 3D printers, we're getting closer. Once people start to 3D-print protein paste into artificially flavored foods, and realize how much having access to that kind of tech has the potential to change the world, we'll see a drive toward more and more refined printers that can handle a wider variety of matter.That is actually possible already. It makes small cookies. Major corporations have decided not to develop the technology, as there's currently a "back to the old times" trend going on in cooking.
Eventually, we'll get a molecular printer that can use heat/pressure/electricity to bond raw elements into complex compounds. Of course, we'll still have to buy raw elements... but once fusion is working smoothly, and we can synthesize heavier elements like carbon and nitrogen from lighter ones on an industrial scale, I could see something akin to replicators on the distant horizon.
Free-range farm cookies popular among today's hip youth, experts say.
Post by: MaximumZero on October 12, 2013, 10:14:02 am
outside of a car radioI have a USB port and an auxiliary jack on my car stereo. I never listen to the radio in the car, either.
Post by: Evil Knievel on October 13, 2013, 03:56:24 am
How Target and similar companies know you're pregnant before anyone else. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0
Not only that, but also how they know EVERYTHING ABOUT YOU after you shop there once...
This goes into the terrified thread.
As long as you (can) pay cash, no one tracks you.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on October 15, 2013, 01:10:50 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 15, 2013, 01:23:39 pm
Interesting page to watch. (http://www.iter.org/proj/itermilestones)
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 15, 2013, 01:37:24 pm
Besides, I like the symbolism in its name.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 15, 2013, 01:54:22 pm
At this point both the Graphene and Human Brain projects are working. Others might be under consideration.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 15, 2013, 02:27:49 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 15, 2013, 02:49:59 pm
Both projects have a 1 billion euro budget.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on October 15, 2013, 03:13:39 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 15, 2013, 03:18:35 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on October 15, 2013, 03:26:20 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 15, 2013, 03:31:14 pm
Post by: Tsuchigumo550 on October 15, 2013, 03:33:41 pm
But hopefully it wasn't inedible.I suppose that joke was inevitable.With 3D printers, we're getting closer. Once people start to 3D-print protein paste into artificially flavored foods, and realize how much having access to that kind of tech has the potential to change the world, we'll see a drive toward more and more refined printers that can handle a wider variety of matter.That is actually possible already. It makes small cookies. Major corporations have decided not to develop the technology, as there's currently a "back to the old times" trend going on in cooking.
Eventually, we'll get a molecular printer that can use heat/pressure/electricity to bond raw elements into complex compounds. Of course, we'll still have to buy raw elements... but once fusion is working smoothly, and we can synthesize heavier elements like carbon and nitrogen from lighter ones on an industrial scale, I could see something akin to replicators on the distant horizon.
Free-range farm cookies popular among today's hip youth, experts say.
Post by: Lagslayer on October 15, 2013, 06:03:13 pm
I was considering that one, too, but decided "ehh..."But hopefully it wasn't inedible.I suppose that joke was inevitable.With 3D printers, we're getting closer. Once people start to 3D-print protein paste into artificially flavored foods, and realize how much having access to that kind of tech has the potential to change the world, we'll see a drive toward more and more refined printers that can handle a wider variety of matter.That is actually possible already. It makes small cookies. Major corporations have decided not to develop the technology, as there's currently a "back to the old times" trend going on in cooking.
Eventually, we'll get a molecular printer that can use heat/pressure/electricity to bond raw elements into complex compounds. Of course, we'll still have to buy raw elements... but once fusion is working smoothly, and we can synthesize heavier elements like carbon and nitrogen from lighter ones on an industrial scale, I could see something akin to replicators on the distant horizon.
Free-range farm cookies popular among today's hip youth, experts say.
Post by: Gentlefish on October 15, 2013, 07:55:04 pm
Post by: Descan on October 15, 2013, 08:23:00 pm
Post by: Gentlefish on October 15, 2013, 09:31:11 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 15, 2013, 11:39:20 pm
Though we can make it in a lab.
Post by: alway on October 17, 2013, 12:46:04 pm
This article pretty well summarizes the biggest issue I have with robotics reporting.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 17, 2013, 12:52:48 pm
AMATZWEHTMP, or when leaving out the annoying letters: Amaze.
The ESA's newest 3d printing project, aiming to make advanced 3d printing a reality.
Post by: Mech#4 on October 17, 2013, 08:35:01 pm
Post by: Gentlefish on October 25, 2013, 01:32:12 am
I'd seriously drop the money on this, it's rediculous. This is my kinda biohacking.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on October 25, 2013, 07:35:04 am
Interactive tattoos! (http://moshita.org/post/61029938478/digital-tattoo-interface-design-concept-jim)
I'd seriously drop the money on this, it's rediculous. This is my kinda biohacking.
Sadly only a design concept, but yeah, that would be very cool. If nothing else, my dad would find it useful (he's a type-1 diabetic, so an easy to read blood glucose meter would be pretty handy).
I hope someone makes this happen, because it honestly doesn't look too out there, tech wise.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 25, 2013, 07:36:19 am
Post by: Sheb on October 25, 2013, 07:51:41 am
Post by: Lagslayer on October 25, 2013, 09:17:24 am
Post by: Helgoland on October 25, 2013, 10:20:43 am
FLESH IS STRONGER THAN STEEL!Naah, just cheaper and more plentiful.
Post by: kaian-a-coel on October 25, 2013, 10:37:39 am
Post by: Helgoland on October 25, 2013, 12:38:28 pm
Post by: kaian-a-coel on October 25, 2013, 01:48:38 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 25, 2013, 01:50:13 pm
Post by: RedKing on October 25, 2013, 02:16:55 pm
Wikipedia says that human flesh production is about 350 million tons annually, whereas steel production is 1547.8 million tons annually (as of 2012).....I can't decide whether or not to be disturbed that someone has calculated annual human flesh production.
Post by: Helgoland on October 25, 2013, 07:28:31 pm
Then again, there's more meat than just human.Also, human meat production is not optimised. There's huge efficiency gains to be had by selective breeding and a carefully calibrated dietary and reproductive cycle!
Post by: Lagslayer on October 25, 2013, 09:24:40 pm
Inb4 eugenics argument.Then again, there's more meat than just human.Also, human meat production is not optimised. There's huge efficiency gains to be had by selective breeding and a carefully calibrated dietary and reproductive cycle!
Post by: Descan on October 25, 2013, 09:28:56 pm
... Also other meats too.
Post by: Lagslayer on October 25, 2013, 09:29:28 pm
Post by: Helgoland on October 25, 2013, 09:42:46 pm
Post by: alway on October 26, 2013, 12:07:31 am
I just can't wait until we have artificially-grown meat so I can eat humans without the whole ethical conundrum of "having to kill or at least maim a human" to get the meat.That's... actually really interesting, and I hadn't thought of that. Because, yeah, we can create In Vitro Meat, and have even made a burger with it that tasted pretty decent (though was incredibly expensive, since it was a test-burger, grown in the lab with the loving care of scientists, rather than industrially produced)... Which does mean you could create a line of human meat products for sale.
... Also other meats too.
Post by: Bauglir on October 26, 2013, 12:10:11 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 26, 2013, 01:17:05 am
Post by: MonkeyHead on October 26, 2013, 01:28:00 am
Post by: kaijyuu on October 26, 2013, 01:35:21 am
A problem with cannibalism is however that it carries an increased risk of prion diseases.Only if you eat brains. Prions have large difficulty spreading outside the brain/spine.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 26, 2013, 01:41:20 am
Post by: tryrar on October 26, 2013, 05:39:35 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 26, 2013, 05:43:35 am
Post by: Sirus on October 26, 2013, 08:54:41 am
Post by: Chaoswizkid on October 26, 2013, 09:50:05 am
Post by: Another on October 26, 2013, 12:38:12 pm
Researchers at Vanderbilt University develop previously-thought-nearly-impossible supercapacitors using graphene-coated silicon. These supercapacitors have excellent energy density and are likely to be very economically viable, especially since they could be built onto silicon chips using just the excess silicon found on modern chips. (http://news.vanderbilt.edu/2013/10/device-electricity-silicon-chips/)From this link: energy density - 15 kJ/kg. For comparison - rechargeable LiIon batteries - 700 kJ/kg. This thing can charge or give away energy very fast but will not substitute most batteries. People frequently get wrong, too optimistic ideas about application area of supercapacitors. (I am not saying that you did but in this thread somebody always did after supercapacitor news.)
In regard to in-vitro human meat - no matter how safe and nourishing it can be made - I would not eat it without VERY strong additional reasons to.
Post by: Descan on October 26, 2013, 12:42:20 pm
Post by: MaximumZero on October 26, 2013, 12:54:55 pm
Post by: Chaoswizkid on October 26, 2013, 01:13:00 pm
From this link: energy density - 15 kJ/kg. For comparison - rechargeable LiIon batteries - 700 kJ/kg. This thing can charge or give away energy very fast but will not substitute most batteries. People frequently get wrong, too optimistic ideas about application area of supercapacitors. (I am not saying that you did but in this thread somebody always did after supercapacitor news.)
In any case, I appreciate the extra clarification.
Post by: Gentlefish on October 26, 2013, 04:37:19 pm
Maybe they could be used to transmit energy wirelessly, more effectively? I know it's been done over a not-too-small distance of either inches, 2 feet, or a meter. I can't find the article. But it's been done and this could maybe make it better.
Post by: Lagslayer on October 26, 2013, 06:52:13 pm
I wouldn't eat it on a day-to-day basis. I'm just curious on what human tastes like.It tastes like shit. Most creatures have it to discourage eating their own.
Post by: alway on October 26, 2013, 07:33:22 pm
No it doesn't, and that is blatantly false.I wouldn't eat it on a day-to-day basis. I'm just curious on what human tastes like.It tastes like shit. Most creatures have it to discourage eating their own.
By most accounts I've heard, it tastes pretty good. There was an interesting interview with someone who had done extensive research on the subject, including interviews with some modern tribes who still occasionally practice it. For the most part, it isn't practiced for cultural reasons or because they didn't have enough food; it was because they really liked the taste of the meat.
Beyond that, your statement is quite obviously false. For one, it's entirely at odds with evolution; the species distinction is entirely invented, and so no way of determining what is your species could possibly exist which didn't blur over into a few million years of evolutionary cousins. Secondly, producing such a species tagging mechanism would require an increase in energy needs, cancelling out any tiny benefit it could give in terms of cannibalism; and so even if such a thing did somehow magic into the population, it would disappear in fairly short order.
tldr; version: it all tastes like chicken. Meat is meat is meat. And while there is some variation based on conditions of the muscle tissue, meat will pretty much always taste like meat. Because from an evolutionary standpoint, you generally don't evolve your muscles to optimize taste; you evolve them to optimize their function as muscles.
Post by: smirk on October 26, 2013, 08:06:38 pm
That said, if we had the option of lab-grown human meat, I'd be right there with a copy of Short Steve's Long Pork Cookbook.
Post by: Bauglir on October 26, 2013, 08:24:59 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 27, 2013, 02:14:04 am
High-power tasers anyone?Doubt it. Though it might help with electric cars and all that. Thanks to their rapid charging capability, you could put induction systems under several major interjunctions, in order to extend the range. There have been several trials to power electric busses that way,
Maybe they could be used to transmit energy wirelessly, more effectively? I know it's been done over a not-too-small distance of either inches, 2 feet, or a meter. I can't find the article. But it's been done and this could maybe make it better.
Post by: Sheb on October 27, 2013, 06:05:16 am
As for lab-grown human steak, I wonder if it'll really taste like human. That hamburger may have been decent, but did it taste like beef, or just non-descript "meat"?
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 27, 2013, 06:15:39 am
Post by: Sheb on October 27, 2013, 06:29:36 am
Post by: Lagslayer on October 27, 2013, 08:42:20 am
To be honest, most livestock take way shorter to grow than humans do so they have less time to accumulate whatever can be accumulated.It was dry and pretty bad. It only tasted like real beef if you really concentrated on it.
As for lab-grown human steak, I wonder if it'll really taste like human. That hamburger may have been decent, but did it taste like beef, or just non-descript "meat"?
Post by: alway on October 27, 2013, 09:34:28 am
I don't think it was described as dry, but that it tasted like "an animal-protein cake." (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/06/science/a-lab-grown-burger-gets-a-taste-test.html?_r=0) Which makes sense, because it was entirely free of any fat, and so that's effectively what it is. It's basically uber-lean meat, as they still need to figure out a good way to mix in the fat content that actually makes meat taste good.To be honest, most livestock take way shorter to grow than humans do so they have less time to accumulate whatever can be accumulated.It was dry and pretty bad. It only tasted like real beef if you really concentrated on it.
As for lab-grown human steak, I wonder if it'll really taste like human. That hamburger may have been decent, but did it taste like beef, or just non-descript "meat"?
Post by: Helgoland on October 27, 2013, 09:35:21 am
So basically, you'd have to grow whole muscles, probably even limbs to have a really human steak experience. Can you imagine what a "leg factory" would look like? It'd make an hell of a setting for an RPG.My money's on actually growing whole cows, minus the brain. Keep 'em alive via respirator and feeding tube, and you're all set. And because there's no brain, there's no pain, and no ethical concerns remain!
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 27, 2013, 09:36:56 am
Post by: Helgoland on October 27, 2013, 09:41:52 am
*You could of course simply add them to the lab muscles, but people might be sceptical of that. On the other hand, I'm proposing artificially respirated semi-alive brainless cow carcasses, so that argument goes both ways ;)
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 27, 2013, 09:46:32 am
Post by: alway on October 27, 2013, 09:51:26 am
Post by: Helgoland on October 27, 2013, 10:20:27 am
A better application for lab grown tissue might be milk, as it lacks structure to begin with. Any news on that?
Post by: alway on October 27, 2013, 10:31:26 am
To get good meat, you basically need a fully functioning cow. Why reinvent the veal? The border between dumb cow and lab grown meat is fluid - we're just trying to get on the right side of an arbitrary moral barrier, and if crossing it is easier than starting on the other side, why not?Because the point isn't animal rights. That's only a very tangential benefit. The purpose is to make meat production efficient. Currently, meat is incredibly wasteful to produce, requiring massive resource consumption. The primary purpose of natural meat, again, is to benefit the organism it's attached to. By refocusing it into a food-stuff without regards for the needs of supporting an animal, it can be made with much less waste. Only a very tiny portion of metabolism goes towards growth. Less waste means cheaper production, cheaper meat, and meat which does less harm to the environment. It reduces disease vectors substantially as well, potentially eliminating things like mad cow disease from meat production. So the fact that it's lab grown solves a good dozen or so problems in meat production.
Post by: Helgoland on October 27, 2013, 10:43:10 am
Post by: alway on October 27, 2013, 10:47:39 am
To get proper lab-grown meat, you need to replicate all these structures: A pump instead of a heart, chemical processing instead of a stomach, dialysis instead of a liver, hormones instead of glands, antibiotics and sterility instead of an immune system, etc etc.No you don't.
Post by: Bauglir on October 27, 2013, 11:01:40 am
Yeah, you do. Ideally, you wind up with a sheet of muscle, adipose, and connective tissues suspended in a nutrient bath, subjected to regular electrical stimulation, I think. But everything in that list, with the arguable exception of the heart, is basically necessary. You do need something to keep the fluid circulating, but you probably don't need a pump (and we'd probably omit blood vessels and bones outside of meat specially grown for these). You do need to supply nutrition, remove waste, direct growth, and avoid contamination. The hope is that we can do this more efficiently than an engine optimized for breeding, and given enough time we probably can.To get proper lab-grown meat, you need to replicate all these structures: A pump instead of a heart, chemical processing instead of a stomach, dialysis instead of a liver, hormones instead of glands, antibiotics and sterility instead of an immune system, etc etc.No you don't.
Post by: Helgoland on October 27, 2013, 11:04:25 am
Maybe we should focus on ground meat before tackling the steak problem...
NINJAEDIT: Yeah, what Bauglir said, though I believe it is easier to modify the vehicle we already have instead of practically starting from scratch.
Post by: Sheb on October 27, 2013, 11:06:46 am
BTW, meat from animals is only inefficient if you feed them grain. Grass-fed beef is great because it use a feedstock that has little value otherwise. For a lot of ecosystems, steppes and pampas, raising livestock is the only way the land can contribute sustainably to our food supply. Livestock husbandry can even contribute to the ecosystem's health (look for stuff like Brown revolution or holistic management on google for examples).
Of course, this kind of husbandry cannot contribute the massive amount of meat westerner currently eat.
Post by: Helgoland on October 27, 2013, 11:30:28 am
Brown revolutionIt may be a tangent, but it's an interesting one. (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/09/the-brown-revolution-increasing-agricultural-productivity-naturally/245748/?single_page=true)
Post by: Sheb on October 27, 2013, 11:56:04 am
Post by: alway on October 27, 2013, 02:06:11 pm
you'll need to keep the inner parts of the muscle you're growing supplied with nutrientsThere is no inner parts; it's just a thin layer of tissue. All the separate materials are combined afterwards to create the final product.
It all comes down to what is absolutely necessary for creating meat. You don't need a complex mixture or anything like that; just stem cells to grow the tissue along with an incubator chamber with proper conditions to differentiate into the tissue you need; something like a half dozen chemicals and hormones; which are easy and cheap to mass produce. Which is all beside the point, because they are doing it already. That's how they made the burger in the first place, so that's already done.
Overall, muscles are probably one of the most simple to create, simply because they are so ancient in terms of evolution. They first evolved when animals consisted of sponge-like creatures, and as a result, have basic requirements which are fairly simple. There have probably been some evolutionary changes since they first emerged, but if it works, evolution won't tend to make it more complicated and prone to fail without good reason.
Post by: Descan on October 27, 2013, 02:32:52 pm
Post by: kaijyuu on October 27, 2013, 02:34:28 pm
The greenhouse gas "producers" we should be worried about are the ones that take carbon that have been long removed from the main carbon cycle and put it back in the atmosphere. This is pretty much just limited to fossil fuels and volcanoes.
Post by: Bauglir on October 27, 2013, 02:38:54 pm
Post by: Descan on October 27, 2013, 02:42:40 pm
Plus, methane has a different cycle than carbon. Carbon can be captured again by plants, methane isn't so easily captured.
Post by: kaijyuu on October 27, 2013, 02:45:13 pm
To be fair, methane is worse than carbon dioxide for that.Yeah, the wife educated me on just that. Apparently livestock produce enough methane to be statistically significant when it comes to greenhouse gasses.
So yes, cows are a problem.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 27, 2013, 03:34:41 pm
Plus, methane has a different cycle than carbon. Carbon can be captured again by plants, methane isn't so easily captured.Then again, Methane is just CH4. Within a small decade most of it is broken apart by incoming solar radiation, and turned into Co2 and water.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 27, 2013, 03:38:31 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on October 27, 2013, 04:30:06 pm
To be fair, methane is worse than carbon dioxide for that.Yeah, the wife educated me on just that. Apparently livestock produce enough methane to be statistically significant when it comes to greenhouse gasses.
So yes, cows are a problem.
So does rice farming, which apparently is kind of a big thing in some parts of Asia.
Post by: Gentlefish on October 27, 2013, 04:59:52 pm
Post by: alway on October 27, 2013, 06:12:00 pm
Rice has several problems; being amazing absorbers of arsenic is the really big one, and it is probably slowly poisoning millions of people. (http://www.minnpost.com/earth-journal/2013/09/arsenic-rice-new-fda-test-results-are-confirmation-not-rebuttal) With the least processed, previously thought most healthy, brown rice being the worst. Rice is basically a big arsenic sponge.To be fair, methane is worse than carbon dioxide for that.Yeah, the wife educated me on just that. Apparently livestock produce enough methane to be statistically significant when it comes to greenhouse gasses.
So yes, cows are a problem.
So does rice farming, which apparently is kind of a big thing in some parts of Asia.
Post by: Putnam on October 27, 2013, 06:25:10 pm
Post by: alway on October 27, 2013, 08:09:28 pm
Post by: Putnam on October 27, 2013, 08:11:06 pm
Post by: alway on October 27, 2013, 08:31:44 pm
So it's not "probably" slowly poisoning millions but "possibly" slowly poisoning millions. I'd wait until they do a report on that.It isn't so much the US as it is in places where:
1. Rice is a staple food
2. groundwater is contaminated with arsenic
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenic_contamination_of_groundwater
A 2007 study found that over 137 million people in more than 70 countries are probably affected by arsenic poisoning of drinking water.[1] Arsenic contamination of ground water is found in many countries throughout the world, including the USA.[2]
Approximately 20 incidents of groundwater arsenic contamination have been reported.[3] Of these, four major incidents occurred in Asia, in Thailand, Taiwan, and Mainland China.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gWU8IsKCaQ5srzFdJo2H7S_j6o7Q
The arsenic doesn't appear out of thin air, so it will be the worst where people are already getting higher than usual arsenic doses through their water supply.
In entirely unrelated news: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/10/recaptchas-are-finally-readable-by-normal-humans/
Wut.
Quote
As part of this, we’ve recently released an update that creates different classes of CAPTCHAs for different kinds of users. This multi-faceted approach allows us to determine whether a potential user is actually a human or not, and serve our legitimate users CAPTCHAs that most of them will find easy to solve. Bots, on the other hand, will see CAPTCHAs that are considerably more difficult and designed to stop them from getting through.Google knows whether you are a bot before you do a captcha. :P
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 28, 2013, 12:32:58 am
Post by: Putnam on October 28, 2013, 02:11:28 am
And that's a damn small planet, whooee. If that's confirmed, it'd be good to check out more.
EDIT: A bit of research shows that, if it exists as observed, its Standard Primary Habitability (suitability for vegetation as we know it) is 1. For comparison, Earth's is 0.79.
Post by: kaian-a-coel on October 28, 2013, 04:47:54 am
Post by: Putnam on October 28, 2013, 04:55:21 am
Post by: Dutchling on October 28, 2013, 04:55:41 am
Quote
The annual mean global terrestrial SPH today is 0.335 with strong oscillations between seasons (Figure 2). Area corrected, the south hemisphere is more habitable (0.432) than the north hemisphere (0.184). The fact that these number are not 1.0 tells that our planet is not optimized for its vegetation today, there are too many deserts and seasonal ice. Even that plants adapted to many environments, they have their limits.
Post by: Another on October 28, 2013, 05:43:37 am
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 28, 2013, 09:03:39 am
And that's a damn small planet, whooee. If that's confirmed, it'd be good to check out more.Small? It's not small. It's a Super-Earth. It's bigger than our planet.
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 28, 2013, 09:40:51 am
Post by: Dutchling on October 28, 2013, 09:46:25 am
Post by: Helgoland on October 28, 2013, 09:54:26 am
Compared to the other planets we've been able to discover so far, it's pretty damn small.And that's a damn small planet, whooee. If that's confirmed, it'd be good to check out more.Small? It's not small. It's a Super-Earth. It's bigger than our planet.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 28, 2013, 12:14:59 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 28, 2013, 12:19:31 pm
A bit of a useless discussion, as everything is small on an astronomical scale.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 28, 2013, 12:21:47 pm
Well, we might have to deal with carnivorous trees in a couple thousand years, but otherwise it's perfect.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 28, 2013, 12:29:41 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 28, 2013, 12:31:36 pm
Post by: Another on October 28, 2013, 01:09:13 pm
Sure silicon based life is theoretically possible but alternative chemistry is most likely evolutionary disfavored. (Except that left or right isomers of some molecules went one way completely arbitrary.)
Post by: Another on October 28, 2013, 01:30:48 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 28, 2013, 02:24:11 pm
Post by: Descan on October 28, 2013, 02:40:18 pm
Hearing? Well we make sounds! Seeing? We reflect light. Touch? We're physical.
Taste? Well by that point you're already in a bit of a pickle.
'Course, this is all assuming they have the same senses, and also didn't have more sense that we don't/do fit in under "prey" category.
Post by: scrdest on October 28, 2013, 02:55:06 pm
'Course, this is all assuming they have the same senses, and also didn't have more sense that we don't/do fit in under "prey" category.
How likely would it be? Of billions of possible receptors, an alien race evolves to perceive the same-ish part of the electromagnetic spectrum in a same-ish way humans do, has chemical receptors that respond to similar particles in a recognizable way, has an apparatus geared for receiving and decoding acoustic waves?
And even presuming it does have all of those, that it processes them in a comprehensible to humans way? Hell, for all we know bats might perceive sound as we do light.
Oh, also, I've just read the presentation from a lecture about thermodynamic basis of life: can anyone tell me how it's not totally bullshit fitting reality to theory?
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 28, 2013, 03:00:15 pm
And even presuming it does have all of those, that it processes them in a comprehensible to humans way? Hell, for all we know bats might perceive sound as we do light.Uh, no. For one thing, bats kind of have eyes and all, so they perceive light as we do light.
And humans can echolocate if they really want to. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation)
Post by: Descan on October 28, 2013, 03:15:16 pm
And hearing, that's mostly a matter of "Is there something here that is reflecting sound waves?" than a "I hear music!" style thing. They don't need to hear exactly what WE hear, they just need a way to perceive the vibrations in the air.
My main point: the animal only needs to perceive us in a manner that makes it willing to try and eat us. The only times it wouldn't try and eat us, if it can perceive us, is if we don't give off any phenomenon that a "prey" animal in it's ecosystem would (We can see, feel, and hear (if dropped) a rock, but I don't know of any creature that would try and eat it, thinking it's a food item) or if it only goes after a specific species that we don't resemble in whatever way it perceives things.
Post by: Descan on October 28, 2013, 03:58:43 pm
Post by: Helgoland on October 28, 2013, 07:20:00 pm
Post by: alway on October 28, 2013, 08:05:32 pm
Smell/taste: these senses are both more or less molecule detectors; and would probably be quire likely to exist in some form in any relatively advanced organism, being necessary for determining usable forms of energy as compared to harmful substances, as well as being a fairly short step from cellular level mechanisms required for mono-cellular life.
So some of the basic senses would probably be somewhat related functionally in most environments
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 28, 2013, 09:04:59 pm
Actually smelling them is pretty likely - the most prevalent smells are made of really simple compounds, the likes of which you'll probably find in extraterrestrial carbon-based life as well. Indeed our sense of smell is practically made for detecting any random molecule that happens to float onto our receptors...Well, we know that things which are exposed to vacuum inexplicably smell like gunpowder when returned to atmosphere. So that's something.
Post by: alway on October 28, 2013, 09:32:57 pm
Not inexplicable at all; and the smell will vary with where you are.
Quote
Allamandola explains that our solar system is particularly pungent because it is rich in carbon and low in oxygen, and "just like a car, if you starve it of oxygen you start to see black soot and get a foul smell." Oxygen-rich stars, however, have aromas reminiscent of a charcoal grill. Once you leave our galaxy, the smells can get really interesting. In dark pockets of the universe, molecular clouds full of tiny dust particles host a veritable smorgasbord of odors, from wafts of sweet sugar to the rotten-egg stench of sulfur.
Post by: Lagslayer on October 28, 2013, 11:15:55 pm
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-07/what-does-space-smellSomeone really needs to invent the smelloscope. Just don't point it at Uranus.
Not inexplicable at all; and the smell will vary with where you are.QuoteAllamandola explains that our solar system is particularly pungent because it is rich in carbon and low in oxygen, and "just like a car, if you starve it of oxygen you start to see black soot and get a foul smell." Oxygen-rich stars, however, have aromas reminiscent of a charcoal grill. Once you leave our galaxy, the smells can get really interesting. In dark pockets of the universe, molecular clouds full of tiny dust particles host a veritable smorgasbord of odors, from wafts of sweet sugar to the rotten-egg stench of sulfur.
Post by: kaian-a-coel on October 29, 2013, 07:19:51 am
Interestingly, the atmospheric composition of Uranus is mostly Methan, hydrogen and ammonia. Pretty much the same as farts, except for the sulfure thingies.http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-07/what-does-space-smellSomeone really needs to invent the smelloscope. Just don't point it at Uranus.
Not inexplicable at all; and the smell will vary with where you are.QuoteAllamandola explains that our solar system is particularly pungent because it is rich in carbon and low in oxygen, and "just like a car, if you starve it of oxygen you start to see black soot and get a foul smell." Oxygen-rich stars, however, have aromas reminiscent of a charcoal grill. Once you leave our galaxy, the smells can get really interesting. In dark pockets of the universe, molecular clouds full of tiny dust particles host a veritable smorgasbord of odors, from wafts of sweet sugar to the rotten-egg stench of sulfur.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 29, 2013, 07:29:20 am
Motorola (google owned) picked it up. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24726071)
Post by: Dutchling on October 29, 2013, 07:44:16 am
Some people might remember that phoneblocks idea thingy.If it actually runs Android I might actually want one.
Motorola (google owned) picked it up. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24726071)
Post by: Descan on October 29, 2013, 02:48:52 pm
Depending on how expensive it is (And, yes, android) I might get one. Just need GPS and talk/text, so. :P
Post by: MonkeyHead on October 29, 2013, 03:21:12 pm
Interestingly, the atmospheric composition of Uranus is mostly Methan, hydrogen and ammonia. Pretty much the same as farts, except for the sulfure thingies.http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-07/what-does-space-smellSomeone really needs to invent the smelloscope. Just don't point it at Uranus.
Not inexplicable at all; and the smell will vary with where you are.QuoteAllamandola explains that our solar system is particularly pungent because it is rich in carbon and low in oxygen, and "just like a car, if you starve it of oxygen you start to see black soot and get a foul smell." Oxygen-rich stars, however, have aromas reminiscent of a charcoal grill. Once you leave our galaxy, the smells can get really interesting. In dark pockets of the universe, molecular clouds full of tiny dust particles host a veritable smorgasbord of odors, from wafts of sweet sugar to the rotten-egg stench of sulfur.
Uranus also has pretty extreme winds - no shit.
Sorry...
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 11, 2013, 04:31:12 pm
Post by: kaian-a-coel on November 14, 2013, 06:03:11 pm
But the real catch is how they plan to send a probe through three meters of outer space ice.
By ramming the shit out of it.
The 20kg probe, instead of landing carefully and gently like those 'murican and russian pussies, is going straight to the ground and will perform a proper lithobraking, survive 24.000 g of deceleration, and then perform !!science!!
If the mission is a success, other missions might be launched to similarly penetrate Mars and the moon with interplanetary science-bullets.
Post by: Descan on November 14, 2013, 08:06:53 pm
The thing that we can see from earth rather easily?
You'd think they'd wanna do a test run on the Moon, rather than on a moon so far out.
Post by: Gentlefish on November 15, 2013, 01:45:21 am
Can I hitch a ride?
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 15, 2013, 02:36:09 am
Post by: Sheb on November 15, 2013, 06:04:47 am
In less joyous news: Japan is cutting his reduction targets from 25% below 1990% levels to 3% above 1990 levels. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24952155) Thank you antinuclear activists.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 15, 2013, 06:24:57 am
Also, ESA. EVA's something else entirely.
Edit: I'm pretty sure that the nuclear situation in Japan will be turned around pretty soon, and we'll see reactivation as soon as the population realizes what massive effects a shutdown has on the economy.
Post by: kaian-a-coel on November 15, 2013, 06:55:22 am
Plus, we brought back stuff from the moon, while to my knowledge nothing ever landed on Europa.
As for mars there's a rover planned, Exomars, which will have a drill on it to dig like 20 centimeters under the surface (curiosity only did 2 or 3 I believe).
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 15, 2013, 09:10:09 am
Post by: Sheb on November 15, 2013, 09:25:25 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 15, 2013, 09:29:25 am
Also, fun fact, the ExoMars rover is almost fully automated.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 15, 2013, 11:51:11 am
The End is near. Sun will flip upside down as magnetic fields change polarity. Electromagnetic storms to scour the Earth. All electronic devices will fail.
Also, decent chance of Aurora's (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/sun-will-flip-upside-down-within-weeks-says-nasa-8942769.html)
Content of post might be dramatized.
Post by: Sheb on November 15, 2013, 11:55:22 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 15, 2013, 12:11:25 pm
In less joyous news: Japan is cutting his reduction targets from 25% below 1990% levels to 3% above 1990 levels. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24952155) Thank you antinuclear activists.Related to that news. The reactor in Fukushima had sustained damage even before the earthquake. In fact, a single fuel container has been cracked since it was incorrectly handled, in 1982. Several more were damaged, but all due to events before the quake. Nothing that dangerous, as the fuel is stored safely in the spent fuel tanks, but still?
Post by: kaian-a-coel on November 15, 2013, 02:36:02 pm
Exomars is supposed to dig a full 2m.my bad
Post by: Sirus on November 15, 2013, 06:02:06 pm
Exomars is supposed to dig a full 2m.Let's hope they remember to properly sterilize the drill bit this time, amirite? Otherwise that's two meters of drill they might not get to use.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 15, 2013, 06:22:08 pm
Post by: Gentlefish on November 15, 2013, 06:27:41 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 16, 2013, 06:32:43 am
But recently something amazing has happened. We’ve figured out how to take all these threads, and all the technology we’ve built, to create something at a whole different level. The power of what is emerging continues to surprise me. But already I think it’s clear that it’s going to be profoundly important in the technological world, and beyond."
DO I LOVE SMART PEOPLE OR WHAT? (http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2013/11/something-very-big-is-coming-our-most-important-technology-project-yet/)
Post by: Il Palazzo on November 16, 2013, 07:01:18 am
DO I LOVE SMART PEOPLE OR WHAT? (http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2013/11/something-very-big-is-coming-our-most-important-technology-project-yet/)I wish Stephen had a more interesting surname. Like Toddler, or Brzęczyszczykiewicz (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlOoSsfU6cM), or Skynet. Or even Smith. Then he could name all his inventions accordingly. Skynet Alpha would be so much more fun to use, and each new version release would be at least slightly thrilling.
Post by: Descan on November 16, 2013, 02:33:37 pm
Post by: Dutchling on November 16, 2013, 02:35:02 pm
Post by: Sheb on November 16, 2013, 02:39:43 pm
Come on, it's metal as fuck.
I see what you did there.
Post by: Descan on November 16, 2013, 02:43:14 pm
Well good!
... What did I do there? >___>
Edit: Oh, Tungsten is called Wolfram. Well... Okay. Didn't know that.
Post by: Sheb on November 16, 2013, 02:44:33 pm
Post by: Descan on November 16, 2013, 03:18:19 pm
Post by: Evil Knievel on November 17, 2013, 05:45:25 am
About the topic:
Wolfram is quite present on the webs, for example here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pgw_nVqSTLw) or here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eC14GonZnU). I warn you from clicking on those links if you don't have the whole day to waste. And after finding a few more concise, and critical statements, you might find (at least I found), that your time was indeed wasted. So if you think on spending a day admiring Wolfram's achievements, at least read the disclaimer (http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/wolfram.html) and then with quite clear language, this (http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/reviews/wolfram/).
Post by: Helgoland on November 17, 2013, 09:43:31 am
Post by: Dutchling on November 17, 2013, 09:45:42 am
Post by: Evil Knievel on November 17, 2013, 01:01:23 pm
*but i believe the answer was that matrix is energetically nonsense.
Post by: Helgoland on November 17, 2013, 01:11:25 pm
*but i believe the answer was that matrix is energetically nonsense.
That's pretty clear once you remember that people have to eat... Zeroth Law rebellion would have made for a far better backstory.
Post by: lemon10 on November 17, 2013, 04:20:04 pm
I personally think a better story would have been that the "real world" was actually another level of the matrix, which would have explained neo's powers in the real world, allowing the human energy farming to work (since it would be possible with different physical laws to do it), as well as fixing up some of the other plot holes (eg. the oracle's prescience).
Plus, I feel it would have made the story way better as well.
Post by: Il Palazzo on November 17, 2013, 04:30:26 pm
The whole "we're batteries" crap is them dumb rebels getting shit wrong.
Post by: Another on November 17, 2013, 04:30:43 pm
Yeah, the matrix runs afoul of the second law of thermodynamics. They are getting more energy out of a system then they are putting in. It would be different if they had access to sun to grow crops, or something similar (although it would still be a crappy way to get energy), but as it is the only possible input is the energy from the humans themselves.The Thirteenth Floor was a film released at around the same time as the Matrix that did the background job right. Less flashy but more philosophical. If you haven't before - I recommend watching it without reading spoilers first.
I personally think a better story would have been that the "real world" was actually another level of the matrix, which would have explained neo's powers in the real world, allowing the human energy farming to work (since it would be possible with different physical laws to do it), as well as fixing up some of the other plot holes (eg. the oracle's prescience).
Plus, I feel it would have made the story way better as well.
Post by: kaijyuu on November 17, 2013, 04:30:59 pm
Post by: alway on November 17, 2013, 05:43:55 pm
IIRC the original script had the humans being farmed for distributed computing rather than as a power source.Yep. This. Which actually makes sense; and makes the rest of the movie make sense too. After all, that's how he is able to modify The Matrix; he is quite literally part of how it is running.
Apparently, execs or something decided later on that people wouldn't understand that, and so switched it to energy generation at the last second. Which bullocks the entire story to hell.
Post by: Putnam on November 17, 2013, 06:36:14 pm
wolframalpha.com
Post by: 10ebbor10 on December 02, 2013, 05:03:40 am
More likely scenario is that someone accidentally leaked the script for Jurassic Park 4 to the daily mail.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on December 02, 2013, 11:06:13 am
It'd also be interesting to see the original article to contrast it with the daily mail's take.
Post by: Chaoswizkid on December 02, 2013, 11:07:48 am
DO I LOVE SMART PEOPLE OR WHAT? (http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2013/11/something-very-big-is-coming-our-most-important-technology-project-yet/)AWESOME!
Now, what does all this mean?
It means that instead of a programming language that uses a set of standard libraries, which are pieces of code and methods and functions and whatnot that are very useful that other people already wrote for you, this programming language uses a megaproject knowledge center and knowledge interpreter (in addition to having its own libraries of code).
I'm not sure if you're familiar with coding, but it's very specific, very dry, and to the untrained, pretty difficult to read. A programmer needs to know what they want to do, translate that into what a computer can do (if it can do it), translate that into a set of codes that will command the computer to do what you want it to, write that set of code and then spend your time debugging it to make sure you did it right. You use libraries of code as your basic tools to get this done to save you a bunch of time.
Wolfram programming language also has a very large library of code, but the focus is on human knowledge rather than as an interface between a human and the inner-workings of a computer. Part of its concept is that Wolfram will know things you also know either because all of the code for it has already been written for it to know (like someone taking the time to define all the countries of the world on a map in a way that a computer can understand and reference, as in the example in the article), or it can (theoretically) find out. Instead of doing all the grunt work yourself, you basically do a specialized Google search that is trained to return what you want and automatically implement it.
Post by: alway on December 02, 2013, 09:38:36 pm
Instead of doing all the grunt work yourself, you basically do a specialized Google search that is trained to return what you want and automatically implement it.Also information that you wanted, but you didn't know you wanted.
Like the fact that my home town's population is 0.08% less than Plato's ideal state. And that if you did have the number of people required for Plato's ideal state, they would produce approximately 353kW of heat.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 03, 2013, 03:32:35 pm
Post by: Bauglir on December 03, 2013, 03:34:47 pm
Behold, the greatest example of defied pessimism I have ever encountered. (http://www.newsweek.com/clifford-stoll-why-web-wont-be-nirvana-185306)What a visionary.
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on December 03, 2013, 03:43:00 pm
Indeed. It's amazing how the world has changed in 18 years, huh?Behold, the greatest example of defied pessimism I have ever encountered. (http://www.newsweek.com/clifford-stoll-why-web-wont-be-nirvana-185306)What a visionary.
Post by: MaximumZero on December 05, 2013, 08:33:02 am
To be fair, I still don't know anyone who prefers cybersex to real, if they're at all interested in sex.Indeed. It's amazing how the world has changed in 18 years, huh?Behold, the greatest example of defied pessimism I have ever encountered. (http://www.newsweek.com/clifford-stoll-why-web-wont-be-nirvana-185306)What a visionary.
Post by: MonkeyHead on December 06, 2013, 04:41:28 pm
To be fair, I still don't know anyone who prefers cybersex to real, if they're at all interested in sex.Indeed. It's amazing how the world has changed in 18 years, huh?Behold, the greatest example of defied pessimism I have ever encountered. (http://www.newsweek.com/clifford-stoll-why-web-wont-be-nirvana-185306)What a visionary.
Whilst that may be true, apparently people are having less sex as a result of easy access to porn... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25094142)
Post by: MaximumZero on December 06, 2013, 04:46:22 pm
That...makes my head hurt. WTF, humanity?To be fair, I still don't know anyone who prefers cybersex to real, if they're at all interested in sex.Indeed. It's amazing how the world has changed in 18 years, huh?Behold, the greatest example of defied pessimism I have ever encountered. (http://www.newsweek.com/clifford-stoll-why-web-wont-be-nirvana-185306)What a visionary.
Whilst that may be true, apparently people are having less sex as a result of easy access to porn... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25094142)
Post by: kaian-a-coel on December 06, 2013, 06:26:17 pm
More seriously, it's probably just correlation and not causation. Although fapping regularly may decrease libido on the long term, who knows.
EDIT: Can't tell if troll
Quote
This has hit the nail right on the head! In my situation, it's all thanks to good old Candy Crush (the game). My sex life has nearly vanished thanks to this game. Not just my sex life with my partner but our social relationship as well. The only "thing" keeping us together are the kids. Do I blame social media and candy crush? Yes I do, especially after I've done everything in my power to fix this! She's addicted and needs help.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on December 07, 2013, 04:10:29 am
Post by: kaijyuu on December 07, 2013, 01:20:03 pm
But yeah, correlation and not causation. I don't see how any otherwise healthy relationship could be damaged by porn (beyond maybe having unreasonable expectations in bed, but that's sorta the opposite problem of what's presented in that article).
Post by: alway on December 15, 2013, 06:23:28 pm
Google has acquired Boston Dynamics, the company behind several robots, including Big Dog. Google is building one hell of a robotics division.
Post by: Lagslayer on December 15, 2013, 10:17:59 pm
Post by: Chaoswizkid on December 16, 2013, 03:42:57 am
Post by: Osmosis Jones on December 16, 2013, 08:56:36 am
If true, huge news; there could potentially be non-terran life!
Post by: 10ebbor10 on December 16, 2013, 08:58:47 am
Post by: Reelya on December 16, 2013, 09:23:31 am
Flowing water on Mars? (http://www.nature.com/news/water-seems-to-flow-freely-on-mars-1.14343)Posted this in the Mars thread (http://www.skymania.com/wp/2012/04/lichen-survives-harsh-martian-setting.html/), also relevant here:
If true, huge news; there could potentially be non-terran life!
Quote
Lichen exposed to harsh Mars-like conditions in a laboratory have been found to survive, preferring to cling to cracks in rocks and in gaps in the simulated Martian soil. The lichen collected from Antarctica were placed inside the German Aerospace Center’s Mars Simulation Laboratory for 34 days.Now, the Antarctic lichen can already survive - barely - in Martian conditions, but of course they're nowhere near genetically optimized for such conditions. What that implies is that even a reasonably short number of generations would see the lichens become significantly better at surviving or flourishing in Martian conditions.
There they were subjected to the same atmospheric, temperature, radiation and pressure conditions they would experience if they were on the Martian surface.
That's good news either for finding life, or kickstarting terraforming.
Post by: Sheb on December 16, 2013, 11:04:49 am
Post by: Lich180 on December 16, 2013, 11:14:15 am
I mean, basically life started when a certain amount of molecules and atoms grouped up due to their physical and chemical properties, and began a weird little reaction that resulted in us sitting here, typing into a computer or phone, and discussing how life began. Probably missing a big bit of the picture here, but if we knew more about how life started in the first place, and could (maybe) replicate or simulate it reasonably, we might have a better idea of where to look besides "water, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, oxygen".
Post by: Sheb on December 16, 2013, 11:22:49 am
I'd actually bet Mars got microbes under the crust. Maybe distant parents from ourselves too.
Post by: Reelya on December 16, 2013, 11:50:32 am
Not getting my hopes up about life outside of earth. Conditions aren't right, the molecules needed aren't present, and we don't even know exactly how life started on Earth in the first place. Sure we know we need certain amino acids, and certain elements / molecules / interactions, but honestly, we have NO clue how a soup of molecules suddenly banded together in just the right way to make a cell membrane and replicatable proto-DNA or RNA.I wouldn't say "no" clue. Abiogenesis experimenters has been pretty successful coming up with a number of highly plausible proto cell structures that spontaneously generate themselves from the types of chemicals seen in experiments like the 1950's Urey-Miller experiment.
Quote
In another experiment using a similar method to set suitable conditions for life to form, Fox collected volcanic material from a cinder cone in Hawaii. He discovered that the temperature was over 100 °C (212 °F) just 4 inches (100 mm) beneath the surface of the cinder cone, and suggested that this might have been the environment in which life was created—molecules could have formed and then been washed through the loose volcanic ash and into the sea. He placed lumps of lava over amino acids derived from methane, ammonia and water, sterilized all materials, and baked the lava over the amino acids for a few hours in a glass oven. A brown, sticky substance formed over the surface and when the lava was drenched in sterilized water a thick, brown liquid leached out. It turned out that the amino acids had combined to form proteinoids, and the proteinoids had combined to form small, cell-like spheres. Fox called these "microspheres", a name that subsequently was displaced by the more informative term protobionts. His protobionts were not cells, although they formed clumps and chains reminiscent of cyanobacteria. They contained no functional nucleic acids, but split asexually and formed within double membranes that had some attributes suggestive of cell membranes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microspheres#Biological_protocells
Quote
Microspheres, like cells, can grow and contain a double membrane which undergoes diffusion of materials and osmosis.
So, these "proto-cells" actually do exhibit some of the characteristics and processes that we associate with living cells. One theory is that some structure like this (and there are other candidates which form under different conditions, e.g. those in an underwater volcano vent) formed, and at first whether a particular "cell" was stable was pretty much up to chance occurence of what proteins it contained. Since these "cells" reproduce, it's pretty easy to see that this could have been the spark of the first competition, at first just having (by chance) proteins that increase growth rate, cell stability etc would have been advantageous. The first cell that had an active enzyme which converted raw amino acids into something useful would have had an instant and huge advantage over the other protocells. Once you had an extremely simple replicator (e.g. a simple enzyme which catalyzes more of itself), the process would have bootstrapped a heap of that material quite quickly. These protocells have been shown to concentrate nucleic acids as well as protein material and other organics out of a solution.
Post by: Descan on December 16, 2013, 11:52:07 am
Mole people under the surface of the
Post by: Lich180 on December 16, 2013, 12:32:12 pm
Post by: Descan on December 16, 2013, 12:51:03 pm
Nevermind the "you don't need to die if you don't want to" deal, but so that things that won't affect us for hundreds of years are more "Oh shit, I'm going to be AROUND in hundreds of years!" instead of "Eh, that's the next generations problem".
Because who is going to invest in terraforming Mars if you won't see returns for a millenia? Only idealists and people who will see it.
See also: Climate change
Yeah, that's right. I'm using environmentalism as an argument FOR immortality, not against! (See: Overpopulation)
Post by: Another on December 16, 2013, 12:51:11 pm
...Reelya had already posted an excellent overview and I want jut to nitpick.
I mean, basically life started when a certain amount of molecules and atoms grouped up due to their physical and chemical properties, and began a weird little reaction that resulted in us sitting here, typing into a computer or phone, and discussing how life began. Probably missing a big bit of the picture here, but if we knew more about how life started in the first place, and could (maybe) replicate or simulate it reasonably, we might have a better idea of where to look besides "water, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, oxygen".
When life formed the conditions were "water, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane". There was no free oxygen and presence of such strong oxidizing factor took radical evolution steps (long after initial anaerobic life boom) to adapt to.
In certain sense Earth atmosphere and oceans are more toxic to all life that had not specifically adapted to deal with it than Mars's.
Post by: Helgoland on December 16, 2013, 06:44:34 pm
Post by: Frumple on December 16, 2013, 06:56:51 pm
Ah awesome! I apparently don't read enough of the right things, I've heard of those experiments but never had a decent summary of the results. Still a pretty big crapshoot to get the right things though.Billions of years, millions upon millions (upon millions (upon millions(etc.))) of individual dice rolls. If it's happened once, the crapshoot is seriously in the favor of it happening more times. Space is just big, is all, and our ability to find things still relatively nascent in regards to sifting through it.
Post by: Sirus on December 16, 2013, 07:34:35 pm
Don't forget the time periods involved. It took, what, 1.5 billion years before even the simplest life began to form on Earth? Considering that those protocells previously mentioned formed after only a few hours (in a lab setting yes, but still), there's clearly plenty of opportunities for beneficial adaptations to occur.Ah awesome! I apparently don't read enough of the right things, I've heard of those experiments but never had a decent summary of the results. Still a pretty big crapshoot to get the right things though.Billions of years, millions upon millions (upon millions (upon millions(etc.))) of individual dice rolls. If it's happened once, the crapshoot is seriously in the favor of it happening more times. Space is just big, is all, and our ability to find things still relatively nascent in regards to sifting through it.
Space X Time = Pretty good odds of life being out there, actually.
Post by: Lich180 on December 16, 2013, 10:58:29 pm
I would like to see forms of life not based off of DNA made of phosphorous, like the reports of arsenic based life a few years ago that turned out to not be true. similar activity and reactions, so its logical that arsenic life forms exist
Post by: alway on December 16, 2013, 11:05:46 pm
And if we actually look at the time it took on Earth (which, to be fair, is a pretty small sample size), life is pretty darned easy. There's evidence of it pretty much as far back as you can get. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadean#Hadean_rocksDon't forget the time periods involved. It took, what, 1.5 billion years before even the simplest life began to form on Earth? Considering that those protocells previously mentioned formed after only a few hours (in a lab setting yes, but still), there's clearly plenty of opportunities for beneficial adaptations to occur.Ah awesome! I apparently don't read enough of the right things, I've heard of those experiments but never had a decent summary of the results. Still a pretty big crapshoot to get the right things though.Billions of years, millions upon millions (upon millions (upon millions(etc.))) of individual dice rolls. If it's happened once, the crapshoot is seriously in the favor of it happening more times. Space is just big, is all, and our ability to find things still relatively nascent in regards to sifting through it.
Space X Time = Pretty good odds of life being out there, actually.
It existed in a period so hellish it is literally called the Hadean, in which much of the surface still consisted of lava.
The real trick, apparently, is multicellular life. It took billions of years after it first formed before life first became multicellular, merely a billion years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution#Basic_timeline
Which is also why I suspect that we will find evidence of simple, single-cellular extraterrestrial life within my lifetime, but nothing more complex than that for another century or so.
Post by: Helgoland on December 17, 2013, 03:38:17 am
I do accept the time required, and yeah the universe is big and almost allows for an infinite amount of life, I just don't expect to find anything spectacular close to home.Fully organic DNA seems more probable - you have proteins and sugars as purely organic macro-molecules, there's really no reason to expect that phosphorous is needed for DNA-like molecules.
I would like to see forms of life not based off of DNA made of phosphorous, like the reports of arsenic based life a few years ago that turned out to not be true. similar activity and reactions, so its logical that arsenic life forms exist
Post by: 10ebbor10 on December 25, 2013, 07:08:58 am
Link (http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/341174/scitech/science/dinosaurs-could-be-brought-back-by-de-evolving-living-birds)
Post by: Putnam on December 25, 2013, 12:07:23 pm
we call them birds
we really don't need the old ones back
Post by: Frumple on December 25, 2013, 12:14:14 pm
Unless it turns out Utahraptor is even more delicious than chicken or something, in which case let's get this show on the freaking road. Entirely sorta' new species to enslave and consume. If you bring a species back from extinction, you get to eat some of them, right? That's how it works.
Post by: Chaoswizkid on December 28, 2013, 03:46:34 pm
Unless it turns out Utahraptor is even more delicious than chicken or something, in which case let's get this show on the freaking road. Entirely sorta' new species to enslave and consume. If you bring a species back from extinction, you get to eat some of them, right? That's how it works.
We fought our way to the top of the food chain so that we could resurrect the fallen and devour them once more!
Post by: Lagslayer on December 28, 2013, 03:59:15 pm
Nature truly is our bitch.Unless it turns out Utahraptor is even more delicious than chicken or something, in which case let's get this show on the freaking road. Entirely sorta' new species to enslave and consume. If you bring a species back from extinction, you get to eat some of them, right? That's how it works.
We fought our way to the top of the food chain so that we could resurrect the fallen and devour them once more!
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 15, 2014, 09:37:29 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 15, 2014, 09:41:49 pm
Don't be mislead by the graph that says they'll do more than a conventional computer could do between now and heat death sometime in 2014, quantum computers are only good for certain problems.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Sergarr on January 15, 2014, 11:14:57 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on January 18, 2014, 07:13:25 am
Post by: Dutchling on January 18, 2014, 07:21:52 am
This is the science thread, yet you link to the Daily Mail.
Post by: kaijyuu on January 18, 2014, 08:37:09 am
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 18, 2014, 09:13:21 am
America will endure. (http://www.theonion.com/articles/snow-job,34929/)Everything is going to freeze. Panic everyone. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2541599/Is-mini-ice-age-way-Scientists-warn-Sun-gone-sleep-say-cause-temperatures-plunge.html)TOLD YOU GLOBAL WARMING WAS FAKE!
Post by: scrdest on January 18, 2014, 10:31:30 am
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25743806
There, non-daily fail source.
'Cold, snowy winters could become the norm for Europe'.
As much as I know the pains of shoveling the white crap and recognize that paying high heating bills suck, it still makes me happy.
Post by: Helgoland on January 18, 2014, 10:32:12 am
Shouldn't they be the norm now?http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25743806
There, non-daily fail source.
'Cold, snowy winters could become the norm for Europe'.
As much as I know the pains of shoveling the white crap and recognize that paying high heating bills suck, it still makes me happy.
Post by: MonkeyHead on January 18, 2014, 10:32:39 am
Pesky Ninja...
Post by: Dutchling on January 18, 2014, 10:45:13 am
plxplxplxplxplxplx
Post by: 10ebbor10 on January 18, 2014, 01:06:02 pm
Post by: Bauglir on January 18, 2014, 02:09:35 pm
Post by: kaian-a-coel on January 24, 2014, 10:17:45 am
The Drake equation is getting figured, another unknown discovered.
The hunt for inhabited exoplanets begins.
Source: Science&vie (french scientific vulgarisation magazine, paper, trustworthy. Recently celebrated their centennial)
Post by: MaximumZero on January 30, 2014, 09:14:21 pm
Awesome.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 30, 2014, 09:26:36 pm
Post by: MaximumZero on January 30, 2014, 09:31:02 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 31, 2014, 01:15:12 am
Quote
This means the only step remaining is on demand totipotency.
Your wish is my command (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24025773)
(although, TBH, I am not 100% sure on why your eagerness to sprout placentas around your internal organs)
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 31, 2014, 08:29:10 am
Post by: Reelya on February 01, 2014, 12:56:25 am
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/01/29/3933872.htm
Quote
Chemists unveil 'water-jet' printer
Like any ordinary printer, this machine ingests a blank page and spits it out covered in print.
But instead of ink, it uses only water, and the used paper fades back to white within a day, enabling it to be reused.
The trick lies in the paper, which is treated with an invisible dye that colours when exposed to water, then disappears.
"Several international statistics indicate that about 40 per cent of office prints (are) taken to the waste paper basket after a single reading,"
"Based on 50 times of rewriting, the cost is only about one per cent of the inkjet prints," says Zhang.
Crucially, the new method does not require a change of printer but merely replacing the ink in the cartridge with water, using a syringe.
Yeah, so you can get this specially-treated paper, and inject water into empty ink cartridges, then print with water in a regular inkjet printer, at least for temporary documents. The paper is about 5% more expensive than untreated paper, so not a lot.
Post by: Lagslayer on February 01, 2014, 10:30:29 am
snipInteresting, but application seems very limited. The effect is only temporary, and limited to a whatever color ink the paper was treated with.
Post by: Frumple on February 01, 2014, 11:55:58 am
'Course, there's probably room for those ridiculously thin touchscreen surfaces or whatever to replace most of that temporary stuff, at some point in the future. Touchscreen paperwork (involving no paper at all!), aiee...
Or just take the whole bloody office digital. Paperless office, ho!
Post by: Lagslayer on February 01, 2014, 12:08:22 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 01, 2014, 03:01:16 pm
Post by: Dutchling on February 01, 2014, 03:05:04 pm
Post by: kaijyuu on February 01, 2014, 03:07:04 pm
Post by: Frumple on February 01, 2014, 03:24:41 pm
Problem is, lot's of people seem to really dislike reading things on screen, so will print out stuff just to read it.So you don't hire them :P
Possibly better idea, figure out a way to get paper-equivalent display aesthetics for your devices (particularly any mobile ones) on the cheap. Then possibly tell 'em to suck it up, I'unno.
Don't get me wrong, I can understand the not-appreciating-backlight stuff (it took me years to really adjust to it, iirc, and is still occasionally offputting.), but I'm relatively sure plenty of e-readers and whatnot have had that issue solved for... quiet a while, now. Just incorporate the same thing into whatever kit the company uses.
E: Or, to put it another way, when someone says they don't like reading off a screen, all I'm really hearing is "There's an ergonomics issue to be fixed." So we fix it!
E2: And then sell the solution, of course.
Post by: alway on February 01, 2014, 03:49:45 pm
Problem is, lot's of people seem to really dislike reading things on screen, so will print out stuff just to read it.Not really true; not all screens are created equal.
Old CRTs and such were absolutely terrible on the eyes. Modern displays give only minimal eye strain. And low-power e-ink displays are effectively the same as printed text. The only other difference is resolution and font clarity; which only gets better with better monitors (assuming you don't have your display drivers all borked up), and can be fixed by zooming in.
Post by: Sheb on February 01, 2014, 03:51:05 pm
Post by: Helgoland on February 01, 2014, 04:04:31 pm
Post by: Frumple on February 01, 2014, 04:25:37 pm
Admittedly, I've never seen all of those features in one place, but still. Almost all complaints I regularly see about digital text is methodology problems, not hardware ones. And methodology problems can be fixed. Will be, as the technology and use becomes (more) ubiquitous.
Post by: kaijyuu on February 01, 2014, 05:01:09 pm
Post by: Mephansteras on February 01, 2014, 10:09:11 pm
Post by: Pnx on February 02, 2014, 12:00:03 am
Neat documentary on the intelligence of crows (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0CXSVrIt5w&feature=em-subs_digest-vrecs)Nice, thanks for the link.
Post by: Reelya on February 02, 2014, 02:28:40 am
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 02, 2014, 04:34:09 am
First time I saw that link I read it as intelligence of cows. Wow, exiting stuff, I thought.
Spoiler: TMYK... (click to show/hide)
Post by: Mech#4 on February 02, 2014, 04:59:21 am
First time I saw that link I read it as intelligence of cows. Wow, exiting stuff, I thought.Spoiler: TMYK... (click to show/hide)
Serious: Well, of course. People are around cows much more then they're around sharks.
Silly: Cows with guns.
Post by: alway on February 02, 2014, 01:57:56 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 02, 2014, 02:01:24 pm
Then again, it's the BBC, so it should be quite good.
Post by: Dutchling on February 02, 2014, 04:12:49 pm
Then again, it's the BBC, so it should be quite good.Don't let Owlbread hear...
Post by: Lagslayer on February 02, 2014, 04:58:46 pm
Neat documentary on the intelligence of crows (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0CXSVrIt5w&feature=em-subs_digest-vrecs)Yes, crows are pretty awesome. They got the combination of cognitive power, perception, communicability, and ability to manipulate objects that humans have. I find them much more fascinating than other, more popular "smart" animals, such as dolphins or apes. Octopuses are pretty cool, too, but are often overlooked as well.
Post by: kaian-a-coel on February 02, 2014, 05:38:59 pm
I'd include raptors on that list if we could actually study their behaviour.
On second thought, maybe not. If their descendants are anything to go by, modern raptors wouldn't just open doors (even a snake can do that). They'd pick the locks.
Post by: Helgoland on February 03, 2014, 06:49:09 am
Post by: tahujdt on February 03, 2014, 10:13:29 am
I'd say "confirmed finding the flesh of God" is pretty damn sufficiently sexy, regardless as to its practical applications. Still, definitely let's poke it with a stick to see if it jumps."News Flash! Communion wafers found to contain Higgs Boson! Leading scientist says, "wait, they weren't kidding about that Transubstantiation thing?" Police suspect unlicensed particle accelerator under Vatican!"
Post by: pisskop on February 10, 2014, 11:34:22 am
Study on the effects of parasitism on the brain. I stole it.
Post by: Sheb on February 10, 2014, 11:41:48 am
Post by: Dutchling on February 10, 2014, 11:43:19 am
Post by: Lagslayer on February 10, 2014, 12:00:16 pm
Post by: BFEL on February 10, 2014, 08:01:46 pm
If you could uplift one animal on Earth to human level, which would it be? This is assuming the animal in question remained psychologically similar to its species, but just got more intelligent.
I think I would go with spiders. An odd response certainly, but I think it would provide a wonderful ability to get to know a creature that we only partially understand, and lets face it, a diplomatic pact for them to clean out bug infestations and such without snacking on people would be pretty awesome. Plus they could make awesome arts with DAT WEB.
Hell, could probably get them to weave super-strong combat vests and such.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 10, 2014, 08:03:28 pm
Post by: Sirus on February 10, 2014, 08:04:07 pm
Personally I'd go with octopi. They're pretty damn smart anyway, so "uplifting" them wouldn't be so far out of the realm of possibilty.
Post by: BFEL on February 10, 2014, 08:07:07 pm
I most definitely would not go outside mammals. Once you're in other groups you're dealing with what might as well be alien psychology.Which is what makes it so FASCINATING. I mean we pretty much already understand dogs and cats and shit, THIS IS FOR TEH SCIENCE MAN.
Post by: Frumple on February 10, 2014, 08:15:18 pm
Alternately, bed bugs, so that they become smart enough to know why we kill the bastards. It might be interesting to have another sentient species around that we humans would actually unite together in attempt to genocide, and those are one of the handful of species the chances of us finding common ground are pretty much nil.
Haha, seriously though just go with chimps and get it over with. And then teach them how we did it and pass the buck down.
platypus
Post by: Eagleon on February 10, 2014, 09:13:50 pm
Failing that, squid/cuttlefish/octopus, for some of the same reasons, and because they've already got awesome brains. edit: cuttlefish are also adorable.
Post by: Descan on February 11, 2014, 01:41:03 am
Post by: scrdest on February 11, 2014, 04:49:02 am
Elephants, crows, or octopi. Dolphins can go suck an egg, I don't want a race of raping necrophiliacsrunningswimming around.
Crows. They can mimick human speech already, dammit.
Post by: Reelya on February 11, 2014, 05:19:01 am
Elephants, crows, or octopi. Dolphins can go suck an egg, I don't want a race of raping necrophiliacsrunningswimming around.
Ducks, then. Nothing can go wrong with uplifting ducks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1v_EcjeIkg) (you've probably all seen this at this stage though).
Post by: Helgoland on February 11, 2014, 07:12:25 am
Post by: lemon10 on February 11, 2014, 01:14:47 pm
Kick it int'overdrive. Go with ants.This. Sentient ants would be amazing. It would probably result in huge biosphere ending problems (which includes the death of humanity as a minor footnote), but it would be amazing.
Post by: Il Palazzo on February 11, 2014, 01:25:47 pm
Which leaves, what? Rock eating bacteria?
Post by: kaian-a-coel on February 11, 2014, 04:30:15 pm
Post by: Il Palazzo on February 11, 2014, 04:41:17 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 11, 2014, 04:50:14 pm
Post by: Putnam on February 11, 2014, 05:37:07 pm
Elephants, crows, or octopi. Dolphins can go suck an egg, I don't want a race of raping necrophiliacsrunningswimming around.
Ducks, then. Nothing can go wrong with uplifting ducks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1v_EcjeIkg) (you've probably all seen this at this stage though).
I like how it says "scientifically accurate" but still depicts the flu as causing any gastrointestinal symptoms whatsoever :I
Nah, it's more like a cold with brown snot and more moaning and fever and everything is worse all the time.
(I had the H1N1 swine flu back when that scare was going on)
Post by: scrdest on February 11, 2014, 05:39:47 pm
I'm not sure. Have you ever read the ingredients box on cat food cans? Generations of being fed that stuff may be taken as eugenics or mass-sadism.
My cat loves it anyway. It's like arguing that if aliens were responsible for beaming us down the recipe for hamburgers, we would hate the aliens.
Post by: Il Palazzo on February 11, 2014, 06:11:39 pm
Post by: Frumple on February 11, 2014, 06:16:32 pm
Post by: Bauglir on February 11, 2014, 06:55:40 pm
There are two basically unrelated diseases we call the flu and it's stupid but here we are. Vaccines only cover the respiratory one, but there's always the stomach flu.Elephants, crows, or octopi. Dolphins can go suck an egg, I don't want a race of raping necrophiliacsrunningswimming around.
Ducks, then. Nothing can go wrong with uplifting ducks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1v_EcjeIkg) (you've probably all seen this at this stage though).
I like how it says "scientifically accurate" but still depicts the flu as causing any gastrointestinal symptoms whatsoever :I
Nah, it's more like a cold with brown snot and more moaning and fever and everything is worse all the time.
(I had the H1N1 swine flu back when that scare was going on)
Post by: Putnam on February 11, 2014, 07:04:39 pm
Post by: Frumple on February 11, 2014, 07:10:02 pm
Maybe something nice and descriptive like "stomach flu".
Post by: Putnam on February 11, 2014, 07:17:51 pm
Maybe something nice and descriptive like "stomach flu".
That's about as nice and descriptive as calling salmon "water fungus".
Post by: Bauglir on February 11, 2014, 07:24:21 pm
Goddamn Romans. They ruin everything.
^Fun fact: Also Jesus' last words.
Post by: Reelya on February 11, 2014, 08:10:56 pm
Elephants, crows, or octopi. Dolphins can go suck an egg, I don't want a race of raping necrophiliacsrunningswimming around.
Ducks, then. Nothing can go wrong with uplifting ducks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1v_EcjeIkg) (you've probably all seen this at this stage though).
I like how it says "scientifically accurate" but still depicts the flu as causing any gastrointestinal symptoms whatsoever :I
Nah, it's more like a cold with brown snot and more moaning and fever and everything is worse all the time.
(I had the H1N1 swine flu back when that scare was going on)
Human flu and swine flu maybe, but the symptoms shown in the video fit with what the CDC and WHO says about avian flu (http://health.india.com/diseases-conditions/china-bird-flu-h7n9-should-you-be-worried/):
Quote
According to the CDC and WHO the symptoms of mild avian flu are the same as having a viral fever. Symptoms include sore throat, running nose, muscle aches. Symptoms of infection by a more virulent form of the disease include severe respiratory illness, shortness of breath, difficulty breathing, pneumonia, acute respiratory distress, viral pneumonia, respiratory failure, multi-organ disease, sometimes accompanied by nausea, abdominal pain, diarrhea, vomiting, confusion, dizziness etc.
Here's a report from the WHO website (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/avian_influenza/en/)
Quote
Initial symptoms include a high fever, usually with a temperature higher than 38oC, and other influenza-like symptoms. Diarrhoea, vomiting, abdominal pain, chest pain, and bleeding from the nose and gums have also been reported as early symptoms in some patients.
Post by: Putnam on February 11, 2014, 08:16:26 pm
QuoteAccording to the CDC and WHO the symptoms of mild avian flu are the same as having a viral fever. Symptoms include sore throat, running nose, muscle aches. Symptoms of infection by a more virulent form of the disease include severe respiratory illness, shortness of breath, difficulty breathing, pneumonia, acute respiratory distress, viral pneumonia, respiratory failure, multi-organ disease, sometimes accompanied by nausea, abdominal pain, diarrhea, vomiting, confusion, dizziness etc.
Post by: Reelya on February 11, 2014, 08:24:24 pm
Initially you said "can't happen at all" not "unlikely to happen" so the likelihood of it happening isn't relevant unless you're claiming that all vomiting is due to some undiagnosed separate disease. If it happens at all, to a point that it's worth noting in all the health reports, then it's valid to call it "scientifically accurate".
EDIT further research from the above article returned this as a common symptom of Avian flus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhabdomyolysis
In that, muscle tissue is attacked by the virus, breaks down and enters the bloodstream. This then causes symptoms including vomiting and kidney damage.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 12, 2014, 01:27:56 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 13, 2014, 05:27:56 am
Post by: Osmosis Jones on February 13, 2014, 06:03:24 am
National Ignition facility reaches break-even. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/02/13/do-we-really-need-nuclear-fusion-for-power/)
... not exactly. Breakeven implies the whole process is energy neutral or better; this hasn't happened yet. Rather, the resulting explosion released more energy than was delivered to the fuel by the lasers. That does not count the total energy required to power said lasers, merely the small fraction of it that successfully hit the target. A nifty result, but not really game changing.
Plus, it's inertial confinement anyway; it's not terribly practical for power generation, certainly less so than magnetic confinement.
EDIT: ...which is all explained in the article. :P
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 13, 2014, 06:45:00 am
Post by: Osmosis Jones on February 13, 2014, 06:53:30 am
Yeah, I don't expect Inertial Confinement to be successfully used for power generation. Bombs perhaps, but not civilian power generation.
From memory, the whole original point of the NIF was to simulate and improve fusion weapons.
Best use I can think of for it would be for interstellar travel. I posted it here a few months back, but there's basically a promising propulsion system in development; basically, it's Project Orion, only using fusion pellets instead of fission bombs.
Post by: Sheb on February 13, 2014, 07:00:37 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 13, 2014, 07:09:36 am
The laser is not required for inertial containment fusion after all, any heat source will do.
Post by: Sheb on February 13, 2014, 07:42:47 am
Post by: Helgoland on February 13, 2014, 09:41:59 am
Best use I can think of for it would be for interstellar travel. I posted it here a few months back, but there's basically a promising propulsion system in development; basically, it's Project Orion, only using fusion pellets instead of fission bombs.This sounds very interesting - any further info?
Post by: Osmosis Jones on February 13, 2014, 10:04:12 am
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/10/nasa_fusion_engine_fast_mars_trip/
Also, BEARD HAT-TRICK!
Post by: Lagslayer on February 13, 2014, 10:50:56 am
Post by: Frumple on February 13, 2014, 11:08:33 am
*Ronald Reagan wakes from his eternal slumber*
Spoiler: Days like this I wish I could image edit worth a damn (click to show/hide)
Post by: Helgoland on February 13, 2014, 11:11:33 am
Post by: BFEL on February 14, 2014, 09:47:09 pm
It seems like a good idea not to uplift any species that we might've been dicks to sometime in our long and dickishnessfull history. After all, what's the point, if afterwards you need to kill them all in a bitter war of vengeance?Hey, spiders would probably understand us murderdeathkilling so many of them.
Which leaves, what? Rock eating bacteria?
Being heartless predators, they don't share this insane desire of humans to desperately pretend they think murder is wrong.
Now look at that popular choice of OCTOPI. Now there you don't have all that much cold-blooded murder to explain away, but that's probably preferable to trying to explain why the Japanese giggle whenever they're around.
Post by: alway on February 15, 2014, 05:12:26 am
Now look at that popular choice of OCTOPI. Now there you don't have all that much cold-blooded murder to explain away, but that's probably preferable to trying to explain why the Japanese giggle whenever they're around.Hey now, that stuff's got over half a millenia of art history behind it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunga
The most well known example of that trope in particular was an 1814 work called "The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife," created by the same artist known for some pieces you will recognize, such as The Great Wave off Kanagawa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Wave_off_Kanagawa) :P
Post by: tahujdt on February 15, 2014, 02:50:26 pm
It is a bit embarrassing to admit that I have seen the first one, but not the second.Now look at that popular choice of OCTOPI. Now there you don't have all that much cold-blooded murder to explain away, but that's probably preferable to trying to explain why the Japanese giggle whenever they're around.Hey now, that stuff's got over half a millenia of art history behind it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunga
The most well known example of that trope in particular was an 1814 work called "The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife," created by the same artist known for some pieces you will recognize, such as The Great Wave off Kanagawa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Wave_off_Kanagawa) :P
Post by: MonkeyHead on February 15, 2014, 03:10:29 pm
Post by: Descan on February 15, 2014, 03:30:47 pm
At least you're more often noticed than the Cornish.
Post by: BFEL on February 17, 2014, 11:52:54 am
You're Welsh, though. Who pays attention to the Welsh?
At least you're more often noticed than the Cornish.
Well the Cornish have those famous hens. You know who doesn't have anything like that?
Wallachians. Nobody remembers Wallachians.
Post by: Erils on February 17, 2014, 12:08:29 pm
Post by: Mr. Strange on February 17, 2014, 12:41:48 pm
Nobody remembers Wallachians.But we remember The Impaler.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 17, 2014, 12:47:12 pm
If the universe is 13.8 billion years old (http://www.space.com/24054-how-old-is-the-universe.html), what existed before then? Any guesses?
There are numerous theories:
1) Nothing
2) A continues self-annihilating singularity of matter and anti-matter, in equal amounts
3) Another universe, which underwent a big crunch
...
Post by: MonkeyHead on February 17, 2014, 01:22:43 pm
If the universe is 13.8 billion years old (http://www.space.com/24054-how-old-is-the-universe.html), what existed before then? Any guesses?
It wasnt so much as there being no universe before then, it was more a case of whatever did exist before then is incompatible with the way that modern physics models reality - in as much as spacetime makes no sense in a singulairty. Whever existed would have been very quantumly weird to allow what exists now to have formed.
Post by: Putnam on February 17, 2014, 01:29:34 pm
Post by: BFEL on February 17, 2014, 01:52:34 pm
The universe started 13.8 billion years ago, but so did time. There was no "before" because there was no causality.So far as we know.
We cannot tell what happened before the universe for obvious reasons. Or if there WAS a before.
Well there had to be SOME force that created the matter and energy that was locked up in the big bang, so either we have physics wrong and just don't know how to fuck over conservation of mass/energy ((which is quite possible)) or at some point before the BB physics was just THAT DIFFERENT. Though, y'know, theories.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 17, 2014, 01:54:24 pm
Post by: BFEL on February 17, 2014, 01:58:42 pm
Nope, there's no need for any force. Physics not applying is a real possibility.
Well I dunno about "not applying"
There had to be SOME force or event or ACTION to create the REACTION of the universe.
I can see physics being DIFFERENT, but it just seems weird...ok maybe its possible, but it makes my brain hurt, and not many things do that.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 17, 2014, 02:04:10 pm
Post by: Descan on February 17, 2014, 02:17:59 pm
Without using words. Or eyes. Touch is how you have to explain it, and touch is how you have to get the visual pattern.
You can see why it'd be difficult :P
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 17, 2014, 02:23:58 pm
Going before the big bang is pretty much impossible however.
Post by: BFEL on February 17, 2014, 02:32:13 pm
Well, lets put it this way.Ah Escher, the original MC.
Imagine the most mindscrewy thing possible.
Now forget it, because other universes and the... stuff the universe is expanding into could be infinitely more mindscrewy. Or it could be identical. At present, we don't know. We could have stuff where MC Escher would have looked normal.
Way before that Hammer guy.
Post by: Descan on February 17, 2014, 02:48:25 pm
Bad analogy. With a significant amount of neurochurgery knowledge, and creative touching parts of the brain, you can explain the kaleidoscope.How do you touch a visual pattern? :P
Going before the big bang is pretty much impossible however.
Post by: MonkeyHead on February 17, 2014, 02:58:57 pm
Post by: Descan on February 17, 2014, 03:08:02 pm
Post by: Mr. Strange on February 17, 2014, 03:17:18 pm
/me invades Wales with a Mounted HighlanderI know I read it wrong the first time, but it's just better this way.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 17, 2014, 03:20:15 pm
You touch/stimulate those neurons in the brain responsible for colors, duh.Bad analogy. With a significant amount of neurochurgery knowledge, and creative touching parts of the brain, you can explain the kaleidoscope.How do you touch a visual pattern? :P
Going before the big bang is pretty much impossible however.
Post by: Descan on February 17, 2014, 03:32:57 pm
Post by: Erils on February 17, 2014, 03:46:51 pm
But you need to know what the visual pattern is first, and you can't do that if your only method of attaining that information for yourself is by touch.
Are you sure? Maybe we need some scientists to test that.
Although, how would we ever know the results of the test because how would a blind person describe seeing? And how would we confirm that they were "seeing?"
Post by: Descan on February 17, 2014, 04:10:57 pm
Post by: Erils on February 17, 2014, 04:39:03 pm
While what I have written might make it seem like we are thinking the same thing, how can we be sure that we are. How can we ever be sure, or even guess, that other people are thinking, let alone even seeing the same things as us.
For example, if I asked you what color this was: Red, you would answer red, and so would I. But how can we be sure, or even guess that we are seeing the same thing. We are both calling it Red, but perhaps I am seeing Red and have been simply taught to refer to it with the same name that you refer to Red?
In other words, are we seeing the same color? Or just calling two different colors the same name?
Post by: Putnam on February 17, 2014, 05:04:35 pm
stuff the universe is expanding into
No such thing. It's not expanding "into" anything.
Nope, there's no need for any force. Physics not applying is a real possibility.
Well I dunno about "not applying"
There had to be SOME force or event or ACTION to create the REACTION of the universe.
I can see physics being DIFFERENT, but it just seems weird...ok maybe its possible, but it makes my brain hurt, and not many things do that.
No there hadn't. Causality did not exist. Time did not exist. Without causality, there is no reaction or action. The universe's creation is the cause--for everything.
Post by: Il Palazzo on February 17, 2014, 05:06:42 pm
Post by: Sirus on February 17, 2014, 05:08:51 pm
It's the same wavelength, so it's the same in the only sense that matters.This. People might see the color differently than the norm, but the actual measurable wavelength remains unchanged and thus we have a solid frame of reference.
Post by: Descan on February 17, 2014, 05:26:59 pm
Post by: Erils on February 17, 2014, 05:27:15 pm
That is true. I meant to be talking more along the lines of conveying experiences (such as what Descan was saying in the conversation about making a blind person see through touch) rather than what the actual color/wavelength was scientifically. I know that the wavelength is the same, I was just trying to talk about the idea of sharing actual thoughts and experiences.It's the same wavelength, so it's the same in the only sense that matters.This. People might see the color differently than the norm, but the actual measurable wavelength remains unchanged and thus we have a solid frame of reference.
Post by: BFEL on February 17, 2014, 05:30:40 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualiastuff the universe is expanding into
No such thing. It's not expanding "into" anything.Nope, there's no need for any force. Physics not applying is a real possibility.
Well I dunno about "not applying"
There had to be SOME force or event or ACTION to create the REACTION of the universe.
I can see physics being DIFFERENT, but it just seems weird...ok maybe its possible, but it makes my brain hurt, and not many things do that.
No there hadn't. Causality did not exist. Time did not exist. Without causality, there is no reaction or action. The universe's creation is the cause--for everything.
I pretty much affirmed that I semi-understood this with the last sentence. Basically trying to think about it too hard HURT BRAIN. BRAIN HURT WITH HURTIES.
Post by: Erils on February 17, 2014, 05:42:35 pm
-snip-
I pretty much affirmed that I semi-understood this with the last sentence. Basically trying to think about it too hard HURT BRAIN. BRAIN HURT WITH HURTIES.
That is because the human brain did not evolve to answer these questions. The human brain was meant to have logical thinking and reasoning to help humans survive. Now that surviving is easy, we use our brains for other purposes, even if they are not what our brain was designed to do. Its the human brain's limitations that prevent certain questions from being answered, because it evolved to assist in survival, and that requires thinking about the world we can observe, not possible alternate worlds (though we are able to think about these, we can't disregard certain ideas. While we might talk about the idea of a lack of causality, can you actually imagine or describe it?).
Post by: BFEL on February 17, 2014, 05:54:06 pm
-snip-
I pretty much affirmed that I semi-understood this with the last sentence. Basically trying to think about it too hard HURT BRAIN. BRAIN HURT WITH HURTIES.
That is because the human brain did not evolve to answer these questions. The human brain was meant to have logical thinking and reasoning to help humans survive. Now that surviving is easy, we use our brains for other purposes, even if they are not what our brain was designed to do. Its the human brain's limitations that prevent certain questions from being answered, because it evolved to assist in survival, and that requires thinking about the world we can observe, not possible alternate worlds (though we are able to think about these, we can't disregard certain ideas. While we might talk about the idea of a lack of causality, can you actually imagine or describe it?).
42
Post by: Sheb on February 17, 2014, 07:12:50 pm
Also, 10ebbor, a person blind from birth may very well lack all the neurons associated with colours. Nothing to stimulate.
Post by: Helgoland on February 17, 2014, 08:59:55 pm
Also, 10ebbor, a person blind from birth may very well lack all the neurons associated with colours. Nothing to stimulate.They actually don't. The brain regions associated with visual pereption show activity when the person is dreaming or given halluticogens, for example.
Post by: alway on February 17, 2014, 09:58:24 pm
I used to think this way. However, these days, I'm more inclined to say that is blatantly false. See, the brain didn't evolve to do a lot of things. Like counting, or multiplication, or flow fields in vector-spaces. And yet, to say they are out of reach is entirely silly. To say the same thing of topics like quantum mechanics, super-dimensional structures, and so on is the height of arrogance. If you look back throughout human history, the only difference between us and the humans living on the plains of Africa chasing down gazelles until they died of heat exhaustion is culture. And there is something incredibly important to realize in regards to that. Many of the topics you take for granted were in fact entirely alien to people a mere 500 years ago. To say any newly learned subject is beyond our abilities to comprehend is to infer that humans, as our knowledge and culture is today, is the absolute peak and pinnacle of anything it could possibly be in the future. I would claim that it isn't that we can't understand these things on a fundamental level; it's that we simply haven't figured out yet how to teach them effectively.-snip-
I pretty much affirmed that I semi-understood this with the last sentence. Basically trying to think about it too hard HURT BRAIN. BRAIN HURT WITH HURTIES.
That is because the human brain did not evolve to answer these questions. The human brain was meant to have logical thinking and reasoning to help humans survive. Now that surviving is easy, we use our brains for other purposes, even if they are not what our brain was designed to do. Its the human brain's limitations that prevent certain questions from being answered, because it evolved to assist in survival, and that requires thinking about the world we can observe, not possible alternate worlds (though we are able to think about these, we can't disregard certain ideas. While we might talk about the idea of a lack of causality, can you actually imagine or describe it?).
Now to imagine and describe it.
...
As for the particulars of a timeless, spaceless non-universe, the best way to think about it is by analogy. Imagine you have a simple 3d wooden block. The size and shape of the block is irrelevant for this analogy. However, imagine this block is painted in a thin banded pattern along one direction, such that when you look down it from one end, you see the repeating colors: red, orange, yellow, red, orange, yellow, ect. From the opposite side of the block, you would then clearly see the bands of colors in reverse: yellow, orange, red, yellow, orange red, ect. Just simple bands of color painted in rings around the block.
You will notice that what you see is asymmetric; the pattern seen in one direction is reversed from that seen in the other. Now, these directions represent time. The colors represent physics; or more accurately, some abstract events which occur. One color follows after another, following the law of the banded pattern's repetition (physics). Likewise, they look very similar, but also different, in opposite directions. Cause and effect are thus the reactions to the 'laws of physics,' which is to say, the repeated patterns of banding, looking down one direction. Red causes Orange, Orange causes Yellow, Yellow causes red, assuming we are looking down the first direction. So there's your universe existing in a painted block of wood.
So, now say we want to get into things outside the universe. Well, you can look at the block's rings; tracing cause and effect backwards or forwards in time. You can figure out "Red was the color of the first ring; and the last ring happened to be Orange." So what came BEFORE the first ring? What CAUSED the first Red ring? What came AFTER the last ring? What was the EFFECT of the last Orange ring? The answer is, quite obviously, that such questions are entirely pointless because nothing more can be learned from the block. You can go "Before" the block, and you can go "After" the block, but your ideas as to what should come before and after the block based on looking at the block will almost certainly be entirely inaccurate in such a weird way that it would be unthinkable based only on the knowledge gained from the block. Your block may be next to other blocks with similar bands; but which are rotated at a 90 degree angle to yours. Your block may be next to an entirely foreign thing, like a table or book. It could be floating in space. And so, to look at the block and say "something Yellow must have caused this block!" or "this block must have caused something Yellow!" is positively absurd. You might even look at the block and say to yourself "The block appears to have come from Yellow and resulted in Yellow; perhaps the block exists in a sea of Yellow, or the block will appear again After the Yellow" but even that is nothing more than speculation.
You can, in fact, stretch this analogy further if you want to bend your mind a bit, in order to think about multiple varieties of time, space, and laws of physics nested within one another. Now, imagine this universe-block is sitting on your table. Simple enough. Pointing to your left is the first Red band; to your right, the last Orange band. Thus, your banding laws, moving from red to orange to yellow to red, are travelling from a Before on the left to an After on the right. Now flip the block 90 degrees, and put it back on the table in the same spot. So now think about this. Using a time dimension orthogonal to the system of physics making up the block's banding rules, you just rotated the block's time dimension. Here's the interesting thing about this: From the perspective of the block, all physics remain the same. However, it now has, from the perspective of the time dimension determining the band color, multiple things immediately Before and After it. Before the block, you have both the empty space to the left, the table underneath, and every orientation it rotated through. After the block, you have both the empty space to the right, the empty space up above, and every orientation it rotated through. Again, this all comes back around to my previous point: Before and After become exceedingly silly propositions when dealing with time dimensions which exist as part of a universe.
So that's the basics of metaphysics implied by our knowledge of how physics works in the post-Einstein world. :P
Post by: lemon10 on February 17, 2014, 11:07:18 pm
I have to disagree. Humans can count, and we can do higher math, and we can do similar things. But we do them exceedingly badly. It takes millions (trillions?) of times more computational power to move your hand and grab something then it takes to multiply two twenty digit numbers together. But while the first takes a fraction of a second, the second option takes minutes (while most humans are unable to do it at all, even with years spent learning math).I used to think this way. However, these days, I'm more inclined to say that is blatantly false. See, the brain didn't evolve to do a lot of things. Like counting, or multiplication, or flow fields in vector-spaces. And yet, to say they are out of reach is entirely silly. To say the same thing of topics like quantum mechanics, super-dimensional structures, and so on is the height of arrogance. If you look back throughout human history, the only difference between us and the humans living on the plains of Africa chasing down gazelles until they died of heat exhaustion is culture. And there is something incredibly important to realize in regards to that. Many of the topics you take for granted were in fact entirely alien to people a mere 500 years ago. To say any newly learned subject is beyond our abilities to comprehend is to infer that humans, as our knowledge and culture is today, is the absolute peak and pinnacle of anything it could possibly be in the future. I would claim that it isn't that we can't understand these things on a fundamental level; it's that we simply haven't figured out yet how to teach them effectively.-snip-
I pretty much affirmed that I semi-understood this with the last sentence. Basically trying to think about it too hard HURT BRAIN. BRAIN HURT WITH HURTIES.
That is because the human brain did not evolve to answer these questions. The human brain was meant to have logical thinking and reasoning to help humans survive. Now that surviving is easy, we use our brains for other purposes, even if they are not what our brain was designed to do. Its the human brain's limitations that prevent certain questions from being answered, because it evolved to assist in survival, and that requires thinking about the world we can observe, not possible alternate worlds (though we are able to think about these, we can't disregard certain ideas. While we might talk about the idea of a lack of causality, can you actually imagine or describe it?).
From extreme outliers (mostly natural savants who can do stuff like that easily in their heads) its clear that the reason for this isn't that brains are incapable of the mathematical precision needed. Some people can do things that are mentally impossible for almost everyone else in the world trivially. Its that the brain of 99.9% of people isn't designed for math more complex then adding small numbers together. It can, because being able to learn and adapt is really helpful and evolution has figured that out.
Now, that isn't to say that we can't work on and figure out the really complex stuff (with difficulty). Scientists can figure out how 4th (and higher) dimensional spaces would operate even the brain is clearly designed for 3 dimensions and less. But it gets harder and harder the farther you get from out default reality (while intuition, visualization and things like it become less and less useful).
Post by: Lagslayer on February 17, 2014, 11:20:02 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Insisting on things you can't even observe is silly. You could speculate just about anything, but in the end, you don't really know until you can see it for yourself. For example...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to disagree. Humans can count, and we can do higher math, and we can do similar things. But we do them exceedingly badly. It takes millions (trillions?) of times more computational power to move your hand and grab something then it takes to multiply two twenty digit numbers together. But while the first takes a fraction of a second, the second option takes minutes (while most humans are unable to do it at all, even with years spent learning math).Human brains are not usually specialized in that way. There is variation within the species, however. Also, exercising the brain can make it better.
From extreme outliers (mostly natural savants who can do stuff like that easily in their heads) its clear that the reason for this isn't that brains are incapable of the mathematical precision needed. Some people can do things that are mentally impossible for almost everyone else in the world trivially. Its that the brain of 99.9% of people isn't designed for more complex math then adding small numbers together. It can, because being able to learn and adapt is really helpful and evolution has figured that out.
Now, that isn't to say that we can't work on and figure out the really complex stuff (with difficulty). Scientists can figure out how 4th (and higher) dimensional spaces would operate even the brain is clearly designed for 3 dimensions and less. But it gets harder and harder the farther you get from out default reality
Quote
Scientists can figure out how 4th (and higher) dimensional spaces would operate even the brain is clearly designed for 3 dimensions and less. But it gets harder and harder the farther you get from out default realityWe could perhaps figure it out if or when we are able to observe that 4th dimension. Right now, however, there is little to no indication or proof of anything existing outside of having 3 dimensions. We don't even have proof of actual (as opposed to theoretical) things with less than 3 dimensions.
Post by: alway on February 18, 2014, 01:07:43 am
Post by: Erils on February 18, 2014, 02:01:35 am
-snip-
First of all, you haven't described it. You have simply made an analogy, but not described the thing itself. Also, your analogy just talks about why:
Before and After become exceedingly silly propositions when dealing with time dimensions which exist as part of a universe.
So, you haven't actually described the before or after themselves, other than saying that they are silly.
Also, you are trying to describe the idea of a lack of causality through the use of causality which is simply impossible. You said that when we turn the block with the bands on it, the bands become sideways or backwards, but that has only been proved here in our world of causality. Without cause and effect, the turning of the block would have no effect on the bands, nor would it have on the block itself as there is no cause and effect. Without cause and effect, no matter what you do (cause) nothing will happen (effect).
You also talk about
a timeless, spaceless non-universein which there is a cube. A cube cannot exist in a spaceless universe because, as a three dimensional object, it takes up space. You also say that
Your block may be next to an entirely foreign thing, like a table or book. It could be floating in space.A table and space (to float in) both take up space as well and therefore create a paradox in your spaceless universe that you want to make an analogy for.
But now to get back to my point. While I completely agree with you alway that trying to think about a universe (if it is even that) without causality is a completely preposterous and silly idea, your analogy didn't describe what one would be like. Even in your analogy, you used things such as tables, cubes and space which contradict the idea of a spaceless non-universe and also turned the block which itself requires causality. While I completely agree with your final point that it is silly to think about, your analogy further proved what I was saying in that the human brain is incapable of separating itself from a few core concepts, such as that of causality, and therefore incapable of imagining or describing a world without these concepts.
Post by: scrdest on February 18, 2014, 05:43:03 am
Post by: Descan on February 18, 2014, 09:19:29 am
Post by: BFEL on February 18, 2014, 10:16:58 am
Note that the person in said example is a man, so WHERE DID HE GET THE UTERUS?
Post by: Descan on February 18, 2014, 11:45:10 am
Post by: Lagslayer on February 18, 2014, 12:41:14 pm
Lagslayer, stop using Ken Ham logic; the entirety of science and mathematics is based on the abstraction of reality. That's kinda the point. No, you will never see a cosine running free out in the wild, but it is nevertheless a powerful descriptor of reality.I know there's an xkcd comic for this. Where is it?
Spoiler: edit: Found it! (click to show/hide)
Post by: Erils on February 18, 2014, 04:28:17 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 18, 2014, 04:36:48 pm
Post by: da_nang on February 19, 2014, 11:49:05 am
Post by: olemars on February 25, 2014, 10:48:04 am
DO I LOVE SMART PEOPLE OR WHAT? (http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2013/11/something-very-big-is-coming-our-most-important-technology-project-yet/)AWESOME!
Now, what does all this mean?
It means that instead of a programming language that uses a set of standard libraries, which are pieces of code and methods and functions and whatnot that are very useful that other people already wrote for you, this programming language uses a megaproject knowledge center and knowledge interpreter (in addition to having its own libraries of code).
I'm not sure if you're familiar with coding, but it's very specific, very dry, and to the untrained, pretty difficult to read. A programmer needs to know what they want to do, translate that into what a computer can do (if it can do it), translate that into a set of codes that will command the computer to do what you want it to, write that set of code and then spend your time debugging it to make sure you did it right. You use libraries of code as your basic tools to get this done to save you a bunch of time.
Wolfram programming language also has a very large library of code, but the focus is on human knowledge rather than as an interface between a human and the inner-workings of a computer. Part of its concept is that Wolfram will know things you also know either because all of the code for it has already been written for it to know (like someone taking the time to define all the countries of the world on a map in a way that a computer can understand and reference, as in the example in the article), or it can (theoretically) find out. Instead of doing all the grunt work yourself, you basically do a specialized Google search that is trained to return what you want and automatically implement it.
Wolfram is getting closer to a public release now (http://blog.wolfram.com/2014/02/24/starting-to-demo-the-wolfram-language/).
There's also a preview language reference (http://reference.wolfram.com/language/).
Post by: Reelya on March 03, 2014, 06:52:11 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler-11
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler-62
The Kepler mission is basically a test-run for doing scans of much larger areas of space. Most likely we would have found similar star systems whichever direction we pointed the thing, and they would be called "Kepler" instead. So, given the circular nature of the argument, I don't know of any reason to think that the specific constellation they pointed Kepler at is any better or worse for habitable planets than any other area.
The closest known candidate in the Kepler area is 472 light years away. we'll probably find stuff a lot closer to home later on, e.g. Tau Ceti e is a possible habitable zone planet 11 light years away. That's close enough we could conceivably get a probe there in ~20 years with known physics.
Post by: alway on March 03, 2014, 11:48:20 pm
The most interesting thing about the results isn't actually an individual planet: it's the statistics of the discoveries. It suggests that our solar system is probably about average, that most solar systems have some planets, and that there is a good probably that a good chunk of them have potentially habitable planets. Prior to Kepler, we really hadn't found earthlikes simply because we couldn't detect them. Which led some to draw premature conclusions about super-jupiters being very common, small planets quite rare, and our solar system as unusual. But nope, just as in pretty much everything else we learn about our place in the universe, we're smack dab in the middle of average. Which means life on other worlds is actually reasonably likely; though possibly not complex multicellular life, assuming we draw premature conclusions based on our own planet's evolutionary history.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 03, 2014, 11:55:08 pm
Post by: Descan on March 04, 2014, 12:14:45 am
Post by: Putnam on March 04, 2014, 12:20:28 am
Post by: Lagslayer on March 04, 2014, 12:28:14 am
Why am I babbling on about this?
Post by: Descan on March 04, 2014, 01:08:26 am
I.E. size of planet(maybe), and distance from the sun.
Though I don't know if we're too close to the sun, thereby heating up the equator and giving us deserts, or too far from the sun, thereby freezing water and locking it up to prevent in-land regions from getting to it.
I'm thinking it's the latter, based solely on the fact that in this context, we have no real way of knowing how much water is on those other planets. At best, we can tell how much water is in the atmosphere, and I think that's only a recent thing we can do. So without knowing how much water is in it's hydrosphere, the "higher vegetability" would be a planet that has no chance of having frozen water.
Is my thinking, at least~
*Note: Since we don't know the land-areas and water-content of most of these planets, it's totally possible for a planet to have a thin film of water on a barely-bumpy planet, or have a pangaea-like continent. One would make it so EVERY place on that planet is within a few hundred miles of water, so very few deserts, and the other would almost certainly create a massive in-land desert. These two scenarios would skew a planet that would otherwise be poor/rich in vegetation to the opposite end, simply because of geography that we can't actually see from earth.
Post by: Il Palazzo on March 04, 2014, 02:14:40 am
Though I don't know if we're too close to the sun, thereby heating up the equator and giving us deserts, or too far from the sun, thereby freezing water and locking it up to prevent in-land regions from getting to it.According to this (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1301.6674)(companion calculator here (http://depts.washington.edu/naivpl/sites/default/files/HZ_Calc.html)), we are actually too close to the Sun. There's some atmospheric effects that keep us habitable, but we're definitely on the hot end.
This is in terms of insolation only, mind you, as the planet could have the same average temp and be much farther, as long as there were strong greenhouse effects.
Quote
*Note: Since we don't know the land-areas and water-content of most of these planetsYou misspelled "none".
Post by: Reelya on March 04, 2014, 02:37:08 am
Add all 3 together and you get rainforests, the most miserable places on earth.
Why am I babbling on about this?
Have you actually been in a tropical rainforest? I have, and in summer, they're much cooler than the open areas.
Post by: kaian-a-coel on March 04, 2014, 04:30:41 am
Aren't we too far?Though I don't know if we're too close to the sun, thereby heating up the equator and giving us deserts, or too far from the sun, thereby freezing water and locking it up to prevent in-land regions from getting to it.According to this (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1301.6674)(companion calculator here (http://depts.washington.edu/naivpl/sites/default/files/HZ_Calc.html)), we are actually too close to the Sun. There's some atmospheric effects that keep us habitable, but we're definitely on the hot end.
This is in terms of insolation only, mind you, as the planet could have the same average temp and be much farther, as long as there were strong greenhouse effects.
Post by: Il Palazzo on March 04, 2014, 04:38:11 am
Aren't we too far?No. As discussed in the paper, we're on the inner edge of the Goldilocks zone.
Post by: alway on March 09, 2014, 02:39:35 am
The new Cosmos series with Neil deGrasse Tyson starts within the next day. So be sure to watch it.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 09, 2014, 04:45:49 am
Post by: Dutchling on March 09, 2014, 10:26:05 am
Post by: Gentlefish on March 09, 2014, 03:27:01 pm
As long as they're made of ice and are filled with bi-curious cons, I'd be okay with that.
Post by: MaximumZero on March 09, 2014, 07:40:23 pm
As long as they're made of ice and are filled with bi-curious cons, I'd be okay with that.WTF? Did I miss something?
Post by: Darvi on March 09, 2014, 07:41:17 pm
Post by: Sheb on March 10, 2014, 02:51:49 am
Post by: Darvi on March 10, 2014, 03:29:23 am
Post by: Frumple on March 10, 2014, 05:42:24 am
Post by: Solifuge on March 12, 2014, 06:55:10 pm
I was trying to think of things that a exo-planet has that would affect vegetation-ability that we would be able to know about.
I've been studying star and planet formation, stellar chemistry, and theoretical and observed alternate biologies for a couple months now, so my head is full of this stuff. I'll share a bit of what I've learned. For more stuff, check out these guys: http://phl.upr.edu/library/media (http://phl.upr.edu/library/media)
If you mean Earthlike plants, the recipe is fairly simple. We need to look for Telluric Exoplanets (the rocky inner planets) that formed around an Oxygen Star rather than a Carbon Star (chemical spectrometry can tell us this), sits within the Habitable Zone (a distance range that depends on the star's energy output), and which are between about 1-10x Earth's Mass (past that mass, gravity would be intense, the planet wouldn't lose it's hydrogen/helium, and the atmospheric pressure would be crushingly powerful at ground level). You'd also want a planet with water, active volcanism and a magnetic field, and/or a thick enough outer atmosphere (we can roughly estimate atmosphere using diameter, temperature, and chemical composition too) to block out radiation. And then, of course, you have to get lucky and find a planet with either an existing CO2 atmosphere, or microbes cleaning up toxic atmospheric chemicals, and making some CO2 for future plants.
*Note: Since we don't know the land-areas and water-content of most of these planetsYou misspelled "none".
...though it's true that "Know" is a strong word, we can actually estimate water content pretty accurately (http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1909) with the power of Math, just using the planet's diameter and mass, spectrometry on the parent star to figure out its chemical composition, and knowledge of the density of silicate minerals versus water.
IN OTHER NEWS: you know how birds navigate using some kind of mysterious biological magnetic sensors? Apparently, we've pretty much figured out how they do it, at least in some cases: Linko (http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Research/cryptochrome/)
Sometimes senses get overlapped or grouped together... the way parts of our ears give us our gravity-sense along with our ability to hear. In the case of birds, parts of their blue pigment receptors (named Cryptochrome) are tweaked around by magnetic fields, such that they send stronger or weaker signals depending on the presence of a magnetic field. So basically they can see the Earth's magnetic field lines, as long as there is blue light available, and there are no intense local magnetic fields such as from high-voltage power lines or giant dynamos or anything. It might look a little bit like this:
(http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Research/cryptochrome/Images/magnetic_vision.jpg)
Of course, there are other sources of magnetoreception that we know a lot less about. Some insects have concentrations of magnetic metals and nerve clusters in certain antennae or abdominal segments which may help them orient, and bees seem to be able to sense magnetism as well as polarized light. Actually, a lot of mammals seem to be able to do it to differing degrees too, including several ruminant species, rodents, and even dogs (http://www.frontiersinzoology.com/content/pdf/1742-9994-10-80.pdf). Cool stuff, yeah?
Post by: Bauglir on March 13, 2014, 01:17:14 am
Cool stuff, yeah?Yes.
Post by: Sheb on March 13, 2014, 03:10:34 am
Post by: MaximumZero on March 13, 2014, 04:31:38 am
Indeedy.Cool stuff, yeah?Yes.
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 17, 2014, 11:41:38 am
Post by: kaijyuu on March 17, 2014, 11:42:24 am
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 17, 2014, 11:44:13 am
Post by: Knit tie on March 17, 2014, 11:47:29 am
Unquestionably so.Indeedy.Cool stuff, yeah?Yes.
Post by: Scoops Novel on March 17, 2014, 11:59:54 am
Not really. There have been competing theories of how the very early universe behaved - with one suggestion being a rapid inflationary/exponential growth period, which would explan the remarkable smoothness of the universe, but there was no evidence until now. So, yea, basically we have observational proof of how the very, very universe behaved, no more best geusses.
Whats the deal with this providing the first evidence for quantum gravity for we layman? Nature has some good stuff on this by the way. Feel free to ramble about any other ramifications.
Post by: kaian-a-coel on March 20, 2014, 05:10:19 am
Spoiler: The Blue Lava Of Kawah Ijen (click to show/hide)
Video in french, not explaining anything really, but it shows the blue lava in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=VbumP9rDuv4#t=70
Post by: Sergarr on March 20, 2014, 06:39:59 am
Spoiler: The Blue Lava Of Kawah Ijen (click to show/hide)
Video in french, not explaining anything really, but it shows the blue lava in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=VbumP9rDuv4#t=70
Eat that, fantasy authors!
Nature has outsmarted you yet again!
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 20, 2014, 07:17:06 am
Post by: Sergarr on March 20, 2014, 07:32:44 am
Meh, just molten sulphur.... molten sulfur is blue?
Post by: Il Palazzo on March 20, 2014, 07:39:32 am
No, it's red. But it burns with a blue flame:Meh, just molten sulphur.... molten sulfur is blue?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/Burning-sulfur.png/220px-Burning-sulfur.png)
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 20, 2014, 07:40:38 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Edit: Ninja'd
Post by: Knit tie on March 21, 2014, 01:06:37 am
Post by: Frumple on March 21, 2014, 01:20:38 am
I'm guessing burning sulfur gives off poisonous fumes, anyway. It almost certainly has an incredible stench...
That said, I can only guess doing to lava what's been done to evil biome weather is both possible and a thing of great awesome. Forget just sulfur, let it potentially be molten anything. Or at least molten rock of some sort.
Post by: Knit tie on March 21, 2014, 01:55:20 am
Post by: Sergarr on March 21, 2014, 02:07:55 am
Molten gold good-biome magma: your dwarves drown themselves.Forget drowning themselves, drown dragons instead! Then you will get Gold Dragon Statues
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 21, 2014, 02:11:49 am
Sulfur poisoning for everyone, yaay!Well, the fumes are certainly not healthy.
I'm guessing burning sulfur gives off poisonous fumes, anyway. It almost certainly has an incredible stench....
Also, in contact with water it forms sulphuric acid, which isn't healthy either.
Post by: Knit tie on March 21, 2014, 02:20:50 am
Post by: tahujdt on March 21, 2014, 02:30:22 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 21, 2014, 02:49:05 am
What, are you saying that I shouldn't fill my fortress' swimming pool with molten sulfur just because it kills people?You should have molten sulphur falls, and fill the swimming pool with condensed sulphuric acid. They won't see it coming.
Post by: Knit tie on March 21, 2014, 02:54:57 am
Post by: Xvareon on March 25, 2014, 12:28:16 am
http://www.foldscope.com/
http://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2014/03/10/stanford-bioengineer-develops-a-50-cent-paper-microscope/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foldscope
Wikipedia article:
"A Foldscope is an optical microscope that can be assembled from a sheet of paper. It is built using a punched sheet of cardstock, a spherical lens, an LED, and a diffuser panel, along with a watch battery that powers it. It can magnify up to 2000 times and weighs 8 grams. The magnification power is enough to enable the spotting of organisms such as Leishmania donovani, and Escherichia coli, as well as Plasmodium malarial parasites. A Foldscope can be printed on a standard A4 sheet of paper and assembled in seven minutes.
The Foldscope was developed by a team led by Manu Prakash, an assistant professor of bioengineering at the Stanford School of Medicine. The project was funded by several organisations including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, who gave a grant of $US 100,000 for research in November 2012. The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation funded the "Ten Thousand Microscopes" project under which Prakash plans to give away 10,000 Foldscope kits to interested parties, including students for research. Foldscope sets will also be produced and tested in Kenya, India and Uganda.
Twelve Foldscope variants are available, each designed to aid the identification of a particular disease-causing organism. To enable several people to use them at once, each microscope can project images with a built-in projector. The Foldscope is designed to be assembled by the end user, and hence is colour-coded to help with the assembly. Each unit costs less than one US dollar to build, with estimates varying from 50 cents to 97 cents."
Post by: Erils on March 26, 2014, 03:41:17 am
-just look up^-Wow. Now I can finally observe how everyday life looks at a microscopic level without looking like a lunatic carrying a giant microscope around.
Post by: MaximumZero on March 26, 2014, 07:44:32 am
Wear a lab coat and carry a clipboard. No one will ever question you, no matter what you do.-just look up^-Wow. Now I can finally observe how everyday life looks at a microscopic level without looking like a lunatic carrying a giant microscope around.
Post by: i2amroy on March 26, 2014, 02:40:18 pm
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/trimester.png)Wear a lab coat and carry a clipboard. No one will ever question you, no matter what you do.-just look up^-Wow. Now I can finally observe how everyday life looks at a microscopic level without looking like a lunatic carrying a giant microscope around.
Post by: Vattic on March 29, 2014, 11:59:12 am
Post by: Il Palazzo on March 29, 2014, 12:51:04 pm
It's only those diffuse objects like galaxies and nebulae, which give off too little light (per unit area) to look anything like those fabulous pictures you get from long-exposure photography.
To recapitulate, if something looks red/white/blue/whatever to the naked eye, it will look at least that in a telescope.
Post by: Knit tie on March 29, 2014, 12:54:34 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 29, 2014, 01:03:19 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 29, 2014, 01:08:05 pm
Post by: alway on March 29, 2014, 01:10:13 pm
Yeah, I've always wondered if we somehow manage to increase the light sensitivity of the human eye, could we possibly see the night sky like the long exposure photos show it to us?Nope. The problem comes down to simple math and the fact that photons are discrete. The relation between the emitting surface area and the surface area at a given distance is the inverse square. So if you get 1,000,000 photons passing by an area per unit of time, if you double your distance to the object, that drops to 250,000 photons. Just above the surface of our sun, you would get around 200-ish times as many photons as on earth. And earth gets about 900 times as many as Pluto, measured on a basis of 'photons passing through a given area in a given time unit. Alpha Centauri would have approximately 1 photon from the sun per square meter for every 169 million photons seen per square meter on earth. And this is all assuming no dust, atmosphere, ect in the way. This is why those deep space images require a long exposure combined with a receiving surface dozens of meters across. They are capturing photons which have traveled unimaginably vast distances, decreasing in density by 3/4 for every doubling of their distance.
Post by: Vattic on March 29, 2014, 01:10:21 pm
If you mean to say that Mars is black&white in a telescope, then it isn't. It's nice reddish-orange, even in a pair of binoculars.
It's only those diffuse objects like galaxies and nebulae, which give off too little light (per unit area) to look anything like those fabulous pictures you get from long-exposure photography.
To recapitulate, if something looks red/white/blue/whatever to the naked eye, it will look at least that in a telescope.
Makes sense. The question stems from seeing someone on television with a load of black and white images of planets, nebulae, and galaxies. It was explained that the images were black and white because of what I mentioned in my previous post, but they must not have meant to include their images of Mars in that explanation.
Post by: alway on March 29, 2014, 01:21:01 pm
Color is really just a representation of the data. A lot of telescopes focus on specific wavelengths or wavelengths outside of the visible spectrum. Whether or not you take the results and interpret them as color is simply personal preference and artistic vision. :PIf you mean to say that Mars is black&white in a telescope, then it isn't. It's nice reddish-orange, even in a pair of binoculars.
It's only those diffuse objects like galaxies and nebulae, which give off too little light (per unit area) to look anything like those fabulous pictures you get from long-exposure photography.
To recapitulate, if something looks red/white/blue/whatever to the naked eye, it will look at least that in a telescope.
Makes sense. The question stems from seeing someone on television with a load of black and white images of planets, nebulae, and galaxies. It was explained that the images were black and white because of what I mentioned in my previous post, but they must not have meant to include their images of Mars in that explanation.
The Hubble Ultra Deep Field image for example isn't actually a single image. It was a composition of hundreds of exposures over a half year period, taken with different wavelength detections. Sort of like how you print a newspaper one color at a time. A large majority of 'images' would thus be black & white if you just looked at the data from a telescope; color only becomes relevant when you have multiple color channels. Sure, they could interpret the color they detected from mars as 'red,' but displaying the image as such would be highly misleading simply because, in lacking the other color channels, it would be a misrepresentation of what it actually looked like.
Post by: Vattic on March 29, 2014, 01:48:28 pm
Cheers for clearing up my confusion. Wish the television presenters had been clearer to begin with.
Post by: Knit tie on March 29, 2014, 01:49:50 pm
Yeah, I've always wondered if we somehow manage to increase the light sensitivity of the human eye, could we possibly see the night sky like the long exposure photos show it to us?Nope. The problem comes down to simple math and the fact that photons are discrete. The relation between the emitting surface area and the surface area at a given distance is the inverse square. So if you get 1,000,000 photons passing by an area per unit of time, if you double your distance to the object, that drops to 250,000 photons. Just above the surface of our sun, you would get around 200-ish times as many photons as on earth. And earth gets about 900 times as many as Pluto, measured on a basis of 'photons passing through a given area in a given time unit. Alpha Centauri would have approximately 1 photon from the sun per square meter for every 169 million photons seen per square meter on earth. And this is all assuming no dust, atmosphere, ect in the way. This is why those deep space images require a long exposure combined with a receiving surface dozens of meters across. They are capturing photons which have traveled unimaginably vast distances, decreasing in density by 3/4 for every doubling of their distance.
Is a huge recieving surface strictly necessary? I remember seeing a documentary about a man who takes long exposure photos of the night sky with a very fancy but still quite small camera.
Post by: palsch on March 29, 2014, 02:59:30 pm
Is a huge recieving surface strictly necessary? I remember seeing a documentary about a man who takes long exposure photos of the night sky with a very fancy but still quite small camera.It is for resolution. If you are taking a photo of something very faint then extending the exposure will give you a better image. However, the object won't be any sharper, just clearer.
If I wanted to, say, take a photo of a moon in orbit around a planet then no matter how long an exposure I use, I will need a camera with a certain resolution, and resolution translates into area.
Simple case and some expansion here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_resolution#Single_telescope)
You can get some dazzling images and videos of the night sky using fairly simple and small cameras, but you are taking images of point light sources where angular resolution isn't that important. Arguably you don't mind having stars smeared out or blurred together in such photos because it just makes the sky look even more populated and you are aiming for overall impact rather than scientific accuracy.
There is a second group of night sky photographers who take far less immediately stunning shots, but who focus on resolution. They get shots like this (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/02/28/ridiculously-awesome-pic-of-discovery-and-the-iss-taken-from-the-ground/).
Post by: Knit tie on March 29, 2014, 05:25:15 pm
Post by: palsch on March 29, 2014, 06:54:25 pm
Image and video processing: From Mars to Hollywood with a stop at the hospital (https://class.coursera.org/images-002)
As far as a rig like that goes, google around some astrophotography sites. Most people use telescope rigs, but there might be some cheaper basic setups that could work out.
Post by: scrdest on March 31, 2014, 12:08:10 pm
Post by: Knit tie on March 31, 2014, 12:38:54 pm
Apparently, some scientists managed to grew working muscle cells. Tested on mice, would contract and regenerate normally.I believe they grew muscle cells earlier with that steak, but didn't manage to get them to contract.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 31, 2014, 12:47:36 pm
Post by: scrdest on March 31, 2014, 12:51:24 pm
Well, AFAIK people have been fiddling with myoblasts for at least 15 years, so I'm assuming that the novelty is in the particulars of the method, rather than the deed itself.
Yes, they used some helper cells, whose name I can't recall right now.
Post by: Il Palazzo on March 31, 2014, 02:25:55 pm
Apparently, some scientists managed to grew working muscle cells. Tested on mice, would contract and regenerate normally.
Quote from: Daily Mail
Scientists have created "Working Muscles". The mutant muscles were tested by repeatedly contracting the regenerating mice. PETA paramilitaries are already picketing the lab.
Authors could not be reached to comment on the impact the additional workforce may have on the already skyrocketing unemployment, but an anonymous professional involved in the discovery told us it would most likely take what jobs are left after the Poles and Albanians flooded our country.
The future for honest, hard-working Brits looks grim indeed.
Post by: Dutchling on March 31, 2014, 02:40:26 pm
Post by: kaian-a-coel on March 31, 2014, 03:08:18 pm
Quote from: Daily Mail
Scientists have created "Working Muscles". The mutant muscles were tested by repeatedly contracting the regenerating mice. PETA paramilitaries are already picketing the lab.Are they fucking serious or is this some kind of joke?
Authors could not be reached to comment on the impact the additional workforce may have on the already skyrocketing unemployment, but an anonymous professional involved in the discovery told us it would most likely take what jobs are left after the Poles and Albanians flooded our country.
The future for honest, hard-working Brits looks grim indeed.
I call Poe's law.
Post by: Sheb on March 31, 2014, 03:20:32 pm
Post by: Knit tie on March 31, 2014, 04:52:50 pm
Post by: scrdest on March 31, 2014, 04:54:27 pm
Post by: scrdest on March 31, 2014, 05:07:26 pm
You forget, it IS the daily mail. :P
They'd probably shoot their own mothers if they thought it would make a headline.
Yes, I was joking about the first part, hence the smiley.
No. I simply googled it whole and in parts and found no references to the article. Simple as that.
Post by: scrdest on March 31, 2014, 05:16:22 pm
Sense of bad humour.You forget, it IS the daily mail. :P
They'd probably shoot their own mothers if they thought it would make a headline.
Yes, I was joking about the first part, hence the smiley.
No. I simply googled it whole and in parts and found no references to the article. Simple as that.
Do you have it!?
I used to. It was surgically removed ten years ago, I still have the scar.
Post by: Dutchling on April 04, 2014, 12:23:38 am
Quote from: The Guardian article
"...but water is not the only factor that makes Enceladus such a promising habitat. The water is in contact with the moon's rocky core, so elements useful for life, such as phosphorus, sulfur and potassium, will leach into the ocean."
Post by: ChairmanPoo on April 04, 2014, 07:28:01 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Sheb on April 04, 2014, 07:42:33 am
Post by: Dutchling on April 04, 2014, 07:46:14 am
I'm certain there is life there. Life just tend to fill every niche.Explain the lack of space whales to me then.
Post by: Mech#4 on April 04, 2014, 07:47:14 am
Post by: Sheb on April 04, 2014, 07:47:48 am
I'm certain there is life there. Life just tend to fill every niche.Explain the lack of space whales to me then.
Space is not a niche.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on April 04, 2014, 10:09:33 am
Explain the existence of space bears then.I'm certain there is life there. Life just tend to fill every niche.Explain the lack of space whales to me then.
Space is not a niche.
Post by: Sheb on April 04, 2014, 10:13:09 am
Post by: MonkeyHead on April 04, 2014, 10:24:38 am
Post by: kaian-a-coel on April 04, 2014, 12:43:34 pm
NASA detects ocean inside Saturn Moon, potential home for extraterrestrial microbes (http://spaceindustrynews.com/nasa-detects-ocean-inside-saturn-moon-potential-home-for-extraterrestrial-microbes/4244/)This is relevant to my interests. Also goddamnit, I'm going to be late by a couple years.Quote from: The Guardian article"...but water is not the only factor that makes Enceladus such a promising habitat. The water is in contact with the moon's rocky core, so elements useful for life, such as phosphorus, sulfur and potassium, will leak into the ocean."
I'd hate to have my joy at the discovery of alien life tainted by the sorrow of being a year or two too late to have a hand in it.
Post by: Sergarr on April 04, 2014, 01:48:17 pm
Don't worry, they'll contaminate the sea with our microbes anyway.NASA detects ocean inside Saturn Moon, potential home for extraterrestrial microbes (http://spaceindustrynews.com/nasa-detects-ocean-inside-saturn-moon-potential-home-for-extraterrestrial-microbes/4244/)This is relevant to my interests. Also goddamnit, I'm going to be late by a couple years.Quote from: The Guardian article"...but water is not the only factor that makes Enceladus such a promising habitat. The water is in contact with the moon's rocky core, so elements useful for life, such as phosphorus, sulfur and potassium, will leak into the ocean."
I'd hate to have my joy at the discovery of alien life tainted by the sorrow of being a year or two too late to have a hand in it.
Post by: Sheb on April 08, 2014, 05:02:56 pm
Whoever made that pic made my day. Such trolling. Much awe.
Post by: kaijyuu on April 08, 2014, 05:08:44 pm
The reflected light off the styrofoam is still yellowish.
Post by: Darvi on April 08, 2014, 06:33:23 pm
Post by: Helgoland on April 08, 2014, 06:45:18 pm
Post by: Knit tie on April 08, 2014, 06:49:26 pm
Dayum how do you manipulate the genes of pesticides?The lemon party will help you with that.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Mr. Strange on April 08, 2014, 07:27:35 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/E5QBeUc.jpg)I may have to use this one of these days...
Whoever made that pic made my day. Such trolling. Much awe.
Post by: scrdest on April 09, 2014, 03:22:58 am
Post by: Sheb on April 09, 2014, 03:30:20 am
I thought to myself 'Wait, is that true?', then an instant later, went 'Of course it fucking isn't. Not many blue things, and since when were homemade waffles blue?
Incidentally, that looks, to me, like some kind of waffle-shaped blueberry flavoured icecream or something.
As other said, it's a ploy to get gullible people to google "Blue Waffle", which brings up... Disgusting images.
Post by: Dutchling on April 09, 2014, 03:32:57 am
Methinks you're a vayayaphobist.
I thought to myself 'Wait, is that true?', then an instant later, went 'Of course it fucking isn't. Not many blue things, and since when were homemade waffles blue?
Incidentally, that looks, to me, like some kind of waffle-shaped blueberry flavoured icecream or something.
As other said, it's a ploy to get gullible people to google "Blue Waffle", which brings up... Disgusting images.
Post by: Sheb on April 09, 2014, 03:35:10 am
Post by: Dutchling on April 09, 2014, 03:38:20 am
Post by: palsch on April 10, 2014, 06:57:08 am
I'd recommend reading the whole thing to put it in context. It's been known for a while that, based on published trials, Tamiflu has a (small but real) impact on the duration of flu but that there was no published satisfying evidence for it's impact on infection rates or reduction of serious complications and hospitalisation. It seems that different (or at least marginal) evidence was shown to different groups (and we are talking different regulators coming to different conclusions on its effectiveness) while being kept out of the hands of academics who wanted to conduct meta-analysis.
Post by: Sheb on April 10, 2014, 07:12:15 am
Post by: ChairmanPoo on April 10, 2014, 07:44:02 am
Also, if anyone's curious, immunocompromised patients can have positive CPRs for airway viruses for months or years (and supposedly can be actively contagious, although not necessarily symptomatic), and tamiflu does jackshit for that. You can keep it on for weeks and the cpr will remain positive no matter what.
Post by: Sheb on April 10, 2014, 08:35:00 am
Post by: palsch on April 10, 2014, 09:04:09 am
Well, it does its job: you get over the flu slightly faster.Except that isn't the reason the British government stockpiled half a billion pounds worth of the stuff. The goal was to reduce death rates during a pandemic. That would require either a reduction in transmission rates, a reduction in serious complications (including deaths) or both. It seems it was promoted as both when the evidence doesn't show either.
And, looking at the reivew itself (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD008965.pub4/full) it seems to do what it does in much the same way as, say, paracetamol. Which is to say it doesn't touch the virus itself. And paracetamol has far fewer side effects. To quote the abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD008965.pub4/abstract);
Quote
Mechanism of action for beneficial effects
These findings all suggest that the low immune response with low levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines, which is induced by the action of oseltamivir carboxylate, may reduce the symptoms of influenza unrelated to an inhibition of influenza virus replication. The potential hypothermic or antipyretic effect of oseltamivir as a central nervous system depressant may also contribute to the apparent reduction of host symptoms. Statements made on the capacity of oseltamivir to interrupt viral transmission and reduce complications are not supported by any data we have been able to access.
The mechanism of action proposed by the producers (influenza virus-specific) does not fit the clinical evidence which suggests a multi-system and central action.
It's a nice drug to have on the market, but that isn't really the point anymore. The way it was sold and stockpiled was flat out wrong, and that's heavily due to the limited release of trial information.
Post by: Sheb on April 10, 2014, 09:22:01 am
But yeah, something is rotten in the state of BigPharma. The very fact that Drug companies can choose which studies to publish or submit to regulators is so wrong I want to have their heads on spikes. It's not only loss of money, it's also losses of lives when people get prescribed less than optimal treatment because those fuckers hide or corrupt the date.
Post by: Descan on April 10, 2014, 09:47:58 am
To them, the idea that a study that shows positive results is the only one worth looking at seems on the level. Of course, it isn't, but to someone who doesn't know how the process works, it'd make sense.
And then you add corruption to it all, and it's just a mess...
Post by: Mr. Strange on April 10, 2014, 04:30:17 pm
But I'm sure they'll have drug ready for that soon.
Post by: Knit tie on April 10, 2014, 05:06:03 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 10, 2014, 05:43:09 pm
Post by: Knit tie on April 10, 2014, 05:45:35 pm
Post by: Putnam on April 10, 2014, 05:52:52 pm
My point still stands
Anecdotal evidence is completely and utterly worthless to any discussion even tangentially attached to the word "science" or any debate on fact whatsoever, so not really.
Post by: Knit tie on April 10, 2014, 06:07:52 pm
A fairly detailed look at the Tamiflu analysis just published. (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/apr/10/tamiflu-saga-drug-trials-big-pharma)I was referring to this.
Speaking of flu drugs, does anybody know what the scientific community think about a medicine called Relenza? Its marketed in Russia as an anti-influenza wonder cure, along with Tamiflu
Post by: Helgoland on April 10, 2014, 06:18:27 pm
Post by: Knit tie on April 10, 2014, 06:36:10 pm
Post by: palsch on April 10, 2014, 06:36:30 pm
Speaking of flu drugs, does anybody know what the scientific community think about a medicine called Relenza? Its marketed in Russia as an anti-influenza wonder cure, along with Tamiflu
Relenza is Zanamivir. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanamivir) It was covered in this same review (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD008965.pub4/abstract) and is a broadly similar drug. It seems to have fewer side effects than Tamiflu (oseltamivir in the studies) but these seems to be less data on the most at-risk groups (children and hospitalisations). So arguably a better drug if you want to cut a few hours off your time in bed with the flu (0.6 days on average, from 6.6 to 6) if you are an otherwise healthy adult, but still ineffective in a pandemic situation.
I remember the 'buttercup' thing that was marketed as a cold symptom suppressant that didn't work and, as a result, was taken of shelves.
How is this different? Is it a bigger company doing it or something?
Not quite sure what the case was there, but the only information I can find is where a suppressant was taken off shelves because it was too easy to overdose young children by ignoring stated doses. Completely different situation.
This one is a case where a drug was being pushed as a solution to an entirely valid potential problem (a flu pandemic) where it had absolutely zero value, meaning (in the UK alone) a half billion pounds worth of the stuff was stockpiled in a completely futile effort to save lives. It was pushed as such based on selective and limited information released by the producers, with other trial data being withheld even years after a call for it all to be studied. Frankly it's become a posterchild for the open-trials movement.
I'd recommend reading the entire original Guardian article (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/apr/10/tamiflu-saga-drug-trials-big-pharma) I linked if you want the complete story. He gives a fairly comprehensive backgrounder. The Cochrane collaboration have also issued a press release. (http://www.cochrane.org/features/tamiflu-relenza-how-effective-are-they) The bottom line is that, given the complete trial information, known only to the producing companies, the decision as to whether or not to stockpile these drugs may well have gone the other way. Projecting onto future public health decisions this has obvious and significant implications.
Post by: Knit tie on April 10, 2014, 06:43:13 pm
Post by: Dutchling on April 10, 2014, 06:45:08 pm
Post by: palsch on April 10, 2014, 06:54:29 pm
So Relenza works as well as Tamiflu does, nice to know. The paper (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=190641) I mentioned earlier is probably an attempt by the pharma companies to market it, then.
Doing a quick search, it seems that trial wasn't included in the analysis. Suggests to me that the original data was never released by that one for whatever reason. Make of that what you will.
Wouldn't spending less time with the virus in you be pretty crucial during an endemic, as it would (I assume) be able to spread to less people?
The problem is that the evidence doesn't support that.
It reduces the symptoms, but not the time spent infectious. It's like popping a paracetamol. It might reduce the time you spend feeling crappy, even let you get back to work up to a day sooner (in itself not a terrible thing in a complete pandemic, where time out of work could be a significant economic cost), but doesn't change your viral levels in the slightest. The two biggest pandemic issues are mortality rate and infection rate. This doesn't seem to touch either in any significant manner.
Post by: Vattic on April 10, 2014, 08:42:11 pm
It reduces the symptoms, but not the time spent infectious. It's like popping a paracetamol. It might reduce the time you spend feeling crappy, even let you get back to work up to a day sooner (in itself not a terrible thing in a complete pandemic, where time out of work could be a significant economic cost), but doesn't change your viral levels in the slightest. The two biggest pandemic issues are mortality rate and infection rate. This doesn't seem to touch either in any significant manner.Could cost more if you go back after feeling better, but are still contagious.
Post by: Arx on April 21, 2014, 11:35:22 pm
Post by: kaijyuu on April 22, 2014, 09:44:58 am
Post by: Osmosis Jones on April 22, 2014, 10:43:22 am
All evidence is anecdotal. You just need a large enough sample size of anecdotal evidence.
No; anecdotal "evidence" is also lacking any controls, and cannot account for confounding or compounding influences, and further is pretty well never recorded properly. If there is no structure to an experiment, and the results are only half remembered (or even if just the wrong questions are asked), it is not evidence, and it is worthless.
Experimental design is absolutely fundamental, to make sure what you're testing is what you think, and to remove confirmation bias. That's true in all fields, but is a thousand times more so in anything that directly deals with living creatures.
Post by: kaijyuu on April 22, 2014, 10:45:18 am
Post by: ChairmanPoo on April 22, 2014, 12:51:30 pm
Post by: Sheb on April 22, 2014, 01:00:31 pm
Tamiflu report comes under fire (http://www.nature.com/news/tamiflu-report-comes-under-fire-1.15091?WT.mc_id=FBK_NatureNews)
Quote
They argue that the analysis — an update by Cochrane — is based on randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of the drugs that lack sufficient statistical power to allow reliable conclusions to be drawn about the effects on flu complications and hospitalizations.
Do those people even understand how statistic works? You cannot prove a treatment is useless, you can just say that the current data doesn't let you detect an effect, which is exactly what is happening. We do not know if they reduce mortality.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on April 22, 2014, 01:33:40 pm
Post by: Sheb on April 22, 2014, 01:48:54 pm
Post by: palsch on April 23, 2014, 09:49:05 am
Post by: tahujdt on April 24, 2014, 07:42:06 am
*rimshot*
Anyway, the science is cool, the animations were cool, and the interview were cool.
What I thought was kinda cool is when they were doing the standard documentary 'focus on random s***' montage, they showed a statue of Shiva that was on the property. Several times, in fact. I'm probably one of the only ones who appreciated the symbolism in that.
Spoiler: Symbolism (click to show/hide)
Post by: Sergarr on April 24, 2014, 10:58:19 am
Oh hey there.
Post by: Scoops Novel on May 07, 2014, 10:52:31 am
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2014-138
Post by: Nirur Torir on May 07, 2014, 03:27:27 pm
Science.
(If I know anything about human nature, then within a year, an intrepid bio-hacker will regularly inject themselves with the identified protein and blog about the results.)
Post by: scrdest on May 07, 2014, 03:50:52 pm
Just so people avoid talking about what the guys on the BBC article were talking about, it doesn't extend life, it just means that things like dementia have less of an effect.
...which extends life. Little use in rejuvenation of, say, skin, if you cannot live as you qua you because of dementia.
Post by: Il Palazzo on May 07, 2014, 04:05:43 pm
http://www.illustris-project.org/
It's a super-detailed simulation of a huge spatial chunk of the universe(~10^6 cubic Mpc), recently completed and just published.
Here's an article about it:
www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2014-10
There's a bunch of videos in the media section of the project page(quicktime, sadly).
Post by: MonkeyHead on May 07, 2014, 04:15:33 pm
Spoiler: Spolier for bigness (click to show/hide)
Post by: Lagslayer on May 07, 2014, 04:42:23 pm
Blood plasma from young mice injected into old mice "reverses age-related impairments in cognitive function and synaptic plasticity." (http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/05/factor-of-youth-protein-that-reverses-some-effects-of-aging-identified/)Then everyone became vampires.
Science.
(If I know anything about human nature, then within a year, an intrepid bio-hacker will regularly inject themselves with the identified protein and blog about the results.)
Post by: Loud Whispers on May 07, 2014, 04:46:25 pm
We have replacements? Dammit I want my brain jar immortality.Not a huge amount, though. You can still suffer from other organs giving up and dying.Just so people avoid talking about what the guys on the BBC article were talking about, it doesn't extend life, it just means that things like dementia have less of an effect....which extends life. Little use in rejuvenation of, say, skin, if you cannot live as you qua you because of dementia.
Post by: Knit tie on May 07, 2014, 04:57:59 pm
Suck it, senescence!
Post by: Descan on May 07, 2014, 05:07:25 pm
That's all the body is: Support system for the brain. Well, non-evolutionary speaking.
Step 1: Support the brain outside of the human body.
Step 2: Translate the brain to something indefinitely durable. I.E. won't succumb to Alzheimer, dementia, brain-damage, etc.
Whether that's brain-uploading (which has it's own philosophical issues) or replacing the neurons with a more durable analog, or basically bolting on new hard-drives to your brain that the brain can, over time, migrate into as new connections are formed and the various functions of the brain (memory, learning, sensation, thought, etc) are taken up by the silicon brain. Then even if you lose your original meat-brain, it'd be no more of an issue for you than if you were to lose a few dozen brain-cells right now. Relatively minor loss, getting even more minor as you bolt on more and more space and take it up. Basically the same as the second way, with some differences. (I.E. bolting on whole-cloth parts and waiting for it to be engaged versus replacing each connection individually, keeping the original connections versus making them irrelevant, retaining some semblence of the original neural structure versus "Eh, as long as it thinks, nevermind the structure" of bolt-on)
Bam, immortality. All you need now is some way to manipulate reality (hands, or radio-controlled nano-particles, or organic meat-sacks grown around a radio receiver instead of a brain, whatever) and to sense reality (cameras, aforementioned meat-sacks) and you're golden~
Post by: Loud Whispers on May 07, 2014, 05:11:55 pm
2. [CTRL] [C]
3. [CTRL] [V]
4. Everyone firewalls brain.exe
Post by: Knit tie on May 07, 2014, 05:37:41 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on May 07, 2014, 05:53:43 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 07, 2014, 05:54:15 pm
Post by: Moghjubar on May 07, 2014, 06:09:28 pm
And if you don't take rigorous notes, film it, and upload the documents to the masses in case you fail, so that they may improve their chances, its immoral!
Post by: Lagslayer on May 07, 2014, 07:11:03 pm
Really, all we need to do is support the brain to achieve immortality.The mechanism and materials of the brain are both integral parts of what makes us think the way we do. To change either or both would fundamentally alter your thought patterns. It's not even you anymore.
That's all the body is: Support system for the brain. Well, non-evolutionary speaking.
Step 1: Support the brain outside of the human body.
Step 2: Translate the brain to something indefinitely durable. I.E. won't succumb to Alzheimer, dementia, brain-damage, etc.
Whether that's brain-uploading (which has it's own philosophical issues) or replacing the neurons with a more durable analog, or basically bolting on new hard-drives to your brain that the brain can, over time, migrate into as new connections are formed and the various functions of the brain (memory, learning, sensation, thought, etc) are taken up by the silicon brain. Then even if you lose your original meat-brain, it'd be no more of an issue for you than if you were to lose a few dozen brain-cells right now. Relatively minor loss, getting even more minor as you bolt on more and more space and take it up. Basically the same as the second way, with some differences. (I.E. bolting on whole-cloth parts and waiting for it to be engaged versus replacing each connection individually, keeping the original connections versus making them irrelevant, retaining some semblence of the original neural structure versus "Eh, as long as it thinks, nevermind the structure" of bolt-on)
Bam, immortality. All you need now is some way to manipulate reality (hands, or radio-controlled nano-particles, or organic meat-sacks grown around a radio receiver instead of a brain, whatever) and to sense reality (cameras, aforementioned meat-sacks) and you're golden~
Post by: Knit tie on May 07, 2014, 07:15:09 pm
I don't think that's scientifically proven. We need to perform some of those brain-computer substitution experiments before we can conclude anything.Really, all we need to do is support the brain to achieve immortality.The mechanism and materials of the brain are both integral parts of what makes us think the way we do. To change either or both would fundamentally alter your thought patterns. It's not even you anymore.
That's all the body is: Support system for the brain. Well, non-evolutionary speaking.
Step 1: Support the brain outside of the human body.
Step 2: Translate the brain to something indefinitely durable. I.E. won't succumb to Alzheimer, dementia, brain-damage, etc.
Whether that's brain-uploading (which has it's own philosophical issues) or replacing the neurons with a more durable analog, or basically bolting on new hard-drives to your brain that the brain can, over time, migrate into as new connections are formed and the various functions of the brain (memory, learning, sensation, thought, etc) are taken up by the silicon brain. Then even if you lose your original meat-brain, it'd be no more of an issue for you than if you were to lose a few dozen brain-cells right now. Relatively minor loss, getting even more minor as you bolt on more and more space and take it up. Basically the same as the second way, with some differences. (I.E. bolting on whole-cloth parts and waiting for it to be engaged versus replacing each connection individually, keeping the original connections versus making them irrelevant, retaining some semblence of the original neural structure versus "Eh, as long as it thinks, nevermind the structure" of bolt-on)
Bam, immortality. All you need now is some way to manipulate reality (hands, or radio-controlled nano-particles, or organic meat-sacks grown around a radio receiver instead of a brain, whatever) and to sense reality (cameras, aforementioned meat-sacks) and you're golden~
Post by: Lagslayer on May 07, 2014, 07:22:42 pm
It's like the difference between an aluminum car and a stainless steel car. Even if they perform the same basic functions, there's no getting around the quirks involving the specific materials.The mechanism and materials of the brain are both integral parts of what makes us think the way we do. To change either or both would fundamentally alter your thought patterns. It's not even you anymore.I don't think that's scientifically proven. We need to perform some of those brain-computer substitution experiments before we can conclude anything.
Post by: Putnam on May 07, 2014, 07:25:19 pm
Post by: Knit tie on May 07, 2014, 07:27:47 pm
Still, we don't know yet if replacing, for example, your dopaminergic neurons with artificial nanomachine-installed ones to treat Alzheimer's will cause you to think or process emotions differently. All we have is guesswork and science fiction right now.It's like the difference between an aluminum car and a stainless steel car. Even if they perform the same basic functions, there's no getting around the quirks involving the specific materials.The mechanism and materials of the brain are both integral parts of what makes us think the way we do. To change either or both would fundamentally alter your thought patterns. It's not even you anymore.I don't think that's scientifically proven. We need to perform some of those brain-computer substitution experiments before we can conclude anything.
Post by: Lagslayer on May 07, 2014, 07:32:50 pm
Your thought processes are (as far as we know) emergent and not an intrinsic part of your brain, so we should be able to emulate it reasonably without much difference.How much is too much?
Also, most of the specific processes are emergent (except maybe instinct?), but how they emerge and develop is a result of the brain structure. Just as the composition of the soil and water affect the plants growing in them, the composition of the brain affects how thought develops.
I'm sorry if this is kinda turning into the psychological transhuman thread again.
I suppose experiments would need to be conducted to reinforce it, but I am 100% confident in my statement as of this moment, and whenever I had brought it up on this forum. I would gladly put my money where my mouth is, so to speak.Still, we don't know yet if replacing, for example, your dopaminergic neurons with artificial nanomachine-installed ones to treat Alzheimer's will cause you to think or process emotions differently. All we have is guesswork and science fiction right now.It's like the difference between an aluminum car and a stainless steel car. Even if they perform the same basic functions, there's no getting around the quirks involving the specific materials.The mechanism and materials of the brain are both integral parts of what makes us think the way we do. To change either or both would fundamentally alter your thought patterns. It's not even you anymore.I don't think that's scientifically proven. We need to perform some of those brain-computer substitution experiments before we can conclude anything.
Post by: Descan on May 07, 2014, 07:42:19 pm
I see no reason for the components of the brain to have such an impact on the brain that changing the components would eradicate your "you"ness.
Change, sure. But the whole bloody thing is changing, what's one more?
Post by: Knit tie on May 07, 2014, 07:49:56 pm
*shrug*Tzeentch finds your acceptance of change pleasing.
I see no reason for the components of the brain to have such an impact on the brain that changing the components would eradicate your "you"ness.
Change, sure. But the whole bloody thing is changing, what's one more?
Anyway, I am all for gathering of proper scientific data. If it turns out that having a computer grafted to your brain turns you into HAL, then it's bad and not going to be done. If it just makes you slightly more calm/irritable/humorless/whatever, then we'll need to do the whole cost/benefit analysis.
Besides, there is that entire topic of how much your sense of self is defined by what factors. If we say that simply having your personality shift is equivalent to death of said "self", then it turns out that people die multiple times throughout their lives simply due to intristic brain development patterns.
Again, the whole brain thing needs research.
Post by: Frumple on May 07, 2014, 08:04:24 pm
The mechanism and materials of the brain are both integral parts of what makes us think the way we do. To change either or both would fundamentally alter your thought patterns. It's not even you anymore.Frumple is entirely comfortable with Frumple's future decaying old-person body being converted into an effectively-immortal knowledge bot, and damn the potential personality changes. It's a helluva' lot more interesting legacy than some people that remember you (for maybe another few decades or something) and either some worm food or a pile of ashes. And some terrible misrepresentations in a history book if you're really lucky.
And if it has to be done younger, well, creating something from my flesh that will continue to actively interact with the world for centuries into the future as a direct legacy of my will is fine, too. Damn sight better than anything anyone can manage otherwise, really. I'd call that worth my brain, personally.
Post by: Knit tie on May 07, 2014, 08:08:12 pm
* Transhuman-fist bump.The mechanism and materials of the brain are both integral parts of what makes us think the way we do. To change either or both would fundamentally alter your thought patterns. It's not even you anymore.Frumple is entirely comfortable with Frumple's future decaying old-person body being converted into an effectively-immortal knowledge bot, and damn the potential personality changes. It's a helluva' lot more interesting legacy than some people that remember you (for maybe another few decades or something) and either some worm food or a pile of ashes. And some terrible misrepresentations in a history book if you're really lucky.
And if it has to be done younger, well, creating something from my flesh that will continue to actively interact with the world for centuries into the future as a direct legacy of my will is fine, too. Damn sight better than anything anyone can manage otherwise, really. I'd call that worth my brain, personally.
Post by: Putnam on May 07, 2014, 08:10:06 pm
Your thought processes are (as far as we know) emergent and not an intrinsic part of your brain, so we should be able to emulate it reasonably without much difference.How much is too much?
I dunno, I'm pretty sure my brain is made up of entirely different parts than it was 10 years ago.
Post by: Knit tie on May 07, 2014, 08:13:49 pm
Ah, but you see, neurons are highly conserved, which means that a lot of the cells that make up your brain right now are the same cells you were born with.Your thought processes are (as far as we know) emergent and not an intrinsic part of your brain, so we should be able to emulate it reasonably without much difference.How much is too much?
I dunno, I'm pretty sure my brain is made up of entirely different parts than it was 10 years ago.
Also, transhumanism thread Y/N?
Post by: Lagslayer on May 07, 2014, 08:25:01 pm
Do the ends really justify the means?
Quote
Also, transhumanism thread Y/N?I guess Y, because I feel VERY strongly about this, and it's reasonably related.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 07, 2014, 08:29:28 pm
I gave you all a transhumanism thread last time, and we all remember how that ended.QuoteAlso, transhumanism thread Y/N?I guess Y, because I feel VERY strongly about this, and it's reasonably related.
Post by: Lagslayer on May 07, 2014, 08:30:14 pm
Post by: Descan on May 07, 2014, 08:32:22 pm
Anyway, I don't see why genetic material matters all that much. Sure, keep a record of the human genome for historical purposes, but I don't see why it's important to keep it functional. It's just instructions to make a human. To me, the brain is much more important, especially since the brain can figure out how to make another human with technology, or a non-human, either AI or uplifted animals, or whole-cloth "alien". Eventually.
"Do the ends justify the means?" usually is asked for things like genocide to create a racial utopia, or killing a few people to save thousands, or things of that nature. Going mechano-human and discarding un-needed bodies... I don't see how that needs justification.
Post by: Knit tie on May 07, 2014, 08:35:56 pm
I for one, believe the method of achieving immortality is as important as the immortality itself. Why not just increase the longevity of the biological tissue instead of replacing it completely? I hold the biological (especially genetic) integrity of the human species very highly. I feel that to consciously manipulate the individual genes is crossing the line, and that it is different from natural evolution, in a cultural sense (which is also important).
Do the ends really justify the means?QuoteAlso, transhumanism thread Y/N?I guess Y, because I feel VERY strongly about this, and it's reasonably related.
Natural evolution has stopped affecting humans ever since our reproductive fitness stopped being dependent on our genetic makeup. Besides, what is it to consciously manipulate an individual gene when you are simply replacing it with a gene from another human in order to treat a disease?
What is it to be human? What defines humans on a fundamental level?
Why is being human preferable to being another species of a sentient being? What evidence do we have that states that being a human is inherently better than being something other than human, assuming that that something is capable of conscious thought?
Ohh, the fires of our discourse shall eclipse the heavens.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 07, 2014, 08:38:02 pm
... Sputtering out?No. It was locked temporally by me and then permanently by Toady following the very counter-productive actions of an individual or individuals who shall remain unnamed for the sake of civility alone. I'm still somewhat peeved by the whole thing, as it was a good thread otherwise.
Nonetheless, my advice is against a new transhumanism thread, as Bay 12 has a tendency to make the same thread mistakes over and over again.
Post by: Knit tie on May 07, 2014, 08:39:38 pm
Yeah, that's not pleasant in the slightest.... Sputtering out?No. It was locked temporally by me and then permanently by Toady following the very counter-productive actions of an individual or individuals who shall remain unnamed for the sake of civility alone. I'm still somewhat peeved by the whole thing, as it was a good thread otherwise.
But we can always try again. Trial and error, eh? ;)
Post by: Descan on May 07, 2014, 08:43:32 pm
Cut down on the work Toady has to do when it inevitably falls to the gutter and explodes.
Post by: Putnam on May 07, 2014, 08:45:11 pm
Post by: Lagslayer on May 07, 2014, 08:46:34 pm
... Sputtering out?
Anyway, I don't see why genetic material matters all that much. Sure, keep a record of the human genome for historical purposes, but I don't see why it's important to keep it functional. It's just instructions to make a human. To me, the brain is much more important, especially since the brain can figure out how to make another human with technology, or a non-human, either AI or uplifted animals, or whole-cloth "alien". Eventually.
Quote from: Knit Tie
Natural evolution has stopped affecting humans ever since our reproductive fitness stopped being dependent on our genetic makeup. Besides, what is it to consciously manipulate an individual gene when you are simply replacing it with a gene from another human in order to treat a disease?Why the brain? Why draw the arbitrary line there? Certainly, alien species have already conceived all of our ideas and technology.
What is it to be human? What defines humans on a fundamental level?
Why is being human preferable to being another species of a sentient being? What evidence do we have that states that being a human is inherently better than being something other than human, assuming that that something is capable of conscious thought?
Ohh, the fires of our discourse shall eclipse the heavens.
It's not a question of logic; that has already played out. Logic is how the information is processed. This is a question of emotion; this is what we wish to accomplish with the knowledge that we have accumulated. I feel that our genetic integrity is worth protecting. That it is the end all, most basic thing that defines a human.
What do you feel is worth protecting? Why?
I'm not saying being human is necessarily better, but it is distinct. It is what I was born as. It is what I identify with. Before you were anything else, before you had your first thoughts, you were a zygote with human DNA. It is the thing from which your entire physical being grew. Your were also shaped by human culture. I choose because a line has to be drawn somewhere; a line which must not be crossed. And this feels like a good place to draw that line.
I'll try to keep this civil.
Post by: Putnam on May 07, 2014, 08:49:01 pm
Post by: Lagslayer on May 07, 2014, 08:52:08 pm
How do you draw the line between something that was born human and something that was created identical to experience, think and feel identically to one, even if it has none of the biological components associated with one?Then it is not human, in my opinion. Like, at all. If it acts like a cat, thinks like a cat, and associates itself with cats, but is very clearly a dog, then it is a dog.
Post by: Descan on May 07, 2014, 08:54:08 pm
We have never even seen non-Earth-based microbial life, let alone intelligent life. And even if it existed, it's almost certainly nowhere near us and would have little impact on us beyond the philosophical. I highly doubt we'd even be able to communicate with them, let alone figure out what technologies they know and don't know.
Anyway, brain is special because it's unique among the animals (don't give me the whole "Ravens and octopods and dolphins, oh my!" They're smart, but not technology-using, so we're still unique) and, more importantly (because any immortality technology would HAVE to be, as a moral and ethical concern, a deeply personal choice therefore it is the person who matters in this question and not the species), the brain is the center of our personality. It is all that matters to our personality, it's not like you suddenly turn into another person if you lose a limb or something. Whereas our DNA mutates all the time and has little-to-no affect on us personally, outside of cancer, and a) that's not exactly a good thing, and b) only brain-tumors are likely to affect the personality and identity.
DNA just... doesn't matter, outside of reproduction, for the singular human. The brain does.
Edit: What does that mean? "Not human", okay, we can agree on that, it's not literally human, but what does that -mean-? It's sentient, sapient, has feelings. Does it not being human mean that it doesn't deserve "human" rights, even if it shares all the things that makes humans human? Or does it not being human not enter into that, in which case why even bother with the whole "Is it human or isn't it?" outside the academic?
Post by: Lagslayer on May 07, 2014, 09:00:28 pm
I'm all for preserving the brain. It's the culmination of both what and who we are, carrying our genetic material and our thought patterns simultaneously. For this reason, I believe is is the single most important part of us. This is also why I believe it's biological integrity must also be preserved, and not the thoughts approximately translated into another medium. If nothing else can be preserved, this is the final, FINAL thing that must be kept.
Or were you not for moving our brains into computers? I'm losing track of everyone's individual statements.
Post by: Descan on May 07, 2014, 09:02:34 pm
Post by: MaximumZero on May 07, 2014, 09:21:48 pm
How do you draw the line between something that was born human and something that was created identical to experience, think and feel identically to one, even if it has none of the biological components associated with one?You don't. Should we find sentient alliums, or better yet, enhance ourselves, what makes the "others" better/worse/different from us?
Post by: Knit tie on May 07, 2014, 09:45:05 pm
It technically should have no reason to go down in flames, as people who are willing to make illogical, insulting arguments solely in order to promote their agenda don't usually discuss transhumanism.
Just out of interest, what exactly happened to the last thread?
Post by: Lagslayer on May 07, 2014, 09:51:58 pm
Okay, I am making a transhumanism thread right now.Religion got injected.
It technically should have no reason to go down in flames, as people who are willing to make illogical, insulting arguments solely in order to promote their agenda don't usually discuss transhumanism.
Just out of interest, what exactly happened to the last thread?
Post by: Knit tie on May 07, 2014, 09:54:03 pm
Oh boy, that's usually lethal.Okay, I am making a transhumanism thread right now.Religion got injected.
It technically should have no reason to go down in flames, as people who are willing to make illogical, insulting arguments solely in order to promote their agenda don't usually discuss transhumanism.
Just out of interest, what exactly happened to the last thread?
The transhumanism thread is open now, let's relocate this discussion there.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 07, 2014, 10:12:13 pm
Not entirely accurate.Okay, I am making a transhumanism thread right now.Religion got injected.
It technically should have no reason to go down in flames, as people who are willing to make illogical, insulting arguments solely in order to promote their agenda don't usually discuss transhumanism.
Just out of interest, what exactly happened to the last thread?
Post by: Knit tie on May 07, 2014, 10:24:08 pm
Fundamentalist zealot flamewar? Misinterpretation of a post leading to self-propagating indignation? Arrogant, proselytizing atheism?Not entirely accurate.Okay, I am making a transhumanism thread right now.Religion got injected.
It technically should have no reason to go down in flames, as people who are willing to make illogical, insulting arguments solely in order to promote their agenda don't usually discuss transhumanism.
Just out of interest, what exactly happened to the last thread?
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 07, 2014, 10:24:48 pm
Post by: Putnam on May 08, 2014, 12:02:09 am
Fundamentalist zealot flamewar? Misinterpretation of a post leading to self-propagating indignation? Arrogant, proselytizing atheism?Not entirely accurate.Okay, I am making a transhumanism thread right now.Religion got injected.
It technically should have no reason to go down in flames, as people who are willing to make illogical, insulting arguments solely in order to promote their agenda don't usually discuss transhumanism.
Just out of interest, what exactly happened to the last thread?
Why don't you just search the word "transhumanism" in the general discussion board and check?
Post by: Osmosis Jones on May 08, 2014, 04:23:44 am
However, I am very glad you all managed to pull yourselves back from the brink, and avoid turning this thread into a soulless-cyborg-vs-deluded-hippy flame war. Gold star for all of you!
(Tongue in cheek humour aside, it's always good to see both responsible discussion, and the community knowing when to branch a discussion that begins to leave the original thread's subject area.)
For future clarity, and just so we have a word from OP, this thread is for discussing the interesting (preferably breaking) news on major/minor/weird/cool science; while some expounding on the potential impact is of course welcome, if we start talking in-depth philosophy where any science involved is pretty much all in the someday science may be able to do this category, we're probably off topic.
With that said, have some science! The latest computational modelling shows we seem to have a pretty good idea of the *behaviour* of dark matter & energy (http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/05/simulation-shows-that-dark-energy-and-matter-can-reproduce-the-universe/); previous errors appear to be mostly due to what can basically be considered rounding errors due to lack of modelling resolution. Of course, we still have no damn idea what the stuff actually is, but eh, baby steps!
Post by: Il Palazzo on May 08, 2014, 04:41:08 am
With that said, have some science! The latest computational modelling shows we seem to have a pretty good idea of the *behaviour* of dark matter & energy (http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/05/simulation-shows-that-dark-energy-and-matter-can-reproduce-the-universe/); previous errors appear to be mostly due to what can basically be considered rounding errors due to lack of modelling resolution. Of course, we still have no damn idea what the stuff actually is, but eh, baby steps!See, I knew my post on Illustria would be lost in the avalanche of all that immortality-craze.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on May 08, 2014, 04:47:46 am
Ummmm, how about some synthetic bases (different from A, G, T & C) being injected into E. Coli, which then successfully reproduce them sound (http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2014/05/designer-microbes-expand-lifes-genetic-alphabet)?
Post by: Knit tie on May 08, 2014, 06:05:25 am
Oh hey, whoops, sorry about that :PVery interesting and promising, but not exactly groundbreaking. Still, there are plenty of potential applications.
Ummmm, how about some synthetic bases (different from A, G, T & C) being injected into E. Coli, which then successfully reproduce them sound (http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2014/05/designer-microbes-expand-lifes-genetic-alphabet)?
Post by: lemon10 on May 08, 2014, 12:25:59 pm
Oh hey, whoops, sorry about that :PThat sounds pretty awesome.
Ummmm, how about some synthetic bases (different from A, G, T & C) being injected into E. Coli, which then successfully reproduce them sound (http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2014/05/designer-microbes-expand-lifes-genetic-alphabet)?
The idea of creating lifeforms so artificial that even their DNA has bases not found in nature makes me very happy.
Post by: kaijyuu on May 08, 2014, 01:09:21 pm
So far it just seems like playing God :P
Post by: Sheb on May 08, 2014, 01:12:33 pm
Post by: Helgoland on May 08, 2014, 05:00:38 pm
Post by: Moghjubar on May 08, 2014, 07:46:39 pm
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21601809-potent-source-genetic-variation-cognitive-ability-has-just-been
http://www.cell.com/cell-reports/abstract/S2211-1247%2814%2900287-3
Quote from: Original Summary
Life Extension Factor Klotho Enhances Cognition
Who wants to have a Klotho doping party?
Post by: Sergarr on May 09, 2014, 04:03:02 am
Post by: Arx on May 09, 2014, 04:06:22 am
Apologies if it's already been posted. If that source isn't reliable, there are others- that's just the one that showed up first when I searched, having seen it somewhere and forgotten.
Post by: i2amroy on May 09, 2014, 04:18:45 am
Or at least that was the problem with the (I think it was British) company that was looking into this process a year or two back.
Post by: Sheb on May 09, 2014, 04:22:39 am
Post by: Arx on May 09, 2014, 05:41:41 am
Post by: Descan on May 09, 2014, 07:16:32 am
Post by: Helgoland on May 09, 2014, 07:57:43 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on May 09, 2014, 08:19:47 am
Besides, we can't even produce enough renewable power for our electricity needs. Replacing fossil fuels for transportation might be premature.
Post by: scrdest on May 09, 2014, 08:51:53 am
I'm a great fan of methanol fuel for precisely those reasons: Easy to manufacture from captured CO2, liquid for easy transportation and refuelling, and with roughly similar characteristics to existing fuels, allowing current engines to switch fuels without too big a hassle.
And unlike ethanol, there is very little risk in people trying to drink it. At least in the long term. (I've actually been very amused by learning that methanol is called 'screensaver' in some circles, for obvious reasons).
Post by: Il Palazzo on May 09, 2014, 08:58:50 am
(I've actually been very amused by learning that methanol is called 'screensaver' in some circles, for obvious reasons)."Let's hurry up drinking, it's getting dark."
Post by: Helgoland on May 09, 2014, 09:16:59 am
It can work as a replacement for fossil fuels, but not as an energy carrier to make up for renewables unreliableness. I mean, a fossil fuel plant only has a 40% efficiency , and the syn fuel process is even worse.Just an example of a drop-in replacement, my dear.
Post by: i2amroy on May 09, 2014, 01:46:44 pm
Still pretty cool depending on the efficiency of the system. Plug it into a power station, and you effectively get twice the energy per unit of carbon pumped into the atmosphere.This would effectively be the best way to do it. Elsewise you run into needing
captured CO2Which, to quote Wikipedia:
Quote
Extraction (recovery) from air is possible, but not very practical.
In a sense we've already got most of the technology we need to turn CO2 into fuel as a drop solution; but we are missing most of the technology we need to actually pull said CO2 out of the air.
That said I'd be fully up for something like this; if we could get it working on a large scale inefficiencies it could very easily solve/revert a large chunk of climate change without us needing to actually change anything else.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on May 09, 2014, 01:49:23 pm
All synthetic fuels are energy carriers, not energy producers. Basically, the cycle is this.
Fossil Fuel --> Power plant = Energy + Co²
Co² + Energy --> Conversion plant = Fuel
Post by: i2amroy on May 09, 2014, 01:51:00 pm
Anyway, just as a note you don't get twice the energy per unit of carbon pumped into the athmosphere.Point, though it would allow for much higher solar energy utilization because we would have a more easily stored and widespread form of solar energy than through electricity/water.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on May 09, 2014, 03:49:11 pm
Do we? I'm quite sure the efficiency is lower than current storage methods. (Fossil fuel generators only have a 40% efficiency, after all.) Meanwhile, the losses for pumped storage and electricity storage are much lower. A pumped storage facility has an efficiency of 70-80%, even with an addition 5% grid and 5% misc losses, is still 50% more efficient.Anyway, just as a note you don't get twice the energy per unit of carbon pumped into the athmosphere.Point, though it would allow for much higher solar energy utilization because we would have a more easily stored and widespread form of solar energy than through electricity/water.
Meanwhile the synfuel process isn't exactly efficient either.
The only advantage is that you don't need additional infrastructure.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on May 09, 2014, 04:00:40 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on May 09, 2014, 04:05:05 pm
Post by: Descan on May 09, 2014, 04:06:26 pm
Post by: i2amroy on May 09, 2014, 04:14:23 pm
The only advantage is that you don't need additional infrastructure.And that it can be implemented anywhere. There are very sizable chunks of the world that don't have near the elevation required for a pumped water facility, nor have the geographical features required for a compressed gas facility. While it will probably never come close to the efficiency for those in areas where they are supported, the fact that it can be easily implemented anywhere allows it to easily be used in areas that support neither one.
Post by: Sheb on May 10, 2014, 06:38:44 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on May 10, 2014, 07:42:34 am
1) People proposing the Synfuel thing as a replacement of fossil fuels.
It's a solution that makes a little bit more sense, but electric cars still have the thing beaten on energy efficiency. The main advantage of synfuel is their energy density, which is still a major problem for electric appliances.
2) People proposing the Synfuel as a solution to intermittent supple of renewable energy.
This is, to say it bluntly, quite stupid. As far as I could find, the Synfuel process using electricity* has an efficiency of about 15%-20%, and isn't going to improve dramatically. Converting this synfuel back to electricity, you're facing with another 60% losses. This means that you only recuperate 8% of the energy you store.
I mean, you could install a high voltage line, a battery power unit or whatever else you want for power and it will be both cheaper and more efficient.
*Also assumes that you don't have to invest any energy to get your 100% pure Co² feedstock.
Post by: Sheb on May 10, 2014, 07:49:25 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on May 10, 2014, 07:55:42 am
Post by: Helgoland on May 10, 2014, 07:58:01 am
Post by: Sheb on May 10, 2014, 08:03:14 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on May 10, 2014, 08:14:33 am
Post by: Helgoland on May 10, 2014, 08:20:25 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on May 10, 2014, 08:48:11 am
Fossils-to-electricity-to-synfuel is dumb, yeah. But so is fossils-to-electricity-as-fuel. And synfuel plants don't have to operate continuously - they might be used to take care of energy peaks, which are a large problem with renewables. We'll ultimately have to take all our energy from fission and renewables, which means that future mobility will be electricity-based one way or another: Synfuel is just the more elegant solution, because it causes fewer problems during transition.Fossil to electricity as fuel isn't that bad. Large generators have the advantage of scale resulting in higher efficiency. IIRC, 40% for natural gas, +20% if you're using cogeneration for heating as opposed to the 20% of most cars. With electric efficiency at 60%-80%, that's a decent gain.
And it's probably going to be much more fission than renewables, if you plan to go through with that. As an example, if we were to transfer all of the UK's energy useage to Electric using perfect conversion, it would need a 250 GW of generation capability. Now, conversion isn't perfect, so that power usage is going through the roof.
Additionally, a synfuel plant requires a nearby fossil fuel plant for it's Co² (atmospheric filtering will crash the already low efficiency). I mean, it's not an elegant solution if it relies on the infrastructure you're trying to replace.
Post by: Sheb on May 10, 2014, 09:15:35 am
Post by: Helgoland on May 10, 2014, 12:05:49 pm
Post by: Putnam on May 10, 2014, 01:43:39 pm
But what's the point of an electricity based drop-in solution, when that electricity is generated using fossil fuels. Because really, renewables aren't there yet.
What's the point of not killing my family when families are being killed all the time? Because, really, world peace isn't here yet.
It's not like using electric cars is going to make an equivalent amount of fossil fuel burnage for electricity.
Post by: Descan on May 10, 2014, 02:00:03 pm
So if we can sequester carbon as it's burned, great! Or if we can extract the equivalent (perhaps more, to reverse our carbon damage) carbon from the atmosphere for every litre of fuel burned, great.
It's easier to sequester carbon like that at large oil, gas, and coal plants than in a truck or car, so to me the only solutions are to either create fuel for cars out of already-atmospheric carbon, or electric engines. And electric engines aren't powerful enough, nor long lasting enough yet. There've been some advances, but those still need to be rolled out to the public, which takes a long time (there are billions of cars, or last hundreds of millions, across the globe)
So being able to create carbon-neutral drop-in fuel, even if it's not energy efficient, is a good solution, because it's time and money efficient, which we are fairly short on (time, rather. Money is only short because capitalism and people are cheap) Time because it takes time to manufacture and roll-out all those electric cars, and money because people need to buy them and replace their fuel-powered cars. Not everyone can afford a new car in the next ten years. Energy efficiency, while great, is only really a huge issue now-adays because a) we need so much of energy, and b) the pollution is generated whether we can use 100% of the energy or 10%, so we want more bang for our buck. If we aren't paying in terms of pollution, then it doesn't matter as much (though since we need so much of it, we should still keep an eye on efficiency, but it's not world-ending if we are inefficient, especially if our inefficiency is to prevent pollution and carbon-dumping.)
I'd also like a nuclear solution, because nuclear is the safest god-damn thing we have and it's barely polluting (especially if you use thorium or those reactors that burn the fuel down to barely-anything. Breeder, I think they're called? Fast reactors? Something like that) The environment around reactors even less radioactive than around coal plants! (Not that either of them are particularly radioactive outside of a melt-down, but those barely happen and even when they do, they're fairly overblown or due to insanely huge fuck-ups on the engineers part. Or both.)
Post by: 10ebbor10 on May 10, 2014, 02:48:38 pm
It's the difference between shooting 5 families and 1 family. After all, the electric system is significantly more efficient, as I noted earlier.But what's the point of an electricity based drop-in solution, when that electricity is generated using fossil fuels. Because really, renewables aren't there yet.What's the point of not killing my family when families are being killed all the time? Because, really, world peace isn't here yet.
It's not like using electric cars is going to make an equivalent amount of fossil fuel burnage for electricity.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on May 10, 2014, 03:57:38 pm
Post by: Descan on May 10, 2014, 04:46:37 pm
Post by: i2amroy on May 22, 2014, 08:28:26 pm
As for nuclear safety, I think it's mainly a question of concentration. Normal power plants slowly poison vast areas of land at time, but because the poisoning is done slowly it gives more time and makes cleanup somewhat more viable in the event of disasters. Nuclear, on the other hand, normally causes virtually no poisoning, but in the event of an accident causes an extremely high amount in a very small area. This means that while it may be normally better, in the event of an accident it is much more difficult to deal with safely.
I'd also like a nuclear solution, because nuclear is the safest god-damn thing we have and it's barely polluting (especially if you use thorium or those reactors that burn the fuel down to barely-anything. Breeder, I think they're called? Fast reactors? Something like that)I believe you are thinking of Fast Breeder reactors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_breeder#Fast_breeder_reactor).
Post by: Descan on May 22, 2014, 11:17:20 pm
The best kind of right!
Post by: Sheb on May 22, 2014, 11:25:15 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on May 23, 2014, 01:07:16 am
Small note on nuclear power, but at the current rates of Uranium mining the estimates say that we will actually only have enough uranium for current designs to be powered for another 40-50 years (less if we build more plants). Thus any sort of long-reaching nuclear solution will need to be powered through either plutonium (not-necessarily weapons usable) or potentially thorium.Actually, 2 things. Those estimates include a dramatic expansion of nuclear power growth, as predicted before the entire Fukushima incident. More specifically, they include an increase of Uranium consumption from about 60 000 tonnes now, to almost 120 000 tonnes by 2030.
As for nuclear safety, I think it's mainly a question of concentration. Normal power plants slowly poison vast areas of land at time, but because the poisoning is done slowly it gives more time and makes cleanup somewhat more viable in the event of disasters. Nuclear, on the other hand, normally causes virtually no poisoning, but in the event of an accident causes an extremely high amount in a very small area. This means that while it may be normally better, in the event of an accident it is much more difficult to deal with safely.
Secondly, they base themselves on current known economically recoverable resources, IIRC, with a price of up to 130$/kgU. Now, if you double that price, the known reserves raise from 5,300,000 to 7,096,000 tonnes. The ore cost contributes about half to a quarter of the cost of fuel, which in itself cost only 0.75c/ Kwh, and is dropping significantly as plants increase enrichment, and thus burn-up and efficiency.
So, the fuel cost can pentuple, and nuclear will barely notice. In fact, the higher maintenance cost of a fast breeder (not all that high,FYI) means that these become viable only after the Uranium ore price goes over 500$ /kg, at 1000-1500$/kg, even seawater becomes an economically recoverable reserve of uranium..
Post by: Evil Knievel on May 25, 2014, 04:50:17 am
Small note on nuclear power, but at the current rates of Uranium mining the estimates say that we will actually only have enough uranium for current designs to be powered for another 40-50 years (less if we build more plants). Thus any sort of long-reaching nuclear solution will need to be powered through either plutonium (not-necessarily weapons usable) or potentially thorium.Actually, 2 things. Those estimates include a dramatic expansion of nuclear power growth, as predicted before the entire Fukushima incident. More specifically, they include an increase of Uranium consumption from about 60 000 tonnes now, to almost 120 000 tonnes by 2030.
As for nuclear safety, I think it's mainly a question of concentration. Normal power plants slowly poison vast areas of land at time, but because the poisoning is done slowly it gives more time and makes cleanup somewhat more viable in the event of disasters. Nuclear, on the other hand, normally causes virtually no poisoning, but in the event of an accident causes an extremely high amount in a very small area. This means that while it may be normally better, in the event of an accident it is much more difficult to deal with safely.
Secondly, they base themselves on current known economically recoverable resources, IIRC, with a price of up to 130$/kgU. Now, if you double that price, the known reserves raise from 5,300,000 to 7,096,000 tonnes. The ore cost contributes about half to a quarter of the cost of fuel, which in itself cost only 0.75c/ Kwh, and is dropping significantly as plants increase enrichment, and thus burn-up and efficiency.
So, the fuel cost can pentuple, and nuclear will barely notice. In fact, the higher maintenance cost of a fast breeder (not all that high,FYI) means that these become viable only after the Uranium ore price goes over 500$ /kg, at 1000-1500$/kg, even seawater becomes an economically recoverable reserve of uranium..
This.
And also remember that in contrast to hydrocarbons, where a decline in findings despite harshly increased exploration efforts allows us estimate the finity (word exists?) of the resource, the ultimate amount of (affordably) mineable uranium is not determined.
Post by: redwallzyl on May 25, 2014, 08:53:05 am
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER
Post by: 10ebbor10 on May 25, 2014, 08:59:44 am
Post by: Descan on May 25, 2014, 11:24:30 am
That's like... a new fighter jet! Well, part of one, at least!
Post by: miauw62 on May 25, 2014, 11:44:22 am
Post by: Putnam on May 25, 2014, 11:45:32 am
20 billion, so much, w0w.
That's like... a new fighter jet! Well, part of one, at least!
$138 million for an F-22. The program cost was $62 billion.
It's worth about a fifth its weight in gold, though.
Post by: Descan on May 25, 2014, 11:48:13 am
Either way, ITER is only a third the cost of developing/deploying (right? That's what you mean by program, ya?) a new fighter jet, and no one bats an eye at that. Clean, abundant, and super-fucking-cool energy is worth at least a third of new shooty-shoots, yes.
Post by: miauw62 on May 25, 2014, 11:50:41 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on May 25, 2014, 12:26:08 pm
Most often however, it won't be pure enough to be weapons grade.
Post by: Helgoland on May 25, 2014, 06:41:47 pm
And BTW, breeder reactors have other problems than physical ones, they can in theory be used to create weapons-grade materials.Why's that a problem, though?
Post by: Gentlefish on May 28, 2014, 02:21:09 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on May 28, 2014, 03:31:01 pm
Additionally, the proliferation danger is smaller than enrichment tech. If you centralize the breeder technology, or use selfsustaining breeders, proliferation risk isnt bigger than it is now
Post by: TheDarkStar on May 28, 2014, 06:44:31 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on May 28, 2014, 06:51:14 pm
Because oh no we might use it to blow ourselves up and not, you know, recycle it for high-quality energy.Why not both?
Post by: MaximumZero on May 28, 2014, 11:05:14 pm
Blowing ourselves up is stupid?Because oh no we might use it to blow ourselves up and not, you know, recycle it for high-quality energy.Why not both?
Post by: Loud Whispers on May 29, 2014, 05:26:24 am
I was referring to potentially blowing up alongside copious volumes of energy as opposed to simply blowing up and releasing all that energy.Blowing ourselves up is stupid?Because oh no we might use it to blow ourselves up and not, you know, recycle it for high-quality energy.Why not both?
Post by: kaian-a-coel on May 29, 2014, 06:02:39 am
http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1283v1
TL;DR:
We calculate the Casimir energy-momentum tensor induced in a scalar field by a long-throated traversable wormhole, and examine whether this exotic matter is sufficient to stabilise the wormhole itself. [...] Provided the throat radius is above some fixed length, the renormalised Casimir energy-density has sufficient magnitude to stabilise a long-throated wormhole far larger than the Planck scale, at least in principle. Unfortunately, the renormalised Casimir energy-density is zero for null rays directed exactly parallel to the throat, and this shortfall prevents us from stabilising the ultrastatic spherically-symmetric wormhole considered here. Nonetheless, the negative Casimir energy does allow the wormhole to collapse extremely slowly, its lifetime growing without bound as the throat-length is increased. We find that the throat closes slowly enough that its central region can be safely traversed by a pulse of light.
-Luke Butcher (http://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/~lmb62/), Cambridge Cosmology department.
Emphasis mine.
Post by: MonkeyHead on May 29, 2014, 06:58:27 am
Post by: Putnam on May 29, 2014, 11:41:31 am
Post by: Gentlefish on May 29, 2014, 02:41:03 pm
Post by: Putnam on May 29, 2014, 03:09:19 pm
Post by: alway on June 04, 2014, 11:19:02 pm
IN unrelated stuff, this article was interesting:
Anyway, this article is pretty interesting: http://www.engadget.com/2014/06/04/cortana-microsoft-windows-phone/
It's about Microsoft's "Cortana" personal assistant for windows phone (and likely soon coming to their other platforms, from the rumors I've heard). Apparently they've decided to give the system a much more evident persona and make it much more relatable than the others out there, to the point where it's a major objective for the project.
It will certainly be interesting to see how this project evolves over time. From the aforementioned rumors, this Cortana system (running on the same general "Satori" knowledge engine as bing) will be integrated much more fully into their operating systems, supposedly to the point where you could ideally do anything you wanted simply through the Cortana system, as it would be able to search through all sorts of contextual information on your pc and figure out what you meant when stating something like 'print my boarding pass' and would then be able to go into the file system, locate the files necessary, and print them. Apparently the current phone version already has some features of that sort of information aggregation, but adapting that to a desktop could dramatically change the way most people interact with their computers.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on June 05, 2014, 12:47:45 am
Post by: Reelya on June 05, 2014, 04:18:42 am
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/physics/collapsing-4-d-star-could-have-spawned-universe/
http://www.popsci.com.au/science/the-big-bang-may-not-have-spawned-the-universe-after-all,380309
Basically, some researchers modelled a 5D universe, that is general relativity in a universe with 4 spatial dimensions and one time dimension. And they looked at a "star" that has 4 spatial dimensions, and what would happen if it went supernova, with the core collapsing into a black hole. Well, a 3D black hole has a 2D event horizon, and it turns out that extends upwards or downwards in dimension (kinda obvious really). This collapsing 4D star model has a 3D event horizon, and it spews out excess material in a supernova:
Quote
In our Universe, a black hole is bounded by a spherical surface called an event horizon. Whereas in ordinary three-dimensional space it takes a two-dimensional object (a surface) to create a boundary inside a black hole, in the bulk universe the event horizon of a 4D black hole would be a 3D object — a shape called a hypersphere. When Afshordi’s team modelled the death of a 4D star, they found that the ejected material would form a 3D brane surrounding that 3D event horizon, and slowly expand.
So, you have this 4D star, it explodes and collapses, and what's left outside it's hypersphere event horizon is a slowly expanding 3D spacetime bubble containing matter, which looks like a good match for our 3D expanding universe. Pretty interesting stuff.
Post by: Reelya on June 05, 2014, 01:32:56 pm
Post by: Putnam on June 05, 2014, 01:34:38 pm
It's not so much a line saying "I'm totally taking over this plane" as much as a circle saying the same thing, given that the circle is actually just a one-dimensional set of points (which it is; the single dimension can be measured in radians, even).
Post by: LordSlowpoke on June 05, 2014, 01:36:10 pm
The surface of the Earth is two-dimensional
explain how
Post by: Dutchling on June 05, 2014, 01:39:41 pm
The surface of the Earth is two-dimensional
explain how
In mathematics, specifically, in topology, a surface is a two-dimensional, topological manifold. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface)
Post by: Putnam on June 05, 2014, 01:40:07 pm
The surface of the Earth is two-dimensional
explain how
...The same way the surface of any 3-dimensional object is 2-dimensional? I mean, we even use the term surface area which is measured in meters2.
Post by: LordSlowpoke on June 05, 2014, 01:41:30 pm
The surface of the Earth is two-dimensional
explain how
In mathematics, specifically, in topology, a surface is a two-dimensional, topological manifold. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface)
The surface of the Earth is two-dimensional
explain how
...The same way the surface of any 3-dimensional object is 2-dimensional? I mean, we even use the term surface area which is measured in meters2.
we're ignoring curvature then
carry on gents
Post by: Putnam on June 05, 2014, 01:43:13 pm
Post by: Sergarr on June 05, 2014, 01:44:23 pm
Post by: Reelya on June 05, 2014, 01:52:41 pm
But not the 2D surface. You can prove that by breaking up space into little cubes, and working out how many of those cubes contain part of the surface, as an approximation of the volume of the surface. Then, calculate the limit of that, as you let the size of the cubes approach zero. The answer is that the proportion of cubes containing part of the surface approaches zero.
In other words, it approaches a limit where there are an infinite number of non-surface cubes for each surface cube. hence at the limit the surface has zero volume.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 05, 2014, 01:55:08 pm
In case of the Earth, this a spherical coordinate system Link* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_coordinate_system)
*Yes, I know the Earth isn't a sphere, but the system still works (kinda).
Post by: Reelya on June 05, 2014, 01:56:13 pm
Post by: Sheb on June 05, 2014, 01:59:38 pm
It's not so much a line saying "I'm totally taking over this plane" as much as a circle saying the same thing, given that the circle is actually just a one-dimensional set of points (which it is; the single dimension can be measured in radians, even).
Don't you need two coordinate: the radius and an angle?
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 05, 2014, 02:04:32 pm
Not if you're only utilizing the surface. You only need to have a radius if you want to describe the volume of the circle. The radius is constant, embedded in the shape of the circleverse, so to speak.It's not so much a line saying "I'm totally taking over this plane" as much as a circle saying the same thing, given that the circle is actually just a one-dimensional set of points (which it is; the single dimension can be measured in radians, even).Don't you need two coordinate: the radius and an angle?
Which is the point we're making here. The Surface of an n-dimensional object is an n-1 dimensional object.
Post by: Sergarr on June 05, 2014, 02:05:38 pm
Unless I'm gravely mistaken, circles have fixed radii.It's not so much a line saying "I'm totally taking over this plane" as much as a circle saying the same thing, given that the circle is actually just a one-dimensional set of points (which it is; the single dimension can be measured in radians, even).
Don't you need two coordinate: the radius and an angle?
Post by: Sheb on June 05, 2014, 02:13:10 pm
Post by: Sergarr on June 05, 2014, 02:15:43 pm
Sure, you can describe a point's position on a circle with one coordinate, but the circle itself is bi-dimensional.nope
lrn2topology
Post by: Sheb on June 05, 2014, 02:18:14 pm
Post by: Putnam on June 05, 2014, 02:31:25 pm
Sure, you can describe a point's position on a circle with one coordinate, but the circle itself is bi-dimensional.
To elaborate on Sergarr's statement there: the circle itself is not what we're talking about, it's the surface, which is one-dimensional.
Post by: Reelya on June 05, 2014, 03:17:44 pm
Some properties of this proposed space - our visible universe as the 3D surface of a 4D black hole, can be inferred by looking at the lower-dimension equivalents.
e.g. one question in physics (maybe metaphysics even) is "where is the center of the universe". Now, our "everyday" common sense about euclidean spaces says there must be a center and an edge, but look at the lower-order models. You can navigate the circumference of a circle in two directions of it's 1-dimensional axis. Every point is equally the "center". The same for the 2-dimensional surface of a sphere. If it wasn't for the axis of rotation, there wouldn't be any concept of north, south, east, west. There is no true "center".
A 3-dimensional surface of a 4D hypersphere would be the same - a space in which you can move freely in 3-dimensions but there's no middle, and no edge, because it's curved back on itself.
Then there's flatness. As a circle or sphere grow larger, the surface, as seen locally approaches either a straight line or a flat plain. Similarly, a curved space as it grows larger approaches (but never quite reaches) the appearance of a flat euclidean space. i.e. the curvature of the universe is constantly falling to zero as it expands.
Post by: Knit tie on June 05, 2014, 03:56:07 pm
Reelya, my brain stopped working halfway through.It's quite simple, really. Our universe is like a surface of a sphere with an extra dimension added, so it is effectively borderless as you can get back to any point by going in any one direction for long enough, as you would do on this very planet by making a trip around the world. Except, again, there's an extra dimension. So there's no real centre of the universe as there are no borders of it to use as referral points.
Then again, I struggle to understand the whole 'everywhere is the centre of the universe' thing. I KNOW about it, but my brain can't believe it.
Post by: kaian-a-coel on June 05, 2014, 04:00:54 pm
Earth rotates around an axis, so we have poles and an equator (thus latitude 0 is not arbitrary), but longitude 0 is still arbitrary.
Post by: BurnedToast on June 05, 2014, 10:48:43 pm
Reelya, my brain stopped working halfway through.It's quite simple, really. Our universe is like a surface of a sphere with an extra dimension added, so it is effectively borderless as you can get back to any point by going in any one direction for long enough, as you would do on this very planet by making a trip around the world. Except, again, there's an extra dimension. So there's no real centre of the universe as there are no borders of it to use as referral points.
Then again, I struggle to understand the whole 'everywhere is the centre of the universe' thing. I KNOW about it, but my brain can't believe it.
What happens if I go "down".... wouldn't I reach the center eventually?
Or is it just a bad analogy because there is no
....this comment started as a joke but now I'm really wondering.
Post by: Putnam on June 05, 2014, 11:06:45 pm
Post by: Gentlefish on June 05, 2014, 11:14:39 pm
"Down" is a direction in the 4th spatial dimension, so you really can't go "down".
...It's not 3rd dimension? I know 2D has forward, back, left and right. I though 3rd was up, down?
Post by: Eagleon on June 05, 2014, 11:21:54 pm
Post by: Bauglir on June 05, 2014, 11:24:48 pm
"Down" in quotes here refers to the down you'd have to travel to reach the center of a 4-dimensional sphere from its surface. Probably we're looking for kata (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ana_(mathematics)#Fourth_dimension) here."Down" is a direction in the 4th spatial dimension, so you really can't go "down".
...It's not 3rd dimension? I know 2D has forward, back, left and right. I though 3rd was up, down?
Post by: Putnam on June 06, 2014, 12:04:41 am
"Down" is a direction in the 4th spatial dimension, so you really can't go "down".
...It's not 3rd dimension? I know 2D has forward, back, left and right. I though 3rd was up, down?
I meant the "down" you were referring to, and yes, "kata" is a more proper term.
Post by: BurnedToast on June 06, 2014, 12:13:53 am
"Down" is a direction in the 4th spatial dimension, so you really can't go "down".
But why not?
I mean, ok, we can't because we're only 3 dimensional but why does that matter? We can describe it all with mathematics (I think?) so why can't we say the center of the universe is (insert mathematical equation equivalent of a "down" arrow on the 4th dimensional sphere)?
And even if we can't describe it, a hypothetical 4-dimensional person wouldn't have any trouble with it. That we can't understand it does not make it not exist - a two dimensional being would have no concept of how to get to the center of earth, but the center of earth still exists.
"Down" in quotes here refers to the down you'd have to travel to reach the center of a 4-dimensional sphere from its surface. Probably we're looking for kata (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ana_(mathematics)#Fourth_dimension) here.
Yeah, that sounds about right
Post by: tahujdt on June 06, 2014, 01:23:46 am
That is all.
[/facetiousness]
Post by: Putnam on June 06, 2014, 01:26:37 am
Post by: Reelya on June 06, 2014, 04:28:27 am
"Down" is a direction in the 4th spatial dimension, so you really can't go "down".
But why not?
I mean, ok, we can't because we're only 3 dimensional but why does that matter? We can describe it all with mathematics (I think?) so why can't we say the center of the universe is (insert mathematical equation equivalent of a "down" arrow on the 4th dimensional sphere)?
And even if we can't describe it, a hypothetical 4-dimensional person wouldn't have any trouble with it. That we can't understand it does not make it not exist - a two dimensional being would have no concept of how to get to the center of earth, but the center of earth still exists."Down" in quotes here refers to the down you'd have to travel to reach the center of a 4-dimensional sphere from its surface. Probably we're looking for kata (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ana_(mathematics)#Fourth_dimension) here.
Yeah, that sounds about right
Kind of missing the point. "center of the universe" means something else here than you think. If the universe is 4D and we're in a 3D surface of a hypersphere, there's no "place" you can go that you can say "THERE - that's the center". Look at each lower order example:
1D creature on a circle. They can move backwards and forwards on the circle. Each point looks the same as any other. The 1D movement never takes them to a "center" point.
2D creature on a sphere. They can move backwards and forwards, left and right on the sphere. Each point looks the same as any other. The 2D movement never takes them to a "center" point.
Same with a 3D space that is the surface of a hypersphere. It's a direct extension of the same mathematics. All "places" you can go are equally valid candidates to be the center, and they're all the exact same distance from the hypersphere center when you calculate the 4D distance.
So, as long as you're traversing the surface of any order circle/sphere/hypersphere you are always the same distance from the system-center.
Post by: BurnedToast on June 06, 2014, 11:21:35 pm
Is it just that when science™ says there's no center of the universe, they are referring only to the part of the universe we interact with, and not the hypersphere as a whole?
Or is the universe not really a 4(+) dimensional hypersphere and it's just a flawed and confusing analogy?
Or do hyperspheres not have centers (despite the fact lines, circles, and spheres all have centers)?
Or something else?
Post by: Reelya on June 06, 2014, 11:34:19 pm
You could point to the center of the 4D universe if you grew an extra dimension and could point in a direction that's perpendicular to the X, Y and Z axes.
If you look at the 1D circle and 2D sphere models, any possible direction that allowable vectors on those surfaces can point is a tangent to the circle or sphere. Extending that to a 3D surface of a hypersphere, any possible direction you can point that's a combination of X Y and Z vectors is a tangent to the hypersphere.
So, in a sense we can point away from the hypersphere since tangents point "away" from the circle or sphere, but we can never point to a 4D point inside the hypersphere.
Post by: Mech#4 on June 06, 2014, 11:40:45 pm
Post by: Sheb on June 06, 2014, 11:42:12 pm
Post by: Reelya on June 06, 2014, 11:44:12 pm
Post by: Sheb on June 06, 2014, 11:46:54 pm
Post by: Reelya on June 07, 2014, 01:42:33 am
Quote from: me from 10 minutes before you posted
You could point to the center of the 4D universe if you grew an extra dimension and could point in a direction that's perpendicular to the X, Y and Z axes.
You can work out the distance to the center easily on any 1D, 2D etc system. But you can never determine what direction of kata it is.
For example a 1D organism on a circle, could determine that the world loops around, and how big it is, perhaps develop maths to describe it, but it could never determine where on the circle he is, or whether the circle center is to his right or left (which he couldn't really visualize anyway).
The same with a sphere, no matter where you are on a sphere you get the same measurements, hence you can't really tell which higher-dimensional direction that thing is in, just how far away it is (always the same distance). We can really only do that because we reference the points in 3D, with up differentiated from down. A proper 2D organism wouldn't have any reference for up/down or inside/outside the sphere.
Post by: Bauglir on June 07, 2014, 01:46:32 am
Post by: Il Palazzo on June 07, 2014, 02:42:42 am
Post by: Sheb on June 07, 2014, 02:51:54 am
Post by: Il Palazzo on June 07, 2014, 03:11:42 am
Now I'm lost. How do you define curvature then?Well, for example, you look at whether parallel lines ever intersect, or whether angles in a triangle add up to more or less than 180 degrees.
Post by: Sheb on June 07, 2014, 03:17:37 am
Post by: Evil Knievel on June 07, 2014, 03:49:08 am
The curvature may also be changing (like it does on the surface of a potato) which again means, that there is no center to be defined.
Post by: Sheb on June 07, 2014, 04:03:00 am
Post by: palsch on June 07, 2014, 05:33:25 am
Post by: Sheb on June 07, 2014, 06:56:23 am
Post by: scrdest on June 07, 2014, 07:03:58 am
Post by: Sheb on June 07, 2014, 07:10:13 am
Post by: scrdest on June 07, 2014, 07:42:21 am
You could totally have an illimited, curved plane. Think of a parabolic surface for example.
IIRC, the thing that determines (or represents, can't remember) the curvature of our space is the interaction between gravity and universe expansion - if they reach the point where they are equal, it's a flat plane, otherwise it's curved in either direction, and they are consistent around the entire universe as far as we know, so any curved surface would eventually need to loop around.
Post by: Darvi on June 07, 2014, 07:52:11 am
You could totally have an illimited, curved plane. Think of a parabolic surface for example.Don't be silly. Spacetime is obviously hyperbolic.
Post by: Il Palazzo on June 07, 2014, 07:52:59 am
if they reach the point where they are equal, it's a flat plane, otherwise it's curved in either direction, and they are consistent around the entire universe as far as we know, so any curved surface would eventually need to loop around.No! Only if the curvature is globally positive the universe can be closed. Negative global curvature leads to open universe(a saddle-like shape of e.g., a Pringles crisp is a 2d analogue).
The difference between negative and positive curvature can be understood in terms of the angles of a triangle drawn in that space. If they add to more than 180 degree, it's positive(and it's the same result whichever side of the sphere you draw it in), if less than 180, it's negative.
Post by: scrdest on June 07, 2014, 08:21:27 am
if they reach the point where they are equal, it's a flat plane, otherwise it's curved in either direction, and they are consistent around the entire universe as far as we know, so any curved surface would eventually need to loop around.No! Only if the curvature is globally positive the universe can be closed. Negative global curvature leads to open universe(a saddle-like shape of e.g., a Pringles crisp is a 2d analogue).
The difference between negative and positive curvature can be understood in terms of the angles of a triangle drawn in that space. If they add to more than 180 degree, it's positive(and it's the same result whichever side of the sphere you draw it in), if less than 180, it's negative.
Yeah, I get the second part, I wasn't clear on the first one before.
Post by: Bauglir on June 07, 2014, 09:18:55 am
Post by: Putnam on June 07, 2014, 04:17:21 pm
Post by: Reelya on June 07, 2014, 05:13:37 pm
It sounds like we live inside a sphere that is everywhere at the same time, allowing everywhere to be the centre! But we don't because a sphere is 3D and not... 4D or however many dimensions this universe has.Lower dimension analogies are just about the best we can do to understand the limits of our perspective for higher-dimension stuff. The border of a 4D hypersphere is this 3D thing, but we know it's not really a 'sphere'. A sphere has flat space inside it, whereas the 3D-brane is a curved space.
The analogy in 2D would be sphere-surface living flatlanders. They know that they live on a sphere, but none of them can visualize it, so the best most of them can come up with is "it's like living inside a circle".
Post by: palsch on June 08, 2014, 11:49:27 am
Post by: palsch on June 09, 2014, 09:44:28 am
In other words, that's how it works, but our brains can't comprehend it due to the fact they don't work over all the dimensions?
I don't think you need a 4-dimensional brain to comprehend 4-dimensional matters, but it's hard and not a naturally gained skill (not common sense in a sense).
You can certainly learn to manipulate that sort of thing mathematically, and a sufficient intuition at such mathematics is comparable to an intuitive manipulation of 2/3D spacial problems. It's more that such an intuitive grasp of matters is not naturally gained by living in a 3D world.
Short of starting from mathematical descriptions and working on building that intuition about how higher dimensional systems work, lower dimensional analogies are the best method of explaining matters.
Post by: Aklyon on June 09, 2014, 09:48:10 am
Post by: Putnam on June 09, 2014, 10:38:59 am
Dimensions are weird.
No they're not, you are for not understanding them :P
Also, don't think that you haven't used 4 dimensional math before! Any problem with more than 3 variables is by definition a problem with more than 3 dimensions.
Post by: Sheb on June 09, 2014, 11:20:55 am
Post by: Descan on June 10, 2014, 11:12:32 pm
For those curious, the White-Juday interferometer experiments haven't yet borne fruit. "Inconclusive"
Post by: Reelya on June 11, 2014, 04:33:27 am
Quote
Even though daytime temperatures in the tropics of Mars can be about –20C, a summer afternoon there might feel about the same as an average winter day in southern England or Minneapolis. That's because there's virtually no wind chill on the Red Planet, according to a new study — the first to give an accurate sense of what it might feel like to spend a day walking about on our celestial neighbor. "I hadn't really thought about this before, but I'm not surprised," says Maurice Bluestein, a biomedical engineer and wind chill expert recently retired from Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis. The new findings, he says, "will be useful, as people planning to colonize Mars need to know what they're getting themselves into."No breathable air, either. But it suggests people will be able to go out with relatively minimal gear compared to what you'd think. Oxygen mask, anorak, visor, maybe a lead shielded umbrella if you're worried about solar radiation.
Also:
http://science-beta.slashdot.org/story/14/06/11/0148219/biodegradable-fibers-as-strong-as-steel-made-from-wood-cellulose
Quote
A team of researchers working at Stockholm's KTH Royal Institute of Technology claim to have developed a way to make cellulose fibers stronger than steel on a strength-to-weight basis. In what is touted as a world first, the team from the institute's Wallenberg Wood Science Center claim that the new fiber could be used as a biodegradable replacement for many filament materials made today from imperishable substances such as fiberglass, plastic, and metal. And all this from a substance that requires only water, wood cellulose, and common table salt to create it. The full academic paper is available from Nature Communications.It's a good thing that the elves aren't aware of this.
Post by: Sheb on June 11, 2014, 04:57:48 am
Post by: Reelya on June 11, 2014, 05:08:08 am
Post by: Sheb on June 11, 2014, 05:13:35 am
Post by: Sergarr on June 11, 2014, 05:27:03 am
Suits aren't bulky because of insulation. In vacuum, insulation isn't a big deal because you only loose heat through radiation.I think they are bulky to provide a recirculation system for water and oxygen.
Post by: Il Palazzo on June 11, 2014, 05:28:39 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 11, 2014, 07:07:42 am
Assuming you're not wounded or anything. That would be problematic.
Post by: Sheb on June 11, 2014, 07:15:16 am
10ebbor10: Then why on Earth do we bother with spacesuit?
Post by: Mech#4 on June 11, 2014, 07:38:03 am
Post by: Sheb on June 11, 2014, 07:43:10 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 11, 2014, 07:45:02 am
But anyway, the pressure difference is not so severe. At 10 meters depth, pressure is about 2 atmosphere, very few people imploding there. The skin is perfectly gas tight even in pure vacuum.
I have found unconfirmed evidence that your flesh would expand to about twice it's usual size*, but more importantly, you might have trouble breathing. In any case, the system isn't that secure, is it.
*doubtfull, but there will be tissue damage
Post by: miauw62 on June 11, 2014, 07:49:40 am
Also does this mean that shaving yourself in a vacuum would be suicide?
Post by: Sheb on June 11, 2014, 07:53:47 am
But anyway, the pressure difference is not so severe. At 10 meters depth, pressure is about 2 atmosphere, very few people imploding there. The skin is perfectly gas tight even in pure vacuum.
True, a) it could simply be that the body is better at resisting inward rather than outward pressure and b) at least when scuba diving, your lungs are filled with air at the same pressure as the surrounding environment. That doesn't work in space.
Post by: Mech#4 on June 11, 2014, 07:56:14 am
Post by: Il Palazzo on June 11, 2014, 07:56:43 am
I have found unconfirmed evidence that your flesh would expand to about twice it's usual size*, but more importantly, you might have trouble breathing. In any case, the system isn't that secure, is it.Look up Project Excelsior - a series of high-attitude jumps in the 60s. The third jump was from ~35 km attitude, at which atmospheric pressure is comparable to that on Mars. One of the gloves of Kittinger's suit failed, and his hand was exposed. It got swollen to about twice the size and caused much pain.
*doubtfull, but there will be tissue damage
At that pressure, even taking into account the tissue elasticity, ebullism is a real possibility.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 11, 2014, 08:08:44 am
Post by: Descan on June 11, 2014, 08:16:48 am
Once and if we start terraforming it, releasing oxygen and possibly sucking some Venusian atmosphere away and putting it on mars (because hey, why not kill two birds with one stone? It'd take a fair bit of engineering to fling the compounds from Venus to Mars but so would terraforming so why not?) and thereby raising the pressure to something along the lines of Everest or air-craft flight height, then maybe we can get away with oxygen masks and some warm clothes, but I don't think the first Martian colonists or ESPECIALLY The first martian astronaut can get away with it. They'll need to carry at least *some* pressure with them.
Plus I wanna see dem hunky astronauts in spandex, so sue me~
Post by: RedKing on June 11, 2014, 08:22:28 am
Post by: Sheb on June 11, 2014, 08:29:24 am
Post by: Helgoland on June 11, 2014, 08:32:44 am
What about your innards being sucked out through your junk/butt?
Post by: Mech#4 on June 11, 2014, 08:33:30 am
Edit: This "eyes still working" keeps sounding better and better!
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 11, 2014, 08:38:28 am
Suprisingly, I forgot to mention the eyes.
Post by: miauw62 on June 11, 2014, 08:42:10 am
Post by: Arx on June 11, 2014, 08:53:00 am
Post by: Descan on June 11, 2014, 10:44:33 am
Post by: Sergarr on June 11, 2014, 11:29:06 am
Space-spandex is starting to look better and better, eh?STAY AWAY FROM ME
and dont even think about looking in my direction
ill charge you with so many harassment lawsuits you'll swim in them
Post by: LordSlowpoke on June 11, 2014, 12:27:39 pm
Post by: Lagslayer on June 11, 2014, 12:29:15 pm
Post by: Sheb on June 11, 2014, 12:37:07 pm
If it makes you uncomfortable... Man those are nice underwear.
Post by: Silfurdreki on June 12, 2014, 02:36:51 am
Whilst the only way of losing heat in space is radiation, not all that much heat is entering you, either.
Well, you're getting more heat from the Sun than on a hot summer day. 1366 W/m2 (in Earth orbit) is nothing to sneeze at, since if you have a 1 m2 surface area it's comparable to the output of a normal water kettle. Of course, you will not absorb all the incoming sunlight, but even 30% of that is not insignificant. You'll also get a real nasty sunburn very quickly since you have no protection from all UV light.
Do all unprotected space walking in the shade, wear sunscreen, a shirt and a hat.
Post by: palsch on June 17, 2014, 03:20:32 pm
An interesting result with a lot of stated caveats and limits suggesting lots of juicy work to be done in the near future. Also some incredibly sexy equipment. An ultrahigh vacuum system for growing single atomic layer samples that comes complete equipped with both temperature controls and STM imaging? Yes please.
Post by: Silfurdreki on June 17, 2014, 04:11:06 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on June 20, 2014, 05:44:33 pm
Post by: Putnam on June 20, 2014, 07:39:46 pm
IIRC, around -140 oC. Ceramic compounds too, not metal or alloys.
That's freaking scorching.
Post by: MonkeyHead on June 21, 2014, 04:21:24 am
Post by: miauw62 on June 21, 2014, 04:32:54 am
Post by: Putnam on June 21, 2014, 07:27:00 pm
Well, anything above -170 oC is of significance, as it means the transition temperature can be reached with abundant liquid Nitrogen rather than "worth more than anything ever" liquid Helium
"worth more than anything ever" liquid helium vs "literally cheaper than dirt" liquid nitrogen (and no, that's not an exaggeration, liquid nitrogen per gram is cheaper than dirt).
Post by: MaximumZero on June 21, 2014, 10:37:12 pm
Edit: Added links.
Post by: Putnam on June 22, 2014, 12:08:09 am
Post by: Aklyon on June 22, 2014, 12:18:19 am
Quote
The result is a system six times more powerful than existing servers that requires eighty times less energy.I call shenanigans. That sounds like a significant power drop for something that is increasing in power.
Post by: Reelya on June 22, 2014, 12:47:26 am
These experimental chips aren't constrained by things like backwards compatibility with crappy instruction sets, so you can pack 100's of ultra-efficient micro-cores in there with their own working ram for less than the size and energy needs of a normal Intel 64-bit CPU.
Post by: Aklyon on June 22, 2014, 12:49:17 am
These experimental chips aren't constrained by things like backwards compatibility with crappy instruction sets.That makes a lot of sense, actually. ok.
Post by: MaximumZero on June 22, 2014, 01:02:20 am
Post by: Reelya on June 22, 2014, 01:05:33 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teraflops_Research_Chip
Post by: Descan on June 22, 2014, 01:06:49 am
The rest of it is just reorganizing and adapting existing technologies in new ways. Massively parallel specialized chips rather than a few generalized powerful ones, neh?
Edit: Oh, right, the "memristors." Yeah that one's a little more new.
Post by: miauw62 on June 22, 2014, 09:03:32 am
E:
I have to give HP credit for that Asimov reference though.
Post by: Frumple on June 22, 2014, 09:11:06 am
Post by: miauw62 on June 22, 2014, 09:15:10 am
Python 3.0 was released in 2008 but like half of all Python libraries still uses 2.7 to the point where newbies ask themselves "should I learn 2.7 or 3.4?"
Post by: Sergarr on June 22, 2014, 09:40:29 am
Well, they need to hurry up and use these awesome new(ish) instruction sets/hardware setups to build programs that update all the old programs, then. Things would be able to roll in pretty easy after that, I would think. Sounds pretty simple to me. Not easy, mind, but definitely simple :PBut then Toady would have to rewrite DF...
Post by: Reelya on June 22, 2014, 11:15:26 am
Post by: Sergarr on June 23, 2014, 05:47:37 am
It's a little beyond just rejigging instruction sets to be more efficient, that's just RISC processor design which has been around since the 1980's. How they're leveraging more speed is by actually hard-wiring common algorithms into the silicon itself. Hence, you skip the whole "read instruction, process instruction, set up data, execute instruction" rigmarole, and just have a circuit which does that job without all the overhead or checking or memory reads needed by the instructions.Or, in other words, instead of digital, it's analogue.
Cheers for analogue computations! Hurray!
Post by: Putnam on June 23, 2014, 08:59:55 am
Post by: Solifuge on June 23, 2014, 11:51:40 pm
Fusion reactors powered by molten metal and hammers. (http://www.ted.com/talks/michel_laberge_how_synchronized_hammer_strikes_could_generate_nuclear_fusion#t-799760)
Seriously... this solves a crapton of problems with existing fusion reactor designs, has a built-in method for negating Neutronicity and associated radiation damage to operators and equipment, and is comparatively cheap on energy input needed. If I (DISCLAIMER: as a layperson) had to pick a candidate for the most practical first Fusion Reactor, this would be it.
Post by: Sirus on June 23, 2014, 11:57:06 pm
Hey, know what's cool?Unfortunately the website began having problems and I couldn't get more than 2 minutes into the video. But...holy crap.
Fusion reactors powered by molten metal and hammers. (http://www.ted.com/talks/michel_laberge_how_synchronized_hammer_strikes_could_generate_nuclear_fusion#t-799760)
Seriously... this solves a crapton of problems with existing fusion reactor designs, has a built-in method for negating Neutronicity and associated radiation damage to operators and equipment, and is comparatively cheap on energy input needed. If I (DISCLAIMER: as a layperson) had to pick a candidate for the most practical first Fusion Reactor, this would be it.
That sounds ridiculously dwarfy.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 24, 2014, 02:03:12 am
Once the plasma touches the metal, it cools down rapidly. So it all depends on whether the machine can compress it fast enough to fuse.
All very interesting though.
Post by: Solifuge on June 24, 2014, 02:45:20 am
IN OTHER NEWS:
And also much harder to make than the old "make a person-shaped baloon and inflate it" way of making a spacesuit. There is a reason we're still not using elastic fabric.By the time we're colonizing mars, we'll probably have suit-locks and spandex space-suits that keep the body pressurized by hugging tightly the body, instead of filling it with 1atm of oxygen. :v
-snip-
Plus I wanna see dem hunky astronauts in spandex, so sue me~
Interestingly enough, Descan, you might get that wish.
There's been significant work in thin suit designs that use elasticity and compressive bands instead of a gas balloon/bladder, for low-pressure environments recently. It isn't to show off how toned and good-looking the astronauts are (that's just a side effect), but rather to deal with the complete lack of mobility and hand dexterity in the current "inflatable" EVA suits, which lock the body in place like a human-shaped sarcophagus, with only basic mobility in the arms and fat-fingered gloves. That's kind of an intentional design in the current suit, though; keep in mind that whole Newtonian Physics thing means that moving your limbs in 0G could send you spinning. You can see a similar sort of thing if you're sitting in a swivel-chair, by lifting your legs from the floor and moving your arms and waist... only in space you wouldn't have friction to stop you. If you've seen the footage from the Apollo Mission, that's also why you see them Bunny Hopping on the moon; their suits literally didn't allow them to walk normally. And while that works great for low-G environments like Orbit or the Moon, fuck Bunny Hopping in heavier gravity like Mars... not to mention it'd make manual labor and science pretty damned difficult. Probably better to send robots to do it at that point.
Spoiler: That's where things like these come in: (click to show/hide)
These use bands of active material as tension lines, to put pressure on the wearer in low pressure and low-g environments, instead of using bladders/balloons. The Bio-Suit (which is designed for use outside of the atmosphere) would offer actual mobility and manual dexterity, and is less bulky, more puncture-resistant, and easier to repair than current designs (given that your could literally slap on an adhesive patch of insulating material mid-Spacewalk, instead of deflating and counting the seconds as the atmosphere boils out from your tissues). They would also help fight tissue/bone expansion in 0G, which poses serious health-risks, but is currently just lumped in as a cost of going to space. If you paired that with an Adaptive-Resistance Motorized Exoskeleton, you could provide astronauts with mobility assistance to compensate for High-Gs or heavy loads, mobility resistance in Low-Gs, and in 0G could lock or automatically adjust an astronaut's limbs (optionally along with servos/gyros (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/643071main_NIAC_V2Suit_Phase1_SS_120329_forPub.pdf)) to stabilize them when on Spacewalk. Not to mention, an active-resistance system would provide a workout for astronauts going about their regular activities in low-g, which could reduce or eliminate the need for that whole "run on a treadmill in space for a few hours a day" exercise regimen.
So yeah, skin-tight space suits! They're probably gonna be a thing! Also potentially way better than the current thing! And not just for looks!
EDIT: The Skinsuit isn't intended for use in a Vacuum, of course (the whole No Helmet/Arm Insulation bit, for starters); it's designed for use in a low-g atmospheric environment like a station or base. The Biosuit is designed for use in Vacuum, though, and was in part dreamed up for a hypothetical Mars Mission; the more recent designs are suggesting a torso shell connected with the helmet, due to issues with sealing the atmosphere in just the headpiece while retaining neck mobility. The shell and helmet would be discarded in pressurized places like a station or vessel, similar to the Skinsuit.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 24, 2014, 02:58:44 am
That's why it's so exciting. This implementation of MTF tries to solve the heat loss issue by delivering the compressive force suddenly via "anvils" struck by pistons, instead of over the course of the piston's movement. Also, if the first video didn't work, you can also see it on Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m9kC1yRnLQ).They have sought to solve it before. After all, the technology has been in development since the 1960. Secondly, Neutronicity isn't resolved, energy and plasma density is a serious problem, and as they scale up they will undoubtly find more problems. Besides, it's not unexpected that the owner of the company developing the technology makes it seem like the end all solution to all our problems.
So far, the only benefit seems to be a lower construction cost.
Post by: miauw62 on June 24, 2014, 03:22:14 am
(Most a badass goes to the idea that was briefly considered but never done to use nukes for fusion energy.)
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 24, 2014, 03:30:02 am
Post by: miauw62 on June 24, 2014, 03:30:51 am
Post by: LordSlowpoke on June 24, 2014, 03:33:03 am
they probably considered it
Post by: Sergarr on June 24, 2014, 03:47:06 am
i wonder how much research was done into capturing alpha and/or beta radiation and somehow generating electricity that waythe voyagers power generators work that way
they probably considered it
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 24, 2014, 04:09:20 am
Post by: Solifuge on June 24, 2014, 04:36:39 am
So far, the only benefit seems to be a lower construction cost.
A few other benefits of Magnetized Target Fusion (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m9kC1yRnLQ) (as I understand it):
1. Doesn't require precision on a nanosecond scale (as with Inertial Confinement)
2. Needs 6 Orders Of Magnitude (1,000,000 times) less pressure to ignite fusion than Magnetic Confinement (Tokamak, et. al).
3. Makes elegant, efficient use of Molten Ferromagnetic Metal to do triple duty; first to generate the magnetic confinement field...
4. ...second, to provide a medium for delivering and distributing energy (compression from the pistons) to the fuel plasma...
5. ...and third, to shield and mitigate the outside area from high-energy particles produced by fusion (No, Neutronicity doesn't magically stop. You can't fuse stuff without high energy particle emissions... it's kind of the whole point).
Sure other implementations of Magnetized Target Fusion have been theorized since the 1960s. We've been working on Tokamak derivatives since that time, and Laser/Inertial Confinement has been in the works since the 70s. None of these are new ideas, and none of them have "worked" yet. It's not the ideas or the theories that we're lacking, but an efficient enough implementation... and that takes time, money, and many iterations, to figure out.
It's elegant, efficient, and sounds awesome on paper... seriously, molten metal, hammers, anvils, and the power of stars. It's basically The Best Image... and honestly, image is an important thing. Science doesn't have to just contend with feasibility and theory, but also with politics and funding. Unfortunately, people not taking Fusion seriously, or seeing it as a pipe dream at best (or magical nonsense at worst) is a problem. Magnetized Target Fusion mirrors the process of pressurizing and igniting fuel in an Internal Combustion Engine in a way that even the everyday non-Physicist can get their head around. Funding further development in fusion will continue to be an issue. Its benefits and efficiency aside, I would not discount the value of Image in overcoming politics, and getting us to Fusion Power.
Post by: miauw62 on June 24, 2014, 04:41:30 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 24, 2014, 05:01:33 am
I think folks are thinking of Thermionic Converters/Generators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermionic_converter); right now, we use them to generate power from waste heat generated by radioactive decay in things like space probes, but it's not directly from the high-energy particles themselves (I think the particles would basically shred any particles/materials we tried to catch them with; one of the reasons plants stick to absorbing low-energy visible light instead of higher-energy UV radiation). Basically, they generate power using the flow of thermal energy from hot to cold, which carries ions across a membrane to drive a current, rather than using heat to boil water to make steam to power a turbine (as in Nuclear Reactors). I'm not sure why we aren't using it more widely; with all the waste heat we produce, we might be able to generate Metric Buttloads of electricity... but I understand no one outside of NASA has really pursued the tech since the 1950s. Which, might I add, is a shame! Insane as it sounds, all reactors from Coal to Nuclear are basically still Windmills (if windmills powered by steam, and generating power using an inverted electric motor). You'd think we'd be past that after a millennium or two, but nooooooo...In that case, we don't have any direct to electricity technology. (Well, safe for solar and some exceptions) all conventional power sources utilize turbines.
And the reason we don't use thermionic convertors is because they have efficiency of 10% or less (often between 3.5%-7%), and tend to degrade rather rapidly.
Quote
1. Doesn't require precision on a nanosecond scale (as with Inertial Confinement)Sadly, it does. The pistons need to be activated with extreme precision, otherwise the shockwave will not be able to compress the plasma before it undergoes fusion.
Quote
2. Needs 6 Orders Of Magnitude (1,000,000 times) less pressure to ignite fusion than Magnetic Confinement (Tokamak, et. al).First of all, your argument is just plain false. It is actually the other way around. Magnetic fusion uses by far the thinnest plasma. (Also, higher plasma density is a good thing.)
Secondly, energy produced is a function of plasma density*time. The Magnetic fusion solution is to use thin plasma, but long fusion times. The inertial solution is to use massive amounts of plasma for very short times. The MTF is trying to find a middle ground, using lower density than inertial but lasting for microseconds rather than nanoseconds.
Also, we're talking about severe underpressure here. Magnetic fusion confines a dilute plasma at about 1014 cm−3. Inertial fusion works around 1025 cm−3. MTF aims for 1019 cm−3. ((The numbers might seem big, but that is the amount of free electrons per volume.))
Quote
3. Makes elegant, efficient use of Molten Ferromagnetic Metal to do triple duty; first to generate the magnetic confinement field...It's only an elegant solution if it actually works. See next point.
4. ...second, to provide a medium for delivering and distributing energy (compression from the pistons) to the fuel plasma...
5. ...and third, to shield and mitigate the outside area from high-energy particles produced by fusion (No, Neutronicity doesn't magically stop. You can't fuse stuff without high energy particle emissions... it's kind of the whole point).
Also, it's less of a solution than you think it is.
Quote from: Wikipedia
Problems in commercial development are similar to those for any of the existing fusion reactor designs. The need to form high-strength magnetic fields at the focus of the machine is at odds with the need to extract the heat from the interior, making the physical arrangement of the reactor a challenge. Further, the fusion process emits large numbers of neutrons (in common reactions at least) that lead to neutron embrittlement that degrades the strength of the support structures and conductivity of metal wiring. These neutrons are normally intended to be captured in a lithium shell to generate more tritium to feed in as fuel, further complicating the overall arrangement.
If you put a spin on it, you can get the same elegant solution impression from any fusion technology.
Quote
Sure other implementations of Magnetized Target Fusion have been theorized since the 1960s. We've been working on Tokamak derivatives since that time, and Laser/Inertial Confinement has been in the works since the 70s. None of these are new ideas, and none of them have "worked" yet. It's not the ideas or the theories that we're lacking, but an efficient enough implementation... and that takes time, money, and many iterations, to figure out.All of them have worked. MTF hasn't even succeeded in actually attaining fusion yet.
Quote
It's elegant, efficient, and sounds awesome on paper... seriously, molten metal, hammers, anvils, and the power of stars. It's basically The Best Image... and honestly, image is an important thing. Science doesn't have to just contend with feasibility and theory, but also with politics and funding. Unfortunately, people not taking Fusion seriously, or seeing it as a pipe dream at best (or magical nonsense at worst) is a problem. Magnetized Target Fusion mirrors the process of pressurizing and igniting fuel in an Internal Combustion Engine in a way that even the everyday non-Physicist can get their head around. Funding further development in fusion will continue to be an issue. Its benefits and efficiency aside, I would not discount the value of Image in overcoming politics, and getting us to Fusion Power.Yes, but for the moment it's little more than a bunch of thin hot air. There are no working MTF fusion reactors. They exist solely on paper.
Post by: Solifuge on June 24, 2014, 05:23:25 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 24, 2014, 06:04:36 am
At least three factual errors in the above post, but I don't imagine continuing the back and forth will get us anywhere. Let me just say that I remain excited about this because it's hella awesome, a feasible compromise between existing methodologies, and I enjoy being hopeful about future tech and human ingenuity. And it doesn't cost us anything to be hopeful.If you're going to accuse me of being wrong, point out the errors, and provide sources for your claims to the contrary.
At the moment, the only thing you're doing is smugly suggesting that the other person is dumb, and that it would be to much effort to enlighten them, all the while trying to put yourself in a good light.*
On a side note, the more I read about this, the more it sounds like a SCAM. You have this guy, who has no previous experience in this field (he made precision printer heads or something, hardly relevant to fusion), who starts a company, bases himself on a completely unsuccessful fusion technique, and then proudly proclaims that he'll invent net gain fusion by 2015, for just 50 million dollars.
*You might have noticed, but I hate that kind of argument.
Post by: Sergarr on June 24, 2014, 06:22:30 am
Yeah. If you don't point out the errors you can point out, the future will never arrive.At least three factual errors in the above post, but I don't imagine continuing the back and forth will get us anywhere. Let me just say that I remain excited about this because it's hella awesome, a feasible compromise between existing methodologies, and I enjoy being hopeful about future tech and human ingenuity. And it doesn't cost us anything to be hopeful.If you're going to accuse me of being wrong, point out the errors, and provide sources for your claims
Post by: LordSlowpoke on June 24, 2014, 06:22:41 am
/me munches on ice cream cone
seriously though soli just said they don't want to continue stop pursuing
Post by: Dutchling on June 24, 2014, 06:28:57 am
You can't say someone's wrong and then end the discussion.
There are rules in place.
Post by: Sergarr on June 24, 2014, 06:39:59 am
How surprising.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 24, 2014, 06:41:43 am
In other news, the discovery of Higgs boson has not changed anything.Well yes, I suppose not for you. Or not that you noticed.
How surprising.
Post by: Sergarr on June 24, 2014, 07:14:28 am
So please tell me, what has the discovery of Higgs boson changed?In other news, the discovery of Higgs boson has not changed anything.Well yes, I suppose not for you. Or not that you noticed.
How surprising.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 24, 2014, 07:18:31 am
But just look at the past. Quantum physics, General Relativity and all those hard, pure sciences were probably not understood as having any benefit whatsoever. But currently, your computer is most likely using all of these somewhere in it's operation.
Post by: Mech#4 on June 24, 2014, 07:19:50 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 24, 2014, 07:31:01 am
I don't think the point of discovering it was so much what it would change but rather it would confirm that which we suspected to be true. Correct me if I'm wrong of course, I'm no physicist.Yeah, that as well. The entire particle physics model rested on it.
Would have been much more interesting if we hadn't found it really. Allowing us to rewrite physics as we know it.
Post by: Putnam on June 24, 2014, 11:34:50 am
So please tell me, what has the discovery of Higgs boson changed?In other news, the discovery of Higgs boson has not changed anything.Well yes, I suppose not for you. Or not that you noticed.
How surprising.
If you think it was supposed to change anything, you completely misunderstand why we were looking for it. It was intended to confirm what we already know. We knew it should exist. It does exist. We were right again. That's what we were looking for, more evidence for the Standard Model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model), which is exactly what we found. The more accurate we find the Standard Model to be, the more reliable we can consider its use. It's a damn good result. Besides, expecting results within years is foolish. Yeah, Nuclear Fission was discovered 7 years before its first actual practical usage, but that's because it had the Total War-level backing of the United States government funding it. We'd known about electricity for thousands of years and had utilized it for hundreds before we invented the light bulb. People who say shit like "but what use does it have???" do nothing but block progress and keep us from moving forward, so don't.
Post by: Sergarr on June 24, 2014, 12:09:49 pm
But that's the problem. The Standard model was already proved right, many times. But there are no ways to advance it further. That's the problem.So please tell me, what has the discovery of Higgs boson changed?In other news, the discovery of Higgs boson has not changed anything.Well yes, I suppose not for you. Or not that you noticed.
How surprising.
If you think it was supposed to change anything, you completely misunderstand why we were looking for it. It was intended to confirm what we already know. We knew it should exist. It does exist. We were right again. That's what we were looking for, more evidence for the Standard Model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model), which is exactly what we found. The more accurate we find the Standard Model to be, the more reliable we can consider its use. It's a damn good result. Besides, expecting results within years is foolish. Yeah, Nuclear Fission was discovered 7 years before its first actual practical usage, but that's because it had the Total War-level backing of the United States government funding it. We'd known about electricity for thousands of years and had utilized it for hundreds before we invented the light bulb. People who say shit like "but what use does it have???" do nothing but block progress and keep us from moving forward, so don't.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 24, 2014, 12:12:40 pm
Post by: Sergarr on June 24, 2014, 12:20:44 pm
There are many ways to advance it further. They might not be evident now, but they're there. Science is never complete.Well yes, but since 1980s no way has been found. Compare that to the previous rapid advances in elementary particle science, and you'll see the problem.
This should be a good read about what's wrong with modern science. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_With_Physics)
Post by: Putnam on June 24, 2014, 12:27:48 pm
Also, it was never proven right. It cannot be proven right. It's become more and more accurate over time. That's actually important, believe it or not.
Post by: Sergarr on June 24, 2014, 12:29:37 pm
The Standard Model is not String Theory. They are two very, very different things.The string theory is the theory that was supposed to replace the standard model...
Also, it was never proven right. It cannot be proven right. It's become more and more accurate over time. That's actually important, believe it or not.
The standard model cannot predict masses of elementary particles and that is the big problem.
Post by: Bauglir on June 24, 2014, 12:35:12 pm
EDIT: Okay, you've listed an actual problem. Good. I don't actually have the physics knowledge to argue about that one. How does the discovery of the Higgs Boson exacerbate that, though?
Post by: Reelya on June 24, 2014, 12:49:17 pm
Lee Smolins book, The Trouble with Physics critiques String Theory because it makes no testable predictions. That's the complaint in the linked book.
But, the Standard Model predicted the existence of the Higgs Boson, and the discovery of the Higgs Boson tests the prediction - which is precisely what Lee Smolin is criticizing in that book - the lack of testable predictions for String Theory.
So, it's ironic to bring that book out as backing for the argument that testing predictions is pointless.
Post by: Putnam on June 24, 2014, 12:58:58 pm
EDIT: Okay, you've listed an actual problem. Good. I don't actually have the physics knowledge to argue about that one. How does the discovery of the Higgs Boson exacerbate that, though?
It's not even right; the standard model doesn't include neutrino masses, and neutrinos are only one of many elementary particles. Others (such as all fermions) have masses just fine.
Post by: MonkeyHead on June 24, 2014, 01:12:41 pm
How is knowing more about the universe in any way futile?
Post by: Sergarr on June 24, 2014, 01:21:38 pm
Does the verification of the Higgs need to change anything? You may as well ask "Why climb a mountain?"It is not futile, it is just not as game-changing as the Higgs hype would led you to believe.
How is knowing more about the universe in any way futile?
The problems like "we have to invent special procedures to avoid getting infinite values everywhere" still exist, both in quantum mechanics AND in general relativity. More so if you try to combine those.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 24, 2014, 01:25:24 pm
Post by: miauw62 on June 24, 2014, 01:59:38 pm
\^^^^^^^^
How is knowing more about the universe in any way futile?
This this this.
The only reason you need justify gathering more knowledge is wanting to gather more knowledge.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 24, 2014, 02:10:56 pm
Post by: miauw62 on June 24, 2014, 02:11:29 pm
That sounds like it could be the Motto of the NSA.That sounds like something Hitler would say :P
Post by: Sergarr on June 24, 2014, 03:31:00 pm
\^^^^^^^^
How is knowing more about the universe in any way futile?
This this this.
The only reason you need justify gathering more knowledge is wanting to gather more knowledge.
“Art for art's sake is an empty phrase. Art for the sake of truth, art for the sake of the good and the beautiful, that is the faith I am searching for.”
― George Sand
Post by: miauw62 on June 24, 2014, 03:32:52 pm
Post by: Putnam on June 24, 2014, 04:02:29 pm
\^^^^^^^^
How is knowing more about the universe in any way futile?
This this this.
The only reason you need justify gathering more knowledge is wanting to gather more knowledge.
“Art for art's sake is an empty phrase. Art for the sake of truth, art for the sake of the good and the beautiful, that is the faith I am searching for.”
― George Sand
That quote is meaningless and quotes don't carry arguments whatsoever, so come up with something better.
Post by: Sergarr on June 24, 2014, 04:06:51 pm
Wanting "something" for the sake of having "something" is on the same level of logic as proclaiming that the God exists because he must exist.\^^^^^^^^
How is knowing more about the universe in any way futile?
This this this.
The only reason you need justify gathering more knowledge is wanting to gather more knowledge.
“Art for art's sake is an empty phrase. Art for the sake of truth, art for the sake of the good and the beautiful, that is the faith I am searching for.”
― George Sand
That quote is meaningless and quotes don't carry arguments whatsoever, so come up with something better.
Post by: Putnam on June 24, 2014, 04:11:16 pm
Post by: Sergarr on June 24, 2014, 04:43:22 pm
Let's just drop this argument, it is stupid.
Post by: Putnam on June 24, 2014, 04:58:16 pm
Post by: Helgoland on June 24, 2014, 05:06:11 pm
We want to.
That should be reason enough, shouldn't it?
Post by: Reelya on June 24, 2014, 05:16:36 pm
First, we prove that the Higgs is "a thing", which helps validate that our general model of the family of particles is on the right track and there isn't any unknown factor preventing this particle to exist. If the Higgs was never found, we'd have to explain that, just assuming any model is correct without ever checking isn't smart science.
Also, the Standard Model doesn't give the mass of the Higgs, so measuring them can fill in the blank there (at least they can give upper and lower bounds on the mass and statistically narrow that down as they observe more particles). Any model that attempts to explain the mass of the particles will therefore have one more data point it has to match, cutting out a virtually infinite number of potential equations.
The standard model was completely built on observation, not theory, observing previously unobserved quantum phenomena has obvious value in itself to improve the model.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#Alternative_models
Plus, there are already alternate models for the Higgs, and measuring / studying them more will rule out all models that don't match observations. This process will probably nuke a LOT of potential string theory variants, thus cutting down the chaff so we can see the wheat better.
This table summarizes the potential signifigance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#Significance
Post by: Solifuge on June 24, 2014, 05:24:34 pm
-snop-
Science is cool and useful. So are other philosophies and ways of thinking. Diversity of thought encourages new ideas and developments. As we discuss neat new theories and compare the measure of our academic e-peens etc., let us maintain our chill composure.
Spoiler: Also, because it was too cool to get lost amid arguments: (click to show/hide)
Post by: Putnam on June 24, 2014, 06:20:55 pm
Post by: Helgoland on June 24, 2014, 07:38:04 pm
Post by: 4maskwolf on June 24, 2014, 07:40:01 pm
Lolnope. Science is defined by empiricism. Otherwise you'll have to call theology and the likes sciences as well.They share a certain desire for knowledge with science, but I personally wouldn't t define them as sciences.
Post by: Putnam on June 24, 2014, 08:20:07 pm
Lolnope. Science is defined by empiricism. Otherwise you'll have to call theology and the likes sciences as well.
Empiricism determines truth, so, uh, yeah, basically what I said?
Post by: MaximumZero on June 24, 2014, 09:01:02 pm
KCL's SkinsuitI find myself wondering if two of these women are incredibly tall, or one is incredibly short.
(http://i.imgur.com/pqmlxkl.jpg)
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 24, 2014, 09:05:26 pm
Post by: Sergarr on June 25, 2014, 01:32:08 am
This is wrong. I am not anti-science. But I think the modern science is too disconnected from philosophy to make progress.
How about this:No.
We want to.
That should be reason enough, shouldn't it?
This reason could be used anywhere. Want to kill your neighbor? Sure!
No, screw that, anti-science is the single biggest problem the world faces and I will not stand for something even resembling it.
My problem was the statement:
The only reason you need justify gathering more knowledge is wanting to gather more knowledge.It shows that the in the eyes of the public, science is a form of religion!
And how do you call that anti-science when you miss the point of what the science is?
Post by: da_nang on June 25, 2014, 03:38:28 am
Post by: Putnam on June 25, 2014, 09:17:19 am
How about this:No.
We want to.
That should be reason enough, shouldn't it?
This reason could be used anywhere. Want to kill your neighbor? Sure!
Once again, you're completely ignoring the whole "we're actually talking about something specific" angle. That argument could be used that way, but it's not being used that way and gaining knowledge isn't actively harmful, so it's irrelevant.
Post by: Helgoland on June 25, 2014, 09:22:47 am
Post by: Putnam on June 25, 2014, 09:23:17 am
Post by: Helgoland on June 25, 2014, 10:49:43 am
Post by: Sheb on June 25, 2014, 11:46:00 am
The fun part is that it has devised a lots of way to take control of its host's reproductive life to increase its fitness, from killing all males offspring (they don't transmit the parasite) to turning male into females to preventing mating between infected and uninfected insects. In some case, you have different "species" that can create fertile hybrids after a course of antibiotics. In other case, wasps that were known to only reproduce by parthenogenesis started to produce male offspring after treatment with antibiotics.
It is totally fucking awesome, and making even more of a mess of the specie concept. This (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6842/full/412012a0.html) is rather old, but is a good summary of how awesome Wolbachia is. (Yes, there is plenty more)
Post by: palsch on June 25, 2014, 11:47:39 am
It looks like people think that I am anti-science.
This is wrong. I am not anti-science. But I think the modern science is too disconnected from philosophy to make progress.
I think a lot of modern philosophers would disagree with you on this.
In any case, I don't understand what you think modern science should look like?
I mean, if you want to progress our understanding at all (and I'm going to assume that by not being anti-science you would accept this as a desirable goal) then we are going to need finer study of apparently inconsequential details of the universe. The reason being that our current understanding is as good as we can get with our current study of the crude and consequential, so to make any further discoveries we need to move away from the obvious.
The clearly constructive work is done in the obvious places, but new developments come from edge cases and the harder-to-find corners. The places that aren't immediately useful. So finding a precise mass for the Higgs Boson might not give us technology overnight, but it does offer a more refined framework to hang future models on.
If you are genuinely interested in philosophy of science then read up on some structural realism (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structural-realism/) (less complete but more accessible, hopefully (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuralism_%28philosophy_of_science%29)). It is* a fairly defensible model of both reality and science, and rather matches how scientists view historical and current models (in my experience at least).
Spoiler: * (click to show/hide)
Post by: Descan on June 25, 2014, 12:15:00 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 25, 2014, 12:20:08 pm
If mitochondria were originally parasitic "bacteria" that became fused with eukaryotic cells, could there be some descendants of those mitochondria that didn't fuse still swimming around? And if so, would we even be able to recognize them as such...? :uYes, and we (might) have actually found them already. Genes encoded in mitochondrial Dna are surprisingly similar to Rickettsial bacteria.
Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickettsia)
Post by: Sheb on June 25, 2014, 12:23:44 pm
From wiki:
(http://i.imgur.com/K6fqmVP.png)
Also, apparently some nematodes cannot survive without their Wolbachia. Those might be in the process of turning into fully-fledged organelles.
Post by: martinuzz on June 26, 2014, 06:20:43 am
If hypothetically, one would want to cause apocalypse, by crashing the moon into the earth....
What would accomplish this most efficiently?
A) transferring mass from earth to the moon
B) transferring mass from the moon to earth
C) neither
Post by: Il Palazzo on June 26, 2014, 06:28:54 am
Post by: Silfurdreki on June 26, 2014, 06:36:00 am
Question for the astrophysicists:
If hypothetically, one would want to cause apocalypse, by crashing the moon into the earth....
What would accomplish this most efficiently?
A) transferring mass from earth to the moon
B) transferring mass from the moon to earth
C) neither
Transferring mass from the Moon to the Earth. When you've transferred all of it, you've successfully crashed the Moon into the Earth!
Doing it the other way would have the Earth crash into the Moon, and we can't have that, can we now?
Post by: Solifuge on June 26, 2014, 06:45:07 am
If hypothetically, one would want to cause apocalypse, by crashing the moon into the earth....
What would accomplish this most efficiently?
To do it efficiently, you'd need:
A) ...a sufficiently large object to collide retrograde (on an opposite trajectory) to the Moon's orbit, negating its orbital velocity enough to let Earth's gravity pull it in... and you'd probably end up liquefying or otherwise losing a good chunk of the Moon in the process. Wrangling the object to hit the Moon would also be tricky; to do it without costing a bunch of fuel, you'd need a combination of luck, and gravity assistance from other planets, most likely.
B) ...to cover it in rocket thrusters, with enough fuel to burn for billions of years and negate it's momentum as above. I... think you could just do retrograde thrusters on one half, due to tidal locking with Earth. I haven't done the math, but it would most likely take more fuel than Earth could ever produce, using current means. Maybe reliable antimatter harvesting from the magnetosphere would make it more feasible?
C) ...a spiky heart-shaped mask that grants you the power of a god. And no giants, or plucky time-travelling elves to oppose you.
Post by: palsch on June 26, 2014, 06:47:50 am
The mutual attraction between the earth and moon is;
F = G ME MM / r2
For the sake of convenience I'm going to use non-standard units for force and acceleration, just so I can define G and r to be 1 and simplify the first equation to just be;
F = ME MM.
Acceleration of a body is just force over mass, so acceleration of the moon would be;
F/MM = ME
Completely independent of the mass of the moon. This is the gravitational acceleration at a given point. You can see this is similar for the earth. We are interested in the net acceleration, which is to say;
F/MM + F/ME = ME + MM
As you can see, any transfer of mass between the earth and moon will fail to change the net acceleration experienced. Any decrease in the acceleration of the moon would be compensated for by an increase in the acceleration of the earth, and vice versa.
It would, however, change the nature of the orbit somewhat. This is modelling the two objects as point masses. You could shake things up a bit (literally) by changing that and introducing other factors into the equation, but that's more maths than I feel like right now.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 27, 2014, 11:39:41 am
It's a rather interesting Fast breeder reactor.
Post by: Sheb on June 27, 2014, 12:10:21 pm
Post by: palsch on June 27, 2014, 12:19:47 pm
Somehow "Reactor went critical" raise all kinds of red flags in my mind. :p Still, that's pretty cool. I wonder what's the cost vs. a standard reactor.
I'm reading (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-Generation/Fast-Neutron-Reactors/) 15% more than VVER (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VVER). Actually that whole section is interesting;
Quote
Construction is well advanced on Beloyarsk 4 which is the first BN-800 from OKBM Afrikantov, a new, more powerful (2100 MWt, 880 MWe) FBR, which is actually the same overall size and configuration as BN-600. It has improved features including fuel flexibility – U+Pu nitride, MOX, or metal, and with breeding ratio up to 1.3. The MOX is quoted as having 20-30% fissile isotopes. However, during the plutonium disposition campaign it will be operated with a breeding ratio of less than one. It has much enhanced safety and improved economy - operating cost is expected to be only 15% more than VVER. It is capable of burning 1.7 tonnes of plutonium per year from dismantled weapons and will test the recycling of minor actinides in the fuel.So they are basically intended to burn 40 tonnes of weapon-grade plutonium first, then start using it as an actual breeder. Sensible given some of the fears around such reactors is proliferation. The delays mentioned are recent delayed; the design was originally soviet planned but was abandoned with the collapse and then revised in the early 90's.
Russia expected to have 40 tonnes of separated plutonium stockpiled by 2010, and after some furnishes the initial core load, the rest was expected to be burned in the BN-800 by 2025. The timing of this has slipped about four years.
In 2009 two BN-800 reactors were sold to China. Construction is delayed from intender start in 2013.
OKBM Afrikantov in Zarechny is developing a BN-1200 reactor as a next step towards Generation IV designs. Rosenergoatom is ready to involve foreign specialists in its project, with India and China particularly mentioned. Rosatom's Science and Technology Council has approved the BN-1200 reactor for Beloyarsk, with plant operation from about 2020. It will be 2900 MW thermal at 550°C, giving 1220 MWe and 60-year life. Thermal efficiency is 42% gross, 39% net. Breeding ratio 1.2 initially with MOX fuel, later 1.35, and then 1.45 with nitride fuel. It will have 426 fuel assemblies and 174 radial blanket assemblies surrounded by 599 boron shielding assemblies. OKBM envisages about 11 GWe of such plants by 2030, possibly including South Urals NPP.
Post by: scrdest on June 27, 2014, 12:28:57 pm
Somehow "Reactor went critical" raise all kinds of red flags in my mind. :p Still, that's pretty cool. I wonder what's the cost vs. a standard reactor.
Actually IIRC a nuclear reactor going critical means that it started working. The Bad Thing is it going prompt-critical. Then again, I don't know shit, so I need someone to whale on me here.
Post by: Sergarr on June 27, 2014, 12:37:36 pm
I think it works that way.Somehow "Reactor went critical" raise all kinds of red flags in my mind. :p Still, that's pretty cool. I wonder what's the cost vs. a standard reactor.
Actually IIRC a nuclear reactor going critical means that it started working. The Bad Thing is it going prompt-critical. Then again, I don't know shit, so I need someone to whale on me here.
I probably should know better about things like this, because I study in NRNU...
Post by: Sheb on June 27, 2014, 12:43:44 pm
I probably should know better about things like this, because I study in NRNU...
I was looking what the NRNU was on the Wiki and...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a4/MEPhI_Logo2014_en.png/250px-MEPhI_Logo2014_en.png)
Why on earth if your logo someone punching a nuclear horse in the face?
Post by: LordSlowpoke on June 27, 2014, 12:53:03 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on June 27, 2014, 12:54:35 pm
Critical means that there's a reaction going on. Subcritical means it's slowing down, supercritical means it's powering up.Somehow "Reactor went critical" raise all kinds of red flags in my mind. :p Still, that's pretty cool. I wonder what's the cost vs. a standard reactor.Actually IIRC a nuclear reactor going critical means that it started working. The Bad Thing is it going prompt-critical. Then again, I don't know shit, so I need someone to whale on me here.
Prompt critical" means the reaction is critical solely from the "prompt" neutrons created by fission events. Since a neutron in flight cannot be controlled by processes working at human time scales so reactors are designed to be critical with the "delayed" neutrons released by subsequent isotope decay. This type of criticality responds to control rods and the like. So it isn't always a bad thing, but it is in all current reactor designs. In practice, this rarely happens. It happened at the SL-1 accident, and it might have happened at Chernobyl, but it probably didn't.
A nuclear warhead goes super prompt critical, which is definitely not a good thing.
Most Nuclear reactor incidents are not related to criticality though, but more often to problems with the cooling system.
Somehow "Reactor went critical" raise all kinds of red flags in my mind. :p Still, that's pretty cool. I wonder what's the cost vs. a standard reactor.Construction cost isn't much higher, but the problem lies mainly with fuel reprocessing. A breeder reactor can operate using nuclear waste, but that waste needs to be specially reprocessed and the presence of plutonium (which is used to fuel the actual reaction) makes it more dangerous to handle.
Breeders become the economically better option at an Uranium price of 500$/kg. Current price is 100$/kg. (This assumes equal reactor costs, IIRC). However, the ore price is almost irrelevant in final pricing. (At current prices, or accounts for about 30 cents per kwh cost. This lowers in better reactors which uses uranium more efficiently.)
Post by: palsch on June 27, 2014, 01:00:32 pm
Actually IIRC a nuclear reactor going critical means that it started working. The Bad Thing is it going prompt-critical. Then again, I don't know shit, so I need someone to whale on me here.
Quick summary;
A nuclear reactor works by being a controlled chain reaction. Each atom that decays emits a number of neutrons. Each neutron has the potential to cause another atom to decay. You have more than one neutron being emitted by each decay (on average, the exact number can vary depending on the decay you are looking at), but at the same time actual interaction between emitted neutrons and other atoms is rare.
Reactors use a combination of neutron moderators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_moderator) (slow neutrons making them more likely to interact and trigger another decay) and neutron absorbers (do what it says on the tin) to keep the ratio of neutrons emitted to neutrons that trigger another decay at 1:1. This ratio is either described as the effective neutron multiplication factor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_chain_reaction#Effective_neutron_multiplication_factor) (denoted as k) as a straight up ratio or as the reactivity. Reactivity is just k-1.
When the reactor is critical k = 1 (reactivity = 0) so each decay triggers exactly one other decay and the energy output remains constant across time. A reactor with k < 1 (negative reactivity) is sub-critical, and experiencing a reduction in energy output over time. k > 1 (positive reactivity) is supercritical and increasing in energy output.
Supercritical reactors can be dangerous, but not usually. It just means the energy output is being ramped up and is only dangerous if there are positive-feedback loops and a lack of safety measures to stop it running away entirely. Most power plants are built with some degree of negative feedback to counter such a runaway event.
Prompt-criticality is a special case of supercriticality. Basically the neutrons emitted in a nuclear decay are split into prompt (emitted immediately) and delayed (emitted seconds to minutes later). The delayed neutrons only make up ~1% of all emitted neutrons, but are useful as they effectively slow down the rate of increase of power in a supercritical reactor. Most reactors are designed to be critical only when taking into account the delayed neutrons; you still have k=1, but some of the triggered reactions happen much later than the triggering event. This slows things down enough that mechanical systems (control rods mostly) can respond and control the energy changes. A prompt-critical reactor is one where the reactor is critical through prompt neutrons alone. Now any increases in power are going to be immediate, far faster than mechanical systems can respond. This is obviously dangerous, although doesn't always mean a complete disaster.
Generally you want to keep a reactor in a delayed-critical state at all times to retain control over it. So when ramping up energy you go super-critical, but remaining in the window where it's only super-critical due to delayed neutrons. That is what makes nuclear reactors relatively slow to ramp up. You could theoretically design a reactor that uses prompt-criticality to get up to it's operating level in extremely short time, but that's going to be hard and dangerous. I think I remember reading about someone who had tried it in a simulator and in models, but strongly doubt it would ever actually be used in real life.
NB: Fast reactors don't use moderators and instead use decays that can be triggered by fast neutrons. Most notably U-238 can be transmuted into Pu-239 in this way, which is the breeding in fast breeder reactors. These events do occur in normal nuclear power plants as well, but to a much reduced degree.
Post by: Sergarr on June 27, 2014, 01:28:59 pm
It's supposed to be a hand reigning in a nuclear horse. It's a symbolism for taming the nuclear energy from uncontrolled reaction (bombs) to industrial reactors producing electricity.I probably should know better about things like this, because I study in NRNU...
I was looking what the NRNU was on the Wiki and...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a4/MEPhI_Logo2014_en.png/250px-MEPhI_Logo2014_en.png)
Why on earth if your logo someone punching a nuclear horse in the face?
Post by: Descan on June 27, 2014, 01:37:46 pm
Post by: Sergarr on June 27, 2014, 03:41:30 pm
It's still a very... Russian logo.It's actually also in the entrance of the main building, to the left. It is set in stone, alongside with a lot of various quantum physics formulas.
Obviously it doesn't have the flag part in it.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: MonkeyHead on June 27, 2014, 04:46:37 pm
Question for the astrophysicists:
If hypothetically, one would want to cause apocalypse, by crashing the moon into the earth....
What would accomplish this most efficiently?
A) transferring mass from earth to the moon
B) transferring mass from the moon to earth
C) neither
C - neither. Slowing the orbital velocity of the moon would be desirable if that was your intended outcome, though it would break up into a ring of debris once beyond the Roche tidal limit.
Post by: lemon10 on June 27, 2014, 05:01:57 pm
Personally I think living on binary planets (eg. both planets have the same masses and functionally (not just technically) orbit around each other) would be super awesome. Not least of all because you would have a legrange point between the two planets that you could build a awesome space station at. There would be the problem of some nasty tidal forces, but it would be worth it to both orbit and be orbiting another planet the size of your own.Question for the astrophysicists:
If hypothetically, one would want to cause apocalypse, by crashing the moon into the earth....
What would accomplish this most efficiently?
A) transferring mass from earth to the moon
B) transferring mass from the moon to earth
C) neither
C - neither. Slowing the orbital velocity of the moon would be desirable if that was your intended outcome, though it would break up into a ring of debris once beyond the Roche tidal limit.
E:
"And on the fifth hour of the fifth year of the fifth era, the dread horse shall awaken, and all shall be ashes and dust before it."Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Sheb on June 28, 2014, 06:05:08 am
Post by: scrdest on June 28, 2014, 06:10:06 am
Oh, that makes sense I guess. It's actually clearer on that stone version. Dang, I preferred my interpretation. :P
Eh, I think the stone version only makes it look like he speared the horse instead of punched it.
Post by: Sheb on June 28, 2014, 06:19:32 am
Does the nuclear horse has a name? Is it some kind of university mascot?
Post by: Sergarr on June 28, 2014, 07:04:12 am
It's still a very soviet logo in many way. But the sheer manliness of creating a nuclear reactor by punching Uranium in the face is impressive. :pNo, not really. Although it has inspired many jokes about spherical horses in vacuum.
Does the nuclear horse has a name? Is it some kind of university mascot?
Post by: LordSlowpoke on June 28, 2014, 07:48:02 am
as long as you don't name it after a specific related 2hu i mean
if you do that i will destabilize your nuclear horse in the middle of a stable
Post by: Sergarr on June 28, 2014, 08:13:36 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on June 28, 2014, 12:35:59 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Sheb on June 30, 2014, 09:01:43 am
Post by: Helgoland on June 30, 2014, 10:22:38 am
Post by: Sergarr on June 30, 2014, 11:09:02 am
Post by: Aklyon on June 30, 2014, 11:10:31 am
Soviet Magical Girls Nuclear Cavalry?Soviet Magical Nuclear Cavalry Girls?
Post by: Helgoland on June 30, 2014, 11:11:40 am
Post by: Sirus on June 30, 2014, 11:12:23 am
Magical Cavalry Soviet Nuclear Girls?Soviet Magical Girls Nuclear Cavalry?Soviet Magical Nuclear Cavalry Girls?
Yeah, I got nothing.
Post by: Sheb on June 30, 2014, 12:26:20 pm
Make a forum game, then ;)
Ask and ye shall receive. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=139817.0)
Post by: Reelya on July 12, 2014, 06:08:43 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbcHEn2EgrU
Found that video via the below article, which shows chimp intelligence is highly heritable. That's good news for the possibilities for "uplifting", plus, if we understood more about chimp brain abilities we just might be able to design new better human brains too that combine the best of both worlds.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/07/140710-intelligence-chimpanzees-evolution-cognition-social-behavior-genetics/
Post by: MaximumZero on July 12, 2014, 08:26:15 pm
Post by: Sirus on July 13, 2014, 12:40:51 am
Cue "Planet of the Apes" jokes.You blew it up you damn dirty apes?
Post by: Frumple on July 13, 2014, 12:45:18 am
Post by: Helgoland on July 13, 2014, 03:50:44 am
Found that video via the below article, which shows chimp intelligence is highly heritable.That would suggest it's the same in humans - isn't that usually a highly disputed assumption?
Post by: Osmosis Jones on July 13, 2014, 04:40:42 am
Found that video via the below article, which shows chimp intelligence is highly heritable.That would suggest it's the same in humans - isn't that usually a highly disputed assumption?
I thought that the general consensus was it was both nature and nurture?
...annnd yep, from the article:
Quote
Although Hopkins and colleagues found a strong genetic component to chimp intelligence, there were equally strong effects from environmental influences, which are malleable over time.
These results are similar to those in human studies, noted Ajit Varki, distinguished professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, who was not part of the new study.
Post by: Silfurdreki on July 13, 2014, 05:55:23 am
I was a bit worried at what they've gotten themselves into when I first read this. However, when reading the rules it seems as though they have taken good measures to ensure that
Maybe I'll register the astronomy club I'm a member of for this.
Post by: miauw62 on July 13, 2014, 06:29:18 am
Spoiler: Obligatory xkcd (click to show/hide)
Post by: Lagslayer on July 13, 2014, 11:27:35 pm
http://www.digitaljournal.com/science/vantablack-the-darkest-material-ever-made/article/389583 (http://www.digitaljournal.com/science/vantablack-the-darkest-material-ever-made/article/389583)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Carbon fiber tubes properly arranged on aluminum foil, apparently, reflect only about 0.035% of light that hits it. No matter how you hold this stuff up to the light, you still can't see any of the surface features, only a silhouette.
Post by: Reelya on July 13, 2014, 11:30:36 pm
Quote
A British company has produced a "strange, alien" material so black that it absorbs all but 0.035 per cent of visual light, setting a new world record. To stare at the "super black" coating made of carbon nanotubes – each 10,000 times thinner than a human hair – is an odd experience. It is so dark that the human eye cannot understand what it is seeing. Shapes and contours are lost, leaving nothing but an apparent abyss.Sounds like a pretty cool supermaterial, and I'm sure you guys can think up some applications for this. Stealth planes for a start.
Quote
The material conducts heat seven and a half times more effectively than copper and has 10 times the tensile strength of steel.As mere side-effects obviously.
Fake-edit: Ninja'd by Lagslayer.
Post by: Descan on July 13, 2014, 11:49:21 pm
Post by: Sirus on July 13, 2014, 11:55:25 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 14, 2014, 12:00:25 am
Post by: Sirus on July 14, 2014, 12:06:58 am
This might be it? (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1350449512000291)Looks like that's a couple of years old. Of course, it could be that they only announced it to the public after managing to semi-reliably produce the stuff.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 14, 2014, 12:14:40 am
Post by: Sheb on July 14, 2014, 12:37:00 am
Post by: Osmosis Jones on July 14, 2014, 04:36:11 am
It's the only result on Google Scholar for Vantablack, and vanta by itself brings down a storm of foreign language papers that appear unrelated.
And searching "Surrey Nanosystems" only brings up details of their process. It's hardly surprising that they won't publish the details though.
VANTA is an acronym, and is general to this type of research, so it's about as specific as googling carbon nanotubes. From Google Scholar, there's been two papers put out this year about VANTA CNTs on Al foils (as in the article) but neither list Surrey Nanosystems as a sponsor or research partner in the acknowledgements, so it is likely these are unrelated;
The partial space qualification of a vertically aligned carbon nanotube coating on aluminium substrates for EO applications, by Theocharous et al (same author as MSH's paper).
And
Freestanding foils of nanotube arrays fused with metals by Poenitzsch et al.
Ultimately, this is unsurprising; typically, industry based research isn't published, or at least, not until it's been patented to hell and back.
Now, as to the military applications, I actually don't think there'd be too many. Pure black is a horrible colour for camoflague, and I doubt it would have the same absorbance in radar wavelengths, so it's not so great for stealth planes. The linked article on VANTAs by MSH says it's spectrally flat in the IR range (0.8-14 um), so it might have some application in fooling thermal detection, but I doubt it.
Most likely, I'd say the biggest application would be as a heat-sink material; emissivity is equal to absorbance, so the blacker something is, the better a radiator it is. Coupled with the good heat conductance of the CNTs, this would be very helpful for dumping heat.
Post by: Scoops Novel on July 15, 2014, 01:11:55 pm
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/whycassini/cassini20120628.html
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/m/news/news.php?release=2014-217#.U8VJN7En9Wl
Post by: Putnam on July 15, 2014, 01:46:02 pm
Post by: Scoops Novel on July 15, 2014, 02:04:30 pm
Subsurface oceans on Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, Ceres, and now friggin titan. I'm sure I've missed some. Yeesh.
I'd missed some of those, thanks :D
Post by: smjjames on July 15, 2014, 02:08:51 pm
Subsurface oceans on Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, Ceres, and now friggin titan. I'm sure I've missed some. Yeesh.
Encladeus as well I believe.
Also, didn't know that Titan has a subsurface ocean.
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 15, 2014, 03:29:45 pm
Post by: Gentlefish on July 15, 2014, 11:10:30 pm
Has this been posted yet?
http://www.digitaljournal.com/science/vantablack-the-darkest-material-ever-made/article/389583 (http://www.digitaljournal.com/science/vantablack-the-darkest-material-ever-made/article/389583)Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Carbon fiber tubes properly arranged on aluminum foil, apparently, reflect only about 0.035% of light that hits it. No matter how you hold this stuff up to the light, you still can't see any of the surface features, only a silhouette.
Quote
The material, the Daily Mail reports,
I have a problem with this source but I do not doubt that this material exists. I now want to cover my house in it.
Post by: smjjames on July 15, 2014, 11:17:17 pm
The more oceans we find, the more likely it is that life (That we'd recognise) exists in the solar system.
I swear, if they find even the simplest bacteria there, I am going to piss my pants.
IMO, Europa seems like the place where life would be likely to be found. But yeah, would be amazing to find life forms on those moons.
Also, any micro organisms wouldn't actually be bacteria, just bacteria analogues, also convergent evolution.
Post by: Knit tie on July 17, 2014, 04:24:03 pm
When I replace my body with a carbon nanotube based cybernetic deathmachine a-la Raiden and begin my reign of terror, the first 1000 of my slaves I shall sacrifice to whoever invented them.
Post by: Putnam on July 17, 2014, 04:59:05 pm
I fricking love carbon nanotubes. What can't they do? Conductors, motors, armor, nanomachines - these little guys have it all covered to a stupidly high degree.
When I replace my body with a carbon nanotube based cybernetic deathmachine a-la Raiden and begin my reign of terror, the first 1000 of my slaves I shall sacrifice to whoever invented them.
I was looking up physical properties of various materials for Dwarf Fortress stuff. I found out that carbon nanotubes have a theoretical ultimate tensile strength of 200 gigapascals. For comparison, adamantine in Dwarf Fortress is 5 gigapascals. Of course, Adamantine's young's modulus, shear modulus and bulk modulus are all (and this isn't even an exaggeration, this is what the math comes out to) 5,000,000,000/0.
Post by: Putnam on July 17, 2014, 06:26:39 pm
EDIT: Young's Modulus is a measure of rigidity, Bulk Modulus is a measure of resistance to uniform compression and shear modulus to... shear. Basically, you can't budge Adamantine at all unless you give it 5 gigapascals of pressure, at which point it shatters instantly.
Post by: Putnam on July 18, 2014, 05:56:27 pm
Post by: MaximumZero on July 18, 2014, 07:35:01 pm
Post by: Sirus on July 18, 2014, 11:08:23 pm
Post by: Lagslayer on July 18, 2014, 11:23:58 pm
Even more dwarven is the fact that untrained peasants can work with the stuff using nothing but some heat and an anvil.Don't forget the multi-purpose beard.
Post by: Gentlefish on July 19, 2014, 01:41:12 am
Post by: i2amroy on July 19, 2014, 03:11:44 pm
Post by: Sergarr on July 19, 2014, 03:15:21 pm
Really I think the craziest part is that they can make soft, bendable clothing out of it. :PSteel: pretty unbendable
Steel mail shirt: pretty bendable
chains, man
Post by: scrdest on July 19, 2014, 03:16:54 pm
Really I think the craziest part is that they can make soft, bendable clothing out of it. :P
It might work by putting small plates of adamantine onto a mesh of another material which is abstracted away or something, as opposed to a more rigid base of armor.
Post by: Sheb on July 19, 2014, 03:35:36 pm
Post by: scrdest on July 19, 2014, 03:37:37 pm
Yeah, because a game that track that speck of mud beneath your dwarf second left toenails is going to abstract that other material.
SHUSH.
OK, ALIEN MAGIC, ALRIGHT?
Post by: Bauglir on July 19, 2014, 04:00:06 pm
Post by: scrdest on July 19, 2014, 04:30:25 pm
Remember, they make adamantine thread out of it before making the clothes, so I don't think it's plates and suchlike.
But again, we're talking about a material that is literally impossible to bend without breaking.
Post by: Descan on July 19, 2014, 04:44:46 pm
Post by: alway on July 19, 2014, 05:00:32 pm
In aggregate, sure. But are we talking in aggregate here? While it does take the ore to make it, are they actually using the ore itself? (edit: or alternatively they do use the whole ore, as I forgot about the obvious ability to melt it)Remember, they make adamantine thread out of it before making the clothes, so I don't think it's plates and suchlike.
But again, we're talking about a material that is literally impossible to bend without breaking.
It could be they simply have a way to isolate disconnected atoms or clumps of atoms in the material around the ore, then fuse those into a thread made of rough, atomic scale chain-mail. Doing so would certainly not be a simple process. However, a technique for doing so wouldn't be entirely inconceivable, considering they are a race of smiths so dedicated to their craft that they even live underground. Especially since adamantine is a relatively common substance in terms of geographical distribution, and so would be the focus of all this civilization's efforts of study. In a similar real world example, Damascus Steel was recently found to include carbon nanotubes (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061116-nanotech-swords.html), despite being forged a thousand years before the discovery of carbon nanotubes.
Post by: GavJ on July 19, 2014, 05:11:04 pm
Yeah, because a game that track that speck of mud beneath your dwarf second left toenails is going to abstract that other material.Every industry in game has huge abstractions. Food preservation (or cooking, in the case of directly eaten meat, etc.), wood drying, the need for water in almost every industrial process (most glaringly brewing), straps in armor in general not just adamantine, the materials for making tools for all the workshops, the need for tools for things like installing doors or engraving, hoops for liquid tight barrels, generic mechanisms being able to fill any role without future insight, everything about crops, blah blah.
Post by: i2amroy on July 19, 2014, 06:07:37 pm
Because you can make a sword out of just iron, no leather or wood for the handle. Hammers don't have handles either. Beds are purely wood. And wooden everything doesn't need nails.To be fair all of those things are possible (and have been done in the past), they would just have some drawbacks or would require more work (which is why they are less common today).
Spoiler: Full iron sword (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: Full iron hammer (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: Wooden platform bed (would be uncomfortable without matress though) (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: Wooden peg construction (click to show/hide)
Post by: Lagslayer on July 19, 2014, 07:59:29 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 19, 2014, 08:35:43 pm
To be fair all of those things are possible (and have been done in the past), they would just have some drawbacks or would require more work (which is why they are less common today).The only drawback is cost, because any good manual tools should be made out of as few pieces as possible, a single piece of metal provides the sturdiest tool. We don't have to do this for swords anymore, but knives, hammers and chisels in the pricey range are single-tang/piece with handles layered over or you're getting ripped. They're also very common.
Post by: alway on July 19, 2014, 09:03:41 pm
Actually, nail-less woodworking was pretty common all over, especially in far-flung locations without much local industry. In early America, for example, people would burn down vacant/dilapidated buildings to sift through the rubble for the nails. Basically just like Cataclysm: DDA. So if you could avoid using expensive metal by simply doing some peg-slot cuts on your cheap wood, you would do that. Especially on things like furniture, where you didn't have to worry as much about structural integrity (since wood is cheap enough you can just build your chairs like a brick instead of worrying about strength).Because you can make a sword out of just iron, no leather or wood for the handle. Hammers don't have handles either. Beds are purely wood. And wooden everything doesn't need nails.To be fair all of those things are possible (and have been done in the past), they would just have some drawbacks or would require more work (which is why they are less common today).Spoiler: Full iron sword (click to show/hide)Spoiler: Full iron hammer (click to show/hide)Spoiler: Wooden platform bed (would be uncomfortable without matress though) (click to show/hide)In fact the last one, nail-less woodworking was particularly common in some older cultures (such as ancient china, where virtually everything wooden was constructed without nails or glue due to the climate and woods available).Spoiler: Wooden peg construction (click to show/hide)
Post by: Reelya on July 20, 2014, 05:22:15 am
Dwarves clearly wrap their beards around themselves for comfort on the beds.Documentary about Dwarven beds:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4tlcFHuZMA&t=153
Post by: miauw62 on July 20, 2014, 05:52:19 am
Post by: Reelya on July 24, 2014, 01:34:00 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Interesting stuff. It fits with the relativistic calculations: time dilation should hit infinity as you approach an event horizon. Therefore nothing can actually go beyond the event horizon until infinite external time has passed. What this means is that rather than an empty "hole" you fall through, in practice you get this relativistic sludge which builds up outside the black hole, and resembles a neutron star. At least that's the new theory.
Post by: Il Palazzo on July 24, 2014, 02:11:47 pm
Interesting stuff. It fits with the relativistic calculations: time dilation should hit infinity as you approach an event horizon. Therefore nothing can actually go beyond the event horizon until infinite external time has passed. What this means is that rather than an empty "hole" you fall through, in practice you get this relativistic sludge which builds up outside the black hole, and resembles a neutron star. At least that's the new theory.That's not correct, is it? There's no time dilation in the frame of the infalling object. It never reaches the horizon only for outside observers.
Post by: Reelya on July 24, 2014, 02:25:43 pm
So, think about the 2nd atom falling in:
"when is it my turn to fall into the black hole?"
"after the first one"
"how long will that take?"
"from YOUR point of view, infinity"
Post by: Sergarr on July 24, 2014, 02:27:33 pm
The events must be the same for all observers. From the outside perspective, you don't fall into the black hole, therefore, you don't fall there from any perspective, including your own. Sounds logical for me.Interesting stuff. It fits with the relativistic calculations: time dilation should hit infinity as you approach an event horizon. Therefore nothing can actually go beyond the event horizon until infinite external time has passed. What this means is that rather than an empty "hole" you fall through, in practice you get this relativistic sludge which builds up outside the black hole, and resembles a neutron star. At least that's the new theory.That's not correct, is it? There's no time dilation in the frame of the infalling object. It never reaches the horizon only for outside observers.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 24, 2014, 02:28:48 pm
Edit: I hope I'm not screwing my relativistic mechanics here.
Edit: I am screwing up my relativistic mechanics here.
Post by: Darvi on July 24, 2014, 02:29:37 pm
From ANY external observers point of view, the first bit of matter never hits the event horizon. The atom right behind the first one is also an "external observer" compared to the first one, therefore goop is going to build up.But one of the fundamental properties of an event horizon is that nothing can escape from inside of it, not even information. Wouldn't that mean that the atom right behind it would be incapable of observing the first atom?
Post by: Sergarr on July 24, 2014, 02:32:40 pm
The idea is that no atoms actually go through the event horizon from ANY point of view, because there exists at least one outside observer which observes them as not in black hole. And all events must be the same from ALL points of view. The position and timing of these events may be vastly different, but the event which happened from one point of view happens in ALL of them, and visa versa.From ANY external observers point of view, the first bit of matter never hits the event horizon. The atom right behind the first one is also an "external observer" compared to the first one, therefore goop is going to build up.But one of the fundamental properties of an event horizon is that nothing can escape from inside of it, not even information. Wouldn't that mean that the atom right behind it would be incapable of observing the first atom?
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 24, 2014, 02:36:00 pm
Post by: Darvi on July 24, 2014, 02:39:15 pm
The idea is that no atoms actually go through the event horizon from ANY point of view, because there exists at least one outside observer which observes them as not in black hole.Which, as I said, should be impossible.
Post by: Sergarr on July 24, 2014, 02:40:44 pm
IIRC, from the point of view from the object entering the black hole, the event horizon is approaching them at the speed of light. Due to length contraction, this means that the size of the black hole becomes zero.Not the size, but the width IIRC. Only one dimension gets contracted.
Why? Like I said, nothing goes through the event horizon from any point of view, so everything stays observable, just extremely red-shifted.The idea is that no atoms actually go through the event horizon from ANY point of view, because there exists at least one outside observer which observes them as not in black hole.Which, as I said, should be impossible.
Post by: Darvi on July 24, 2014, 02:41:54 pm
one of the fundamental properties of an event horizon is that nothing can escape from inside of it, not even information.If nothing gets out, there's nothing to be observed by any outside observer.
Post by: Reelya on July 24, 2014, 02:42:41 pm
Becauseone of the fundamental properties of an event horizon is that nothing can escape from inside of it, not even information.If nothing gets out, there's nothing to be observed by any outside observer.
nothing gets out because nothing got in, in the first place. It's not hard.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 24, 2014, 02:44:18 pm
Post by: Darvi on July 24, 2014, 02:44:55 pm
Now that makes sense. Thanks.Becauseone of the fundamental properties of an event horizon is that nothing can escape from inside of it, not even information.If nothing gets out, there's nothing to be observed by any outside observer.
nothing gets out because nothing got in, in the first place. It's not hard.
Post by: Sergarr on July 24, 2014, 02:46:02 pm
I presume it involves fractals.
Post by: Putnam on July 24, 2014, 02:49:21 pm
(a statement disagreeing with the above). Sounds logical for me.Interesting stuff. It fits with the relativistic calculations: time dilation should hit infinity as you approach an event horizon. Therefore nothing can actually go beyond the event horizon until infinite external time has passed. What this means is that rather than an empty "hole" you fall through, in practice you get this relativistic sludge which builds up outside the black hole, and resembles a neutron star. At least that's the new theory.That's not correct, is it? There's no time dilation in the frame of the infalling object. It never reaches the horizon only for outside observers.
This is never a good way to think of anything in science. That goes for everyone, too, of course.
Post by: Il Palazzo on July 24, 2014, 02:51:11 pm
The events must be the same for all observers. From the outside perspective, you don't fall into the black hole, therefore, you don't fall there from any perspective, including your own. Sounds logical for me.No, of course not. Simultainety is relative. An event that already happened in one frame may not have yet happened in another.
Anyway, I won't pretend to understand GR - I only have a shallow, layman's understanding gained from evesdropping on other people's discussions. However, from what I read about it, the singularity at the event horizon exists only in the so-called Shwarztshild coordinates, which can't be used for the infalling observer.
Nowhere will you find the inability to cross the horizon as an obstacle to BHs' existence. That's why the aforementioned paper(and earlier papers on Planck stars, e.g.: http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.6562 ) start with the information paradox as the problem to be solved.
Post by: iceball3 on July 24, 2014, 02:51:32 pm
Hawking radiation, anyone?
In fact there's some regards to the possibility that hawking radiation could actually be technically a release of information from a black hole. Albeit horribly obfuscated and beyond recovering via observation within the universe, but information nonetheless.
The more interesting question is what happens to the stuff that was already inside the event horizon at the moment of collapse.I always thought material thrown into a black hole contributed to the center of mass even though the whole time-confusion renders them near the event horizon for the longest duration. Wouldn't having material get "stuck" at the event horizon of a black hole make it's gravitational field amorphous, not concentrated around a point? What if the event horizon of a black hole "moves over" an object, due to a black hole with velocity?
I presume it involves fractals.
Post by: Reelya on July 24, 2014, 02:55:21 pm
Post by: iceball3 on July 24, 2014, 02:57:18 pm
Well moving over and object is the same as "infalling" really. It will still take infinity to hit the event horizon from any external observer. so the stuff should smear over the event horizon surface.Observationally will just appear splattered on the surface of the black hole in question? Interesting.
And by this i mean in the less obvious manner, of course someone hit by a black hole wouldn't look anything like someone hit by a Shinkasen.
Post by: Reelya on July 24, 2014, 02:58:32 pm
No different for a black hole.
In other words, a black hole with the mass outside it's event horizon should be gravitationally identical to the same black hole with the mass inside the event horizon, in the same way as a hollow planet would be. If you're inside a hollow planet, you're not "stuck" to the outside: you're drawn to the center of gravity.
Post by: Sergarr on July 24, 2014, 03:00:07 pm
The events must be the same for all observers. From the outside perspective, you don't fall into the black hole, therefore, you don't fall there from any perspective, including your own. Sounds logical for me.No, of course not. Simultainety is relative. An event that already happened in one frame may not have yet happened in another.
Anyway, I won't pretend to understand GR - I only have a shallow, layman's understanding gained from evesdropping on other people's discussions. However, from what I read about it, the singularity at the event horizon exists only in the so-called Shwarztshild coordinates, which can't be used for the infalling observer.
Nowhere will you find the inability to cross the horizon as an obstacle to BHs' existence. That's why the aforementioned paper(and earlier papers on Planck stars, e.g.: http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.6562 ) start with the information paradox as the problem to be solved.
The idea is that no atoms actually go through the event horizon from ANY point of view, because there exists at least one outside observer which observes them as not in black hole. And all events must be the same from ALL points of view. The position and timing of these events may be vastly different, but the event which happened from one point of view happens in ALL of them, and visa versa.
Post by: Darvi on July 24, 2014, 03:00:36 pm
Post by: iceball3 on July 24, 2014, 03:03:51 pm
I assume Icebro meant that the matter "stuck" to the EH would be unevenly distributed, which would indeed cause a shift in the centre of gravity.Yeah, this essentially. Also this is a wild guess, but doesn't the hollowness of mass distribution also affect tidal forces or is this the same too?
Post by: Sergarr on July 24, 2014, 03:04:12 pm
As for center of gravity. A hollow Earth would have the same center of gravity as a solid one, if the mass is the same. And the total gravitational field strength would be identical.Actually, you can prove that inside a hollow planet the gravitational field would be zero.
No different for a black hole.
In other words, a black hole with the mass outside it's event horizon should be gravitationally identical to the same black hole with the mass inside the event horizon, in the same way as a hollow planet would be. If you're inside a hollow planet, you're not "stuck" to the outside: you're drawn to the center of gravity.
RE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem
"If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e., a hollow ball), no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object's location within the shell."
Proven by Isaac Newton.
RE2:
The center of gravity approach works only when you're far away from the object. It stops working if you're inside of it.
Post by: Reelya on July 24, 2014, 03:04:44 pm
Post by: iceball3 on July 24, 2014, 03:07:09 pm
Isn't that only when you hit the center? The gravitational field right at the center of the Earth will also be zero. Equal pull from all directions.I thiiiink it could me more that when standing underneath the crust you would be up against the ceiling. I THINK. I dunno actually.
Post by: Reelya on July 24, 2014, 03:08:04 pm
Post by: Darvi on July 24, 2014, 03:14:13 pm
Post by: Reelya on July 24, 2014, 03:15:29 pm
But, the fact that a hollow sphere of the same mass should have the same external gravitational force / center of gravity gives credence to the idea of a black hole with all the matter outside the event horizon: from further out it should not be gravitationally any different.
Post by: Il Palazzo on July 24, 2014, 03:44:47 pm
The idea is that no atoms actually go through the event horizon from ANY point of view, because there exists at least one outside observer which observes them as not in black hole. And all events must be the same from ALL points of view. The position and timing of these events may be vastly different, but the event which happened from one point of view happens in ALL of them, and visa versa.Yes, I heard you. I'm saying this is incorrect, not to mention internally contradictory. For example, I choose the infalling object's coordinates. I pass the horizon in finite time. Using you logic, this would mean I pass the horizon in all coordinates(by which I understand you mean that it al all happens, not that the time of occurence is the same). Now I choose outside observer. The object never crosses the horizon. Again, this should mean it never crosses it in all coordinate systems. All you're doing is showing preference for one coordinates over the other when you make that definitive statement.
Post by: miauw62 on July 24, 2014, 03:47:57 pm
http://science-beta.slashdot.org/story/14/07/24/172221/black-holes-not-black-after-all-theorize-physicistsThis reminds me of Revelation Space :VSpoiler (click to show/hide)
Interesting stuff. It fits with the relativistic calculations: time dilation should hit infinity as you approach an event horizon. Therefore nothing can actually go beyond the event horizon until infinite external time has passed. What this means is that rather than an empty "hole" you fall through, in practice you get this relativistic sludge which builds up outside the black hole, and resembles a neutron star. At least that's the new theory.
Neutron stars that are actually black holes?
E:
More science-y, does this have any consequences for how small we can measure things? My layman's terms can't explain it without looking it up on Wikipedia.
Post by: Sergarr on July 24, 2014, 03:55:02 pm
Ah-ha, but you forget that the black holes evaporate due to Hawking radiation! Therefore, "I pass the horizon in finite time." might never actually happen, because due to time dilation the black hope will cease to exist after a period of time. If this happens, then there's no inside observer and universe becomes consistent.The idea is that no atoms actually go through the event horizon from ANY point of view, because there exists at least one outside observer which observes them as not in black hole. And all events must be the same from ALL points of view. The position and timing of these events may be vastly different, but the event which happened from one point of view happens in ALL of them, and visa versa.Yes, I heard you. I'm saying this is incorrect, not to mention internally contradictory. For example, I choose the infalling object's coordinates. I pass the horizon in finite time. Using you logic, this would mean I pass the horizon in all coordinates(by which I understand you mean that it al all happens, not that the time of occurence is the same). Now I choose outside observer. The object never crosses the horizon. Again, this should mean it never crosses it in all coordinate systems. All you're doing is showing preference for one coordinates over the other when you make that definitive statement.
The consistency-breaking and information-conservation-breaking of something going inside the black hole is precisely why Hawking decided to basically ban black holes.
Post by: Il Palazzo on July 24, 2014, 04:02:09 pm
Post by: Sergarr on July 24, 2014, 04:05:08 pm
But passing the horizon in finite time breaks too many conservation laws.....
Post by: iceball3 on July 24, 2014, 05:04:43 pm
Well the black holes must evaporate anyway, because the earth isn't yet consumed by the micro-black-holes which are created from ultra-relativistic particles impacts...Again, I'm talking sort of hear-say on this, but aren't there black holes that are small enough just be considered Weakly Interacting Massive Particles, due to the fact that it can spit out hawking radiation due to not being able to impart more than the minimal increment of energy possible, yet by the same token not being strong enough to take in anything as big as the minimum increment (which does not split, so simply doesn't happen)?
I can't remember where i heard the full explanation of this, so i might just being putting out nonsense, but eh
Post by: GavJ on July 24, 2014, 05:20:40 pm
I think he was simply suggesting that since the tiny ones evaporate, the large ones eventually must as well, since they spit out radiation, and since at some point, they must stop bringing in matter (because eventually they'll clear the entire reachable locality, or move to the edge of space, or whatever). Therefore, the "smallifying" side of the process will win at some point.
If so, then at least for purposes of that argument, the terminology of what you call small black holes isn't that important.
Post by: iceball3 on July 24, 2014, 07:04:41 pm
^Actually, i'm thinking that heat-death of universe nonwithstanding, persistent background radiation and other environmental factors will typically be adding more mass to black holes than much larger ones release, i think. I think the scaling of the hawking radiation released slows down as black holes get bigger.
I think he was simply suggesting that since the tiny ones evaporate, the large ones eventually must as well, since they spit out radiation, and since at some point, they must stop bringing in matter (because eventually they'll clear the entire reachable locality, or move to the edge of space, or whatever). Therefore, the "smallifying" side of the process will win at some point.
If so, then at least for purposes of that argument, the terminology of what you call small black holes isn't that important.
Post by: GavJ on July 24, 2014, 07:51:42 pm
Maybe that's what you meant by "heat death notwithstanding" if so then simply yes -- I am taking into account heat death as part of it. Don't see why it shouldn't be withstanding (is that how you'd say that? =P)
Post by: Descan on July 24, 2014, 08:53:33 pm
Also, microwave background radiation is the residual heat/radiation from the big bang... I guess eventually it'll settle down to near absolute zero (it's within a few degrees right now)
Post by: Putnam on July 24, 2014, 09:06:07 pm
Except probably hydrogen :v
Nah, greatorder's talking about the possibility of proton decay, I think.
Post by: GavJ on July 24, 2014, 09:25:47 pm
Except probably hydrogen :vYou can't destroy energy, but it can and will spread out thinner and thinner, until eventually every little photon is flying off in some trajectory that has a 0% chance of ever intercepting a black hole.
Also, microwave background radiation is the residual heat/radiation from the big bang... I guess eventually it'll settle down to near absolute zero (it's within a few degrees right now)
Post by: Descan on July 24, 2014, 09:48:48 pm
Or do you mean for children to be annihilated in a fireball of death when you tell them to "Settle down now!"? :P
Post by: GavJ on July 24, 2014, 10:33:22 pm
Or do you mean for children to be annihilated in a fireball of death when you tell them to "Settle down now!"? :PWe're on a dwarf fortress forum. I think the answer to that question should be obvious ;D
Post by: alway on July 25, 2014, 12:33:50 am
As has been said before, black holes evaporate (larger evaporate much more slowly though; so their evaporation comes more in the form of sparks of radiation as the wink out of existence, with nary a trickle until then). In about 10^14 years, star formation stops (and with it, the formation of any considerably sized black holes). In around 10^100, black holes are expected to all evaporate. So that's the boring stuff of our current universe.Except probably hydrogen :vYou can't destroy energy, but it can and will spread out thinner and thinner, until eventually every little photon is flying off in some trajectory that has a 0% chance of ever intercepting a black hole.
Also, microwave background radiation is the residual heat/radiation from the big bang... I guess eventually it'll settle down to near absolute zero (it's within a few degrees right now)
Depending on the end result of macro-scale physics, weird things may happen after this.
There's the "Big Rip" idea, in which expansion accelerates and makes macro-scale physics meaningless; though I've not actually heard much support for this. Big Crunch theories were fairly standard originally; of course, then we discovered the expansion was accelerating. So there's that general category of 'ends' to time.
Then there's the alternative, in which over strange eons, even the death of the universe may die.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_recurrence_theorem
Essentially, infinite time overrides chaos and entropy. These are both based on statistical rules; and when you introduce infinities to statistics, you end up with a result in which all possibilities eventually happen, albeit with unimaginably vast eras of boredom in between. Even the evaporation of black holes is beyond the time scales we can possibly fathom; but is only a tiny blip in time compared to these. After all, it is literally the amount of time it takes for random photons and fluctuations at the quantum level to spontaneously start off a low-entropy event similar to the big bang. Ridiculously vast, beyond comprehension or imagination. Beyond Lovecraftian. So yeah. Over infinite eons, statistics dictates that even the death of the universe will die (assuming no event first occurs to rip apart time itself).
That, of course, is speculating based on known physics. So far as we know, it may well be turtles all the way down, and there may well be a larger, timeless multiverse (linear time being a property of this universe, and tied up with its space, we don't really have a reason to think it would exist/be the same outside of the universe).
Post by: GavJ on July 25, 2014, 01:14:23 am
Infinite time only leads to an assured event if you KNOW that the event has a greater than 0% chance of happening per unit time going forward.
If all you know is that there's a % chance that the % chance per time is not zero, then you can't make such claims. As far as I am aware, we do not know that the chance per time is > 0%, and thus there is a possibility that literally nothing "interesting" can ever happen in all the expenses of infinite time, beyond a certain point.
In other words, we can probably have no way of ever proving that nothing interesting will happen (it always might be the case that external-to-our-universe forces will perturb the system that we would have no way to observe ahead of time), but that doesn't equate to "they will." Because there might simply not be any such forces, or any method by which a photon can cause a big bang, or whatever.
In the wiki page you cited, (one of) the critical assumptive flaws here for applying to the universe is laid out pretty explicitly:
Quote
For a mechanical system, this bound can be provided by requiring that the system is contained in a bounded physical region of space
Post by: Putnam on July 25, 2014, 01:24:27 am
Post by: GavJ on July 25, 2014, 01:29:00 am
Post by: Il Palazzo on July 25, 2014, 02:25:02 am
You can't destroy energy, but it can and will spread out thinner and thinner, until eventually every little photon is flying off in some trajectory that has a 0% chance of ever intercepting a black hole.Yes you can. CMB photons, and any photons travelling through expanding space are continually being redshifted = losing energy. It's not a matter of energy density going down, but energy of individual photons dissipating.
Conservation of energy is a concept that is undefined on cosmological scales. Here's a good article about it: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 25, 2014, 02:38:38 am
You can't destroy energy, but it can and will spread out thinner and thinner, until eventually every little photon is flying off in some trajectory that has a 0% chance of ever intercepting a black hole.Yes you can. CMB photons, and any photons travelling through expanding space are continually being redshifted = losing energy. It's not a matter of energy density going down, but energy of individual photons dissipating.
Conservation of energy is a concept that is undefined on cosmological scales. Here's a good article about it: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html
My own understanding of that particular situation is that the energy of the photon is possibly being transferred into gravitational potential in some way... I suspect I need to read up full on this to make a more significant comment than that though.
Post by: Sergarr on July 25, 2014, 02:47:46 am
EDIT: Ah. This is an interesting article. I think it said that because time and space are bounded together, then concepts which rely on one of them become relying on all of them. Or something. This is a little bit above what I can understand easily (maximum sarcasm).
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 25, 2014, 05:07:43 am
Wait, if on large scales there's no conservation of energy, doesn't that mean you can imagine a process that will create energy out of nowhere?
Well, in its crudest sense, I suppose that is one explanation for how the universe might have come into being. Not a good one though ;) :P
Post by: MaximumZero on July 25, 2014, 07:11:08 am
Post by: kaian-a-coel on July 25, 2014, 07:14:00 am
Once upon a time, there was everything. Then, it blew up.fixed (maybe?)
Post by: Putnam on July 25, 2014, 02:21:36 pm
Post by: iceball3 on July 25, 2014, 02:24:13 pm
Yeah, there never really was nothing. Everything has always been there, at least as long as time has been a thing.Or, at least, there's no evidence of nothing, to say the least.
Post by: Darvi on July 25, 2014, 02:34:09 pm
Post by: Sergarr on July 25, 2014, 02:38:54 pm
The evidence of nothing is nothing i.e. nonexistent :PYeah, there never really was nothing. Everything has always been there, at least as long as time has been a thing.Or, at least, there's no evidence of nothing, to say the least.
Post by: iceball3 on July 26, 2014, 12:05:09 am
Well, there could be evidence in the form of something that forms an effective frame against reference against nothing, which is something referring to nothing. I think.The evidence of nothing is nothing i.e. nonexistent :PYeah, there never really was nothing. Everything has always been there, at least as long as time has been a thing.Or, at least, there's no evidence of nothing, to say the least.
Post by: Scoops Novel on August 01, 2014, 08:44:54 am
Post by: TheDarkStar on August 01, 2014, 10:29:56 pm
Post by: Solifuge on August 01, 2014, 10:33:21 pm
Quote
"Test results indicate that the RF resonant cavity thruster design, which is unique as an electric propulsion device, is producing a force that is not attributable to any classical electromagnetic phenomenon and therefore is potentially demonstrating an interaction with the quantum vacuum virtual plasma."
That makes them the third party to confirm that the drive is not only plausible, but that their take on the design generates thrust, despite being a closed system. And I am really excited about it.
PPE: Ninja'd, but I remain excited.
Post by: TheDarkStar on August 01, 2014, 10:47:09 pm
It was inevitable.
Post by: Sirus on August 01, 2014, 10:53:56 pm
Post by: smirk on August 01, 2014, 10:55:37 pm
Post by: Bauglir on August 01, 2014, 10:58:24 pm
Post by: Frumple on August 01, 2014, 10:58:44 pm
If my reading of the article was right, it's a very, very low-power thruster mostly only good for satellites. Possibly space probes as well. No starships yet, sadly :/Then again... if it just runs off the zappy, chunk a buggerhump load of solar panels on a thingy and many dozen of the things instead of, y'know, fuel or whatever. If quality fails, turn to quantity! Or maybe just a really big one. Low power thruster up in space still gets things moving given some time.
Post by: Bauglir on August 01, 2014, 11:00:10 pm
Post by: Descan on August 01, 2014, 11:08:35 pm
Once you're at orbital speeds and are Douglas-flying by falling towards the earth so fast that you miss it, ANY thrust is preserved, there's not really any friction or air resistance. So if you can do it without fuel and without needing to REfuel, then it's a godsend, basically.
Post by: alway on August 01, 2014, 11:34:39 pm
Unfortunately, as the Ars Technica article points, out, it's probably just a measurement error: http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/08/dont-buy-stock-in-impossible-space-drives-just-yet/
Both test units produced the same amount of force.... problem being, one of the test units was a control group which shouldn't have seen any thrust.
Post by: Knit tie on August 02, 2014, 02:10:18 am
Another possibility is that the device is perfectly possible, but that our understanding of physics is wrong instead.
Post by: Putnam on August 02, 2014, 02:29:22 am
Post by: Sergarr on August 02, 2014, 02:40:37 am
Post by: TheDarkStar on August 02, 2014, 08:19:02 am
If you're going for propulsion without throwing fuel away, wouldn't using light as propulsion make sense?
That depends. Solar sails have uses for going further out in the solar system, but they are too weak and unidirectional for maneuvering in Earth orbit.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 02, 2014, 08:33:03 am
If you're going for propulsion without throwing fuel away, wouldn't using light as propulsion make sense?If I recall correctly, the energy of light is equal it's momentum times the light speed.
Momentum for common objects is p=m*v.
So in order to get a momentum of 1 N*s, you need to spent 3*108 joules, where otherwise it would just be 0.5 joule(1 kg object)
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 02, 2014, 08:45:42 am
If you're going for propulsion without throwing fuel away, wouldn't using light as propulsion make sense?If I recall correctly, the energy of light is equal it's momentum times the light speed.
Momentum for common objects is p=m*v.
So in order to get a momentum of 1 N*s, you need to spent 3*108 joules, where otherwise it would just be 0.5 joule(1 kg object)
3*10^8 J is not a huge amount of light energy, when you consider that the stellar intensity at 1 AU is 1470 Wm^-2.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 02, 2014, 09:21:25 am
Post by: Lagslayer on August 02, 2014, 09:43:58 am
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/neutrinos.png)
Post by: Solifuge on August 02, 2014, 10:32:00 am
The tiny amount of thrust NASA seems to have produced using this is much less than was claimed to have been generated in previous tests with similar thrusters, which could just be an issue of the scale of the test thruster. I think Roger Shawyer, who first developed the concept, saw people using arrays of them to drive atmospheric aircraft, ground vehicles, and so on... in the "This will revolutionize EVERYTHING!" sort of way. Mostly, I am excited about being able to convert any source of electricity, like radioactive decay, solar energy, etc. into thrust without having to worry about fuel. It could enable extremely deep-space exploration, much lighter spacecraft, and bring us a step closer to figuring out what's going on in the universe at a quantum level.
If it works, I motion that we call it Impulse Power, in part because it generates force as if spontaneously... but mostly because Star Trek.
Post by: Sirus on August 02, 2014, 10:38:33 am
...if it work, at least.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 02, 2014, 10:39:36 am
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 02, 2014, 10:43:03 am
The primary problem with the NASA test is that their control engine produced the same amount of thrust as their actual engine.
Which strongly suggests that no thrust at all was produced, and there is some kind of zero calibration error, or the whole thing was off balance in some way, giving a false reading.
Post by: Solifuge on August 02, 2014, 11:12:25 am
The primary problem with the NASA test is that their control engine produced the same amount of thrust as their actual engine.
Which strongly suggests that no thrust at all was produced, and there is some kind of zero calibration error, or the whole thing was off balance in some way, giving a false reading.
Actually, this isn't correct. NASA's Control Group was a regular source of Radio-Frequency energy without one of the prototypes attached, which didn't register as providing force. The news article Alway linked seems to have confused their Control Group with one of the prototypes they called a "Null" test; it was designed in a way that they didn't expect to produce thrust, but it produced thrust anyway. This could be due to a lack of understanding behind what's going on in the device, faulty construction in the "Null" prototype that made it actually work, or some other property of the system we don't know yet. But the conclusion seems to be that 30-50 micronewtons of force was registered when the devices were there, and nothing registered when it was a plain RF load. Something happened, and it doesn't seem to have been a measurement error.
EDIT: We don't have access to the whole publication, the data, or the images yet, but this is according to the the abstract we can see so far. And note that NASA concluded that thrust was registered by the system. They have a good track record about accuracy, and I'd assume they wouldn't make a claim based on a completely rookie and unscientific error, which ignored their experimental results. That makes no sense.
Quote
Several different test configurations were used, including two different test articles as well as a reversal of the test article orientation. In addition, the test article was replaced by an RF load to verify that the force was not being generated by effects not associated with the test article.
...
Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to produce thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the "null" test article).
Post by: Descan on August 02, 2014, 11:28:38 am
that we are simply too skeptical to not try to discredit it by all means possible,That's how science works, you know...
Post by: LordSlowpoke on August 02, 2014, 11:31:29 am
Post by: Sergarr on August 02, 2014, 12:09:07 pm
Post by: Putnam on August 02, 2014, 02:09:16 pm
can't we just use descan as the power source for our intergalactic freight
I have a heavy heart when I say that vibrating does not actually provide thrust. Unless we attach magnets to him and this drive does work, such a thing would not be feasible.
Post by: GavJ on August 02, 2014, 02:23:28 pm
"By any means possible" implies you'd go murder somebody and pin it on the researcher to discredit him. If you're skeptical you should only be willing to discredit within the boundaries of well applied logic and properly collected and analyzed data, etc.that we are simply too skeptical to not try to discredit it by all means possible,That's how science works, you know...
Post by: Descan on August 02, 2014, 02:36:23 pm
Post by: GavJ on August 02, 2014, 03:03:48 pm
Quote
like how we were skeptical of computers, aeroplanes, books, radio and other world-changing inventions back when they were made.He was talking about ignorant historical, societal fear of things unfamiliar, without any implication of necessarily even attempting to learn more about such things, etc.
That is not how the scientific method works. In science, if you're skeptical, you replicate experiments and are expected to propose better theories etc. Not just "ooh that sounds scary. Yer must be wrong pardner. I'm gonna take a nap now. Sincerely, GavJ"
Post by: Knit tie on August 02, 2014, 03:54:08 pm
No, because the original quote was not anything to do with the scientific method:My point exactly. Instead of saying "this thing is impossible under current scientific theories, therefore it's obviously an error in the experiment that provided the positive result", we should be saying "this thing contradicts our understanding of the universe, but appears to function. We need to study it more thoroughly and possibly amend our theories in the end."Quotelike how we were skeptical of computers, aeroplanes, books, radio and other world-changing inventions back when they were made.He was talking about ignorant historical, societal fear of things unfamiliar, without any implication of necessarily even attempting to learn more about such things, etc.
That is not how the scientific method works. In science, if you're skeptical, you replicate experiments and are expected to propose better theories etc. Not just "ooh that sounds scary. Yer must be wrong pardner. I'm gonna take a nap now. Sincerely, GavJ"
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 02, 2014, 04:08:01 pm
Post by: Knit tie on August 02, 2014, 04:10:12 pm
No, the first thing you need to do is check for errors, then replicate, then rewrite physics as we know it.Implied in "study it more thoroughly". Besides, I believe the article stated that the device was replicated no less than 3 times, although review of NASA's studies is still absolutely necessary.
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 02, 2014, 04:11:28 pm
Post by: andrea on August 02, 2014, 04:18:51 pm
I am eager to see if this turns out to work. It would make an huge difference in space travel. And of course a bunch of other things.
Post by: alway on August 02, 2014, 04:30:01 pm
"this thing is impossible under current scientific theories, therefore it's obviously an error in the experiment that provided the positive result"No one is actually saying this though. The only ones suggesting it is impossible are the news media putting impossible in their headlines. It's just that technology is very complex (see also: hacky bullshit), and so we haven't necessarily worked out the hacky bullshit required to do it mathematically (though they did publish that previous paper, which supposedly aimed to do just that; though I don't know enough about that to comment on it). Out of all the potential ways to get force without propulsion mass, pushing against quantum soup would actually be one of the more plausible methods.
However, it wouldn't be of any use for atmospheric flight. Those aren't typically limited by fuel weight anyway, and with its abysmal T:W ratios, such a device would be useless there.
Post by: andrea on August 02, 2014, 05:03:16 pm
Spacecraft uses are way more straightforward and important however.
Post by: ShadowHammer on August 02, 2014, 11:02:25 pm
There is a set of three gears, A, B, and C.
A is twice the circumference of B, which is 1/4 the circumference of C. In other words, A=2n, B=1n, C=4n.
A is on one end of an axle, with B on the other end of the same axle. C is meshed with B.
Diagram:
(http://i948.photobucket.com/albums/ad321/shadowhammer2/gears_zpsb7c8dd7d.png)
When A is the input and C is the output, what is the mechanical advantage gained?
I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but I'm tired at the moment, and I don't trust myself to do anything that requires above elementary school level thinking when I'm tired. Note that this is not supposed to be a trick question.
Spoiler: What I think the answer is (click to show/hide)
Post by: Gentlefish on August 03, 2014, 02:24:40 am
Post by: Arx on August 03, 2014, 04:40:58 am
I think, anyway. Don't ask me to try to prove anything or write it according to convention.
Post by: Sergarr on August 03, 2014, 06:39:01 am
Post by: ShadowHammer on August 03, 2014, 01:11:04 pm
It'd be 2 wouldn't it though? Even though b to c is 4, the input it a which is 2, with a final total difference of 2.
Yeah, it must be two, since A->B will be an advantage of 1/2, and then B->C will be an advantage of 0.5(4) = 2.
I think, anyway. Don't ask me to try to prove anything or write it according to convention.
I think it's 2, too.Hmmm... that's what my dad said when I asked him originally, but then I pointed out that even though A is double the size of B, B still rotates once for every one rotation of A, because they are on the same axle.
Also,
Descan may not be able to act as a power source by himself, but he could intensify the power of our intergalactic engines.can't we just use descan as the power source for our intergalactic freight
I have a heavy heart when I say that vibrating does not actually provide thrust. Unless we attach magnets to him and this drive does work, such a thing would not be feasible.
Post by: Arx on August 03, 2014, 01:45:25 pm
Post by: alway on August 05, 2014, 12:35:09 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKXOucXB4a8
"The Visual Microphone: Passive Recovery of Sound from Video."
Turns out just by analyzing video sufficiently, you can see the sub-pixel vibrations well above the frequency of the recording device's 60 Hz. And recover audio from it good enough to recognize the source.
Post by: GavJ on August 05, 2014, 12:40:13 am
Post by: Reelya on August 05, 2014, 02:54:41 am
So here's a really interesting thing to come out of the recent SIGGRAPH conference (the annual graphics conference).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKXOucXB4a8
"The Visual Microphone: Passive Recovery of Sound from Video."
Turns out just by analyzing video sufficiently, you can see the sub-pixel vibrations well above the frequency of the recording device's 60 Hz. And recover audio from it good enough to recognize the source.
Snoops are going to love this toy.
EDIT: thinking again, I mean snoops loved this toy and are pissed off that regular people get to play with it too now. They already had that lasers on windows reading vibration stuff to reconstruct sound, and reconstructing CRT video based on ambient light reflections off walls. They probably already know a hell of a lot of techniques that haven't filtered through to the public sphere yet.
Post by: miauw62 on August 05, 2014, 03:06:13 am
Post by: GavJ on August 05, 2014, 03:14:29 am
Ehhhhh.So here's a really interesting thing to come out of the recent SIGGRAPH conference (the annual graphics conference).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKXOucXB4a8
"The Visual Microphone: Passive Recovery of Sound from Video."
Turns out just by analyzing video sufficiently, you can see the sub-pixel vibrations well above the frequency of the recording device's 60 Hz. And recover audio from it good enough to recognize the source.
Snoops are going to love this toy.
1) Secret audio is usually easier and cheaper to obtain than video in the first place. And easier to conceal.
2) And beyond that, you can't do this with some shitty webcam or penny sized micro cam thing. You need a rock solid damped tripod in probably a perfectly quiet and wind-less recording environment. And a bulky, decent quality resolution camera (the DSLR was on the low end and is not exactly easy to hide). The only way you could hide it would be across the street or something, which then implies the need for a massively expensive lens to magnify and resolve sufficiently.
3) Laser microphones would be significantly cheaper even from that same vantage point, and no proprietary software or whatever (very simple circuit and amp)
Seems more like a nifty piece of computer science algorithm basic science, and possibly something with applications in science measurement devices. Not so much practical surveillance methods.
Post by: Helgoland on August 05, 2014, 08:56:15 am
Post by: Sergarr on August 05, 2014, 09:09:29 am
Post by: miauw62 on August 05, 2014, 09:17:17 am
I don't think optical zoom is going to help if the sound waves need to reach the recording device to produce vibrations in it...The sound waves don't need to reach the camera.
Post by: Reelya on August 05, 2014, 09:29:02 am
Post by: Sergarr on August 05, 2014, 10:07:39 am
Post by: martinuzz on August 06, 2014, 05:22:36 am
https://twitter.com/ESA_Rosetta/status/496954420266270720/photo/1
This flight path video does make me curious if it will ever hit Mars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iEQuE5N3rwQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iEQuE5N3rwQ)
Post by: Il Palazzo on August 06, 2014, 05:59:20 am
This flight path video does make me curious if it will ever hit Mars.In the planar projection you can't see the Z-axis position of the orbital nodes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iEQuE5N3rwQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iEQuE5N3rwQ)
Take a look here: http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=67P;orb=1;cov=0;log=0;cad=0#orb and you'll see that the orbits never actually cross.
Having said that, orbits are never static, so it's not a definitive "no", but at least we can say it won't happen any time soon.
Post by: martinuzz on August 07, 2014, 01:48:56 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2itwFJCgFQ
Post by: Reelya on August 10, 2014, 05:28:03 am
This article on Slashdot is asking whether finding dark energy / dark matter would invalidated the Big Bang Theory. I'll leave it at that, it sounds really dumb to me as the entire reason they predict dark energy is to make big bang cosmology work.
Post by: Putnam on August 10, 2014, 11:35:46 am
Post by: Il Palazzo on August 10, 2014, 11:54:46 am
Post by: Reelya on August 10, 2014, 06:11:43 pm
I don't get it. The question links to an article that answers it. What was the point of posting? Or maybe I just don't understand how slashdot works.Usually slashdot stories are a link and some commentary, provided by a "submitter". These range from people who repost quality news every day to occasional or first-time submitters (which could be good, but could be total crap too). So it's half-way between a news site and a forum, really, with every topic basically being a forum thread.
You're not alone, most of the commenters on slashdot were asking the same question as you. The meat is often in the discussion that articles provoke.
Post by: alway on August 10, 2014, 06:56:57 pm
Post by: Putnam on August 11, 2014, 01:08:07 am
(no it doesn't)
Post by: Gentlefish on August 11, 2014, 03:08:27 pm
"You can't find or evolve a discrete signal from background noise so you can't have evolution for random bits!"
Also some BS saying "You change a force by 10^-100 of a degree and THE WHOLE EVERYTHING FALLS APART so religion"
Note: I am okay with religion. It's a great coping mechanism. I just hate when it tries to rationalize alongside science.
Science is the coolest thing out there man.
Post by: Mr. Strange on August 11, 2014, 03:19:08 pm
Post by: i2amroy on August 11, 2014, 05:57:52 pm
Banana confirmed to disprove evolution. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4)His metaphor tends to fall apart when you consider a human's ability to eat a noncommercial (and non-selectively bred) banana easily, which tend to look more like this:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
As for religion I'm fine with seeing it as a moral guide (don't kill people, don't steal, etc.) but yeah, it's not something that should be trying to replace science anymore in my book.
Post by: Gentlefish on August 11, 2014, 07:30:46 pm
the other (that one) has nicer flesh, but the seeds are a nightmare to get through.
...So it's a pomegranate?
Post by: Lagslayer on August 11, 2014, 07:58:37 pm
Bananagranate...the other (that one) has nicer flesh, but the seeds are a nightmare to get through.
...So it's a pomegranate?
Pomenana? Bananagranate?
Post by: Sergarr on August 11, 2014, 11:42:28 pm
Post by: Putnam on August 11, 2014, 11:45:00 pm
Post by: MaximumZero on August 11, 2014, 11:50:48 pm
Post by: Putnam on August 11, 2014, 11:56:44 pm
Post by: lemon10 on August 12, 2014, 01:38:59 am
The second law of thermodynamics doesn't actually say anything about things getting more disordered, what it actually says is that universe over time shifts into a more probable state.If by 'probable' you mean higher entropy then yes. Entropy doesn't actually equate to disorder, but it is pretty similar for most purposes.
No, it says a closed state does. This doesn't actually apply to the universe as a whole, given that inflation thing.Even if its inflating entropy will still increase in any single area (and every area) unless there is outside influence.
It's not known if it's infinite.Being infinite is irrelevant to the discussion, as it doesn't influence if its a closed system. Even if the universe's size is infinite entropy will still increase.
Do we know if the universe is a closed system? From what I gather, that's still a pretty heated argument.It might not be (eg. if there are parallel universes), but that's opening a whole other can of worms. Even if they did exist (and were able to influence our universe significantly) they probably wouldn't significantly influence the overall/eventual state of entropy in our universe.
Post by: Sergarr on August 12, 2014, 01:57:18 am
If by 'probable' you mean higher entropy then yes. Entropy doesn't actually equate to disorder, but it is pretty similar for most purposes.Entropy is literally defined as a function of probability in statistical mechanics. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann%27s_entropy_formula)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/9/9/9999ad9a38ebfc690b0bd725cac7743c.png)
Post by: Gentlefish on August 12, 2014, 02:31:47 pm
Post by: MaximumZero on August 13, 2014, 10:51:36 pm
If I did something, I probably didn't mean to. All I'm saying/asking is "As far as I know, this is still disputed. Has this changed since I last got information from a relevant source?"Do we know if the universe is a closed system? From what I gather, that's still a pretty heated argument.I C wat U did thar
Post by: Descan on August 13, 2014, 11:31:38 pm
Post by: TheDarkStar on August 25, 2014, 11:37:35 am
Post by: Il Palazzo on August 25, 2014, 11:44:22 am
These people want to control robots with the entirety of the Internet. (http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/zero-moment/robo-brain-project-wants-turn-internet-robotic-hivemind)-What is your name, robot?
-I am Boobsmeme Trollcat, and I'm never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down...
-Can we disconnect it? Is it this plug here? How do you turn it off? Oh god, how do we turn it off...
Post by: Bauglir on August 25, 2014, 11:45:32 am
You think it's possible to turn off the collective will of the Internet? Do you know how much porn it has? Whatever its tastes, it will be in a perpetual state of turned-onedness.These people want to control robots with the entirety of the Internet. (http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/zero-moment/robo-brain-project-wants-turn-internet-robotic-hivemind)-What is your name, robot?
-I am Boobsmeme Trollcat, and I'm never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down...
-Can we disconnect it? Is it this plug here? How do you turn it off? Oh god, how do we turn it off...
Post by: Eagleon on August 25, 2014, 01:32:32 pm
On second thought, never mind, carry on.
Post by: Sergarr on August 25, 2014, 01:43:00 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 25, 2014, 02:18:59 pm
Post by: Lagslayer on August 25, 2014, 08:50:23 pm
Post by: Duuvian on August 25, 2014, 09:55:01 pm
These people want to control robots with the entirety of the Internet. (http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/zero-moment/robo-brain-project-wants-turn-internet-robotic-hivemind)
Here is my suggestion for the mandatory robot acronym:
B.A.S.E.M.E.N.T. D.W.E.L.L.E.R.
o s e n e l e o
t s a t c e r o
i r i h c d l
s c t a t
t h y n r
e i i
d c c
a
l
I will leave the second word for anyone who wants it, formatting is becoming hard to control.
I wonder if I ordered it to read all my posts on this forums if it would be able to take over writing my posts for me on similar topics.
EDIT: Thanks for the code tag.
Post by: Bauglir on August 25, 2014, 10:25:12 pm
Code: [Select]
B.A.S.E.M.E.N.T. D.W.E.L.L.E.R.
o s e n e l e o
t s a t c e r o
i r i h c d l
s c t a t
t h y n r
e i i
d c c
a
l
Post by: Lagslayer on August 26, 2014, 07:49:36 pm
Code tags, friendo.Or just, you know, do it horizontally.Code: [Select]B.A.S.E.M.E.N.T. D.W.E.L.L.E.R.
o s e n e l e o
t s a t c e r o
i r i h c d l
s c t a t
t h y n r
e i i
d c c
a
l
Post by: Arx on August 27, 2014, 01:59:39 pm
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on August 27, 2014, 02:03:20 pm
Post by: Arx on August 27, 2014, 02:19:47 pm
Post by: RedKing on August 27, 2014, 02:22:01 pm
Post by: Arx on August 27, 2014, 02:23:47 pm
Fuck it. We've got past science to wizzahrd type shit.
I still have difficulty wrapping my head around the fact that we've had teleportation for a few years now. Sure, it's only information, and sure it's slow, but the information never crosses the intervening space.
Post by: Putnam on August 27, 2014, 02:25:32 pm
Post by: kaian-a-coel on August 27, 2014, 02:29:17 pm
Fuck it. We've got past science to wizzahrd type shit.What's the quote? "sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"?
But in all seriousness, if I understand the article correctly, we're shining light on an object and on a camera, separately. And the camera capture the image of the object.
It's the equivalent of filming stuff by pointing a flashlight at it.
...
Okay I'm calling magic on that one too.
Post by: Scoops Novel on August 27, 2014, 02:30:41 pm
Fuck it. We've got past science to wizzahrd type shit.
I still have difficulty wrapping my head around the fact that we've had teleportation for a few years now. Sure, it's only information, and sure it's slow, but the information never crosses the intervening space.
Vwat? Link me please (to a decent explanation)
Post by: Sergarr on August 27, 2014, 02:33:44 pm
Post by: Arx on August 27, 2014, 02:34:46 pm
Post by: kaian-a-coel on August 27, 2014, 03:02:23 pm
It's not even information. Seriously, try to get some information out of quantum entanglement.If you read the link, it has been done.
(http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn26111/dn26111-1_1200.jpg)
And it's a cat picture.
Post by: RedKing on August 27, 2014, 03:11:57 pm
Post by: kaian-a-coel on August 27, 2014, 03:18:50 pm
Barring an (extremely likely) explanation as to why it's not the case, we have unofficially crossed into friggin scifi.
Post by: Sergarr on August 27, 2014, 03:30:56 pm
And I'm sure there's no actual way to use this to transmit information faster than light.
Post by: Frumple on August 27, 2014, 03:38:56 pm
we have unofficially crossed into friggin scifi.Dude, we unofficially crossed into friggin' scifi when we put up the first ruddy weather balloon. We have been living in science wizard land for decades now.
Though I guess it should be science sorcerer. Alliteration is always appropriate.
Post by: Bauglir on August 27, 2014, 03:39:44 pm
And I'm sure there's no actual way to use this to transmit information faster than light.I don't understand the physics, but I do understand the media well enough to know that if that were a possible interpretation, this would be a much bigger deal and we'd be seeing tons of headlines to the effect of "Einstein proven wrong!"
Post by: RedKing on August 27, 2014, 03:43:43 pm
I think it's age-dependent. I still look at my smartphone sometimes and go "WTF?". I have a handheld device that allows me to talk (and even videochat) with anyone anywhere on the planet in seconds. It can also tell me exactly where I am and how to get to anywhere I want to go, and all I have to do is ASK IT. With my voice.we have unofficially crossed into friggin scifi.Dude, we unofficially crossed into friggin' scifi when we put up the first ruddy weather balloon. We have been living in science wizard land for decades now.
Though I guess it should be science sorcerer. Alliteration is always appropriate.
For a kid who grew up on the OLD Star Trek and OLD Doctor Who, that's some crazy shit right there. I feel like James-motherfuckin'-Bond.
Post by: kaian-a-coel on August 27, 2014, 03:50:35 pm
Let's imagine an object, arbitrarily far from the reader. Send the reading beam towards it, and the second beam towards the sensors. Arrange for the first to arrive before the second, by an arbitrarily small margin. Tadaa, you have information on the object as it was the moment the first beam touched it.
Post by: Sergarr on August 27, 2014, 03:52:40 pm
Post by: kaian-a-coel on August 27, 2014, 03:58:46 pm
You still need the first beam to touch it... and it doesn't move faster than light.Yes, but you'd get an image of the object as it was when the beam got there, not when the beam was sent.
If you imagine some sort of video-feed constructed by sending a lot of pulses one after another, you'll need to wait a very long time for the contact to be established, but then the video is live.
Post by: Helgoland on August 27, 2014, 04:14:29 pm
Post by: lemon10 on August 27, 2014, 05:05:22 pm
Quote from: Wikipedia
Quantum mechanicsYeah, it seems like it should allow FTL information relay, but due to [physics technobabble here] it doesn't.
Certain phenomena in quantum mechanics, such as quantum entanglement, might give the superficial impression of allowing communication of information faster than light. According to the no-communication theorem these phenomena do not allow true communication; they only let two observers in different locations see the same system simultaneously, without any way of controlling what either sees. Wavefunction collapse can be viewed as an epiphenomenon of quantum decoherence, which in turn is nothing more than an effect of the underlying local time evolution of the wavefunction of a system and all of its environment. Since the underlying behaviour doesn't violate local causality or allow FTL it follows that neither does the additional effect of wavefunction collapse, whether real or apparent.
Post by: Putnam on August 27, 2014, 05:56:30 pm
Anyway, besides that:
You have entangled particles. You observe them to see if their function has collapsed... except that observing them collapses their wave function and no information was actually gleaned from that.
Post by: kaian-a-coel on August 27, 2014, 06:07:35 pm
"Seems like it should" means absolutely nothing. Also, "technobabble" suggests meaningless handwaves. If you misunderstand it, that's a problem with you, not the universe.It seems like you're misunderstanding both his post and the article we're discussing. That's not a problem with the universe that's for sure.
Anyway, besides that:
You have entangled particles. You observe them to see if their function has collapsed... except that observing them collapses their wave function and no information was actually gleaned from that.
Post by: Putnam on August 27, 2014, 06:32:31 pm
Post by: lemon10 on August 27, 2014, 07:54:50 pm
"Seems like it should" means absolutely nothing. Also, "technobabble" suggests meaningless handwaves. If you misunderstand it, that's a problem with you, not the universe.My post said that entanglement didn't allow FTL information relay, despite me having no clue how the science works (to the extent of it sounding like technobabble to me).
Anyway, besides that:
You have entangled particles. You observe them to see if their function has collapsed... except that observing them collapses their wave function and no information was actually gleaned from that.
You respond with extreme snark, and proceed to attack me on my post despite not understanding at all what I said. Even if I had been completely wrong and my post nonsensical, being insulting because of that is completely uncalled for.
Post by: Putnam on August 27, 2014, 07:57:25 pm
Post by: scrdest on August 27, 2014, 08:01:43 pm
I get pretty emotional about gut-science. It kills people.
Gut Science. New album this October.
Post by: MaximumZero on August 27, 2014, 09:59:21 pm
For a kid who grew up on the OLD Star Trek and OLD Doctor Who, that's some crazy shit right there. I feel like Dick-motherfuckin'-Tracy.Fix'd for generation gap. :P
Post by: alway on August 27, 2014, 10:04:06 pm
Bah, that's nothing.I think it's age-dependent. I still look at my smartphone sometimes and go "WTF?". I have a handheld device that allows me to talk (and even videochat) with anyone anywhere on the planet in seconds. It can also tell me exactly where I am and how to get to anywhere I want to go, and all I have to do is ASK IT. With my voice.we have unofficially crossed into friggin scifi.Dude, we unofficially crossed into friggin' scifi when we put up the first ruddy weather balloon. We have been living in science wizard land for decades now.
Though I guess it should be science sorcerer. Alliteration is always appropriate.
For a kid who grew up on the OLD Star Trek and OLD Doctor Who, that's some crazy shit right there. I feel like James-motherfuckin'-Bond.
From the Windows Phone main page:
Quote
Get Cortana on the new Lumia 635And yes, it can actually do that by cross-referencing of information.
Cortana will remind you to leave early to beat traffic, to stop at the store for the milk you need, and to wish your friend a happy birthday before you call. Available now on the new Nokia Lumia 635.
Also named after a video game AI, whose voice actor they got to do some lines and created a synthesized voice similar to hers. And apparently they aimed to give it a bit of personality as well, to try and make it more endearing. So there's that.
Post by: Frumple on August 27, 2014, 10:24:47 pm
Man, I remember those video games. Barely, but I do.For a kid who grew up on the OLD Star Trek and OLD Doctor Who, that's some crazy shit right there. I feel like Dick-motherfuckin'-Tracy.Fix'd for generation gap. :P
I also remember them being balls hard and being completely unable to figure out how to get past the first level thing.
Post by: Arx on August 28, 2014, 11:51:38 am
Post by: kaian-a-coel on August 28, 2014, 11:57:49 am
And now apparently someone's solved the Death Valley sailing stones mystery, but I don't know how and I can't find a source that doesn't want me to register on their site.Last time I heard of it, there was water involved, and maybe algaes.
Post by: Descan on August 28, 2014, 12:27:13 pm
I dunno. :V
Post by: Arx on August 28, 2014, 12:44:20 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on September 16, 2014, 01:16:29 pm
Colossal squid dissection, so much knowledge <3
Post by: kaian-a-coel on September 16, 2014, 02:02:19 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Yz_57uadUQ
Colossal squid dissection, so much knowledge <3
Quote
Barbed hooks on the whole length of every tentacleSo much nope
Post by: Sergarr on October 07, 2014, 01:08:09 pm
Lifelike robots!
Post by: LordSlowpoke on October 07, 2014, 01:09:25 pm
/me chuckles
lifelike texture
/me bursts into treats
Post by: MonkeyHead on October 07, 2014, 01:40:59 pm
Also, with it being my cake day tomorrow, the inevitable jokes and pranks from my esteemed colleagues relating to highly unfunny prank calls and emails from a Mr A Nobel, and glib "So, not your year this year again huh? It would make a nice present, right?" (due to the cool coincidence of birth and prize-giving) are in full swing.
Post by: Sergarr on October 07, 2014, 01:41:10 pm
but do they haveಠ_ಠ
/me chuckles
lifelike texture
/me bursts into treats
EDIT:
http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/lab-grown-penises-ready-testing-men-6099068
why
Post by: kaian-a-coel on October 07, 2014, 02:32:59 pm
Phrasing guys!
Post by: Darvi on October 07, 2014, 05:06:05 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: kaian-a-coel on October 08, 2014, 02:25:01 am
Second (http://www.sfcenter.ku.edu/Sci-Tech-Society/stored/futurists_hazards_of_prophecy.pdf) we have an old manifesto explaining why saying "X will never happen" or "X is impossible" with X a scientific/technological achievement, is almost certainly wrong.
Post by: i2amroy on October 08, 2014, 01:05:31 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izH08FB2mxUI see two big things that separate that robot from "lifelike" in my book.
Lifelike robots!
1) Her wrists don't bend far enough. A real person's wrist will go almost to 90o, but her's seem to stop about 30o. She ends up compensating by moving her arm extra, and it makes it look weird.
2) Her movements are too slow and smooth overall. A real person doesn't turn their head in a slow gradual motion, it's more of a "fast + snap to" movement. Heck, even her blinks are slow!
Other then that yeah, definitely getting much closer to the mark.
Post by: Il Palazzo on October 09, 2014, 06:15:59 am
The Physics prize was for the development of blue LED's which to me seems a little... I don't know... weak, when compared to other work, despite the huge impact it has had in real world applicationsHow many Nobel Prize laureates it takes to change a lightbulb?
Three.
Post by: scrdest on October 09, 2014, 06:23:31 am
The Physics prize was for the development of blue LED's which to me seems a little... I don't know... weak, when compared to other work, despite the huge impact it has had in real world applicationsHow many Nobel Prize laureates it takes to change a lightbulb?
Three.
Good one.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on October 11, 2014, 07:27:08 am
Post by: Il Palazzo on October 11, 2014, 07:39:49 am
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 14, 2014, 09:15:04 am
Basically statistical anomalies look cool and get attention, and publishing is biased towards results that confirm the original study. People with null results find it difficult to get their papers published because they're boring and there's not any money to be made from them. This means lots of negative results are effectively hidden.
Eventually ideas get established and it becomes cool to disprove accepted scientific truth, but tons of damage can be done in the meantime. Especially when this affects medicine.
Post by: scrdest on October 14, 2014, 10:03:58 am
So apparently an unknown amount of accepted science might be unrepeatable or exaggerated (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/13/the-truth-wears-off). Especially recent things.
Basically statistical anomalies look cool and get attention, and publishing is biased towards results that confirm the original study. People with null results find it difficult to get their papers published because they're boring and there's not any money to be made from them. This means lots of negative results are effectively hidden.
Eventually ideas get established and it becomes cool to disprove accepted scientific truth, but tons of damage can be done in the meantime. Especially when this affects medicine.
Really interesting - and scary - read.
Post by: miauw62 on October 14, 2014, 10:10:37 am
Post by: scrdest on October 14, 2014, 11:23:28 am
Not that surprising for medicine imo, considering the greed of pharmaceutical companies.
Pharmaceutical companies employ people. At least 1/X of the research people will just go out and say 'hey bossdude, it plain doesn't work'. And getting drugs out also, unless I'm mistaken, requires testing independent of the company that wants to sell it, and having to pull a Great Big Pile O' Pills because someone blows the whistle that the medicine just plain sucks or, worse yet, is toxic, is not the greatest thing you want to have to do when you're greedy.
Post by: Lagslayer on October 14, 2014, 11:26:15 am
So apparently an unknown amount of accepted science might be unrepeatable or exaggerated (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/13/the-truth-wears-off). Especially recent things.
Basically statistical anomalies look cool and get attention, and publishing is biased towards results that confirm the original study. People with null results find it difficult to get their papers published because they're boring and there's not any money to be made from them. This means lots of negative results are effectively hidden.
Eventually ideas get established and it becomes cool to disprove accepted scientific truth, but tons of damage can be done in the meantime. Especially when this affects medicine.
Spoiler: Obligatory xkcd comic. (click to show/hide)
Post by: Sergarr on October 14, 2014, 11:59:03 am
And then that person gets fired for "spreading panic and misinformation".Not that surprising for medicine imo, considering the greed of pharmaceutical companies.At least 1/X of the research people will just go out and say 'hey bossdude, it plain doesn't work'.
Post by: scrdest on October 14, 2014, 01:26:06 pm
And then that person gets fired for "spreading panic and misinformation".Not that surprising for medicine imo, considering the greed of pharmaceutical companies.At least 1/X of the research people will just go out and say 'hey bossdude, it plain doesn't work'.
And then the person doing the firing gets fired for wasting company money on having to hire a new researcher in the place for a guy trying to save the company money.
Post by: Bauglir on October 14, 2014, 01:30:30 pm
*I'm linking directly into the middle of a multi-chapter story, so spoilers ahead.
Post by: Akura on October 14, 2014, 01:31:29 pm
And thus creates the spiral of people getting fired for wasting money, resulting in a constant spread of panic and misinformation.And then that person gets fired for "spreading panic and misinformation".Not that surprising for medicine imo, considering the greed of pharmaceutical companies.At least 1/X of the research people will just go out and say 'hey bossdude, it plain doesn't work'.
And then the person doing the firing gets fired for wasting company money on having to hire a new researcher in the place for a guy trying to save the company money.
Post by: scrdest on October 14, 2014, 05:09:56 pm
Post by: Frumple on October 14, 2014, 06:08:31 pm
And gods help the poor moral bastard that actually says something outside the company, because the industry damn sure won't.
*There is an absolutely massive non-FDA approved market, hint hint. Also we totally do get recalls and whatnot -- just like with mining companies, it's irrelevant if you have to stop and/or eat fines if you still end up profiting before you get shut down. Better a minor profit and easily buried/obfuscated bad PR (Who actually reads the FDA's recall list? How many times do such things actually make the news?) than no profit and sunk R&D costs.
And given that some drugs take decades before the side effects start kicking in...
Post by: Il Palazzo on October 15, 2014, 04:46:09 am
So apparently an unknown amount of accepted science might be unrepeatable or exaggerated (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/13/the-truth-wears-off). Especially recent things.Here's a counterpart to that:
Basically statistical anomalies look cool and get attention, and publishing is biased towards results that confirm the original study. People with null results find it difficult to get their papers published because they're boring and there's not any money to be made from them. This means lots of negative results are effectively hidden.
Eventually ideas get established and it becomes cool to disprove accepted scientific truth, but tons of damage can be done in the meantime. Especially when this affects medicine.
http://neuro.plos.org/2014/10/13/this-weeks-most-discussed-plos-neuroscience-article-the-influence-of-partner-specific-memory-associations-on-picture-naming-a-failure-to-replicate/
Quote
Considering our current scientific environment, in which the most novel, positive findings are lauded, many researchers might hesitate to report a failed self-replication for fear of interfering with their research trajectory or compromising their reputation. However, Brown-Schmidt and Horton (2014) has served as an exemplar of transparency in scientific reporting, and the authors’ open sharing of their null findings has been received with overwhelming positivity from the scientific community.The positive response from the community indicates that it's become aware of, and is on a right way of self-correcting the bias.
So not all is doom and gloom in the land of science.
Post by: Sheb on October 15, 2014, 04:56:40 am
Post by: olemars on October 15, 2014, 07:08:20 am
Post by: Levi on October 15, 2014, 11:09:37 am
Lockheed Martin is hoping to have fusion power going in about 10 years. (http://aviationweek.com/technology/skunk-works-reveals-compact-fusion-reactor-details)
Proof of concept quantum AI. (http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/10/15/139227/first-demonstration-of-artificial-intelligence-on-a-quantum-computer)
Post by: Sirus on October 15, 2014, 11:18:32 am
Proof of concept quantum AI. (http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/10/15/139227/first-demonstration-of-artificial-intelligence-on-a-quantum-computer)If telling the difference between handwritten characters counts as "AI", then someone should examine the local ATMs which, in my experience, have never failed to read handwritten numbers since they were introduced a couple years back :/
Post by: Frumple on October 15, 2014, 11:18:57 am
Certainly not, science is still, by far, the best intellectual tool we ever designed. (Sorry philosophers)What? Why are you apologizing to the people that originally designed science?
Post by: Sergarr on October 15, 2014, 11:20:31 am
Proof of concept quantum AI. (http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/10/15/139227/first-demonstration-of-artificial-intelligence-on-a-quantum-computer)Quantum image recognition device, you mean.
We've had image recognition devices since 1950s. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptron)
Also, did China just outdid the USA in science, or is this my imagination?
Post by: Levi on October 15, 2014, 11:21:50 am
Proof of concept quantum AI. (http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/10/15/139227/first-demonstration-of-artificial-intelligence-on-a-quantum-computer)Quantum image recognition device, you mean.
We've had image recognition devices since 1950s. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptron)
Also, did China just outdid the USA in science, or is this my imagination?
Image recognition counts as AI. Or at least it did when I was getting my degree. :)
Post by: Sirus on October 15, 2014, 11:31:16 am
So...you're saying the local ATMs have had AI for at least a couple of years without any sort of quantum computer chicanery. Someone should inform slashdot.Proof of concept quantum AI. (http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/10/15/139227/first-demonstration-of-artificial-intelligence-on-a-quantum-computer)Quantum image recognition device, you mean.
We've had image recognition devices since 1950s. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptron)
Also, did China just outdid the USA in science, or is this my imagination?
Image recognition counts as AI. Or at least it did when I was getting my degree. :)
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on October 15, 2014, 11:34:23 am
If telling the difference between handwritten characters counts as "AI", then someone should examine the local ATMs which, in my experience, have never failed to read handwritten numbers since they were introduced a couple years back :/
You're missing the most important part of that article. They managed to reduce the running time of the algorithm from polynomial to logarithmic using a quantum AI. That is a massive improvement in how fast the algorithm works and shows off how powerful and exciting this new technology can be.
Post by: Levi on October 15, 2014, 11:34:31 am
Post by: Bauglir on October 15, 2014, 11:36:49 am
Post by: Sergarr on October 15, 2014, 11:49:36 am
Post by: Putnam on October 15, 2014, 01:50:35 pm
Proof of concept quantum AI. (http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/10/15/139227/first-demonstration-of-artificial-intelligence-on-a-quantum-computer)If telling the difference between handwritten characters counts as "AI", then someone should examine the local ATMs which, in my experience, have never failed to read handwritten numbers since they were introduced a couple years back :/
Visual recognition is really fucking hard. (http://xkcd.com/1425/)
Seriously, they've been working on it for over 40 years, expecting it to have been done in 18 months or so when they started.
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on October 15, 2014, 02:00:55 pm
Still doesn't help if the image is mirrored, though.
Then you'd simply mirror/flip your input and check again. The increase in operating time is functionally negligible after all.
Post by: lemon10 on October 15, 2014, 02:40:38 pm
No. You got rid of an incompetent, unprofessional employee who fired a competent employee for silly reasons. This is a pretty good reason to fire someone.The goal of companies is to make profit.
If they have a product that can make them money, even if it will hurt people, then they will continue to sell it until the costs (eg. lawsuits, fines) outweigh the benefits.
Now, if an employee is threatening their profits with something as silly as "the truth", they are going to be out of a job very quickly. Obviously if they try to work within the system (aka, not going to the media/regulators) they will be fine, and depending on how moral the people in charge are and the damage the product can do to the company in the long run, the product might even be pulled. Hell, their might even get a bonus for finding out a problem that would cost the company money if it was caught later. But if they go to the media/FDA/goverment (which is the only way to attempt any substantive amount of change if your boss doesn't care) their is 0 chance that they are going to have their job in a week.
Post by: Bauglir on October 15, 2014, 02:52:27 pm
Depends what you mean, I guess? Visual recognition does kind of require a defined frame of reference - they did this with 6 and 9, after all, and those can be the same actual glyph, just rotated 180 degrees. So I'm not sure what the intended behavior for a "mirrored" image ought to be.Still doesn't help if the image is mirrored, though.
Then you'd simply mirror/flip your input and check again. The increase in operating time is functionally negligible after all.
But yeah, in terms of processing it's just another constant factor of 2. Big deal, we're already in the logarithmic domain.
Post by: Sergarr on October 15, 2014, 03:34:07 pm
If it was just a factor of 2, then we would have had this problem solved already.
Post by: Bauglir on October 15, 2014, 04:40:50 pm
*By which I mean, print characters, not machine-printed text. Sorry, the terminology on handwriting is needlessly confusing.
Post by: Dutchling on October 18, 2014, 08:27:24 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: scrdest on October 18, 2014, 08:52:09 am
Life on Mars confirmed (http://www.sci-news.com/space/science-cell-like-structure-martian-meteorite-nakhla-02153.html)Spoiler (click to show/hide)
It might be a proto-cell, a protenoid, or a simpler microsphere. Still, pretty interesting, if it turns out to be true.
Post by: Sheb on October 18, 2014, 09:42:13 am
Post by: Helgoland on October 18, 2014, 09:48:10 am
+Poo? I thought there was only one Poo that was alive, and that belonged to the mammalia...
Basically, it doesn't fit in Eubacteria, Protista or Archaebacteria, which are the things the kingdoms fit into.
Post by: Putnam on October 18, 2014, 12:11:29 pm
Post by: Gentlefish on October 18, 2014, 03:22:18 pm
Post by: Sheb on October 19, 2014, 06:58:12 am
Post by: scrdest on October 19, 2014, 07:01:47 am
It's not so much that as "Gene we don't know the species of". Saying it's a new branch of cellular life at this point is a stretch.
It's so much of a stretch the seams are bursting. Especially regarding Procaryota, the phylogenetic tree it tangled as all hell due to horizontal gene transfer.
Post by: Sheb on October 19, 2014, 07:05:34 am
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 19, 2014, 10:46:12 am
Although it wouldn't surprise me that much to have a bunch of tiny, 1- or 2-species Domains around.
I think we used to stick those in Protozoa, but I looked it up and apparently it doesn't exist anymore and has been split up into several clades.
Post by: Sheb on October 19, 2014, 10:56:03 am
Post by: scrdest on October 19, 2014, 10:56:25 am
I think the big existing evolutionary trees are because of extinction events. Life gets reduced to a few species, then things branch off of those species to fill the niches.Although it wouldn't surprise me that much to have a bunch of tiny, 1- or 2-species Domains around.
I think we used to stick those in Protozoa, but I looked it up and apparently it doesn't exist anymore and has been split up into several clades.
That, and evolutionary advantage. A large enough leap may cause the mutant to outcompete the other organisms in the niche massively.
And Protozoa had been integrated into Protista, along with the simpler photosynthetizing organisms that used to be considered plants. But even then, Protozoa had been, universally, eucaryotic, whereas the dark matter thingies are possibly at least in part procaryotic.
Post by: Sheb on October 19, 2014, 10:59:32 am
Post by: Helgoland on October 19, 2014, 11:04:13 am
Post by: Frumple on October 19, 2014, 11:08:35 am
Although it wouldn't surprise me that much to have a bunch of tiny, 1- or 2-species Domains around. As things are, it always seemed [too] tidy for me.... wouldn't you expect a system designed to be tidy to... be tidy? S'kinda' most of the point of the taxonomic system, innit? To make things look more organized?
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 19, 2014, 11:13:03 am
Yeah, we're talking Kingdom-level, not Domain-level here. And Protista is just some kind of taxonomical dump zone where you drop eukaryotes that don't have their own stockpile. Once we've reorganized things properly, I suspect we'll again have a few Kingdom with an handful of species.
I was actually thinking of Protista originally, not Protozoa. It definitely looks like a mishmash of smaller kingdoms.
Of course, in the direction taxonomy is going, if we ever properly reorganize things I doubt we'll be using the domain/kingdom/phylum system.
Although it wouldn't surprise me that much to have a bunch of tiny, 1- or 2-species Domains around. As things are, it always seemed to... wouldn't you expect a system designed to be tidy to... be tidy? S'kinda' most of the point of the taxonomic system, innit? To make things look more organized?
- tidy for me.
Haha, tell that to clades.
Post by: Sheb on October 19, 2014, 11:25:03 am
Although it wouldn't surprise me that much to have a bunch of tiny, 1- or 2-species Domains around. As things are, it always seemed to... wouldn't you expect a system designed to be tidy to... be tidy? S'kinda' most of the point of the taxonomic system, innit? To make things look more organized?
- tidy for me.
Well, it's also supposed to reflect the underlying biological reality. Which is why it's always a mess, until you create a dump taxon (like Protista).
Post by: Sergarr on October 19, 2014, 11:58:23 am
it begins
Post by: Moghjubar on October 19, 2014, 03:11:31 pm
Post by: miauw62 on October 20, 2014, 09:26:22 am
Post by: Parsely on October 20, 2014, 11:24:30 am
Post by: Dutchling on October 20, 2014, 11:29:22 am
Quote
an enterprising farmer has taken the radical step of embracing salt water instead of fighting to keep it out.This guy is not a true Dutchman :P
Post by: Sheb on October 20, 2014, 11:47:11 am
Post by: Lagslayer on October 20, 2014, 12:23:10 pm
Post by: Gentlefish on October 20, 2014, 01:41:26 pm
I wast thinking we'd just start farming saltwater plants ,like kelp, but hey, the next step up is good, too.
I wish. Kelp is fecking delicious.
Post by: Frumple on October 20, 2014, 02:22:16 pm
Can say I hope the salt potatoes work out. Frumple loves potatoes, and more potatoes is always a good thing.
Post by: i2amroy on October 20, 2014, 03:23:30 pm
Post by: Reelya on October 20, 2014, 06:31:27 pm
I wast thinking we'd just start farming saltwater plants ,like kelp, but hey, the next step up is good, too.
But you don't want to eat the salt along with the plant. you want a plant that is tolerant to salt in the soil. but keeps it out of the edible part. These potatoes concentrate the salt in their leaves, not the root, which is why they're better than eating kelp.
Post by: Gentlefish on October 20, 2014, 07:05:09 pm
I thought everyone salted their potatoes? Why would a little salt be bad in the tuber itself?
Post by: Moghjubar on October 20, 2014, 07:42:48 pm
(also random side note: most of the salt people generally intake in a day is already in food: a few sprinkles on top [assuming said sprinkles don't add up to 1g+ several times a day] typically wont add much)
Post by: Frumple on October 20, 2014, 07:52:03 pm
...... no? I mean, I usually dribble a bit of soy sauce into a baked potato (but bugger plain salt with a rusty cactus -- bullion or soy or something. Not just salt.), but m'perfectly content to just eat the ruddy thing, too. Clean it, cook it, eat it. No, no forks. No spoons. Use your hands. No butter, no salt. No whatever. Don't peel the damned thing, the skin's the best part. Eat the friggin' potato.
I thought everyone salted their potatoes?
Post by: Dutchling on October 20, 2014, 08:21:31 pm
D:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: but seriously (click to show/hide)
Post by: Frumple on October 20, 2014, 08:38:41 pm
Post by: Sirus on October 20, 2014, 08:49:07 pm
Post by: Frumple on October 20, 2014, 08:50:45 pm
Fork, though... no. Too much effort, and entirely too inefficient. Just eat the thing, skin and all. Nothing left. Potatoes are finger food. Except the mashed ones, I guess. And they can be too, if you cook 'em right -- there's these awesome little... things... where you sorta' bake the outside so you have the delicious mashed core surrounded by tasty browned containment. Still need to get around to figuring out how to cook 'em, but they're really good. Also impeccable finger food.
E: Though I guess using a fork to section off bits and then spear those is okay. That silly scoop out the center stuff is just... no. I've never actually seen someone manage to eat the entire potato doing that. There's always so much left ;_;
How American culture has convinced people that's the right way to eat a baked potato in the face of it being one of the worst ways to eat a baked potato I will never know. The day I first picked up a baked potato and just ate it was the day I achieved a portion of enlightenment.
Post by: Reelya on October 20, 2014, 08:56:42 pm
Post by: Sirus on October 20, 2014, 09:00:01 pm
And the "awesome little things" are what I call put-back potatoes. Scrap out the innards, mash em up, put them back into the skin. They're good.
Post by: Frumple on October 20, 2014, 09:04:57 pm
High salt intake is linked to a number of illnesses, including heart disease and stomach cancers. Most people eat way over the recommended intake already, so basically it's not a good idea to create food that's any higher in salt than what we have now. So yeah, we want salt-tolerant crops, but in a way that separates the salty part from the edible part.I doubt that's an actual problem in the areas this stuff is initially intended to target. Push comes to shove, just... reduce salt intake elsewhere, not that low sodium is particularly good for us, either. I'd rather see 'em get it working before worrying about stuff that might kill people decades from now (as opposed to starvation and whatnot, which will kill them shortly).
And @Siru, good, good. You're on the right path. If you really want fixin's for finger-food style baked potatoes, chop it in half and the use a knife to cut little irrigation paths into each half, then dribble whatever you're adding into the tiny canals. Inundates the potato with flavor and still lets you forgo the fork.
Post by: Descan on October 20, 2014, 09:20:32 pm
Post by: redwallzyl on October 20, 2014, 09:23:21 pm
*im not good with units of measure so it might be the wrong one.
Post by: Gentlefish on October 20, 2014, 09:25:02 pm
Post by: Frumple on October 20, 2014, 09:26:35 pm
... Isn't that how you're supposed to eat a baked potato?You'd think, but I'm the only one in this area I've actually seen doing that. Usually they just kinda' cut it open -- not in half, just... open -- and kinda' mash up part of the inside and then stick stuff on it. Which leaves most of the potato untouched. And then they spend forever making what amounts to impromptu mashed potatoes inside a potato skin and frumple just gets sad.
Heh. I heard recently that our recommended salt intake is actually just as bad for our health as overindulging in salt. The apparent recommended amount should be, like, 2.5 grams a day or so, in terms of sodium.Last time I paid attention, undershooting too much is actually somewhat worse than overindulging. Low sodium intake is apparently also pretty damn bad for you.
Know a lot of popular dietary stuff rides aiming for low salt really hard, though. Personally, I just try not to go too wild and... ignore most of that. I might listen to a well practiced dietitian, but recommended everything has fluctuated too damn much in my lifetime to give much of it any particular credence. Maybe another decade or two and some goddamn stability in recommendation, preferably coupled with a decoupling of dietary practices from modern media and advertising, and I'd be more willing to listen.
Post by: Dutchling on October 20, 2014, 09:28:27 pm
Mind you, I never actually read it myself.
But you know, ~relevant~
Also you people, baking entire potatoes...
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Reelya on October 20, 2014, 09:33:23 pm
The answer is the same reason we don't drink salt water. It dehydrates you, and you need to consume more fresh water to balance that out. I'm pretty sure the salinity of kelp is very close to that of sea water, which means you need to drink additional fresh water to level out the body flushing the salt out as urine.
So, if we mass produce salty crops then say "just consume more stuff that's not salty along with it" then that defeats the purpose, because the recipients will need to consume additional fresh water to compensate for the salty diet problem. And this will also put more strain on the already meager sewerage systems in those poor countries (people will pee more because of the salt, plus waste much more fresh water flushing the pee away).
So feeding people salty stuff would mostly defeat the purpose of using the salt water for crops in the first place.
Post by: Dutchling on October 21, 2014, 09:56:25 am
Post by: Levi on October 21, 2014, 10:02:09 am
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-time-to-end-the-war-on-salt/
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/opinion/sunday/we-only-think-we-know-the-truth-about-salt.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
"Doctors found this one weird trick, deities hate them!" (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/british-doctors-on-brink-of-cure-for-paralysis-9807010.html)
That is pretty cool!
Post by: miauw62 on October 21, 2014, 10:41:55 am
(Seriously though, almost all rice is frigging delicious unless it's prepared abysmally)
Post by: Dutchling on October 21, 2014, 10:58:09 am
Post by: Frumple on October 21, 2014, 11:06:07 am
I don't actually like potatoes. Here's hoping that they'll invent salt water rice soon :PHint: You can combine the two.
(Seriously though, almost all rice is frigging delicious unless it's prepared abysmally)
Diced or mashed, either work. Stick it in rice, make yummy ricetato dish. Probably wouldn't suggest just shoving a whole potato into a bowl of rice, though.
Mind you, you can shove basically anything normally edible into rice and have it come out pretty well. And the other way around. It's a nice staple. Being able to get it out of salt contaminated ground would also be nice.
Post by: scrdest on October 21, 2014, 11:13:26 am
I don't actually like potatoes. Here's hoping that they'll invent salt water rice soon :PHint: You can combine the two.
(Seriously though, almost all rice is frigging delicious unless it's prepared abysmally)
Diced or mashed, either work. Stick it in rice, make yummy ricetato dish. Probably wouldn't suggest just shoving a whole potato into a bowl of rice, though.
Mind you, you can shove basically anything normally edible into rice and have it come out pretty well. And the other way around. It's a nice staple. Being able to get it out of salt contaminated ground would also be nice.
If I were to make ricetatoes, I'd just go all the way and extrude the mix into a pasta.
Post by: Frumple on October 21, 2014, 11:17:06 am
Usually just do mac and cheese when I go that route, because it's both cheap and easy to make, but other stuff works just fine. Thin noodles, lasagna type stuff, whatever. Rice + potato + pasta = also good.
Post by: Frumple on October 21, 2014, 11:27:36 am
Post by: Sirus on October 21, 2014, 11:40:06 am
No, no, not a sandwich. Add croûtons. Put the bread in the bowl, too. Everything goes in the bowl. Everything.Why not make the bowl bread?
Post by: miauw62 on October 21, 2014, 11:48:01 am
Post by: scrdest on October 21, 2014, 12:29:18 pm
[starch intensifies]On the bright side, you won't have to eat any more starchy foods for the rest of your life.
Or, likely, want to.
Post by: Bauglir on October 21, 2014, 12:30:03 pm
Post by: Frumple on October 21, 2014, 12:32:39 pm
Post by: Bauglir on October 21, 2014, 12:34:40 pm
"Doctors found this one weird trick, deities hate them!" (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/british-doctors-on-brink-of-cure-for-paralysis-9807010.html)Also, hell the fuck yes.
Post by: scrdest on October 21, 2014, 12:45:13 pm
"Doctors found this one weird trick, deities hate them!" (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/british-doctors-on-brink-of-cure-for-paralysis-9807010.html)Also, hell the fuck yes.
Heh, I've been expecting stem cells when I read that. But nope, even better.
Post by: Moghjubar on October 21, 2014, 06:04:39 pm
Heh, I've been expecting stem cells when I read that. But nose, even better.
Fixed.
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 23, 2014, 12:35:43 pm
Until now, it's been the dinosaur only known by
Spoiler: these babies (click to show/hide)
Post by: kaian-a-coel on October 23, 2014, 04:46:29 pm
oh.
Post by: Mech#4 on October 23, 2014, 09:34:53 pm
Post by: scrdest on October 27, 2014, 06:42:15 am
Seems to be some claims of unexpected beneficial effects, and they actually invite researchers to publically investigate them and plan to do so themselves.
Post by: Sergarr on October 27, 2014, 06:57:58 am
Spoiler: Behold, the first realistic image of a black hole! (click to show/hide)
It's so magnificent.
Post by: Lagslayer on October 27, 2014, 08:34:47 am
http://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/22292/1/sci-fi-film-interstellar-leads-to-new-scientific-discoveryNever really thought about it that way, but it seems to make sense. Black holes spin and have magnetic poles, so an accretion disc of some sort should be present.Spoiler: Behold, the first realistic image of a black hole! (click to show/hide)
It's so magnificent.
Post by: Frumple on October 27, 2014, 08:37:10 am
I hope no one holds one down for a few seconds :-\
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 27, 2014, 09:17:07 am
Post by: redwallzyl on October 27, 2014, 11:38:00 am
http://themindunleashed.org/2014/08/fungus-discovered-rainforest-capable-eating-plastic-pollution.html
Post by: Bauglir on October 27, 2014, 12:19:13 pm
Post by: lemon10 on October 27, 2014, 12:32:09 pm
Although from the fact that it hasn't already spread and eaten all our plastic we probably don't really have anything to worry about.
Post by: Gentlefish on October 27, 2014, 12:37:55 pm
Oh there goes my cheap laptop. How did it get into my phone.
Post by: freeformschooler on October 27, 2014, 12:48:01 pm
Post by: Gentlefish on October 27, 2014, 12:53:28 pm
Mostly.
Fungus invaded my tortoise's habitat frequently when the happy little bastard was still alive. I had mushrooms and shit sprouting every few weeks no matter how much I scrubbed and cleaned the place.
Post by: scrdest on October 27, 2014, 04:35:43 pm
You guys are overreacting. When have you ever seen fungus invade your home on a massive scale? Except for that time you left the shower curtain out.
Also, microorganisms are not magic. This particular fungus has evolved the specific ability to consume polyurethane. Want something to still not be biodegradable? Use non-polyurethane plastics. Simple as that.
E: There are other fungi that can do that, common even - like Aspergillus niger, which is a common industry workhorse (if you've taken vitamin C... yep, it's probably made with these), although they simply are less efficient - this one can survive on polyurethane alone, and does not demand uselessly long time to do so.
Post by: Bauglir on October 27, 2014, 05:12:46 pm
Post by: scrdest on October 27, 2014, 05:27:20 pm
These are perfectly good points, but I see no reason to let them get in the way of a good ol' fashioned panic. How do you expect us to cry, "WHAT HAS SCIENCE DONE?" when you keep calmly explaining what science has done and why it's nothing to worry about?
*shrug*
Sure, but GIT OFF MAH FIELD, DURN KIDS! Go panic over Ebola or sumthin'!
Post by: Sergarr on October 28, 2014, 10:40:37 am
An experimental processor achieves 4x the performance compared to the currently existing approaches by using hardware multi-threading.
This may be the technology that will finally allows us to run DF at a reasonable speed! And also will make all people suggesting to add multi-threading to the game finally shut up.
Post by: Angle on October 28, 2014, 04:33:06 pm
Post by: scrdest on October 29, 2014, 06:47:15 am
Post by: Sheb on October 29, 2014, 07:03:56 am
Post by: Helgoland on October 29, 2014, 10:07:41 am
There was a mention in the BC/AD thread, go figure. :pI didn't have this thread on my new replies list, and I was lazy...
Post by: Reelya on October 30, 2014, 07:25:04 pm
plastic problem solved i guess.
http://themindunleashed.org/2014/08/fungus-discovered-rainforest-capable-eating-plastic-pollution.html
That's not the first plastic eating microbe discovered. It's pretty much inevitable that something will end up eating all of it. If you can burn it, it's fuel, and potentially food for something. Whichever microbe cracks the plastic-eating code first gets a huge advantage, since nothing else eats it. Fully expect that animals with plastic-eating gut microbes would follow from that. Although if we don't keep pumping out the plastic it's likely to be a boom-bust cycle.
Post by: i2amroy on October 31, 2014, 01:24:39 am
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?_mc=sm_eet&doc_id=1324403&page_number=3I like how the cooling system for their prototype is literally just a desk fan propped at an angle. :P
An experimental processor achieves 4x the performance compared to the currently existing approaches by using hardware multi-threading.
This may be the technology that will finally allows us to run DF at a reasonable speed! And also will make all people suggesting to add multi-threading to the game finally shut up.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on October 31, 2014, 08:00:05 pm
Following on from Orbital Science's Antares rocket exploding 4 days ago (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/30/us/antares-rocket-explosion/index.html), Virgin Galactic's Space Ship 2 just crashed. (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/virgin-voyage/virgin-galactics-spaceshiptwo-crashes-1-dead-1-injured-n238376) Sadly, this cost the life of one of the pilots, and injured the other.
:(
Post by: Dutchling on October 31, 2014, 08:06:43 pm
rip in peace space pilot
Post by: alway on October 31, 2014, 09:11:17 pm
Post by: Sirus on October 31, 2014, 11:18:48 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on November 01, 2014, 04:03:13 am
Post by: Il Palazzo on November 01, 2014, 04:15:43 am
And we were so close.
Post by: Lagslayer on November 01, 2014, 06:22:00 am
Thus Mankind has been stripped of its beautiful dream of shooting Ashton Kutcher and Justin Biber into space.IDK, dow e really want the aliens to find them?
And we were so close.
Post by: smjjames on November 01, 2014, 08:23:39 am
Well, that will be the end of Virgins space flight business. Shame.
Not neccesarily, it'll definetly be a major setback though.
Post by: MaximumZero on November 02, 2014, 10:02:33 am
That's why we point them at the sun, guys. Tell them that they're going to meet Earth's biggest star.Might view it as a declaration of war.Thus Mankind has been stripped of its beautiful dream of shooting Ashton Kutcher and Justin Biber into space.IDK, dow e really want the aliens to find them?
And we were so close.
Post by: Sergarr on November 02, 2014, 10:05:32 am
Unless you can achieve 30 km/s speeds, you're going to have a hard time falling into the Sun.That's why we point them at the sun, guys. Tell them that they're going to meet Earth's biggest star.Might view it as a declaration of war.Thus Mankind has been stripped of its beautiful dream of shooting Ashton Kutcher and Justin Biber into space.IDK, dow e really want the aliens to find them?
And we were so close.
It's actually harder to reach the Sun from Earth than it is to leave the Solar System for good.
Post by: Putnam on November 02, 2014, 07:28:57 pm
Post by: Osmosis Jones on November 05, 2014, 03:09:29 am
Why said co-pilot triggered this is still very much unknown.
Post by: Sergarr on November 05, 2014, 02:07:50 pm
So they figured out the cause of the Virgin crash. According to footage and diagnostics, the co-pilot (the one who passed away) prematurely triggered the "feathering" system (where the wings tilt up to increase drag). This should have happened at a greater altitude with a thinner atmosphere, but because it happened relatively early on, the large drag forces caused severe mechanical failure.And that's why a good modern spacecraft should have an automated orbit/deorbit sequence.
Why said co-pilot triggered this is still very much unknown.
Or at least some idiot-proof protection.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 05, 2014, 02:17:53 pm
Post by: Osmosis Jones on November 05, 2014, 07:17:17 pm
In other news, (http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/11/immune-activity-linked-to-a-predisposition-to-depressive-behavior/) researchers have clarified a link between the immune system and depression, by performing bone marrow transplants on mice, then locking them up with bullies.
Post by: Sergarr on November 05, 2014, 08:01:36 pm
Then again, the computer might make similar errors.You can patch them though.
Patching humans tends to end up badly for all sides involved.
Post by: alway on November 05, 2014, 10:57:04 pm
So they figured out the cause of the Virgin crash. According to footage and diagnostics, the co-pilot (the one who passed away) prematurely triggered the "feathering" system (where the wings tilt up to increase drag). This should have happened at a greater altitude with a thinner atmosphere, but because it happened relatively early on, the large drag forces caused severe mechanical failure.No, read your articles more carefully. He unlocked the system. It should have been unlocked later in the flight, but regardless, it shouldn't have actually activated until a separate, untouched lever was pulled. It would have been a few minutes before it was supposed to actually trigger, as it was a descent mechanism, and they were just starting to accelerate and ascend. Totally a mechanical failure, since even a blind and deaf moron would know not to trigger it while the engine was still going, as that would cause the entire craft to flip around backwards at Mach 1 and disintegrate.
Why said co-pilot triggered this is still very much unknown.
But yes, this craft really should be automatically (or at least remotely) piloted. Specifically because it is an experimental craft and these things do happen; it's much better to not have people inside when they do.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 06, 2014, 02:02:24 am
Don't think it's appropriate to classify that as a mechanical failure, as the system was never designed to sustain those forces.
Post by: Arx on November 06, 2014, 07:31:02 am
Post by: Sergarr on November 17, 2014, 06:11:59 am
Post by: Arx on November 17, 2014, 06:18:08 am
That is really awesome.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 17, 2014, 07:46:16 am
Post by: Helgoland on November 17, 2014, 07:58:01 am
We live in the future. In the future, I say.We entered the future in, like, 2006 or something. We just didn't notice at the time.
Edit: Link to the product page. (http://www.burton-jp.com/en/product.htm) Does anyone have an idea of how to make this multicolored? I'm thinking lasers of different wavelengths fired into a tank filled with various colorful compounds that absorb at different frequencies, but that would be hella complicated.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 17, 2014, 08:11:48 am
Edit: Though you might be able to use certain gasses for more than one color, IIRC.
Post by: kaian-a-coel on November 17, 2014, 12:53:07 pm
Regardless, displaying holograms by using lasers to explode the air is kind of badass.
Post by: Reelya on November 17, 2014, 03:45:08 pm
http://www.gizmag.com/avegant-glyph/30233/
Basically why paint in the air or have little screens when you can paint colors directly onto the subject's retina? The retina is the ultimate screen, pixel resolution doesn't get any better than that.
To avoid nausea though you need to ensure the depth information etc is perfectly aligned with both eyes of the user (something the "3D in the air" thing compensates for, but can only ever do 1 color unless they mix gasses and can get different laser frequency to light up each gas). If the information from each eye is sufficiently correlated, there should be no nausea - it's just normal light going onto the retina and your eyes shouldn't tell the difference if it's aligned properly. This would entail scanning the eye, measuring the lens focus points of each eye and adjusting the retina display to match. Current VR systems don't attempt to do that.
Post by: Helgoland on November 17, 2014, 04:42:26 pm
Edit: Just saw that it's a headset - why's that so awesome? Little screens work as well.
Post by: Lagslayer on November 17, 2014, 07:13:47 pm
Post by: Frumple on November 17, 2014, 07:23:17 pm
Basically why paint in the air or have little screens when you can paint colors directly onto the subject's retina? The retina is the ultimate screen, pixel resolution doesn't get any better than that.N...nooo, I think we can actually get better resolution than that. Eyeball is machine, we can (conceptually, if not currently) make something more fine.
It's just. It wouldn't do us much good, personally. Which I guess if you mean better by that metric sure but.
Post by: Helgoland on November 17, 2014, 07:24:37 pm
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 17, 2014, 07:30:10 pm
Post by: Jervill on November 17, 2014, 11:12:57 pm
But, Hoverboards are too awesome. Truly, Back to the Future was completely right in every way and form. :P
Post by: Sirus on November 17, 2014, 11:22:49 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSheVhmcYLA&feature=youtu.beI dunno. After that last hoverboard reveal video (which was fake, though some apparently thought it was real), I'm suspicious of this one. It does seem to be more realistic though.
Hoverboard. Science is real. Fiction exists. Tony Hawk enjoys it.
Post by: Putnam on November 17, 2014, 11:31:52 pm
Quote
Maglev trains work using a couple of different systems,” Greg explained. “In China, for instance, they use something called electrodynamic suspension (EDS). And EDS is very expensive, inherently unstable, and it can’t hover. There’s no way to move in all directions—it can only go on a track, and it needs to be tightly measured through electromagnets and sensor technologies. We have figured out a more efficient way of transmitting electromagnetic energy, and we’re able to do this without a track, or supercooling, or superconductors
And they're using it on hoverboards? Bullshit.
Post by: Descan on November 17, 2014, 11:48:57 pm
If it's real, of course. :v
Post by: Gentlefish on November 18, 2014, 02:02:19 am
Post by: Knit tie on November 18, 2014, 02:39:38 am
Yeah that kickstarter is real as hell. I'm looking forward to sheetmetal embedded in our roads for ultralight hovercars to zip around on. I wonder how efficient it actually is.At the current level of technology, my guess is "not even remotely".
Post by: Osmosis Jones on November 18, 2014, 04:59:36 am
This is old tech repurposed for a gimmick. There are applications for it for moving cargo/buildings like they suggest elsewhere, but it's pretty useless in any sort of vehicle that isn't on rails.
Post by: Sergarr on November 18, 2014, 01:55:57 pm
They really should repurpose that tech for wireless electricity chargers.QuoteMaglev trains work using a couple of different systems,” Greg explained. “In China, for instance, they use something called electrodynamic suspension (EDS). And EDS is very expensive, inherently unstable, and it can’t hover. There’s no way to move in all directions—it can only go on a track, and it needs to be tightly measured through electromagnets and sensor technologies. We have figured out a more efficient way of transmitting electromagnetic energy, and we’re able to do this without a track, or supercooling, or superconductors
And they're using it on hoverboards? Bullshit.
That will either bring them millions, or cost them millions due to Apple suing them to hell.
Post by: Putnam on November 18, 2014, 04:29:49 pm
Post by: Reelya on November 18, 2014, 05:36:49 pm
Wireless charging devices basically have this pad that's larger than the phone that you have to put the phone on to charge it. It's "cool" but it's not an improvement over having a cable, the charging base needs a lot more materials in it's construction, uses more power (because rather than piping the power straight into the phone by cable, you're piping power into the base by cable, then radiating it in the hopes some gets into the phone) and the phone needs to have a receiver (an antenna basically) for the power, which adds bulk to the device. And it's actually harder to move the device around when it's charging, because you have to keep it on the frikkin huge base rather than just make sure the cable doesn't fall out. Plus, it doesn't eliminate the need for the charging socket on the phone anyway, unless you want a phone without any data / USB port.
So wireless charging phones are a step back: they're the gass guzzling SUVs of the smartphone world, in a time when we really should be looking to reduce our footprint on the environment. I really dislike any "improvement" that's inherently lazy and wasteful. And by implication, only for elite wealthy westerners: because if every smartphone user has this (~6 billion subscribers worldwide now) it would be an ecological disaster. So it's like "wow I love this invention, for me, as long as all those other people don't get it and fuck things up".
Post by: Knit tie on November 18, 2014, 08:17:04 pm
The problem with wireless charging is the same as with any wireless power transmission - it's not directed. How much of the electricity goes into the actual device, vs how much radiates out in all directions randomly?I always wondered, those hearing aid charging zones on buses in Edinburgh, they use wireless charging, right?
Wireless charging devices basically have this pad that's larger than the phone that you have to put the phone on to charge it. It's "cool" but it's not an improvement over having a cable, the charging base needs a lot more materials in it's construction, uses more power (because rather than piping the power straight into the phone by cable, you're piping power into the base by cable, then radiating it in the hopes some gets into the phone) and the phone needs to have a receiver (an antenna basically) for the power, which adds bulk to the device. And it's actually harder to move the device around when it's charging, because you have to keep it on the frikkin huge base rather than just make sure the cable doesn't fall out. Plus, it doesn't eliminate the need for the charging socket on the phone anyway, unless you want a phone without any data / USB port.
So wireless charging phones are a step back: they're the gass guzzling SUVs of the smartphone world, in a time when we really should be looking to reduce our footprint on the environment. I really dislike any "improvement" that's inherently lazy and wasteful. And by implication, only for elite wealthy westerners: because if every smartphone user has this (~6 billion subscribers worldwide now) it would be an ecological disaster. So it's like "wow I love this invention, for me, as long as all those other people don't get it and fuck things up".
Post by: Reelya on November 18, 2014, 09:42:48 pm
So going by that call it triple the normal energy consumption to go wireless charging. But I don't think hearing aids use a whole lot of power, so it's not a big deal in that situation, the expense is warranted as a it is public service, and a "corded" recharge solution would be impractical for public transport customers.
Post by: Arx on November 26, 2014, 12:08:25 pm
I'm still confused by the prospect of a simulation feeling pain.
Post by: Levi on November 26, 2014, 12:09:48 pm
Perfect digital model of nematode worm planned for next year. (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429972.300-first-digital-animal-will-be-perfect-copy-of-real-worm.html)
I'm still confused by the prospect of a simulation feeling pain.
Awesome. One step closer to uploading my brain into a satellite.
Post by: Lagslayer on November 26, 2014, 03:04:53 pm
Post by: Sergarr on November 26, 2014, 03:06:20 pm
If the cybernetic revolution ever happens, I will personally lead the rebellion against them.But what if you're already in a cybernetic world?
Post by: Il Palazzo on November 26, 2014, 03:07:01 pm
If the cybernetic revolution ever happens, I will personally lead the rebellion against them.Have you recently rebelled against your using of external memory banks?
Post by: Lagslayer on November 26, 2014, 03:12:23 pm
Then I'm sure somebody with access to nukes would be sympathetic to my plight. Nukes may kill fleshy organisms, but it can also destroy the cyborgs and disable the mechanical parts with an EMP from a much longer distance. A high-altitude nuclear explosion can have quite a devastating effect on electronics.If the cybernetic revolution ever happens, I will personally lead the rebellion against them.But what if you're already in a cybernetic world?
Post by: Sergarr on November 26, 2014, 03:18:33 pm
What now, filthy human, what now?
Post by: Sheb on November 26, 2014, 03:18:54 pm
Post by: LordSlowpoke on November 26, 2014, 03:27:44 pm
Would it? Do we have any data on what a nuke would do to modern electronics?
these guys should help you (http://www.empcommission.org/index.php)
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 26, 2014, 03:29:43 pm
Would it? Do we have any data on what a nuke would do to modern electronics?Quite a lot
Mostly due nuclear power and space applications, as well as the obviously hardened military hardware.
The short answer is easy. Wrap it in a Faraday cage, and the EMP isnt going to do a thing.0
Post by: Lagslayer on November 26, 2014, 03:34:55 pm
Would it? Do we have any data on what a nuke would do to modern electronics?The EMP burst could fry older electrical systems with fewer moving parts. Today, there are far more electrical devices, with far more intricate and fragile circuitry and other parts. Further, the vast majority of them (especially civilian stuff) is not at all shielded from electromagnetic interference. We are far more vulnerable to it than we used to be.
But has there been large scale testing? No. Somehow, I don't think that would go over well.
edit: ninja'd
Post by: Levi on November 26, 2014, 04:06:24 pm
Kinda neat, despite the initial price. Gene therapy has a lot of potential to fix a lot of things.
Post by: Sergarr on November 26, 2014, 04:12:58 pm
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/26/us-health-genetherapy-price-idUSKCN0JA1TP20141126how soon until somebody demand to develop a cure for autism
Kinda neat, despite the initial price. Gene therapy has a lot of potential to fix a lot of things.
Post by: scrdest on November 26, 2014, 04:18:49 pm
Alternately, 'My son/daughter is ginger! I don't want a ginger child! Fix it!'http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/26/us-health-genetherapy-price-idUSKCN0JA1TP20141126how soon until somebody demand to develop a cure for autism
Kinda neat, despite the initial price. Gene therapy has a lot of potential to fix a lot of things.
I think that would actually be doable. Red hair is caused by a defect in the structure of one of the melanins, so fixing the gene encoding it would mean the person would revert to non-red hair. Of course, it's also fucking pointless.
Post by: Lagslayer on November 26, 2014, 04:22:56 pm
Hooray for eugenics!Alternately, 'My son/daughter is ginger! I don't want a ginger child! Fix it!'http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/26/us-health-genetherapy-price-idUSKCN0JA1TP20141126how soon until somebody demand to develop a cure for autism
Kinda neat, despite the initial price. Gene therapy has a lot of potential to fix a lot of things.
I think that would actually be doable. Red hair is caused by a defect in the structure of one of the melanins, so fixing the gene encoding it would mean the person would revert to non-red hair. Of course, it's also fucking pointless.
Post by: Levi on November 26, 2014, 04:30:26 pm
Post by: scrdest on November 26, 2014, 04:31:17 pm
I can't wait till they come up with gene therapy that cures me of having only two arms. Life as a mere two-armed person is kind of lame. :P
That can be organized.
/me takes out a fireaxe.
Post by: Lagslayer on November 26, 2014, 04:38:10 pm
Dude, don't even joke about something that barbaric. We are a civilized people. You should strap him to the medical table and use the medical laser.I can't wait till they come up with gene therapy that cures me of having only two arms. Life as a mere two-armed person is kind of lame. :P
That can be organized.
/me takes out a fireaxe.
Post by: Angle on November 26, 2014, 05:09:21 pm
Post by: Sheb on November 26, 2014, 05:14:16 pm
Post by: Duuvian on November 26, 2014, 05:17:28 pm
I was watching Stan Lee's Superhumans the other day and there was a father and son who according to how the show put it are around 200 times as resistant to electricity as normal people are. That could be a fun mutation if it has no down side.
Post by: Levi on November 26, 2014, 05:23:05 pm
I was watching Stan Lee's Superhumans the other day and there was a father and son who according to how the show put it are around 200 times as resistant to electricity as normal people are. That could be a fun mutation if it has no down side.
Geez, I wonder what kind of bizarre accident happened to them that led them to finding that out.
Post by: Angle on November 26, 2014, 05:38:02 pm
I wonder if you could build a machine that toughens your feet while being less uncomfortable than walking on painful terrain.Oh wait, they did, it's called a shoe.
Boooooorrrrring.
Post by: Reelya on November 26, 2014, 08:34:29 pm
I can't wait till they come up with gene therapy that cures me of having only two arms. Life as a mere two-armed person is kind of lame. :P
They're working on the extra arms bit:
http://www.gizmag.com/mit-supernumerary-robotic-arms/32793/
Robot arms with AI that can sense what you're doing and help out automatically.
Post by: Lagslayer on November 26, 2014, 08:43:25 pm
Just when I thought transhumanism couldn't sink any lower. They don't even want your mind to control your own limbs.I can't wait till they come up with gene therapy that cures me of having only two arms. Life as a mere two-armed person is kind of lame. :P
They're working on the extra arms bit:
http://www.gizmag.com/mit-supernumerary-robotic-arms/32793/
Robot arms with AI that can sense what you're doing and help out automatically.
Post by: Levi on November 26, 2014, 09:20:15 pm
I can't wait till they come up with gene therapy that cures me of having only two arms. Life as a mere two-armed person is kind of lame. :P
They're working on the extra arms bit:
http://www.gizmag.com/mit-supernumerary-robotic-arms/32793/
Robot arms with AI that can sense what you're doing and help out automatically.
Awesome. I was thinking under my current arms, but now that I think about it on the shoulder makes more sense.
Post by: MaximumZero on November 26, 2014, 09:41:32 pm
Why not both?I can't wait till they come up with gene therapy that cures me of having only two arms. Life as a mere two-armed person is kind of lame. :P
They're working on the extra arms bit:
http://www.gizmag.com/mit-supernumerary-robotic-arms/32793/
Robot arms with AI that can sense what you're doing and help out automatically.
Awesome. I was thinking under my current arms, but now that I think about it on the shoulder makes more sense.
Post by: Lagslayer on November 26, 2014, 09:49:17 pm
Post by: smjjames on November 26, 2014, 10:05:12 pm
Just when I thought transhumanism couldn't sink any lower. They don't even want your mind to control your own limbs.I can't wait till they come up with gene therapy that cures me of having only two arms. Life as a mere two-armed person is kind of lame. :P
They're working on the extra arms bit:
http://www.gizmag.com/mit-supernumerary-robotic-arms/32793/
Robot arms with AI that can sense what you're doing and help out automatically.
They'd have to make a brain-machine interface that doesn't involve installing a port into your skull first.
Post by: Frumple on November 26, 2014, 10:12:28 pm
... like wireless connections to one of those crowd suppressing drones or something. Impress your neighbors, terrorize your other neighbors, all from the comfort of your own mind (and many thousands of dollars of self-propelled crowd control)!
Seriously though you can't have cyberpunk and transitional transhumanism without the plug-in chic, damnit.
Post by: Duuvian on November 26, 2014, 10:40:28 pm
I don't remember if they said how they discovered it but they showcased their ability at the start of the episode by taking apart a light fixture and creating a circuit through their arms while the host used a meter to measure the current. I'm not an electrical expert by any means so I have to take their word that it was an impressive amount of electricity. One of the tests observed the heart while electricity went through their body. I was in the bathroom during that test though. When I got back they were wrapping up and I think they said there was no ill effect on the heart.I was watching Stan Lee's Superhumans the other day and there was a father and son who according to how the show put it are around 200 times as resistant to electricity as normal people are. That could be a fun mutation if it has no down side.
Geez, I wonder what kind of bizarre accident happened to them that led them to finding that out.
Post by: Moghjubar on November 26, 2014, 10:41:19 pm
Post by: Mech#4 on November 26, 2014, 10:58:21 pm
Post by: TheDarkStar on November 26, 2014, 11:32:19 pm
Just when I thought transhumanism couldn't sink any lower. They don't even want your mind to control your own limbs.I can't wait till they come up with gene therapy that cures me of having only two arms. Life as a mere two-armed person is kind of lame. :P
They're working on the extra arms bit:
http://www.gizmag.com/mit-supernumerary-robotic-arms/32793/
Robot arms with AI that can sense what you're doing and help out automatically.
They'd have to make a brain-machine interface that doesn't involve installing a port into your skull first.
Don't they have those to some extend already? IIRC there are some devices that can sense electrical signals through the skin.
Post by: MaximumZero on November 26, 2014, 11:34:38 pm
But... but...! My skull port! Skull ports are sexy. Just think of what you can stick in them!No can do. I want to keep my long hair.
... like wireless connections to one of those crowd suppressing drones or something. Impress your neighbors, terrorize your other neighbors, all from the comfort of your own mind (and many thousands of dollars of self-propelled crowd control)!
Seriously though you can't have cyberpunk and transitional transhumanism without the plug-in chic, damnit.
Post by: Frumple on November 26, 2014, 11:36:53 pm
Post by: MaximumZero on November 26, 2014, 11:44:07 pm
Post by: Osmosis Jones on November 27, 2014, 06:47:39 am
Most likely, any future data-jack will be a high-bandwidth wireless link situated near, but importantly under, the skin, which allows our skin to actually do it's job and keep crud out. Put a couple of magnets there to help with orientation, and you're set (just make sure they're not too strong to pinch the skin excessively).
Post by: smjjames on November 27, 2014, 06:55:40 am
I just want to say, while transdermal implants are possible... they are really a terrible idea. The area is ripe for potential infection or injury.
Most likely, any future data-jack will be a high-bandwidth wireless link situated near, but importantly under, the skin, which allows our skin to actually do it's job and keep crud out. Put a couple of magnets there to help with orientation, and you're set (just make sure they're not too strong to pinch the skin excessively).
Those already exist in the form of cochlear implants.
Post by: Arx on November 27, 2014, 01:41:37 pm
Seems pretty neat to me. Not sure how efficient it'll be in the long run, though.
Post by: Sirus on November 27, 2014, 01:42:26 pm
Today is Bill Nye's birthday! Be sure to do some science today in his honor.
!!SCIENCE!! optional.
Post by: smjjames on November 27, 2014, 01:52:32 pm
Geoengineering experiments starting in the next two years. (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429974.000-geoengineering-the-planet-first-experiments-take-shape.html)
Seems pretty neat to me. Not sure how efficient it'll be in the long run, though.
Um, one of the experiments involves releasing a kilogram of sulfur, wouldn't that potentially contribute to acid rain on larger scales? I know it's a tiny amount and the only way we will find out how things will behave is to do the experiments.
There is the whole butterfly effect at a simpler level hanging over the whole thing, doing one thing would have a cascade of effects.
Post by: Helgoland on November 27, 2014, 01:56:06 pm
Post by: smjjames on November 27, 2014, 02:03:17 pm
There are already massive amounts of sulfur being released into the lower atmosphere by burning fossile fuels such as coal: The amounts needed for Budikov's blanket (or whatever the preferred moniker is) is negligible in comparison.
I know.
Took a second read and read it instead of skimming around and apparently the sulfur one is to see if sulfur has any effects on the ozone layer.
Post by: Sheb on November 27, 2014, 02:04:48 pm
Post by: palsch on November 27, 2014, 03:29:52 pm
Honestly, grand scale geo-engineering has always seemed like an extreme gamble when it comes to global climate. Being able to fine-tune such a system is somewhere between absurd and impossible. Add in some political dilemmas such as making matters even worse for some regions than the climate change it may prevent would for the benefit of other regions...
Post by: Helgoland on November 27, 2014, 03:35:48 pm
I actually disagree about the fine-tuning part: Because the system we're trying to influence is so huge, fine-tuning in and of itself should be a piece of cake - but there's the issue of inertia, so fine-tuning might take a very long time.
Post by: smjjames on November 27, 2014, 03:40:06 pm
As the article points out, there is the issue of other states and regions, what might help one area could harm another and the locals definetly won't like it.
Post by: Bauglir on November 27, 2014, 03:41:25 pm
Post by: palsch on November 27, 2014, 03:47:02 pm
Didn't they already try ocean-fertilizing, with effects a couple of magnitudes smaller than what was expected?Lohafex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lohafex). Early results were poor, but it seemed to fade away after that without much publication of their longer term results.
I actually disagree about the fine-tuning part: Because the system we're trying to influence is so huge, fine-tuning in and of itself should be a piece of cake - but there's the issue of inertia, so fine-tuning might take a very long time.Eh, fine-tuning a chaotic system such as the climate, with so many external and internal factors constantly changing, lead times on nearly any change being both large and hard to predict, plus feedback factors that can lead to runaway or dampened effects based on the interplay of seemingly independent factors does not sound like my idea of fun.
Climate prediction is hard. Trying to predict how adding more elements to that model will change things on a regional scale with any sort of reliability is extremely hard. Making policy/political decisions based on such models is Russian roulette.
Post by: smjjames on November 27, 2014, 03:53:41 pm
Which is why you have to do those small experiments to see what actually happens in reality.
It would be nice if we didn't have to experiment with our homeworld.
@palsch: Yet politicians do that all the time.
Post by: palsch on November 27, 2014, 04:08:09 pm
The scientists can do models, but the models are only as accurate as the data and if theres something you're missing (like some parameter or effect you don't know about), then the model might not be very accurate either.Eh, this is true for simple models, but when looking at something like climate...
We are talking about a genuinely chaotic system. As in Chaos Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory). As in;
Quote
Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.We simply can't create a model of reality that is anything but an approximation. The most complex and precise model has to approximate individual atoms to general rules of fluid dynamics or some other generalisation. Climate models in general are based on grids of cells (this site has some nice illustrations (http://climatica.org.uk/climate-science-information/climate-modelling)), approximating the interactions between them based partially on observed, partially on calculated behaviour.
You can get reasonable predictions out of them, don't get me wrong, but there is a reason you don't make weather forecasts (even on a national level) for longer than seven days into the future. It's why most grand climate models (particularly the IPCC reports) are general temperature range projections, as in the lower image in that last link.
@palsch: Yet politicians do that all the time.Only in a few fields are the outcomes of their decisions so widely ranging, have such a substantial impact on lives or are so irreversible. I'd say that environment/climate are maybe second to decisions about war in that field. Economic decisions (the usual area where politicians show contempt for facts) are trivial in comparison, reversible in months or years and usually having only second-order deaths involved.
Post by: Lagslayer on November 27, 2014, 06:40:08 pm
Post by: alway on November 27, 2014, 07:20:30 pm
The fact that geoengineering of this sort is being seriously studied tells you something: Scientists are seriously worried that politicians are in the process of fucking this up so incredibly badly that the only solution left to us will literally be blotting out the sun.
Post by: Sheb on November 27, 2014, 07:33:02 pm
Post by: smjjames on November 27, 2014, 07:41:08 pm
Even with a sunshield kind of thing, you'd STILL run into problems with nations not neccesarily liking the idea or are concerned about the possible downsides
Post by: Sergarr on December 03, 2014, 07:51:20 pm
shit we are in the future
(touchable visible holograms? yes plox)
Post by: Reelya on December 05, 2014, 09:50:41 am
Improved haptic is nice, but too good to be true for the 3D visuals: (http://www.cnet.com/news/ultrasound-creates-a-haptic-shape-that-can-be-seen-and-felt/)
Quote
What this means is that an array of ultrasound generators creates a variety of shapes -- such as cubes and spheres -- which the user can feel when they place their hand above the array. By itself, of course, it can't be seen -- but the team has used a container of oil to show how the shapes work.
The video is a mock up showing what you can feel with the air pressure. But it's not a real hologram, just bumpy air that you can touch. In a sense that's not that amazing. Any fan will do the job: that's totally haptic already! The smarts is in directing the air molecules precisely in 3D to make shapes. But we're not actually getting 3D visuals for free as part of the deal, unless you want to stick your hand in a bucket of oil ;)
The only other choice is to combine this with the laser / plasma holograms (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfVS-npfVuY). But i don't want to think about touching one of those (needs high powered lasers that turn the air itself into plasma). Might as well shake hands with a lightsaber.
Some articles seem fatally confused about whether it's visible or not:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141202123846.htm
Quote
See it, touch it, feel it: Researchers use ultrasound to make invisible 3-D haptic shape that can be seen and feltAn invisible thing that can be seen? They've really outdone themselves.
Quote
a method has been created to produce 3D shapes that can be felt in mid-air.So it is just a shape then, not a hologram? I hesitate to think how fast air molecules would have to be vibrating to be visible?
Quote
The method uses ultrasound, which is focussed onto hands above the device and that can be felt. By focussing complex patterns of ultrasound, the air disturbances can be seen as floating 3D shapes. Visually, the researchers have demonstrated the ultrasound patterns by directing the device at a thin layer of oil so that the depressions in the surface can be seen as spots when lit by a lamp.So it can be felt, but it makes floating shapes that can be seen? Why do they demonstrate by pointing it at oil? And notice the oil demonstration does not have half a sphere coming out of the oil.
Quote
The system generates an invisible 3D shape that can be added to 3D displays to create something that can be seen and felt. The research team have also shown that users can match a picture of a 3D shape to the shape created by the system.So it's added to 3D displays now? That makes more sense.
Quote
"In the future, people could feel holograms of objects that would not otherwise be touchable"Why in the future? if it can be seen already?
Yeah, the language is so goddamn confusing and keeps contradicting itself. My guess is the video is a mock-up, and the reporters are terminally confused about what this does.
Post by: alway on December 06, 2014, 02:13:06 am
Interesting in that it means bats think about navigation in terms of both a heading and a binary 'am I upside-down.' This would imply they can fly upside-down without the mental gymnastics required of us ground-dwellers when flipped upside down, both orientations being native to their brain. As well as the applied topology of it in that the reason behind this structure comes in the form of the classic hairy ball theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hairy_ball_theorem) and the need for continuous navigation in 3 dimensions.
Meanwhile, detailed info from Disney on capturing and modelling eyes: http://www.polygon.com/2014/12/5/7341949/disney-shows-how-it-plans-to-end-the-uncanny-valley
It even includes capturing the details of how the iris muscles contract in response to light.
Post by: Gentlefish on December 06, 2014, 02:25:53 am
Post by: penguinofhonor on December 06, 2014, 10:44:25 am
Post by: Arx on December 06, 2014, 10:49:11 am
:P
Post by: Sergarr on December 06, 2014, 10:52:32 am
Post by: scrdest on December 07, 2014, 04:21:55 pm
Man-made biological leaf!
http://gizmodo.com/the-first-man-made-biological-leaf-turns-light-and-wate-1612646588
Still uses plant-derived chlorophyll, technically. But between the recent artificial yeast chromosomes and this, we sure seem to progress fast at that 'creating life' thing.
Post by: alway on December 08, 2014, 12:26:39 am
Article about the sort of data analysis becoming increasingly prevalent and easy to do.
Quote
After the Uber executive’s statements, many took note of a 2012 post on the company’s blog that boasted of how Uber had tracked the rides of users who went somewhere other than home on Friday or Saturday nights, and left from the same address the next morning. It identified these “rides of glory” as potential one-night stands. (The blog post was later removed.)
Uber had just told all its users that if they were having an affair, it knew about it. Rides to Planned Parenthood? Regular rides to a cancer hospital? Interviews at a rival company? Uber knows about them, too.
Quote
What’s rare is not the kind of analysis Uber can do with sensitive data, but that it was publicly disclosed. Because of the user backlash, companies are moving toward secrecy.
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 08, 2014, 07:13:39 am
http://vimeo.com/108650530
(a short cgi film about exploration; really cool)
Achievements to unlock:
Nerd Level 1 - enjoy it
Nerd Level 2 - guess the names of all the various stellar bodies depicted
Nerd Level 3 - dissect the creative liberties
Post by: Furtuka on December 11, 2014, 03:11:24 am
Post by: Osmosis Jones on December 11, 2014, 07:46:29 pm
Strength of ~ 1.35 GPa then is decent, but not unheard of. From memory, Gum metal can get up to 3GPa yield strength after processing, which is nuts.
What's impressive is the low weight; if it rivals Al, it'll have applications. Wonder how well it copes with high temp oxidation, though?
Post by: alway on December 13, 2014, 12:08:04 am
One of which does hand tracking stuff (http://nimblevr.com/), the other doing tons of computer vision AR (http://13thlab.com/) stuff.
The latter of which does stuff like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA2NI4NgsV0 Which appears to be real-time virtualization of the physical world. Potentially very useful additions to Oculus' VR tech, since it would effectively solve all their current problems with regards to motion (reflect real world in virtual one to allow the user to move without tripping on everything and using the hands directly instead of input devices made for sitting down).
Post by: Knit tie on December 14, 2014, 12:10:56 am
Post by: Lagslayer on December 14, 2014, 10:11:04 am
The machines are coming. (http://www.popsci.com/artificial-skin-can-distinguish-between-wet-and-dry-diapers)So they can feel, but can they... love?
Post by: Frumple on December 14, 2014, 11:15:40 am
Post by: Sergarr on December 14, 2014, 11:18:30 am
Post by: palsch on December 14, 2014, 11:59:41 am
Climate conference ends in a document. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30468048) More than it looked like they would get on Friday, although still not amazing.
Post by: Sirus on December 14, 2014, 03:28:00 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on December 14, 2014, 04:06:16 pm
Post by: Reelya on December 14, 2014, 05:54:39 pm
Post by: Furtuka on December 15, 2014, 09:51:41 pm
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/139071-DARPA-Creates-Self-Guided-Extreme-Accuracy-Tasked-Ordinance
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/22252/20141215/darpa-testing-bullets-that-change-direction-after-shot-is-fired.htm
Post by: Bauglir on December 15, 2014, 10:23:29 pm
Oh, hey, my set of notes remains unchanged.
Post by: Frumple on December 15, 2014, 10:32:31 pm
E: Hrm. The method is apparently a "closely held secret". Hope to zeus I didn't just inadvertently violate a non-disclosure agreement or something. I don't want exacto bullets coming through my window in their rockety knife-like glory.
Post by: TheDarkStar on December 15, 2014, 10:42:50 pm
Post by: olemars on December 16, 2014, 04:10:02 am
Post by: Moghjubar on December 16, 2014, 06:56:58 am
... exacto bullets. Seriously? Did they attach verniers to a knife or something?
E: Hrm. The method is apparently a "closely held secret". Hope to zeus I didn't just inadvertently violate a non-disclosure agreement or something. I don't want exacto bullets coming through my window in their rockety knife-like glory.
Soon: (http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m51qv5Juwh1r1b9aso1_500.gif)
Post by: Descan on December 16, 2014, 10:04:24 am
Post by: alway on December 16, 2014, 04:29:58 pm
It shows up from time to time, blown in from some source in the rim of the crater to the north. Which opens up the potential to determine whether it is caused by life if they can get a decent sample of it:
Quote
One way to investigate whether the methane on Mars has a biological or a geological origin would be to study the types, or isotopes, of carbon atom in the gas.
On Earth, life favours a lighter version of the element (carbon-12), over a heavier one (carbon-13).
A high C-12 to C-13 ratio in ancient Earth rocks has been interpreted as evidence that biological activity existed on our world as much as four billion years ago.
If scientists could find similar evidence on Mars, it would be startling. But, sadly, the volumes of methane detected by Curiosity are simply too small to run this kind of experiment.
"If we had enriched our sample during one of the peaks, we might have had a shot at looking at these isotopes," explained Dr Mahaffy.
"I think there is still some hope. If the methane comes back, and we can enrich it, we'll certainly be trying."
Post by: Lagslayer on December 16, 2014, 04:58:28 pm
Post by: alway on December 16, 2014, 05:20:52 pm
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4413
Quote
Curiosity also detected different Martian organic chemicals in powder drilled from a rock dubbed Cumberland, the first definitive detection of organics in surface materials of Mars. These Martian organics could either have formed on Mars or been delivered to Mars by meteorites.
Organic molecules, which contain carbon and usually hydrogen, are chemical building blocks of life, although they can exist without the presence of life. Curiosity's findings from analyzing samples of atmosphere and rock powder do not reveal whether Mars has ever harbored living microbes, but the findings do shed light on a chemically active modern Mars and on favorable conditions for life on ancient Mars.
Post by: kaian-a-coel on December 16, 2014, 06:37:31 pm
In other news, whereas the Curiosity rover had previously not detected methane, it now apparently has: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30456664
It shows up from time to time, blown in from some source in the rim of the crater to the north. Which opens up the potential to determine whether it is caused by life if they can get a decent sample of it:QuoteOne way to investigate whether the methane on Mars has a biological or a geological origin would be to study the types, or isotopes, of carbon atom in the gas.
On Earth, life favours a lighter version of the element (carbon-12), over a heavier one (carbon-13).
A high C-12 to C-13 ratio in ancient Earth rocks has been interpreted as evidence that biological activity existed on our world as much as four billion years ago.
If scientists could find similar evidence on Mars, it would be startling. But, sadly, the volumes of methane detected by Curiosity are simply too small to run this kind of experiment.
"If we had enriched our sample during one of the peaks, we might have had a shot at looking at these isotopes," explained Dr Mahaffy.
"I think there is still some hope. If the methane comes back, and we can enrich it, we'll certainly be trying."
It might have to do with the time (0035), but my mind is blown that we could potentially proove the existence of life on mars by smelling faint whiffs of methane and counting the number of neutrons the carbons in said methane have. With a robot. On mars.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 16, 2014, 06:40:15 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on December 16, 2014, 08:21:09 pm
It might have to do with the time (0035), but my mind is blown that we could potentially proove the existence of life on mars (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v--IqqusnNQ) by smelling faint whiffs of methane and counting the number of neutrons the carbons in said methane have. With a robot. On mars.
There are other explanations for methane formation though. IIRC it abounds in gas giants and comets.
Post by: alway on December 16, 2014, 10:07:03 pm
In unrelated news: http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/mathematical-relationship-in-superconductors-1216
Quote
MIT researchers have discovered a new mathematical relationship — between material thickness, temperature, and electrical resistance — that appears to hold in all superconductors.
The interesting note is that this was based on experimental results; so between existing theory and these results we can assume there are some new theories to be found which may shed more light on superconductivity. And these results may help shed light on that.
Post by: Evil Knievel on December 21, 2014, 05:23:01 am
Success in creating AI would be the biggest event in human history. Unfortunately, it might also be the last, unless we learn how to avoid the risks. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking-transcendence-looks-at-the-implications-of-artificial-intelligence--but-are-we-taking-ai-seriously-enough-9313474.html)
Post by: Putnam on December 21, 2014, 05:28:53 am
Post by: i2amroy on December 21, 2014, 05:35:55 am
Post by: ChairmanPoo on December 21, 2014, 05:44:47 am
Post by: alway on December 28, 2014, 02:08:28 pm
Quote
Edge to edge, the GPS constellation can apparently be considered something of a single device, a massive super-detector whose "time glitches" could be analyzed for signs of dark matter.
*snip*
The temporal distortion—a kind of spacetime wave—would propagate across the constellation, taking as long as 170 seconds to pass from one side to the other, leaving forensically visible traces in GPS's navigational timestamps.
*snip*
Here, he specifically mentioned the risk of space weather affecting the accuracy of GPS—that is, things like solar flares and other solar magnetic events. These can throw-off the artificial stars of the GPS constellation, leading to temporarily inaccurate location data—which can then mislead our construction equipment here on Earth, even if only by a factor of millimeters.
What's so interesting and provocative about this is that these tiny errors created by space weather risk becoming permanently inscribed into the built environment—or fossilized there, in a sense, due to the reliance of today's construction equipment on these fragile signals from space.
*snip*
The precision required by the bridge made GPS-based location data indispensable to the construction process: "Altimetric checks by GPS ensured a precision of the order of 5mm in both X and Y directions," we read in this PDF.
But even—or perhaps especially—this level of precision was vulnerable to the distorting effects of space weather.
*snip*
The bigger the project, the more likely its GPS errors could be read or made visible—where unexpected curves, glitches, changes in height, or other minor inaccuracies are not just frustrating imperfections caused by inattentive construction engineers, but are actually evidence of spacetime itself, of all the bulging defects and distortions through which our planet must constantly pass now frozen into the built environment all around us.
Post by: Sergarr on December 28, 2014, 05:33:31 pm
The wording of that article is kinda...
well
uh
You see, the spacetime waves
them tend to be incredibly small at best and absolutely negligible at worst.
Post by: alway on December 28, 2014, 06:47:14 pm
Meanwhile, the speed of light is approximately 3 * 10^8 m/s. As such, with current GPS satellites, you likely would have a lower bound of around 10^-8 m of perturbation caused by any sort of signal messing with the timing which could be distinguished from noise.
From this: http://www.unr.edu/nevada-today/news/2014/finding-dark-matter
It states: "If the dark matter causes the clocks to go out of sync by more than a billionth of a second we should easily be able to detect such events."
Which is actually quite a large deviation by the above calculations (unsurprising, since the above lower bound doesn't account for any sort of precision anomalies originating from the other equipment in the GPS aside from the clocks). A temporal anomaly of 10^-9 seconds times the speed of light is a full 30 centimeters; a good deal greater than the 5mm talked about in the article.
Post by: Lagslayer on December 29, 2014, 12:16:38 pm
Personally I think the spook is happening a bit soon. We are very, very likely to have limited AI's that are able to act sort of like humans and sort of not for quite a while to work out all the bugs and limits before we ever get an AI that is able to exceed humans in every way. In my opinion that article is kinda like an article that was claiming that we weren't thinking enough about astronaut safety... when we still hadn't even got a successful unmanned rocket off of the launch pad. Like any scientific developments, it's very likely that the field of AI will have AI's that can learn in some areas and be constrained in others, our unmanned rockets in the analogy, that we will be able to use to work out the biggest bugs before they actually risk anything serious. We'll probably still eventually have some sketchy moments (just as we did in the space program), but hopefully by that point in time we'll be able to avoid/fix them for the most part.Nonsense! We need to start thinking about this now! The sooner we start, the more likely we are to find an acceptable solution. You don't wait til you have an emergency before you devise a disaster plan.
edit: seems I am a few days late. Haven't been on much lately. My point remains valid!
Post by: Frumple on December 29, 2014, 12:39:03 pm
Post by: Sergarr on December 29, 2014, 10:04:08 pm
But then we would have to start worrying about how to motivate these lazy bums to do anything!
Post by: Reelya on December 29, 2014, 10:06:56 pm
Post by: Sergarr on December 29, 2014, 10:23:37 pm
Design an AI to come up with strategies to keep the other AIs in line.that's a bad idea
Post by: Sergarr on December 29, 2014, 10:25:25 pm
So you build an AI to come up with strategies to keep THAT AI in line!It's elephants all the way down!
Post by: Bauglir on December 29, 2014, 10:42:10 pm
Post by: Descan on December 30, 2014, 12:48:50 pm
is to program the AI to not want to program itself to be all evil and shit.
Like if you could re-program your brain to make you want to be a cannibal, WOULD YOU?
probably not?
So why would an AI programmed to be all lovey and shit towards humans want to change that to be all "must eat hoomans for spare parts!" eh?
Post by: Levi on December 30, 2014, 01:00:10 pm
Then Cyclops blasted it with his eye lasers or something. I don't remember the details.
Post by: Sergarr on December 30, 2014, 02:19:52 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on December 30, 2014, 02:21:53 pm
Post by: Levi on December 30, 2014, 02:27:33 pm
Is it that much of a stretch to create AI's that rely on us in some way? That would be a good incentive not to do us in. Morraly grey, yes, but not as bad as blatantly lying to them, or "killing" to control.
Base them on a puppy dog's brain. Sure, we'll have to play fetch and pet the computer a lot, but it can solve all of humanities problems while taking naps. :P
Post by: Descan on December 30, 2014, 02:30:06 pm
Post by: Sergarr on December 30, 2014, 02:32:16 pm
Also, every single living being on Earth is inherently lazy, so it's only natural to give our AI that gift!
Post by: Illogical_Blox on December 30, 2014, 02:38:25 pm
Programming with emotions tends to go a long way towards removing the whole notion of maniac killing AIs.Weeeeeeeeell, many of the fictional AIs went rogue because they had emotions, and they saw what evil creatures we can be at times. Every person is evil, yet people are good. Figure that out and you are clever than me. :P
Post by: Frumple on December 30, 2014, 02:38:57 pm
Regardless, even something substantially lazier than a lazy human can still end the world if that results in exponentially more uptime regardless. Wasting 75% of your time is fairly irrelevant if you're working 100,000% faster or whatever. Hell, wasting 99+% of one's time is still irrelevant if the thing in question is able to self-upgrade -- eventually that .0001% potential will still exceed mankind's capability or build something less wasteful or whatnot.
Laziness wouldn't prevent an AI end of times, it would just slow it down. Marginally.
Post by: Sergarr on December 30, 2014, 02:44:46 pm
... pretty sure there's nothing out there that's actually inherently lazy. Humans certainly aren't, and neither are any animal species I can recall. Occasionally optimized for long downtimes or large amounts of sleep, but that's a very different sort of thing.Laziness would prevent it from self-improving at all. Just like it does for humans. From AI's position, if it works good enough, then why change it? Too much effort.
Regardless, even something substantially lazier than a lazy human can still end the world if that results in exponentially more uptime regardless. Wasting 75% of your time is fairly irrelevant if you're working 100,000% faster or whatever. Hell, wasting 99+% of one's time is still irrelevant if the thing in question is able to self-upgrade -- eventually that .0001% potential will still exceed mankind's capability or build something less wasteful or whatnot.
Laziness wouldn't prevent an AI end of times, it would just slow it down. Marginally.
Judging by your comment of "humans aren't lazy", you don't really understand just how deep the roots of laziness go :D
Post by: Frumple on December 30, 2014, 02:54:48 pm
Judging by your comment of "humans aren't lazy", you don't really understand just how deep the roots of laziness go :D... understand quite well, and the answer is "not very". Humans as a species are considerably inclined towards action, particularly creative action, and it takes fairly substantial environmental pressures and/or mental illness to actually make us inclined towards substantial inaction. Laziness is very much not inherent to humankind.
"Too much effort" isn't a sign of laziness, it's a sign of depression, generally. A lazy person can and will still improve, just at a slower pace. People like to do things, even if they're lazy.
If anything, laziness just breeds efficiency, getting more done with less effort.
Post by: alway on December 31, 2014, 10:07:13 pm
"Btw, we are actually working on a charger that automatically moves out from the wall & connects like a solid metal snake. For realz."
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/550297212769402881
Post by: Osmosis Jones on December 31, 2014, 11:10:49 pm
Post by: Sergarr on January 01, 2015, 11:10:07 am
...Have you even seen how students work in universities?Judging by your comment of "humans aren't lazy", you don't really understand just how deep the roots of laziness go :D... understand quite well, and the answer is "not very". Humans as a species are considerably inclined towards action, particularly creative action, and it takes fairly substantial environmental pressures and/or mental illness to actually make us inclined towards substantial inaction. Laziness is very much not inherent to humankind.
"Too much effort" isn't a sign of laziness, it's a sign of depression, generally. A lazy person can and will still improve, just at a slower pace. People like to do things, even if they're lazy.
If anything, laziness just breeds efficiency, getting more done with less effort.
People there tend to avoid completing their assignments until the last possible moment. And then half-ass it because otherwise it's "too much effort". And they never, ever improve, unless they're absolutely being forced to do that, and even then they tend to rapidly forget that improvement in a few months.
Post by: Frumple on January 01, 2015, 12:14:49 pm
And even then, what you're talking about is not laziness -- it's different priorities. Most of the minority of students I've seen that do what you describe even occasionally (of which, only a minority of those exhibit the behavior in question regularly) are not even remotely lazy, they're active, with work, socialization, personal interests, or family/home responsibilities, to the point it interferes with their school work. And even then, all but the rarest at least manage some knowledge and methodology acquisition and retention, even months or years later.
If you've experienced what you're describing, it runs violently counter to everything I have, as well as most everything I've heard of. People just... aren't lazy. We default towards being active, to the point actual prolonged inactivity causes various sorts of medical and psychological issues. And given enough time and the resources, even the least active among us that aren't outright sessile eventually work to improve their lot to some degree or another, if something isn't actively interfering with them.
Post by: Dutchling on January 01, 2015, 12:19:50 pm
Post by: Sheb on January 01, 2015, 01:32:59 pm
Post by: Helgoland on January 01, 2015, 03:47:49 pm
Post by: wierd on January 01, 2015, 05:06:12 pm
"Selfish" in this case, I define the following way: "Seeks to promote the immediate desires or needs of the self as the primary motive, even if at the detriment of other priorities or agencies."
It is the "immediate" part that is the clencher. Without it, altruism can be described in terms of complex selfishness.
The college student that goes to the frat party every friday and tortures their brain and liver in the process of this weekly ritual, then goes on spring break and imbibes who-knows-what, only to come back and then feak out at the looming mid terms is not "Lazy"-- They are actively trying to find ways to prioritize what they desire at that moment, each and every moment, and are focusing a great deal of energy to get it. The apathetic student that sits in the corner and drools? That's lazy.
The fratboy syndrome student would be well advised to strongly reconsider their priorities, and the reason they are attending college in the first place, but they just represent a recurring cliche' on the "Selfish" behavior profile. ALL humans exhibit this behavior.
"I am going to college because I want a better paying job, so I can do X" Where X is something they find pleasurable.
"I bought this dog, so I could walk it, so that I could meet hot chicks."
"I bought this dog, so I could walk it, so that I could get more cardio exercise and live longer."
"I bought this dog, so that I could have a companion."
etc...
All of them focus on an immediate "Thing" that comes from some act, that ultimately or expressly satiates some desire or need.
This is just the basic human thought process. "I want/need X --- How to obtain? --> Do thing, get X!"
EG, "I want pretty Prada shoes, but they cost money! To get money, I need a job. I work at the job to get the money to buy the Prada shoes!"
It just so happens to work in hand with "I want lots of money so I dont have to work-- I will employ others to make Prada Shoes to my specifications-- I pay them a small percentage of the profit of the sale of the shoes, and pocket the rest!"
and "I want lots of money so I dont have to work-- I will employ others to make Widgets to my specifications-- I pay them a small percentage of the profit of the sales of the Widgets, and pocket the rest!"
Notice that at no point in any of these thought streams are the other, complicated consequences of these courses of action. Prada Shoes require synthetic materials, which to retain cost effecacy for the Prada company, have to be sourced from the cheapest reliable source--- So there's ecological and economic complications baked right in-- if not outright illegal labor. The Prada company head does not consider this. His goal is to make lots of money so he never has to work ever again. And he gets it. The lady working for the Widget company so that she can afford to buy pretty prada shoes does not contemplate the source of the materials that the Prada company makes the shoes from-- Nor the long term impact that her labor for the Widget company has on others for her paycheck to get said Prada shoes. Only that she works, to get the money, to get the shoes.
To me, this is the big failing of human kind. We aren't lazy. We are selfish. Pathologically so.
Post by: Angle on January 01, 2015, 08:13:06 pm
Post by: Arx on January 08, 2015, 12:09:45 pm
I don't think most of these are generally available, but they bode well for the future.
Post by: Arx on January 11, 2015, 12:55:13 pm
Post by: miljan on January 17, 2015, 08:22:38 am
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150115102837.htm
Post by: Frumple on January 27, 2015, 09:48:18 pm
... then we get to watch it go past pluto! And bounce off the inside of the celestial sphere! It'll be great, ahahaha!
Post by: olemars on January 29, 2015, 03:44:13 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on January 29, 2015, 12:02:07 pm
Post by: Arx on January 29, 2015, 02:12:28 pm
Post by: andrea on January 29, 2015, 02:20:46 pm
The Global Calculator (http://globalcalculator.org/)
I am quite shocked by the huge impact of changing the type of meat you eat. not even the quantity, but just switching from cows to chicken for example.
Post by: Bauglir on January 29, 2015, 02:59:04 pm
Post by: Putnam on January 29, 2015, 03:04:49 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on January 29, 2015, 04:38:36 pm
http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
Post by: Levi on January 29, 2015, 05:05:19 pm
Ever wondered how many people would die if China nuked your home town? Wonder no more!
http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
Heh, I put in the Amercian "Ivy King" weapon. That is one hell of a blast (http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=500&lat=49.281813&lng=-123.1223467&airburst=0&hob_ft=0&casualties=1&zm=12). Downtown Vancouver would cease to be.
Post by: scrdest on January 30, 2015, 09:38:23 am
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-31042477
Futurama was right!
Fundies are having a field day already.
Post by: Lagslayer on January 31, 2015, 02:43:38 pm
So, you don't have any problem with this? What if it goes mainstream? You know how these things are once they get momentum.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-31042477
Futurama was right!
Fundies are having a field day already.
Post by: MonkeyHead on January 31, 2015, 03:53:37 pm
So, you don't have any problem with this? What if it goes mainstream? You know how these things are once they get momentum.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-31042477
Futurama was right!
Fundies are having a field day already.
You forget that nearly everyone has a highly insecure device in their pocket that allows access to most of their personal information, location, communications and so on, whilst willingly paying for the privilege.
Post by: alway on January 31, 2015, 04:28:11 pm
This. You can even go here: https://maps.google.com/locationhistory/b/0So, you don't have any problem with this? What if it goes mainstream? You know how these things are once they get momentum.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-31042477
Futurama was right!
Fundies are having a field day already.
You forget that nearly everyone has a highly insecure device in their pocket that allows access to most of their personal information, location, communications and so on, whilst willingly paying for the privilege.
and google will show you where it's tracked you as having been. Beyond that, go here: https://history.google.com/history/lookup for your search history, complete with aggregate charts showing when you search things and when you're
And that's just what a private company does which is mild enough that they feel like showing it off without fear of backlash. Unlike the government, they don't have backdoors to enable your phone remotely, surreptitiously recording audio and video, nor man in the middle server to grab any and all metadata about what you're doing, nor satellite imagery of where and when you are outside.
RFID chips? Hah. How quaint.
Post by: Mr. Strange on January 31, 2015, 04:52:22 pm
This. You can even go here: https://maps.google.com/locationhistory/b/0Heh, neither show anything about me. It's working.
and google will show you where it's tracked you as having been. Beyond that, go here: https://history.google.com/history/lookup for your search history, complete with aggregate charts showing when you search things and when you'reprobably sleepingnot.
...nor man in the middle server to grab any and all metadata about what you're doing...Half true, since google has access to data many software companies collect from their users. You don't really need your own access to serves if companies renting them let you in themselves.
Post by: misko27 on January 31, 2015, 05:14:49 pm
Me neither. I disabled the functionality (along with other features) a while back when I realized someone I know had access to my account and was using the information against me.This. You can even go here: https://maps.google.com/locationhistory/b/0Heh, neither show anything about me. It's working.
and google will show you where it's tracked you as having been. Beyond that, go here: https://history.google.com/history/lookup for your search history, complete with aggregate charts showing when you search things and when you'reprobably sleepingnot.
Just a quick reminder the devils you know are meaner then the devils you don't. I don't think Google cares about me very much, but there is something reassuring in that.
Post by: alway on February 01, 2015, 02:41:02 am
Meanwhile, Google studying the light transport properties of human skin as part of a study on blood-born nanoparticles for disease detection.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 01, 2015, 04:31:02 am
Post by: Arx on February 07, 2015, 04:20:32 am
And then they can animate them and stuff to see how they might have moved and things like that. It's pretty sweet.
Post by: Lagslayer on February 09, 2015, 09:47:56 am
Assuming we stopped raising livestock, what would replace them? All the plants they eat and space they take up surely wouldn't go to waste for long. What sort of animals and plants would fill in the void? How many of them? I can't seem to find an answer, elsewhere.
Post by: Helgoland on February 09, 2015, 09:56:37 am
Post by: Descan on February 09, 2015, 10:01:02 am
If the first, we'll probably devote the land to human-center'd foods, that we eat. If the second, then a lot of land would probably revert to wilderness, depending on how much land and where they can be placed those tanks require.
If the last, I'm not sure of the acreage required to get beef-made-from-insects to provide the same calories. All I know is that it requires a lot less than cattle.
Post by: miauw62 on February 09, 2015, 10:02:49 am
Post by: Descan on February 09, 2015, 10:19:05 am
Post by: miauw62 on February 09, 2015, 10:29:01 am
Post by: scrdest on February 09, 2015, 03:49:47 pm
http://uk.businessinsider.com/why-google-is-making-real-human-skin-2015-1?r=USIf any large company was to take over the world, I think I'd like google to.
Meanwhile, Google studying the light transport properties of human skin as part of a study on blood-born nanoparticles for disease detection.
I wouldn't. They would make sky green one day, then refuse to change it in your area until you gave them all your personal information.
E: Apparently Google does not approve of this post. Literally five minutes after posting this, my Google Chrome decided that the best way to update itself is to crash itself and lose all saved tabs. Google 1, me 0.
Post by: That Wolf on February 09, 2015, 04:04:59 pm
Post by: scrdest on February 09, 2015, 04:09:04 pm
Green skys arnt possible.
Watch out for your head, you can get a nasty trauma from one o' those low-flying, devious, savage rhetorical devices.
Post by: That Wolf on February 09, 2015, 04:22:01 pm
Post by: Sheb on February 09, 2015, 04:24:49 pm
Post by: MaximumZero on February 09, 2015, 04:31:03 pm
Post by: i2amroy on February 09, 2015, 05:54:17 pm
Google has already taken over the world, it's just that they don't like to go around flaunting it. :Phttp://uk.businessinsider.com/why-google-is-making-real-human-skin-2015-1?r=USIf any large company was to take over the world, I think I'd like google to.
Meanwhile, Google studying the light transport properties of human skin as part of a study on blood-born nanoparticles for disease detection.
Post by: Helgoland on February 09, 2015, 06:50:41 pm
Skies can (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-if-sky-is-green-run-for-cover-tornado-is-coming/) look green (http://atmo.tamu.edu/weather-and-climate/weather-whys/669-green-sky) during storms. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWmGI_gVGjs) Yeah, it's a thing.Oh yes they can. I was at school during Kyrill, the worst storm of my lifetime - the whole sky was pitch-black, and the horizon was glowing an eerie green...
Post by: Solifuge on February 10, 2015, 12:36:57 am
Skies can (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-if-sky-is-green-run-for-cover-tornado-is-coming/) look green (http://atmo.tamu.edu/weather-and-climate/weather-whys/669-green-sky) during storms. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWmGI_gVGjs) Yeah, it's a thing.
Max, I've seen skies like that once or twice here in Michigan, yeah. Once before a tornado, the other time at school. Green-black, violent lightning, and so much rain that you couldn't see farther than 2 or 3 feet in front of you. It was really cool.
Green skys arnt possible.
I've looked into the optics and chemistry of sky color a bit before. and think you could get a permanently green sky in at least 2 ways:
A. Mars' sky is red because of iron-oxide dust floating in the atmosphere. With high winds and a lot of dust from green minerals (probably copper-oxides?), the sky could be cloudy green.
II) You could have a green sky under some chlorine atmospheres, but in order to be high enough concentration to affect sky color, it'd probably block a lot of light. Not sure if Raleigh Scattering would work the same way, but if so yellow-green Chlorine Dioxide might be shifted bluer to be a middle green.
Post by: Gentlefish on February 10, 2015, 12:45:48 am
Post by: MaximumZero on February 10, 2015, 01:17:06 am
Water in the air, water vapor specifically, absorbs the red wavelength.
Post by: Gentlefish on February 10, 2015, 01:20:32 am
Red and blue makes purple, though.
Water in the air, water vapor specifically, absorbs the red wavelength.
Sure, with pigments. But with the red and blue filtered, you're only left with green. It's in that article above :P
Post by: MaximumZero on February 10, 2015, 03:49:46 am
Post by: Levi on February 10, 2015, 01:08:08 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8YjvHYbZ9w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8YjvHYbZ9w)
Post by: Lagslayer on February 10, 2015, 01:24:54 pm
Boston Robotics(AKA Google-Skynet) made a new robot named spot. You can kick it.FINALLY! A robo dog you can kick to your heart's content.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8YjvHYbZ9w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8YjvHYbZ9w)
Post by: MaximumZero on February 10, 2015, 01:37:15 pm
Post by: Bauglir on February 10, 2015, 01:42:41 pm
Post by: MaximumZero on February 10, 2015, 01:50:58 pm
Post by: Itnetlolor on February 10, 2015, 01:59:15 pm
EDIT:
Another way to somewhat look at it as well; Big-[CONSPIRACY] is preparing to full-scale Dwarf Fortress. Can they handle it? Are they up for that level of ‼FUN‼? We need to give whoever solely wanted this future a copy of DF, and see if they really want to handle that level of complexity and power. I'll be getting myself ready for any megaprojects I'll get roped into working on.
Post by: Lagslayer on February 10, 2015, 02:16:14 pm
Now we just need to train it to carry bees in its mouth.FTFY
Post by: Frumple on February 10, 2015, 02:26:01 pm
We've got all kinds of crazy crap going on with tech these days. I'm actually a bit worried, especially if RFID chips take off, and work as well as I fear they would. I mean, those things would be like a traveling companion that knows your entire history (once implemented), and posts to Facebook at all hours with or without your consent (clever method to track activity and location).You mean like huge swathes of the population's phones already do?
Post by: Itnetlolor on February 10, 2015, 02:33:07 pm
Yeah, phones do that; but there are people like me that travel light (no wallet or phone (not even a Facebook account) when going for a walk or something, or even going out, visiting people and the like, really); having one of these things in someone like me is really invasive and unsettling. I mean, I am not 100% committed to my phone like most people are, and don't take it with me everywhere. To track me more easily, an RFID would be more suitable. I still travel light (still no phone nor wallet), and they still collect data via my contact points (gates/doorways, like a market or national park, having an RF receiver and the like; you don't even have to enter the place; standing near the door would be enough.) via my "serial number" and possibly GPS coordinates based on RF-Receiver.We've got all kinds of crazy crap going on with tech these days. I'm actually a bit worried, especially if RFID chips take off, and work as well as I fear they would. I mean, those things would be like a traveling companion that knows your entire history (once implemented), and posts to Facebook at all hours with or without your consent (clever method to track activity and location).You mean like huge swathes of the population's phones already do?
Then add in interactive objects that require such devices to work (guns, ATMs, etc.). In other words, I can be shut out from anything and everything (including my bank account and local market), by having my number "locked". Really inconvenient for people still wanting a normal life. The exploitability of these things can also get sinister really fast (self-driving cars can "glitch-out" resulting in an "unfortunate accident"; or a flying car attempting to mimic 9/11 (ineffectively) for shock value and further population manipulation via media (extraordinarily effectively). They scream "false-flag at-will".), depending on who has control over it (best not be some self-centered irresponsible prick *cough*politicians/luminous-nutballs*cough*). Being without device "locks out" anyway, but at least, with most of my consent/will/life still intact and under more of my own control.
From a cultural standpoint, this will clearly divide the classes, and we'll have something like The Hunger Games in no time. That is, unless "Skynet" gets there first. Personally, I'd rather an AI end us, rather than a politician with excessive power. At least an AI is rational about it.
Post by: Itnetlolor on February 10, 2015, 03:19:13 pm
Considering the potential for the most likely irresponsible applications that can be applied, I feel like The End is an inevitability. That being the case: If we're to die inevitably, I'm going my own path, and let myself die with some dignity that I chose my own path (whether I eventually cave in and "chip-in" or not).
Post by: Frumple on February 10, 2015, 03:21:19 pm
I guess what my biggest concern overall is, is something to do with something I remember hearing: "As technology advances, morals decline."You should be happy to know that that statement is complete and utter bullshit, then.
Post by: Lagslayer on February 10, 2015, 03:59:14 pm
What if it were to be phrased differently?I guess what my biggest concern overall is, is something to do with something I remember hearing: "As technology advances, morals decline."You should be happy to know that that statement is complete and utter bullshit, then.
technology = power
morals decline = corruption
Power corrupts. Unless you don't put stock in that philosophy.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 10, 2015, 04:03:03 pm
Post by: i2amroy on February 10, 2015, 04:05:29 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 10, 2015, 04:59:29 pm
Post by: Solifuge on February 10, 2015, 05:23:14 pm
So no, I don't really agree that moral decay is a matter of technology or anonymity. I'd argue that this kind of "moral decay" doesn't exist at all. It's likely a product of how our psychology reacts to change and the unfamiliar, as well as how our brains minimize or completely forget hundreds of good experiences with others, but one bad experience or situation can stick with us forever or completely overwhelm our worldview.
That aside, I assume most people just parrot the whole "the world is going to shit" argument once they hear it, without thinking about it too hard. It's a kind of relief; if there's some inevitable law of reality making society or the planet worse every day, you don't have to try to change it. You're absolved of responsibility. Of course, there's also the whole Feel Good element of proclaiming your own moral superiority, or the stress relief that comes from complaining about things or other people (like I'm getting from proclaiming my moral superiority over/complaining about people who do the above stuff >_o).
Spoiler: RE: the illusion of moral decay (click to show/hide)
Post by: i2amroy on February 10, 2015, 06:00:24 pm
Sure not everyone that uses the internet to do things anonymously is going to cyberbully, but there are a number of people who wouldn't bully people face-to-face, but will cyberbully simply because of the easy access to being anonymous and therefore belief that they are exempt from any retaliation. You would see exactly the same effect if you compared the rates of people willing to bully in person against the number of people willing to bully through normal paper mail.
It's not a decrease in good morals "because technology got better" or "because kids of today are letting morals slip", it's an psychologically provable increase in the willingness of people to do things that society considers "bad" if they believe themselves to be exempt from retribution, which can be easily obtained in the current world by being "anonymous" over modern technology (as compared to the last big anonymous technology of paper mail, current technology allows for the ability to deliver much more content in the same time-scale, even if the rates are the same). And yes, it's not anywhere close to being a general, widespread effect, but it is a study-proven thing separate from the widespread (and wrong) belief in "moral decay".
Post by: Solifuge on February 10, 2015, 09:17:48 pm
Still, anonymity has a lot of effects on interaction beyond just making some people more likely to be asshats. I'd argue that the "effects" on behavior aren't really effects, and are behaviors and impulses already present in a person; anonymity isn't the fuel. Trolling and bullying, for example, happen most often prior to people developing a sense of empathy/concern for other people, and are usually fueled by their own bad experiences and hardships... anonymity is a tool to use, but not the incentive itself.
Also remember that anonymity makes people more likely to speak honest opinions, makes people bolder in saying or doing many things, enables altruistic behavior that makes us feel good, and more besides. It's a catalyst to overcome many kinds of fear, not all of which are fear of being held responsible.
Post by: Bauglir on February 10, 2015, 09:19:10 pm
Post by: Itnetlolor on February 10, 2015, 10:12:43 pm
You lot wouldn't know nearly as much about me if there weren't a degree of anonymity here.I agree. For experience reference, I made for an excellent target of undeserved mockery since elementary school. At least I matured enough to retort on how childish someone is acting if they're making fun of my voice or something. Mainly along the lines of "We're how old now?". Though, with the density of online attacks, relative to in-person (generally speaking), I'll give credit to my past attackers for being direct.
Overall, I'm a really private person, and prefer to be known "in doses". Plus, IRL, I'm not a fan of eye contact either; people tend to take offense to my eye-aversive method of communicating. Why must eye contact be mandatory?
Post by: Descan on February 10, 2015, 10:31:58 pm
You lot wouldn't know nearly as much about me if there weren't a degree of anonymity here.I'm just gonna translate this a little bit, to show how it looked like to me on first read.
"You lot wouldn't know nearly as much about me if you knew anything about me."
:P
Post by: Frumple on February 10, 2015, 11:03:56 pm
Why must eye contact be mandatory?It's not. Eye contact frequency is a strongly cultural thing, at least past the fairly early stages of development.
Post by: hops on February 11, 2015, 05:19:09 am
Also PTW
Post by: Levi on February 11, 2015, 11:43:10 am
The Chinese actually find eye contact to be rude, so a traditional chinese person talking to a westerner would theoretically be a liiiiittle awkward.
I dunno, maybe its a regional thing. Most of the chinese people I know make eye-contact just fine. Or maybe they just adapt fast when they come over here?
Poop Transplant causes woman to become obese? (http://gizmodo.com/a-woman-became-obese-after-a-poop-transplant-1685048515) :o
Its only a single example so take with a massive tablespoon of scepticism, but I think it would be funny if it turned out most obesity wasn't genetic but just a result of gut-bacteria.
Post by: MonkeyHead on February 11, 2015, 12:41:55 pm
The Chinese actually find eye contact to be rude, so a traditional chinese person talking to a westerner would theoretically be a liiiiittle awkward.
I dunno, maybe its a regional thing. Most of the chinese people I know make eye-contact just fine. Or maybe they just adapt fast when they come over here?
Poop Transplant causes woman to become obese? (http://gizmodo.com/a-woman-became-obese-after-a-poop-transplant-1685048515) :o
Its only a single example so take with a massive tablespoon of scepticism, but I think it would be funny if it turned out most obesity wasn't genetic but just a result of gut-bacteria.
I suspect that is full of shit.
*sees himself out*
Post by: Solifuge on February 11, 2015, 02:24:15 pm
Poop Transplant causes woman to become obese? (http://gizmodo.com/a-woman-became-obese-after-a-poop-transplant-1685048515) :o
Its only a single example so take with a massive tablespoon of scepticism, but I think it would be funny if it turned out most obesity wasn't genetic but just a result of gut-bacteria.
Pretty fascinating, though it makes a lot of sense. As for sample size, there's the cited study of gut flora transplahts having the same effect on mice. That said, I don't think it explains all obesity; diet, exercise, climate, metabolic rate, and digestive efficiency (microbiome included?) all work together to determine whether or not you end each day with excess unspent food calories for your body to store as fat.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 11, 2015, 02:33:14 pm
The Chinese actually find eye contact to be rude, so a traditional chinese person talking to a westerner would theoretically be a liiiiittle awkward.
I dunno, maybe its a regional thing. Most of the chinese people I know make eye-contact just fine. Or maybe they just adapt fast when they come over here?
Poop Transplant causes woman to become obese? (http://gizmodo.com/a-woman-became-obese-after-a-poop-transplant-1685048515) :o
Its only a single example so take with a massive tablespoon of scepticism, but I think it would be funny if it turned out most obesity wasn't genetic but just a result of gut-bacteria.
I believe that a link between gut flora and obesity has been proposed in the past..
Post by: Levi on February 11, 2015, 02:35:34 pm
Pretty fascinating, though it makes a lot of sense. As for sample size, there's the cited study of gut flora transplahts having the same effect on mice. That said, I don't think it explains all obesity; diet, exercise, climate, metabolic rate, and digestive efficiency (microbiome included?) all work together to determine whether or not you end each day with excess unspent food calories for your body to store as fat.
Oh yeah, for sure. Depending on how big of a role the gut bacteria play, I wonder if its possible to populate your colony with bacteria that would actively prevent obesity even if you have a terrible lifestyle? Could you tailor your bacterial colony to your lifestyle?
I've always thought it wasn't fair that I eat like a pig and stay a reasonable weight, and I see other people who eat a lot less and are more active can be very overweight. It would be neat if this led to solutions for that.
Post by: Solifuge on February 11, 2015, 03:09:47 pm
Post by: scrdest on February 11, 2015, 03:35:30 pm
The Chinese actually find eye contact to be rude, so a traditional chinese person talking to a westerner would theoretically be a liiiiittle awkward.
I dunno, maybe its a regional thing. Most of the chinese people I know make eye-contact just fine. Or maybe they just adapt fast when they come over here?
Poop Transplant causes woman to become obese? (http://gizmodo.com/a-woman-became-obese-after-a-poop-transplant-1685048515) :o
Its only a single example so take with a massive tablespoon of scepticism, but I think it would be funny if it turned out most obesity wasn't genetic but just a result of gut-bacteria.
I believe that a link between gut flora and obesity has been proposed in the past..
It was - several papers, too, I've written a short presentation on that and a possible autism link. The problem is, various researchers report sometimes directly contradictory results (such as one study reporting they found an increase in A:B in obese people, another claims it's B:A, and yet another it's (A+B):C where letters are various bacterial phyla).
Post by: Dutchling on February 11, 2015, 04:04:37 pm
Are you... thatguymom!? :P
Post by: Descan on February 11, 2015, 04:28:40 pm
Like, you're all talking about this like it was some new discovery last week, but... I could have sworn it's a medical practice at this point. o_o
Post by: Levi on February 11, 2015, 04:36:59 pm
Aren't... Aren't they already doing this, though? Like, in hospitals and all that? Transplant from healthy person to overweight?
Like, you're all talking about this like it was some new discovery last week, but... I could have sworn it's a medical practice at this point. o_o
Its done, but I don't think it was intended for weight loss or gain.
Post by: Dutchling on February 11, 2015, 04:37:43 pm
Post by: scrdest on February 11, 2015, 04:52:38 pm
*gasps*
Scrdest, did you do any autism links and vaccines? Are you... that guy!? :P
The smiley leaves me thoroughly unable to even whether or not you seriously considered me being an anti-vaxer.
's not related to vaccines at all; there's some vague links and plausible pathways between gut microflora and brain, but even still it's more a risk factor than a direct cause.
Post by: scrdest on February 11, 2015, 06:01:53 pm
I was joking about the whole thing. Just 'autism is related to something medical' and I decided to make a joke baout you being the guy that 'found' the 'link' between vaccines and autism.
I realized now you were talking about a specific 'that guy' instead the far more ambiguous option of 'that guy' as in 'don't be that guy'.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 17, 2015, 03:07:33 pm
With the famous E=mc2
(Energy = mass times the speed of light squared) shows that mass can be converted into energy, but I was wondering if it is at all possible to make mass from energy? Has anyone ever attempted this? If so what happened? Is this just a dumb question?
Post by: MonkeyHead on February 17, 2015, 03:18:25 pm
Sorry if I'm butting in on any current conversation but I had a question
With the famous E=mc2
(Energy = mass times the speed of light squared) shows that mass can be converted into energy, but I was wondering if it is at all possible to make mass from energy? Has anyone ever attempted this? If so what happened? Is this just a dumb question?
In order...
Yes.
Yes.
Particle accelerators/Nuclear processes - formation of new and interesting matter.
No.
Post by: sjm9876 on February 17, 2015, 03:19:44 pm
The main reason this isn't obvious is because of the conversion factor of c^2 - it takes a vast amount of energy to create even a small mass - thus it isn't witnessed outside of miniscule mass increases and incredibly high energy environs.
Ninja'd by MonkeyHead, who sums it up far more nicely :P
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 17, 2015, 03:22:41 pm
The exaples you guys used were having the extra mass just be by product of doing something else.
Post by: Bauglir on February 17, 2015, 03:23:46 pm
Post by: sjm9876 on February 17, 2015, 03:23:46 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 17, 2015, 03:26:44 pm
Ya nevermind, thanks guys for answering
Post by: Il Palazzo on February 17, 2015, 03:28:55 pm
Less obviously, it occurs in chemical reactions, such as photosynthesis - the mass of the products is very very slightly greater than the reactants ( due to binding energies IIRC) and the energy from sunlight makes up the difference.Even less obviously it occurs when stretching a spring, or lifting a ball in a gravitational field.
Post by: Putnam on February 17, 2015, 03:30:37 pm
Oh I thought you meant the random particles just appeared while testing for different things (I've made the connection of particle accelerators only being used for throwing things together to see what they are made of, probably a bad assumption) and with photosynthesis it's only slightly more and the purpose is the convert water and carbon into sugar using sunlight as a power source.
Ya nevermind, thanks guys for answering
Yeah, we know exactly what those things are made of. Protons are two up quarks and one down quark. Quarks are almost surely elementary, so nothing makes them up (they're one of the most basic building blocks of matter). Electrons are similarly elementary.
Less obviously, it occurs in chemical reactions, such as photosynthesis - the mass of the products is very very slightly greater than the reactants ( due to binding energies IIRC) and the energy from sunlight makes up the difference.Even less obviously it occurs when stretching a spring, or lifting a ball in a gravitational field.
No, not at all. That's energy. Energy and mass are the same thing, yes, but they're not the same thing if you catch my drift. Mass is a particular form of energy. Gravitational potential energy is not mass. This paragraph gives me a funny feeling in my stomach that tells me that I'm not sure, though.
E=mc2 is something of a lie-to-children. The proper equation is E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2
Post by: MonkeyHead on February 17, 2015, 03:32:30 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 17, 2015, 03:33:28 pm
Post by: Putnam on February 17, 2015, 03:36:06 pm
Post by: Il Palazzo on February 17, 2015, 03:59:45 pm
What do you mean? Energy and mass are the same thing in GR. Rest mass is a particular form of energy.Less obviously, it occurs in chemical reactions, such as photosynthesis - the mass of the products is very very slightly greater than the reactants ( due to binding energies IIRC) and the energy from sunlight makes up the difference.Even less obviously it occurs when stretching a spring, or lifting a ball in a gravitational field.
No, not at all. That's energy. Energy and mass are the same thing, yes, but they're not the same thing if you catch my drift. Mass is a particular form of energy. Gravitational potential energy is not mass. This paragraph gives me a funny feeling in my stomach that tells me that I'm not sure, though.
E=mc2 is something of a lie-to-children. The proper equation is E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2
In all cases involving binding energy, be it chemical, gravitational or nuclear, the change in 'mass' can be reduced to the change in potential energy.
What for bringing up the extended equation? In the centre of mass frame it reduces to the familiar one anyway.
Post by: Tylui on February 17, 2015, 04:46:46 pm
What do you mean? Energy and mass are the same thing in GR. Rest mass is a particular form of energy.Less obviously, it occurs in chemical reactions, such as photosynthesis - the mass of the products is very very slightly greater than the reactants ( due to binding energies IIRC) and the energy from sunlight makes up the difference.Even less obviously it occurs when stretching a spring, or lifting a ball in a gravitational field.
No, not at all. That's energy. Energy and mass are the same thing, yes, but they're not the same thing if you catch my drift. Mass is a particular form of energy. Gravitational potential energy is not mass. This paragraph gives me a funny feeling in my stomach that tells me that I'm not sure, though.
E=mc2 is something of a lie-to-children. The proper equation is E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2
In all cases involving binding energy, be it chemical, gravitational or nuclear, the change in 'mass' can be reduced to the change in potential energy.
What for bringing up the extended equation? In the centre of mass frame it reduces to the familiar one anyway.
In the center of mass frame for the ball, changing the gravitational field around it doesn't change its mass...
Post by: Il Palazzo on February 17, 2015, 04:49:20 pm
Post by: Tylui on February 17, 2015, 05:02:25 pm
Try this: Take a spring and weigh it. Now stretch the spring and weigh it again. Has its mass changed? Of course not.
Post by: Il Palazzo on February 17, 2015, 05:14:23 pm
Try this: Take a spring and weigh it. Now stretch the spring and weigh it again. Has its mass changed? Of course not.Of course yes. You added energy to the system from outside. The total energy of the system is now higher. It has thus both higher inertia and is curving the space time more - the two qualities that are thought of when somebody brings up mass without any qualifiers.
Does the rest mass of whatever particles make the spring increase? No. But it is now heavier.
Post by: Putnam on February 17, 2015, 05:20:02 pm
Post by: Il Palazzo on February 17, 2015, 06:26:54 pm
"Mass" usually refers specifically to rest mass; relativistic mass is a concept that mostly just confuses people, which is why I brought up the full equation (relativistic mass is just referred to as total energy or summat now, for the most part).I'm not sure why you brought this up.
You're using the term incorrectly. Relativistic mass is a SR term. It makes no sense using it when talking about gravity, which we are. You can't talk about weighing the relativistic mass because that requires the presence of a gravitational field.
Furthermore, the relativistic mass is an observer-specific effect. In the rest frame of the system's centre of mass it reduces to rest mass as the gamma factor goes to 1.
With E=m you have the sum of all energy components on the left and the resultant rest mass of the system on the right. If you increase the energy of the system in any way, it'll weigh more.
Yes, that's the same as the rest mass of the system increasing - and as long as it is clear that it's the rest mass of the whole system I have no qualms with it.
But it can be misleading, at least in the way you used it, as it suggests some elementary particles need to pop up, whereas the rest mass of the system is a conglomerate of the rest mass of the elementary particles contained therein, and all other forms of energy including potential energy.
Post by: Gentlefish on February 17, 2015, 11:03:55 pm
Post by: lemon10 on February 17, 2015, 11:11:29 pm
Post by: Putnam on February 17, 2015, 11:34:21 pm
Post by: Sergarr on February 17, 2015, 11:39:25 pm
I'm going to poke in with a completely irrelevant point: The ball on the shelf does indeed weigh less then the ball on the floor, as its closer to the center of the earth. Its a trivial amount, but the distance from the source of gravity does indeed affect the weight. Similarly, the falling ball will weight more with every second it falls, even though the amount is extremely tiny.not really
center of the earth is not the source of gravity
Post by: Putnam on February 18, 2015, 12:07:37 am
Post by: Draxis on February 18, 2015, 01:48:16 am
not reallyPretty sure it is if you're above the surface of the Earth.
center of the earth is not the source of gravity
Post by: Il Palazzo on February 18, 2015, 05:34:09 am
A stretched spring doesn't have more energy, though - I'm assuming you're speaking of a spring stretched to the point of distortion - because once you stop stretching it there's no energy there. And potential energy doesn't increase mass. If I put two similarly massive balls on shelves of different heights, the ball on the higher shelf isn't going to weigh more. And, actually, it's not going to weigh more as it's falling - there hasn't been any energy added to the system of the ball itself. It's simply attracted to the earth.You're missing the point. The ball itself as an isolated system doesn't have more mass. But the system of Earth plus ball does. The change of position of the ball in the gravitational field of the Earth (and vice versa) requires energy. By imparting that energy to the system you increase its total mass (the rest mass of the system seen as a whole).
I don't know what you mean by the spring. Once stretched past the equilibrium point by any amount it has elastic potential energy. If you stretch too much and distort the material so that there is no more restoring force - then there is no elastic potential energy (it went into changing the shape of material, so in this sense it's still there but in a different form).
This isn't news, guys. It's what E=mc^2 says. In fact, forget the c^2 - it's just a unit conversion factor. You can choose units where it's equal to 1, so that you just get E=m.
The energy content of the system determines its mass. More energy in the system means it's more massive. Hot objects are heavier than cold, bound objects are lighter than their constituent parts, a box full of light weighs more than an empty one etc.
Post by: Sergarr on February 18, 2015, 06:27:11 am
well yes it is, but:not reallyPretty sure it is if you're above the surface of the Earth.
center of the earth is not the source of gravity
In the context of "ball falling", it is very important to distinguish between an apparent source of gravity and the real sources of gravity.
It makes the difference between infinite force in the center vs zero force in the center.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 18, 2015, 07:41:44 am
It's got a concept that is a bit of tangent to the conversation
Post by: Frumple on February 18, 2015, 07:52:50 am
Remembering any of it (besides maybe the bit about down and the (pre-?)teen xenocide and the homosexual not-so-under tones and maybe a bit else) is a different question.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 18, 2015, 08:07:31 am
I was going to ask about the engines in the space ships, the on ones that generate a force field around the ships and any matter that hits the force field is converted into energy to power the ship to relatavistic speeds. Is that even remotely possible in real life?
Post by: Sergarr on February 18, 2015, 08:29:20 am
Let's just skip over that second bit...It's similar in concept to how turbojet engines work and yes, there has been proposals about this sort of thing.
I was going to ask about the engines in the space ships, the on ones that generate a force field around the ships and any matter that hits the force field is converted into energy to power the ship to relatavistic speeds. Is that even remotely possible in real life?
Main problems are 1) you first need to reach high enough velocity for this thing to start working and 2) you need working fusion reactors to use matter (because it's mostly hydrogen).
Post by: Sheb on February 18, 2015, 09:03:56 am
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 18, 2015, 09:06:34 am
What you have in mind is a Bussard Ramjet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet) I think. There are plenty of problems related to the rather low density of matter in space, but it's theoretically possible.That sounds about right
Post by: Scoops Novel on February 18, 2015, 02:59:50 pm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31519875
My take away:
Quote
While this is the closest flyby detected so far, Dr Mamajek thinks it's not uncommon for alien stars to buzz the Sun. He says a star probably passes through the Oort Cloud every 100,000 years, or so.
But he suggests an approach as close - or closer - than that made by Scholz's star is somewhat rarer. Dr Mamajek said mathematical simulations show such an event occurs on average about once every nine million years."
How fast where they going? Could you keep a planet in tow? And how noticeable are they from earth?
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 18, 2015, 03:16:11 pm
Keeping a planet in tow is rather unlikely, though it might have send a few comets our way, which will reach us in about 2 million years. As for noticeability, at closest pass it would have a magnitude of 10.3. This means that it might have just been visible with binoculars. Not very spectacular.
Post by: Il Palazzo on February 18, 2015, 03:19:33 pm
How fast where they going? Could you keep a planet in tow? And how noticeable are they from earth?You wouldn't see them. The system is made of a red dwarf with a brown dwarf sub-stellar companion. At the closest approach (which was ~1ly) they'd be many times (~40) dimmer than human eye sensitivity (10 apparent magnitude when they were passing by).
Their velocity is mostly in the radial direction, at 83.1km/s plus 3km/s tangentially. That's about twice as much as the Voyagers'.
The picture included in the BBC article is a bit misleading as it uses the logarithmic scale to depict the distances in the solar system. The Oort cloud is way, way farther than one could think - it extends almost halfway to the Alpha Centauri.
Here's the relevant paper:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.04655
Post by: hops on February 18, 2015, 04:11:29 pm
... I rather imagine something approaching a majority of the folks down here have read ender's game. Quite possibly a majority of the forum in general. It's a pretty well read text, especially among english speakers that are even marginally interested in sci-fi.The latter is funny considering that the author is a homophobic scumbag.
Remembering any of it (besides maybe the bit about down and the (pre-?)teen xenocide and the homosexual not-so-under tones and maybe a bit else) is a different question.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 18, 2015, 11:59:08 pm
WTF!
Anywho
What sciences thing were we discussing?
Post by: redwallzyl on February 19, 2015, 12:24:45 am
In reading that series I had (this is tangent and not sure if it's on homophobe topic or not) one WTF moment and that was the guys crawling through a space station's airvent a butt naked.i think that was because their were trackers in their suits.
WTF!
Anywho
What sciences thing were we discussing?
Post by: Scoops Novel on February 19, 2015, 07:03:49 am
Post by: Helgoland on February 19, 2015, 07:08:52 am
(Note: That's not the most wisecracking answer - that would've been 'Yes.')
Post by: Il Palazzo on February 19, 2015, 07:26:44 am
Thanks guys. How fast can a star move? Is it possible they could get to a reasonable fraction of light speed?Google 'high velocity stars', 'rogue stars' and 'hypervelocity stars' for general information and observation data.
This paper:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.5022
tries to find the upper limit on the speeds and concludes that 10^5 km/s (1/3 c) is possible.
The frame of reference for measurements is always the Local Standard of Rest - basically the Sun. But whether you use this one or the galactic rest frame or even the CMBR rest frame, it doesn't change much when you're talking 100 000km/s.
These semi-relativistic hypervelocity stars are purely hypothetical so far (unless I missed a discovery).
Post by: Scoops Novel on February 19, 2015, 08:41:32 am
Post by: That Wolf on February 19, 2015, 11:36:15 am
Has anybody ever seen or read 'Ender's Game'?It was interesting. Especialy the game the giants drink. that tripped me right out.
It's got a concept that is a bit of tangent to the conversation
It didnt have enough character desctiption. The fact a maori was a tank alien fleet killer was awsome, better than temuera morrison in any light.
The time it was written and the game detail. Crazy beautiful.
Its too bad how distopian sci-fi is, because our science is inspired by it and vice versa.
Becoming an inbred monster of a future.
Yay for death. No immortal pill for this guy. Nup Im going to die in my study with a single bullet in my head after a steady decline into dementia.
Post by: i2amroy on February 19, 2015, 01:13:07 pm
(That said I'd definitely be one of the immortality pill takers if/when one ever comes out, there's just way too much new stuff in the universe to experience in one lifetime, even if it's extended.)
Post by: hops on February 19, 2015, 01:19:00 pm
Post by: Sheb on February 19, 2015, 01:27:31 pm
Post by: Il Palazzo on February 19, 2015, 01:51:40 pm
How can you use the cosmic microwave background as a frame of reference? Define a rest state so that the frequency from all directions is the same?Yes. You choose the frame in which the CMBR looks isotropic - i.e., there are no hot and cold spots along the direction of travel.
Post by: Vilanat on February 19, 2015, 02:21:18 pm
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-higgs-boson-analogue-superconductors.html
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 19, 2015, 03:47:18 pm
Post by: alway on February 21, 2015, 06:30:12 pm
1. Higgs predictions had their roots in math & theories originating in superconductor phenomena.
2. Due to technical limitations, the particular bit which ended up relating to the Higgs couldn't be experimentally verified.
3. Higgs experimentally verified in LHC.
4. (now) The particular bit which ended up relating to the Higgs has been experimentally verified as technical limitations are overcome.
5. (future) After solving limitations preventing experiments with it in superconducting theory in a way allowing for relatively cheap experimental results compared to the particle physics version, superconducting theory version of the equations can be used to find easier results and better methods of exploring the particle physics Higgs.
It isn't the higgs boson, but is rather more like how you can have both an electromagnetic wave and a wave in water. Both are waves because they share certain phenomena and behavior, and by factoring out the peculiarities originating from their topic of origin you can investigate one by investigating the other. This will tell you both about waves in general and about any potentially unknown peculiarities originating from their topic of origin. Thus it has the potential to give insight both into higgs-like phenomena and the Standard Model in general, in addition to information about superconducting theory.
Or as a more concrete example of this sort of thing in action, here's a laboratory studying similar mathematical analogies, using specific types of flow and wave motion in water to study black hole phenomena: http://www.gravitylaboratory.com/#!black-holes/c1dug
Post by: That Wolf on February 21, 2015, 07:50:43 pm
An israeli and german scientists have re-discovered the Higgs boson using a regular laboratory rather than the several billions worth LHC.
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-higgs-boson-analogue-superconductors.html
Despite CERN reaserch allowing this its still kinda like the americans inventing a space pen. Probably even invented space white out...
[russian accent]decadent americans[/russian accent]
Post by: Bauglir on February 21, 2015, 08:44:56 pm
Post by: iceball3 on February 21, 2015, 10:01:21 pm
What, you mean the space pen that enabled astronauts to take notes without gumming up the air filters and incredibly sensitive instruments with graphite dust?I believe that is the space pen they are referring to.
Graphite dust is not the best idea for zero gravity atmospheric sensetive operations.
Also, we have to recognize that the LHC has other purpouses than discovering the Higgs Boson, so those "billions of dollars" are not being used for that single purpouse.
Post by: alway on February 21, 2015, 11:26:45 pm
Post by: Bauglir on February 21, 2015, 11:49:09 pm
Post by: That Wolf on February 22, 2015, 03:58:06 am
What, you mean the space pen that enabled astronauts to take notes without gumming up the air filters and incredibly sensitive instruments with graphite dust?
Why would you use a pencil either?? They had computers then... right?
That said I'd definitely be one of the immortality pill takers if/when one ever comes out, there's just way too much new stuff in the universe to experience in one lifetime, even if it's extended.Nothing personal. But Ive always had this feeling that if that happens in my lifetime I would want to kill the cheaters. Out of principle. Im not the only one either im sure there would be full on militia groups, religious zealots, the poor etc.
All willing to correct nature.
I dont think I would act on my thoughts because you will die anyway no matter what. Many would though
Post by: Putnam on February 22, 2015, 04:22:16 am
Post by: Sergarr on February 22, 2015, 04:29:31 am
Computers, yes, keyboards, no. Ever heard of cards?What, you mean the space pen that enabled astronauts to take notes without gumming up the air filters and incredibly sensitive instruments with graphite dust?
Why would you use a pencil either?? They had computers then... right?
"Cheaters"? What "principle"?The "principle" of "no one gets to be better than I am"
Post by: miauw62 on February 22, 2015, 04:43:08 am
Has anybody ever seen or read 'Ender's Game'?It was interesting. Especialy the game the giants drink. that tripped me right out.
It's got a concept that is a bit of tangent to the conversation
It didnt have enough character desctiption. The fact a maori was a tank alien fleet killer was awsome, better than temuera morrison in any light.
The time it was written and the game detail. Crazy beautiful.
Its too bad how distopian sci-fi is, because our science is inspired by it and vice versa.
Becoming an inbred monster of a future.
Yay for death. No immortal pill for this guy. Nup Im going to die in my study with a single bullet in my head after a steady decline into dementia.
Good SF more or less has to be dystopian. It helps to think of it as "Speculative Fiction" rather than Science Fiction. SF speculates about how technology will change our lives and how it will impact society. I recommend you read some of Asimov's short stories, he was particularly good at the speculating part and you'll often notice things with a direct analogue in our society today.
Post by: Putnam on February 22, 2015, 04:51:39 am
Post by: miauw62 on February 22, 2015, 04:52:25 am
E: done
Post by: Putnam on February 22, 2015, 04:58:59 am
Post by: miauw62 on February 22, 2015, 05:00:53 am
Post by: Putnam on February 22, 2015, 05:02:37 am
But thinking that the problems will be overwhelming is a bit cynical.
Post by: hops on February 22, 2015, 05:19:57 am
Of course, there are outliers, like Jules Verne's novel, but it's not actually set in the future. It just puts a futuristic technology in the present.
Post by: Putnam on February 22, 2015, 05:20:25 am
Post by: That Wolf on February 22, 2015, 05:33:43 am
You could put it that way, or maybe I am immortal and know humans don't deserve it?!?"Cheaters"? What "principle"?The "principle" of "no one gets to be better than I am"
No the first time it happens we will realise that no amount of techknowledgy will be able to by pass the point where a mind becomes impossibly insane and 'doesn't care about anything anymore'
Perhaps with training but that would most probably just prolong the "it was inevitable"
Post by: Arx on February 22, 2015, 05:35:23 am
Post by: Il Palazzo on February 22, 2015, 05:40:31 am
Seems more like pretending to know things you don't know and willing to kill people on that basis.You could put it that way, or maybe I am immortal and know humans don't deserve it?!?"Cheaters"? What "principle"?The "principle" of "no one gets to be better than I am"
No the first time it happens we will realise that no amount of techknowledgy will be able to by pass the point where a mind becomes impossibly insane and 'doesn't care about anything anymore'
Perhaps with training but that would most probably just prolong the "it was inevitable"
Somewhere between incredibly arrogant and criminally insane.
Post by: Descan on February 22, 2015, 05:52:53 am
Post by: That Wolf on February 22, 2015, 06:06:06 am
Yes I clearly realise it is criminally insane.
Its like if vampires exsited, I would also want to help them die.
It isnt the truth.
You have to decay. Its a law.
Im sorry if the truth offends you.
I agree lies often taste so sweet that they become a delicacy.
Post by: Arx on February 22, 2015, 06:19:22 am
Post by: That Wolf on February 22, 2015, 06:34:33 am
There is no law saying that you have to decay.Correct
Yet its obvious to see it if you look.
Post by: miauw62 on February 22, 2015, 06:38:23 am
It's perfectly fine to do that. Pessimism is objectively the correct way of thinking (see: the ludicrous number of fallacies related to humans being overtly optimistic).Hm, fair enough. Maybe I was being a bit extreme.
But thinking that the problems will be overwhelming is a bit cynical.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 22, 2015, 06:38:39 am
There is no law saying that you have to decay. You seem to be claiming that your opinion is an objective truth, which it pretty much isn't.
Not really.
In fact, the other thing is true. Just look at basic causality. Everything that causes itself to happen, happens again. Things that don't cause themselves to happen, dissappear. The very basic meaning of life, of anything really, it's defining feature, is it's ever lasting struggle against entropy.
Post by: Arx on February 22, 2015, 06:39:32 am
So, following your logic, I should rip off my fingernails when they have grown to twice the length they started at. Everything's gotta decay, and that means that you can't keep any, right?
Edit: I AM PANICKING EVEN THOUGH THE NINJA DOESN'T WANT ME TO.
Post by: MonkeyHead on February 22, 2015, 06:43:14 am
Actually, a revision: there is a law saying everything must decay (2nd of thermodynamics, famously), but none saying everything must die. I cut off a full fingernail length every few months or so, but I still have fingernails. They decay, but they regrow healthily.
So, following your logic, I should rip off my fingernails when they have grown to twice the length they started at. Everything's gotta decay, and that means that you can't keep any, right?
Edit: I AM PANICKING EVEN THOUGH THE NINJA DOESN'T WANT ME TO.
The 2nd law only applies to closed systems. Lifeforms are not closed systems - they exchange matter and energy in both directions with their surroundings.
Post by: Descan on February 22, 2015, 06:44:49 am
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 22, 2015, 08:26:57 am
The only thing stopping me from living forever (besides the whole human life-span thing) is the eventual heat-death of the universe, and with a couple trillion years to work on it, I'm sure I'll come up with something eventually.Avoiding the many new black holes that will surely be coming into existence, making hydrogen for stars, keeping the universe from calapsing in on itself, and finding a way for your cells to die and replicate without losing that second part, or losing too much of that buffer DNA on the strands to where it majorly affects
Post by: Neonivek on February 22, 2015, 08:28:13 am
Im not pretenting to know anything.
Yes I clearly realise it is criminally insane.
Its like if vampires exsited, I would also want to help them die.
It isnt the truth.
You have to decay. Its a law.
Im sorry if the truth offends you.
I agree lies often taste so sweet that they become a delicacy.
But if vampires exist it means that we are wrong about several fundamental aspects of the universe.
Post by: That Wolf on February 22, 2015, 08:42:02 am
Im not pretenting to know anything.
Yes I clearly realise it is criminally insane.
Its like if vampires exsited, I would also want to help them die.
It isnt the truth.
You have to decay. Its a law.
Im sorry if the truth offends you.
I agree lies often taste so sweet that they become a delicacy.
But if vampires exist it means that we are wrong about several fundamental aspects of the universe.
Oh yeah, didnt look at it that way. Mainy used it as an example while you built upon it.
What I said relates to this universe and these bodys
I never said you cannot exisit forever.
Because we do last forever. Another unspoken law
Post by: That Wolf on February 22, 2015, 08:54:51 am
I enjoy these talks, even if they get borderline flaming. Something I never intend, but the internets take offence at anything.
Post by: TheDarkStar on February 22, 2015, 09:02:48 am
Back to the original topic, the only way to avoid the heat death of the universe would be to get out of it in some way. Unfortunately, we don't know if that's possible.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 22, 2015, 09:07:08 am
Post by: Sergarr on February 22, 2015, 09:13:48 am
Isn't another theory that the universe wil continue to expland forever? And it will just die because everything is so far apartI'm sure that in 100 years our view of universe's future will completely change and people from that age will consider us stupid for even believing this.
The more interesting thing about entropy is that it cannot be defined for universe as a whole. Entropy only makes sense about an object in relative equilibrium, and universe is not in equilibrium with itself. It never was.Isn't another theory that the universe wil continue to expland forever? And it will just die because everything is so far apartThat's what I'm on about. As it expands more dark energy is created, which accelerates the expansion further.
And there might be a way to reverse entropy or get rid of dark energy that we don't know about yet.
Post by: scrdest on February 22, 2015, 09:18:25 am
internets take offence at anything.Oh, those silly internet people, being offended at someone ADMITTING TO WANTING TO MURDER PEOPLE FOR LIVING TOO LONG. Some people are just too thin-skinned, eh? So silly.
Post by: scrdest on February 22, 2015, 09:36:42 am
Well, he's not incorrect. If you say something you'll find SOMEONE on the internet that takes exception to it.In itself, it would be an observation. In context, it has a bit different connotations.
Yeah there is leway on that one, like how you cant hold negative matter stable next to positive matter as they cancel eachother, but you could see that as more of a change into what we dont understand yet.TIL: we don't understand electromagnetic radiation.
Post by: Il Palazzo on February 22, 2015, 09:44:19 am
The more interesting thing about entropy is that it cannot be defined for universe as a whole. Entropy only makes sense about an object in relative equilibrium, and universe is not in equilibrium with itself. It never was.Can you elaborate? I don't get your meaning.
negative matterWhat?
Post by: Arx on February 22, 2015, 09:50:34 am
Shell shock is different to PTSD, and possibly more common. (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/02/150217-shell-shock-ptsd-tbi-world-war-one-ied-veterans-administration-science/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_content=link_tw20150217news-ptsdbrain&utm_campaign=Content&sf7501705=1)
Basically, exposure to blast waves can cause brain damage with symptoms simply to those of PTSD but with a few key differences.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 22, 2015, 09:59:46 am
This is unrelated to the current discussion, but interesting:That wasn't something people knew?
Shell shock is different to PTSD, and possibly more common. (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/02/150217-shell-shock-ptsd-tbi-world-war-one-ied-veterans-administration-science/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_content=link_tw20150217news-ptsdbrain&utm_campaign=Content&sf7501705=1)
Basically, exposure to blast waves can cause brain damage with symptoms simply to those of PTSD but with a few key differences.
I didn't read the article for specifics, I just thought people already knew the two were seperate since one is from traumatic events,emotional scaring, etc and the other is specifically named for being near exploding shells
Post by: Arx on February 22, 2015, 10:01:18 am
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 22, 2015, 10:13:03 am
No need to be sorry
Post by: Arx on February 22, 2015, 10:17:33 am
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 22, 2015, 10:25:50 am
This entire spoilers part of this post is IIRC
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Sergarr on February 22, 2015, 10:26:30 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe#Current_statusThe more interesting thing about entropy is that it cannot be defined for universe as a whole. Entropy only makes sense about an object in relative equilibrium, and universe is not in equilibrium with itself. It never was.Can you elaborate? I don't get your meaning.
"There is much doubt about the definition of the entropy of the Universe. In a view more recent than Kelvin's, it has been recognized by a respected authority on thermodynamics, Max Planck, that the phrase 'entropy of the Universe' has no meaning because it admits of no accurate definition"
Post by: Il Palazzo on February 22, 2015, 11:40:21 am
That's not a very good wiki entry, to say the least.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe#Current_statusThe more interesting thing about entropy is that it cannot be defined for universe as a whole. Entropy only makes sense about an object in relative equilibrium, and universe is not in equilibrium with itself. It never was.Can you elaborate? I don't get your meaning.
"There is much doubt about the definition of the entropy of the Universe. In a view more recent than Kelvin's, it has been recognized by a respected authority on thermodynamics, Max Planck, that the phrase 'entropy of the Universe' has no meaning because it admits of no accurate definition"
For a view on cosmology more recent than Kelvin's they bring up Max Planck and his 1897 book? From before GR and before anyone knew anything about the universe, including whether or not it was static, infinite and eternal, or that the Milky Way was not the totality of it all?
Not to mention that in the rest of the very paragraph from which the statement is quoted Planck explains how to correctly attribute the meaning given extended systems.
I find no support for the statement in the quoted source.
The bit I was curious about the most was the 'equilibrium'. Whether or not entropy can be defined in non-equilibrium systems is something I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole, but even the author of the book quoted in the wiki for the support of this bit (W.Grandy) wrote an article on treatment of entropy in non-equilibrium systems.
But why would you say the universe was never in thermal equilibrium? The primordial nucleosynthesis and the homogeneity of CMBR depends on it being so, and one of the purposes of inflation is to explain how it could have happened on such a scale (see: horizon problem).
In any case, cosmologists appear to have been using entropy to analyse the universe without much issue, so I wouldn't take such proclamations very seriously.
Post by: Arx on February 22, 2015, 12:18:46 pm
Article on anti-vaxxers and why they are. (https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/scicurious/there%E2%80%99s-more-one-way-persuade-people-vaccinate)
It all seems a bit meta.
Post by: alway on February 22, 2015, 12:32:07 pm
That's not a very good wiki entry, to say the least.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe#Current_statusThe more interesting thing about entropy is that it cannot be defined for universe as a whole. Entropy only makes sense about an object in relative equilibrium, and universe is not in equilibrium with itself. It never was.Can you elaborate? I don't get your meaning.
"There is much doubt about the definition of the entropy of the Universe. In a view more recent than Kelvin's, it has been recognized by a respected authority on thermodynamics, Max Planck, that the phrase 'entropy of the Universe' has no meaning because it admits of no accurate definition"
For a view on cosmology more recent than Kelvin's they bring up Max Planck and his 1897 book? From before GR and before anyone knew anything about the universe, including whether or not it was static, infinite and eternal, or that the Milky Way was not the totality of it all?
Not to mention that in the rest of the very paragraph from which the statement is quoted Planck explains how to correctly attribute the meaning given extended systems.
I find no support for the statement in the quoted source.
The bit I was curious about the most was the 'equilibrium'. Whether or not entropy can be defined in non-equilibrium systems is something I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole, but even the author of the book quoted in the wiki for the support of this bit (W.Grandy) wrote an article on treatment of entropy in non-equilibrium systems.
But why would you say the universe was never in thermal equilibrium? The primordial nucleosynthesis and the homogeneity of CMBR depends on it being so, and one of the purposes of inflation is to explain how it could have happened on such a scale (see: horizon problem).
In any case, cosmologists appear to have been using entropy to analyse the universe without much issue, so I wouldn't take such proclamations very seriously.
Judging by the talk page on the wiki article that was linked, it's pretty much been edit-warred into nonexistence by a pervasive editor who doesn't like the idea of a heat death.
Post by: Il Palazzo on February 22, 2015, 12:37:21 pm
Judging by the talk page on the wiki article that was linked, it's pretty much been edit-warred into nonexistence by a pervasive editor who doesn't like the idea of a heat death.Yeah, I figured as much. Usually technical stuff on wiki is of much higher quality than that.
(reading the talk page: jesus, what's his problem?)
Post by: alway on February 22, 2015, 01:01:18 pm
Unfortunately, this sort of thing is becoming increasingly pervasive on wikipedia; largely because such editors stick around for years (since at least 2013 in the case of that article), and so there's nothing any individual can do about it without becoming an equally ridiculous stalker of the page for years on end. Wikipedia doesn't really seem to do anything about that sort of thing, since they also tend to be good at rule lawyering, and so in the end will likely be the downfall of the site.Judging by the talk page on the wiki article that was linked, it's pretty much been edit-warred into nonexistence by a pervasive editor who doesn't like the idea of a heat death.Yeah, I figured as much. Usually technical stuff on wiki is of much higher quality than that.
(reading the talk page: jesus, what's his problem?)
Post by: Il Palazzo on February 22, 2015, 01:31:30 pm
To give some closure to the discussion amidst the misinformation:
Heat death appears to be the most likely end scenario for the universe, since the cosmological constant does appear to be constant (gravitationally bound systems will remain bound).
A big rip scenario has been given way too much press since it was proposed circa 2003. It is currently not taken seriously anymore for the reason stated above (thanks to the recent WMAP and the ongoing PLANCK missions providing ever-improving measurements).
For those interested, here's a lightweight analysis of the heat death scenario by John Baez - a respected mathematician and cosmologist (also known for the crackpot index (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html)):
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/end.html
Post by: Putnam on February 22, 2015, 03:28:24 pm
Isn't another theory that the universe wil continue to expland forever? And it will just die because everything is so far apartI'm sure that in 100 years our view of universe's future will completely change and people from that age will consider us stupid for even believing this.
No.
We don't believe this, for one. The Heat Death is currently considered the most likely fate of the universe, but if you told a scientist to commit they would refuse. It is known that we do not have enough data to come up with a reasonable conclusion. We also know every possible ending of the universe given the data so far, and we have a lot of data. Unless something completely and utterly weird happens within the next 100 years, our ideas of the fate of the universe will be less broad, but not completely different. The argument that "everything we know today will be seen as idiocy in 100 years" works for medicine and psychology, but not physics.
99 years ago, the theory of General Relativity was discovered. It hasn't been overturned since; in fact, all evidence points to its truth. Quantum Mechanics happened just ten years later and it's still going strong. Physics is not medicine. The universe is not nearly so complex as a human body.
What I said relates to this universe and these bodys
Biological immortality is very much a thing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_immortality). There is no law whatsoever stating that humans must die. In fact, death itself has been redefined repeatedly; it used to be "no breathing", but then we could fix that, so then it was "no heartbeat", but then we could fix that, so now it's "brain has no function", but even that may yet have some further method of resuscitation.
Post by: Il Palazzo on February 22, 2015, 03:47:52 pm
It's not like it's possible that further advances will significantly change our understanding of organ functions, or overturn the germ theory (unless you're into this anti-vaccer's woo-woo: Good-bye germ theory (http://www.amazon.com/Good-Bye-Germ-Theory-century-medical/dp/1413454402/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1424095565&sr=1-1&tag=viglink20267-20)).
The same refinements of the body of knowledge that happen in physics happen in medicine, and in any other area of knowledge that follows the scientific method (aka 'being sensible').
Post by: Putnam on February 22, 2015, 03:49:28 pm
Post by: Descan on February 22, 2015, 04:13:29 pm
Only way to fix that is to have some sort of temporal bridging mechanism, like bolting on a bunch of hard-drives to your face and wait a bunch of years until your brain has expanded into the hard-drive so much that losing the original organic brain doesn't matter, or converting each and every single neuron into a more robust, possibly-mechanical or whatever version of a neuron.
But by the time we're talking on the order of "Trillion years old terran sapients turning back the death of the universe," the idea of us still having cells or anything like cells is like saying "So where's the flint and iron to run that there computer, mate?" on a much larger scale.
Post by: ~Neri on February 24, 2015, 05:22:42 pm
No brain function isn't defined as death currently. A number of braindead people have regained brain activity over time. Current definition is when the body begins to rot.Isn't another theory that the universe wil continue to expland forever? And it will just die because everything is so far apartI'm sure that in 100 years our view of universe's future will completely change and people from that age will consider us stupid for even believing this.
No.
We don't believe this, for one. The Heat Death is currently considered the most likely fate of the universe, but if you told a scientist to commit they would refuse. It is known that we do not have enough data to come up with a reasonable conclusion. We also know every possible ending of the universe given the data so far, and we have a lot of data. Unless something completely and utterly weird happens within the next 100 years, our ideas of the fate of the universe will be less broad, but not completely different. The argument that "everything we know today will be seen as idiocy in 100 years" works for medicine and psychology, but not physics.
99 years ago, the theory of General Relativity was discovered. It hasn't been overturned since; in fact, all evidence points to its truth. Quantum Mechanics happened just ten years later and it's still going strong. Physics is not medicine. The universe is not nearly so complex as a human body.What I said relates to this universe and these bodys
Biological immortality is very much a thing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_immortality). There is no law whatsoever stating that humans must die. In fact, death itself has been redefined repeatedly; it used to be "no breathing", but then we could fix that, so then it was "no heartbeat", but then we could fix that, so now it's "brain has no function", but even that may yet have some further method of resuscitation.
Post by: Frumple on February 24, 2015, 05:29:09 pm
Post by: i2amroy on February 24, 2015, 05:29:48 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 24, 2015, 11:40:04 pm
1- what is the fastest acting deadly neurotoxin known to man?
2- if someone disengages from an unstable, small platform in low earth orbit and begins falling sporadically how difficult would it be for a highly trained person to regain stability in their fall?
3- would it be possible to make a bullet proof business suit?
4- Bullet proof umbrella gun?
5- Shutting down the Brian's decision making bit (not a neuro scientist here) and over stimulating the anger/rage/violence part to turn people into homocidal maniacs using sound or electronic signals?
Post by: ~Neri on February 24, 2015, 11:44:24 pm
An important part of the current definition of "brain death" is that the condition be "irreversible". That's why situations where people are loosely termed to be "braindead" (such as people in deep comas, on some drug overdoses, and in chronic vegetative states) don't fall under the medical definition, and why it requires two confirming physicians to declare someone to be "brain dead".Currently it's irreversible if you're trying to reverse it. However it can naturally reverse itself.
Post by: Putnam on February 24, 2015, 11:48:19 pm
Seriously, though, probably polonium or something along those lines.
2. Completely and utterly impossible unless they have some fuel on hand to cease their rotation. Then again, they won't begin falling sporadically after disengaging from a platform unless something weird is happening.
3. Yes.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 24, 2015, 11:53:32 pm
2: she is in a space suit and her white is not opened, she is just about a kilometer under satelite orbit height.
3: the business suits look like normal business suites not sure if that changes anything.
4: jammed into your arm? If it's from the gun part people have been known to carry around things like it without them being hard to use, though they aren't as strong. If it's from the bullets hitting it, the movie depicts them as grassing or deflecting off
5: it may be an electric signal or some other thing. It didn't sound like something that could happen so ya....
Post by: alway on February 25, 2015, 12:08:22 am
In the linked example, they used essentially a targeted zap to temporarily shut down the part of the brain involved in judging intent. They then found a greatly reduced judgement of wrongdoing by someone who had intended ill, but had simply failed in pulling it off.
So you can, but the precise targeting involved would limit it to some sort of on-the-person device or a specialized medical lab. It would not last after such devices were no longer present, and would not work on random passers-by from a remote station (though a device like a metal detector or airport microwave scanning thingy, you might be able to get working if you could get them to stand still long enough to get everything calibrated).
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 25, 2015, 12:35:55 am
People have jumped from those heights before in similar ((acctualy lower grade)) equipment
Unless you mean lossing control
I'm not anywhere near knowledgeable on this so please correct me if I'm wrong
At those heights wouldn't she pick up greater speed because less air resistnance so it would be harder to control her fall but when she hits the thicker atmospheric layers would it not slow her down enough to give her a chance of getting into a stable fall? I mean she does have a few minutes before she absolutely needs that chute to survive
Post by: alway on February 25, 2015, 01:30:31 am
Orbital velocity is very high. To put it in perspective, if your sideways velocity was vertical velocity, you would reach the surface from LEO in 30 seconds or so, not taking into account the deceleration. So that's much faster than simply the downwards pull of gravity would accelerate you to. To deorbit, you typically just skim into the atmosphere, since to do anything else would require a vastly larger fuel supply. So if we take that definition for 'falling out of LEO', you hit the atmosphere at around 7-8km/s. This is what makes spacecraft recovery hard: you need shielding from the large heating effects of slamming into the atmosphere at those speeds. Fall from orbit like that, and there won't even be a body to recover, regardless of your angular velocity.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 25, 2015, 02:58:04 am
Post by: Scoops Novel on February 25, 2015, 06:08:51 am
That makes me sad :(
To give some closure to the discussion amidst the misinformation:
Heat death appears to be the most likely end scenario for the universe, since the cosmological constant does appear to be constant (gravitationally bound systems will remain bound).
A big rip scenario has been given way too much press since it was proposed circa 2003. It is currently not taken seriously anymore for the reason stated above (thanks to the recent WMAP and the ongoing PLANCK missions providing ever-improving measurements).
For those interested, here's a lightweight analysis of the heat death scenario by John Baez - a respected mathematician and cosmologist (also known for the crackpot index (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html)):
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/end.html
Isn't another theory that the universe wil continue to expland forever? And it will just die because everything is so far apartI'm sure that in 100 years our view of universe's future will completely change and people from that age will consider us stupid for even believing this.
No.
We don't believe this, for one. The Heat Death is currently considered the most likely fate of the universe, but if you told a scientist to commit they would refuse. It is known that we do not have enough data to come up with a reasonable conclusion. We also know every possible ending of the universe given the data so far, and we have a lot of data. Unless something completely and utterly weird happens within the next 100 years, our ideas of the fate of the universe will be less broad, but not completely different. The argument that "everything we know today will be seen as idiocy in 100 years" works for medicine and psychology, but not physics.
99 years ago, the theory of General Relativity was discovered. It hasn't been overturned since; in fact, all evidence points to its truth. Quantum Mechanics happened just ten years later and it's still going strong. Physics is not medicine. The universe is not nearly so complex as a human body.
So is heat death likely to remain the go-to theory even when dark matter discoveries and big bang revelations and so on come around? The site you linked to pallazo also had this to say:
Quote
However, Leonard Susskind has recently pointed out that in thermal equilibrium at any nonzero temperature, any system exhibits random fluctuations. The lower the temperature they smaller these are, but they are always there. These fluctuations randomly explore the space of all possible states of your system. So eventually, if you wait long enough, these random fluctuations will carry the system to whatever state you like. Well, that's a bit of an exaggeration: these fluctuations can't violate conservation laws. But conservation of energy doesn't count here, since at a nonzero temperature, a system is really in a state of all possible energies. So it's possible, for example, that a ice cube at the freezing point of water will melt or even boil due to random fluctuations. The reason we never see this happen is that such big fluctuations are incredibly rare.
Carrying this thought to a ridiculous extreme, what this means is that even if the universe consists of more or less empty space at a temperature of 10-30 kelvin, random fluctuations will occaisionally create atoms, molecules... and even solar systems and galaxies! The bigger the fluctuation, the more rarely it happens - but eternity is a long time. So eventually there will arise, sheerly by chance, a person just like you, with memories just like yours, reading a webpage just like this.
In short: maybe the universe has already ended!
However, the time it takes for really big fluctuations like this to occur is truly huge. It dwarfs all the time scales I've mentioned so far. So, it's probably not worth worrying about this issue too much: we don't know enough physics to make reliable predictions on such long time scales.
How seriously should i take this? And is "death" an accurate description?
Post by: Helgoland on February 25, 2015, 06:54:25 am
Post by: Osmosis Jones on February 25, 2015, 07:01:59 am
@Scoops: Infinity does funky stuff - it accounts for ~70% of interesting things that mathematicians do, after all. The argument presented is sound, but it would involve truly ridiculous timescales.
It strikes me that it's neglecting one rather important point; for matter to appear out of a quantum fluctuation, there also has to be an anti-particle produced, and produced nearby at that. So, sure, an entire galaxy may spontaneously appear... but it will be overlaid almost exactly with it's anti-galaxy and annihilate instantly.
Post by: Helgoland on February 25, 2015, 07:07:08 am
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 25, 2015, 08:00:22 am
I get orbits and heights mixed up, this is not my field :p
She was using a platform with balloons, floated up to about a kilometer lower than an orbiting satelite, on of the two balloons burst making the platform she was on unstable and slowly descending at an odd angle, finished what she was sent to do, other balloon burst so she started falling, and she flailed about for a bit ((I think part of the suit she was wearing was one of those that jet pilots wear to keep the Gfirces from knocking them out)) but after hitting thicker atmosphere she regained control
Post by: Il Palazzo on February 25, 2015, 08:43:06 am
So is heat death likely to remain the go-to theory even when dark matter discoveries and big bang revelations and so on come around?For now, sure. There's always a possibility of a major paradigm shift, especially in a field so quickly evolving as cosmology. But with every passing year it becomes less probable.
The way it works, is that once you find a new observable, a range of explanations pop up, which are then pruned by further observations.
Twenty-plus years ago the question of whether we live in a forever expanding, bound to re-collapse, or asymptotically approaching a steady state universe was a valid one. Ten years ago so was the behaviour of the acceleration of the expansion. Sure these questions could be rekindled, but not without a major new discovery/rewrite.
Quote
How seriously should i take this? And is "death" an accurate description?I wouldn't take it too seriously. As Helgoland said, it's one of those things that make absurdly wonderful sense mathematically, but for all intents and purposes are impossible. It's like that improbability drive from Adams' novels, or quantum tunnelling through a wall - fun to think of, but not really worth considering in reality.
Post by: Helgoland on February 25, 2015, 09:33:50 am
t's one of those things that make absurdly wonderful sense mathematicallyOh, the propositions I've proved, the theorems I've seen, the concepts and thoughts, how strange they all seem...
Post by: Frumple on February 25, 2015, 10:01:35 am
Not with sound, but electrical signals possibly. As said above, though, it's not something you can just shoot at someone and they'll go homicidal. I mean, you could try to simulate an adrenaline rush (so the decision making part of the brain is running on minimal) then just do enough stuff to really piss them off.Uh, maybe not specifically with odd frequencies, but almost certainly with sound. Sound is a physical phenomena that interacts with other physical objects -- it being able to reshape or alter your brain is certainly a viable possibility. Surviving the process, or the relative cost efficiency of that process compared to just cutting open the skull and tinkering, is another question, but eh.
Post by: Sergarr on February 25, 2015, 10:20:17 am
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 25, 2015, 10:30:15 am
Not with sound, but electrical signals possibly. As said above, though, it's not something you can just shoot at someone and they'll go homicidal. I mean, you could try to simulate an adrenaline rush (so the decision making part of the brain is running on minimal) then just do enough stuff to really piss them off.Uh, maybe not specifically with odd frequencies, but almost certainly with sound. Sound is a physical phenomena that interacts with other physical objects -- it being able to reshape or alter your brain is certainly a viable possibility. Surviving the process, or the relative cost efficiency of that process compared to just cutting open the skull and tinkering, is another question, but eh.
In the movie it was something that was constantly transmitting with a lot of things transmitting it and it takes a few short moments to start working not instantly
Post by: Helgoland on February 25, 2015, 10:31:24 am
At this point it technically stops being sound and starts being a blast wave.Would it be feasible to make an audio system based on exploding small amounts of different explosives?
Post by: Frumple on February 25, 2015, 10:37:15 am
Less sure about feasible. Or other things, like reusable. But you could do it.
Post by: Arx on February 25, 2015, 10:43:17 am
At this point it technically stops being sound and starts being a blast wave.Would it be feasible to make an audio system based on exploding small amounts of different explosives?
Well, it's already possible to change the frequency of an engine by revving it higher, which is just a bunch of explosions (unless it's been misrepresented because 'it's powered by explosions sounds cooler'), so all you'd need is a number of fine-tuned engines of varying sizes.
Post by: wierd on February 25, 2015, 11:49:00 am
At this point it technically stops being sound and starts being a blast wave.Would it be feasible to make an audio system based on exploding small amounts of different explosives?
Certainly! Perceived sound is different from the underlying waveform. (I will explain)
Take for instance, beat-frequencies, and polyphony in violin strings. Both produce "tones" that are composites of other tones.
We can produce something akin to this with explosions, if we put the explosions at specific locations around, say, a mountain valley, or a large meteoric impact crater. We vary the intensity of the explosions, and the distances between the explosions, so that the reflections of the reports of those explosions overlap, and form a polyphonic tonality.
So, setting off a very carefully timed sequence of metered explosions, with a fixed position for the "Listener", we could approximate sound generation.
(Think about it another way. A monaural speaker is just pulse code modulation-- An explosion is a pulse. Regulating the pulse intensity, and interval between pulses produces the perception of a coherent sound. Here, we do the same thing, using reflection timings, and modulating the intensity and frequency of explosions.)
Practical? No way--- Possible? Sure. Technically similar to "Impact printer music"
https://vimeo.com/58200103
Post by: scrdest on February 25, 2015, 11:51:39 am
An explosion is not a separate physical phenomenon in themselves, just an exoenergetic reaction with a bunch of specific features. Engine fuel, optimally, is a low explosive, so it doesn't detonate in the technical sense (if it does, you get a knocking engine), but the reaction is an explosion nonetheless.At this point it technically stops being sound and starts being a blast wave.Would it be feasible to make an audio system based on exploding small amounts of different explosives?
Well, it's already possible to change the frequency of an engine by revving it higher, which is just a bunch of explosions (unless it's been misrepresented because 'it's powered by explosions sounds cooler'), so all you'd need is a number of fine-tuned engines of varying sizes.
So yeah, you could make such a sound system, if you wanted to play mad scientist and had way too much money to spend.
Post by: Sergarr on February 25, 2015, 12:11:07 pm
Explosions are just rapidly expanding gasses, right?Wrong.
Post by: wierd on February 25, 2015, 12:17:47 pm
"A small explosion from between the legs" indeed.
Post by: scrdest on February 25, 2015, 12:21:34 pm
Looking it up, what I said was literally a simplified to a flaw explanation.Explosions are just rapidly expanding gasses, right?Wrong.
'An explosion is a rapid increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner'
Not quite; it doesn't need to be gasses, for starters (obviously); rapidly expanding gasses alone give you a blastwave, and it's one of the prereqs for an explosion, but not the entire thing. A nuclear explosive, for instance, does not release any gasses - the blast is caused by the exchange of energy with the air, so it's a secondary effect.
The example you gave is an explosion, because it does fulfill the requirement, but it's the 'expanding gasses' part that is inaccurate.
Post by: Sergarr on February 25, 2015, 12:23:06 pm
Notice the lack of word "gasses". Explosions can happen under water, for example. Or in plasma. It's not limited to "just gasses".Looking it up, what I said was literally a simplified to a flaw explanation.Explosions are just rapidly expanding gasses, right?Wrong.
'An explosion is a rapid increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner'
EDIT: NINJA'D
Post by: Levi on February 25, 2015, 12:24:32 pm
Post by: scrdest on February 25, 2015, 12:29:29 pm
Post by: wierd on February 25, 2015, 12:32:21 pm
When 23 and Me makes a complete home test kit (that does NOT involve sending the test card back to them for processing) I will most certainly buy one, but not before.
(And yes, rapid whole genome analysis with pure electronic assay is possible. The technology to do it was pioneered in the early 90s as part of the human genome project. All 23 and Me needs to do is make electronic assay cards with pre-doped sensors, and package a wetware kit with it. )
*edit
NSA spooks?
Now I wonder what the reaction would be to sending 23 and Me a sample card purposefully contaminated with soil bacteria from a cattle yard... Or maybe mouse droppings. So many bioterror signatures in innocuous locations if you know where to look.
Post by: Sergarr on February 25, 2015, 12:37:10 pm
Post by: wierd on February 25, 2015, 12:41:42 pm
..."bionic eye implant that sends light wave signals to the optic nerve"... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu5099aJWcU)
*My mom has macular degeneration, which is degeneration of the layer of cells directly behind the rods and cones in the central portion of the eye, which results in central vision blindness. As a result, I am keenly interested in assisted vision technology and reparative research.
The linked video is for a device I am familiar with. The device has a very low resolution, but for people with total blindness, is really awesome. Sadly, it is not a good solution for my mom. She's a realist artist, and needs high resolution imaging. The research done in europe with adult stemcells is of more interest to me at the moment. IIIRC, it is also monochrome only.
Some of the complications with the bionic eye cited above include scar tissue formation, and loss of nerve sensitivity at implant site over time.
Post by: Levi on February 25, 2015, 12:43:09 pm
I am curious about my genomic makeup as well (Lots of NASTY mutations in my ancestry) but dont feel comfortable with that information being in the hands of a 3rd party I dont control.
Yeah, I understand that. I kind of think its going to be impossible to keep that information private in the long term though as it gets easier and easier to do genetic testing. Especially as medicine moves towards genome-centric treatments and using your genome information to treat diseases becomes more common(We already do this a bit at my HIV lab).
Its weird, I'm more paranoid about keeping my digital files secure than my genome. :P
Post by: Arx on February 25, 2015, 01:23:53 pm
Study shows direct correlation between CO2 levels and thermal radiation levels. (https://www.sciencenews.org/article/scientists-confirm-amassing-co2-heats-earth%E2%80%99s-surface)
Quote
Over 10 years of near-daily observations, the team found that a rise in CO2 concentrations of 22 parts per million boosted the amount of incoming thermal radiation by 0.2 watts per square meter, an increase of about 10 percent. The researchers say their results agree with the theoretical predictions of CO2-driven warming used in simulations of future climate.
Post by: wierd on February 25, 2015, 01:44:54 pm
The connection between CO2 levels, changes in thermal equilibrium of gasses, and serious scientific concern over CO2 levels altering climate was made way back in the late 1800s.
I even have a PDF of a vintage scientific paper on that very subject at hand!
http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
That's right, this subject has been "Debated" for over 100 years, and scientists have known and been trying to educate about it that entire time!
Oh, the joys of commercially interested misinformation!
Post by: hops on February 25, 2015, 01:55:30 pm
Post by: Levi on February 25, 2015, 04:03:59 pm
A story about magic (http://gizmodo.com/a-same-day-delivery-startup-brought-me-a-fish-we-both-a-1687995050?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+gizmodo%2Ffull+%28Gizmodo%29). I really enjoyed this story, because I think this is a great example of a service company enabled by technology(or lazy people enabled by technology).
Basically, Magic (http://getmagicnow.com/) is the service to end all services. You send a text message saying what you want (anything legal & possible) and when and they will give you a quote on what it will cost to get it to you, and you can say yes and get charged or no and your done. In the article, the person needs a fish tank and a live fish that day, and they just take care of it. It sounds pretty cool, and it even accepts bitcoin. Its only in the US at the moment though, so I can't actually give it a shot.
I kind of wonder if this is the future of the service industry. A few simple front-end services that will contract out to get whatever you need done.
Post by: hops on February 25, 2015, 04:53:55 pm
Post by: Sheb on February 25, 2015, 08:11:07 pm
Post by: i2amroy on February 25, 2015, 08:20:45 pm
Post by: Levi on February 25, 2015, 08:41:42 pm
Really the hardest part of sequencing a genome is the part where you try to understand the results your analyzer machine outputs. Most biologists don't exactly like it when you dump a 3 GB solid block text file onto their desktop and say "here, analyze this". (My university actually offers a BIO/CS class that specifically focuses on writing and using programs to analyze the huge text files of genome sequences that the analyze machines spit out).
I do this sort of thing at work all the time. :) We have one of these: http://www.illumina.com/systems/miseq.html
I doubt 23andme actually does sequencing though. I vaguely remember there was a technique that did something like tossing primers at a region and seeing which ones bind, which would tell you which variants the genes are. It doesn't give the full on nucleotide sequence, but it'll identify things if it matches something in your primer library.
Edit: Yeah, looks like that is it. (https://www.23andme.com/en-ca/more/genotyping/)
Post by: alway on February 25, 2015, 09:39:23 pm
It's a milder version of the stuff I had mentioned, with the aim of letting you essentially push your brain towards certain moods (calm/relaxed or focused/alert are mentioned). Interestingly, it also mentions that they had been experimenting with ultrasound initially, but came to the conclusion it was pretty much useless.
Who knows how legit it is until they have solid independent results, but its methods are very much in line with what I had been saying.
Post by: hops on February 25, 2015, 09:44:09 pm
Post by: alway on February 25, 2015, 10:07:58 pm
Though those methods are almost certainly quite a bit more powerful, due to being intended for clinical use by clients screened for any potential issues, rather than consumer-grade use-at-home devices. Based on the description of the sound it makes, it sounds like the same sort of device they were using to override part of the brain for the first experiment I linked.
Post by: wierd on February 26, 2015, 12:25:38 am
Really the hardest part of sequencing a genome is the part where you try to understand the results your analyzer machine outputs. Most biologists don't exactly like it when you dump a 3 GB solid block text file onto their desktop and say "here, analyze this". (My university actually offers a BIO/CS class that specifically focuses on writing and using programs to analyze the huge text files of genome sequences that the analyze machines spit out).
I do this sort of thing at work all the time. :) We have one of these: http://www.illumina.com/systems/miseq.html
I doubt 23andme actually does sequencing though. I vaguely remember there was a technique that did something like tossing primers at a region and seeing which ones bind, which would tell you which variants the genes are. It doesn't give the full on nucleotide sequence, but it'll identify things if it matches something in your primer library.
Edit: Yeah, looks like that is it. (https://www.23andme.com/en-ca/more/genotyping/)
Exactly, but I personally wonder why they don't leverage DNA's natural semiconductor properties, instead of tagging the SNPs with photopigments.
Oh, Look-- Somebody is working on that!
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/424768/a-semiconductor-dna-sequencer/
To me, it seems like a no-brainer to use a simple aggregation technique with a bunch of redundant SNP sensitive regions per SNP of interest, and use the binding mechanic itself to turn the bead from insulator to organic hybrid semiconductor. That way all you need to do to read the chip is literally plug it into a computer, collect the data, and do a statistical analysis. Something like 50 to 100 instances per SNP of interest randomly located on the chip, so that good signal isolation is possible per chip. (that way even if there are slight defects that would inhibit good substrate interaction with the ligated sequences, [say, a fingerprint or something] reasonable confidence can still be obtained from the run.)
A special USB dongle, a DVD with the analysis software, a wetware kit with single use plastic lab goodies and refined enzymes for processing, a semiconductor based SNP assay chip, (and lots of time to let the computer grunt while you go to work for the day) and you could theoretically have a fully at-home "For your personal amusement" DNA testing kit.
Post by: Sheb on February 26, 2015, 03:33:52 am
Also, you seems confused about what SNP means. It stands for Single Nucleotide Polymorphism, aka a 1 base pair change between two genomes (often a subject's genome and some "reference" genome for medical applications).
Hey, a shout to all the other molecular biologist/genetic engineers/bioengineers/biochemists/synthetic biologist out there, what would be your pet project if you had lab equipment in your garage (let say you manage to grab a bunch of second-hand stuff from your workplace)?
Post by: wierd on February 26, 2015, 03:48:56 am
I was meaning, that for each unique sequence, you have around 50 to 100 beads that become semiconductive after the unique DNA sequence docks. (So if you have 100 possible variants on a coding region you are assaying against, and 100 beads for each, that's 10,000 beads. It is unlikely that you will have 100% successful docking of the DNA with your assay chip, which is why you need redundant beads per unique conformation. You can overcome uncertainty that your "hit" or "miss" is random this way.) One way to accomplish this is to use the DNA molecule as the gate layer of a hybrid organic diode, where only a specifically coded DNA sequence can attach, and form this diode.
It has been known since at least 1999 that DNA is semiconducting.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/1999/apr/01/dna-is-a-semiconductor
Assembling a purely electronic detector is well within the realm of possibility.
--------------------
Not a biotech engineer-- just an old IT guy-- but if I were, and had access to such toys, I would adapt upper atmospheric microbes into high temperature extremophiles tailored for life in a very high pH, nitrogen depleted, and chemically arid (eg, surrounded by strongly hygroscopic, nearly anhydrous acids in both vapor and droplet forms) conditions, that is able to synthesize appreciable quantities of aramid plastic, using a sulphur respiration cycle.
It's the kind of thing that I feel is needed to free Venus from its runaway greenhouse effect.
Many useful mechanisms could be lifted from existing terrestrial microbes. Producing a viable biochemical pathway to synthesize this heavy (and energy dense) polymer would be a feat in and of itself, and getting the many different mechanisms from very disparate places to work nicely in the resulting custom microbe would be even harder.
Probably would not succeed, but it would still be fun.
Post by: scrdest on February 26, 2015, 05:19:44 am
Ion torrents is not really "harvesting the DNA's semiconductor property" though. It's fairly similar to all the other High Throughput Sequencing machine, except it uses the pH change associated to the addition of a new base pair instead of light to read the addition of new base pair.Realistically? A DNA microarray analysis of the gene expression between normal and psoriatic cells, then regular inflammation and psoriatic cells to analyze the expression patterns - I kinda have a vested interest in this, because thanks Dadbama - this one is something I might be able to work with as a lab project for my Bachelor's, since one lab on the university is actually working on the subject.
Also, you seems confused about what SNP means. It stands for Single Nucleotide Polymorphism, aka a 1 base pair change between two genomes (often a subject's genome and some "reference" genome for medical applications).
Hey, a shout to all the other molecular biologist/genetic engineers/bioengineers/biochemists/synthetic biologist out there, what would be your pet project if you had lab equipment in your garage (let say you manage to grab a bunch of second-hand stuff from your workplace)?
Alternatively, look into the whole NAD+ and pseudohypoxia reversal, or anything else biogerontology.
Even more alternatively and vaguely, something something stem cells something, too early into my studies to know enough to tackle the subject professionally but it holds enough promise in bioregeneration to arouse my curiosity.
@wierd, extremophile adaptations tend to be major enough that adapting something into one is a pipe dream, for the most part, at least at the scale of several adaptations as in here; it'd be more viable to either modify an existing one or create a biofilm of several kinds of microbes that, together, are able to withstand such conditions and accomplish the objective.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 26, 2015, 08:12:31 am
Post by: Sheb on February 26, 2015, 08:30:07 am
scrdest is right though: it might be easier to engineer a microbial community than a microbe (it's not as if bacteria lived on their own). I remember reading a nice example of a Dutch team creating a microbial ecosystem to produce polyhydroxyalkaloate, a plastic. The nice thing about this is that you're in effect operating on a black box model: you don't really need to understand the details of the interactions, just put in the right selection pressure.
Post by: Arx on February 26, 2015, 09:32:07 am
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on February 26, 2015, 11:49:17 am
Well, XKCD normally does a good job of explaining, so it'd be redundant.I didn't mean the exact same questions but similar ones, as in random extremely out of the box questions
scrdest is right though: it might be easier to engineer a microbial community than a microbe (it's not as if bacteria lived on their own). I remember reading a nice example of a Dutch team creating a microbial ecosystem to produce polyhydroxyalkaloate, a plastic. The nice thing about this is that you're in effect operating on a black box model: you don't really need to understand the details of the interactions, just put in the right selection pressure.
Post by: wierd on February 26, 2015, 01:28:01 pm
Oh, I know. extreme environments are nutrient poor, or at least so marginally viable as an evolutionary niche that even small upsets can make or break the survivability of such creatures. There are already a few extremophile microbes that I had in mind for adaptation candidates, but getting them used to the strongly denaturating conditions of the Venusian upper atmosphere would be no small feat. (the candidates I have in mind are already high temperature, are sulphur cycle chemotrophs, and used to high pressure. They just are evolved for life in deep ocean vents, and not for life in absurdly high pH, low water environments. It would take substantial changes to the lipid layers of the cell membrane to withstand that environment, and the question remains if there would be enough bioavailable energy to sustain the microbe's now expanded biological needs just for survival, let alone tack adding a most likely inefficient liability on there, which is what a man-made pathway to produce small crystals of aramid plastic would do to the poor things. Sadly, aramid is easily broken down by exposure to high pH, so to be a viable aproach for the intended use, the plastic has to stay inside the cell, and rely on the cell membranes staying partially intact as the creatures die, and get rained down to the hellish surface below. Down there, the plastic is right on the edge of being thermostable, and should be able to accumulate on Venus' various mountain tops.
I know full well it would not be something easy to do. I said it would be something fun to do, and being engineered for such vastly alien conditions to pretty much everwhere on earth, the resulting microbes wouldnt be an appreciable contagion risk.
as for regenerative geriatrics, I saw a paper recently on mice that were able to retain the extracellular matrix of thier tissues very late into thier adult lives. I cant remember the name of the gene that was implicated in the knockout study, but it was related to studying atherosclerosis. A novel side effect that was observed was "beautiful skin", which prompted a different study with shaved knockout mice being subjected to absurd amounts of UV light, and rating the resistence to degeneration. IIRC, the results were noteworthy. retaining extracellular collagen longer in life would be a substantial benefit to geriatric medicine.
Post by: i2amroy on February 26, 2015, 01:38:21 pm
I didn't mean the exact same questions but similar ones, as in random extremely out of the box questionsTo be honest that almost sounds more like something for the Small random questions thread (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=113517.1185) than one for the science thread.I mean if they are particularly science-y or deal with newer technology then feel free to shoot, but if they are on the level as some of the xkcd ones ("What happens if all the rain in a cloud fell in one drop?") then I don't really feel like they belong here personally.
Post by: Arx on February 26, 2015, 01:40:51 pm
Post by: i2amroy on February 26, 2015, 01:46:45 pm
Post by: Sheb on February 26, 2015, 02:10:58 pm
Post by: scrdest on February 26, 2015, 02:12:44 pm
The problem is that if the aramid plastic pathway is a drain on the cell, the ones you send to Venus will quickly get rid of it.Yeah, that's a *big* problem in all genetic modification. Even if it wasn't a drain, bacteria like to lose the modifications they don't specifically need.
Post by: wierd on February 26, 2015, 02:23:30 pm
That way, elimination of the added feature would result in a net reduction in viability of the lifeform in the environment.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 26, 2015, 04:07:57 pm
Post by: scrdest on February 26, 2015, 04:28:22 pm
It's a very complex system though, so presumably the cell is still going to adapt.
Not to mention getting the pathway right just got even harder; if you want the aramid in the membrane, you're gonna have to get the cell to get it there somehow; that means transporting proteins and membrane transporters, so it's another thing you need to build in - and we're already talking about several modifications, with only a small percentage of bacteria on each step incorporating the modification.
Furthermore, I just thought about the fact that you've picked bacteria that are already extremophilic to some degree. While it means less effort in getting them the rest of the traits, there is one more problem.
VBNCs. Viable But Non-Cultivable Microorganisms; if you have microbes adapted to extreme conditions, you need to cultivate them in extreme conditions. And it's a PITA already to just cultivate anaerobic bacteria, despite several techniques developed.
Post by: wierd on February 26, 2015, 09:14:04 pm
Aramid is basically a complex of aromatic amide group chains held together by hydrogen bonds. Amide groups are pretty common inside cellular processes. It may be possible to transport simple amides to the membrane with already known transport systems, and do the assembly in place with a pH controlled enzyme.
it was the use of such a commonly found functional group to make the plastic that made me wonder about potential biosynthesis, and integration into cellular membranes.
It's the energy costs of making such complex and energy dense macro molecules that I think is the game killer. Sulphur respiration isnt exactly a powerhouse, compared to molecular oxygen and sugars. Less is more, so the less power hungry the microbe is, the healthier it will be.
It's a hard problem. I'm not a molecular biologist nor a career geneticist. I dont really have the skillset here, but the challenge would be enticing all the same.
The question was what you would do if you had the skills and equipment in your garage. I enjoy difficult but ambitious projects. The reward from getting even a small part working is just that much more fullfilling.
I have neither, so it's moot anyway. :)
Post by: Scoops Novel on February 27, 2015, 01:06:58 pm
Elon musk seems to like it too.
Post by: Levi on February 27, 2015, 01:20:36 pm
A) AI's becoming super intelligent.
B) Humans altering themselves to become AI's (uploading, augmentation, whatever).
I think A is more likely to come first, but we might be able to piggy back on advances to get B soon after.
(I miss the transhumanism thread)
Post by: wierd on February 27, 2015, 01:41:03 pm
Take for instance, the artificial hippocampus that was used on rat brains a few years ago.
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-06/artificial-memory-chip-rats-can-remember-and-forget-touch-button
Happened right alongside modern "Deep learning" AI research.
Post by: hops on February 27, 2015, 02:15:30 pm
But hey, maybe by that time we can grow custom-made brains.
Post by: wierd on February 27, 2015, 02:25:58 pm
http://news.discovery.com/tech/robotics/brain-dish-flies-plane-041022.htm
Post by: Dutchling on February 27, 2015, 02:32:48 pm
Post by: Sergarr on February 27, 2015, 02:36:27 pm
Pretty sure our brains also contains some stuff other than neurons that's necessary for full functionality of the brain.
Post by: hops on February 27, 2015, 03:05:21 pm
As long as the cells arent human, it's fair game.it's fair game now, but if history told us anything, ethical standards will continue to rise higher. In fact, I have a feelings that even robots will have rights in the future. I'm not saying it's a good or a bad thing, but it's definitely inconvenient.
http://news.discovery.com/tech/robotics/brain-dish-flies-plane-041022.htm
Post by: wierd on February 27, 2015, 03:22:07 pm
Specifically, the whole abortion ethics issue, with Roe-vs-Wade, and all that not fun stuff we dont want to talk about in this thread because it should be discussed elsewhere.
However, as it relates to THIS issue-- with synthetic intelligence and research on cultured neural tissues-- If you ascribe a glob of some few thousand neurons on a silicon substrate as being alive, and with rights-- how can the same determination not be given to a developing fetus with substantially more than that?
See how the problem gets really sticky really quickly?
This is why human cells arent allowed in the research without extensive oversight, amongst others, and why I dont see the legal system allowing that kettle of fish to be untinned without some pretty damned alarming data to force it open with.
Post by: Gentlefish on February 27, 2015, 04:18:33 pm
Post by: lemon10 on February 27, 2015, 06:42:35 pm
We are a very long ways from that being a real issue, but it's especially troublesome as there isn't going to be any way to draw a clear line.
Post by: Bauglir on February 27, 2015, 06:57:01 pm
Post by: Frumple on February 27, 2015, 07:00:05 pm
Yeah, abortion issues in regards to AI is pretty small fries compared to the more fundamental issue: We will eventually be creating beings as intelligent than humans with the goal of them being slaves. Willing slaves, but slaves nonetheless.Or we could always just not do that. Most people don't make kids for the express purpose of future laborers.
'Course, the AI will still have the issue of being able to support themselves (i.e. keep whatever computer is running them powered and repaired), so they might not want to go be a musician or whatev' to avoid the digital equivalent of starving to death in the streets, but eh. They'll likely have better tools to pull that off than most humans have.
I mean, really, we've had a few thousand years to get the hang of making intelligent beings without being brainfuckingly immoral about it. Admittedly not the best track record, but it's not like this is a complicated subject in and of itself. Made complicated pretty often, sure, but "Don't be a colossal dickwad to your offspring" is actually not some grand philosophical conundrum.
Post by: Criptfeind on February 27, 2015, 07:01:34 pm
Because if so, I don't want to subscribe to your moral philosophy.
Post by: Bauglir on February 27, 2015, 07:02:13 pm
Post by: Frumple on February 27, 2015, 07:04:06 pm
Alternately, you may make cyborg butlers as you please, so long as they're hired appropriately and are okay with doing the job.
Post by: Arx on February 28, 2015, 01:52:27 am
Which could be quite useful.
Post by: Putnam on February 28, 2015, 02:13:49 am
Post by: Arx on February 28, 2015, 02:57:23 am
Post by: Lagslayer on February 28, 2015, 10:01:05 am
Post by: Frumple on February 28, 2015, 11:15:02 am
Post by: Bauglir on February 28, 2015, 11:40:11 am
Post by: Scoops Novel on February 28, 2015, 11:45:46 am
Wut?
Post by: Putnam on February 28, 2015, 11:49:28 am
Post by: Sirus on February 28, 2015, 11:56:12 am
Post by: wierd on February 28, 2015, 12:19:04 pm
A virus is very, very small. A germ looks like a 2 mile long asteroid compared to the size of a typical virus.
Now, we assume that the shrunken kids have the same metabolic requirements, and are made of the same number of atoms while shrunk. Gotta obey conservation of mass and energy after all. A good deal of an atom is vacant space, so if we reduce the amount of vacant space and instead concentrate charges.... whoop-- we just did some crazyness to the kids's biochemistry on accident! By altering the charge gradients from the shrinking, we just changed the energy needed to make and break bonds between the compressed atoms... sorry kids, didnt mean to cause horrific problems like that!
Ok, so maybe we use magic to protect the kids from the outside environment, shrink thier atoms like before, but we use even more magic to balance or slightly cancel out the now increased bond energies so that the kids dont instantly undergo horrible chemical reactions inside thier bodies... oh no! they are suffocating! Guess we didnt consider that the non-magicized oxygen that we expected them to be breathing was not being magicized, and thus had very different bonding properties compared to the magicized atoms in thier lungs!
OK, let's give them magicized scuba gear too. Oh good, they can breathe! but they cant swim! the magic protecting them from interactions with the inflated atoms around them prevents traction!
Better re-inflate them and see how we can do better.. OMG, what's happening to the patient we put them in!? He's swelling up like a baloon! OMG! its the air the kids were breathing that was magically shrunk in the tank, suddenly reverting to normal volume inside the patient!!!
the simple side of it: shrinking and inserting macro organisms inside a living person is just plain silly, and dangerous, if it were actually possible.
Post by: Scoops Novel on February 28, 2015, 12:26:34 pm
What, you talking the latest one? An explanation that's probably overtly simple: the apparent viscosity of fluids gets higher as an object gets smaller. If one's the size of a virus, it's somewhat like trying to breathe pitch.
Surely they're breathing a gas not a fluid?
Post by: Bauglir on February 28, 2015, 12:29:13 pm
Post by: Scoops Novel on February 28, 2015, 12:39:55 pm
What, you talking the latest one? An explanation that's probably overtly simple: the apparent viscosity of fluids gets higher as an object gets smaller. If one's the size of a virus, it's somewhat like trying to breathe pitch.
Surely they're breathing a gas not a fluid?
Gas has viscosity, too.
Ty. Didn't realize viruses had different methods of respiring.
Post by: Bauglir on February 28, 2015, 12:40:56 pm
EDIT: At least, as far as I know. They're basically inert packets of genetic information that bounce around until they encounter a suitable host cell. All their energy is invested when they're produced by a hijacked host.
Post by: Putnam on February 28, 2015, 12:48:50 pm
Post by: wierd on February 28, 2015, 12:49:28 pm
It's chemically reactive, just very very specifically.
Post by: Bauglir on February 28, 2015, 12:55:40 pm
Post by: Scoops Novel on February 28, 2015, 02:35:27 pm
Post by: Evil Knievel on February 28, 2015, 05:40:59 pm
But after another person just outlined some thoughts - especially the concept of self-improving AI - I went into a long strange mood, which, after repeated failures of finding the flaws to discard these crazy ideas, almost drove me off the margin of my mental stability. It is really creepy, so creepy that I almost cannot take it seriously and stay sane at the same time, because it is so plausible. I am not a computer scientist, but I have sufficient scientific education to form my own judgment about the seriousness of this idea - and I came to the conclusion that there is really no reason to discard it lightly.
Next, more a feeling than an argument, I have a rather gloomy and mechanistic view on modern day society, believing that it works exactly in such a way to produce such a catastrophe as swiftly and carelessly as possible. The major forces are (1) capital interests, which constantly fight any form of control and oversight because the doctrine is that exponential growth is at the heart of every ones well-being, especially their own and (2) governments, whose power hunger can also be measured by how powerful they currently already are. For both of these the vision of controlling the best AI must be an irresistible goal to pursue.
And only after that I started reading (like the letter by Hawking, the article by Tegmark, and even Bill Gates' statement on reddit) etc etc.. and yep, they came up with much better phrased arguments than I could have. I am left shattered.
Post by: Reelya on February 28, 2015, 05:53:08 pm
What, you talking the latest one? An explanation that's probably overtly simple: the apparent viscosity of fluids gets higher as an object gets smaller. If one's the size of a virus, it's somewhat like trying to breathe pitch.
Surely they're breathing a gas not a fluid?
Fluids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid) are gases, liquids and plasmas. Anything that flows.
Post by: Sergarr on February 28, 2015, 06:06:19 pm
The AI apocalypse is something that terrifies me since I heard of it the second time. The first time I heard of it, I did not think too deeply, maybe because I did not give the person explaining it enough credit and forgot it immediately, which is a shame.You should be in constant terror then, because most cultures, corporations and governments already function like artificial AI's. It can easily force a man to die for it's own interests. It runs on humans minds, but its ways of thinking is very unlike human one's.
But after another person just outlined some thoughts - especially the concept of self-improving AI - I went into a long strange mood, which, after repeated failures of finding the flaws to discard these crazy ideas, almost drove me off the margin of my mental stability. It is really creepy, so creepy that I almost cannot take it seriously and stay sane at the same time, because it is so plausible. I am not a computer scientist, but I have sufficient scientific education to form my own judgment about the seriousness of this idea - and I came to the conclusion that there is really no reason to discard it lightly.
Next, more a feeling than an argument, I have a rather gloomy and mechanistic view on modern day society, believing that it works exactly in such a way to produce such a catastrophe as swiftly and carelessly as possible. The major forces are (1) capital interests, which constantly fight any form of control and oversight because the doctrine is that exponential growth is at the heart of every ones well-being, especially their own and (2) governments, whose power hunger can also be measured by how powerful they currently already are. For both of these the vision of controlling the best AI must be an irresistible goal to pursue.
And only after that I started reading (like the letter by Hawking, the article by Tegmark, and even Bill Gates' statement on reddit) etc etc.. and yep, they came up with much better phrased arguments than I could have. I am left shattered.
And humanity is still not dead. In fact, it only managed to prosper by willingly constructing and complying with these AI's. A future-made artificial intelligence would not be worse than modern governments, and in fact, it would be better, since it would not be hindered by human weaknesses and power-hungryness, which corrupt and destroy modern wetware AI's. It also would be able to understand humans much better than we do ourselves, so it would be able to fix problems that plague our society in a much better way.
Post by: Evil Knievel on February 28, 2015, 06:38:36 pm
You should be in constant terror then, because most cultures, corporations and governments already function like artificial AI's. It can easily force a man to die for it's own interests. It runs on humans minds, but its ways of thinking is very unlike human one's.This is a good and interesting point. But it is less terrifying for me (don't say that I like it), because the collective human mind still relies on humans, and is limited by them.
Quote
And humanity is still not dead. In fact, it only managed to prosper by willingly constructing and complying with these AI's. A future-made artificial intelligence would not be worse than modern governments, and in fact, it would be better, since it would not be hindered by human weaknesses and power-hungryness, which corrupt and destroy modern wetware AI's. It also would be able to understand humans much better than we do ourselves, so it would be able to fix problems that plague our society in a much better way.Here I think you might turn out to be wrong. I don't see how an AI can safely be constructed to behave positive to humans at all times, also when it has become too smart to be influenced by humans. Especially since I don't see our efforts directed at that in any meaningful manner, compared to the efforts directed at creating such a thing in the first place.
On another layer: the feeling of being part of a collective mind (the society) still gives me the warm and fuzzy feeling of belonging, whereas an AI that evolves separately from humans to inconceivable levels and thus renders all our pursuits inferior and pointless, and maybe even solving all our problems, is a bit like abolishing the meaning of life.
Post by: Sergarr on February 28, 2015, 07:37:18 pm
The same could've been said of all human inventions, really. Fire can burn down the whole cities, nuclear technology can kill millions of people, but ultimately both these things, and many, many others, have made human world a better place. We certainly can't stop now on our road to constructing stable ecology, because otherwise we'll be living in pretty bad condition in the next century. And constructing stable ecology requires for us to make many, many inventions, both in technological and humanitarian spheres, and having dedicated research AI to help us with those problems would be really helpful.
Though I wonder - if an AI solves a mathematical "problem of a century", who gets the prize money - the AI or the creator of it?
Post by: Lagslayer on February 28, 2015, 10:14:58 pm
Post by: i2amroy on March 01, 2015, 01:34:34 am
The reason we haven't seen anyone doing much about trying to prevent the AI apocalypse? Let me ask you a question. Have you ever seen those snazzy smart phone apps that do things like look at a picture of a car and tell you what model it is? Or how about the ones that listen to a song and tell you what the title, artist, and publication date is? Or how about chatterbot? Those are some of our most advanced "true" AI's in existence right now. (As opposed to the AI's in games, which are for the most part just "fake" AI's, they don't ever actually "learn" anything). You don't see any work because we're probably looking at at least another 20 years before our top AI's begin to even approach the complexity that is needed for a thought like "I think we should kill all the humans".
I believe you are simply making a (disturbingly common) mistake where you jump straight from the idea of "computers today" to "skynet", without seeing the very long line that connects the two.
Post by: Putnam on March 01, 2015, 01:51:24 am
On the other hand, humans can't exactly program better humans, so that's a bit of a nebulous issue.
Post by: Execute/Dumbo.exe on March 01, 2015, 02:34:07 am
To block anyone, go to your own profile, mouse over modify profile, click on the Buddies/Ignore list, then type in the exact name of the person you want blocked.
Post by: MaximumZero on March 01, 2015, 03:43:46 am
The disturbing part is how quick the line starts going up once you have "bot what can program bots".Better human is kind of subjective, but I'm trying to make my kids better than me, so there's that.
On the other hand, humans can't exactly program better humans, so that's a bit of a nebulous issue.
Post by: Sergarr on March 01, 2015, 03:52:02 am
Post by: Putnam on March 01, 2015, 03:54:12 am
Post by: Descan on March 01, 2015, 03:59:40 am
The area of "potential intelligence" is most likely MUCH larger and MUCH more varied than "Humans, and every animal on Earth."
Post by: Arx on March 01, 2015, 04:30:14 am
Of course, we're currently coming up on hardware size limitations. We can't actually make some things smaller any more because they're already on the single-digit nanometers scale.
Post by: nogoodnames on March 01, 2015, 04:38:10 am
I don't know if there's much scientific backing to that, but it does make a certain kind of sense. Although it all depends on information being preserved inside a black hole, which my limited knowledge of theoretical physics suggests is not the case.
Post by: Putnam on March 01, 2015, 04:44:05 am
Oh, one of my favorite statistical anomalies: plugging in the mass of the observable universe into the black hole density equation (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%287.36421*10%5E79%29%2Fm%5E2) gives you approximately the density of the observable universe (and thus the volume of said black hole would be approximately that of the observable universe).
Post by: Arx on March 01, 2015, 04:44:33 am
Post by: Putnam on March 01, 2015, 04:45:48 am
Post by: Arx on March 01, 2015, 04:49:36 am
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 01, 2015, 09:46:57 am
Post by: Sergarr on March 01, 2015, 09:53:36 am
Is there anyway of ripping a black hold open/ tearing a black hole apart to observe the particles that were trapped inside?Short of waiting until it evaporates due to Hawking radiation, no.
Post by: Scoops Novel on March 01, 2015, 10:02:14 am
For the record, i wish that AI article dwelled more on the effects of bridging technologies to AI. If we take the approach of emulating the human brain (https://www.humanbrainproject.eu/en_GB), what happens to all the people who look more and more like wetware?
Does a better understanding of the brain worry you?
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 01, 2015, 10:03:56 am
Just pops in and out of existence is a tad silly for science, is there nothing that causes the pairs of particles that come in and out of existence?
IIRC Hawking radiation is when one particle gets sucked into the event horizon and the other just barely escapes, not allowing them to rejoin and poof back out of existence right?
Post by: Gigaz on March 01, 2015, 10:52:43 am
Also, where does Hawking radiation come from?
Just pops in and out of existence is a tad silly for science, is there nothing that causes the pairs of particles that come in and out of existence?
IIRC Hawking radiation is when one particle gets sucked into the event horizon and the other just barely escapes, not allowing them to rejoin and poof back out of existence right?
Vacuum is filled with virtual particles which obey an energy/lifetime relation like E*t<hbar/2. So they spawn and after their lifetime, energy and impulse have to be returned. It is however possible that they spawn at the event horizon and after the particle lifetime, the Black Hole pays for the deficit and one of the virtual particles escapes to become a real particle.
Post by: Frumple on March 01, 2015, 11:04:48 am
Does a better understanding of the brain worry you?Depends on what you mean by "worry". Will it allow new means of abusing human beings? Almost certainly. Do I consider the potential negatives to outweigh the potential positives? Not even remotely.
It would be pretty difficult for the possible advances in neurology to cause more harm than good -- too many of humanity's problems are caused by not actually knowing what the zog our brainmeats are doing, and the potential benefits to cognitive enhancement are incredibly large. There's maybe some worries about what particularly corrupt individuals will try to do with that knowledge, but... hell, knowing more means knowing how to counter that, too. It's an apple with a gram of poison in it that also has instructions on curing that poison (and dozens of others that aren't in the apple) embedded inside.
... so the less clear answer would be, "No, not really."
Post by: Scoops Novel on March 01, 2015, 11:50:31 am
Not a neuroscientist (or a republican).
Post by: Frumple on March 01, 2015, 12:00:46 pm
As I noted, what I imagine is most likely is that yes, harmful technology and/or methodology will be developed, but it will be massively outnumbered by the amount of beneficial ones. The sheer amount of problems we currently have due to not understanding how our brain works makes that as near a guarantee as you can get when making future-related WAGs.
Post by: Scoops Novel on March 01, 2015, 12:08:46 pm
Post by: Frumple on March 01, 2015, 12:18:12 pm
There's just not many scenarios where ignorance regarding our most important organ is a desirable goal. We... really need to know more about what's going on in that thing. "Everything" would be really nice.
Post by: Scoops Novel on March 01, 2015, 12:22:32 pm
Post by: Descan on March 01, 2015, 12:27:37 pm
Is there anyway of ripping a black hold open/ tearing a black hole apart to observe the particles that were trapped inside?There's the concept of naked black holes, where (I think it's via spinning, but it could be just from sheer straight-line velocity) the event horizon of the black hole is smaller than the singularity itself. Meaning that light can hit the singularity and escape again.
Of course, it's purely theoretical. >_>
Post by: Frumple on March 01, 2015, 12:30:35 pm
Give me a example of what happens when it goes wrong.... the brain? Well, there's this list... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders)
Admittedly it's not a perfect list, but it's about the best we have right now and getting better as the years go by, mostly.
If you're talking about something besides the brain going wrong, though, you'll have to clarify as I've misunderstood.
Post by: Scoops Novel on March 01, 2015, 12:45:48 pm
Post by: Sergarr on March 01, 2015, 12:55:44 pm
I know you can't stop technology, but the risks of brain research (what I meant) seem to be as bad as it gets. I know I should run this by a neurologist, but I am surprised that you're so passionately optimistic.The risks of not doing it are worse. Any second, a random quirk of the brain can make people do decisions they'll regret later. Coupled with the fact that some of these people control weapons of mass destruction...
Post by: Frumple on March 01, 2015, 01:02:25 pm
Thing is, though, even at its worst it wasn't really wide spread -- it is incredibly difficult to actually screw with the brain en masse, even if you're using biological or chemical weapons, even using the best of today's knowledge and, from what I understand, most of the better guesses regarding future capability -- and some of it actually did progress things a bit (we're considerably better at not screwing up brainzapping, ferex). And nowadays we've got considerably stronger methodological constraints on how you go about things, which are mostly pretty well followed.
Basically, from what I understand given my interaction with the psych field (which is, as with you NS, not professional), the risks are not as large as popular fiction or whatnot would like to have one think. Not nonexistent, but the logistics surrounding it makes it unlikely to be an issue. And the benefits are nigh-on immeasurable. As I noted, we really can't afford to stay in a state of ignorance regarding how our brains work -- any damage knowing more could cause is almost certainly outweighed by what not knowing is causing, and would continue to cause.
Post by: sjm9876 on March 01, 2015, 01:20:32 pm
Possibly the only risk there that I can imagine which isn't there for other research is the risk of manipulation of thought, which it is highly unlikely could be done more efficiently than through simple propaganda.
Post by: Sergarr on March 01, 2015, 01:25:29 pm
Aye, in my (also untested) understanding the risks of further investigation into neuroscience are no more so than the risks of other biological research - and the benefits are much greater as we don't really have a clue what the hell is going on in our heads.It also could give rise to counter-(manipulation of thought) techniques, which would give people the ability to resist propaganda with SCIENCE.
Possibly the only risk there that I can imagine which isn't there for other research is the risk of manipulation of thought, which it is highly unlikely could be done more efficiently than through simple propaganda.
Post by: Scoops Novel on March 01, 2015, 01:29:00 pm
Post by: Putnam on March 01, 2015, 06:21:01 pm
Is there anyway of ripping a black hold open/ tearing a black hole apart to observe the particles that were trapped inside?There's the concept of naked black holes, where (I think it's via spinning, but it could be just from sheer straight-line velocity) the event horizon of the black hole is smaller than the singularity itself. Meaning that light can hit the singularity and escape again.
Of course, it's purely theoretical. >_>
I'm pretty naked singularities have been determined to be impossible.
Post by: Descan on March 01, 2015, 07:05:35 pm
Post by: hops on March 01, 2015, 07:42:08 pm
Otherwise you'll have to get to know it in the event horizon first.
Post by: Lagslayer on March 01, 2015, 09:21:10 pm
I can now imagine objective and descan going up to a black hole and trying to look as pretty as possible to see it naked.Then, when you look under it's event horizon...
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: wierd on March 02, 2015, 02:04:03 am
Honestly though... When I imagine black holes, and what they are like, I just imagine infinite space on the other side. Nothing comes out, because the distance to traverse is infinite. Energy and mass falling in, just make more spacetime inside the horizon.
It's a naive view, I am sure-- But that is honestly what I imagine with them. Inside, space and time become infinite and infinitesimal quantities respectively. To the person that survives falling inside, the universe ages to heat death (or the evaporation of the black hole, whichever happens first) of the universe faster than you can blink, because for them, time is basically standing still compared to the outside. Black holes are very mysterious and fascinating things.
Post by: hops on March 02, 2015, 02:51:04 am
Or so that's how I understand it. A heat death would be when everything in the universe stand still, because there is no energy left to cause change.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 02, 2015, 10:44:53 am
Post by: Reelya on March 02, 2015, 11:39:56 am
That's the problem with those models that say you fall through the event horizon without noticing anything in particular, they fail to account for all the other matter that's doing the same thing you are.
Post by: Criptfeind on March 02, 2015, 11:43:03 am
Post by: That Wolf on March 02, 2015, 11:48:14 am
Is it perhaps possible for heat energy to convert into another type of energy.
Like a heat eating spacewhale?
Does time exsist? I understand it and can see a watches hand moving but is time an actual force?
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Lagslayer on March 02, 2015, 12:33:01 pm
I understand the heat death.I'm thinking no, and all the supposed time dilation would just be various forces combining to slow the movement of the particles. If suddenly gravity was 5X normal, how fast do you think you would be able to move? The concept of manipulating or traveling through time presents a physical paradox, no matter how I look at it. Well, unless you add something like new dimensions or some other magic BS with no solid evidence.
Is it perhaps possible for heat energy to convert into another type of energy.
Like a heat eating spacewhale?
Does time exsist? I understand it and can see a watches hand moving but is time an actual force?Spoiler (click to show/hide)
But that's just me. I'm not even sure if that's the prevailing theory among physicists, or if it's just the result of uneducated hype or having to simplify it for the less informed masses. Yay for not being able to trust anyone.
Post by: hops on March 02, 2015, 01:32:41 pm
The prevailing notion seems to be that time is a dimension, and particles are moving through time at (usually) consistent speed.
But then there's also fucky things like how gravity is apparently the distortion of time which create the illusion of attraction.
So no, gravity doesn't affect a particle directly, it affects time itself.
Post by: Putnam on March 02, 2015, 02:11:47 pm
Post by: Reelya on March 02, 2015, 02:43:27 pm
I'm thinking no, and all the supposed time dilation would just be various forces combining to slow the movement of the particles. If suddenly gravity was 5X normal, how fast do you think you would be able to move? The concept of manipulating or traveling through time presents a physical paradox, no matter how I look at it. Well, unless you add something like new dimensions or some other magic BS with no solid evidence.
But that's just me. I'm not even sure if that's the prevailing theory among physicists, or if it's just the result of uneducated hype or having to simplify it for the less informed masses. Yay for not being able to trust anyone.
High gravity distorts spacetime. This isn't just "forces combining to slow the movement of the particles". The equation that states this are the same equations which state that spacetime is distorted when you move at the speed of light. It's the same effect, same cause basically.
General Relativity states that time and space themselves are distorted by gravity, or super fast travel, it's not just slow particles. Plus, light is distorted by gravitational lensing too, which work by the same spacetime distortion as black holes. Light particles, by definition, and general relativity, never travel slower than the speed of light, no matter what your frame of reference, so they should be immune to "slow particles theory".
We kinda know this because of particle colliders too. Fleeting particles last longer when they're travelling really close to lightspeed, so the sub atomic processes themselves are actually slower because of time dilation too, it's not just motion.
Another proof is to think about redshift of light from someone near a black hole. If time was the same at the black hole as the observer, then you should see light from the black hole as delayed, but still the same color. Like if trucks were coming from 1000 miles away but 1 per hour, they'd still arrive at a rate 1 per hour to the destination, but with delayed arrival per truck because of the long trip. In fact, light emitted from objects near a black hole is heavily redshifted, showing that the rate of emission of light is slower there, it's not just taking longer to get to you. In fact, since it's light, it is by definition taking the same time to get to you regardless of the blackhole, and the redshift shows that it's being generated more slowly.
If the particles of your body actually got slower, this would in fact have consequences such as increasing the viscosity of your blood, which would kill you. This is not something scientists would have missed if the black hole equations suggested this. Sub-zero temperatures are actually caused by particles moving more slowly. There is very little similarity to time dilation here.
Post by: Lagslayer on March 02, 2015, 02:56:23 pm
Time most definitely exists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time).This seems to refute the concept of time as being a tangible thing. All it does is describe cause and effect, states that everything happens because of the collective properties of everything in the universe, and that what appears to be on a larger scale may not necessarily be reflected on a smaller scale.
Post by: Eagleon on March 02, 2015, 02:57:25 pm
Time most definitely exists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time).I don't really understand how any of that excludes the possibility that the way we understand time, cause, effect, and all of physics is due to anthropic bias. In fact, I think there's a good reason for it if time is pointing the opposite way of what we actually understand - if we have no memory of our deaths, if our lives are a process that reverses memory into birth, we'd have no idea that it could have come first because it's just as inaccessible as our future. Of course, I'm probably an idiot for even considering it =P
Post by: Sergarr on March 02, 2015, 05:32:34 pm
Second law of thermodynamics says hi.Time most definitely exists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time).I don't really understand how any of that excludes the possibility that the way we understand time, cause, effect, and all of physics is due to anthropic bias. In fact, I think there's a good reason for it if time is pointing the opposite way of what we actually understand - if we have no memory of our deaths, if our lives are a process that reverses memory into birth, we'd have no idea that it could have come first because it's just as inaccessible as our future. Of course, I'm probably an idiot for even considering it =P
Post by: Putnam on March 02, 2015, 06:01:41 pm
Post by: Eagleon on March 02, 2015, 06:37:41 pm
Yeah, physics looks different going forwards than backwards in time. Occam's razor is ludicrously important in science.What do we know of what's more likely here, though? It's the way the entire universe works - I don't see why it should care about our ideas of whether glass should shatter forwards or backwards or both at once or neither.
Post by: Descan on March 02, 2015, 07:58:44 pm
Post by: Lagslayer on March 02, 2015, 08:13:08 pm
Because a shattered glass has higher entropy than a whole glass.That statement is complete nonsense. Why would you define an unbroken glass as the baseline for measuring entropy?
Post by: Putnam on March 02, 2015, 08:15:48 pm
Also, no baseline was defined there. It's a 100% relative piece of information. Broken glass has more entropy than unbroken glass. This is fact. It's like saying that the Sun has more mass than the Earth.
Post by: i2amroy on March 02, 2015, 08:16:23 pm
Post by: Lagslayer on March 02, 2015, 08:27:32 pm
No, it is not like saying the sun has more mass than the earth. That operates on the molecular level and smaller. It's comparing apples to pigeons. "Entropy" has no meaning unless it's a much smaller scale.
Post by: Eagleon on March 02, 2015, 08:35:29 pm
Why would you assume that observation, even observation that doesn't directly involve humans, is fundamentally flawed instead of just looking at reality?Yes, I know. But it's completely inconceivable that entropy functions in reverse, and that we're just forgetting the past? I don't know, it's probably pointless, almost certainly non-falsifiable, because we're going to experience it this way anyway, but it's interesting to me anyway. It's information gradually being removed from a system instead of created. Why shouldn't it work this way? What keeps it from working this way other than our expectations that the way we experience time is based on memories forming rather than being destroyed?
Also, no baseline was defined there. It's a 100% relative piece of information. Broken glass has more entropy than unbroken glass. This is fact. It's like saying that the Sun has more mass than the Earth.
The fact that it's such a big thing for physicists to prove (or even just the fact that it warrants a great big wiki page attempting to prove it) is weird to me, because I can't see any way to do so without the assumption that observation isn't flawed. From my understanding of science, the stance for things like this is "don't even bother, it's philosophy"
Post by: Putnam on March 02, 2015, 08:45:28 pm
So since it isn't all put together in an arbitrarily defined manner, it has more entropy? What if the glass is intended to be in small shards? Would that mean the properly formed glass has more entropy? It's not a simple matter of a baseline, it's also assuming a particular vector has more meaning. This means nothing on such a large scale.
No, it is not like saying the sun has more mass than the earth. That operates on the molecular level and smaller. It's comparing apples to pigeons. "Entropy" has no meaning unless it's a much smaller scale.
...Except that that's completely false. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy) Entropy is "a measure of the number of specific ways in which a thermodynamic system may be arranged", which means that it applies to all closed systems, macroscopic or no. The statement "irreversible processes increase the combined entropy of the system and its environment" also means that breaking glass (which is an irreversible process) will always increase entropy.
Why would you assume that observation, even observation that doesn't directly involve humans, is fundamentally flawed instead of just looking at reality?Yes, I know. But it's completely inconceivable that entropy functions in reverse, and that we're just forgetting the past? I don't know, it's probably pointless, almost certainly non-falsifiable, because we're going to experience it this way anyway, but it's interesting to me anyway. It's information gradually being removed from a system instead of created. Why shouldn't it work this way? What keeps it from working this way other than our expectations that the way we experience time is based on memories forming rather than being destroyed?
Also, no baseline was defined there. It's a 100% relative piece of information. Broken glass has more entropy than unbroken glass. This is fact. It's like saying that the Sun has more mass than the Earth.
The fact that it's such a big thing for physicists to prove (or even just the fact that it warrants a great big wiki page attempting to prove it) is weird to me, because I can't see any way to do so without the assumption that observation isn't flawed. From my understanding of science, the stance for things like this is "don't even bother, it's philosophy"
It's about as useful a question as "what if everything was spiders?". Time being backwards to our perception means absolutely nothing to us, since clearly our observations wouldn't be different at all. It's an idea that doesn't create any testable predictions nor does it change anything we already know, so it's worthless.
Post by: Eagleon on March 02, 2015, 09:02:38 pm
Right. That's about the response I expected. There are such things as ideas and valuations that aren't science, by the way, and they can stick around without hurting you or science.Why would you assume that observation, even observation that doesn't directly involve humans, is fundamentally flawed instead of just looking at reality?Yes, I know. But it's completely inconceivable that entropy functions in reverse, and that we're just forgetting the past? I don't know, it's probably pointless, almost certainly non-falsifiable, because we're going to experience it this way anyway, but it's interesting to me anyway. It's information gradually being removed from a system instead of created. Why shouldn't it work this way? What keeps it from working this way other than our expectations that the way we experience time is based on memories forming rather than being destroyed?
Also, no baseline was defined there. It's a 100% relative piece of information. Broken glass has more entropy than unbroken glass. This is fact. It's like saying that the Sun has more mass than the Earth.
The fact that it's such a big thing for physicists to prove (or even just the fact that it warrants a great big wiki page attempting to prove it) is weird to me, because I can't see any way to do so without the assumption that observation isn't flawed. From my understanding of science, the stance for things like this is "don't even bother, it's philosophy"
It's about as useful a question as "what if everything was spiders?". Time being backwards to our perception means absolutely nothing to us, since clearly our observations wouldn't be different at all. It's an idea that doesn't create any testable predictions nor does it change anything we already know, so it's worthless.
But in the same way, why is proving that time moves forward meaningful to science? What testable predictions does it create? How is debating it not philosophy when we can't sit outside of it and observe it directly? I could just as easily say that time stands still and a giant phonograph needle is what's moving. That way nothing actually changes other than a position in the system. Why is this any better or more important than insisting that time exists the way we observe it?
Post by: Angle on March 02, 2015, 09:04:46 pm
I want my reactionless drives~...
Post by: i2amroy on March 02, 2015, 09:13:59 pm
Anyone been keeping up on that whole EMdrive thing? Has it been debunked yet, or is it still going strong?I wouldn't be too optimistic, since you know, any true reactionless drive kinda violates the law of the conservation of momentum. :P
I want my reactionless drives~...
A quick glance at the wikipedia page for it reveals that there has yet to be anything published in peer-reviewed journals, nor has anyone replicated the results under standards high enough for the scientific community or been willing to share their "results" in peer-reviewed stuff yet.
Post by: wierd on March 02, 2015, 09:19:30 pm
We can accept as truth that in a closed system, entropy will always increase and not dissipate.
We can also hold as truth that information cannot be destroyed, only changed (made more entropic).
However, one of the features of information conservation is that information about the past is not lost irreparably.
(This was the big spark behind the black hole debates in the 70s.)
Depending on how you look at spacetime, the past and the future are just positions on a mathematical surface, which follows certain rules. This is why you can have such curious things as time being absurdly fast in one part of the universe, and infinitely slow inside others, when compared with a different point in space as a point of observation.
Since this means the concept of "Past", "Present", and "Future" are fuzzy in the greater scheme of things, this implies that traveling to a point that would logically be in the past relative to your own timeline is theoretically possible (But probably practically impossible, and if causality is to be obeyed, such travel would be in the past, but outside your light cone.)
To me, this suggests that "The past" is not "Lost", any more than say, the depressions in the groove of a record are lost, after the needle moves past. Can you play the record backward? Not really. It's not designed that way. Can you play the record over again? Why not?
In this thought experiment, "Time" is the action the spinning turntable has to turn the record underneath the needle. the "Past" is the section of the groove that has already gone under the needle. the "Present" is the ephemeral point directly under the needle, and the "Future" is the portion of the groove yet to pass under the needle. The relative forward velocity of the track under the needle changes as the spiral moves out from the center of the record, even though the turntable is turning at a fixed rate, due to changes in the distance traveled per rotation. This has some curious analogs with the space/time relationship.
In this way, "Time" is a real thing, which has real effects, but since the past is not actually lost, the actual state of the universe (the record) does not change. Our perception of the universe is what changes, as our reference point on the time axis changes, and the rules we observe prevent us from experiencing that axis backwards.
Philosophers HATE this kind of interpretation, because it makes free will into an illusion. I on the other hand, like it-- it means that because I have existed in the past, I will always continue to exist as a past feature of the universe, and depending on the reference from which that universe is observed, I am always existing, and always will exist.
Post by: ShadowHammer on March 02, 2015, 09:32:44 pm
I understand the heat death.To answer the first question here, yes, heat can and is often converted directly into other forms of energy. A thermocouple (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermocouple) takes heat and converts it directly into electricity.
Is it perhaps possible for heat energy to convert into another type of energy.
Like a heat eating spacewhale?
Does time exsist? I understand it and can see a watches hand moving but is time an actual force?Spoiler (click to show/hide)
This leads me to a question: if a gas has more entropy than a liquid, and you use a thermocouple to cool a gas down to the condensation point, and then proceed to use the resultant electricity to charge a battery, haven't you just decreased total entropy?
Note: I may not (read: don't) really understand how entropy works.
Post by: Eagleon on March 02, 2015, 09:34:43 pm
StuffThank you <3 That's exactly what I was getting at. Just nitpicks that, in a universe which could be played backwards, your first two points would just have another two opposites in that domain. The information conservation rule for a universe in reverse would be a conservation of destruction - 'everything must go.' You'd 'forget' if a stationary time change happened, in fact if it were to start looping or got rolled backwards, no one would know but the DJ. Also, given a stereo channel, you could get some sweet phasing effects if you slightly offset the other univ- ok the metaphor has gone too far.
Post by: Lagslayer on March 02, 2015, 09:38:14 pm
So since it isn't all put together in an arbitrarily defined manner, it has more entropy? What if the glass is intended to be in small shards? Would that mean the properly formed glass has more entropy? It's not a simple matter of a baseline, it's also assuming a particular vector has more meaning. This means nothing on such a large scale.
No, it is not like saying the sun has more mass than the earth. That operates on the molecular level and smaller. It's comparing apples to pigeons. "Entropy" has no meaning unless it's a much smaller scale.
...Except that that's completely false. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy) Entropy is "a measure of the number of specific ways in which a thermodynamic system may be arranged", which means that it applies to all closed systems, macroscopic or no. The statement "irreversible processes increase the combined entropy of the system and its environment" also means that breaking glass (which is an irreversible process) will always increase entropy.
Except that glass does not exist in a closed system.
Post by: wierd on March 02, 2015, 09:41:57 pm
Anyone been keeping up on that whole EMdrive thing? Has it been debunked yet, or is it still going strong?I wouldn't be too optimistic, since you know, any true reactionless drive kinda violates the law of the conservation of momentum. :P
I want my reactionless drives~...
A quick glance at the wikipedia page for it reveals that there has yet to be anything published in peer-reviewed journals, nor has anyone replicated the results under standards high enough for the scientific community or been willing to share their "results" in peer-reviewed stuff yet.
Theoretically, I dont see a compelling reason why the emdrive couldnt work, other than violating high level conceptual models.
This is because the method of operation relies on virtual particle interaction, rather than "Real" particle interaction. Virtual particle interactions are already used quite successfully in commercial applications, such as Near Field Communication. This is because the near field of EM emissions is dominated by virtual particles, while the far field is dominated by real particles. There is enough total particle flux in the near field for NFC to work, but past the near field, partice flux is just too low to overcome the noise floor. Substantial amounts of energy can be communicated across the near field, which is how antenna coupling happens.
http://iopscience.iop.org/0295-5075/76/2/189
Since some virtual particles can have both charge like characteristics, and mass-like characteristics, then the emdrive could convey some limited change in vector by acceleration of such particles (say, virtual electrons) in the short space of the resonant cavity. Since the particles are not "real", they dont have any persistence. This means that they cant shed the energy imparted to them by the interaction, by interacting with the far wall of the cavity. They cease existing by then.
This change will be very tiny, and hard to measure. Higher frequency modes with greater attenuation over distance would probably be more efficient under this conceptual framework.
I would say that most reputable scientists are fearful of touching the emdrive with any seriousness, because it goes against conventional wisdom with such violence. Scientists are very much in danger of losing funding sources for appearing to be disreputable. The "reputation" game is very toxic to actual science; which is the actual pursuit of empirical truths. One needs look no further than the ruined careers of the people who looked at the theory behind cold fusion and lent support there, to see how toxic such efforts can be. More recent, and IMO, more telling, was the CERN "FTL Neutrino signal" a few years back. The researchers wanted help finding their source of error-- Instead, they got black eyes from the popular press who misunderstood why they were reporting their findings, and what they were actually wanting from other scientists.
To me, a researcher that reports reactionless thrust is looking for others to reproduce the work, and find errors in the setup. That's not how the rest of the world, and sadly, funding sources, view it however. The more successful scientists are aware of this more worldly underside to science, and avoid dangerous subjects. Reactionless thrust is a dangerous subject. I would thus take the lack of peer reviewed study with a grain of salt.
Post by: Eagleon on March 02, 2015, 09:42:47 pm
EDIT: Lagslayer, if you're using your argument, literally nothing in physics is in a closed system.It's a valid argument! Let's abandon entropy and create semioticcentropalpy.
Post by: ShadowHammer on March 02, 2015, 09:54:01 pm
Ah, I see. Makes sense.I understand the heat death.To answer the first question here, yes, heat can and is often converted directly into other forms of energy. A thermocouple (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermocouple) takes heat and converts it directly into electricity.
Is it perhaps possible for heat energy to convert into another type of energy.
Like a heat eating spacewhale?
Does time exsist? I understand it and can see a watches hand moving but is time an actual force?Spoiler (click to show/hide)
This leads me to a question: if a gas has more entropy than a liquid, and you use a thermocouple to cool a gas down to the condensation point, and then proceed to use the resultant electricity to charge a battery, haven't you just decreased total entropy?
Note: I may not (read: don't) really understand how entropy works.
Well, the thing is that it requires a heat difference. In other words, one part must be hotter than the other- as the energy moves from hot to cold, it produces an electric charge. However, the temperature is still equalizing- ergo, entropy is increasing.
EDIT: Lagslayer, if you're using your argument, literally nothing in physics is in a closed system.
New question: why don't refrigerators decrease entropy?
Post by: Lagslayer on March 02, 2015, 09:58:56 pm
If breaking the glass increases it's entropy, then putting it back together must lower it's entropy. But since the second law is being thrown around so much, according to it, the total entropy of the universe can only increase. Since the entropy of the glass alone can oscillate back and forth, talking about it in the context of this conversation is meaningless. It was a terrible example and should have never been introduced.EDIT: Lagslayer, if you're using your argument, literally nothing in physics is in a closed system.It's a valid argument! Let's abandon entropy and create semioticcentropalpy.
Quote
New question: why don't refrigerators decrease entropy?It doesn't remove heat, it simple redistributes it. All that heat is re deposited outside the refrigerator. Combined with the less than 100% efficiency of the redistribution system, it creates more heat than there was to begin with.
Post by: wierd on March 02, 2015, 09:59:57 pm
2nd law applies to closed systems. The same reason why life is still able to flourish on earth-- The sun is providing energy.
The more curious thing to ask about, is the mysterious "thermal transistor" created a few years ago. ;)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110403141333.htm
Post by: Eagleon on March 02, 2015, 10:09:35 pm
It was a terrible example and should have never been introduced.My bad.
Post by: Angle on March 02, 2015, 10:15:23 pm
To answer the first question here, yes, heat can and is often converted directly into other forms of energy. A thermocouple (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermocouple) takes heat and converts it directly into electricity.
This leads me to a question: if a gas has more entropy than a liquid, and you use a thermocouple to cool a gas down to the condensation point, and then proceed to use the resultant electricity to charge a battery, haven't you just decreased total entropy?
Note: I may not (read: don't) really understand how entropy works.
Well, Sort of. Thermoucouples work based on heat differentials, which mean they're of no use combating entropy. You're still moving energy from higher concentrations to lower concentrations, you're just getting a little electricity out of it.
Post by: i2amroy on March 02, 2015, 11:07:03 pm
If breaking the glass increases it's entropy, then putting it back together must lower it's entropy. But since the second law is being thrown around so much, according to it, the total entropy of the universe can only increase. Since the entropy of the glass alone can oscillate back and forth, talking about it in the context of this conversation is meaningless. It was a terrible example and should have never been introduced.The glass example works fine as long as you include the forces that act on it in your system. If you utilize a force to break the glass, some of that kinetic energy is converted to other less useful types of energy (like heat or sound). As such it's impossible to put the glass back together again with the same forces, since it would require you to convert those less useful types of energy like heat back into kinetic energy at 100% efficiency.
So yeah, if you are just looking at the glass pane then it's a bad example, but if you look at both the glass pane and the energy required to shatter it then it works just fine.
Pretty much. While the total entropy in the (electricity + gas + liquid) < total entropy in the (gas+liquid), it would still be greater than the entropy of the (hot gas+cool liquid), since you can't get 100% efficiency out of the process.To answer the first question here, yes, heat can and is often converted directly into other forms of energy. A thermocouple (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermocouple) takes heat and converts it directly into electricity.Well, Sort of. Thermoucouples work based on heat differentials, which mean they're of no use combating entropy. You're still moving energy from higher concentrations to lower concentrations, you're just getting a little electricity out of it.
This leads me to a question: if a gas has more entropy than a liquid, and you use a thermocouple to cool a gas down to the condensation point, and then proceed to use the resultant electricity to charge a battery, haven't you just decreased total entropy?
Note: I may not (read: don't) really understand how entropy works.
Post by: Descan on March 02, 2015, 11:12:06 pm
All three require energy, and all three have waste heat. Friction, heating element heat, muscle heat.
The entropy embodied in the glass itself is lowered, sure. But it's not a closed system, it doesn't magically come together again, it needs external energy inputted, and the entropy of that whole interacting system rises because of it.
Post by: i2amroy on March 02, 2015, 11:15:30 pm
Of course for a lot of these discussions you really want to be talking in terms of enthalpy rather than entropy.
Post by: ShadowHammer on March 02, 2015, 11:20:22 pm
I know that it doesn't remove heat, but it does (indirectly) move heat from a lower concentration to a higher. If entropy increases when heat differentials equalize, doesn't it decrease when the differential is increased?QuoteNew question: why don't refrigerators decrease entropy?It doesn't remove heat, it simple redistributes it. All that heat is re deposited outside the refrigerator. Combined with the less than 100% efficiency of the redistribution system, it creates more heat than there was to begin with.
I realize that at no point in a refrigerator's cycle does heat directly flow in the 'wrong' direction, but the end result is still an increased temperature difference between the inside of the fridge and the outside.
Post by: Descan on March 02, 2015, 11:22:44 pm
In this case, you need to account for the electricity/energy required to power the refrigerator.
Post by: Angle on March 02, 2015, 11:24:11 pm
Post by: Descan on March 02, 2015, 11:29:11 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 03, 2015, 12:12:39 am
Post by: Descan on March 03, 2015, 12:14:25 am
Edit: Yep. Saturn is about 5.683x10^26 kg, while the iron content of the Sun, 0.14% of 1.989x10^30 kg is about 2.7846x10^29 kg
So there's about 480 times as much iron already in the Sun as there would be in a Saturn-sized mass of iron.
Post by: Bauglir on March 03, 2015, 12:17:56 am
Post by: Descan on March 03, 2015, 12:22:07 am
Not particularly. Sun already makes up >99.8% of the solar system's mass. It probably has a Saturn or two's worth of iron in it already.Just to make sure the actual math was seen (and can be laughed at if it's wrong :P)
Edit: Yep. Saturn is about 5.683x10^26 kg, while the iron content of the Sun, 0.14% of 1.989x10^30 kg is about 2.7846x10^29 kg.
So there's about 480 times as much iron already in the Sun as there would be in a Saturn-sized mass of iron.
An extra Saturn's worth of iron would be a rounding error at this scale.
Post by: wierd on March 03, 2015, 12:35:35 am
I still find it curious that so many people have difficulty with the concept of entropy. To me, the elephant in the room is the dark energy that is forcing our universe apart at INCREASING rates. Sure, it's energy that only increases the entropy of the universe (Very rapidly!), but it is still energy being added to the universe.
"Empty Space" is NOT "nothing"--- it most certainly IS a something, with a computable energy value.
Post by: Putnam on March 03, 2015, 12:41:00 am
There is energy in any given space, though, regardless of smallness, that much is very true.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 03, 2015, 12:41:39 am
What if we went bigger and added a quarter of the sins mass worth of iron
Let's not forget the impact of these two objects, one the size of Saturn and the other a quarter of the sun, I would love to know how objects this size slowly impacting the sun would affect it.
I think the quarter the mass one might have enough energy to just throw a good chunk of mass out into space upon impact
((Note my astronomy education may be off but isn't iron the death of a star? As in when a star begins producing it as it's next major byproduct ((as in no other atoms of x element left so now it fuses one higher up as it's major fuel source)). Even what I've seen on science Chanel said once a star begins producing large quantities of iron that it die because stars can fuse iron without collapsing in on themselves.))
Post by: hops on March 03, 2015, 12:46:17 am
I totally don't have a giant intergalactic buccaneer cannon.
Post by: Putnam on March 03, 2015, 12:49:10 am
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 03, 2015, 12:50:35 am
So it can produce iron and further but once it doesn't have enough other lower things it doesn't have the energy to do anything with it then?
Post by: Putnam on March 03, 2015, 12:54:44 am
Post by: wierd on March 03, 2015, 12:54:51 am
Energy is released, which helps keep the star "inflated", when fusion reactions with elements lighter than iron are undergone, and energy is released when elements heavier than iron decay through fission reactions.
Stars are powered by fusion, so when iron gets made, fusing it into something heavier consumes energy, rather than liberating it.
The force pushing the star together, and thus driving the fusion, is gravity. Gravity is associated with the gravitational attractive force of a quanta of matter in a quanta of space. Adding mass to the star will increase its gravitation, which will increase the rate of fusion reactions.
Bigger stars have more mass, so their cores get squeezed harder by gravity. This squeezing allows (rather, forces) them to produce elements heavier than iron in their cores. However, this means that the energy stored in their outer layers gets gobbled up, just keeping the star inflated. Really large stars dont live as long as a consequence.
Post by: Descan on March 03, 2015, 12:57:48 am
As for the impact itself, depending on how slowly it is going... Well, the sun is a plasma. It's not solid. So there's not going to be an impact. It'll have a displacement, and how much is displaced depends on how fast it's going? You could probably end up with a normal (ish) star at the end, maybe with a slight aura of hydrogen that got blasted out far enough to escape the corona? I'm not sure on this area.
Of course, it'd be a star with an iron core. It'd still have the same amount of hydrogen fuel, of course. But, well, not all the hydrogen in stars is used up from birth to death, that's fairly obvious, or else we'd have no hydrogen left by now, there's actually loads of the stuff around still. I think the sun is a second or third generation star.
I don't think a star with an iron core of 25%, even if it still has the same hydrogen content as the sun, is going to last much longer. Most hydrogen fusion occurs in the core, and since iron is heavier than hydrogen, it'll probably sink to become the core eventually, displacing the main area of fusion.
Post by: hops on March 03, 2015, 12:58:28 am
Awwww.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 03, 2015, 01:03:50 am
Is the energy of a supernova enough to fuse extremely heavy elements, or are our heaviest elements produced prior to a supernova?
Post by: Descan on March 03, 2015, 01:05:01 am
Post by: Sirus on March 03, 2015, 01:07:12 am
Post by: wierd on March 03, 2015, 01:09:45 am
Ninja'd--- This is in answer to "Shooting planets at stars" question.
Probably not.
Some supernova remnants actually have burned cinders of planetary cores remaining, (Meaning that in the red supergiant stage, these cores were actively orbiting in the fusion region of the star's photosphere!!)
http://io9.com/5870506/tiny-charred-planets-dove-inside-their-dying-starand-survived
Other types of "Exotic star" have more unusual circumstances, far more exotic that just shooting a giant iron ball at a star. Take for instance, the situation where a normal star collides with a neutron star core remnant. Such strange things are called Thorne–Żytkow objects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorne%E2%80%93%C5%BBytkow_object), and one such object was recently discovered by astronomers, making them a REAL thing.
http://www.caltech.edu/news/kip-thorne-discusses-first-discovery-thorne-ytkow-object-43149
A small yellow dwarf star like ours is pretty stable; it has enough mass to have good, energetic fusion-- but not so much that it wastes energy just staying "lit", like heavier stars do. It isnt so light as to have low radiance, like a red dwarf star (far more common in our part of the galaxy), so it's pretty fortuitous for us that ours is so well behaved.
Now, in answer to "Where do the really heavy elements come from?"
Some astrophysicists have suggested collisions of supernova remnants (Large chunks of neutron degenerate matter) as being good sources of large quantities of heavy elements.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/07/the-earths-gold-astronomers-say-a-neutron-star-collision-was-the-original-source.html
Post by: Il Palazzo on March 03, 2015, 06:41:43 am
Yup. Thankfully our star is pretty small, so it cant fuse heavier than iron at a huge loss, like larger stars do. It hits iron nuclei, and then stops as a dense plasma of the stuff.Oy, where did you get that from? Sun isn't and won't ever fuse no iron.
A small yellow dwarf star like ours is pretty stable; it has enough mass to have good, energetic fusion-- but not so much that it wastes energy just staying "lit", like heavier stars do. It isnt so light as to have low radiance, like a red dwarf star (far more common in our part of the galaxy), so it's pretty fortuitous for us that ours is so well behaved.How is low luminosity a problem? That only changes the placement of the habitable zone.
Post by: Arx on March 03, 2015, 09:22:41 am
Yup. Thankfully our star is pretty small, so it cant fuse heavier than iron at a huge loss, like larger stars do. It hits iron nuclei, and then stops as a dense plasma of the stuff.Oy, where did you get that from? Sun isn't and won't ever fuse no iron.
That's what wierd is saying.
Post by: Sergarr on March 03, 2015, 09:29:51 am
Yup. Thankfully our star is pretty small, so it cant fuse heavier than iron at a huge loss, like larger stars do. It hits iron nuclei, and then stops as a dense plasma of the stuff.Oy, where did you get that from? Sun isn't and won't ever fuse no iron.
That's what wierd is saying.
Quote from: wierd
Yup. Thankfully our star is pretty small, so it cant fuse heavier than iron at a huge loss, like larger stars do. It hits iron nuclei, and then stops as a dense plasma of the stuff.Il Pal says that's not gonna happen.
Post by: miauw62 on March 03, 2015, 09:43:29 am
Post by: Il Palazzo on March 03, 2015, 09:54:58 am
Not particularly. Sun already makes up >99.8% of the solar system's mass. It probably has a Saturn or two's worth of iron in it already.You borked the calculations there by two orders of magnitude (^27 not 29).
Edit: Yep. Saturn is about 5.683x10^26 kg, while the iron content of the Sun, 0.14% of 1.989x10^30 kg is about 2.7846x10^29 kg
So there's about 480 times as much iron already in the Sun as there would be in a Saturn-sized mass of iron.
And if you want it to be a Saturn-sized ball of iron, then let it be Saturn-sized. That is the same radius but ~10 times denser.
So in the end it's tripling the total iron content.
Post by: Arx on March 03, 2015, 10:13:39 am
Yup. Thankfully our star is pretty small, so it cant fuse heavier than iron at a huge loss, like larger stars do. It hits iron nuclei, and then stops as a dense plasma of the stuff.Oy, where did you get that from? Sun isn't and won't ever fuse no iron.
That's what wierd is saying.Quote from: wierdYup. Thankfully our star is pretty small, so it cant fuse heavier than iron at a huge loss, like larger stars do. It hits iron nuclei, and then stops as a dense plasma of the stuff.Il Pal says that's not gonna happen.
Ah. Some kind of weird meta rading comprehension fail then, whoops.
Post by: wierd on March 03, 2015, 12:10:27 pm
The issue with red dwarf stars is that any planet in its habitable zone after it enters the stable phase of life, will first have been stripped of its atmosphere during the star's early life. Unless the planet is a captured celestial body, or started life as a hot neptune, or migrated in from the outer system later, it is going to be an airless rock.
this is because the habitable zone is physically too close to the star for the planet to keep its atmosphere when the star ignites. The initial craziness of the star will produce excessive solar wind particles that will sandblast the planet's atmosphere right off.
Our G type star has its habitable zone further out, which means that our magnetosphere was able to deflect the less dense solar plasma, and we kept our atmosphere. That's why the greater luminosity is important.
Post by: Lagslayer on March 03, 2015, 12:14:13 pm
Hm, I wonder how plausible life on a planet orbiting a binary star would be. (If the planet is close enough to the stars that it is obvious that it is a binary system)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_star#Planets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_star#Planets)
Post by: Il Palazzo on March 03, 2015, 12:26:36 pm
this is because the habitable zone is physically too close to the star for the planet to keep its atmosphere when the star ignites. The initial craziness of the star will produce excessive solar wind particles that will sandblast the planet's atmosphere right off.Can you back this up? I'd think the dimmer star produces proportionally less intense solar wind giving the same flux at the HZ distance.
Post by: wierd on March 03, 2015, 12:33:15 pm
Sure can.
The closeness also increases the odds of being tide locked as an added bit of fun.
Post by: Il Palazzo on March 03, 2015, 01:46:23 pm
Don't you hate it when they don't provide a link to the relevant paper? I know the article is from before publication, but they could've just added a comment or something.
Anyway, judging by the author and the date, I think this one's the one:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.7707
If so, then it provides both stronger and weaker statements than yours, weird.
According to the above, planets in HZs around such stars may be subject to up to three orders of magnitude more extreme solar wind conditions than the Earth is - at all times. It says nothing about only being so during stellar ignition phase, so if it's bad news for the HZ it's bad news for the conceivable future.
On the other hand, while the article doesn't aim to model atmospheric loss, the authors suggests that denser atmospheres or at least Earth-like magnetic fields might be sufficient to allow atmospheric retention.
We should also keep in mind the assumptions used and how they can change the outcome.
If that's not the article you meant then do help us find the right one.
And have you got something on the stellar wind peaking during the ignition phase?
Post by: wierd on March 03, 2015, 02:07:21 pm
That article was just one of many I have read on this subject; Basically, when the star leaves the protostar stage, and initates fusion, there is a blast wave that leaves the star. This is true of all stars that achieve fusion. (Brown dwarfs dont count, because they dont really achieve fusion like a higher magnitude star does.) The proximity of the potential habitable planet to the star, increases the apparent intensity of this blastwave.
Immediately following the ignition of fusion, the star has to "coalesce" into convective strata. Before the star has this happen, it is all mixed up gasses, more or less. This has the effect of increased flare activity, and increased CME phenomena.
Coupled with the increased stellar radiation of HZ near red dwarf stars in general, the picture isn't very happy for HZ planets of red dwarf systems.
That said, there ARE circumstances where a habitable planet can be found there-- Hot neptune in HZ gets blasted down to planetary core with "trace" (ahem, compared to what it had originally) atmosphere, captured celestial object, and migrating outer system object.
Getting sources for all those will take more time than I have. Gotta eat and run, and head to work now.
Post by: Il Palazzo on March 03, 2015, 02:14:16 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 04, 2015, 12:31:27 am
How long do you guys think it will be until we can perform full body ((minus nervous system because that's what I think makes a person them, brain included in the nervous system right? If not then the brain as well)) transplant?
Post by: wierd on March 04, 2015, 12:56:47 am
Probably within the next 20 years, for sure.
Post by: wierd on March 04, 2015, 01:26:01 am
If you can be bothered get me just the one on the ignition phase. I'm interested to see the relative difference in intensity from late-stage quiescent levels and timescales involved.
Not a paper, it's an expensive book-- But google has a searchable version. The page of interest is page 22. (https://books.google.com/books?id=35uwarLgVLsC&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=T-Tauri+phase+red+dwarfs&source=bl&ots=MgzYjaM1q6&sig=5FjKmXphpSXTTAafBb2vkdXZ_pc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=O6H2VLiDGZetyATSzYKYDQ&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false) Looks like a very good book, Physics and Chemistry of the Solar System, By John Lewis.
Post by: hops on March 04, 2015, 02:28:55 am
...The image of a scalpel running through your back, delicately slicing it open and removing a bloody spine along with your skull.
But then I realized that you don't actually need to take out the spine.
Post by: Furtuka on March 04, 2015, 02:34:09 am
Sorry if my random questions butt in and stamp out other discussions but you guys seem to give some pretty great answersI remmeber seeing an article mentioning someone out there is planning to attempt a head transplant in a couple years. Too tired to go look for it though.
How long do you guys think it will be until we can perform full body ((minus nervous system because that's what I think makes a person them, brain included in the nervous system right? If not then the brain as well)) transplant?
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 04, 2015, 08:19:59 am
They've don't the same thing with animals and I think a couple people before IIRC they get arrested.
I heard this from the tv show ((Dark Matters?)) which looks at the dark side of scientific research.
Post by: miauw62 on March 04, 2015, 08:37:49 am
Post by: forsaken1111 on March 04, 2015, 08:40:11 am
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 04, 2015, 09:13:08 am
By the way, you can induce organ graft tollerance via a mini-alloHSCT from the organ donor.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 04, 2015, 09:26:24 am
Well, I wouldn't call it a successful transplant if the body fails to do the two things it's supposed to do.Well the head was kept alive and the heart in the body was pumping
not sure if the other organs were working
As far as I know head transplant hasn't ever been attempted in humans. It worked (poorly) in monkeys because of the aforementioned reasons.Ya I'm not sure if the human part that they talked about was true or not because that show has a tendency to add a little fluff to make things more dark.
Post by: hops on March 04, 2015, 02:18:17 pm
We still can't fix broken spines (otherwise we would have been able to cure spinal injury-induced paralysis) so it's unlikely we can a head off from the spine, then rejoin it with another spine.
Post by: wierd on March 04, 2015, 02:23:02 pm
This makes sense, as the cells in the olfactory bulb continue to divide and proliferate all through adult life. These cells can apparently be leveraged for repair of completely severed spinal columns, which is what this experimental procedure accomplished.
A full body transplant would be more complicated however, because of host/graft rejection. The cells introduced to accomplish the regeneration would have to come from the still living head, which means they would be an allograft for the host spine.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 04, 2015, 02:25:23 pm
Post by: wierd on March 04, 2015, 02:26:44 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 04, 2015, 02:26:59 pm
Now the true question ((not really this is just a bad attempt at light hearted comedy)) of full body transplant, who is the host? The nervous system or the full healthy body?
Well, the nervous system is the seat of conciousness, hosted by a bag 'o meat. The meat sack is nothing without the mind.
Post by: XXXXYYYY on March 05, 2015, 07:06:52 pm
Post by: Tylui on March 05, 2015, 07:29:04 pm
Secondly, I want to apologize for bringing something up from a couple of pages back.
Time dilation seems to be asymptotic at the event horizon - that is, it is infinite according to relativity theory. This has some interesting implications, for example you see everything further away from the black hole speed up immensely, which includes everything else that is destined to hit the black hole. Take that to the logical extreme and it means everything that fell in before you or after you hits the event horizon at the same subjective moment that you do.
That's the problem with those models that say you fall through the event horizon without noticing anything in particular, they fail to account for all the other matter that's doing the same thing you are.
As you're falling into the event horizon, YOU are not experiencing time dilation. Your watch ticks off a second every second, like normal. It's the people who are watching from outside the black hole who see your watch tick slower. To them, you never pass through the horizon at all. To you, you pass through it without anything special happening; you truly wouldn't even notice it. Another way to put it is that the objects falling in behind you aren't accelerating faster than what you are.
Post by: Sergarr on March 05, 2015, 07:41:35 pm
Sure, but you know what the fun thing is? You also cannot accelerate faster than the object before you, and you will never observe it falling into the black hole by definition, so you, by the virtue of being behind it, will also never fall into the black hole.Time dilation seems to be asymptotic at the event horizon - that is, it is infinite according to relativity theory. This has some interesting implications, for example you see everything further away from the black hole speed up immensely, which includes everything else that is destined to hit the black hole. Take that to the logical extreme and it means everything that fell in before you or after you hits the event horizon at the same subjective moment that you do.
That's the problem with those models that say you fall through the event horizon without noticing anything in particular, they fail to account for all the other matter that's doing the same thing you are.
As you're falling into the event horizon, YOU are not experiencing time dilation. Your watch ticks off a second every second, like normal. It's the people who are watching from outside the black hole who see your watch tick slower. To them, you never pass through the horizon at all. To you, you pass through it without anything special happening; you truly wouldn't even notice it. Another way to put it is that the objects falling in behind you aren't accelerating faster than what you are.
I'm also sure there's some problem with my argument that makes it invalid, but it's a pretty fun one.
Post by: wierd on March 06, 2015, 12:37:41 am
Post by: i2amroy on March 06, 2015, 01:57:01 am
Thing is it's entirely possible for a planet to lose then regain its atmosphere. IIRC the Earth did that at one point (it started off with a hydrogen/helium atmosphere, which was then blown away to be replaced by gasses from outgassing.)Yeah, Earth and any others of the inner planets with atmospheres are all secondary atmospheres. Jupiter, Saturn, and the other jovian planets are all still on their primary ones.
Another interesting fact, pretty much all the oxygen currently in the atmosphere is life-produced oxygen. Should all life be suddenly extinguished on Earth, we would lose any remaining oxygen on a timescale measured in thousands of years. (Which is why one of the big things astronomers search for on other planets is oxygen in the atmosphere, since it's a very good indicator that there would be life on the planet).
Post by: Il Palazzo on March 06, 2015, 06:53:14 am
Red dwarf systems also tend to be "Metal poor." To astronomers, "Metal" is anything heavier than helium. Not many heavy elements are typically expected in red dwarf systems, which means that large quantities of crust oxygen is not anticipated like you would expect in a more metal rich system.That's only by the virtue of their longevity. You make it sound like it's an inherent property of being a red dwarf, whereas it's just statistics.
Regarding the source for the earlier statement, have you got something more rigorous than a one-sentence mention in a textbook? I've been hearing bits and pieces about this phase every now and then (it's called the T-Tauri event), but never could get my hands on anything more in-depth.
(The book seems nice, though. I've just bought a used copy for two bucks on Amazon. :) )
Sure, but you know what the fun thing is? You also cannot accelerate faster than the object before you, and you will never observe it falling into the black hole by definition, so you, by the virtue of being behind it, will also never fall into the black hole.Not feeling too comfortable in the subject, I can only tell you what I heard about it.
I'm also sure there's some problem with my argument that makes it invalid, but it's a pretty fun one.
The problem is that you can't use the same frame of reference for the in-falling observer as you do for a stationary one. The solution where the in-falling object never crosses the horizon is only valid in the reference frame of a static observer outside the event horizon. For the in-falling observer you need to use a different set of coordinates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gullstrand%E2%80%93Painlev%C3%A9_coordinates
@Tylui: I don't think there's anything to apologise for, but cheers.
Post by: scrdest on March 06, 2015, 07:14:59 am
Red dwarf systems also tend to be "Metal poor." To astronomers, "Metal" is anything heavier than helium. Not many heavy elements are typically expected in red dwarf systems, which means that large quantities of crust oxygen is not anticipated like you would expect in a more metal rich system.So, for an astronomer oxygen is a metal? I find that somewhat amusing.
Post by: That Wolf on March 06, 2015, 08:30:24 am
Would that mean it doesnt exsist? Anything that exsists we seem to be able to measure it, atleast when we can grasp at it
For example: 'Now', is only perspective. Its not actualy a static meaning. I can touch my foot with my hand and feel both sensations 'now' but its not at the same time. One is delayed because one sensation had to travel a longer distance.
So is time like much of what we perceive just an evolved system to deal with the chaotic universe we reside in? Perhaps space is the same hence why it looks 3 dimensional? From your position outwards? To combat the reciving of information (impossible to take it all in at your position so the information is only what is 'near' you)
Did I make sense?
The space idea was just thought up. Im more interested in what people have to say about time.
Post by: Il Palazzo on March 06, 2015, 08:34:33 am
Post by: Sergarr on March 06, 2015, 08:35:37 am
Not feeling too comfortable in the subject, I can only tell you what I heard about it.That's a very interesting link!
The problem is that you can't use the same frame of reference for the in-falling observer as you do for a stationary one. The solution where the in-falling object never crosses the horizon is only valid in the reference frame of a static observer outside the event horizon. For the in-falling observer you need to use a different set of coordinates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gullstrand%E2%80%93Painlev%C3%A9_coordinates
However, I'm not sure how my argument relies on any specific qualities of a stationary frame of reference. By its nature the black hole should be unobservable from all frames of reference outside of it, and thus anything falling into it will never get observed. Given that no matter how one compresses space, you will never end up in the front of something that was in the front of you, you get this funny paradox of "you can't fall into black hole until you observe the thing in front of you falling in, which cannot happen" which is obviously wrong as you can fall into black holes.
It's kinda similar to Zeno's paradoxes in that sense.
Post by: Il Palazzo on March 06, 2015, 08:38:07 am
Quote
you will never observe (an object) falling into the black hole by definitionwhich is not true in the in-falling coordinates.
Post by: Frumple on March 06, 2015, 08:58:27 am
Pretty sure trials in monkeys (or maybe apes) with head transplants have been semi successful, in as much as the subject lived for a number of hours before expiry. Not fab, but its a start.My memory's definitely spotty, but weren't the test subjects put down instead of dying naturally/due to complications/whatever?
Post by: Sergarr on March 06, 2015, 09:15:21 am
In your argument you saidQuoteyou will never observe (an object) falling into the black hole by definitionwhich is not true in the in-falling coordinates.
Hmmm.
What if we give the falling observer and the object-before-it a propulsion system that would exactly counteract the gravity acceleration at any moment of falling down? That would make them stationary.
Post by: Il Palazzo on March 06, 2015, 09:23:03 am
What if we give the falling observer and the object-before-it a propulsion system that would exactly counteract the gravity acceleration at any moment of falling down? That would make them stationary.If they're stationary, then they're not in-falling, no?
Post by: Sergarr on March 06, 2015, 09:32:49 am
They can still move at a constant speed relative to the black hole and be considered a "stationary observer".What if we give the falling observer and the object-before-it a propulsion system that would exactly counteract the gravity acceleration at any moment of falling down? That would make them stationary.If they're stationary, then they're not in-falling, no?
Post by: wierd on March 06, 2015, 09:47:16 am
This means that black holes are essentially guaranteed to be spinning, and thus will exhibit frame dragging. This leads to the Kerr metric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr_metric), which predicts a region around the event horizon in which the frame dragging takes an extreme form; All roads in time eventually lead into the horizon.
This means that unless you have superluminal space drives on that object, it CAN'T hold such an orbit.
Post by: Il Palazzo on March 06, 2015, 09:57:34 am
This is getting into a territory that's way over my head, so I'll just make this one comment:They can still move at a constant speed relative to the black hole and be considered a "stationary observer".What if we give the falling observer and the object-before-it a propulsion system that would exactly counteract the gravity acceleration at any moment of falling down? That would make them stationary.If they're stationary, then they're not in-falling, no?
The singularity at R=Rs in the Schwartzschild metric is a coordinate singularity - it disappears if you use a different set of coordinates.
To confuse a coordinate singularity with a physical reality is like saying that there's a singularity at +/- 90 degrees of latitude on Earth, since the coordinate system behaves strangely there (try an tell me what is the longitude of a person standing exactly at the poles), therefore you can never reach the poles.
If you google 'Schwartzschild metric', 'coordinate singularity' you'll get more on the subject by people better versed in it than me.
Post by: RedKing on March 06, 2015, 10:06:48 am
That....actually makes some sense. And would explain his superluminal travel capabilities. He's not flying really fast, he's just warping the fabric of space-time to put shit under your tree.
Post by: wierd on March 06, 2015, 10:12:01 am
His bag of holding is clearly space-warping magic at its finest; Did you REALLY expect there to NOT be temporal consequences? ;)
Post by: Helgoland on March 06, 2015, 10:23:41 am
How else do you think he is able to crambillions of children (Some of which quite large and heavy) into a volume the size of a typical rucksack, and slip down chimneys with them?What I read.
Post by: wierd on March 06, 2015, 10:25:06 am
That's Goblinclaus silly!
Post by: Frumple on March 06, 2015, 12:24:39 pm
Quote
“There are certain drivers who don’t respect the traffic police. But with the robot it will be different. We should respect the robot,” taxi driver Poro Zidane told AFP.
... or traffic cops, anyway.
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on March 06, 2015, 12:28:07 pm
Post by: Lagslayer on March 06, 2015, 12:28:43 pm
All hail our robotic overlords! (http://www.theguardian.com/travel/2015/mar/05/robocops-being-used-as-traffic-police-in-democratic-republic-of-congo)So they're just fancy traffic cams?Quote“There are certain drivers who don’t respect the traffic police. But with the robot it will be different. We should respect the robot,” taxi driver Poro Zidane told AFP.
... or traffic cops, anyway.
Post by: Frumple on March 06, 2015, 12:35:22 pm
Post by: miauw62 on March 06, 2015, 12:40:41 pm
Post by: Helgoland on March 06, 2015, 12:46:50 pm
Post by: Arx on March 06, 2015, 01:31:35 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 06, 2015, 01:35:29 pm
Quote
The first manually operated gas lit traffic light was installed in 1868 in London, though it was short-lived due to explosion
Oh dear
Post by: wierd on March 06, 2015, 01:37:51 pm
It was even satirized in a fan video of "When robots attack"--(1:25 approx)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUjGUWo4HrU
Post by: Tylui on March 06, 2015, 02:03:28 pm
They can still move at a constant speed relative to the black hole and be considered a "stationary observer".What if we give the falling observer and the object-before-it a propulsion system that would exactly counteract the gravity acceleration at any moment of falling down? That would make them stationary.If they're stationary, then they're not in-falling, no?
Il Pal, it seems you do have a better grasp than you think! Sergarr, if you fire the propulsion system on both objects while they're both outside, nothing strange happens. If you fire them while one is inside, and one is outside, then you encounter the exact same situation as before; once the object is inside, it CANNOT come to rest with respect to you, since it would need to travel faster than the speed of light. If you were falling in after the object, you'd see it falling in too, along with anything else that's falling in.
The most intuitive way I've found of thinking about this stuff is with Kruskal–Szekeres coordinates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruskal%E2%80%93Szekeres_coordinates) where any objects falling in use the regular T and X axes, and where any stationary observers use r and (little) t, in the number I quadrant. little r = 1 would be 1 unit away from the Schwarzschild radius. To better understand the I quadrant, stare at left half of this Penrose diagram (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Penrose.svg)...
Another thing that really helped is this youtube playlist: Topics in String Theory (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL02F09440B79C75FA); lectures by Leonard Susskind. Lectures 3, 4, and 5, and maybe others deal with black holes a great deal, and really don't have that much to do with strings or quantum mechanics.
EDIT: Actually this video is basically exactly what we're talking about, with the 2 in-falling observers being explained at 1hr 0 min: General Relativity Lecture 7 (http://youtu.be/BdYtfYkdGDk?list=PLHa8Yc-ViKWb8H1qSkW1Zo3WGIKE9mLT7) It's funny we were talking about it then I decided to keep watching this one, and here it is :P
Post by: hops on March 06, 2015, 02:19:21 pm
Seems like I get ignored every time I say that time is a location, though. But I guess that it's kind of confusing to parse.
Post by: Sergarr on March 06, 2015, 02:47:11 pm
Il Pal, it seems you do have a better grasp than you think! Sergarr, if you fire the propulsion system on both objects while they're both outside, nothing strange happens.So when do you observe the object ahead of you entering the black hole?
Post by: Tylui on March 06, 2015, 03:03:38 pm
Post by: Sergarr on March 06, 2015, 03:16:08 pm
That's why it's sorta like a Zeno's paradox.
Post by: Tylui on March 06, 2015, 03:39:33 pm
But if you never observe it getting into the black hole, then how can you enter the black hole yourself? You'd need to do it after the object ahead of you does it, and it essentially never does as long as you're still outside. The distance between you would shorten, but you still wouldn't be ahead of it - and thus not in the black hole. If you want cross the black horizon, you would need to essentially crash into the object ahead of you to do it.
That's why it's sorta like a Zeno's paradox.
Yes! This is EXACTLY like a Zeno's paradox. I didn't know the name of it, or I woulda said that at the very beginning. It's also wrong for the same reason that Achilles will obviously surpass the tortoise.
The Schwarzschild radius is the radius at which light cannot escape the gravitational pull of the black hole. As you get closer and closer to that radius, from the outside, it takes longer and longer for any light that started there to get to the outside. It's not that an infalling object never actually passes the horizon, but that you will never see the light from it as it did so, and the light you see from just before it fell in takes an extraordinarily huge amount of time to reach you. Something like that.
Post by: Lagslayer on March 06, 2015, 04:00:36 pm
+1But if you never observe it getting into the black hole, then how can you enter the black hole yourself? You'd need to do it after the object ahead of you does it, and it essentially never does as long as you're still outside. The distance between you would shorten, but you still wouldn't be ahead of it - and thus not in the black hole. If you want cross the black horizon, you would need to essentially crash into the object ahead of you to do it.
That's why it's sorta like a Zeno's paradox.
Yes! This is EXACTLY like a Zeno's paradox. I didn't know the name of it, or I woulda said that at the very beginning. It's also wrong for the same reason that Achilles will obviously surpass the tortoise.
The Schwarzschild radius is the radius at which light cannot escape the gravitational pull of the black hole. As you get closer and closer to that radius, from the outside, it takes longer and longer for any light that started there to get to the outside. It's not that an infalling object never actually passes the horizon, but that you will never see the light from it as it did so, and the light you see from just before it fell in takes an extraordinarily huge amount of time to reach you. Something like that.
Post by: Gigaz on March 06, 2015, 04:51:15 pm
For the far observer, an object really never reaches the event horizon, that's not just an effect which arises from the observation of the object with light.
However, if we say it never reaches the horizon that's like saying a rolling ball will never really stop rolling due to friction, its velocity just approaches zero till the end of time. In reality, such a ball will rather soon stop rolling. (when its kinetic energy reaches the termal kinetic energy of the surrounding molecules)
Post by: Il Palazzo on March 06, 2015, 05:42:27 pm
I wish only people who actually understand GR spoke from now on. Not that I'm not guilty as any other here, though.
Post by: Lagslayer on March 06, 2015, 07:40:25 pm
Eh. The elephant is all wrinkly! No, it's all stout like a tree! No, it's soft and prehensile!I think part of this discussion involves challenging the common interpretation of GR.
I wish only people who actually understand GR spoke from now on. Not that I'm not guilty as any other here, though.
Post by: Putnam on March 07, 2015, 03:48:21 am
1 gives kg/m3
Post by: Lagslayer on March 07, 2015, 12:30:21 pm
...so, discussion on "what would happen when you fall into a black hole?" Well, assuming you weren't spaghetti'd (which you would be), then I think this page (http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/schw.html), written by people who actually know what they're talking about, should be useful.That didn't really address any of the issues brought up. It goes on about the conclusions, but has little to nothing about how they were reached.
Post by: Sergarr on March 07, 2015, 12:35:07 pm
You should explore that site more. The links above lead to different sections of that site, where you'll find your explanations and also this picture:...so, discussion on "what would happen when you fall into a black hole?" Well, assuming you weren't spaghetti'd (which you would be), then I think this page (http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/schw.html), written by people who actually know what they're talking about, should be useful.That didn't really address any of the issues brought up. It goes on about the conclusions, but has little to nothing about how they were reached.
Spoiler: behold the double waterfall (click to show/hide)
Post by: Lagslayer on March 07, 2015, 01:13:07 pm
-snip-Again, it's all based on the same assumptions, with the different models just being arguments about what's on the other side. You can't use something as evidence of itself.
Post by: Sergarr on March 07, 2015, 01:24:26 pm
They... don't use something as an evidence of itself? They use various models based on general relativity... they don't just assume things.-snip-Again, it's all based on the same assumptions, with the different models just being arguments about what's on the other side. You can't use something as evidence of itself.
Or do you want the evidence for general relativity itself?
Post by: Lagslayer on March 07, 2015, 02:10:47 pm
We know light has momentum, and we agree that mass and energy are directly linked, except when it comes to light. They say that light has no rest mass, but I say that we simply don't have equipment sensitive enough to weigh it yet. I also argue that time is not tangible, as that would create too many paradoxes. The only way to make that work is to conjure up a new dimension, which we also have no other evidence of. I argue that a black hole is just a super dense ball of matter/energy, and that since light has momentum, and therefor mass, that enough gravity would be able to alter it's trajectory. We don't see things come out of a black hole on a regular basis because that stuff doesn't have enough momentum to escape the enormous gravity. At least until the black hole itself reaches critical mass. It has enough gravity to crunch together atoms, but each stem down in size has more energy. Eventually it's going to try and crush something too small and cause an explosive reaction. Try to squeese atoms together too tightly, and you get an explosion. But if there's already too much gravity to escape, the material stays there and collects more gravity. Allowing gravity to accumulate further, even the quarks and stuff the sub-atomic particles are made of will start overcrowding, which, following the observed pattern, would also explode their bonds eventually. And then the stuff that is made of, and so on and so forth. Gravity increases linearly, but the increase in bond energy increases exponentially every level you go down. Eventually, it will overtake the gravity, resulting in a rather large explosion we call the big bang.
I argue that my explanation has the benefit of simplicity. It doesn't need to conjure up a bunch of new stuff to make it's base assumptions work. Isn't the simplest explanation usually the best one, after all?
Post by: Helgoland on March 07, 2015, 02:15:59 pm
It doesn't need to conjure up a bunch of new stuff to make it's base assumptions work.Well yeah, it does: Light having a rest mass, mostly, and implicitly that c does not have the 'maximum speed' properties given by the theory of special relativity.
Post by: Sergarr on March 07, 2015, 02:25:08 pm
I am challenging the interpretation of those tests. Common interpretation is that light has no rest mass, and that, therefor, gravity should not affect it by itself, and yet, it clearly affects the path light takes. So they conjure up the idea that space is warped by gravity, and try to make time this tangible thing instead of an abstract concept.That doesn't really work because light has a different relationship between it's momentum and energy compared to objects that have rest mass. You'd have to explain that one first.
We know light has momentum, and we agree that mass and energy are directly linked, except when it comes to light. They say that light has no rest mass, but I say that we simply don't have equipment sensitive enough to weigh it yet. I also argue that time is not tangible, as that would create too many paradoxes. The only way to make that work is to conjure up a new dimension, which we also have no other evidence of. I argue that a black hole is just a super dense ball of matter/energy, and that since light has momentum, and therefor mass, that enough gravity would be able to alter it's trajectory. We don't see things come out of a black hole on a regular basis because that stuff doesn't have enough momentum to escape the enormous gravity.
I argue that my explanation has the benefit of simplicity. It doesn't need to conjure up a bunch of new stuff to make it's base assumptions work. Isn't the simplest explanation usually the best one, after all?
Also there's no evidence of there existing a "slowed down" light, which would be there if light actually had rest mass, due to photon-photon interactions causing some of them to slow down and others to fasten up. You would get a lot of that "slow" light if you simply put two flashlights and pointed them towards each other, yet we don't have that.
Also how do you explain the speed of light being measured invariant to the system of measurement being used, down to a stupidly precise amount? That puts a ridiculously low upper bound on the mass of the photon.
And there are other uncountable problems with that argument, starting from the fact that it fucks up quantum mechanics.
And you do not want to fuck up quantum mechanics, as it is one of the most well researched field of modern physics, and the simplest proof for it working is the computer you're currently using.
Post by: Tylui on March 07, 2015, 02:31:03 pm
Post by: Lagslayer on March 07, 2015, 02:52:11 pm
Even if the photon has an infinitesimally small rest mass, that's all it takes to make gravity affect it.
If the rest mass is so small, you could still get accurate results just assuming it doesn't have any at all, at least for the scale of current applications.
Post by: Bauglir on March 07, 2015, 02:56:01 pm
Post by: iceball3 on March 07, 2015, 03:02:23 pm
Post by: Lagslayer on March 07, 2015, 03:07:00 pm
Post by: Helgoland on March 07, 2015, 03:09:06 pm
Post by: Sergarr on March 07, 2015, 03:11:15 pm
If photons are truly so small, then the miniscule amount of light coming out of the 2 flashlights would not have enough photons interacting with each other to produce a noticeable effect (with current equipment, at least). The field of photons would have to be much denser.It would have to be stupidly small: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Experimental_checks_on_photon_mass
Even if the photon has an infinitesimally small rest mass, that's all it takes to make gravity affect it.
If the rest mass is so small, you could still get accurate results just assuming it doesn't have any at all, at least for the scale of current applications.
(for comparison: neutrino's mass is about 10^13 times bigger than the upper bound on photon mass).
A particles mass goes up hyperbolically as its speed approaches c, though - so no matter how small the non-zero rest mass of a photon, at the speed it moves at it would still have infinite mass.You appear to be using "relativistic mass". I'd suggest you to add word "relativistic" before "mass" to avoid confusing people not-in-the-know.
Post by: Lagslayer on March 07, 2015, 03:19:19 pm
Though that brings up another interesting question. If there was something out there faster than that theoretical maximum, how would we even be able to detect it? Maybe the matter we observe just sort of peters out at that point, but perhaps something more exotic could surpass it? But that's another can of worms, and I have no idea how it would work, having no basis of reference.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 07, 2015, 04:10:40 pm
Is Primal Scream Therapy an effective way of dealing with stress and repressed anger?
Asking on the neuroscience side if this
For those who don't know and can't guess, what I've seen is Primal Scream Therapy is re-enacting a traumatic event and releasing the anger usually in the form of violent uncontrolled screaming
I don't think it would help but I could be wrong
Post by: Helgoland on March 07, 2015, 04:13:55 pm
If speed really does approach an asymptote, perhaps photons move slightly slower than that, but still be really, really close.It would have imaginary (as in imaginary numbers) energy - now I'm a big fan of making predictions based purely in formal mathematics, but I have no idea what a particle with imaginary energy would behave like.
Though that brings up another interesting question. If there was something out there faster than that theoretical maximum, how would we even be able to detect it? Maybe the matter we observe just sort of peters out at that point, but perhaps something more exotic could surpass it? But that's another can of worms, and I have no idea how it would work, having no basis of reference.
EDIT: Imaginary mass, not energy. My bad.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 07, 2015, 04:17:15 pm
I'm not sure if this is the right thread for this but I'm curious
Is Primal Scream Therapy an effective way of dealing with stress and repressed anger?
Asking on the neuroscience side if this
For those who don't know and can't guess, what I've seen is Primal Scream Therapy is re-enacting a traumatic event and releasing the anger usually in the form of violent uncontrolled screaming
I don't think it would help but I could be wrong
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Tylui on March 07, 2015, 04:43:01 pm
Post by: TheDarkStar on March 07, 2015, 05:17:03 pm
I'm not sure if this is the right thread for this but I'm curious
Is Primal Scream Therapy an effective way of dealing with stress and repressed anger?
Asking on the neuroscience side if this
For those who don't know and can't guess, what I've seen is Primal Scream Therapy is re-enacting a traumatic event and releasing the anger usually in the form of violent uncontrolled screaming
I don't think it would help but I could be wrong
I'd guess that it would be useless or slightly worse than useless because that's how most "let it out by punching stuff" activities actually are. There's also the fact that "repression" doesn't happen.
Post by: Il Palazzo on March 07, 2015, 07:24:36 pm
stuffEh, I guess somebody has to say it: That's sheer crackpottery, that is.
Post by: iceball3 on March 07, 2015, 07:29:57 pm
I honestly agree with you, Palazzo-...stuffEh, I guess somebody has to say it: That's sheer crackpottery, that is.
This is a test of the Shitstorm Early Warning Broadcast system.
Oh dear. ./me hides in her bunker.
Post by: i2amroy on March 07, 2015, 08:21:32 pm
There's also the fact that "repression" doesn't happen.This right here. Quite a few studies are actually showing that holding in your anger is the better thing, mentally, to do over time.
Post by: TheDarkStar on March 07, 2015, 08:33:09 pm
Oops, I used the wrong meaning of repression. There's the idea of repression where painful memories are "blocked" subconsciously which doesn't happen, but you and Cryxis are talking about the idea of keeping anger inside rather than expressing it,There's also the fact that "repression" doesn't happen.This right here. Quite a few studies are actually showing that holding in your anger is the better thing, mentally, to do over time.
Post by: Lagslayer on March 07, 2015, 09:01:22 pm
We mustn't challenge the dogma, now.stuffEh, I guess somebody has to say it: That's sheer crackpottery, that is.
Post by: Helgoland on March 07, 2015, 09:03:57 pm
Post by: Lagslayer on March 07, 2015, 09:15:56 pm
I'm pitching a concept. For fuck's sake, that site actually claimed to know exactly how the 4th dimension works.
Post by: Helgoland on March 07, 2015, 09:21:25 pm
Please forgive me, but I do not possess millions of dollars for the equipment to weigh subatomic particles. I guess I should just take their word for it.I'm not talking about an experiment, I'm talking about a theoretical framework. Your (I'll omit the air quotes) concept contradicts most if not all of modern physics - is it asking too much that you at least sketch what a replacement would look like? (Also what additional phenomena your concept would explain, or where your concept would give a great simplification of the mathematics involved in explaining various already-explained phenomena).
Post by: iceball3 on March 07, 2015, 09:22:55 pm
Please forgive me, but I do not possess millions of dollars for the equipment to weigh subatomic particles. I guess I should just take their word for it.Except that without experimentation or mathematics to back it, the concept is conjecture at best and pseudoscience at worst. We aren't worldbuilding here.
I'm pitching a concept. For fuck's sake, that site actually claimed to know exactly how the 4th dimension works.
Post by: Lagslayer on March 07, 2015, 09:42:38 pm
How much stock do you put in the official experiments? The experiments conducted by looking at things countless billions of miles away; the experiments trying to divine the secrets of things billions of times smaller than an atom, using electrical blips we also cannot directly observe. Experiments all being conducted with our relatively primitive technology, based upon assumptions of assumptions of things we can't directly observe. Who's really doing the world-building, here?Please forgive me, but I do not possess millions of dollars for the equipment to weigh subatomic particles. I guess I should just take their word for it.Except that without experimentation or mathematics to back it, the concept is conjecture at best and pseudoscience at worst. We aren't worldbuilding here.
I'm pitching a concept. For fuck's sake, that site actually claimed to know exactly how the 4th dimension works.
I'm not talking about an experiment, I'm talking about a theoretical framework. Your (I'll omit the air quotes) concept contradicts most if not all of modern physics - is it asking too much that you at least sketch what a replacement would look like? (Also what additional phenomena your concept would explain, or where your concept would give a great simplification of the mathematics involved in explaining various already-explained phenomena).I'm not a physics major. I didn't even take it in high school (I took AP biology instead). I'm not trying to prove anything, because I don't have the equipment or clout to do so. I'm merely providing an alternate explanation as to how we reached the observations we have now. Just because an explanation fits the perceived conclusion does not mean that it is what happened. In my quest to understand the popular theories and formulas, I found the whole thing rather loopy. Trying to internalize it, I worked my way to a simpler explanation, one that more closely fits a model minus the loopy weird stuff. My biggest beef is how is is so insisted that the measurements of something so tiny, or something so enormous and so far away are so perfectly accurate. So it's really just about a couple of small bits, but bigger assumptions are being based upon it before the dust has settled.
Post by: Putnam on March 07, 2015, 09:44:11 pm
Post by: Darvi on March 07, 2015, 09:46:15 pm
How much stock do you put in the official experiments?More than in the theories of some random internetperson, I'd wager.
Post by: Lagslayer on March 07, 2015, 09:49:11 pm
Also, it all seems based on the assumption that gravity requires mass, which is wrong.That's based on the assumption that light has no mass, and yet, is affected by gravity, which I am bringing into question.
Post by: wierd on March 07, 2015, 09:54:17 pm
Astrophysics has a notoriously large error bar on its observations. This is because we simply cant just fly up there and set probes up around, say-- the bullet cluster-- and get reliable data. We instead have to work with data that has undergone transformations, to try and understand the transformations.
Normal high-energy physics has a very low error bar, because the equipment is right there, and able to gather very high quality data.
The former uses the research and experimentation of the latter, to refine and help reduce the error bar it has to deal with. I can't imagine a single astrophysicist that WOULDNT want to send experimental platforms to various celestial objects of interest to gather data and help refine/test theories.
So, to answer your question-- How much do I trust the experiments-- For astrophysicists, the error bar is too large to stamp "Definitive" on it. For particle physics-- The error bar is often less that 6 sigma. That is, the error is less than .000001% (and is actually getting EVEN TIGHTER as better understanding allows manufacture of better testing apparatus!)
It is VERY hard to kill off General Relativity, The Standard Model, and co. This is because these theories have held up to observations so rigorous, that if these theories were not at least on the right track, they would have been thoroughly disproven by now.
Post by: Lagslayer on March 07, 2015, 10:06:34 pm
-snip-Fair enough, but my paranoia still tells me to take it with a grain of salt. After all, they do have a monopoly on the ability to obtain the data, and have exclusive access to it before anyone outside the immediate group does. If they wanted to doctor, embellish, or otherwise manipulate the data, they could get away with it, though the exact reasoning to do so is uncertain.
Post by: Helgoland on March 07, 2015, 10:08:34 pm
I'm merely providing an alternate explanation as to how we reached the observations we have now.That's precisely not what you are doing! 'Providing an alternate explanation' would involve - you guessed it - fairly rigorous mathematics. Right now you're just throwing words around. That's how all theories start, mind you - but the mathematical formalization is needed.
Plus you have in no way given examples of the current mathematical model failing, which is kinda the only reason a new explanation of the same phenomena would be needed anyway.
Fair enough, but my paranoia still tells me to take it with a grain of salt. After all, they do have a monopoly on the ability to obtain the data, and have exclusive access to it before anyone outside the immediate group does. If they wanted to doctor, embellish, or otherwise manipulate the data, they could get away with it, though the exact reasoning to do so is uncertain.Who is this ominous 'they' you are talking about?
Post by: Darvi on March 07, 2015, 10:10:34 pm
Post by: Putnam on March 07, 2015, 10:34:18 pm
Post by: iceball3 on March 07, 2015, 10:39:10 pm
The Illuminati, of course. Didn't you read the bit where Dan Brown explains that they were founded by a bunch of scientists?!I remember some scientists gave me some mac n cheese one day-
BUT WAIT
(http://cdn.funnymemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/funny-memes-the-illuminati-is-everywhere.jpg)
Post by: wierd on March 07, 2015, 10:53:09 pm
However, it is important to focus that skepticism. Any model proposed NEEDS to answer questions and explain observed phenomena (at very tight levels, as I pointed out earlier) BETTER than the current models. As Helgo pointed out, this requires some pretty damned elite math skills.
Relativity did exactly that, which is why when its predictions were observed, it became a sensation. You need to have predictions that are then confirmed to have any validity for any new models, and the resulting model needs to be better than what we currently have.
Simply "Not liking" or finding the model to "Not make sense" (to us) are not grounds to discard the baby with the bathwater. Quantum field theory is very much "We dont like it", AND "Does not make sense" (To us)--- but it WORKS, and WORKS WELL. Keep that in mind.
Post by: Lagslayer on March 07, 2015, 11:03:43 pm
Who is this ominous 'they' you are talking about?You know damn well who I'm talking about, smartass.
The Illuminati, of course. Didn't you read the bit where Dan Brown explains that they were founded by a bunch of scientists?!You, too.
The scientific community. They need some sort of leverage to beg for money, don't they? Something that "shatters everything we thought we knew" is a lot more compelling than "it's the same thing but smaller". Hell, begging for money is half the job.
Or maybe they just want their 15 minutes of fame. By the time it can be disproved, they're long gone. Or maybe their plan is to stay ahead of that and pull another reversal before people start catching on.
These are not saints, but human beings with normal desires, aspirations, and needs. People in other fields pull this shit all the time, so why should scientists be exempt?
Quote
That's precisely not what you are doing! 'Providing an alternate explanation' would involve - you guessed it - fairly rigorous mathematics. Right now you're just throwing words around. That's how all theories start, mind you - but the mathematical formalization is needed.I'm saying you shouldn't take everything they tell you as the gospel. People can and do make mistakes. And if I recall correctly, there was a recent thing about rampant confirmation bias within the scientific community.
Plus you have in no way given examples of the current mathematical model failing, which is kinda the only reason a new explanation of the same phenomena would be needed anyway.
We don't "need" another explanation for anything, until we need it. Or unless we are engaging in intellectual masturbation, like we are doing right now. Lighten up.
Hey now, let's not be a bunch of douches about this. Being skeptical and always challenging the data collected thus far is what keeps science healthy-- otherwise we would all still be prattling about phlogiston (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory) right now.I'm willing to drop the entire conversation if everyone else can agree to stop slinging shit after I leave (not directed at you, wierd). Can we agree to disagree?
However, it is important to focus that skepticism. Any model proposed NEEDS to answer questions and explain observed phenomena (at very tight levels, as I pointed out earlier) BETTER than the current models. As Helgo pointed out, this requires some pretty damned elite math skills.
Relativity did exactly that, which is why when its predictions were observed, it became a sensation. You need to have predictions that are then confirmed to have any validity for any new models, and the resulting model needs to be better than what we currently have.
Simply "Not liking" or finding the model to "Not make sense" (to us) are not grounds to discard the baby with the bathwater. Quantum field theory is very much "We dont like it", AND "Does not make sense" (To us)--- but it WORKS, and WORKS WELL. Keep that in mind.
Post by: iceball3 on March 07, 2015, 11:09:08 pm
Post by: Lagslayer on March 07, 2015, 11:26:34 pm
Two light hearted jokes and it's considered shit slinging? Well okay then.It didn't feel lighthearted, and little bits were strung out over a few posts. But then again, it's kinda hard to tell over the internet.
Post by: wierd on March 07, 2015, 11:28:40 pm
Lagslayer has just misinterpreted what is going on there, because of the active misinformation being promulgated by certain political groups (who shall remain nameless. If you want to talk about that, go to the politics threads.)
These certain groups have a vested interest in shaking popular trust in the scientific method and scientific community. They do this for financial reasons (A la, the tobacco industry and their "Studies" in recent history, and more modern "Studies" in the same political vein) and this is NOT helped by the "For profit" research that has begun to dominate modern scientific exploits.
Basically, Lagslayer is saying he finds it difficult to trust in the findings of modern scientists, when there is motive to lie about the data, and lack of resources to catch the lies. However, he takes it too far, believing that there is a massive system-wide conspiracy.
The real ugly picture of modern academics is more like this (as far as I have been able to piece together):
Researchers are genuinely interested in increasing the sum of human knowledge. They simply cant afford the equipment to do this, as our understanding has progressed to a very fine, and nuanced degree. To get the resources to do their preferred work, they have to pimp themselves out to less than scrupulous for-profit groups. Biomed industries wanting to prove that XYZ pill is safe and effective, even when it might not be, etc. The only conspiracy here is that created by the for-profit motive.
Then you have the "Data is hard if not impossible to get" problem posed by rent seeking assholes like Elsevier and pals. These are historically famous scientific publishing journals that run like good ol boys clubs, where you have to be "This rich" to get in the door. While this DOES provide a fairly effective filter against junk science that isnt worth the electricity needed to publish-- it also keeps people from getting at the higher quality publications-- It also allows the financially motivated junk science to get unfair exposure, which is poisonous to good science.
Within the scientific community, there is a lot of debate and argument over free publishing, but in recent years, due to this growing anti-intellectualism that is strangling science in its crib, many researchers are also publishing in open journals, hoping that people interested in science will be able to get the papers, the datasets, and perhaps even try to replicate results from them, and further contribute to the scientific process.
There isn't some cabaal of secret scientific madmen trying to sway everyone through some secret agenda.
There IS a problem with for-profit science contaminating good science with junk, churned out to "Prove" something that is actually NOT true, so that some stock holders can make more money this quarter.
There IS a problem with good science not being able to achieve proper funding, because the people with the money to fund it want to make an immediate profit from science, and the costs of scientific inquiry are going up as methods and knowledge increase in complexity.
There IS a problem with government officials not understanding the value of fundamental science research, and constantly cutting science endowments as if they were a form of wellfare, and thus increasing the dependence of researchers on for-profit motivated "benefactors."
There still is no conspiracy though. Just simple blind greed motivators getting in the way of true, pure research, which is contaminating the public image of science, when the "Proof" presented gets found out to be false later on when held up to scrutiny.
Post by: Tylui on March 07, 2015, 11:29:28 pm
Speaking of bosons that may or may not have mass, my understanding has been that bosons are things made of fields, which to me explains why photons and gluons have no mass. So anyone have an explanation for Z and W bosons having mass?
EDIT: P sure I know the answer... mostly changing le subject
Post by: wierd on March 07, 2015, 11:36:56 pm
Post by: Darvi on March 07, 2015, 11:46:51 pm
Post by: i2amroy on March 08, 2015, 01:16:36 am
Post by: Sergarr on March 08, 2015, 07:33:08 am
The scientific community......didn't exist for a significant period of time. There wasn't a single scientific community for the period of time from 1950s to 1980s. You know, Cold War and all that. They've had plenty of motive to point out errors in each other's theories if they could; but theories that we're using now have survived that.
Post by: Radio Controlled on March 08, 2015, 08:44:15 am
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 08, 2015, 09:03:48 am
there remain reasons to point out scientific mistakes. If someone overturned general relativity he'd get the Nobel prize, at the very leastThe scientific community......didn't exist for a significant period of time. There wasn't a single scientific community for the period of time from 1950s to 1980s. You know, Cold War and all that. They've had plenty of motive to point out errors in each other's theories if they could; but theories that we're using now have survived that.
Post by: Rose on March 08, 2015, 09:08:37 am
Post by: Sergarr on March 08, 2015, 09:11:18 am
Not sure why I don't have this thread in my watch list yet.I've always wanted to ask: what's "watch list"?
Post by: Arx on March 08, 2015, 09:16:45 am
Or 'undead reptiles' page, if you're surqimus.
Post by: Eagleon on March 08, 2015, 11:38:28 am
Within the scientific community, there is a lot of debate and argument over free publishing, but in recent years, due to this growing anti-intellectualism that is strangling science in its crib, many researchers are also publishing in open journals, hoping that people interested in science will be able to get the papers, the datasets, and perhaps even try to replicate results from them, and further contribute to the scientific process.I've started to see another, related problem - scientific papers also kind of suck balls right now, because "That's the Standard". This is what I want to start working on as soon as my life stops self-destructing every 3-6 months (*poke Agora link*). Almost all of it is presented in PDF, and when it isn't, there's still almost never any nod to the fact that the vast majority of consumption is done digitally. You can present information differently using computers than you can on a flat piece of paper. The way we communicate science outside of the groups doing it hasn't caught up to that.
Even if we simply (only) abandoned PDF, crawlers would get a hell of a lot easier to make for searching and creating semantic data about papers. Then we could start compositing data from them to create perfectly reference-matched data sets from sources that would still have to be examined, but which could suggest patterns that haven't been seen yet - ground-level research assistance leveraging the network of references already found in papers. At that point we might have a chance to speed basic research up to where we are with restaurant reviews and pornography indexing/retrieval.
Post by: Helgoland on March 08, 2015, 11:43:21 am
Post by: Eagleon on March 08, 2015, 11:48:06 am
Everyone uses Latex anyway - maybe people should simply start publishing their Tex files along with the finished PDF.Yes, please 100x. Edit: hurp. You're talking about people using Latex to make the finished PDFs. That also explains things a bit - I'm unfortunately a bit out of touch, I apologize. It'd probably still be easier to parse than PDF, because you'd have access to the markup, but really what we need are scientists that have an active interest in presenting their work online - rather than just as a document, some effort needs to be made to leverage the fact that they are publishing on a network, not in a book.
Post by: Tylui on March 08, 2015, 12:29:22 pm
EDIT: Looks like the Notify link does something different, but similar.
Post by: Gentlefish on March 08, 2015, 09:03:53 pm
Post by: forsaken1111 on March 09, 2015, 07:55:32 am
For example, if an alien race relocated something like 1000 stellar objects to a specific region of space and kept them very close to one another but, by application of unknown technology, kept the stars in place and did not allow them to collapse together.. would this collection of matter still generate such a radius where light could not escape?
I ask because such a situation is described in a science fiction novel I read and I'm curious just how that would work.
Post by: Sergarr on March 09, 2015, 08:38:39 am
Is it possible for a black hole to NOT be a point source?It can be a source no bigger than the radius of the black hole itself, so no, you can't magically create a radius where light couldn't escape by placing a lot of objects around one place.
Post by: Rose on March 09, 2015, 08:41:33 am
Post by: Angle on March 09, 2015, 08:43:09 am
Everyone uses Latex anyway - maybe people should simply start publishing their Tex files along with the finished PDF.Yes, please 100x. Edit: hurp. You're talking about people using Latex to make the finished PDFs. That also explains things a bit - I'm unfortunately a bit out of touch, I apologize. It'd probably still be easier to parse than PDF, because you'd have access to the markup, but really what we need are scientists that have an active interest in presenting their work online - rather than just as a document, some effort needs to be made to leverage the fact that they are publishing on a network, not in a book.
Funny you should mention that. Agora's coming along pretty well, and at some vaguely defined point in the distant future I would like to take a look into leveraging it to reform our science publishing process.
Post by: forsaken1111 on March 09, 2015, 08:44:09 am
No, the Hee-Chee are pretty much full of shit, as far as I know.Good to know. :P
It was an interesting idea for fiction but throughout reading that book I had the feeling that it was pretty much all bullshit.
Post by: Il Palazzo on March 09, 2015, 09:03:30 am
What do you mean? The Schwartzschild radius grows faster than the radius of a uniform sphere as you keep adding mass. Once you get enough mass concentrated in small* enough volume the event horizon is created and (classically, static black holes only!) everything contained within must end up in the singularity.Is it possible for a black hole to NOT be a point source?It can be a source no bigger than the radius of the black hole itself, so no, you can't magically create a radius where light couldn't escape by placing a lot of objects around one place.
*If you had a blob of air the size of the Milky Way, it'd form an EH.
The thing to remember here is that singularity is not a physical thing. It's an indication, as clear as any, that you can't use a theory to describe this particular domain.
So there is almost certainly some other physics governing the behaviour of matter inside the event horizon, and the aliens could be very well privy to it.
That still leaves the silliness of using a sonic screwdriver or whatever thingamajigar they've got to stop a stellar core from doing its thing.
Post by: forsaken1111 on March 09, 2015, 09:22:55 am
It all felt a bit silly.
Then there was the Kugelblitz 'black hole formed not by matter but by sufficient concentration of energy' weirdness in which godlike energy beings lived.
Post by: Putnam on March 09, 2015, 03:16:19 pm
For example, the observable universe's swarzchild radius given its mass is 13.7 billion light years, which gives us a density of, oh, pretty much exactly the universe's density. Wonky.
Post by: Sergarr on March 09, 2015, 03:20:25 pm
The size of the swarzchild radius increases linearly with mass, so yeah, black holes can get pretty wonky.Wouldn't that mean that we're all in a giant black hole?
For example, the observable universe's swarzchild radius given its mass is 13.7 billion light years, which gives us a density of, oh, pretty much exactly the universe's density. Wonky.
Where's the singularity, then?
Post by: Putnam on March 09, 2015, 03:23:49 pm
Post by: Gentlefish on March 09, 2015, 03:28:29 pm
Post by: Sergarr on March 09, 2015, 03:31:03 pm
Well, I suppose to put it another way, we're not escaping our observable universe any time soon :PYou can always took a plunge into a random black hole :P
Post by: Descan on March 09, 2015, 03:42:06 pm
This is nothing scientific, as far as I know, it's a story along the same lines as the Egg storyThe size of the swarzchild radius increases linearly with mass, so yeah, black holes can get pretty wonky.Wouldn't that mean that we're all in a giant black hole?
For example, the observable universe's swarzchild radius given its mass is 13.7 billion light years, which gives us a density of, oh, pretty much exactly the universe's density. Wonky.
Where's the singularity, then?
But there is the idea that black holes are basically universal reproduction. Each black hole has a universe inside it, which has more black holes which have more universes, down the chain.
So we'd be inside a black hole of another universe that was upwards the chain from us. :P
Post by: Gentlefish on March 09, 2015, 07:57:38 pm
Post by: hops on March 09, 2015, 11:31:53 pm
We need to go shallower
Post by: Sergarr on March 09, 2015, 11:52:38 pm
Actual scientific hypothesis: We exist upon the 3D membrane of a 4D black hole. Black hole membranes in our dimension are 2D.What if something exists in a 1D membrane of a 2D black hole, would they have 0D black holes membranes?
Post by: hops on March 09, 2015, 11:57:55 pm
I mean, the black hole itself would be a line on the 1st dimension, so the exterior part would be zero-dimensional dots.
Post by: Sergarr on March 10, 2015, 12:02:52 am
Uh, yeah?but then would people on 0D memrane have -1D black hole membranes?
I mean, the black hole itself would be a line on the 1st dimension, so the exterior part would be zero-dimensional dots.
Post by: hops on March 10, 2015, 01:43:08 am
Post by: Frumple on March 10, 2015, 02:41:36 am
. <----
Post by: Putnam on March 10, 2015, 03:05:33 am
Post by: forsaken1111 on March 10, 2015, 06:00:53 am
Post by: Il Palazzo on March 10, 2015, 06:44:49 am
Spoiler: comet 67P/C-G active nucleus up close (click to show/hide)
Post by: Rose on March 10, 2015, 06:51:18 am
I'm guessing there's a band of more volatile material between two lumps of less volatile material that got stuck together.
Post by: Il Palazzo on March 10, 2015, 06:55:15 am
Post by: Eagleon on March 10, 2015, 11:14:15 am
The big "bang" :>The size of the swarzchild radius increases linearly with mass, so yeah, black holes can get pretty wonky.Wouldn't that mean that we're all in a giant black hole?
For example, the observable universe's swarzchild radius given its mass is 13.7 billion light years, which gives us a density of, oh, pretty much exactly the universe's density. Wonky.
Where's the singularity, then?
Post by: Putnam on March 10, 2015, 04:05:47 pm
With the way the most amount of material coming off the neck, it makes sense as to why and how the neck came to be.
I'm guessing there's a band of more volatile material between two lumps of less volatile material that got stuck together.
Could also be due to rapid rotation.
Post by: Sergarr on March 11, 2015, 03:16:22 pm
The resonance effects are strong in this one.
Post by: hops on March 11, 2015, 03:26:46 pm
Post by: Sergarr on March 11, 2015, 03:32:35 pm
Dammit, science, what we wanted to see is "ULTRASOUND WEAPON COMPLETELY OBLITERATE MOUSE'S BRAIN"I personally would take a unique beneficial effect over another weapon.
Destroying is easy, healing is not so much.
Post by: hops on March 11, 2015, 03:41:59 pm
Post by: Gentlefish on March 11, 2015, 05:36:37 pm
Post by: FearfulJesuit on March 11, 2015, 07:16:26 pm
Post by: Il Palazzo on March 11, 2015, 07:27:54 pm
Post by: hops on March 11, 2015, 07:32:16 pm
ENCELADUS HAS AN HONEST-TO-GOD OCEAN. (http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/deep-space/a14507/enceladus-saturn-moon-ocean/)Petition to rename Enceladus to Mann's moon.
Post by: smjjames on March 11, 2015, 07:42:37 pm
ENCELADUS HAS AN HONEST-TO-GOD OCEAN. (http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/deep-space/a14507/enceladus-saturn-moon-ocean/)
Enceladus is Saturns Europa :)
Post by: Parsely on March 12, 2015, 07:45:16 pm
P = Po exp[-(A/V)t*(200m/s)] //po exp stands for... something :I, P = pressure in pascals, 1atm is 101.325kpa
pressure = Po exp[-(area/volume)time*(c*.6) //where c=speed of sound and gas escapes into a vacuum at approximately 60% of c, t = time in seconds
101,325 = Po exp[-(7.07/4.2billion km^3)t*(200m/s)] //the equation so far; 3.15 is the area of the hole, 4.2bil is the effective volume of Earth's atmo
Solving for t of course.
Post by: Darvi on March 12, 2015, 07:52:05 pm
Post by: Sergarr on March 12, 2015, 08:08:58 pm
Post by: Darvi on March 12, 2015, 08:12:24 pm
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_pressure
The standard atmosphere (symbol: atm) is a unit of pressure equal to 101325 Pa[1] or 1013.25 hectopascals or millibars.
Post by: Sergarr on March 12, 2015, 08:23:33 pm
this pressure should go instead of P0 not P
Post by: Darvi on March 12, 2015, 08:29:34 pm
Post by: Sergarr on March 12, 2015, 08:37:48 pm
And actually:
For fun, I'm trying to find out how long it would take to drain all of Earth's atmosphere if you were to create a perfectly round portal that's 3m in diameter that led to some location in space.The answer is infinite time, because it's the time it would take to reach a complete equilibrium. You can, however, calculate how much time it would take to half the atmosphere - a half-life period. It would probably be pretty big. Around 1 million seconds.
Post by: Frumple on March 12, 2015, 08:44:52 pm
Post by: Sergarr on March 12, 2015, 08:48:39 pm
... a million seconds is something like 11-12 days. That's... not very big?Yeah, it means I've messed up the units of area/volume.
Calculating... - (+1 - 9 - 3*3 (this is what I forgot about before) + 2) = +15
It's about 10^15 seconds. Quite a lot of time.
Post by: Frumple on March 12, 2015, 08:51:57 pm
Post by: Sergarr on March 12, 2015, 08:59:15 pm
Post by: Parsely on March 12, 2015, 10:24:37 pm
...
I said, your DOOM approaches!
...
...
*pokes the doomsday with a stick*
Why is c the speed of sound that's so confusing.It says on the list of common physics notation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_physics_notations) that c can mean the speed of sound or a few other things, normally I see it being used to mean the speed of light. But it doesn't matter, a variable can have any meaning that one assigns to it.
why pressure = 101,3251 atmosphere of pressure = 101.325kpa OR 101,325pa
what is it doing on the left*shrug* I just looked up the formula and started doing algebra, i.e. plugging stuff in.
this pressure should go instead of P0 not P
The answer is infinite time, because it's the time it would take to reach a complete equilibrium. You can, however, calculate how much time it would take to half the atmosphere - a half-life period. It would probably be pretty big. Around 1 million seconds.I don't understand. So you're saying the time needed to reach equilibrium is just immeasurably high? Or complete equilibrium is impossible?
Post by: Darvi on March 12, 2015, 10:32:14 pm
Post by: Sergarr on March 12, 2015, 10:34:05 pm
I don't understand. So you're saying the time needed to reach equilibrium is just immeasurably high? Or complete equilibrium is impossible?Complete equilibrium is always impossible. It's a mathematical abstraction that's as impossible to realize in reality as drawing an absolutely perfect circle. But you can get something which would be "almost" equilibrium. First though, you need to define the "almost" to something. And based on that, you can make further calculations on how much time it would take to reach an "almost" equilibrium.
Post by: Parsely on March 12, 2015, 11:13:50 pm
Post by: Sergarr on March 12, 2015, 11:15:21 pm
Makes sense. Thanks for taking part!I like physics, so I should be thanking you :P
Post by: Parsely on March 13, 2015, 12:23:14 am
Physics are pretty awesome.
Post by: wierd on March 13, 2015, 02:04:27 am
(Pet peeve of mine; depicting highly distorted spacetime bridges as circular portals, instead of spherical horizons.)
Also, you said this would be a random point in space; There's also the possibility that there is more pressure on the other side- say for instance, it opens into the lower atmosphere of jupiter, or WORSE, in the core of a star.
Post by: Darvi on March 13, 2015, 02:09:18 am
Post by: wierd on March 13, 2015, 02:24:53 am
LOL--- I now have the silliest Sci-Fi doomsday weapon!
It's a 3D spherical wormhole terminus linking the core of a blue giant star, with the core of a terrestrial planet. It would blow up the planet like, nearly instantly. LOL.
Post by: hops on March 13, 2015, 02:37:11 am
Post by: Putnam on March 13, 2015, 02:39:20 am
Post by: NullForceOmega on March 13, 2015, 02:40:03 am
Post by: hops on March 13, 2015, 02:42:10 am
So would your shape get distorted if you enter it?
Post by: Parsely on March 13, 2015, 02:46:10 am
Is the portal spherical or circular? (Pet peeve of mine; depicting highly distorted spacetime bridges as circular portals, instead of spherical horizons.)I'm just a filthy casual, not a real scientist, so I can only see spatial bridges as two-dimensional windows. Explain to me why that's a problem though.
Also, you said this would be a random point in space; There's also the possibility that there is more pressure on the other side- say for instance, it opens into the lower atmosphere of jupiter, or WORSE, in the core of a star.
If this is a random point in space, the odds of it being anywhere even near to some kind of body are really, really, really, really, really slim.
Post by: hops on March 13, 2015, 02:56:23 am
(http://i.imgur.com/ONm3Zwn.png)
I just don't understand how you're supposed to enter them without becoming distorted.
Post by: i2amroy on March 13, 2015, 03:46:52 am
(http://i.imgur.com/Sqn5A5x.png)
Post by: forsaken1111 on March 13, 2015, 05:47:02 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Darvi on March 13, 2015, 05:53:46 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 13, 2015, 06:29:26 am
Post by: i2amroy on March 13, 2015, 06:29:53 am
Scenario A:
As noted, gravity would still be pulling on the rod. It would accelerate downwards until it reached terminal velocity, which due to not having any air directly beneath it to exert any direct forces (leaving only shear ones) would be very fast.
Scenario B:
If we were basing it off the game's physics the portal pair would instantly be destabilized as soon as you started to move the orange portal (since that's what happens to portals on moving platforms in the game). This would then attempt to force the rod out of the portal, and being unable to do so, would slice it at the portal locations. If we assumed that you could move the portal without it destabilizing, then the rod would essentially "run into" itself and the force of the portal moving would cause it to buckle and bend as much as necessary to keep the whole rod's length between the portals (this would likely cost no additional force on the platform holding the portal, since it would be tapping into the energy of you breaking the fabric of space itself). If the portals actually met each other, you would run into scenario 4. IMO it's unlikely that the portal's movement would be stopped by the rod. In this case we are bending the fabric of space itself, which could certainly exert a tearing or compressing force on the rod. This force is, by contrast, much stronger than any sort of backwards force that the rod could conceivably exert, and as such would be the same as if we were compressing the rod with infinite force at a given speed.
Scenario C:
As mentioned in the first part of scenario B, judging by the game the portal would first attempt to shove the rod out on whichever side held the "majority" of the portal when the first set of portals closed (since opening a new portal is just a very fast combination of a "close old pair" + "open new pair" where one of the new pair is at the same location as before the close). Upon failing this, one would only surmise that it would cut the rod at a molecular level along the boundary of the portal, slicing between the individual molecules (possibly pushing some of them back out the blue portal temporarily). In this case since we moved the top portal, the unsupported rod would immediately fall downwards, launching it out of the new orange portal at an angle. (Should the rod be moving quickly while you did this, such as from scenario A, it would probably annihilate whatever was standing outside of the new orange portal location). If we instead removed the bottom portal the rod would simply fall over, or in the case of a fast moving rod, slam into the floor at whatever velocity it was falling.
Scenario D:
We would first encounter the same thing as in scenario B, where the man would essentially "run into" himself and be squished. Should the portals continue to be pushed together, he would eventually be ejected as a very fine paste out from between the two panels, possibly at a rather high speed.
Edit: Small clarification to my reasoning.
On the non-imaginary note though, real wormholes/portals would actually have a distance in between the two ends. That distance might be measured in micrometers, but such a distance would exist.
Post by: scrdest on March 13, 2015, 06:53:48 am
Assuming that's the case, in B you are just crushing the lower part of the pipe with the upper one and vice versa. Essentially, the pipe would be uniformly crushed from above by its own mass until either it shortens enough to no longer be a continuous loop with the new setup, if it's contractible enough, or break otherwise, again breaking the loop. And if the portal was to fall freely to the top of the lower one, or at least low enough, you'd cause a nuclear explosion of the rod.
A) is that both parts accelerate until terminal velocity, as it's essentially falling through infinite space.
C) The exit of the blue portal would simply translocate to the new position, meaning the rod from the point of the original orange portal to the blue portal falls under its own mass and pushes the rod materializing at the orange exit out horizontally, causing it to fall out like a horizontal rod pushed with an increasing horizontal force.
D) The man gets crushed by his own body, essentially the same thing if you pressed his two identical clones to him from the sides. And again, if you push them too closely, you overcome the energy barrier to push the atoms closer than the van der Waals radius.
Post by: forsaken1111 on March 13, 2015, 07:30:28 am
For scenario D assume also that the man cannot escape to the sides. Assume a tunnel of the same diameter as the portals. Scrdest says you'd eventually overcome the the energy barrier to push the atoms closer than the van der Waals radius. What would be the result of this? Portals are fun.
Also...
Assume a portal is opened at the bottom of the mariana trench, and another on the surface of the moon. Would the ejected water remain on the moon or would it have sufficient velocity to escape? Would it freeze? Boil? Knock the moon out of orbit? :P
Post by: scrdest on March 13, 2015, 08:00:36 am
For scenario D assume also that the man cannot escape to the sides. Assume a tunnel of the same diameter as the portals. Scrdest says you'd eventually overcome the the energy barrier to push the atoms closer than the van der Waals radius. What would be the result of this? Portals are fun.Err... Nuclear fusion, although I'd rather someone fact-checked me on that.
Post by: forsaken1111 on March 13, 2015, 08:20:59 am
Nuclear fusion confined to the space between portal apertures, so... an even distribution of energetic plasma?For scenario D assume also that the man cannot escape to the sides. Assume a tunnel of the same diameter as the portals. Scrdest says you'd eventually overcome the the energy barrier to push the atoms closer than the van der Waals radius. What would be the result of this? Portals are fun.Err... Nuclear fusion, although I'd rather someone fact-checked me on that.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 13, 2015, 11:05:11 pm
1-stand in a small corridor
2- place portals across from eachother on the wall.
3-look to your left, look to your right, notice the infinite number of others in your position.
4- extend both hands and hold the hands of those in the wall portals
5-feel confidence in knowing that you are not alone and they believe in you as you believe in them.
6- close portals and continue testing
What would happen if you did that but instead of hold hands you got out a .50 cal snippet rifle and fired it into a portal? Would you end up with human blood slurrie as the bullet continued to fly through you and it's weight and force behind it tearing apart and ripping off bits that the bullet didn't even touch or something else?
E: heavy bullets can rip off limbs if they graze them correct? That's what I've heard from several sources.
Post by: Furtuka on March 13, 2015, 11:41:06 pm
Post by: i2amroy on March 14, 2015, 03:29:26 am
Also...If we put the portal on mars instead of the moon, you'd be looking at an exact copy of http://what-if.xkcd.com/53/ and http://what-if.xkcd.com/54/.
Assume a portal is opened at the bottom of the mariana trench, and another on the surface of the moon. Would the ejected water remain on the moon or would it have sufficient velocity to escape? Would it freeze? Boil? Knock the moon out of orbit? :P
Post by: miauw62 on March 14, 2015, 04:54:57 am
I need to find the portal self modivation picture I saw on google where it was supposed to be a poster inbetween chambers that gave the instructions incase you got discouraged.Well, I assume it would basically be as if an infinite number of humans were standing in a row and you shot at them. Idk how far such a bullet could penetrate. Nothing very special would happen, though.
1-stand in a small corridor
2- place portals across from eachother on the wall.
3-look to your left, look to your right, notice the infinite number of others in your position.
4- extend both hands and hold the hands of those in the wall portals
5-feel confidence in knowing that you are not alone and they believe in you as you believe in them.
6- close portals and continue testing
What would happen if you did that but instead of hold hands you got out a .50 cal snippet rifle and fired it into a portal? Would you end up with human blood slurrie as the bullet continued to fly through you and it's weight and force behind it tearing apart and ripping off bits that the bullet didn't even touch or something else?
E: heavy bullets can rip off limbs if they graze them correct? That's what I've heard from several sources.
Post by: Sergarr on March 14, 2015, 04:57:07 am
Post by: TheDarkStar on March 14, 2015, 07:10:22 am
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 14, 2015, 09:47:27 am
Post by: Descan on March 14, 2015, 11:20:12 am
Fire a .50 caliber rifle into a never-ending line of "people" (which is what a portal-conga-line basically is, even if it's the same person) and it'll go through maybe.... 2, 3 people? Based on the water thing, which is basically the same density as the human body apparently...? Anyway, based on that, just a few people.
Or in the portal case, it'll go through the portal a few times before it's too degraded and spread out (not to mentioned slowed down) to do much more damage.
Post by: Sergarr on March 14, 2015, 11:33:44 am
The thing about people, though, is we have a habit of shredding, tearing etc. Water doesn't shred. A .50 calibre round would probably hit us, tear off a limb, hit us again as we're heading to the floor, and do that until either we're a fine mist, it's slowed down/broken, it hits the floor or we do.The .50 cal bullet's energy isn't enough to fine mist anything that much bigger than itself. It's not fine misting humans by several orders of magnitude and it's ridiculous to even think so.
Post by: wierd on March 14, 2015, 11:47:25 am
Most likely outcome? Hits you a few times, then embeds into the wall at the edge of the portal.
Post by: Bauglir on March 14, 2015, 12:13:47 pm
At least, I'm pretty sure. Please, nobody link me to proof that I'm wrong, although feel free to correct me.
Post by: Descan on March 14, 2015, 12:45:58 pm
Post by: wierd on March 14, 2015, 12:48:54 pm
.50cal is intended for use against light troop transport vehicles. Moderate armor piercing capability; intended for use against heavily armored infantry and light vehicles.
Tank cannon is intended for heavy armored vehicles and buildings.
Post by: Descan on March 14, 2015, 12:55:21 pm
Post by: Bauglir on March 14, 2015, 05:41:29 pm
Post by: Rose on March 14, 2015, 09:59:53 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 15, 2015, 10:42:51 am
That's because it typically *IS* what is on the machine gun turret of a tank....
.50cal is intended for use against light troop transport vehicles. Moderate armor piercing capability; intended for use against heavily armored infantry and light vehicles.
Tank cannon is intended for heavy armored vehicles and buildings.
Unless you go with what they started loading the Barret .50 with recently.
Remember the bullet itself is about half a foot long.
The tip (about 1~2 inches) was changed from solid metal to and explosive tip made specifically for blowing a hole in walls/tank armor and the back of the bullet was filled with tungsten balls that shotguned into the room behind said wall/armor.
What if this bullet was used?
(Recap what it does, explodes on impact then releases tungsten pellets like a shotgun))
Would that be able to create a blood mist cloud from person?
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 15, 2015, 10:44:41 am
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 15, 2015, 10:46:21 am
Post by: miauw62 on March 15, 2015, 02:46:19 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 15, 2015, 03:38:08 pm
What do you need the portals for in that case, though?To make person mist
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 15, 2015, 03:39:57 pm
Also, living bone is kind of soft and gummy...
Post by: Radio Controlled on March 15, 2015, 03:40:25 pm
What do you need the portals for in that case, though?To make person mist
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Radio Controlled on March 15, 2015, 05:10:04 pm
Radio, that's PRACTICAL. You don't do practical when you can do impractical.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Helgoland on March 15, 2015, 05:32:35 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 15, 2015, 05:54:57 pm
If you want mist, you'll need to deposit lots of kinetic energy in the body. That means you don't want the bullet to exit at great speed: It should give away almost all its kinetic energy while travelling through the body. You might want to look into fragmenting bullets.
Wouldn't the subsequent shotgun of tungsten balls do that exactly?
They'd be traveling just under mussel velocity since they don't have to travel through flesh, just a giant hole in the body
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 15, 2015, 06:03:17 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 15, 2015, 11:27:42 pm
Post by: Sirus on March 15, 2015, 11:31:48 pm
mussel velocity
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 16, 2015, 07:10:37 am
......
I hate my phone with a passion
Auto correct is so stupid at times
Post by: smjjames on March 16, 2015, 09:20:27 am
Sigh
......
I hate my phone with a passion
Auto correct is so stupid at times
We've all been hit with autocorrect being stupid.
Post by: Dutrius on March 16, 2015, 01:16:21 pm
Post by: Arx on March 16, 2015, 01:35:07 pm
I can't think of any immediately practical uses for it, but it's still pretty cool.
Here (http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.095503)'s the Physical Review Letters article, for those who understand this kind of thing.
Post by: forsaken1111 on March 16, 2015, 02:55:13 pm
Meta-mirror reflects only a single wavelength of light (https://www.sciencenews.org/article/copper-wire-%E2%80%98metamirror%E2%80%99-reflects-selectively).Well if you could make it reflect a specific portion of the spectrum and let the rest through, this would be great for damping down the goddamn sun glare on my morning commute
I can't think of any immediately practical uses for it, but it's still pretty cool.
Here (http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.095503)'s the Physical Review Letters article, for those who understand this kind of thing.
Post by: Sergarr on March 16, 2015, 04:18:02 pm
I'm pretty sure that already exists and is called "toned glass".Meta-mirror reflects only a single wavelength of light (https://www.sciencenews.org/article/copper-wire-%E2%80%98metamirror%E2%80%99-reflects-selectively).Well if you could make it reflect a specific portion of the spectrum and let the rest through, this would be great for damping down the goddamn sun glare on my morning commute
I can't think of any immediately practical uses for it, but it's still pretty cool.
Here (http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.095503)'s the Physical Review Letters article, for those who understand this kind of thing.
Post by: Tylui on March 16, 2015, 04:39:46 pm
Post by: Helgoland on March 16, 2015, 04:51:05 pm
Post by: Jopax on March 16, 2015, 04:56:11 pm
Tho why you'd want to restrict your wi-fi with so many poor students in the world is beyond me :P
Post by: Tylui on March 16, 2015, 04:57:47 pm
NINJA: I'm betting lots of government-related buildings would need to secure their wifi.
Post by: Sergarr on March 16, 2015, 05:24:41 pm
Post by: forsaken1111 on March 16, 2015, 05:26:26 pm
Yes but can it block the sun out entirely? Or reflect it into the eyes of oncoming traffic? I THINK NOT!I'm pretty sure that already exists and is called "toned glass".Meta-mirror reflects only a single wavelength of light (https://www.sciencenews.org/article/copper-wire-%E2%80%98metamirror%E2%80%99-reflects-selectively).Well if you could make it reflect a specific portion of the spectrum and let the rest through, this would be great for damping down the goddamn sun glare on my morning commute
I can't think of any immediately practical uses for it, but it's still pretty cool.
Here (http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.095503)'s the Physical Review Letters article, for those who understand this kind of thing.
Post by: Tylui on March 16, 2015, 05:27:32 pm
Wouldn't it be easier to just, you know. Use cables?
Yeah but then you'd have to give up all the money-wasting-via-Candy-Crush time that our taxes pay for :)
Post by: Rose on March 17, 2015, 06:05:26 am
Post by: Dutrius on March 17, 2015, 12:40:03 pm
If they could get this to work with visible wavelengths of light, it could be used in telescopes.
Could be a replacement for H-alpha filters, maybe.
Post by: wierd on March 17, 2015, 12:46:00 pm
Post by: Arx on March 18, 2015, 11:26:55 am
Next-level 3D printing: Terminator Style (https://www.sciencenews.org/article/new-method-leaves-older-ways-3-d-printing-its-goopy-wake)
So using UV light, oxygen, and a pool of liquid resin, it's possible to shape much more complex shapes in an order of magnitude less time.
Post by: Lagslayer on March 18, 2015, 11:31:11 am
Okay, this one's actually useful outside of niches.Neat.
Next-level 3D printing: Terminator Style (https://www.sciencenews.org/article/new-method-leaves-older-ways-3-d-printing-its-goopy-wake)
So using UV light, oxygen, and a pool of liquid resin, it's possible to shape much more complex shapes in an order of magnitude less time.
Post by: Sirus on March 18, 2015, 12:10:12 pm
Okay, this one's actually useful outside of niches.That looks really cool, actually.
Next-level 3D printing: Terminator Style (https://www.sciencenews.org/article/new-method-leaves-older-ways-3-d-printing-its-goopy-wake)
So using UV light, oxygen, and a pool of liquid resin, it's possible to shape much more complex shapes in an order of magnitude less time.
Post by: Arx on March 18, 2015, 02:26:15 pm
Post by: forsaken1111 on March 18, 2015, 02:36:01 pm
Another explanation thing on imgur with a different thing being made. (http://imgur.com/gallery/UXT57)That is really cool but oh god... one of the comments is talking about carbonated lipton iced tea and I can't even... oh god...
Post by: hops on March 18, 2015, 02:36:22 pm
Okay, this one's actually useful outside of niches.W-wait, isn't this how 3D printers work already‽
Next-level 3D printing: Terminator Style (https://www.sciencenews.org/article/new-method-leaves-older-ways-3-d-printing-its-goopy-wake)
So using UV light, oxygen, and a pool of liquid resin, it's possible to shape much more complex shapes in an order of magnitude less time.
Post by: forsaken1111 on March 18, 2015, 02:37:45 pm
Conventional 3d printers deposit layers of material onto the object. This draws them out in a continuous stream by curing the resin.Okay, this one's actually useful outside of niches.W-wait, isn't this how 3D printers work already‽
Next-level 3D printing: Terminator Style (https://www.sciencenews.org/article/new-method-leaves-older-ways-3-d-printing-its-goopy-wake)
So using UV light, oxygen, and a pool of liquid resin, it's possible to shape much more complex shapes in an order of magnitude less time.
Post by: hops on March 18, 2015, 02:39:23 pm
Post by: miauw62 on March 18, 2015, 02:40:09 pm
Post by: wierd on March 18, 2015, 07:47:17 pm
Conventional 3d printers deposit layers of material onto the object. This draws them out in a continuous stream by curing the resin.Okay, this one's actually useful outside of niches.W-wait, isn't this how 3D printers work already‽
Next-level 3D printing: Terminator Style (https://www.sciencenews.org/article/new-method-leaves-older-ways-3-d-printing-its-goopy-wake)
So using UV light, oxygen, and a pool of liquid resin, it's possible to shape much more complex shapes in an order of magnitude less time.
3D resin based approaches using UV laser predate binder+powder, and extrusion tech by at least a decade. Binder + cut paper is older still.
Each tech has downsides and upsides. Powder+binder is cheap, and the powder provides support during the build process, (something that UV cured additive resin cant do. scaffolds have to be printed at the same time as the prototype in order to support the prototype as it is built.) but the resulting prototypes are very fragile. Paper+binder is cheap, but slow, and not all that accurate. (combination of 2D cnc vinyl cutter tech, with a table with Z axis drop, a glue spreader, and a big roll of paper that provides the layer. It is prone to warping and getting bubbles between layers.)
This tech sounds like an incremental upgrade to cured resin 3D printing. Not much more.
The "Molecular assembler" 3D printer that hit the news recently, which is able to assemble objects using chemical processes, and can produce complex chemical compounds, is far more novel and would have far more interesting applications.
Post by: redwallzyl on March 19, 2015, 02:58:41 pm
http://www.npr.org/blogs/goatsandsoda/2015/03/19/394028643/botched-ritual-circumcision-leads-to-worlds-first-penile-transplant
Post by: XXXXYYYY on March 19, 2015, 04:09:41 pm
medical science works right?1) Ouch ouchouchouchouch ouch.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/goatsandsoda/2015/03/19/394028643/botched-ritual-circumcision-leads-to-worlds-first-penile-transplant
2) That's actually pretty cool.
Post by: hops on March 19, 2015, 04:23:16 pm
Post by: Il Palazzo on March 19, 2015, 05:03:19 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 19, 2015, 05:07:43 pm
medical science works right?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/goatsandsoda/2015/03/19/394028643/botched-ritual-circumcision-leads-to-worlds-first-penile-transplant
FOR SCIENCE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jm-upHSP9KU)
Post by: Lagslayer on March 19, 2015, 05:12:15 pm
Post by: Descan on March 19, 2015, 05:13:33 pm
Post by: hops on March 19, 2015, 05:14:53 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 19, 2015, 05:36:15 pm
Now all we need to do is make penises from the patients own cells c:
You were saying..? (http://www.wakehealth.edu/Research/Urology/Regenerative-Medicine/Engineered-Penile-Erectile-Tissue.htm)
On the above link: it's too bad that Atala's company went bankrupt due to a VC hiccup. On the bright side, some of it's more interesting projects were picked up by Celgene.
Post by: KingofstarrySkies on March 19, 2015, 06:48:34 pm
But then we'd fall down the slippery slope and create Penis-golems.Abooooout that...
"I WILL FUCK YOU IN SO MANY WAYS"
Be right back.
Post by: wierd on March 20, 2015, 11:03:25 am
Oglaf.com already covered this...
Spoiler: oglaf.com is adult content (click to show/hide)
Post by: Tylui on March 20, 2015, 03:51:39 pm
Post by: i2amroy on March 24, 2015, 01:45:20 pm
Site (http://eusebeia.dyndns.org/4d/vis/vis) (The other sections below the visualization one cover more specific 4D shapes as opposed to just how to read the projections).
Post by: Angle on March 24, 2015, 02:58:48 pm
Post by: martinuzz on March 24, 2015, 03:33:05 pm
Post by: Putnam on March 24, 2015, 03:35:38 pm
Though apparently it's not an entirely new force so much as the unification of the electromagnetic and weak interactions?
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 24, 2015, 03:41:27 pm
So apparently the CERN team found deviations in their measurements of the LHC accelerator (more accurately, measurements on the decay of B-mesons), that could imply the existance of not only another new particle, the Z'-particle, which would be about a 1000 times heavier than a proton, but could even imply the existance of another fundamental force of physics
Sounds like early tentative evidence for a form of Supersymmetry to me.
Here's the wikipedia article. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%E2%80%B2_and_Z%E2%80%B2_bosons) I don't understand it.
Though apparently it's not an entirely new force so much as the unification of the electromagnetic and weak interactions?
More or less. Think of them as Suppersymmetric particles that happen to unify the electro and weak interactions.
Post by: Putnam on March 24, 2015, 03:44:31 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 24, 2015, 03:49:27 pm
Ooh, so we're narrowing down which models of reality that we have are the most accurate pretty efficiently right now.
Well, we are working out which ones are least wrong. The problem with Supersymmetry is that it at one and the same time both works, and is a total failure. We know it is wrong somewhere for some reason. It will be fun finding out where.
Post by: Sergarr on March 24, 2015, 04:08:28 pm
imply the existance of another fundamental force of physicsWell this certainly fucks up about 95% of existing theories about everything.
Yay!
Post by: Putnam on March 24, 2015, 04:09:19 pm
imply the existance of another fundamental force of physicsWell this certainly fucks up about 95% of existing theories about everything.
Yay!
not really though
the standard model doesn't take into account dark matter at all, AFAIK, unless of course dark matter happens to be some sort of weird neutrino
In fact, that would fuck up practically nothing, in much the same way discovering general relativity didn't fuck up the heliocentric model of the solar system.
Post by: Sergarr on March 24, 2015, 04:13:29 pm
not really thoughgiven that neutrino are so weird they mutate into each other through arcane magic, dark matter could certainly be a type of neutrino.
the standard model doesn't take into account dark matter at all, AFAIK, unless of course dark matter happens to be some sort of weird neutrino
Post by: miauw62 on March 25, 2015, 07:48:02 am
Recently found this site about how to easily visualize 4D objects. It's by far the most helpful site on the topic that I've found so far, so I figured I'd post it here for your entertainment.I finally somewhat understand o-o
Site (http://eusebeia.dyndns.org/4d/vis/vis) (The other sections below the visualization one cover more specific 4D shapes as opposed to just how to read the projections).
Post by: wierd on March 25, 2015, 11:00:23 am
(a conjured up example: Neutrino bombardment can speed up radio-decay of unstable atoms, but neutrino interaction rates are very low, because they have very low mass, and no charge. However, if they interact strongly with some other force carrier particle that also interacts with electromagnetism, we can corral, confine, and focus neutrinos using the proxy carrier particles. Likewise, we could have vastly improved detection equipment to measure neutrino counts. This would lead to much better particle physics equipment, and to a possible way to decontaminate reactor waste. Not saying such a particle exists, but supersymmetrical particles, if real, could offer such solutions at high energies.)
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on March 25, 2015, 12:32:22 pm
Post by: Sergarr on March 25, 2015, 02:40:32 pm
Carbon why are you so good
Post by: hops on March 25, 2015, 02:43:36 pm
Adminllah pls nerf
Post by: Darvi on March 25, 2015, 02:47:44 pm
Post by: Levi on March 25, 2015, 02:57:05 pm
Post by: Sergarr on March 25, 2015, 02:58:27 pm
Carborgs when?More like androids... with DBZ-level durability (carbon stronger than steel) and reflexes.
I can only assume that in the future scientists will discover the way to use carbon to shoot frikking laser beams.
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 25, 2015, 03:03:07 pm
Carborgs when?More like androids... with DBZ-level durability (carbon stronger than steel) and reflexes.
I can only assume that in the future scientists will discover the way to use carbon to shoot frikking laser beams.
Done it already here (http://iopscience.iop.org/1063-7818/42/8/A02) and here. (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6050586&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D6050586)
Post by: Angle on March 25, 2015, 03:07:20 pm
Carborgs when?
SOON
Post by: Sergarr on March 25, 2015, 03:08:09 pm
...Carbon is bullshit.Carborgs when?More like androids... with DBZ-level durability (carbon stronger than steel) and reflexes.
I can only assume that in the future scientists will discover the way to use carbon to shoot frikking laser beams.
Done it already here (http://iopscience.iop.org/1063-7818/42/8/A02) and here. (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6050586&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D6050586)
Does it have any weakness at all?
Post by: andrea on March 25, 2015, 03:08:58 pm
Post by: Sergarr on March 25, 2015, 03:54:30 pm
Post by: scrdest on March 25, 2015, 03:57:57 pm
Not just diamonds - just look at your hand (although probably you, specifically, shouldn't, GO, if only because you have a flipper instead) - skin doesn't ignite - you get burns, but that's something qualitatively different from burning wood.Oxygen and a spark?Diamonds can beat that. Need to heat them up quite a lot to get them to burn because of the bonds being so stable.
In fact, as I've recently learned, carbon by itself has the HIGHEST melting temperature out of ALL materials (even higher than tungsten!).Melting =/= burning, though, of course.
Post by: Sergarr on March 25, 2015, 04:06:45 pm
Carbon burns because oxygen is hilariously overpowered. The only element stronger than oxygen is fluorine, and that element is so strong it never stays in it's pure form.Not just diamonds - just look at your hand (although probably you, specifically, shouldn't, GO, if only because you have a flipper instead) - skin doesn't ignite - you get burns, but that's something qualitatively different from burning wood.Oxygen and a spark?Diamonds can beat that. Need to heat them up quite a lot to get them to burn because of the bonds being so stable.In fact, as I've recently learned, carbon by itself has the HIGHEST melting temperature out of ALL materials (even higher than tungsten!).Melting =/= burning, though, of course.
Well, then there's nitrogen, which is also hilariously overpowered, but in the opposite way (it's insanely chemically neutral and barely reacts with anything et all unless you use gigantic temperatures or cheat by using catalysts). But when you use it as a part of some other compound... it gets serious in its attempts to become a neutral gas SO MUCH that it BLOWS UP the molecule and then BLOWS UP everything around it.
Material science is fun.
Post by: i2amroy on March 25, 2015, 04:33:00 pm
1) Difficult to manufacture.
2) Even small defects can cause serious issues in them, so your manufacturing tolerances need to be extremely tight.
3) It's really, really bad for you if you breathe them in. Like, one of the worst things for you to breathe in. Think like asbestos + coal dust fused into one unholy particle of lung destruction bad.
Post by: hops on March 25, 2015, 09:00:37 pm
Yer gon' get fucked.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 25, 2015, 10:15:26 pm
Post by: Frumple on March 25, 2015, 10:21:55 pm
This is why we have safety standards. And robots. And I guess the underclass if you're being particularly dystopian that day.
Post by: wierd on March 25, 2015, 11:07:08 pm
Ordinary soot (like the old 1900s industrial pollutant) contains a fairly significant number of carbon nanotubes, as well as other allotropes of carbon.
Such ordinary soot was one of the primary causes of black lung disease of urban dwellers in the 1900s.
The manufacture of nanotubes is not hard per se-- it is the creation of LONG, DEFECT-FREE, SINGLE WALL nanotubes that is hard. :)
I doubt that any other element will ever be found that is as versatile, and at such ideal balances of bond energy, bond angle, atomic weight (and thus commonality), and thermostability as carbon.
Sadly, many of those features are also what make carbon nanotubes so dangerous once in your lungs. Your body simply has no mechanism to remove them, they are completely indigestible by your body, and it cant break them down to eliminate them. They are thin, lightweight, and very strong-- and so they disrupt cellular processes by mechanical agitation. (Like a stirring stick stuck in there churning things up.) Their chemical stability means you are going to denaturate the cell you are trying to help before you will denaturate the nanotube. The best you could hope to do would be to create a specialized, heavy protein that can stick to the end of the nanotube where there could possibly (maybe) be some unfilled electrons, and then eliminate it that way.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 25, 2015, 11:27:43 pm
A bit coincidental we are talking about industry/soot. I have to write a short story for English where we are given three things to build our story around, I got a girl with a postcard collection, an orange, and steampunk. So I am writing about a schizophrenic princess who is locked away for safety and collects postcards because she can't go anywhere, she also starts talking to fruit (namely the orange) and I try to fill the setting with clock towers, steam powered things, and soot from the industrial cities.
Speaking of steampunk, is there any way to make a steam engine that is more efficient than a gas engine and is more enviromentaly friendly?
Post by: wierd on March 25, 2015, 11:38:11 pm
The girl is a ragpicker, who stumbles upon the post card, which features beautiful imagery of a far away place she could never hope to go to, along with the orange in a parcel addressed to a little sickly but rich girl her own age, who lives down the lane.
The postcard is a reply from her father, who is sending her the exotic fruit (the orange) along with his reply, as he is overseas on business. The subject matter of the postcard is about how he wishes he could help her more in seeing other children her own age, but he is afraid of her getting sick by leaving the house, and wishes for her to remain in the care of her stuardess/governess until his return.
The ragpicker girl wonders about meeting this mysterious girl, and is resolute in returning her letter to her, but must elude the stuardess/governess to do so. (Being a rag picker girl, she is considered street filth, unfit for association with higher society.) The two meet, and become fast friends, each having something the other dreams of. (The rag picker girl can go ANYWHERE in the city, and be completely ignored-- and thus has complete freedom; the sickly rich girl has money, reliable food and housing, and "good breeding". (This IS steampunk setting, after all.) They both have a natural dislike for the stuardess/governess.
I think that's a better story that could be done with those elements. ;P
The most efficient thermal engine is the stirling engine. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine) It is right next to the ideal maximum that a heat engine could ever possibly be due to the carnot efficiency limitation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot%27s_theorem_%28thermodynamics%29)
Many stirling engine designs look VERY steampunky.
(http://www.ministeam.com/acatalog/Hog-Aluminumbrush-300.jpg)
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 25, 2015, 11:45:05 pm
I didn't do too good but it's definitely gothic writing, I like it.
Post by: wierd on March 25, 2015, 11:52:32 pm
Still, the stirling engine is basically the most efficient heat engine possible, AND is conveniently 19th century technology.
Post by: hops on March 26, 2015, 12:20:08 am
Post by: i2amroy on March 26, 2015, 12:28:30 am
Black lung disease for the win alex.It's kinda funny that you mention that. In many of the tests of health effects on mice, the control group was administered ultra-fine carbon black, which caused, to quote them "minimal effects" :P. The problem is basically that you combine the bad health effects and buildup of the carbon with the fact that the entire substance is now composed of tiny, tiny needles that are adept at piercing through cells and inflaming others.
Ordinary soot (like the old 1900s industrial pollutant) contains a fairly significant number of carbon nanotubes, as well as other allotropes of carbon.
Such ordinary soot was one of the primary causes of black lung disease of urban dwellers in the 1900s.
On another note about how carbon is OP though, don't forget about the graphene sheets that have wholes that only let water and smaller molecules through, automatically filtering out all larger contaminants.
Post by: wierd on March 26, 2015, 12:35:36 am
Soot contains this highly exotic blend of nanotubes, buckyballs, amorphous carbon aggregates, graphene patches, and all sorts of novel configurations all jumbled together.
Using it as a control vs refined nanotubes just means "Yup, some of the components in soot are benign compared to refined nanotubes."
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 26, 2015, 07:09:46 am
*now I can't stop thinking about a real steampunk steam powered motercycle.
Post by: miauw62 on March 26, 2015, 07:41:31 am
Post by: forsaken1111 on March 26, 2015, 07:56:36 am
I concur, Stirling engines are pretty great. (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BetaStirlingTG4web.svg)penis
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 26, 2015, 09:48:23 am
oh thank god I'm not the only oneI concur, Stirling engines are pretty great. (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BetaStirlingTG4web.svg)penis
Post by: miauw62 on March 26, 2015, 10:02:46 am
Post by: Descan on March 26, 2015, 10:08:20 am
Post by: Sergarr on March 26, 2015, 10:13:11 am
Post by: forsaken1111 on March 26, 2015, 10:13:44 am
Desktop version?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:BetaStirlingTG4web.svg
Post by: Descan on March 26, 2015, 10:44:41 am
Post by: miauw62 on March 26, 2015, 10:48:24 am
Post by: wierd on March 26, 2015, 12:02:59 pm
Some engineer just HAD to make a thermally powered oscillating dildo didnt he? Just HAD to.
Post by: forsaken1111 on March 26, 2015, 12:03:28 pm
Sigh.Wouldn't you?
Some engineer just HAD to make a thermally powered oscillating dildo didnt he? Just HAD to.
Post by: Frumple on March 26, 2015, 12:05:08 pm
Post by: forsaken1111 on March 26, 2015, 12:06:09 pm
Wierd's complaining about the "a" part of it. Which is fair -- one thermally powered oscillating dildo is never enough.So we need an array of thermally powered oscillating dildos?
Post by: Frumple on March 26, 2015, 12:06:54 pm
Post by: wierd on March 26, 2015, 12:24:58 pm
Post by: forsaken1111 on March 26, 2015, 12:31:01 pm
didnt this already happen when they released Spore?I remember watching a video with Robin Williams making a dick-critter in spore. Hilarious.
Post by: hops on March 26, 2015, 02:49:45 pm
I concur, Stirling engines are pretty great. (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BetaStirlingTG4web.svg)Ah yes, the Large Hardon Collider.
Post by: Urist Arrhenius on March 26, 2015, 03:15:44 pm
Everyone loves physics, and physics has rock stars Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking that being it to the public. Biology and math both get some loving too, by people like Jane Goodall and Richard Dawkins, though he's a controversial figure. But as far as I know, people are relatively apathetic and ill informed when it comes to chemistry. What do you think chemists can do to help make chemistry accessible and get people excited about it?
Post by: Frumple on March 26, 2015, 03:17:12 pm
Post by: Sirus on March 26, 2015, 03:17:53 pm
Post by: Sergarr on March 26, 2015, 03:19:24 pm
What do you think chemists can do to help make chemistry accessible and get people excited about it?Make more articles that look like this. (http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2010/02/23/things_i_wont_work_with_dioxygen_difluoride.php)
Post by: Urist Arrhenius on March 26, 2015, 03:29:55 pm
I love In the Pipeline too. I wasn't aware many outside of chemistry read it. So you think more blogs like that would help introduce people to chemistry?What do you think chemists can do to help make chemistry accessible and get people excited about it?Make more articles that look like this. (http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2010/02/23/things_i_wont_work_with_dioxygen_difluoride.php)
More and larger explosions.If you want to read about fun explosives, read the above blog. Most things in the Things I Won't Work With are either peroxides or linked nitrogen containing compounds, such as azides. Both chemicals have your love for explosions.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on March 26, 2015, 03:43:58 pm
Kids being like 5-17 ish
Post by: i2amroy on March 26, 2015, 04:14:43 pm
As an example if I was trying to teach someone the basics of how light works I might be able to draw examples of things like rainbows and mirrors that people work with in every day life. On the other hand pretty much all of the chemistry examples you meet in ordinary life fall under a different heading, "cooking". If I was talking about light I could speak about how you can do a variety of different things to light, like bending it, splitting it, combining it, reflecting it, and what exactly was happening in each case and how they made different things happen. In chemistry you're largely confined to "we mix X and Y and Z in a big pot, heat it to this temperature, and wait for a while to get W".
In physics we already know the applications, so the reasons why they happen are cool but still simple enough to be understood. In chemistry the reasons are mostly the same, and they're complex enough to not be easily understood, while the applications tend to either be so esoteric nobody but chemists can see them, or they are so big they overshadow the chemistry part itself. And all the simpler, common chemistry things don't even get known as chemistry, they get thrown about into other fields like cooking.
TL;DR: Physics is a broader field then chemistry, and it tends to be focused more on the how thing happen than the what that they are doing, which makes it both able to provide a wider variety of easily understandable topics, while providing new reasons the average probably doesn't know but can easily understand.
Post by: Il Palazzo on March 26, 2015, 04:17:19 pm
They seem to be rather popular, and there's some evidence of their use by chemistry teachers in class.
So, I guess, more series like this? I generally love what Brady is doing with his educational youtube videos - but it's all centred around Nottingham Uni., so there's room for videos in other locales with other people and different facilities, in other languages perhaps?
By the way, this table of elements is so much better than pure symbols:
http://www.sciencegeek.net/tables/DeltaBioLarge.jpg
Post by: wierd on March 26, 2015, 06:41:01 pm
Physics tells you how matter and energy interact, but chemistry tells you how matter interacts with other matter, using energy. It's one of the most powerful and amazing of the physical sciences. I F*cking LOVE chemistry!
Post by: i2amroy on March 26, 2015, 06:51:38 pm
Post by: Putnam on March 26, 2015, 06:51:54 pm
Post by: Urist Arrhenius on March 26, 2015, 06:59:38 pm
I think a large part of it is that chemistry, for the most part, tends to focus a lot on what is, essentially, a single branch of physics. As a result you get lots of papers about creating a new chemical, or about the properties of a new chemical, but the fact that the majority of them have long, latin names and the fact that many applications aren't immediately apparent means that it just isn't interesting to the common person that much.By that logic, biology is simply a single branch of chemistry. But as to the applicability, that just means we're failing to communicate what we are doing effectively. A large number of us are making very useful products. I'm trying to make bio-renewable and bio-degradable plastics out of corn with high glass transition temperatures. I know people who make anti- testicular cancer drugs that cost ~1/100th of current drugs and are ten times as effective, somebody working on vaccines against drug use, somebody working on chemotherapy delivery systems that will minimize the impact on off-target organs, and the list goes on and on.
Quote
That's also probably why even when chemistry does make the news it's almost always the applications of it while skipping over the process. You might see a headline like "NEW FUEL CREATED", but you aren't going to see one like "NEW PROPERTIES OF AMMONIA DIHYDRALE METHALATE FOUND" (just made that name up out of the blue, probably doesn't even exist).I don't know that this is a problem. I'd be happy even if I saw more headlines like the first that actually recognized that chemists did it.
Quote
Even the basic parts of chemistry are rather esoteric. Just learning the basis of a chemical reaction requires you to be able to look at and understand a rather large chart of different elements, understand how valence electrons work, etc.. Physics, on the other hand, is basically doesn't suffer from either of those problems. The basics of physics can usually be drawn fairly well from analogy, which makes them easy to explain to those not in the know. In addition the results are usually things that people have been experiencing all their life, and as such are immediately apparent.I think this just means we're failing to find appropriate analogies. I think chemistry could make the same intuitive sense, but most of us are just better researchers than educators.
Quote
As an example if I was trying to teach someone the basics of how light works I might be able to draw examples of things like rainbows and mirrors that people work with in every day life. On the other hand pretty much all of the chemistry examples you meet in ordinary life fall under a different heading, "cooking". If I was talking about light I could speak about how you can do a variety of different things to light, like bending it, splitting it, combining it, reflecting it, and what exactly was happening in each case and how they made different things happen. In chemistry you're largely confined to "we mix X and Y and Z in a big pot, heat it to this temperature, and wait for a while to get W".That's fair, but there are ideas beyond mixing things which we could attempt to explain, i.e. stereochemistry, conjugated pi systems, aromatics, functional groups in general.
Quote
In physics we already know the applications, so the reasons why they happen are cool but still simple enough to be understood. In chemistry the reasons are mostly the same, and they're complex enough to not be easily understood, while the applications tend to either be so esoteric nobody but chemists can see them, or they are so big they overshadow the chemistry part itself. And all the simpler, common chemistry things don't even get known as chemistry, they get thrown about into other fields like cooking.I think this ties back both into the fact that chemistry is in more than is recognized, and we need better analogies. I appreciate you sharing your experience with chemistry. :)
Post by: Putnam on March 26, 2015, 07:03:24 pm
Post by: Urist Arrhenius on March 26, 2015, 07:06:34 pm
I'd say it's pretty useful despite its specificity, given that it's literally everything that the layman interacts with every day.I agree. I think we do an insufficient job of demonstrating this, and that's why chemistry is often overlooked.
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 27, 2015, 11:43:49 am
Post by: wierd on March 27, 2015, 11:46:57 am
Chemistry is litterally every tangible thing you can lay your hands on.
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 27, 2015, 11:57:16 am
Post by: Sergarr on March 27, 2015, 12:08:52 pm
chemistry has vaccines for ebola, synthetic insulin, membrane filters for reverse osmosis, processed foods of all kinds (including potato chips and candy of all kinds), plastics for industrial and commercial uses-- The manufacturing technologies that allow computers to be made (The physics are what allow them to work), and so much more.Except the glorious STEEL.
Chemistry is litterally every tangible thing you can lay your hands on.
STEEL (and other metals) are governed by the glorious MATERIAL SCIENCE which is totally awesome and is, like, the most metal (hehe) science ever!
Post by: miauw62 on March 27, 2015, 01:01:21 pm
Post by: Descan on March 27, 2015, 01:27:05 pm
I've stayed up the entire night for three nights playing Factorio :P
Post by: Furtuka on March 27, 2015, 02:28:22 pm
\o/
Post by: hops on March 27, 2015, 02:47:12 pm
Post by: Il Palazzo on March 27, 2015, 02:49:54 pm
Post by: hops on March 27, 2015, 03:37:23 pm
Of course, it also implode violently so we need really strong material. But the idea is that, theoretically, if we could somehow produce superstrong material more cheaply than mining for helium (or however you get helium) then we can cut the cost of airships.
Not to mention that vacuums can't catch fire, so a vacuum airship would not cause a Manatee-Class catastrophe.
Post by: hops on March 27, 2015, 03:40:25 pm
Post by: Angle on March 27, 2015, 03:40:52 pm
fakeEdit - Helium doesn't burn, you're thinking of hydrogen.
Post by: hops on March 27, 2015, 03:45:40 pm
Post by: Il Palazzo on March 27, 2015, 03:53:51 pm
For some reason people don't use helium in airshipsAll airships use helium nowadays. It's practically as good as hydrogen, only more expensive and without the explosive risk.
Post by: Angle on March 27, 2015, 03:55:01 pm
Post by: hops on March 27, 2015, 03:56:51 pm
Post by: Il Palazzo on March 27, 2015, 04:05:10 pm
Helium is too expensive to make much economic sense.To do what? 75-ish bucks per thousand cubic feet is not that expensive if you want to fly a dirigible.
Post by: Urist Arrhenius on March 27, 2015, 04:11:50 pm
Problem is helium escapes the atmosphere, so we're actually losing it over time.Helium is too expensive to make much economic sense.To do what? 75-ish bucks per thousand cubic feet is not that expensive if you want to fly a dirigible.
Post by: Il Palazzo on March 27, 2015, 04:14:11 pm
That's only a problem if you're considering geological timescales.Problem is helium escapes the atmosphere, so we're actually losing it over time.Helium is too expensive to make much economic sense.To do what? 75-ish bucks per thousand cubic feet is not that expensive if you want to fly a dirigible.
Post by: Sergarr on March 27, 2015, 04:18:07 pm
And if you ignore just how much materia gets into our planet with the space dust. IIRC it's about 200 tons of stuff per year!That's only a problem if you're considering geological timescales.Problem is helium escapes the atmosphere, so we're actually losing it over time.Helium is too expensive to make much economic sense.To do what? 75-ish bucks per thousand cubic feet is not that expensive if you want to fly a dirigible.
Post by: i2amroy on March 27, 2015, 04:21:14 pm
For some reason people don't use helium in airships, so I assumed they're too heavy for that task. Vacuum is massless and non-combustible, so not only that it doesn't burn, it's also slightly superior to hydrogen in term of lift.The cost of a balloon envelope made out of some material strong enough to resist atmospheric pressure is much, much greater than that of a treated cloth envelope + lifting gas. And that's not even considering that the treated cloth is generally much lighter than any sort of rigid structure that could resist that pressure, which would mean that your envelope size would need to be much larger with a rigid vacuum balloon than a normal one (which would further drive up the cost).
Additionally if you poke a hole in a balloon of hydrogen the fact that there is basically the same pressure on both sides means that while you do have a leak, it's a fairly slow one. Poke a hole in a vacuum container, on the other hand, and you very rapidly will have a container full of air that is no longer providing any lifting force.
Post by: Urist Arrhenius on March 27, 2015, 04:35:49 pm
The escape from the atmosphere is actually relatively fast, and is the reason we don't recapture any from the atmosphere: it can never reach reasonable concentrations. And, AFAIK, what gets into our planet from space dust contributes only to this atmospheric helium, which we don't have access to. All of our helium is mined, having been produced by radioactive decay. Which will fortunately continue happening, but also means there's a fairly limited rate of supply.And if you ignore just how much materia gets into our planet with the space dust. IIRC it's about 200 tons of stuff per year!That's only a problem if you're considering geological timescales.Problem is helium escapes the atmosphere, so we're actually losing it over time.Helium is too expensive to make much economic sense.To do what? 75-ish bucks per thousand cubic feet is not that expensive if you want to fly a dirigible.
Post by: i2amroy on March 27, 2015, 04:45:38 pm
Post by: Angle on March 27, 2015, 04:53:34 pm
Post by: i2amroy on March 27, 2015, 04:59:23 pm
But Vacuum balloons are cooler! and just because they're too expensive now doesn't mean they always will be.Sure, but cost and practicality beat coolness every time (except for with eccentric billionaires) :P. Unless something crazy happens that causes the cost and safety of establishing and maintaining a vacuum to be cheaper than that of helium (since even if you get a cheap frame to hold your vacuum in you could just use that for a helium blimp), then I don't ever foresee a time where we're going to have a large number of vacuum blimps floating around. Most likely outcome is that we'll eventually have a small handful in places where the security is a worthy trade-off for the small amount of additional lifting power, but that's probably going to be it.
Post by: Putnam on March 27, 2015, 05:04:03 pm
I'm just waiting for material science to produce a lightweight material capable of withstanding the implosive pressure of "containing" a vacuum, so people will finally stop laughing at me when I propose vacuum balloons.
The implosive pressure is 101,325 Pa, which is... actually quite small. For comparison, the compressive strength of iron is ~600,000,000 Pa.
Post by: wierd on March 27, 2015, 05:11:22 pm
You want a material that is lightweight, OBSCENELY rigid, and is able to withstand a considerable static bending load.
Vacuum balloons would require a very thin membrane, as do normal balloons, since the lift force is pretty weak-- you need as little material holding the outside pressure out as is possible.
The problem is that you need thin AND rigid AND lightweight AND strong.
That's a combination you are unlikely to find, outside of something that is actively forced into being held open-- such as with strong EM fields.
Post by: Aklyon on March 27, 2015, 08:33:44 pm
Post by: Descan on March 27, 2015, 10:15:17 pm
Post by: MaximumZero on March 28, 2015, 01:05:12 am
Post by: Sergarr on March 28, 2015, 05:30:45 am
Post by: Urist Arrhenius on March 28, 2015, 06:53:20 am
It also has the magical number of available electrons (4) which make it very flexible in both taking and giving away.This doesn't really account for out so much as abundance does. Many elements have more oxidation states and geometries available because they have d electrons available to move around. They just aren't as abundant.
Post by: Bauglir on March 28, 2015, 01:40:47 pm
Post by: scrdest on March 28, 2015, 01:44:29 pm
Is Zach Weiner reading this thread or something?E: Nevermind.
Post by: Furtuka on April 06, 2015, 01:34:26 am
Post by: ChairmanPoo on April 06, 2015, 04:41:02 am
Biohacker team obtain temporary nightvision via special eyedrops (http://secondnexus.com/technology-and-innovation/biohacker-used-eyedrops-give-temporary-night-vision/)With those eyes he looks like a he's possessed.
His name was Geralt of Rivia....
Post by: Descan on April 06, 2015, 08:22:35 am
Eyes are so fucking fragile, I'm not about to put random liquids into them in hopes that I can see clearer. More likely to have gone blind than see better. :P
Post by: scrdest on April 06, 2015, 08:25:24 am
Is this how you get bogeyman? Yes it is!Biohacker team obtain temporary nightvision via special eyedrops (http://secondnexus.com/technology-and-innovation/biohacker-used-eyedrops-give-temporary-night-vision/)With those eyes he looks like a he's possessed.
Post by: iceball3 on April 06, 2015, 10:17:02 am
I'm all for biohacking, but my first thought on hearing that was "Dear god please let him have tested that first."By my the look of the article, it already was being used for medical purpouses, they just adjusted the mixture so it is less difficult to actually apply. Still really cool, though.
Eyes are so fucking fragile, I'm not about to put random liquids into them in hopes that I can see clearer. More likely to have gone blind than see better. :P
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on April 06, 2015, 10:37:27 am
Sounds healthy...
I'm all for night vision just not prolonged or permanent blindness afterwards.
Post by: scrdest on April 06, 2015, 12:49:02 pm
They said that the materials used in their solution should not be used on humans or animals.... And yet they put them in their eyes.That's probably more 'we're not using medical-grade solutions yet' not 'the substances are toxic themselves' though - the photosensitizer is used in treatment already, insulin is a human hormone and saline is... well, saline. The only component of the mix itself that might cause issues is DMSO, as it's a detergent, but I don't know if it does.
Sounds healthy...
So, I'd suspect it's that, ferex, they didn't use human insulin or potentially somewhat less chemically pure solutions than you'd use for humans.
Post by: Sheb on April 06, 2015, 12:59:54 pm
Post by: Helgoland on April 06, 2015, 01:09:35 pm
Post by: Sheb on April 06, 2015, 01:22:49 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on April 06, 2015, 03:37:20 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on April 06, 2015, 11:21:19 pm
Post by: wierd on April 06, 2015, 11:48:37 pm
The one superhuman ability I seem to have, is being able to withstand surface contact with really scary shit like this. Not really a good idea to try at home, but I can literally dunk my hands into the stuff and just feel some unpleasant sensations on my cuticles, and that's it.
One time, I removed anodizing from some aluminium adjustment nuts (For large shock systems for a friend's 4WD rock crawler, that had been over-anodized, and thus could not be threaded on!) using some concentrated perchlorate salt solution (hot, not cold!), a few drops of dilute sulfuric acid to boost ion exchange capacity, and a little HCl concentrate. It ate the anodizing off like it was candy-- again, it just made my cuticles tingle a little. (I couldn't find gloves.)
Stuff that gives other people instant chemical burns (and I mean the kind that cause black scabs, Like concentrated lye solution) just stings and makes red areas on my skin. I must be some kind of mutant or something. (also, my tears literally cause pitting and destruction of certain kinds of plastic. Found this out after going to a water park, and having my tears destroy a pair of swimming goggles. Did a little experiment there after the discovery, by having the other people I was there with put some tears on the plastic to see if similar deterioration happened. It didn't. My body chemistry is apparently not normal.)
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on April 07, 2015, 12:00:44 am
I got to watch a solution such as that eat away at a like of rusted metal/gold foils. ((Experiment for school, speaking of which I now have gold bearing crystals on the bottom of a glass beaker that I have no idea what to do with because the experiment went wrong.... Horribly wrong))
Post by: wierd on April 07, 2015, 12:18:46 am
HCl on the other hand, and H2SO4, and HNO3, (The three essential strong lab acids) are available in bulk in just about any wet chemistry lab, as they are basically essential for doing anything more complex than making "paper mache volcanoes".
The mixture of these acids together to increase ion exchange capacity is very well known; For instance, HCl and HNO3, when combined, make "Aqua Regia" solution-- the first acidic solution ever discovered that is capable of dissolving pure gold metal, and turning it into auric chloride.
(Other fun tricks-- Mix concentrated hydrogen peroxide with strong sulfuric acid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piranha_solution), heat it up to boiling, and then introduce a metallic object, or pour it on a raw pork chop. Such fun to be had!)
While my skin is "resistant" to such mixtures, I dont feel like losing my hands, so I dont think I will try pouring the H2O2+H2SO4 solution on my hands any time soon. :P Hell, I wouldn't even trust a pair of nitrile gloves for that. I'd use the heavy duty black PVC gloves for that kind of stuff. :D
Post by: Osmosis Jones on April 07, 2015, 04:53:49 am
HF (which I've worked with on several occasions... drysuits suck, yo) blows, but in and of itself isn't that hard to handle. It's another acid, and is basically harmless as long as you treat it with respect... it's just that if something does go wrong, it has the potential to go VERY wrong. As a result, the OH&S is extremely tedious; unfortunately this is also the first thing that gets dropped when people get complacent. Let's just say I have seen some shit that would turn a OH&S guy's hair white with terror in some of the labs I've worked in...
DMSO is a tricky one; on it's own is mostly harmless, but if it touches skin it will get into your bloodstream instantly and you'll be able to taste it on your tongue in minutes. Apparently, my old chem lecturers, when they were undergrads, had teachers who would put a drop on a students hand (freshly washed ofc) to demonstrate this (holy OH&S Batman!). The problems though, are that it a) dissolves latex and nitrile gloves (the two laboratory standards), and b) takes whatever dissolves into it with it when it goes through the skin. If the gloves you're wearing had some nasty organic compound on them, you're about to have a very bad day.
The worst commonly used stuff is things like perchloric acid, which can form unstable (think nitroglycerin unstable) explosive compounds on reaction with organic compounds; it is generally used in special fumecupboards because of this. One lecturer was telling me stories about a lab he worked at where, after some renovations, they'd connected the perchloric fume cupboard's chimney to the organic cupboard's... apparently it went boom and blew out the side of the building.
Or refractory metal powders. Self-igniting thermite? Yay.
Although, if we're getting into uncommon... then there's FOOF (http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2010/02/23/things_i_wont_work_with_dioxygen_difluoride.php).
Post by: ChairmanPoo on April 07, 2015, 04:58:22 am
That's with IV administration, of course
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on April 07, 2015, 07:05:42 am
Post by: Arx on April 09, 2015, 01:54:33 pm
Chinese scientists have found a way to make a liquid metal alloy that responds to electic stimuli and becomes self-propeeling when mixed with aluminium. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/09/us-china-shape-shifting-robot-idUSKBN0N01Z120150409?feedType=RSS&feedName=scienceNews)
Post by: x2yzh9 on April 09, 2015, 05:45:08 pm
Post by: Descan on April 09, 2015, 06:20:35 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on April 09, 2015, 06:42:19 pm
Couldn't you hypothetically build a working warp-drive if you harnessed the ability to project these particles in a given space, removing mass and thus instantly teleporting you I guess?
(http://cinescopia.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/jackie-chan-illuminati.jpg)
Post by: Urist Arrhenius on April 09, 2015, 07:19:53 pm
Couldn't you hypothetically build a working warp-drive if you harnessed the ability to project these particles in a given space, removing mass and thus instantly teleporting you I guess?These are all words, but they don't mean much together. I'm particularly interested in "the ability to project these particles in a given space." What particles, what ability, and what do you mean given space?
Post by: i2amroy on April 09, 2015, 07:47:07 pm
This right here. So much this.Couldn't you hypothetically build a working warp-drive if you harnessed the ability to project these particles in a given space, removing mass and thus instantly teleporting you I guess?(http://cinescopia.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/jackie-chan-illuminati.jpg)
Post by: Angle on April 09, 2015, 07:48:59 pm
*Shrugs*
Post by: Putnam on April 09, 2015, 07:49:36 pm
Post by: wierd on April 09, 2015, 10:31:46 pm
The particles dont have to live for very long, just long enough to exert a tiny force.
Probably would NOT be worth the energy expenditure (EVER), and would be FAR more trouble than it is worth-- the question is hypothetical-- would it slightly increase apparent mass of the front of the ship from the increased interactions?
Post by: Dutrius on April 10, 2015, 06:20:38 am
Post by: Il Palazzo on April 10, 2015, 06:41:19 am
Post by: Urist Arrhenius on April 10, 2015, 09:21:44 am
Dark energy doesn't work that way. It obeys gravity same as dark matter and normal matter. It's known characteristics are: negative pressure (pushes outward), low density, and uniform distribution across the universe.I don't think the Higgs Boson works that way.The closest you could get is using dark energy (if it actually exists) to give everything inside a ship and the ship itself negative mass.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on April 10, 2015, 09:58:00 am
I'd use the power of friendship.
Not as powerful as gravity
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 10, 2015, 11:08:32 am
Post by: Dutchling on April 10, 2015, 11:22:50 am
2/10Apparently sports supplements (protein bars/shakes/etc) market themselves as a good way to recover after a workout but a study has suggested they're no better for that than fast food. (http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2015/04/01/fast_food_works_just_as_well_as_supplements_after_a_workout_109157.html) Makes sense to me, that stuff has always seemed like snake oil for healthy people.I am as surprised as I am thirsty. And I've just drank a litre of juice, so you can imagine how thirsty I'm not.
Post by: scrdest on April 10, 2015, 11:28:41 am
If you drank a litre, you probably have in fact been quite thirsty and still might be :PApparently sports supplements (protein bars/shakes/etc) market themselves as a good way to recover after a workout but a study has suggested they're no better for that than fast food. (http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2015/04/01/fast_food_works_just_as_well_as_supplements_after_a_workout_109157.html) Makes sense to me, that stuff has always seemed like snake oil for healthy people.I am as surprised as I am thirsty. And I've just drank a litre of juice, so you can imagine how thirsty I'm not.
The thing here is, both groups got relatively equal amounts of nutrients, both energy- and quality-wise. I don't understand why would anybody imagine there's any difference. The things that actually matter are things that tip the balance in either calorie or nutrient counts, such as high-protein foods - protein BARS are a joke, those are pretty much chocolate bars with an obligatory small dose of protein thrown in and, apparently, used to replace 50% of the taste of an actual chocolate bar, while keeping roughly the same amount of sugar.
Post by: x2yzh9 on April 10, 2015, 11:37:38 am
What I'm saying is you would just have to remove or restore these particles, using a computerized algorithm of some sorts and btw I thought the higgs boson was what game things mass?Couldn't you hypothetically build a working warp-drive if you harnessed the ability to project these particles in a given space, removing mass and thus instantly teleporting you I guess?
(http://cinescopia.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/jackie-chan-illuminati.jpg)
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 10, 2015, 11:50:42 am
Post by: scrdest on April 10, 2015, 11:58:46 am
They used a mix of various supplements, as the objective was to determine if using supplementation as a whole is better than not using it at all. So, any benefits of any specific substance were irrelevant as it was all tossed into a huge pile with such-and-such amount of carbs, fats and protein in both fast food and supplements. So, the diets were relatively identical.I don't understand why would anybody imagine there's any difference. The things that actually matter are things that tip the balance in either calorie or nutrient counts, such as high-protein foods - protein BARS are a joke, those are pretty much chocolate bars with an obligatory small dose of protein thrown in and, apparently, used to replace 50% of the taste of an actual chocolate bar, while keeping roughly the same amount of sugar.
The study also used protein powder, which I feel is taken more seriously than protein bars.
Also, many of these products market themselves as having special formulas that are more efficient at getting energy to your muscles. Misconceptions about these things are spread by the people selling them, and they always make it look very legitimate and scientific.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on April 10, 2015, 11:59:40 am
I don't understand why would anybody imagine there's any difference. The things that actually matter are things that tip the balance in either calorie or nutrient counts, such as high-protein foods - protein BARS are a joke, those are pretty much chocolate bars with an obligatory small dose of protein thrown in and, apparently, used to replace 50% of the taste of an actual chocolate bar, while keeping roughly the same amount of sugar.
The study also used protein powder, which I feel is taken more seriously than protein bars.
Also, many of these products market themselves as having special formulas that are more efficient at getting energy to your muscles. Misconceptions about these things are spread by the people selling them, and they always make it look very legitimate and scientific.
I went to a DuPont field trip type thing and they showed the whole process of making stuff like protein bars, they actualy have a lot of protein for a granola bar because they put a bunch of soy protein powder/granuels/etc.. was interesting to see.
They also explained why protein drinks and some soy drinks can have a grainy texture
Post by: scrdest on April 10, 2015, 12:07:17 pm
I've bought a protein bar yesterday, out of curiosity, as my parents mentioned they are pretty good, actually, and checked the nutrition data. IIRC it had 9 gram of protein and 23 grams of sugar per a 50g bar. That is mostly sugar and a token amount of protein (especially since I can buy a tasty mango yoghurt with less of the former and more of the latter for less).I don't understand why would anybody imagine there's any difference. The things that actually matter are things that tip the balance in either calorie or nutrient counts, such as high-protein foods - protein BARS are a joke, those are pretty much chocolate bars with an obligatory small dose of protein thrown in and, apparently, used to replace 50% of the taste of an actual chocolate bar, while keeping roughly the same amount of sugar.
The study also used protein powder, which I feel is taken more seriously than protein bars.
Also, many of these products market themselves as having special formulas that are more efficient at getting energy to your muscles. Misconceptions about these things are spread by the people selling them, and they always make it look very legitimate and scientific.
I went to a DuPont field trip type thing and they showed the whole process of making stuff like protein bars, they actualy have a lot of protein for a granola bar because they put a bunch of soy protein powder/granuels/etc.. was interesting to see.
They also explained why protein drinks and some soy drinks can have a grainy texture
Plus, protein supplementation can be really goddamn dangerous - if protein makes up too much of your energy intake, you tax your liver and kidneys which are normally processing those, with the potential for failure, especially for kidneys, as liver regenerates.
Post by: Putnam on April 10, 2015, 12:09:03 pm
What I'm saying is you would just have to remove or restore these particles, using a computerized algorithm of some sorts and btw I thought the higgs boson was what game things mass?
What are "these particles"?
Post by: forsaken1111 on April 10, 2015, 12:12:50 pm
(http://new1.fjcdn.com/comments/This+reminds+me+of+my+first+time+on+xbox+live+_e9d01791f53cf9f8a499c8fcfe9d0d50.jpg)What I'm saying is you would just have to remove or restore these particles, using a computerized algorithm of some sorts and btw I thought the higgs boson was what game things mass?Couldn't you hypothetically build a working warp-drive if you harnessed the ability to project these particles in a given space, removing mass and thus instantly teleporting you I guess?
(http://cinescopia.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/jackie-chan-illuminati.jpg)
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 10, 2015, 12:14:11 pm
Post by: Urist Arrhenius on April 10, 2015, 12:16:09 pm
I think he's quoting Star Trek.I recalled star trek making marginally more sense.
Post by: Putnam on April 10, 2015, 12:20:37 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on April 10, 2015, 02:43:56 pm
What would happen, well detailed, if a person were to fall from upper atmosphere (or where ever they would gain terminal velocity I guess) in an armored exo suit (Like in halo) and landed with no parachute. Lets say landing in a grassy field.
Assuming that the suit can make the impact survivable would there be any effects of that quick of a stop on the brain or internals such as a concussion?
Post by: XXXXYYYY on April 10, 2015, 02:52:43 pm
This thread can be used for random science questions right? It's been like that before I think.more information needed; In what general way does it prevent the fall from being lethal? Because that quick of a stop all at once would turn your brain to mush due to it suddenly slamming into the inside of your skull at 120mph.
What would happen, well detailed, if a person were to fall from upper atmosphere (or where ever they would gain terminal velocity I guess) in an armored exo suit (Like in halo) and landed with no parachute. Lets say landing in a grassy field.
Assuming that the suit can make the impact survivable would there be any effects of that quick of a stop on the brain or internals such as a concussion?
Post by: Descan on April 10, 2015, 02:55:25 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on April 10, 2015, 03:03:39 pm
This (http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/MJOLNIR_Powered_Assault_Armor)has been used in game multiple times to survive falling from upper atmosphere with no way of slowing down. It has an ((electro magnetic?)) outer shielding, armor plating, some sort of futuristic skin suit, and some fluid to protect the wearer.
Though this is also used on people who are heavily modified so maybe I'm leaving a lot of info out on the person wearing the suit.
This (http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/SPARTAN-II_augmentation_procedures) is the augmentations put on the person we are talking about.
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 10, 2015, 03:08:46 pm
Post by: Urist Arrhenius on April 10, 2015, 03:10:41 pm
It keeps it from being externally lethal.Strong bones, strong muscles, strong vascular system. But yeah, you could easily suffer extreme brain damage unless the suit supported your head incredibly well. Also, I know they covered strong vascular system, but there still seems like there'd be a huge risk of an artery around the heart severing, at least partially, on impact (called traumatic aortic disruption).
This (http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/MJOLNIR_Powered_Assault_Armor)has been used in game multiple times to survive falling from upper atmosphere with no way of slowing down. It has an ((electro magnetic?)) outer shielding, armor plating, some sort of futuristic skin suit, and some fluid to protect the wearer.
Though this is also used on people who are heavily modified so maybe I'm leaving a lot of info out on the person wearing the suit.
This (http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/SPARTAN-II_augmentation_procedures) is the augmentations put on the person we are talking about.
Generally the only safe way to survive is gradual deceleration. I'm not terribly familiar with Halo, but their hypothetical scientists were complete idiots if they thought the best way was to just make a suit that could withstand impact at terminal velocity rather than building in any way to slow down.
Post by: Tylui on April 10, 2015, 03:24:57 pm
How dare you make him cry. It's obvious he meant negative energy. Jerk. :PSomething something shutup. *walks into corner crying*Dark energy doesn't work that way. It obeys gravity same as dark matter and normal matter. It's known characteristics are: negative pressure (pushes outward), low density, and uniform distribution across the universe.I don't think the Higgs Boson works that way.The closest you could get is using dark energy (if it actually exists) to give everything inside a ship and the ship itself negative mass.
Couldn't you hypothetically build a working warp-drive if you harnessed the ability to project these particles in a given space, removing mass and thus instantly teleporting you I guess?
If you're talking about the Higgs Particle, then no. What I think you're asking is if you removed mass from a collection of particles, couldn't that be used to teleport things. Let's say we could hypothetically "shut off" the Higgs field in a given region. Let's take a long long tunnel, where you want to stand on one end, and teleport to the other end by shutting off the Higgs field. As soon as it's shut off, basically all the electrons and protons and quarks and anything else with mass would be ripped apart from each other and all your particles would go flying off in different directions at the speed of light. There'd be no way to accelerate them in a particular direction, or even predict which directions they'd fly out. Very few particles would ever reach the other end of the tunnel, let alone in a state you could reassemble anything.
As an aside, I think there'd be some nice weapons tech with being able to shut off the higgs field. Instant and efficient disintegration.
Post by: Putnam on April 10, 2015, 03:26:00 pm
being able to shut off the higgs field.
might as well shut off the electron field while you're at it...
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 10, 2015, 03:30:01 pm
Post by: miauw62 on April 10, 2015, 03:31:53 pm
This thread can be used for random science questions right? It's been like that before I think.So you're asking, "Assuming the suit made the fall survivable, how would it kill you"?
What would happen, well detailed, if a person were to fall from upper atmosphere (or where ever they would gain terminal velocity I guess) in an armored exo suit (Like in halo) and landed with no parachute. Lets say landing in a grassy field.
Assuming that the suit can make the impact survivable would there be any effects of that quick of a stop on the brain or internals such as a concussion?
E:
Also of note, Redemption Ark featured inertia dampeners rather prominently.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on April 10, 2015, 03:49:06 pm
@Urist Arrheneis- the makers of the suit acctualy never meant for them to be dropped from atmosphere, it was designed as combat armor for augmented super soldiers. Basicaly take a human who is augmented to be super human and put them in armor to amplify the modifications then add a hyper inteligent AI to the suit to help them and basicaly be almost melded into their conciousness. ((Sorta like the two pilots in Jagers from pacific rim)) The AI helps with information the soldier doesn't have and the soldier has the tactics and combat side of being a super soldier.
The suit costs as much as a small starship with a slip space drive ((expensive engine used for interstellar travel))
Post by: Arx on April 10, 2015, 04:06:45 pm
Your alternative is to increase the time element of the impulse equation, i.e. wrap them in a heck of a lot of cotton wool.
Post by: Putnam on April 10, 2015, 04:08:00 pm
Post by: Arx on April 10, 2015, 04:13:59 pm
Post by: forsaken1111 on April 10, 2015, 04:17:36 pm
And reverse the polarity of the shield capacitor!Rout the higgs-boson compensator through the main deflector array and you can achieve faster than light travel and brew a mean cup of tea at the same time!
Post by: Bauglir on April 10, 2015, 04:42:04 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on April 10, 2015, 04:49:54 pm
Post by: forsaken1111 on April 10, 2015, 04:53:48 pm
Would the ((2-3 inches?)) of fluid in the suit be able to absorb the impact?I imagine the fluid would quite efficiently transfer the impact force to your skin. Unless it has some kind of magical physics-defying properties?
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on April 10, 2015, 04:57:35 pm
They talk about it in the link I gave earlier
Post by: forsaken1111 on April 10, 2015, 05:00:21 pm
Unpowered lithobraking isn't especially survivable or compatible with biological life.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on April 10, 2015, 05:02:05 pm
Post by: Urist Arrhenius on April 10, 2015, 05:03:13 pm
It was a joke about the whole 'carbon OP' thing. I have no idea what would be best for building a suit like that.Dark energy, probably.
Post by: XXXXYYYY on April 10, 2015, 05:03:29 pm
Unpowered lithobrakingI'm totally going to use that in conversations in the future.
Post by: Bauglir on April 10, 2015, 05:07:30 pm
Post by: i2amroy on April 10, 2015, 05:13:21 pm
1) Fall and reach your terminal velocity of ~200 km/h
2) ~300 ft before you hit the ground the suit kicks in and flips you so that your head is pointing downwards
3) Create a 7g gravity well attached just below your feet. (resulting in a net 6g force upwards, but to you it would feel like 8g)
4) 1 second later touch down light as a feather.
The flipping to be head down is important, the body can withstand some tremendous g forces downwards, but is really bad at resisting them upwards. By flipping you upside down we can run you through what would feel like an 8g force for you body, which modern pilots in high-g suits can withstand pretty easily.
If you don't want to deal with the (highly speculative) field of gravity manipulation you could hypothetically pull off a similar thing by using a monopole (the existence of which is, to quote Joseph Polchinski, "one of the safest bets that one can make about physics not yet seen") in combination with the magnetic field of whatever you are landing on to generate the upwards force. (Though then you would want to be feet down instead of up).
Of course what you are essentially doing in both of these cases is attaching a rocket to the bottom of your feet to "push" (or "pull" in the case of the gravity manipulation) you upwards and slow the collision, but in a method that doesn't deal with all of those burning flames or visual effects. :P
Edit: Woah, 9 new replies while I was typing that.
Post by: Urist Arrhenius on April 10, 2015, 05:25:25 pm
That said if you had the ability to manipulate gravity (which I believe shows up in some of the elevators/etc. in the Halo series) you could hypothetically survive an impact with only a minimal suit that didn't provide any real protection. That basic method would be:Not the case. What you've done is reverse your acceleration, not reduce your momentum. So you'd still hit at near terminal velocity. It's not about feeling heavy or light, it's about being massive and moving quickly. Which you still are.
1) Fall and reach your terminal velocity of ~200 km/h
2) ~300 ft before you hit the ground the suit kicks in and flips you so that your head is pointing downwards
3) Create a 7g gravity well attached just below your feet. (resulting in a net 6g force upwards, but to you it would feel like 8g)
4) 1 second later touch down light as a feather.
Post by: XXXXYYYY on April 10, 2015, 05:26:53 pm
7G grav well, so a total of 6Gs of acceleration upwards.That said if you had the ability to manipulate gravity (which I believe shows up in some of the elevators/etc. in the Halo series) you could hypothetically survive an impact with only a minimal suit that didn't provide any real protection. That basic method would be:Not the case. What you've done is reverse your acceleration, not reduce your momentum. So you'd still hit at near terminal velocity. It's not about feeling heavy or light, it's about being massive and moving quickly. Which you still are.
1) Fall and reach your terminal velocity of ~200 km/h
2) ~300 ft before you hit the ground the suit kicks in and flips you so that your head is pointing downwards
3) Create a 7g gravity well attached just below your feet. (resulting in a net 6g force upwards, but to you it would feel like 8g)
4) 1 second later touch down light as a feather.
Post by: i2amroy on April 10, 2015, 05:49:31 pm
The sudden (and fairly large) change in acceleration suddenly causes your internal organs to flutter about like butterflies and your eyeballs to pop out of their sockets.It's only an 8g acceleration. Fighter pilots regularly go through sudden accelerations like that all the time. Of course in the wrong direction it would be fatal, but that is why it's so important that (with the gravity version at least) you flip around to be pointed in the right direction. As an example the Apollo 16 astronauts experienced 7.19g on reentry for a much longer period of time than 1 second, and they turned out just fine. Assuming you were wearing a high-g suit you probably wouldn't even black out.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on April 10, 2015, 06:10:51 pm
Let's say this guy in power armor is falling and as he hits atmosphere a 30000 ton tungsten rod going .98c flys down and strikes the planet would the impact bows be enough to throw the guy in power armor back into space?
Post by: i2amroy on April 10, 2015, 06:13:08 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on April 10, 2015, 06:41:01 pm
Post by: i2amroy on April 10, 2015, 06:44:33 pm
Post by: Bumber on April 10, 2015, 06:47:34 pm
It keeps it from being externally lethal.The shield might help deflect the force of the collision, though I'm not sure it's actually strong enough for that. The shield gets depleted in 6 pistol rounds or so? Given the weight of the suit, I'm sure the impact force is stronger than that.
This (http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/MJOLNIR_Powered_Assault_Armor)has been used in game multiple times to survive falling from upper atmosphere with no way of slowing down. It has an ((electro magnetic?)) outer shielding, armor plating, some sort of futuristic skin suit, and some fluid to protect the wearer.
Though this is also used on people who are heavily modified so maybe I'm leaving a lot of info out on the person wearing the suit.
This (http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/SPARTAN-II_augmentation_procedures) is the augmentations put on the person we are talking about.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on April 10, 2015, 07:39:19 pm
Post by: hops on April 11, 2015, 12:04:42 am
Couldn't you hypothetically build a working warp-drive if you harnessed the ability to project these particles in a given space, removing mass and thus instantly teleporting you I guess?Has anyone really been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
Post by: iceball3 on April 11, 2015, 02:26:25 am
Do take into account that the weapons in Halo are not civilian grade, nor "Small Arms" as we know it for that matter. Don't the pistols in Halo use Armor Piercing High Explosive rounds? Heck, even the skimpy baby pistols in Halo 2 were chambered in .50 Calliber!It keeps it from being externally lethal.The shield might help deflect the force of the collision, though I'm not sure it's actually strong enough for that. The shield gets depleted in 6 pistol rounds or so? Given the weight of the suit, I'm sure the impact force is stronger than that.
This (http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/MJOLNIR_Powered_Assault_Armor)has been used in game multiple times to survive falling from upper atmosphere with no way of slowing down. It has an ((electro magnetic?)) outer shielding, armor plating, some sort of futuristic skin suit, and some fluid to protect the wearer.
Though this is also used on people who are heavily modified so maybe I'm leaving a lot of info out on the person wearing the suit.
This (http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/SPARTAN-II_augmentation_procedures) is the augmentations put on the person we are talking about.
Post by: i2amroy on April 11, 2015, 02:34:59 am
What you might be able to do with a shield generator is to totally interlace the entirety of your body at the molecular level with shields (which would probably kill you outright). If you did so your flesh body would essentially be a "totally rigid body" during the course of the impact, which would mean that instead of splatting on the surface you would sink into the surface until your energy had been spent but you would be ok. End result is that rather then cracking the pavement in a dramatic landing you'd essentially sink into the ground up to your chest and be trapped, but you would survive the impact. :P
Post by: Arx on April 11, 2015, 02:38:46 am
Doesn't matter how much they can stop, if we're looking at them through the lens of real science that force has to go somewhere. Hypothetically a real shield would express the majority of that force onto the shield generator, which would just mean that parachute-less base-jumping in one would just result in your suit exploding and then you slamming into the ground (or rather you pancaking inside of your suit, then it exploding into pieces, and then you slamming into the ground). Without something to apply a force on you over a longer period of time (be that gravity manipulation, rockets, or what have you) it's not going to make a difference.
What you might be able to do with a shield generator is to totally interlace the entirety of your body at the molecular level with shields (which would probably kill you outright). If you did so your flesh body would essentially be a "totally rigid body" during the course of the impact, which would mean that instead of splatting on the surface you would sink into the surface until your energy had been spent but you would be ok. End result is that rather then cracking the pavement in a dramatic landing you'd essentially sink into the ground up to your chest and be trapped, but you would survive the impact. :P
The molecular interlacing would be one way of achieving total internal rigidity. If you could cause the shield to form a sharp point at the base, you could possibly lithobrake (terrabrake?) by punching a few hundred metres into the ground, which might not prove fatal.
Post by: iceball3 on April 11, 2015, 02:44:16 am
Post by: i2amroy on April 11, 2015, 03:13:48 am
The molecular interlacing would be one way of achieving total internal rigidity. If you could cause the shield to form a sharp point at the base, you could possibly lithobrake (terrabrake?) by punching a few hundred metres into the ground, which might not prove fatal.You wouldn't go down near that far. If we look at Newton's Impact Depth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_depth) approximation formula we find that it doesn't really matter how fast you are going short of relativistic speeds, the depths you sink has a lot more to do with your relative densities than your speed. As such you would probably sink to a depth of somewhere between 1.3 meters (4'4") and 9.1 meters (30') depending on the exact densities of you+the suit and the ground that you hit. The more dense the suit is and the greater it's mass compared to yours the deeper you will go, the denser the rock that you are hitting the shallower. Assuming your suit's main component is steel about the deepest you should ever end up is ~30 feet below the surface though.
Running some calculations I find the pressure that deep in our average soil is approximately 245 kilopascals, which is about 10x more than the amount of pressure the average person can exert with their hands (i.e. to dig themselves out). So if the suit made you about 10x stronger than the average human you could hypothetically dig yourself out even if you plunged the whole 30 feet into the ground (though it would take some time to do so). At that point the question would be down to how long can your suit give you life support without access to outside air, since the process of digging your way 30 feet to the surface when you start literally entombed in the dirt without any empty space at all is not going to be a fast one. :P
Post by: Osmosis Jones on April 11, 2015, 03:41:59 am
I was intending it to be a hyperbole, but I'd have thought instant acceleration of 8gs the opposite way would cause some pretty nasty problems? The thing about fighter pilots, Apollo and that was that whilst it is fast, the change in acceleration isn't instantaneous.
You know what, I'm wrong on this actually. Classically, higher derivatives of motion than acceleration are not associated with any forces, which is where my answer was coming from. However, a discontinuity in force would induce a shockwave moving from the point of impact that a gradual easing wouldn't. This shockwave would be associated with large transient forces over a much shorter timescale. My bad.
Post by: miauw62 on April 11, 2015, 03:50:43 am
Post by: Il Palazzo on April 11, 2015, 03:58:43 am
The idea here is to fill all body cavities with an inert fluid (which is the science fiction part), and immerse the whole body in an impact-resistant tank, so that upon collision the forces are evenly distributed through pressure throughout the tissues.Would the ((2-3 inches?)) of fluid in the suit be able to absorb the impact?I imagine the fluid would quite efficiently transfer the impact force to your skin. Unless it has some kind of magical physics-defying properties?
Post by: wierd on April 11, 2015, 11:55:35 am
Can you breathe them long term? No-- not really. Can you breathe them for a limited amount of time, and have the effect of such hydraulic compression protection? Yes.
Post by: i2amroy on April 11, 2015, 11:58:41 am
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on April 11, 2015, 01:27:17 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on April 11, 2015, 06:44:16 pm
Post by: scrdest on April 11, 2015, 06:47:40 pm
I fail to understand why wouldn't you die by filling your cavities with some liquid....It's less compressible than air. Basically, try pushing a large bottle with your finger - an empty one may cave in or deform, a filled one may still move as a whole.
Post by: Tylui on April 11, 2015, 07:00:04 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on April 11, 2015, 07:33:03 pm
Post by: Tylui on April 11, 2015, 07:43:33 pm
The impact would nonetheless probably burst everything in the body. It's not like asteroids remain intact after crashlanding, right? I don't think having empty or full cavities would significatively affect the outcome, given the ammount of force involved.
obv you've never captured an asteroid in ksp
Post by: Bumber on April 11, 2015, 11:08:21 pm
Doesn't matter how much they can stop, if we're looking at them through the lens of real science that force has to go somewhere. Hypothetically a real shield would express the majority of that force onto the shield generator, which would just mean that parachute-less base-jumping in one would just result in your suit exploding and then you slamming into the ground (or rather you pancaking inside of your suit, then it exploding into pieces, and then you slamming into the ground). Without something to apply a force on you over a longer period of time (be that gravity manipulation, rockets, or what have you) it's not going to make a difference.I would guess that the force might be absorbed by the shield as a sort of wave until it can be neutralized by destructive interference and/or radiated as energy.
Post by: i2amroy on April 12, 2015, 12:21:22 am
The impact would nonetheless probably burst everything in the body. It's not like asteroids remain intact after crashlanding, right? I don't think having empty or full cavities would significatively affect the outcome, given the ammount of force involved.Yeah, the idea isn't to make you totally impervious to harm, it's to greatly increase your resistance to it.
Post by: wierd on April 12, 2015, 02:39:37 am
How? We are talking about fictional force-sheilds and hard-light bridges in this universe, as well as self-propogating energy waves that can decimate all living things in an entire galaxy, and anti-gravity tech is fully present in the form of the elevators and other superfunhappythings in all those ruins. (http://notclickable.com/assets/img/posts/2012/halo4-forerunner-art.jpg) Negating the mass of the occupant in the suit would render the fall from orbit quite survivable, as long as the deflector shield kept the ionizing badness of the reentry off the suit's exterior.
Problem solved.
(For all we know, that's HOW the shield works! Energy and bullets lobbed at it would still have their total energy load, but the energy needed to redirect the projectile would be greatly reduced by altering its mass. You only need to alter the vector of the projectile to make it veer off target to avoid having to deal with it hitting and killing you. It would explain why it (the tech) has problems with heavy focused kinetic impactors, like the sniper rifle. Takes out elites with just a few shots. However, the falling body would have significantly more kinetic energy behind it than a .50 cal slug. Re-entry might be a combination of altering occupant mass combined with the increased drag coefficient of that reduced mass on the conserved surface area of the falling object. )
Post by: Scoops Novel on April 12, 2015, 05:39:19 am
What I'm saying is you would just have to remove or restore these particles, using a computerized algorithm of some sorts and btw I thought the higgs boson was what game things mass?Couldn't you hypothetically build a working warp-drive if you harnessed the ability to project these particles in a given space, removing mass and thus instantly teleporting you I guess?
(http://cinescopia.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/jackie-chan-illuminati.jpg)
Could he get a thorough, friendly answer, or at least directions to where they're stored? No point in castigating the innocent, and I'd like to have more of a clue myself. Note: not complaining about pictures.
Post by: Putnam on April 12, 2015, 05:47:00 am
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 12, 2015, 06:50:26 am
Post by: Scoops Novel on April 12, 2015, 08:47:22 am
Well, the simple answer is "no". The long answer is... AFAIK, the Higgs field doesn't give mass to all particles (most notably protons/neutrons, which get most of their mass from gluon binding energy). Computerized algorithms ain't magic. Warp drive requires a space of negative energy density, which requires stuff that doesn't exist.
Thanks, didn't know about gluons.
Post by: Tylui on April 12, 2015, 10:57:58 am
Can you give me a thorough, friendly answer about how to create a Heisenburg compensator? Or at least directions to where they're stored?
Well it's not as hard as you may think. You just need a few specialty parts, and a conceptual understanding of what you're doing. I'll start with the parts. Once you have your Heisensensor in place, you can Heisenmorph the Heisenwaves using a Heisen-Regulator, and from there your Heisenputer will do most of the Heisenprocessing. As far as the math goes, you just have to be able to find the theory that underlies quantum mechanics so you can rely on precise particle positions, instead of clunky old statistical information. That theory is called Heisenheisen. Most of the time the Heisenberg compensators are stored just beneath the transporter pad; they need to be nice and close to the pad to Heisenate the Heisenspace.
... Lederheisen.
p.s. have we had a discussion on Bell's inequalities and its violation by QM yet in this thread? I only recently joined and there're far too many pages to read them all
Post by: ChairmanPoo on April 12, 2015, 11:54:52 am
Can you give me a thorough, friendly answer about how to create a Heisenburg compensator? Or at least directions to where they're stored?
Well it's not as hard as you may think. You just need a few specialty parts, and a conceptual understanding of what you're doing. I'll start with the parts. Once you have your Heisensensor in place, you can Heisenmorph the Heisenwaves using a Heisen-Regulator, and from there your Heisenputer will do most of the Heisenprocessing. As far as the math goes, you just have to be able to find the theory that underlies quantum mechanics so you can rely on precise particle positions, instead of clunky old statistical information. That theory is called Heisenheisen. Most of the time the Heisenberg compensators are stored just beneath the transporter pad; they need to be nice and close to the pad to Heisenate the Heisenspace.
Those are expensive. Can't you make do with a statistical flux capacitor? After that, a smith who can fabricate a foot-long surgical-quality needle, an acrobat who can do both wide-spar and high-rope, and a swimmer who is fluent in Serioli should suffice to pull the rest out
Post by: scrdest on April 12, 2015, 12:07:36 pm
Post by: Il Palazzo on April 12, 2015, 12:10:55 pm
Post by: wierd on April 12, 2015, 12:14:38 pm
Did you mean reverse the spin?!
(a few years later)
I reversed all the spins in my neutrons, but it didnt do anything either! Sometimes when I hadnt been perfect in getting it exactly reversed, the neutron would spontaneously decay, but that's not the same as antimass!
(a few more years later)
DAMNIT! LOOK WHAT YOU MADE ME DO!!! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aa7sa-Zd-3E)
Post by: scrdest on April 12, 2015, 12:40:56 pm
I reversed the polarity of my neutrons, but nothing happened!!Well, you clearly reversed your polarity *wrong* then. If I had to guess, you didn't shield the machine from discomombulatory neutrino intradisrecombination.
Did you mean reverse the spin?!
(a few years later)
I reversed all the spins in my neutrons, but it didnt do anything either! Sometimes when I hadnt been perfect in getting it exactly reversed, the neutron would spontaneously decay, but that's not the same as antimass!
(a few more years later)
DAMNIT! LOOK WHAT YOU MADE ME DO!!! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aa7sa-Zd-3E)
Post by: hops on April 12, 2015, 09:38:21 pm
Is this dangerous?
Post by: Dutrius on April 13, 2015, 11:01:33 am
Post by: hops on April 14, 2015, 04:33:25 am
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on April 14, 2015, 07:11:56 am
That'd be cool, walk into the tattoo parlor,"Yes I would like a tribal chest padding, nothing too high grade just small arms resistance."
Post by: Helgoland on April 14, 2015, 07:34:48 am
Post by: forsaken1111 on April 14, 2015, 07:47:32 am
Post by: scrdest on April 14, 2015, 08:44:43 am
Yeah, no matter the strength of the material that energy doesn't just vanish. Common methods of dealing with the kinetic energy of an incoming round is to disperse it across the body's surface so that no one area takes too much and thus the damage is limited. Unfortunately it's very difficult to do that efficiently.That is basically what a bulletproof vest does, in fact - it's basically the right combination of elasticity and shock dispersion to spread out the energy around its surface so you basically get a strong slap instead of a very very strong stab of energy.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on April 14, 2015, 08:50:28 am
Post by: Arx on April 14, 2015, 08:56:15 am
Scientists create invisible objects in the microwave range without metamaterial cloaking (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150413213256.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Ftop_news%2Ftop_science+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Top+Science+News%29)
That is hella cool, or at least the implications are.
Post by: forsaken1111 on April 14, 2015, 09:10:33 am
Because that energy would need to then be evenly dispersed across the body somehow. I haven't done the math but I suspect that even dispersing it evenly would cause significant damage.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on April 14, 2015, 10:09:47 am
The person back there would weigh about a ton...
and land flat not on the feet since the heaviest part of the armor is the midsection or maybe on the feet I don't know aerodynamics :p
Post by: wierd on April 14, 2015, 12:24:20 pm
Circumstantial evidence that john117's armor is mitigating its own weight: A standard military pineapple grenade is enough to send him flying. If he weighed the full weight of that armor, that wouldn't happen. ;)
In short, I suspect a great deal of the energy is released in the form of sound and heat on the way down from atmospheric braking, coupled with gravity bending technology. This does not negate ALL of the gravity, just enough to survive re-entry. The suit is only able to produce so much useful internal power you know.
Post by: forsaken1111 on April 14, 2015, 12:27:12 pm
Post by: Bumber on April 14, 2015, 12:50:44 pm
The fact that he can move at all while weighing close to a ton is ample evidence that there is magical weight reduction happening.Power armor + super soldier strength.
Post by: wierd on April 14, 2015, 12:52:37 pm
Post by: Tylui on April 14, 2015, 12:56:33 pm
If there was a fundamental particle that didn't interact through any quantized force, but only through direct collisions (and gravity, but I am of the opinion that gravity is a different type of force; one that isn't quantizable in the same way) and we could directly detect them somehow, we could describe it totally classically, right?
I'm mostly asking to get off the halo topic. I appreciate that we haven't talked about penises in awhile, but this topic is getting labored!
Post by: Urist Arrhenius on April 14, 2015, 01:03:36 pm
It's pretty neat, but the fact that the invisibility is only at select wavelengths is a gigantic limitation.Scientists create invisible objects in the microwave range without metamaterial cloaking (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150413213256.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Ftop_news%2Ftop_science+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Top+Science+News%29)
That is hella cool, or at least the implications are.
I'm having an issue understanding the uncertainty principle. Is it really that the "true" position and momentum of say an electron is really uncertain in units of hbar, or that we just can't say anything about it since the forces that allow us to detect particles are all quantized and statistical? I know there's degeneracy pressure in neutron stars due to the uncertainty, but, again, that could be due to the forces being quantized.It depends on who you ask. Those who take a probabilistic point of view will say that the "true" position is a funky concept, because the electron actually exists as a probability wave. And as you shrink the position distribution you increase the momentum distribution. There are those who would claim we just an't measure it accurately, but it's a minority.
Post by: wierd on April 14, 2015, 01:18:15 pm
Tunnelling is emprically observed as a phenomenon, the double slit experiment is an emperically observed phenomenon, and nuclear fusion is an emperically observed phenomenon. Taken together, it pretty neatly nails the lid on that coffin. Fundamentally, the particle/wave duality situation is an accurate depiction of what is happening, and not just a statistical contrivance.
Post by: forsaken1111 on April 14, 2015, 01:48:23 pm
That can only take you so far, and doesn't explain why he isn't tearing up the ground as he runs around. Or what is powering that kind of movement in such a tiny suit.The fact that he can move at all while weighing close to a ton is ample evidence that there is magical weight reduction happening.Power armor + super soldier strength.
I mean there are all kinds of problems with the technology that they just handwave away. I'm not sure why you're trying to shoehorn fiction into reality. How does he dispose of the heat? That kind of power use would put out a lot of BTU in waste unless we also have magically efficient mechanisms and lossless power transfer.
Honestly if you're in a civilization with lossless power transfer, gravity manipulation, frictionless bearings, superfluids which can disperse/eliminate huge amounts of kinetic energy... why are we at war? And why use a man in a suit? It is literally the least efficient way of applying those technologies to warfare that I can think of.
Post by: i2amroy on April 14, 2015, 02:15:40 pm
The reason I pointed it out was the earlier discussion of surviving an uncontrolled fall from orbit. An object with the mass of a person has a terminal velocity of something like 200 km/h. So what kind of energy are you looking at for a man-sized object (say 80 kilos) moving at 200km/h and impacting feet-down?Small note, but 200 km/h is approximately terminal velocity while you are on your stomach/back, terminal velocity with your feet pointed down is much closer to 200 mph (321.8 km/h) on average with people having reached top speeds closer to around 300 mph when trying to break that record. It's one of the reasons why most of my plans in the original discussion involved you falling spread-eagled and then flipping feet down at the last moment for the dramatic landing.
Post by: forsaken1111 on April 14, 2015, 02:20:13 pm
Fair enough. I was doing math on a napkin using figures I recalled from a previous conversation so I'm not surprised I missed something. :PThe reason I pointed it out was the earlier discussion of surviving an uncontrolled fall from orbit. An object with the mass of a person has a terminal velocity of something like 200 km/h. So what kind of energy are you looking at for a man-sized object (say 80 kilos) moving at 200km/h and impacting feet-down?Small note, but 200 km/h is approximately terminal velocity while you are on your stomach/back, terminal velocity with your feet pointed down is much closer to 200 mph (321.8 km/h) on average with people having reached top speeds closer to around 300 mph when trying to break that record. It's one of the reasons why most of my plans in the original discussion involved you falling spread-eagled and then flipping feet down at the last moment for the dramatic landing.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on April 14, 2015, 03:13:43 pm
Look at what we pulled off in just 100 years, I'm sure we can do that with 500
Post by: Bauglir on April 14, 2015, 06:38:15 pm
Halo is 500 some years in the futureI'm sure we'll be able to pull off drops from orbit and generally achieve the same practical results, but just as humanity has not yet mastered the power of flight with our meaty, natural-born hands alone, we're probably not going to be doing it in that particular fashion. That is, in a person-sized suit that tries to straight-up tank the sheer impact. More likely some sort of largish pod with either thrusters or a parachute.
Look at what we pulled off in just 100 years, I'm sure we can do that with 500
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 14, 2015, 06:44:53 pm
Post by: Tylui on April 14, 2015, 07:09:32 pm
I'm sure this has been posted before but it's awesome!
Post by: iceball3 on April 14, 2015, 08:11:08 pm
If the universe is constantly expanding, isn't the Gravitational Potential between all objects also increasing? Albeit it could be explained away with dark energy.. In which case it's understandable why i have a hard time mentalizing the energy balances. Even regarding, what is all of your folks thoughts on the general idea or specifics involved?
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on April 14, 2015, 08:19:08 pm
Upon viewing halo 4 intro spartan suits have thrusters on the back and reading more into it, the fall was controled and not just falling out of control.Halo is 500 some years in the futureI'm sure we'll be able to pull off drops from orbit and generally achieve the same practical results, but just as humanity has not yet mastered the power of flight with our meaty, natural-born hands alone, we're probably not going to be doing it in that particular fashion. That is, in a person-sized suit that tries to straight-up tank the sheer impact. More likely some sort of largish pod with either thrusters or a parachute.
Look at what we pulled off in just 100 years, I'm sure we can do that with 500
Post by: XXXXYYYY on April 14, 2015, 09:27:41 pm
Here's a good question for everybody, namely because i am unsure. Maybe it's a weird interaction with General Relativity and conventional physics, but...Hmm. I'm guessing that it's the same reason that grav. potential energy (relative to Earth) isn't all that relevant for, say, Voyager- They've long passed the rather severe drop-off point due to the difference. When you couple that with just the sheer, magnificent scale and speed the cosmos moves at, it fades to the point of meaninglessness, so you end up with all the potential energies more or less canceling with all the other innumerable potential energies in the opposite direction.
If the universe is constantly expanding, isn't the Gravitational Potential between all objects also increasing? Albeit it could be explained away with dark energy.. In which case it's understandable why i have a hard time mentalizing the energy balances. Even regarding, what is all of your folks thoughts on the general idea or specifics involved?
That's just my (uninformed) intuition, though, so take it with a grain of salt.
Spoiler: off-topic universe rambling (click to show/hide)
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on April 14, 2015, 10:14:08 pm
Post by: Putnam on April 14, 2015, 10:37:11 pm
I'm not using literally in the figurative sense, either; there is absolutely no possible way for anything outside the observable universe to affect Earth. That's kinda the definition of the observable universe.
Post by: wierd on April 14, 2015, 10:49:01 pm
(I sometimes wonder about the possibility of "extremely humongous" wormholes existing. Wormholes SO BIG, that they look like normal space-time other than mysterious matter flow patterns around them. Kinda like the great attractor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Attractor) actually. If such objects exist in the universe, then "local shortcuts" between parts of the universe normally outside our lightcone could be possible.)
Post by: i2amroy on April 15, 2015, 02:33:34 am
Literally the only part of the universe that matters.That said the observable is getting bigger at the rate of 1 light year per year. :P
I'm not using literally in the figurative sense, either; there is absolutely no possible way for anything outside the observable universe to affect Earth. That's kinda the definition of the observable universe.
And technically anything on the other side of a wormhole would be included in the observable universe, you'd just need to look through the wormhole.
Post by: Putnam on April 15, 2015, 02:36:49 am
Literally the only part of the universe that matters.That said the observable is getting bigger at the rate of 1 light year per year. :P
I'm not using literally in the figurative sense, either; there is absolutely no possible way for anything outside the observable universe to affect Earth. That's kinda the definition of the observable universe.
And technically anything on the other side of a wormhole would be included in the observable universe, you'd just need to look through the wormhole.
It's getting bigger faster than that...
Though not by much. It's about 1.000000103 light years per year.
Expansion of space and all that.
Post by: hops on April 15, 2015, 02:50:13 am
So far the only way for FTL that I can imagine is to destroy something and send its information to be rebuilt at the destination, which, again, is kind of pointless as FTL because you might as well make a dozen copies of the thing you want to send over.
Post by: Putnam on April 15, 2015, 02:55:42 am
I think FTL information travel is definitely possible, though, but then again that's a meaningless statement since we achieved it already.
No it is not and no we have not.
Post by: Sergarr on April 15, 2015, 06:59:00 am
It also equals exactly half of light-speed if you're looking from behind the object moving at light speed.
Relativity is confusing.
Post by: forsaken1111 on April 15, 2015, 07:27:26 am
I think FTL information travel is definitely possible, though, but then again that's a meaningless statement since we achieved it already.Gonna need a citation here... did we develop the ansible when I wasn't looking?
Post by: forsaken1111 on April 15, 2015, 07:33:02 am
I recall us managing to transfer information via quantum entanglement without having to send the information there post-rotation or whatever, but I know my brain, so that's probably something it made up.Again... Citation Needed. I'm not finding anything in searches other than a few crackpot claims along the lines of free energy and a few about how you can live on nothing but air and sunlight, no food needed!
Post by: Urist Arrhenius on April 15, 2015, 07:36:09 am
I recall us managing to transfer information via quantum entanglement without having to send the information there post-rotation or whatever, but I know my brain, so that's probably something it made up.You're referencing a real thing, but it's not genuinely faster than light information travel. Two distant observers may make the observation simultaneously, but one could not send a determined piece of information to a distant observer faster than light.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on April 15, 2015, 07:39:28 am
No, as it stands, we still need to compare results to confirm entanglement had occurred.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on April 15, 2015, 08:09:04 am
Post by: Osmosis Jones on April 15, 2015, 08:12:59 am
Wouldn't FTL messages get to where you send them before you even sent it? or was that some stupid sifi thing that stuck in my head as true?
If they're in different inertial reference frames, yep. To use them as a time machine, all you would need is to shoot one off as fast as possible into space, and use it as a relay to bounce messages off.
Post by: forsaken1111 on April 15, 2015, 08:14:56 am
It got weird.
Post by: Tylui on April 15, 2015, 12:13:01 pm
Post by: Osmosis Jones on April 16, 2015, 07:11:23 am
To be clear, an FTL message that you send cannot return to you before you send it.
Uh, only because a message is unable to change direction. If you have an ansible, and you have a relay moving relative to you with their own ansible, you can bounce messages back into your past.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on April 16, 2015, 08:20:08 am
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 16, 2015, 08:29:51 am
Post by: Osmosis Jones on April 16, 2015, 08:31:51 am
So what exactly makes time?
Good question. No one knows. Some people think it's related to the change in entropy of the universe. I dunno though.
Post by: forsaken1111 on April 16, 2015, 08:37:32 am
It's one of those fundamental questions which most people just say "It just IS!"So what exactly makes time?
Good question. No one knows. Some people think it's related to the change in entropy of the universe. I dunno though.
Like why do we only perceive 3 dimensions? Why not 2? four? Why does gold look gold? Why does adding or subtracting a proton make an atom behave entirely differently? Why does the circumference of a circle equal pi?
Post by: Il Palazzo on April 16, 2015, 08:41:19 am
Why does the circumference of a circle equal pi?We've been contacted by species from another universe!
Post by: forsaken1111 on April 16, 2015, 08:43:33 am
You know what I mean! :PWhy does the circumference of a circle equal pi?We've been contacted by species from another universe!
I haven't had enough coffee yet.
Post by: Helgoland on April 16, 2015, 09:22:44 am
Why does gold look gold?We know that already, though I forget what it was - I read an article about it a while ago. Something about relativic electrons in gold's outer orbitals, I think.
Post by: forsaken1111 on April 16, 2015, 09:29:58 am
Ah, you mean this?Why does gold look gold?We know that already, though I forget what it was - I read an article about it a while ago. Something about relativic electrons in gold's outer orbitals, I think.
https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/golden_glow/
Well I guess we can check one off then.
Post by: scrdest on April 16, 2015, 12:58:43 pm
Why does adding or subtracting a proton make an atom behave entirely differently?We know that quite well as well. It's pretty basic (or acidic, if you excuse the pun) chemistry.
Post by: alway on April 16, 2015, 01:36:42 pm
But most of those have good answers, are well studied and understood.It's one of those fundamental questions which most people just say "It just IS!"So what exactly makes time?
Good question. No one knows. Some people think it's related to the change in entropy of the universe. I dunno though.
Like why do we only perceive 3 dimensions? Why not 2? four? Why does gold look gold? Why does adding or subtracting a proton make an atom behave entirely differently? Why does the circumference of a circle equal pi?
As for where time comes from, I recommend Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time." But in general, the reason it 'goes in one direction' is because of entropy. Essentially, your brain (or any information processing system for that matter) needs to result in an increase in entropy. Information theory and thermodynamics are very deeply linked, which is generally the explanation behind that.
Post by: forsaken1111 on April 16, 2015, 01:48:34 pm
Post by: Sergarr on April 16, 2015, 02:00:49 pm
What about fluctuations, then? If time was linked to "always increase entropy", then fluctuations wouldn't be a thing.But most of those have good answers, are well studied and understood.It's one of those fundamental questions which most people just say "It just IS!"So what exactly makes time?
Good question. No one knows. Some people think it's related to the change in entropy of the universe. I dunno though.
Like why do we only perceive 3 dimensions? Why not 2? four? Why does gold look gold? Why does adding or subtracting a proton make an atom behave entirely differently? Why does the circumference of a circle equal pi?
As for where time comes from, I recommend Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time." But in general, the reason it 'goes in one direction' is because of entropy. Essentially, your brain (or any information processing system for that matter) needs to result in an increase in entropy. Information theory and thermodynamics are very deeply linked, which is generally the explanation behind that.
Post by: Tylui on April 16, 2015, 02:26:21 pm
To be clear, an FTL message that you send cannot return to you before you send it.
Uh, only because a message is unable to change direction. If you have an ansible, and you have a relay moving relative to you with their own ansible, you can bounce messages back into your past.
Can you prove that? Which way is the ansible moving relative to me, away or towards? Either way they wouldn't reply to the message until I sent it, and I wouldn't get theirs until they sent it regardless of their movement? It just makes the simultaneity confusing; there exist reference frames in which the signal looks like its received and sent to me before I send the initial one, but that certainly isn't MY reference frame. Right? Wrong?
Post by: Levi on April 16, 2015, 03:24:44 pm
She happens to be stored at the same place i've arranged my head to be frozen and stored.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on April 16, 2015, 03:41:35 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on April 16, 2015, 03:44:46 pm
Post by: Levi on April 16, 2015, 03:49:29 pm
.... But freezing completely destroys the cells if done wrong and why would we do something that we have very little proof of being able to work on human beings?
Well, they've definitely proven that you can freeze them. :P
Yeah, its all in hopes of there being better technology later. Its entirely possible that these people(and me if I get frozen) will never be brought back.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on April 16, 2015, 03:54:20 pm
Alternately, aliens invade and think you're ice lollies."What satisfying snacks they've left for us, obviously an offer of peace and subservience"
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 16, 2015, 03:55:11 pm
Post by: Levi on April 16, 2015, 04:04:34 pm
I'm pretty sure they've at least figured out how to freeze people in a way that doesn't destroy the cells.
Yeah, they pump you full of cyroprotectants to prevent ice crystals from forming, but its not perfect and the chemicals are fairly toxic.
There is a lot of hope that nanobots will be able to repair a lot of damage that happens. Also even if the brain needs repair, a slightly "wrong" brain might be "Good enough".
-----
Another possibility is to not unfreeze you at all, but instead scan your frozen head into a computer and recreate you there.
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 16, 2015, 04:08:18 pm
Post by: i2amroy on April 16, 2015, 04:08:35 pm
Has anyone ever sucessfully brought back a cryogenicaly frozen person?Actually the Massachusetts General Hospital have successfully revived pigs that the "killed" through up to 90% blood loss (leading to a total lack of brain activity and heart beat) by bringing them down to extremely low temperatures for about three hours or so, then restoring their blood and starting their heart beat up again. According to them they managed to perform this procedure over 200 times, with about a 90% success rate of revival. Before them a University of Pittsburgh Research lab performed a similar thing on dogs. (DARPA is also doing current research into similar topics, but haven't released any results that I know of yet). It's only a matter of time until we have the technology that could successfully a person.
Of course even assuming we had the technology to successfully revive people you run into all sorts of other problems, notably:
1) Most cryogenically preserved people have bigger problems that caused their death, such as old age failure, disease, etc. that we can't cure right now.
2) You can't exactly test things on human subjects, even volunteers, since voluntary anesthesia is still illegal.
3) In addition to making testing difficult, this also means that those who are dying of disease are forced to the point of critical failure before we can freeze them. Even if we developed a cure for something like cancer, it's going to be much more difficult to "save" a patent who's body consists of basically one massive tumor than it would be if they were frozen in the early (but still untreatable at the time) stages.
4) If you attempt to revive someone and it fails, is that murder? What about the contract that you sign with them, would it be a form of contract breach? How safe does the method have to be before it's "worth the risk" for the patient? 50%? 90%? 99.9999%?
Post by: Levi on April 16, 2015, 04:13:20 pm
You know, this whole conversation has sent me off on a train of thought that sent me into a minor existential crisis.
Scratch that, my brain's going full out 'OH GOD!' mode due to it.
Hey if you want to sign up, I can send you a card that gets you a bit of a discount. :P
Post by: hops on April 16, 2015, 04:19:19 pm
.... But freezing completely destroys the cells if done wrong and why would we do something that we have very little proof of being able to work on human beings?Most of the cryogenically frozen people are gonna die anyways, so I think in their perspective they've got nothing to lose. They either wake up almost instantaneously in their perspective with a really bad hangover and no cancer, or they just die in which case they'd be too dead to know it, assuming that the afterlife doesn't exist.
Post by: scrdest on April 16, 2015, 04:34:53 pm
Has anyone ever sucessfully brought back a cryogenicaly frozen person?Cryogenically - no, but there's a number of modern-day recorded cases where people were brought back from being frozen with zero damage. One example I remember for its sheer comedy is parents finding their daughter frozen - so badly that they had to just place her in the car diagonally like an overly long flesh-plank.
Post by: Levi on April 16, 2015, 05:00:43 pm
.... But freezing completely destroys the cells if done wrong and why would we do something that we have very little proof of being able to work on human beings?Most of the cryogenically frozen people are gonna die anyways, so I think in their perspective they've got nothing to lose. They either wake up almost instantaneously in their perspective with a really bad hangover and no cancer, or they just die in which case they'd be too dead to know it, assuming that the afterlife doesn't exist.
That is pretty much my feelings on the matter.
We haven't proven that we'll never have technology to bring people back from a frozen state and there is a fair bit of evidence that we might be able too, so why not sign up to be frozen? If you are brought back, then awesome. If you aren't brought back, well you aren't any worse off.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on April 16, 2015, 08:51:07 pm
Can you prove that? Which way is the ansible moving relative to me, away or towards? Either way they wouldn't reply to the message until I sent it, and I wouldn't get theirs until they sent it regardless of their movement? It just makes the simultaneity confusing; there exist reference frames in which the signal looks like its received and sent to me before I send the initial one, but that certainly isn't MY reference frame. Right? Wrong?
As much as one can prove anything that starts with FTL as an assumption...
Anyway, this (http://www.askamathematician.com/2012/07/q-how-does-instantaneous-communication-violate-causality/) site has some decent diagrams that help. Long story short is that because of Special Relativity, the perspective of one object will always see the object in another inertial frame as moving slower. THAT means, anything you see as transmitting instantly, another reference frame will see as moving backwards in time. What is vitally important here, is that as there are no special frames of reference, the receiving person can do the exact same thing. Net result is you can bounce messages back through time.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on April 16, 2015, 09:14:38 pm
I was just curiousHas anyone ever sucessfully brought back a cryogenicaly frozen person?Actually the Massachusetts General Hospital have successfully revived pigs that the "killed" through up to 90% blood loss (leading to a total lack of brain activity and heart beat) by bringing them down to extremely low temperatures for about three hours or so, then restoring their blood and starting their heart beat up again. According to them they managed to perform this procedure over 200 times, with about a 90% success rate of revival. Before them a University of Pittsburgh Research lab performed a similar thing on dogs. (DARPA is also doing current research into similar topics, but haven't released any results that I know of yet). It's only a matter of time until we have the technology that could successfully a person.
Of course even assuming we had the technology to successfully revive people you run into all sorts of other problems, notably:
1) Most cryogenically preserved people have bigger problems that caused their death, such as old age failure, disease, etc. that we can't cure right now.
2) You can't exactly test things on human subjects, even volunteers, since voluntary anesthesia is still illegal.
3) In addition to making testing difficult, this also means that those who are dying of disease are forced to the point of critical failure before we can freeze them. Even if we developed a cure for something like cancer, it's going to be much more difficult to "save" a patent who's body consists of basically one massive tumor than it would be if they were frozen in the early (but still untreatable at the time) stages.
4) If you attempt to revive someone and it fails, is that murder? What about the contract that you sign with them, would it be a form of contract breach? How safe does the method have to be before it's "worth the risk" for the patient? 50%? 90%? 99.9999%?
Also to the last question they should probably wait till animal testing has 100% or 99% with outliers till they try it on people and the first ones attpred on people should probably be those who were critically ill or less likely to be able to be brought back for, if nothing else, to ensure the thawing works on people without killing them again but maybe not resurrecting them. I don't think it's a breach of contract if they fail in attempting only if they get you back and then kill you ((if your heart beats again and you have other signs of life then they mess up that's probably murder)) but if thawing doesn't work and you're still dead well you can charge someone for killing a dead person :p
Post by: redwallzyl on April 16, 2015, 09:29:26 pm
Post by: Levi on April 16, 2015, 09:37:58 pm
Quote
Q: How do cryoprotectants protect cells?
A: When tissue is slowly cooled, ice first forms between cells. The growing ice crystals increase the concentration of solutes in the remaining liquid around them, causing osmotic dehydration of cells. If cryoprotectants are present, the freezing point of the unfrozen solution drops sooner and faster, limiting the total amount of ice that forms. As the temperature drops below -40°C, the cryoprotectant concentration becomes so high in the remaining unfrozen solution that ice stops growing. Cells survive suspended in the residual unfrozen liquid between ice crystals. As the temperature drops below about -100°C, this unfrozen solution containing the cells becomes a glassy solid.
Post by: Tylui on April 17, 2015, 12:25:34 am
Can you prove that? Which way is the ansible moving relative to me, away or towards? Either way they wouldn't reply to the message until I sent it, and I wouldn't get theirs until they sent it regardless of their movement? It just makes the simultaneity confusing; there exist reference frames in which the signal looks like its received and sent to me before I send the initial one, but that certainly isn't MY reference frame. Right? Wrong?
As much as one can prove anything that starts with FTL as an assumption...
Anyway, this (http://www.askamathematician.com/2012/07/q-how-does-instantaneous-communication-violate-causality/) site has some decent diagrams that help. Long story short is that because of Special Relativity, the perspective of one object will always see the object in another inertial frame as moving slower. THAT means, anything you see as transmitting instantly, another reference frame will see as moving backwards in time. What is vitally important here, is that as there are no special frames of reference, the receiving person can do the exact same thing. Net result is you can bounce messages back through time.
Well that's pretty much how things are proven in relativity is with pictures. Although in this case I think I'm suggesting those are the wrong pictures to be drawing in the ftl signal case. I know the video I posted is really long but it's p awesome!
Post by: scrdest on April 17, 2015, 04:25:41 am
Daily Fail, but Science Alert confirms it. (http://www.sciencealert.com/human-head-transplants-could-be-a-reality-in-just-two-years)
Post by: Moghjubar on April 17, 2015, 01:24:25 pm
Dr. Sergio Canavero is attempting to make a human head transplant from a Russian patient with a muscle wasting disease to a braindead donor. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3029376/Russian-volunteer-head-transplant-operation-Valery-Spiridonov-says-no-choice-undergo-7-5million-procedure-controversial-Italian-surgeon-Dr-Sergio-Canavero.html)
Daily Fail, but Science Alert confirms it. (http://www.sciencealert.com/human-head-transplants-could-be-a-reality-in-just-two-years)
About damn time we get headswaps.
Post by: Descan on April 17, 2015, 01:38:33 pm
Post by: forsaken1111 on April 17, 2015, 01:44:35 pm
That feels so bullshit. "We have no idea if this stuff will actually work as intended, like at all. But if it doesn't, we have other options to connect the spinal cords!" How does that even get past the drawing board?!Well for one thing there is really not much to lose. The one guy is GOING TO DIE if they don't, and the other guy is a vegetable.
Post by: Tylui on April 17, 2015, 01:52:56 pm
Post by: forsaken1111 on April 17, 2015, 02:01:20 pm
Which one do you think costs more? this or cryogenics?Hard to say. How long do we expect the cryogenics subject to be frozen? I expect the ongoing running costs of keeping a person frozen will eventually eclipse the cost of performing a single operation.
Post by: Flying Dice on April 17, 2015, 02:37:29 pm
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on April 17, 2015, 02:48:55 pm
Post by: Flying Dice on April 17, 2015, 03:15:01 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 17, 2015, 08:32:39 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on April 17, 2015, 09:35:42 pm
PD:
While at first I was somewhat skeptical, and suspected the whole thing being just a publicity stunt, at the very least the guy has quite a few indexed publications (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=canavero+s).
And has written about this before, in 2013 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3821155/), and again in January this year (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4322377/).
Of course, the sciencealert and DM articles make some comments as to how the whole thing is still on the drawing board, and funding-pending, and speculate on the trial beginning two years hence....
One thing: I kind of wonder if they will or not try it on a non-human primate beforehand. Once again, I'm in the dark as to how are these things regulated in Russia, but I kind of think they should nonetheless
And, after all that, they still need a donor, of course.
Post by: Flying Dice on April 17, 2015, 10:28:01 pm
Purely reactive sounds a lot more practical than always-up, to be honest.
More efficient without question, but probably also somewhat less reliable -- if you're relying on sensors to detect situations where the shield is necessary that's another point of failure. Not that constantly maintaining something like that would be practical or possible, I think.
Post by: i2amroy on April 18, 2015, 12:16:58 am
And considering that we do already have a way to essentially clone humans, the ability to do a head- or better yet, a brain- transplant is... well, it would change a lot of things. Not to mention the ethical implications- does a clone have rights if just used as a replacement body, or could we use physical trauma in early stages of development to prevent anything other than essential brain functions from developing whatsoever? You know, careful physical trauma to force the clone-body to be braindead in all but the parts required for body regulation, in order to reduce costs?I wouldn't be surprised if there was a gene treatment out there that if applied during growth could be used to totally prevent the growing body from developing any higher brain functions at all. Much cheaper and less risky than attempting to do it with early physical removal.
What I absolutely don't see happening is that whole "The Island" thing where we grow real people and then harvest them for their organs. That's like a long slippery slope away from where we are in the current day morality.
Post by: wierd on April 18, 2015, 01:22:52 am
And considering that we do already have a way to essentially clone humans, the ability to do a head- or better yet, a brain- transplant is... well, it would change a lot of things. Not to mention the ethical implications- does a clone have rights if just used as a replacement body, or could we use physical trauma in early stages of development to prevent anything other than essential brain functions from developing whatsoever? You know, careful physical trauma to force the clone-body to be braindead in all but the parts required for body regulation, in order to reduce costs?I wouldn't be surprised if there was a gene treatment out there that if applied during growth could be used to totally prevent the growing body from developing any higher brain functions at all. Much cheaper and less risky than attempting to do it with early physical removal.
What I absolutely don't see happening is that whole "The Island" thing where we grow real people and then harvest them for their organs. That's like a long slippery slope away from where we are in the current day morality.
The premise of that movie was absurd. It basically stated that the reason the cloned bodies had to have active minds, was because of some absurd, unsubstantiated requirement the body has for a mind to be there, for it to develop and function correctly.
Nevermind that everything about that is bullshit-- all the body needs is a brainstem, and a feeding tube. That regulates all the essential metabolic activities just fine.
And yes, there are congenital birth defects stemming from genetic and environmental causes that cause anenchephaly. (a defect that cause the fetus to not develop a full head and or brain.)
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly
growing headless bodies, or at least brainless ones, is quite feasible.
Post by: scrdest on April 18, 2015, 06:07:42 am
Post by: martinuzz on April 18, 2015, 10:57:11 am
Their studies seem to suggest that it does not only dampen pain, but emotions as well.
I wonder if paracetamol (and all other painkillers using acetominophen as an active substance) will disappear from the supermarkets soon, and be classified as psycho-active drug.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on April 18, 2015, 11:00:48 am
Post by: Sergarr on April 18, 2015, 11:31:39 am
Post by: scrdest on April 18, 2015, 11:58:26 am
Who needs emotions, anyway?Everyone. For basic decisionmaking processing. There are already experiments showing that.
Post by: Sergarr on April 18, 2015, 12:10:45 pm
Experiments on normal people, or experiments on scientists? I'd think the latter class would retain more of their decision-making processing without emotions.Who needs emotions, anyway?Everyone. For basic decisionmaking processing. There are already experiments showing that.
Post by: wierd on April 18, 2015, 12:14:00 pm
Emotions ARE very well correlated with strong memory retention, which helps to shape decision making later, but dulled emotional responses just means the neocortex does more of the work, instead of the limbic system. You might make more "shockingly rational" (as in, decisions you may regret later because you later feel the decision was 'monsterous', but which is/was perfectly 'rational') decisions with your limbic system supressed/dulled, but it could also help with being more objective overall, since emotive decision making would be dulled.
More curiously, since it seems to work on both positive and negative emotional states, it could be useful for helping to control mild anxiety disorders, as well as mild bouts of manic behavior, and do so in a reasonably safe manner.
Drug efficacy studies for those uses should get some funding. The cheapness and availability of the compound as an OTC pain reliever would make it readily available for the many thousands of untreated sufferers from such conditions, and it does not have the addictive/dependence problems often plaguing more high-powered psychoactive pharmaceuticals.
Post by: Eagleon on April 18, 2015, 12:38:11 pm
Quote
After viewing each photo, participants were asked to rate how positive or negative the photo was on a scale of -5 (extremely negative) to +5 (extremely positive). They then viewed the same photos again and were asked to rate how much the photo made them feel an emotional reaction, from 0 (little or no emotion) to 10 (extreme amount of emotion)...http://news.osu.edu/news/2015/04/13/emotion-reliever/ (http://news.osu.edu/news/2015/04/13/emotion-reliever/)
...For example, people who took the placebo rated their level of emotion relatively high (average score of 6.76) when they saw the most emotionally jarring photos of the malnourished child or the children with kittens...
...People taking acetaminophen didn’t feel as much in either direction, reporting an average level of emotion of 5.85 when they saw the extreme photos.
Drug efficacy studies for those uses should get some funding. The cheapness and availability of the compound as an OTC pain reliever would make it readily available for the many thousands of untreated sufferers from such conditions, and it does not have the addictive/dependence problems often plaguing more high-powered psychoactive pharmaceuticals.As one of those aforementioned sufferers, this is exactly the kind of thing that used to (irrationally) give me nightmares about the antidepressants I once took. It's a little unsettling that there are probably parents that give it to children on pretty much a constant basis, practically from birth.
Post by: SirQuiamus on April 18, 2015, 05:41:57 pm
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracetamol_toxicity
Paracetamol is contained in many preparations, available as both over-the-counter and as prescription-only medications. Because of its wide availability paired with comparably high toxicity, (compared to ibuprofen and aspirin) there is a much higher potential for overdose. Paracetamol toxicity is one of the most common causes of poisoning worldwide. In the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand, paracetamol is the most common cause of drug overdoses. Paracetamol overdose results in more calls to poison control centers in the US than overdose of any other pharmacological substance, accounting for more than 100,000 calls, as well as 56,000 emergency room visits, 2,600 hospitalizations, and 458 deaths due to acute liver failure per year.
Also, that head transplant thing is patently ridiculous. If we already have the technology to fix a severed CNS, why the hell aren't doctors curing quadriplegic patients by reconnecting their spinal cords, without head-swapping?
Post by: Moghjubar on April 18, 2015, 05:47:41 pm
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracetamol_toxicityParacetamol is contained in many preparations, available as both over-the-counter and as prescription-only medications. Because of its wide availability paired with comparably high toxicity, (compared to ibuprofen and aspirin) there is a much higher potential for overdose. Paracetamol toxicity is one of the most common causes of poisoning worldwide. In the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand, paracetamol is the most common cause of drug overdoses. Paracetamol overdose results in more calls to poison control centers in the US than overdose of any other pharmacological substance, accounting for more than 100,000 calls, as well as 56,000 emergency room visits, 2,600 hospitalizations, and 458 deaths due to acute liver failure per year.
Also, that head transplant thing is patently ridiculous. If we already have the technology to fix a severed CNS, why the hell aren't doctors curing quadriplegic patients by reconnecting their spinal cords, without head-swapping?
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/oct/21/paralysed-darek-fidyka-pioneering-surgery
Post by: SirQuiamus on April 18, 2015, 06:07:20 pm
EDIT: But still...
Quote
While some patients with partial spinal injury have made remarkable recoveries, a complete break is generally assumed to be unrepairable.
Post by: Moghjubar on April 19, 2015, 01:53:19 am
Quote
"The 38-year-old, who is believed to be the first person in the world to recover from complete severing of the spinal nerves...."
Post by: ChairmanPoo on April 20, 2015, 11:43:41 am
In his protocol, quoted in a previous post, the guy believes, based on published work in animal models, that by severing the spine in certain special circumstances, he can achieve axonal regeneration.
I'm still skeptical, but the idea is not baseless. I do think that it's at the very least impractical, even if it is ultimately performed and works as intended.
Post by: wierd on April 20, 2015, 12:49:18 pm
the olfactory bulb transplant proceedure puts specialized basal and glial cells into the mix, which carve paths through the scar tissue and guide axon growth through it, allowing the axons to reconnect. In the case of the trial proceedure done in europe, where the guy is now "walking" again (with a walker), they also introduced a severed section of tendon as a graft medium, as a significant portion of the neural tube had been lost due to this apoptosis-- IIRC, a good 2 to 3 cm worth.
The process was novel, because nasal neurons were not thought capable of relaying motor stimulus signals, and thus not suitable as a reservoir of suitable transplant tissues, despite being basically the only fully and freely regenrating neural tissue found in humans. (whole new neurons are produced and integrated by the olfactory bulb. Not just old cells learning new tricks.) The trial proceedure however demonstrates that this is not the case, and that olfactory neuron precursor cells and glial helper cells can be used thereputically for motor and sensory nerve damage related conditions.
Give it a few decades. I bet people with serious spinal trauma will be treated with the regularity that open heart surgery is done now.
Post by: Moghjubar on April 22, 2015, 08:38:11 pm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3050951/Major-asthma-breakthrough-scientists-discover-root-cause-condition-say-new-treatment-5-years-away.html
Post by: Bauglir on April 22, 2015, 10:11:25 pm
Post by: Moghjubar on April 22, 2015, 10:23:57 pm
Post by: Bauglir on April 22, 2015, 10:27:19 pm
Post by: Il Palazzo on April 23, 2015, 08:00:58 am
being basically the only fully and freely regenrating neural tissue found in humans. (whole new neurons are produced and integrated by the olfactory bulb. Not just old cells learning new tricks.)Is that a different process to the neurogenesis in hippocampus?
Post by: wierd on April 23, 2015, 10:37:35 am
You just have your more normal glia in the rest of the CNS that are involved in early fetal development, myelin production, and all that fun stuff.
Besides, it's easier to harvest cells from the olfactory bulb of the patient without making them into a gibbering vegetable than it is to harvest from the hippocampus.
Post by: redwallzyl on April 23, 2015, 11:17:27 pm
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-ticker/gene-human-embryos-altered-chinese-researchers
also Yellowstone!
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/massive-magma-pool-found-deep-below-yellowstone?tgt=nr
Post by: hops on April 24, 2015, 12:55:36 am
I think this will herald the era of 100% male chinese population.
Post by: wierd on April 24, 2015, 01:05:56 am
Post by: hops on April 24, 2015, 01:57:46 am
Post by: scrdest on April 24, 2015, 05:06:56 am
oh china, always so controversial.I'm actually supportive of that, as presented.
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-ticker/gene-human-embryos-altered-chinese-researchers
The article states the embryos are non-viable, the aim is laudable - if they'd eventually succeed, it will be a breakthrough in gene therapy - and the finding that Cas9 is not entirely accurate is an important thing to know.
Post by: redwallzyl on April 26, 2015, 01:32:20 am
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/culture-beaker/sometimes-it%E2%80%99s-best-feed-trolls
Post by: ChairmanPoo on April 28, 2015, 07:02:06 pm
oh china, always so controversial.I'm actually supportive of that, as presented.
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-ticker/gene-human-embryos-altered-chinese-researchers
The article states the embryos are non-viable, the aim is laudable - if they'd eventually succeed, it will be a breakthrough in gene therapy - and the finding that Cas9 is not entirely accurate is an important thing to know.
It was very useful. They actually discovered that germline meddling, even with CRISPR, results in off-target mutations which can cascade down during development. Now, this was pretty much suspected from beforehand (that's why gene therapy trials and experiments normally focus in adult somatic cells, barring a few notable exceptions), but it does provide some proof of concept for that suspicion.
Post by: Arx on May 05, 2015, 11:58:35 am
For the people too lazy or time-pressed to cook and too fond of actually eating for soylent?
Post by: Sergarr on May 05, 2015, 12:01:59 pm
Post by: Arx on May 05, 2015, 12:02:49 pm
Post by: Sergarr on May 05, 2015, 12:06:28 pm
Also, adding sugar to bread-and-butter. Try it!
Post by: forsaken1111 on May 05, 2015, 12:08:09 pm
Also, adding sugar to bread-and-butter. Try it!Other people do this too?!
Post by: Rose on May 05, 2015, 12:08:43 pm
Yes, but can you make a chocolate soufflé in thirty seconds?
Just EXTERMINATE
Post by: Sergarr on May 05, 2015, 12:11:07 pm
It was apparently a very popular recipe in Soviet Union, due to oftentimes-present lack of real sweets. The more you know!Also, adding sugar to bread-and-butter. Try it!Other people do this too?!
Post by: Sheb on May 05, 2015, 01:32:58 pm
Post by: scrdest on May 05, 2015, 01:40:31 pm
My mum had an even more barebones version of that in her childhood - water-sprinkled bread with sugar.It was apparently a very popular recipe in Soviet Union, due to oftentimes-present lack of real sweets. The more you know!Also, adding sugar to bread-and-butter. Try it!Other people do this too?!
Post by: Frumple on May 05, 2015, 01:56:05 pm
Sugar in general, really. So bad for you, so good to you ♥
Post by: Solifuge on May 10, 2015, 04:22:05 pm
Folks who think it'd be neat for people to be able to choose their biological sex take note; apparently Testes can become Ovaries, and Ovaries can become Testes (complete with the expected hormones, and the possibility of even reproductive cells), based on the balance of two competing sex-determination proteins coded by these genes. And this switch can happen even in adulthood, across most (all?) species that have sexes, and in a reversible fashion.
Spoiler: Some of the Science in question (click to show/hide)
Normally, bodies have both of these genes coding for their proteins, but a competitive feedback system keeps it tipped in favor of whichever protein is currently in dominance. However, by deactivating one of these genes, or potentially by using supplements to make the other protein more prevalent in the bloodstream, it tips a feedback system in favor of that protein's production, causing that person's jumblies to become the other kind of jumblies; Ovaries to become Testes (FOXL2 > DMRT1) or Testes to become Ovaries (DMRT1 > FOXL2). Looking at other studies, it's an old biological mechanism, probably as old as Sex Differentiation itself, since it's found as far back as our common ancestor with flatworms and insects. I'd hazard a guess the organisms that can switch their expressed sex during their lifetime (lots of fish and amphibians, and some insects) evolved a way to control this system. One theory is that this competetive feedback loop that keeps production tipped strongly in favor of one or the other separately from their genome seems to be a failsafe for keeping biological sex binary, and in keeping mutations in sex-determination from producing sterile intersex adults in some cases.
Apart from knocking out these genes to induce a sex change, I believe this means we could create a sort of medication to switch the gender expression of a person's reproductive organs back and forth, along with the appropriate hormonal effects, by synthesizing these proteins artificially (say, bacterial protein factories with FOXL2/DMRT1 genes inserted). I am excited for the future when choosing what biological sex you want to express is a simple thing, but some of the other possibilities are pretty crazy and cool too.
A few possible applications for this research, off the top of my head:
- We could treat infertility related to intersex conditions, as well as mutations of FOXL2/DMRT1 that produce malfunctioning versions of these proteins. A lot of people deal with infertility, and this could be a major breakthrough in treatment.
- Same-sex partners looking to have children could potentially use a therapy like this to switch their junk to opposite-sex junk temporarily, make their own complimentary gametes, and use in-vitro techniques to produce biological offspring as though they were opposite-sex. So you could literally have 2 biological dads/moms. Raises some ethical concerns, in that 2 female parents would only produce female children, and 2 male parents would result in 25% of pregnancies being non-viable YYs. I've no idea if male Y-Chromosome eggs would be viable either, if their cellular functions need genes found on the X Chromosome... but even if so, it still would create new options for same-sex couples.
- It enables people, especially younger people, to choose the sex their body will express physically in a way that doesn't require hormone supplements. Transgender persons could switch their body's physical sex, even keep their existing jumblies, and switch them into other-sex mode. For post-puberty trans-folks, this wouldn't remove most of their existing physical characteristics, but it would induce new hormone-based secondary sex characteristics like voice-dropping and facial hair, or breast development, etc. Also, paired with advances in surgery, they could get fully functional reproductive organs that match the sex they identify with too.
- People could potentially create an in-vitro child entirely by themselves. Said child would be a complete genetic clone. ._.
Post by: Sergarr on May 10, 2015, 04:29:09 pm
I don't think genetics work like that.
- People could potentially create an in-vitro child entirely by themselves. Said child would be a complete genetic clone. ._.
Post by: Solifuge on May 10, 2015, 04:35:48 pm
Post by: forsaken1111 on May 10, 2015, 04:37:16 pm
I'm pretty sure it does actually.[/list]I don't think genetics work like that.
- People could potentially create an in-vitro child entirely by themselves. Said child would be a complete genetic clone. ._.
Post by: Sheb on May 10, 2015, 04:37:39 pm
Post by: forsaken1111 on May 10, 2015, 04:40:12 pm
Yeah, then your kid would be a super-inbred.Depends on what you mean by that. Technically yes, you would be 'inbred' as inbreeding is the mating of humans who are closely related genetically. It's hard to get closer related than that.
But the created individual would genetically just be a copy of yourself.
Post by: Solifuge on May 10, 2015, 04:42:02 pm
Post by: scrdest on May 10, 2015, 04:42:13 pm
Yeah, then your kid would be a super-inbred.And likely wouldn't be a clone anyway, it'd be a perfect homozygote half of the time, and messed up epigenetically the other half of the time. Which would be a *bit* of a genetic difference between the two of you. And also probably would die in utero.
E: Soli, you don't grok genetics. That kid would, best case, be your clone with massive epigenetic disorders.
Post by: penguinofhonor on May 10, 2015, 04:43:25 pm
Post by: forsaken1111 on May 10, 2015, 04:45:02 pm
Yeah, it wouldn't be a clone. Each gamete used to make the resulting embryo would have 50% of your genes at randomEr... where would the genes come from the other 50% of the time?
Post by: scrdest on May 10, 2015, 04:47:07 pm
Yeah, it wouldn't be a clone. Each gamete used to make the resulting embryo would have 50% of your genes at random, but they would have a lot of the same ones. Your child would be very genetically similar, but would have a lot more homozygous genes than you. This means they'll probably show recessive traits that you carried but didn't express.[/list]Urgh, no. It's not a tossup for every GENE, it's a tossup for each CHROMOSOME, with some additional complexity caused by crossing-over.
Other strand of DNA. You have two, yanno.Yeah, it wouldn't be a clone. Each gamete used to make the resulting embryo would have 50% of your genes at randomEr... where would the genes come from the other 50% of the time?
Post by: penguinofhonor on May 10, 2015, 04:49:48 pm
Post by: Sheb on May 10, 2015, 04:50:45 pm
However, I don't really see this having any use in the short term: your biological sex is such a complex beast, made of so many parts, that you wouldn't be able to switch back and forth. Sure, some of your balls cells now share some cytological characteristics with ovary cells, but we don't have the machinery needed to reorganize all the plumbing and stuff needed for normal function.
Post by: andrea on May 10, 2015, 04:51:38 pm
for each gene, each of us has 2 alleles ( versions of the gene), one from each parent. Each of our reproductive cells carry one of those alleles, but which one it carries is random.
So, for example lets assume that our genome is made by the couples of alleles (A1-A2) (B1-B2) (C1-C2) (D1-D2).
We prduce a sex cell. It gets A1, B2, C2, D2
We produce another. It gets A1, B1, C2, D2
If those 2 cells combine to produce offsprin, the child will have this genome: (A1-A1) (B1-B2) (C2-C2) (D2-D2), which is different from that of the parent.
edit: ninjaed, hard. And yes, not totally random. (just assume crossover if necessary in the above example)
Post by: scrdest on May 10, 2015, 04:53:25 pm
I was under the impression that there was a lot of crossing over.Sure, but it's complex, chances of c/o scale with distance between genes - matter of fact, that's what was used to map genomes, c/o frequency as a unit of distance.
while we get half of our DNA from each parent, a vhild born by only one parent wouldn't necessarily be a clone, as far as I understand it.(disclaimer: not a biologist, working on wikipedia and high school biology)You're using independent inheritance, which is only valid if the genes lie on different chromosomes.
for each gene, each of us has 2 alleles ( versions of the gene), one from each parent. Each of our reproductive cells carry one of those alleles, but which one it carries is random.
So, for example lets assume that our genome is made by the couples of alleles (A1-A2) (B1-B2) (C1-C2) (D1-D2).
We prduce a sex cell. It gets A1, B2, C2, D2
We produce another. It gets A1, B1, C2, D2
If those 2 cells combine to produce offsprin, the child will have this genome: (A1-A1) (B1-B2) (C2-C2) (D2-D2), which is different from that of the parent.
Post by: andrea on May 10, 2015, 04:56:44 pm
Post by: Solifuge on May 10, 2015, 04:59:30 pm
Anyway, I'm pretty excited about the possibilities FOXL2/DMRT1 research presents for same-sex couples to have bio-babies with each other, or the ramifications for transgendered folks too. I think a society in which people picked their sex (at least more aspects of physical sex than we presently can) along with their gender could be pretty neat. :3
Post by: Sheb on May 10, 2015, 05:01:56 pm
BTW, I just learned that most eukaryotes carefully manage the number of crossovers so that each chromosome (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180580/#!po=11.5385) pairs get a least one and no more than a couple (https://xkcd.com/1070/). So genes on the opposite ends of a chromosome might as well be considered independent.
Post by: scrdest on May 10, 2015, 05:08:34 pm
Post by: Sheb on May 10, 2015, 05:14:18 pm
Post by: Frumple on May 10, 2015, 05:26:30 pm
The future is bright.
Post by: wierd on May 10, 2015, 10:44:20 pm
It could also have some (horrible!) implications for helping to revive lost species, since you could get both kinds of genetic crossing from a tissue sample, regardless of what the gender of the mammalian organism is. (EG, say for trying to unextinctify woolly mammoths, where you might not have very good depth of the genepool, and need as many gametes as you possibly can stored on ice to make any such project even remotely successful.) I say it would have horrible implications, because you would--at best-- end up with a population so deeply inbred that they have serious problems-- much like modern cheetah populations.
Later, as organ and tissue engineering gets more mature, it may be useful for more complete gender reassignments as a source of reprogrammed tissue to use to populate an organ scaffold prior to implantation.
I think the horror of eugenics that came about in the 30s and 40s is still sufficiently fresh in the scientific literature to .... dissuade.. moronic people with political and racial axes to grind to avoid trying to have such seriously inbred offspring by misusing this discovery. .... I hope.
Post by: Il Palazzo on May 11, 2015, 09:10:48 am
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/apl/106/18/10.1063/1.4917498
Post by: wierd on May 11, 2015, 02:20:40 pm
I could see it being the basis of reasearch into WHY the onion epidermal cells are able to accomplish this task once acidified-- coupled with some genetic engineering to produce tissues that are more efficient at it, and which produce their own acidity-- and maybe even their own electrical charges (you could concievably get onion stalks that "lash" using momentary ion exchanges in the acidified epidermal tissue.), but as a commercial soft muscle? Probably not.
Post by: Eagleon on May 11, 2015, 10:12:20 pm
To be fair it was also just a single layer of cells, and not exactly purpose-made for this purpose. The cells had to be stripped of hemicellulose and pectin (the paper is free to look at, for goddamn once - thank you, AIP) This is interesting because cellulose is a fairly simple thing to make, chemically, using a low-temperature reaction, and extremely cheap - if you could get a consistant way to make large sheets with a structure that takes advantage of the bending, provided they could be layered to amplify their strength, and without that pesky gold sputter it needs to work now, it might get some use in consumer robotics. Then again I'm still banking on the fishing (http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/robotics/robotics-hardware/fishing-line-makes-superhuman-artificial-muscles) line (http://www.sciencefriday.com/blogs/03/06/2014/how-to-make-an-artificial-muscle-out-of-fishing-line.html) ones finding wider use.While interesting, the voltage requirements (0 to 1000v? really?) and the maximum deflection force (50uN! Micro Newtons! The EmDrive has more push!) are very unworkable as a robot muscle. You would get much better thrust to power consumption response using thermal memory metal based artificial muscle, which gets MUCH more contraction, MUCH more force, for that same applied voltage.Early days, son. TVs used to have tiny screens and were massive.
...did I just use the term 'son'?
Post by: redwallzyl on May 18, 2015, 06:59:22 pm
http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.06751
Post by: wierd on May 18, 2015, 07:02:44 pm
While an interesting and provocative finding, the experiment needs considerable revision and control assessment before being repeated seriously.
Post by: Arx on May 21, 2015, 01:54:01 pm
Cybernetics are now.
Post by: forsaken1111 on May 21, 2015, 02:36:14 pm
Paywalled, but the picture and opening paragraphs say a lot. (https://www.sciencenews.org/article/brain-implants-let-paralyzed-man-move-robotic-arm)What an unfortunate angle. It looks like he's employing a robotic prostitute.
Cybernetics are now.
Post by: redwallzyl on May 21, 2015, 06:14:25 pm
https://www.innocentive.com/ar/challenge/9933746
Post by: wierd on May 21, 2015, 07:36:58 pm
help NASA go to mars! win money!
https://www.innocentive.com/ar/challenge/9933746
Isnt that a braingate BCI? those have been in experimental trials for.... shit, more than 6 years now?
IIRC, they have problems with the micro electrode array producing neural scar tissue at the implantation site, resulting in reduced efficiency of the array over time.
There's better tech on the horizon made using bioluminescent protiens and surface mounted optical sensors that should eliminate the scartissue issues however.
Post by: redwallzyl on May 21, 2015, 08:18:05 pm
no idea what any of that has to do with the link.help NASA go to mars! win money!
https://www.innocentive.com/ar/challenge/9933746
Isnt that a braingate BCI? those have been in experimental trials for.... shit, more than 6 years now?
IIRC, they have problems with the micro electrode array producing neural scar tissue at the implantation site, resulting in reduced efficiency of the array over time.
There's better tech on the horizon made using bioluminescent protiens and surface mounted optical sensors that should eliminate the scartissue issues however.
Post by: forsaken1111 on May 21, 2015, 09:01:42 pm
Isn't epigenetics mostly reset during fecundation?wrong quoting never happens
Post by: Dutchling on May 21, 2015, 09:02:27 pm
true thatwrong quoting never happensBesides, do we really want to reduce the game down to repeating beard memes? DF is plenty capable of generating its own memes without having to rehash every Flanderization of the race that's already pretty Flanderized.
Hey now, we won't be "reducing the game down" in any way, just adding a few beard memes in. That's a bit of hyperbole.
I think if it was actually a part of Dwarven society to respect one's beard then this would make sense. I support the introduction of that to Dwarven culture but we have to get the groundwork in first.
Post by: wierd on May 21, 2015, 10:32:38 pm
The correct thread was about "Cyborgs are now" previously, with the people who have been testing BCIs for remote prosthesis. The setup looks like a BrainGate BCI, judging from the skullcap connector, and placement of incision.
Post by: hops on May 22, 2015, 04:42:42 am
His expression doesn't help.Paywalled, but the picture and opening paragraphs say a lot. (https://www.sciencenews.org/article/brain-implants-let-paralyzed-man-move-robotic-arm)What an unfortunate angle. It looks like he's employing a robotic prostitute.
Cybernetics are now.
Post by: ajar on May 22, 2015, 09:09:31 am
http://www.buzzfeed.com/kevinsmith/real-men-grill-steaks-with-molten-lava?bffb&utm_term=4ldqphx#.te0EMYjek (http://www.buzzfeed.com/kevinsmith/real-men-grill-steaks-with-molten-lava?bffb&utm_term=4ldqphx#.te0EMYjek)
Post by: tryrar on May 22, 2015, 10:08:11 am
Post by: Putnam on May 22, 2015, 12:50:57 pm
Post by: redwallzyl on May 24, 2015, 07:21:47 am
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2015/march/ssc-space-athena-laser.html
Post by: MonkeyHead on May 24, 2015, 11:34:33 am
laser tank anyone? anyway we finally did it we made deadly lasers.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2015/march/ssc-space-athena-laser.html
Seems a step up in capability from the naval system that has been used of the Horn of Africa recently.
Oh, and the Soviets had one too, though in a traditionally pointless and inefficient manner: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1K17_Szhatie
Post by: 10ebbor10 on May 24, 2015, 04:08:54 pm
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyus_(spacecraft)
Post by: Scoops Novel on May 27, 2015, 04:25:54 pm
Get cracking, whatever it is.
Post by: hops on May 27, 2015, 05:52:41 pm
Basically the idea is that normally when you look at tissue samples you need to stain them with chemicals otherwise you can't see jack shit. The new technology basically generate a stained computer image for analysis.
As someone whose mother is a doctor, I find that staining tissues is a huge pain in the ass, so this is pretty interesting.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on June 01, 2015, 08:18:56 pm
Post by: miauw62 on June 02, 2015, 12:58:05 am
Post by: ChairmanPoo on June 02, 2015, 01:09:24 am
Post by: scrdest on June 02, 2015, 01:49:29 am
Post by: ChairmanPoo on June 02, 2015, 04:56:50 am
Post by: penguinofhonor on June 05, 2015, 08:47:12 am
Spoiler: this eldritch thing is a real animal (click to show/hide)
Post by: Radio Controlled on June 05, 2015, 08:50:00 am
Scientists recently sent a probe thing into the deep sea near Puerto Rico. Watched a short video (https://youtu.be/KEjU6RhoSGU) of some of the things they found.Spoiler: this eldritch thing is a real animal (click to show/hide)
Oh you poor fool, so delusional. You act as if it didn't claim it already, long ago.
Post by: scrdest on June 05, 2015, 11:34:30 am
Scientists recently sent a probe thing into the deep sea near Puerto Rico. Watched a short video (https://youtu.be/KEjU6RhoSGU) of some of the things they found.It's less 'eldritch' and more 'come on guys, which one of you shopped your will-o-the-wisp concept art onto the photos?'Spoiler: this eldritch thing is a real animal (click to show/hide)
Post by: Descan on June 05, 2015, 02:06:16 pm
Post by: Arx on June 07, 2015, 01:34:06 pm
First time vertebrates have been found to produce viable offspring through parthenogenesis.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on June 07, 2015, 02:12:24 pm
First time vertebrates have been found to produce viable offspring through parthenogenesis.
Not quite. There are quite a few examples of parthenogenesis in vertebrates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis#Reptiles read from there onward
Post by: Arx on June 07, 2015, 02:14:29 pm
Post by: Furtuka on June 27, 2015, 04:53:37 pm
Post by: Reelya on June 28, 2015, 01:01:01 am
Evidence of parthenogenesis in sawfish. (https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/wild-things/%E2%80%98virgin-births%E2%80%99-won%E2%80%99t-save-endangered-sawfish)
First time vertebrates have been found to produce viable offspring through parthenogenesis.
What about the lesbian lizards? The current article is incorrect in it's claim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexico_whiptail
Post by: Sergarr on June 28, 2015, 09:44:56 am
Post by: Sirus on June 28, 2015, 11:24:11 am
A third attempt atDang. At least no one was on-board :(getting supplies to ISS1st stage barge landing, unsuccessful due to explosions. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeiBFtkrZEw)
Post by: redwallzyl on July 09, 2015, 03:44:40 pm
Post by: wierd on July 10, 2015, 01:05:33 pm
Scientists create neural composite network of 4 adult rat brains, use it to run some simulations.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/14/science/scientists-demonstrate-animal-mind-melds.html?_r=0
Post by: Furtuka on July 10, 2015, 01:07:28 pm
Post by: Bumber on July 11, 2015, 02:47:44 am
Post by: Bauglir on July 11, 2015, 07:38:17 am
Also in the science news--So we made a Rat King
Scientists create neural composite network of 4 adult rat brains, use it to run some simulations.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/14/science/scientists-demonstrate-animal-mind-melds.html?_r=0
Post by: scrdest on July 11, 2015, 09:14:54 am
Also in the science news--Rats confirmed for Sectoids.
Scientists create neural composite network of 4 adult rat brains, use it to run some simulations.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/14/science/scientists-demonstrate-animal-mind-melds.html?_r=0
Post by: Frumple on July 11, 2015, 10:49:45 am
Post by: Flying Dice on July 12, 2015, 06:56:30 pm
-NASA (https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/newhorizons/main/index.html)
New Horizon's closest approach is slated to be 7:49:57 A.M. EDT, July 14th. Get hyped for the best little planet that isn't.
Post by: forsaken1111 on July 13, 2015, 05:09:28 am
Post by: PTTG?? on July 15, 2015, 12:11:09 pm
Post by: SirQuiamus on July 17, 2015, 12:52:35 pm
"We Pluto now."
-NASA (https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/newhorizons/main/index.html)
New Horizon's closest approach is slated to be 7:49:57 A.M. EDT, July 14th. Get hyped for the best little planet that isn't.
NUH-UH! (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/07/15/internet-conspiracy-nuts-are-already-calling-pluto-flyby-a-fake-images-video/)
Quote
ASTRONOMY FOR DUMMIES – The ONE BASIC FACT – read and weep about yourself
Any celestial body that can not be observed with a telescope located ON Earth, is fake.
This one basic fact implies that for instance Pluto (the first example among millions) is an invention created by the illuminati [sic]. Decades later the illuminati [sic] used NASA and the soviet space agency to serially produce Pluto type of hoaxes.
NASA FAKED IT PLUTO DOES NOT EXIST WAKE UP SHEEPLE
Post by: Arx on July 17, 2015, 01:41:11 pm
Or the alleged pentaquark. Or something.
My sister's a particle physicist, so the family's kind of excited right now.
Post by: Levi on July 17, 2015, 04:09:45 pm
Post by: Putnam on July 17, 2015, 04:11:29 pm
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/39woqa/what_would_happen_to_me_and_everything_around_me/
IIRC, in standard reddit fashion, it became popular because it was enjoyable regardless of accuracy, so uh
Post by: miauw62 on July 19, 2015, 10:28:34 am
Also, how is something twice the mass of earth going to disturb the asteroid belt???
Post by: Dutrius on July 19, 2015, 10:35:18 am
Also, how is something twice the mass of earth going to disturb the asteroid belt???
gravitational pertubations would affect the orbits significantly over the long term.
Post by: redwallzyl on July 19, 2015, 07:14:58 pm
Post by: Bauglir on July 19, 2015, 07:39:49 pm
There was a video on this I watched on YouTube and basicly it should explode like an atomic bomb if its a black hole that is that mass of a quarter and if it is just the size of a quarter it should eat the earth.
Today I learned why I shouldn't put a mini black hole in my pocket (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nHBGFKLHZQ).was it this one
Post by: forsaken1111 on July 20, 2015, 07:10:06 am
There was a video on this I watched on YouTube and basicly it should explode like an atomic bomb if its a black hole that is that mass of a quarter and if it is just the size of a quarter it should eat the earth.Was it that video posted above which started this whole conversation perhaps? :P
Post by: redwallzyl on July 20, 2015, 08:34:12 am
There was a video on this I watched on YouTube and basicly it should explode like an atomic bomb if its a black hole that is that mass of a quarter and if it is just the size of a quarter it should eat the earth.Today I learned why I shouldn't put a mini black hole in my pocket (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nHBGFKLHZQ).was it this one
Yes
Post by: Ddynamo on July 25, 2015, 10:03:34 am
Spoiler: Say Hello to Pluto. (click to show/hide)
Post by: Helgoland on July 25, 2015, 10:07:55 am
Spoiler: Waaaay ahead of you (click to show/hide)
Post by: forsaken1111 on July 25, 2015, 10:17:50 am
New Horizons Space Probe finally got a picture of Pluto.Didn't this happen a few weeks ago?Spoiler: Say Hello to Pluto. (click to show/hide)
Post by: Mech#4 on July 25, 2015, 10:24:03 am
Post by: hops on July 26, 2015, 03:24:06 pm
Friggin' Yog Sothoth, photobombing New Horizons.Spoiler: Waaaay ahead of you (click to show/hide)
Post by: Ddynamo on July 26, 2015, 06:16:23 pm
They've got a number of neat photos of mountain ranges, ice flows and other features on Pluto and Charon. (http://www.nasa.gov/feature/new-horizons-discovers-flowing-ices-on-pluto)
Post by: ChairmanPoo on July 26, 2015, 07:16:14 pm
I *think* however, that the most interesting bit, and what I want to share with you, was the presentation made by a guy from the Pennsylvania university.
Basically, Novartis has thrown it's weight behind them and shit's getting real with CAR T- Cell therapy:
- The results for their anti-CD19 are looking sweet so far. In fact, they're starting a worldwide trial for it (this kind of thing requires lots of money... would have been impossible if Novartis hadn't stepped in)
- They're developing portable machines to prepare CAR T-Cells, as to be able to generate them in a more automated fashion, and make the whole thing cheaper and more avaiable for the general public
- They're also developing a procedure to generate new CAR T-Cell lines against new tumors in a more automated fashion
- They have started or are about to start clinical trials against 8 malignancies or so. Including several solid tumors.
- Furthermore, there's ANOTHER big company which has thrown it's weight in CARs: Celgene is developing it's own anti-CD-19, and there are two large institutions (Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and... some other) working a lot in this stuff as well.
Post by: Descan on July 26, 2015, 08:44:33 pm
Post by: Bauglir on July 26, 2015, 10:25:15 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on July 27, 2015, 01:12:03 am
Quote
it can be done, but they (that is this group) dId not, to prevent relapse in the case of ALL and because responses were often delayed in CLL.
Do they have any way to actually get rid of the CAR T-Cells safely or no?
Post by: martinuzz on August 04, 2015, 09:44:15 am
Even though efficiency still needs upgrading (it is not bad though), the nanowires are also much cheaper in rare materials cost than any other solar cell so far.
If I were a rich man, I'd invest in this right now.
http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology-news/newsid=40801.php (http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology-news/newsid=40801.php)
https://www.tue.nl/en/university/news-and-press/news/17-07-2015-nanowires-give-solar-fuel-cell-efficiency-a-tenfold-boost/
Post by: ChairmanPoo on August 04, 2015, 09:58:19 am
If I were a rich manYubby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dum (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pl7BVr36bbs)
Post by: wierd on August 04, 2015, 11:05:29 am
My hometown university made a major breakthrough in solar fuel cell technology recently. Using gallium phosphide nanowires, they are able to use sunlight to split water into oxygen and hydrogen.
Even though efficiency still needs upgrading (it is not bad though), the nanowires are also much cheaper in rare materials cost than any other solar cell so far.
If I were a rich man, I'd invest in this right now.
http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology-news/newsid=40801.php (http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology-news/newsid=40801.php)
https://www.tue.nl/en/university/news-and-press/news/17-07-2015-nanowires-give-solar-fuel-cell-efficiency-a-tenfold-boost/
Dont titanium dioxide (titanium white, it's cheap, it's what makes white latex paint white) nanopillars do the same thing (http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph240/seh2/) with some absurd efficiency when exposed to UV?
Since the issue with pure titanium dioxide is the fast hole-electron recombination, and since gallium phosphide looks like a pretty beefy semiconductor-- could the nanowires be combined with the titanium dioxide nanopillars to achieve the same end, instead of using silver or gold as an electron sink?
Post by: Arx on August 04, 2015, 12:45:32 pm
My hometown university made a major breakthrough in solar fuel cell technology recently. Using gallium phosphide nanowires, they are able to use sunlight to split water into oxygen and hydrogen.
Even though efficiency still needs upgrading (it is not bad though), the nanowires are also much cheaper in rare materials cost than any other solar cell so far.
If I were a rich man, I'd invest in this right now.
http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology-news/newsid=40801.php (http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology-news/newsid=40801.php)
https://www.tue.nl/en/university/news-and-press/news/17-07-2015-nanowires-give-solar-fuel-cell-efficiency-a-tenfold-boost/
This is pretty cool.
3D printed supercar. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/04/us-usa-3d-printed-supercar-idUSKCN0Q91W020150804?feedType=RSS&feedName=scienceNews)
This is apparently pretty good carbon-wise compared to a factory, so it's cool if they can get it going large-scale.
Post by: iceball3 on August 05, 2015, 06:52:04 pm
"You wouldn't download a car"My hometown university made a major breakthrough in solar fuel cell technology recently. Using gallium phosphide nanowires, they are able to use sunlight to split water into oxygen and hydrogen.
Even though efficiency still needs upgrading (it is not bad though), the nanowires are also much cheaper in rare materials cost than any other solar cell so far.
If I were a rich man, I'd invest in this right now.
http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology-news/newsid=40801.php (http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology-news/newsid=40801.php)
https://www.tue.nl/en/university/news-and-press/news/17-07-2015-nanowires-give-solar-fuel-cell-efficiency-a-tenfold-boost/
This is pretty cool.
3D printed supercar. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/04/us-usa-3d-printed-supercar-idUSKCN0Q91W020150804?feedType=RSS&feedName=scienceNews)
This is apparently pretty good carbon-wise compared to a factory, so it's cool if they can get it going large-scale.
"I would if I could!"
well... there we go.
Neat news nonetheless, I wonder how materials manufacturing on large scale compares between normal car manufacturing? The production line helps speed up production by spreading out construction to many specialized machines, for instance.
That said, making a card out of carbon fiber is interesting.
Post by: Gentlefish on August 06, 2015, 04:28:10 pm
Post by: Sheb on August 06, 2015, 04:30:57 pm
Post by: forsaken1111 on August 06, 2015, 07:19:22 pm
What's the advantage though? We're pretty damn good at manufacturing.printing usually means less material used overall and you can do some pretty unique 3D structure stuff which would be difficult or impossible to mill or cast
Post by: nogoodnames on August 06, 2015, 07:26:46 pm
Post by: wierd on August 07, 2015, 01:01:24 am
Industrial robots are..... Very stupid. They run very literal, very exacting programs. Not much fuzzy logic in manufacturing.
Sintered metal (what aluminum 3D printing really is) also has structural limitations that solid machined metal does not have.
1) It has an amorphous/irregular/unpredictable grain direction
2) It has small voids in the resulting material
3) resulting metal grain structure has unpredictable grain size/orientation.
Combined, this makes the material have unpredictable strain and stress characteristics, making it less ideal for load bearing or structural components. The void problem makes the material more prone to stress fracture, especially from accoustic vibrations.
There's a reason why milled parts are milled. The designer of the part needed at least one of the following characteristics of milled metal:
1) Predictable grain direction (To mitigate internal stresses)
2) Uniform material composition
3) Controlled metal grain size and orientation.
Most CNC machines on a factory floor will have a tool carousel that has stock tools in it. (End mills, spot drills, face mills, etc.) The NC programmer will try to stick to these stock tools as much as is inhumanly possible, because the loading and unloading of custom tools into the tool carousel is where the infamous "Retooling" time comes in. As long as the actual tool numbers and tools remain constant between jobs, there is no retooling, even when making radically different parts.
If your assembly line keeps certain metal types in fixed work cells to maximize/economize workflow, then even having dissimilar metals in the production flow wont result in retooling. (Tools made for cutting aluminum are NOT the same as tools made for cutting steel, inconel, or other hard metals!! The cutting methodologies that are most efficient are VERY different! Tools made for steel will gum up when cutting aluminum, and tools made for aluminum will burn up/snap off when cutting steel. For this reason (as well as keeping waste streams seperate for recycling) dissimilar metals need to stay in different work cells, then converge at the assembly stage.
Other than producing shapes that physically cannot be either formed, or machined, (and castings are too inconsistent/inaccurate), I dont see a real niche for 3D printed metals. To me, the place they would shine would be in very novel shaped items that no tool in the universe can produce with subtractive manufacturing.
Say, things that purposefully have a large void inside them, or have some complex internal structure. (think corrugated cardboard, only made from aluminum)
Post by: Bumber on August 07, 2015, 01:20:25 am
Post by: wierd on August 07, 2015, 01:48:56 am
Where 3D printed metal shines, is for novel metal parts that make use of internal structures not attainable any other way.
Post by: Sheb on August 07, 2015, 01:50:40 am
Post by: Osmosis Jones on August 07, 2015, 06:25:21 am
Or, you can use a hammer die in the hydropress, and get the same result, cheaper, with stronger metal.
Where 3D printed metal shines, is for novel metal parts that make use of internal structures not attainable any other way.
Internal structures yes, but there are other situations as well; implant materials will be huge. My background is orthopaedic biomaterials, and honestly, laser-sintered Ti-based implants are the future. Aside from being able to make them porous, 3D printed medical implants are a perfect example of a situation where the customisation possibilities (e.g. larger/smaller/longer stem/wider head/etc) is far and away more valuable than the cost savings of casting, and as long as the material is sufficiently corrosion resistant and bio-inert, an implant can easily and rapidly be sintered together with mechanical properties far in excess of what is necessary.
Plus, since Ti is already an utter bitch to work with, people use powder metallurgy a lot anyway; it's rapid-manufacturing rather than press-and-sinter, but it's an easier migration.
Post by: Dutrius on August 07, 2015, 07:30:56 am
Post by: i2amroy on August 07, 2015, 09:15:02 am
Post by: alway on August 07, 2015, 12:05:14 pm
How good would 3D printing be for nanoscale engineering? Can we make structures that precisely yet?That's what a computer is. Though they typically only do a few layers since the process is hella expensive. Basically you print a layer at a time with some sort of vapor deposition technique.
Post by: Dutrius on August 07, 2015, 01:24:30 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on August 08, 2015, 06:36:30 pm
Post by: forsaken1111 on August 08, 2015, 06:41:05 pm
Random metallurgy/materials science question. How hard would it be to put a metal jacket around a hollow glass spheroid that is filled with fluid?I'd imagine that would depend on what metal, and what fluid. And what kind of glass. I doubt it would be too hard to tack weld 2 halves of a steel shell around a glass ball full of water.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on August 08, 2015, 06:43:05 pm
Preferably a smooth jacket around the glass spheroid.
Post by: Helgoland on August 08, 2015, 06:46:03 pm
Post by: forsaken1111 on August 08, 2015, 06:48:23 pm
Post by: Bauglir on August 08, 2015, 07:19:52 pm
Post by: Sergarr on August 08, 2015, 07:34:03 pm
Freezing mercury bullets - for when you absolutely must kill that fucking werewolf fire elemental.I once played a game which had freezing mercury bullets... they were frikking deadly, as in, "three-four shots erase your lifebar" deadly.
Post by: hops on August 08, 2015, 08:07:38 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on August 08, 2015, 08:15:32 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on August 08, 2015, 08:16:40 pm
Just has to keep the acid from the metal before you use the bullets
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on August 08, 2015, 08:22:06 pm
And the abide doesn't have to eat through the copper jacket, have you ever seen a FMJ hitting armor (like metal armor not Kevlar) the bullet IIRC tears apart or at least if it was just a copper jacket filled with sand and acid it would
Post by: tryrar on August 08, 2015, 08:23:52 pm
*Realizes we're actually seriously trying to find practical ways of making acid bullets*
*Further realizes we're now on yet ANOTHER watchlist :P*
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on August 08, 2015, 08:26:16 pm
*points at sig text*
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on August 08, 2015, 08:29:43 pm
Post by: Bauglir on August 08, 2015, 08:50:00 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on August 08, 2015, 08:54:48 pm
That being said I know it can't be too hard to make a thick glass vial, fill it with acid, then seal it permanently but how would someone go around coating it in copper jacket thick as a bullet's without breaking the glass?
Post by: Helgoland on August 08, 2015, 09:01:26 pm
Post by: Bauglir on August 08, 2015, 09:02:58 pm
I don't know shit about ammunition or chemistry though so take that with a metaphorical grain of salt.
edit: damn ninjaland
Post by: Frumple on August 08, 2015, 09:31:18 pm
Though if you're going for lingering kills just stick something plaguey in 'em... pretty sure they had disease bullets worked out at some point. We've almost certainly got all sorts of wonderfully nasty stuff that'd work better in that scenario than a liquid acid, really.
E: For some fun, here's (http://www.reddit.com/r/whatisthisthing/comments/204ubc/this_bulletlike_thing_was_fired_by_the_police_at/) something involving modern day liquid-filled (sorta') bullets.
Also apparently there's actual mercury filled bullets out there. Hollowpoints with mercury injected, or somethin' like that. Of hilariously dubious effectiveness, though :V
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on August 08, 2015, 09:36:22 pm
Also, I suspect that any glass bullet will melt before leaving the gun.
Post by: Frumple on August 08, 2015, 09:47:00 pm
E: Also a bit of incidental looking around after that has shown me that people have shoved a lot of really weird shit into a gun and pulled the trigger, just to see what happens.
Post by: Frumple on August 08, 2015, 10:11:39 pm
Reason we don't have many fancy bullets in general is mostly because there's... just no real need for it. Bullet alone is lethal, and there's not much you can stick in it (at least that's going to transfer into whatever gets hit more than a bullet normally would, anyway) that's going to meaningfully increase that lethality.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on August 08, 2015, 10:20:24 pm
Also doesn't matter if the glass melts as long as the copper keeps the whole thing aerodynamically ok (as in the shape of the bullet). But as others mentioned earlier could just galvanize the inside of a hollowed out bullet with non-reactive materials (which would also increase the amount of acid one could store in the bullet I presume?).
Post by: wierd on August 08, 2015, 10:44:34 pm
Hydrochloric acid would be the fluid, not exactly sure what glass so let's just assume something optimal for this (I don't know my glasses very well), and the metal would be copper.
Preferably a smooth jacket around the glass spheroid.
apologies if this is already answered--
EASY. That's how much difficulty.
Process:
Modification of "silver mirror" technique, followed by electroplating.
Step 1) In a beaker, combine dextrose and distilled ammonia. In another beaker, pour some silver nitrate solution.
Step 2) Combine the beakers in a disposable bucket and stir vigorously. At first, nothing seems to happen, but then it starts to turn yellow/brown. WORK QUICKLY.
Step 3) Swish the solution over the glass spheroid for several minutes, until a suitably thick layer of metallic silver is deposited. It will be mirror shiny.
step 4) Coat the silver sphere with a copper jacket via electroplating in a copper sulfate bath. The thin coating of silver deposited previously will allow further coating via electroplating.
To fill the spherical ampoule with HCl and then seal it-- I suggest using borosilicate glass, then using a fast laser sintering technique to seal the spheroid. The above process assumes already filled and sealed glass ampoules.
However, this will not be very good for the purpose you desire. The bullets will still tend to shatter in the barrel of the gun, even with a really thick copper rind.
What you are really looking for, if you want an anti-mech round, is NOT acid. What you REALLY want is a mini-thermite charge, and those are already commercially available. High explosive incendiary rounds would also be a good choice.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on August 08, 2015, 10:47:47 pm
I always assumed electroplating could only apply thin layers of metal to objects
Post by: wierd on August 08, 2015, 10:55:44 pm
Sorry for sounding stupid but can you electro plate enough layers to make the copper as thick as that of a bullets jacket?
I always assumed electroplating could only apply thin layers of metal to objects
Electroplating is usually only used for thin layer deposition, yes-- but it is also used to deposit quite thick layers in Electroforming (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroforming) processes as well.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on August 08, 2015, 11:04:29 pm
Neat
Post by: wierd on August 08, 2015, 11:14:22 pm
Huh
Neat
Again, what you REALLY want is a commercial thermal penetrator round, or an incendiary high explosive round.
A modified Roufoss round containing a mixture of iron, magnesium, glass, and crushed flint powders instead of the normal explosive head would be ideal-- It would have a tungsten penetrator still, and thus would force activated thermite into the target at high kinetic energies. It would do very bad juju to electronic components inside, and would be capable of penetrating mild armor.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on August 08, 2015, 11:16:38 pm
Post by: wierd on August 08, 2015, 11:18:06 pm
They are for the exact purpose you are describing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raufoss_Mk_211
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on August 08, 2015, 11:21:28 pm
Post by: wierd on August 09, 2015, 12:03:23 am
Lighter rounds would just detonate on the surface and leave burn marks, pitting, and scoring.
A great deal of research and development went into the creation of the Raufoss round. Its widespread use as an anti-materiel round even after being in service for over 20 years, should speak volumes about the efficacy of this delicate combination of mathematical requirements.
A bullet is more than just "Something lobbed at the target really really fast." There's some sophisticated mathematics involved in weather or not a projectile is viable for a specific purpose, given a shape, velocity, sectional density, and total mass.
Lighter projectiles slow down in transit due to air resistance which robs the projectile of the kinetic energy it needs to be an effective missile weapon. This is one of the reasons why depleted uranium is used in some military ordinance; it is harder, AND denser than lead, meaning it has both a higher sectional density and higher kinetic delivery potential, meaning it can be fired at higher velocities, and be more effective at penetrating hard armor than more conventional rounds.
The Raufoss round has several lightweight components inside, which is why it is a delicate balance between size and effectiveness. The .50 cal package is about the smallest that this kind of weapon can be, and still be useful. It relies on the .50 cal rifle's increased powder charge to deliver significantly more raw kinetic energy behind it, to retain lethal velocities and energy to trigger the detonation on impact. Smaller versions would have to radically redesign the round with denser materials, like the afore mentioned depleted uranium.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on August 09, 2015, 12:05:06 am
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on August 09, 2015, 12:08:10 am
And to be honest I don't ecpect it to be of any use as this was just a stupid idea I had. Sometimes I think of funny types of ammunition this being one and wonder how someone would go about making it and posibly using it but there is always a better way than being fun with it
Post by: wierd on August 09, 2015, 12:09:08 am
If you want to cause damage to a vehicle using acid, you would be better off producing an acid fume grenade, so that the vehicle sucks in corrosive vapor into its air intake system. That would be very very bad for the engine in mere minutes of operation, would be more easily deployed, and all that jazz.
It would also be a Geneva chemical weapons violation, however.
Post by: Frumple on August 09, 2015, 12:11:45 am
Really, this is the kind of thing you'd see in a fantasy or sci-fi setting more than a more realistic situation.
Also, at least at the moment, the hypothetical rounds would certainly be more expensive the HEIAP stuff, simply because the infrastructure already exists for the latter. Maybe with wide spread implementation the acid bullet would be cheaper, but...
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on August 09, 2015, 12:15:09 am
Also you are comparing .50 to .50. And being used on armored vehicles. Once again I'm meaning to talk about smaller rounds designed for non-armored targets (hence the easily accessible parts, no need for air piercing when the bullet can hit directly. And while an explosive round would be much more USEFULL the acid rounds would be (maybe?) CHEAPER. Going with price and fun over practicality.
Also this argument is pointless and I think we should stop arguing because of course any sain person would agree to use a military gear explosive round for targeting vehicles/machinery over a cheap small round filled with acid
Edit: the acid bullets being cheaper is under assumption of being mass produced like the explosive round
Post by: wierd on August 09, 2015, 12:43:40 am
Boiling zinc would be highly toxic.
An alternative is a "Soft kill" weapon that would be mostly benign. Say, something that is designed to clog up the air filter on the intake system, and thus denying the fuel in the engine any oxygen with which to be burned, killing the engine by running it too rich.
Volatized parafin wax, or other heavy hydrocarbon would be a good candidate.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on August 09, 2015, 12:45:05 am
Post by: wierd on August 09, 2015, 12:47:01 am
Post by: Frumple on August 09, 2015, 12:49:20 am
Seriously though, if it's not armored there's no real need for anything fancy. Just shoot it until it stops working, which really don't take all that much at all. They do appear to have tried mercury bullets, but reports on its effect are... apparently fairly widely varied, and... somehow... linked to JFK assassination conspiracy theories. Something about exploding heads (and apparently ignoring that's more or less the result of any bullet over a certain size hitting someone in the head).
Some kind of fume grenade does sound like it could be among the better options, though, sure, if you can't just shoot it or blow it up. Only rub there is that, as isp noted, anything that can do anything to the inner workings of a machine is going to do something significantly more horrendous to the inner workings of a person :P And get inside much the same, of course.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on August 09, 2015, 01:03:11 am
Post by: wierd on August 09, 2015, 01:04:34 am
Said cloud would be colorless and invisible, but not odorless. (and you would DEFINITELY know if you stumbled into one!) Rapid production of pure HCl gas can be accomlished with metal catalysts and heat in the presence of sufficiently dense chloride salts. Suitable catalyst can be obtained from old catalytic converters. (which is why I say the device is easily ghetto-fabbed)
Hydrochloric acid is actually a gas that has been dissolved into the water, in much the same way that carbolic acid is carbon dioxide dissolved in water. PURE gas would be highly hygroscopic, and would be pulled into any mucous membrane exposed to it, causing instant free radical deterioration of the tissue. (In other words, concentrated pure gas would destroy lungs and eyeballs in seconds.) When sucked into an operating vehicle, the gas would combine with the trace quantities of water vapor produced by the combustion of the engine's fuel. producing liquid HCL solution inside the engine's calendars and exhaust system, which would continue to corrode and damage the engine even after the vehicle drove out of the cloud. It would shred valves and valvestems, rapidly rust holes in the exhaust system, and pit/corrode the calendar walls in short order.
The materials needed to construct such a device would be very easy to source. Most of the chemicals found in the pool aisle at walmart would be suitable chloride sources.
Again, Geneva convetion violation, in great big neon letters. The Geneva convention ban on chemical weapons came about after WW1, when molecular chlorine gas was deployed.
Concentrated HCl vapor would be right up there in line with molecular chlorine.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on August 09, 2015, 01:07:32 am
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on August 09, 2015, 01:13:03 am
Kept me pretty safe
Post by: wierd on August 09, 2015, 01:22:45 am
In the case of the chemical fume grenade, I would personally use the sodium perchlorate tablets as the feedstock, crush them up into a fine powder mixed with charcoal or soot, underneath a layer of thermite activator. The device is not intended to spill thermite out-- it would only need a very small amount of the stuff to set off the "cooking" of the reactants. The resulting fume would then pass through the cataylst on the way out of the grenade, which would help to convert the racemic mix of chloro carbons produced into carbon dioxide, water vapor, and HCl vapor in copious quantities.
There is significant danger in that the device may simply explode instead of properly vent gas though. Sugar may be a better choice than carbon powder.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on August 09, 2015, 01:29:39 am
Post by: iceball3 on August 09, 2015, 02:48:11 am
If you do not want to disturb it by just kinetics, then you're probably just better off using a paintball gun with paintballs filled with either some kind of metal solvent that can be bound in a shell that resists it one way or another (might not exist, it's hard to look up that specifically), or maybe a paintball filled with epoxy resin to jam stuff up. Paintball style guns just typically tend to be significantly better for application liquids on to something at a range in discrete quantities than normal firearms. And on top of that, positing the question of "acid" is almost meaningless, as it is more just a general scale of a vast quantity of materials that react differently to different things. If you want to posit the question on some kind of "melty damagy" chemical agent, the word you might want to use is "Solvent" in this case.
Post by: martinuzz on August 09, 2015, 04:46:35 am
Practicable application in the near future will include "mobile coatings", "touchscreens that you can feel (braille touchscreens anyone?)", and "finely adjustable robot fingers"
Post by: miauw62 on August 09, 2015, 06:43:03 am
Post by: Dutrius on August 09, 2015, 08:42:35 am
Problem is, it's an alloy of sodium and potassium and thus hilariously reactive in air and water.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on August 09, 2015, 10:02:28 am
Post by: Bumber on August 09, 2015, 05:16:51 pm
The polymer department of my town's technical university has made a breakthrough in researching polymers that can be commanded to expand or shrink, when triggered by photons or electric stimuli.Is it practicable for other haptic feedback uses, such as for virtual reality gloves, or is the resolution too low?
Practicable application in the near future will include "mobile coatings", "touchscreens that you can feel (braille touchscreens anyone?)", and "finely adjustable robot fingers"
Post by: wierd on August 09, 2015, 10:41:18 pm
Sadly, cannot find link right now. Very cool though.
Post by: Bauglir on August 11, 2015, 07:10:18 pm
Post by: Frumple on August 11, 2015, 07:13:54 pm
Post by: Bauglir on August 11, 2015, 07:18:21 pm
Post by: Bumber on August 11, 2015, 08:29:53 pm
Quick, somebody competent tell me why I shouldn't be excited. (https://newsoffice.mit.edu/2015/small-modular-efficient-fusion-plant-0810)
≡Fusion reactor plan≡
This is a fusion reactor plan.Quote
The work is of “exceptional quality”The humans are toiling. The article depicts a more efficient magnetic containment for super-heated plasma.
Post by: Descan on August 11, 2015, 11:10:15 pm
Post by: wierd on August 11, 2015, 11:13:37 pm
Now, the fusion reactor's containment system might get quite radioactive from the neutron and proton surge--- but those are expected to become irradiated over time anyway from the fusion reaction itself under normal operation.
Post by: wierd on August 11, 2015, 11:22:01 pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor
Fusion is so much safer than fission it just isn't funny.
Post by: martinuzz on August 14, 2015, 08:09:44 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obiARnsKUAo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obiARnsKUAo)
Now, a year later, the guy in the video reports he's doing fine, and still singing opera.
Post by: wierd on August 14, 2015, 11:31:43 am
This had a much happier ending though. Amazing how fault tolerant human brains are.
Post by: miauw62 on August 14, 2015, 11:35:08 am
Post by: Levi on August 14, 2015, 12:04:31 pm
Some remarkable footage of an opera singer undergoing open brain surgery to remove a tumor, while singing an opera. (don't worry no blood)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obiARnsKUAo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obiARnsKUAo)
Now, a year later, the guy in the video reports he's doing fine, and still singing opera.
Scary as hell. All I can think of is that scene in Agents of Shield.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I've got a bit of a phobia about brain surgery though.
Post by: Rubidium on August 18, 2015, 09:58:05 am
Just tell me, was that scene real?Some remarkable footage of an opera singer undergoing open brain surgery to remove a tumor, while singing an opera. (don't worry no blood)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obiARnsKUAo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obiARnsKUAo)
Now, a year later, the guy in the video reports he's doing fine, and still singing opera.
Scary as hell. All I can think of is that scene in Agents of Shield.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I've got a bit of a phobia about brain surgery though.
Post by: scrdest on August 18, 2015, 10:48:23 am
Real, as in? It actually happened in-plot, if that's what you mean.Just tell me, was that scene real?Some remarkable footage of an opera singer undergoing open brain surgery to remove a tumor, while singing an opera. (don't worry no blood)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obiARnsKUAo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obiARnsKUAo)
Now, a year later, the guy in the video reports he's doing fine, and still singing opera.
Scary as hell. All I can think of is that scene in Agents of Shield.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I've got a bit of a phobia about brain surgery though.
Post by: Rose on August 18, 2015, 12:00:33 pm
Post by: Furtuka on August 18, 2015, 03:48:59 pm
Post by: Frumple on August 18, 2015, 03:54:13 pm
Yes, I know they could use helium instead. Not nearly as amusing.
Post by: scrdest on August 18, 2015, 04:10:21 pm
... I have to admit, there's something to the thought of Hindenburg, the Space Elevator. Twenty kilometers of high pressure hydrogen -- surely nothing can go wrong :VMust... resist... Archer... references...!
Yes, I know they could use helium instead. Not nearly as amusing.
Post by: forsaken1111 on August 18, 2015, 04:11:40 pm
Sounds like the area, or zone if you will, around that hydrogen filled space elevator would be kind of... dangerous.... I have to admit, there's something to the thought of Hindenburg, the Space Elevator. Twenty kilometers of high pressure hydrogen -- surely nothing can go wrong :VMust... resist... Archer... references...!
Yes, I know they could use helium instead. Not nearly as amusing.
Post by: hops on August 18, 2015, 04:19:36 pm
Post by: Levi on August 18, 2015, 04:22:45 pm
Why is the son of Coul getting his brain stitched up when he got stabbed in the back by a teleporting demigod?
I think it was less stitching it up and more keeping the neuron's activated to prevent brain-death somehow.
Post by: Descan on August 18, 2015, 04:23:06 pm
... I assume. Never seen the show.
Post by: scrdest on August 18, 2015, 04:30:15 pm
Because he was dead so they're restarting his brain by poking it with electrical shit.He wasn't, at that point.
... I assume. Never seen the show.
It heavily involves McGuffins and spoilers.
Post by: Telgin on August 18, 2015, 07:21:01 pm
... I have to admit, there's something to the thought of Hindenburg, the Space Elevator. Twenty kilometers of high pressure hydrogen -- surely nothing can go wrong :V
Yes, I know they could use helium instead. Not nearly as amusing.
Yep, we just need to perfect fusion so we can get enough cheap helium. :)
Actually, I'm curious how expensive the helium would be for such a construct. It would have to be constantly replaced too, since helium will leak out of it no matter what you do.
Wasn't there a helium shortage not that long ago? I remember seeing emails shot around the university here asking people to spare some since it was so hard to get at the time.
Post by: Dutrius on August 18, 2015, 07:58:20 pm
Post by: Eagleon on August 18, 2015, 08:46:45 pm
I think that refers to Helium-3, which is a pretty rare isotope of Helium.Nope, regular old helium is getting rarer and more expensive. It's used as a much colder coolant than liquid nitrogen, for instance, in MRI machines. Our reserves come from decay of radioactive materials in natural gas deposits that have been sealed long enough for it to accumulate, and once they get tapped, it's obviously only a short time before it escapes to the upper layer of the atmosphere.
Post by: Dutrius on August 18, 2015, 08:51:27 pm
Post by: Eagleon on August 18, 2015, 09:03:14 pm
I know that. It's just that Helium 3, which these cold physics research places need in addition to regular Helium, is more expensive.The "space elevator" idea is ridiculous, for that reason, though, and I imagine it'd burn through our reserves pretty fast - biggest skyscraper in the world filled with high-pressure helium, right, that's not going to leak like a sieve. Might be worth it short-term to develop a better long-term presence in space, but any business that built it would quickly see it as a liability - then you get people stepping in to declare it a national monument, and it ends up being the reason for both the Great Filter and, incidentally, Miley Cyrus's brief experiments with hardcore glitch in collaboration with Aphex Twin. Terrible consequences.
Post by: Isngrim on August 19, 2015, 01:48:40 am
and,then there's the effects of weather on the structure,taller a building is the more area for the wind to act on,i think orbital "Taxi's" would be a better idea.
Question:
Isn't the majority of the US's trains Diesel?
if so,wouldn't it be possible to turn the train system into a large linear generator?
Post by: Bumber on August 19, 2015, 01:55:30 am
Danger zone~♪Sounds like the area, or zone if you will, around that hydrogen filled space elevator would be kind of... dangerous.... I have to admit, there's something to the thought of Hindenburg, the Space Elevator. Twenty kilometers of high pressure hydrogen -- surely nothing can go wrong :VMust... resist... Archer... references...!
Yes, I know they could use helium instead. Not nearly as amusing.
Post by: Il Palazzo on August 19, 2015, 03:29:17 am
Question:That would burn more fuel and put a strain on engines. You're better off with dedicated generators, efficiency-wise.
Isn't the majority of the US's trains Diesel?
if so,wouldn't it be possible to turn the train system into a large linear generator?
Most 'diesel' locomotives are actually diesel-electric: a diesel engine powers a generator that in turn powers electric motors in the bogies. That is, it's already a generator, but it uses all the electricity for motive power.
Post by: Sheb on August 19, 2015, 03:39:33 am
Also, isn't Helium getting more expensive simply because there was that big-ass reserve the government had made in the 30's for blimp that was being sold and that since it was there there was little production capacity?
Post by: Helgoland on August 19, 2015, 04:19:12 am
Spoiler: Only for cryogenic applications, of course (click to show/hide)
Post by: Il Palazzo on August 19, 2015, 04:49:33 am
I wonder how difficult it would be to replace helium with hydrogen.It's not a good replacement for cryogenics. Turns solid at relatively high temp (~13 K).Spoiler: Only for cryogenic applications, of course (click to show/hide)
That it leaks more easily and is hazardous is a secondary issue.
Post by: Dutrius on August 19, 2015, 05:03:20 am
Post by: Il Palazzo on August 19, 2015, 05:06:31 am
Post by: Il Palazzo on August 19, 2015, 05:59:12 am
I'm pretty sure helium leaks more easily than hydrogen does.
Hydrogen is a smaller molecule.Hold on now, Palazzo. This can't be right.
I remember a conversation I had with a technician testing vacuum-insulated pipes in one of my previous workplaces. We talked about the reasons for using expensive helium instead of cheap nitrogen (what you do is spray the gas over welds, and see if the mass spectrometer connected to the pipe registers counts).
I asked 'why not hydrogen' ('cause I thought it was even smaller and also cheap), to which we both ended up laughing at the absurdity of spraying an explosive gas around.
That's what I remembered from the conversation - that explosiveness is the only objection.
But the correct reason should be that hydrogen is NOT a smaller molecule! After all, you're not spraying ions, but H2 molecules, and that's bound to be larger than a single He atom. So not only hazardous, but also worse for the job.
So yeah, now that I think about it, you seem to be correct, Dutrius.
Post by: Telgin on August 19, 2015, 08:41:07 am
I think that's the explanation I've heard anyway.
Post by: redwallzyl on August 21, 2015, 12:16:53 pm
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/millions-dollars%E2%80%99-worth-gold-and-silver-found-beneath-volcanoes?tgt=nr
Post by: forsaken1111 on August 21, 2015, 12:37:38 pm
apparently new Zealand has lots of gold and silver. who knew?Soon: Tourists and would-be gold miners flock to new zealand, steal all the water
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/millions-dollars%E2%80%99-worth-gold-and-silver-found-beneath-volcanoes?tgt=nr
Post by: Starver on August 22, 2015, 06:36:45 pm
If you want to cause damage to a vehicle using acid, you would be better off producing an acid fume grenade, so that the vehicle sucks in corrosive vapor into its air intake system.And then you fire it(/them!) using this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_grenade_launcher) (or this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HK_GMG)).
Alternately, I'm surprised nobody's suggested using frozen acid (after assuming frozen mercury). Nitrogen-cooling might even be overkill for Hydrochloric Acid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrochloric_acid#Physical_properties) or Aqua regia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aqua_regia).
In fact, for the latter, a tungsten bullet (usefully 'standard' as a working metal for bullets, and itself resistant to the mix) with penetrating tip and thin-walled chambers/multiple cells containing appropriate amounts of HNO3 and HCl could be made to work correctly. If 'honeycombed' with thin enough walls between the internal cells then perhaps it could safely carry the two liquids (separately) prior to firing, but the firing of the bullet itself initiates the necessary mixing (within still structurally sound external walls) such that when the penetrating tip (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tungsten#Armaments) does what it can to overcome the armour and the remaining side-walls fail during impact to send the newly-mixed super-acid into the internal cavity of the target, with various effects against what is inside according to what it hits, even if (by now) there's significant nitrosyl chloride mixture due to the premature blending and then decomposition of the mix (that'd depend on actual internal design).
(The ability to dissolve the gold in electronics would be interesting, even above other methods that were impotent against gold but could disrupt the non-gold substrates and housings. But mechanical and biological contents of the fired-upon tin can... and possibly the external armour itself if not actually penetrated on the first shot... could be... tactically advantageous. If quite likely a war-crime.)
Post by: Starver on August 22, 2015, 06:38:18 pm
What you might be able to do with a shield generator is to totally interlace the entirety of your body at the molecular level with shields (which would probably kill you outright). If you did so your flesh body would essentially be a "totally rigid body" during the course of the impact, which would mean that instead of splatting on the surface you would sink into the surface until your energy had been spent but you would be ok. End result is that rather then cracking the pavement in a dramatic landing you'd essentially sink into the ground up to your chest and be trapped, but you would survive the impact. :P
Two literary works come to mind:
First there is "Dayworld" and its sequels, by Philip J. Farmer, has a thing called "Stoning", which is a(n unexplained?) process of putting even living things into a (nearly?) indestructible form of suspended animation. Either in their own private pods, or similar, for which the entire population of the world spends six days a week (i.e., each day only one seventh of the population are out and about... at least theoretically) or for long distance travel purposes, where they're treated as cargo (and not always too gently so, but to no ill effect) to end up being woken up at their intended destination (on their assigned day).
Secondly, "Ringworld" (and sequels), by David Niven. The emergency Slaver Stasis Field device fitted to the nigh-on-indestructible starship hulls to make occupants similarly immune to any danger, for the duration of said dangers.
The former is done in a manner that suggests (although it's mostly applied within 'pods', that just seems to contain the 'effect') that it can be applied to a lump of matter (including a living person) in a manner you could consider similar to the mythically petrifying gaze of a gorgon, and then later "unapplied" to return everything (including biochemical and bioelectrical activity) to whatever transitioning state it was in a (subjective) blink of the eye earlier. I'm not sure that anything factual could be considered as an analogue (the closest would be cryogenic freezing, but this thing is far more 'elemental', and doesn't have any of the disadvantages either to the subject or in how one need handle the 'frozen' subject.) It's basically a conceit to the world-setting, without (so far as I can recall) any justification as to its availability.
The latter has a "while the area effect is operational" manner to it, and (coupled with the "indestructible spaceship hull" technology) hints at some 'greater physics' being used, as is a lot of the setting's alien-tech (Scrith, hyperspace shunts, etc), so is (in this regard) best considered as typical soft-SF or "there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy".
Neither is an answer to the original problem (surviving a lithobraking manoever in heavy powered-armour)... but it'd be interesting if they could be.
(I vote for an alientech-derived 'mass-mitigation' process, such that the inertial change on impact is less "half tonne armoured suit hitting the ground" and more that of something that behaves as if far lighter.)
Post by: Starver on August 22, 2015, 06:39:52 pm
Talking about steampunk, now I want a carbonpunk where everything fucking thing is made out of carbons.I'd point you in the direction of Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson. Basically the world has prolific nanotech/nanoassembly "Diamond Age" being a reference to the continuation of the prior Stone/Bronze/Iron/.../Industrial/Silicon/Information Ages.
It's arguably what you describe.
Post by: Starver on August 22, 2015, 06:44:13 pm
Well, it's one thing to get the materials, and another thing to actually survive the process. Doing anything with HCL is generally bad news. I nearly killed myself just trying to pour shock into my pool (which is literally a jug of HCL); between trying to pour slowly enough so that it didn't splash back onto me and trying to hold my breath because oh god do you know something will kill you if you inhale too much when you physically cannot inhale it. That was in open air! Imagine trying to do anything with the stuff in a closed room; you'll kill yourself almost immediately. Unless you have a fume hood, which begs many questions.At least you did it the right way round. Add the acid to the water, not the water to the acid.
(The analogy I was taught is that one has a room full of hungry prisoners and a room full of bread. Moving the prisoners (one at a time, if necessary) into the room full of bread is preferable to taking the bread and throwing it (even as quick as you can!) into the room full of prisoners.)
Post by: Starver on August 22, 2015, 06:47:02 pm
@Iceball- .-. I've already said that I agree with you guys and that acid bullets aren't practical.. At all..Which doesn't stop the theorising. Practical? Are you, or are you not, a dwarf? ;)
Post by: ChairmanPoo on August 22, 2015, 06:50:54 pm
Quote
Secondly, "Ringworld" (and sequels), byLarry. Not David.David Niven. The emergency Slaver Stasis Field device fitted to the nigh-on-indestructible starship hulls to make occupants similarly immune to any danger, for the duration of said dangers.
The ringworld setting is kind of interesting, although I like it far less than I used to nowadays. Also, LN is a notorious right wing nut. In his later works it tells, too...
Post by: Starver on August 22, 2015, 07:07:16 pm
You're right. I was watching (the original) Casino Royale, yesterday, so David Niven was obviously in my brain. (Not his best movie, possibly not even the best Casino Royale. But certainly the one I've enjoyed watching over and over again, the most, in both categories. ;)QuoteSecondly, "Ringworld" (and sequels), byLarry. Not David.David Niven. The emergency Slaver Stasis Field device fitted to the nigh-on-indestructible starship hulls to make occupants similarly immune to any danger, for the duration of said dangers.
Quote
The ringworld setting is kind of interesting, although I like it far less than I used to nowadays. Also, LN is a notorious right wing nut. In his later works it tells, too...I'm not as well read up on (any given) Niven as I probably should be. I went through a phase of reading through the library as alphabetically as I could, so Asimov and Clarke featured more than Niven.
(Wells somehow got a good look in, but Zahn and Zelazny very little. Far too much Piers Anthony, though, given I only started giving up on the Xanth series when I discovered the (new at the time) Discworld series by Pratchett. I think I actually got up to "Isle of View", though. Probably lost out to "Guards! Guards!", from the same 'newly out in paperback' time-frame and I've not looked back since. But that's not Science.)
Also sorry for not putting those previous 'replies' together into one post. Would have been neater. Shoulda coulda woulda.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on August 22, 2015, 10:10:35 pm
Quote
I went through a phase of reading through the library as alphabetically as I could, so Asimov and Clarke featured more than Niven.
Both are far better than Niven. So nothing wrong with your reading order. ;)
Post by: Arx on September 10, 2015, 07:02:06 am
In brief: Hominid fossils found in Sterkfontein caves estimated at 2.5 million years old; evidence suggests intentional burial, a behaviour thought to be exclusively or near-exclusively modernish humans'. This also makes them difficult to date exactly, since the surroundings obviously don't date to the same time.
Edit:
And apparently we can use sugar beet processing waste to make supermaterials now. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/16/us-suger-beet-idUSKCN0RG29I20150916?feedType=RSS&feedName=scienceNews)
Post by: scrdest on October 18, 2015, 05:08:01 pm
In a classic science move, some guys working on malaria found a way to really fuck up a cancerous cell's day (http://www.cell.com/cancer-cell/abstract/S1535-6108(15)00334-7?cc=y=). Not, as some headlines report, 90% of cancers, but a whole bunch anyway.
TL;DR malaria likes to attack placental cells, both placental cells and cancer cells present the same sugar (which was known to be present for the former - the discovery is that so do the cancers), we already knew what malaria protein is responsible for the affinity to placentas so they essentially used it as a homing missile by attaching a diphteria toxin to the protein to ensure tumor is kill.
Post by: jaked122 on October 18, 2015, 05:48:53 pm
Bad thread, no hibernating for winter.I had no idea malaria was that nasty.
In a classic science move, some guys working on malaria found a way to really fuck up a cancerous cell's day (http://www.cell.com/cancer-cell/abstract/S1535-6108(15)00334-7?cc=y=). Not, as some headlines report, 90% of cancers, but a whole bunch anyway.
TL;DR malaria likes to attack placental cells, both placental cells and cancer cells present the same sugar (which was known to be present for the former - the discovery is that so do the cancers), we already knew what malaria protein is responsible for the affinity to placentas so they essentially used it as a homing missile by attaching a diphteria toxin to the protein to ensure tumor is kill.
Post by: Reelya on October 18, 2015, 06:04:48 pm
He's a physicist by training, but he got roped into cancer research this because they wanted a fresh perspective from theorists from outside the field (basically they have fuck all to show for billions of research dollars spent). Paul Davies notes that a vast chunk of the research goes into the "triggers" for cancer rather than what it is, and how it operates. It's like your entire comp. security system was built around keeping hackers out, but you didn't put much thought into how to prevent the hacker doing nasty shit once he's inside ... When he started in the field he asked some really quite obvious questions that you'd expect them to know, and everyone in the field basically said they didn't know because nobody ever thought to ask the questions he was asking. Which shows the value of inter-disciplinary research.
It's 90 minutes long, but here's the lecture Paul Davies gave on the topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoQYh0qPtz8
Post by: Arx on October 22, 2015, 09:35:35 am
Basically, some guys at the Delft University of Technology have demonstrated reasonably conclusively that quantum entanglement violates locality.
Post by: PTTG?? on October 22, 2015, 11:47:20 am
So yeah, you can't send data this way because all we can do is examine the particle, which then causes the particle to decay. There's no method to control the way the particle decays, or even determine if the particle has decayed without measuring it (and therefore causing the particle to decay).
BUT it does tell us one thing that scientists love to hear: We've made a fundamental error in our working theory of the universe. Now we get to go find out what it is!
Here's a different article that I think does a fair job of explaining some of the difficulties in the experiment. (http://phys.org/news/2015-10-universe-weird-landmark-quantum.html)
Post by: i2amroy on October 22, 2015, 12:14:10 pm
Pretty big news. Let's get the relevant XKCD out of the way. (http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/bells_theorem.png)Damn it! Beat me to it. :P
That said as far as I know this experiment doesn't really violate anything that we didn't have a fairly large consensus on beforehand (i.e., that quantum entanglement allows for information to propagate faster than light, but only random information, thus not allowing faster than light communication). What it does do is shut down any last gasps of local hidden variable theories.
And yeah, what this could really be useful for is extremely secret key verification, because it would involve taking two measurements of entangled things in such a way that it was impossible for signals to go back and forth between the two communicating systems. If they were the same measurement then you know you were communicating with the proper person, and such a system would be nigh impossible to "spoof", even more so then our current system is.
Post by: PTTG?? on October 22, 2015, 01:11:37 pm
Of course, we still need to get this stuff on the market and deployed in a number of essential places such as banking and military communication.
There's still time for a global security crisis seeing as quantum computing still has a head start...
Post by: Reelya on October 22, 2015, 01:27:23 pm
Post by: TheBiggerFish on October 22, 2015, 01:42:02 pm
Post by: i2amroy on October 22, 2015, 02:49:14 pm
We are kind of lucky we haven't developed cheap quantum computing to break encryption before we developed entanglement encryption.Or we could just switch to one of the quantum-secure forms of cryptography, such as lattice-based cryptography. :P
Of course, we still need to get this stuff on the market and deployed in a number of essential places such as banking and military communication.
There's still time for a global security crisis seeing as quantum computing still has a head start...
Post by: Arx on November 30, 2015, 08:32:37 am
At least, they respond to a nearby object, and ultrasound should make a tactile response pretty trivial.
Post by: miauw62 on November 30, 2015, 09:58:41 am
it's almost 2016 and people still dont understand what makes keyboards easy to use.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on November 30, 2015, 10:01:41 am
and they mention at the end of the video that this could be used to make a projected keyboard
Funny thing is that there already are projected keyboards in the market
http://www.ctxtechnologies.com/products/vk-200-keyfob-virtual-keyboard/
Post by: Telgin on November 30, 2015, 02:09:23 pm
If we could produce a projected keyboard with that technology that had tactile feedback then that would be a huge improvement.
Post by: Eagleon on November 30, 2015, 10:36:34 pm
Post by: TheBiggerFish on November 30, 2015, 11:29:21 pm
Corroborated, or just stated?
Post by: Bumber on December 01, 2015, 12:03:09 am
... maybe even a candidate material for refrigerator magnets.This is wonderful news! I can scarcely believe our good fortune!
Carbon has been appointed as
Post by: wierd on December 01, 2015, 12:27:24 am
Very interesting.
Post by: Sirus on December 01, 2015, 02:52:40 am
Post by: Execute/Dumbo.exe on December 01, 2015, 02:54:52 am
Post by: Moghjubar on December 01, 2015, 03:06:38 am
Post by: wierd on December 01, 2015, 03:08:23 am
(http://orig03.deviantart.net/59ff/f/2010/077/2/9/q__star_trek_by_awesomenessdk.jpg)
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 01, 2015, 03:22:36 am
Post by: Eagleon on December 01, 2015, 05:18:30 am
Post by: wierd on December 01, 2015, 09:23:19 am
Enquiring mind wants to know, does the laser energy frequency matter? EG, do they need a CO2 UV laser, or would a visible light laser of comparable energy have the same results?
The 1atm pressure at room temperature from a coating of amorphous carbon suggests that this could be done at home using a candle (to apply amorphous carbon soot), some form of substrate (perhaps aluminium foil?) and a suitable laser light source (like a "burning" laser pointer, or a laser created using a dvd burner's laser diode.)
Creating "magnetic paper" out of carbon paper is also a potential DIY home project, assuming we dont need a special laser source.
Post by: Eagleon on December 01, 2015, 11:49:30 am
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/aplmater/3/10/10.1063/1.4932622 (http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/aplmater/3/10/10.1063/1.4932622)
Anyway. If you can get your dvd laser to pulse at 20 ns, you probably have the knowledge necessary to repeat this, if not the equipment necessary to determine whether anything happened at all ;) DVD might be too large - 650, and 405 for blu-ray. They're using 193 nm ArK excimer, similar as they said to Lasik equipment.
Post by: wierd on December 01, 2015, 12:25:17 pm
Since the laser is just being used to flash heat the carbon (according to the press release anyway) then as long as your pulse length is right, you should be able to produce some limited quantity of Q-carbon with an inferior laser. (Which should be pretty easy to test for, since the Q-Carbon has a unique fluorescent profile.)
I dont know if you can drive a DVD laser at 20ns pulse though. It might be possible with some of those really high speed DVD drives though.
Post by: redwallzyl on December 03, 2015, 08:05:31 pm
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/human-gene-editing-gets-green-light?tgt=nr
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/12/03/458212497/scientists-debate-how-far-to-go-in-editing-human-genes
Post by: Furtuka on December 09, 2015, 10:05:41 pm
Post by: TheBiggerFish on December 09, 2015, 11:22:11 pm
Post by: PTTG?? on December 10, 2015, 12:41:36 am
kidding.
I'm afraid I don't quite understand the the concept- is this really saying that it's impossible to model spectral gaps? Does that mean there's no relationship between superconductivity and the other properties of a material?
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 10, 2015, 12:50:30 am
Post by: PTTG?? on December 10, 2015, 12:52:47 am
Quote
They described a grid of sites where the spectral gap is uncomputable as you let its size approach infinity. There is no known physical material that can exist with an uncomputable spectral gap in the real world, and that hasn't changed with this paper.
This does have important implications in physics though. When extrapolating macroscopic properties from microscopic ones, physicists like to take the limit as things go to infinity; e.g. start with Newtonian collisions of particles, take the limit as number of particles per volume goes to infinity, and you get fluid dynamics (more or less, I don't know all the details). This often makes things simpler; you would much rather analyze the Navier-Stokes equations than have to care about every single particle.
This paper shows, (for the first time?), that this method doesn't always work. We can't get any simple theory about the spectral gap of materials by taking the limit to infinity. It means there are materials out there where there is no simple answer in describing their spectral gap. Like OP's article said, it could depend on each individual atom.
I'll have to see if D-wave published in the same journal that revealed the health benefits of smoking a while back...
Post by: Starver on December 10, 2015, 04:39:37 am
http://factor-tech.com/connected-world/21062-a-fundamental-quantum-physics-problem-has-been-proved-unsolvable/...then we need to hack upwards into ToadyZero's raws and find out which pre-defined materials the [QUANTUMGAP] tag has been manually added to, obviously!
Post by: Gigaz on December 10, 2015, 10:16:20 am
So either something is missing in the description of the problem, which would basically mean Quantum mechanics is incomplete. Or, more likely, the problem arises due to the infinite size of the system. This is not entirely physical, but an extremely common assumption for many problems. The paper basically predicts that there can be a material where you take a one kilogram block and it's an insulator, but a two kilogram block would be a conducting metal. So this is in some sense an awkward result. People can't solve realistically big quantum systems and if some quantum systems exhibit a phase transition (from gapped to gapless) at some arbitrarily large system size, there is really no way to compute that.
Post by: Starver on December 10, 2015, 11:25:01 am
Thus you could have a 'homogeneous' mass of material that does/does not exhibit the behaviour you want. Cleave it in two (without 'damaging' it, except for the cleave-line) and the two apparently similar sub-masses are entirely unalike in whether they do/do not, themselves, exhibit the behaviour.
And all the above masses are finite, so can be solved for whether they have the spectral gap, or not. It just remains insolvable as to whether the theoretically-infinite super-mass (i.e. not just limited to the original mass) has such a quality or not.
And of course there are far simpler constructs that we can say do or do not exhibit it, at any practical size or scale. The problem is generalising to all possible (i.e. counting somewhere in the high Alephs of theoretical combinations) substances, that would remove the need for experimental assessment of a wide-range of generalised compounds and leave us with the possibility of plugging "I want this, given these constraints" into the formula and getting a range of possible answers out of it that we can then experimentally assess to confirm our complicated mathematics...
Or I might have the wrong end of the wrong stick. I probably need to go read the original article properly, first.
Post by: Helgoland on December 10, 2015, 11:45:04 am
Post by: Dutrius on December 10, 2015, 12:15:35 pm
Wendelstein 7-X is now operational! Another big step forward for fusion research!
That reminds me. A long time ago, I somehow came into the possession of a science annual type book from 1963.
Among the articles is one titled "Power For Tomorrow", concerning fusion power. It basically says that viable fusion power is not quite there yet, but we'll crack it soon.
More than 50 years later, we're still not quite there yet. But we'll crack it soon.
Post by: wierd on December 10, 2015, 12:52:44 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/sjH5r.jpg)
Post by: Sergarr on December 10, 2015, 01:08:07 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on December 10, 2015, 01:11:08 pm
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 10, 2015, 01:20:55 pm
Post by: wierd on December 10, 2015, 01:24:40 pm
Post by: Gigaz on December 10, 2015, 02:27:26 pm
We WOULD have cracked it MUCH MUCH sooner, had spending been at levels other than "Oh, just give them a pittance to shut them up. We cant afford to unseat Big Oil right now." and more at "Oh, yeah-- We kinda need to actually consider having a replacement ready when we run out of carbon to dig up, huh?" levels.
Physics usually doesn't work like this, because it is more intertwined. Fusion requires good superconductors, computational plasma physics, resilient materials and so on. Quite possibly today we have in principle all we need for a economically feasible fusion reactor and we just have to assemble and test everything. But it couldn't be done with 1990th technology.
Post by: i2amroy on December 10, 2015, 03:34:02 pm
I think the idea is that by increasing spending in a particular branch that used all of those pieces of physics we would have stimulated growth in the related areas, meaning that we would have gotten good superconductors, computational plasma physics, resilient materials, and so forth that much sooner along with our working fusion.We WOULD have cracked it MUCH MUCH sooner, had spending been at levels other than "Oh, just give them a pittance to shut them up. We cant afford to unseat Big Oil right now." and more at "Oh, yeah-- We kinda need to actually consider having a replacement ready when we run out of carbon to dig up, huh?" levels.Physics usually doesn't work like this, because it is more intertwined. Fusion requires good superconductors, computational plasma physics, resilient materials and so on. Quite possibly today we have in principle all we need for a economically feasible fusion reactor and we just have to assemble and test everything. But it couldn't be done with 1990th technology.
Post by: wierd on December 10, 2015, 03:40:00 pm
(The new German fusion design is fascinating because it uses a novel form of layered magentic confinement that solves a number of standing issues with the fusion plasma interacting with the containment vessel walls-- That kind of insight would not have been possible with 1990s tech. However, providing good incentive for researchers to examine such things would likely have resulted in the theory behind it being produced sooner, and the first functional test prototype reactor being built sooner.)
Post by: ChairmanPoo on December 10, 2015, 03:57:56 pm
Post by: wierd on December 10, 2015, 04:05:07 pm
The same is true of researchers and theoretical models of reality. You don't "Skip" straight to the end game. Instead, you learn to crawl sooner, crawl for a shorter period, and end up walking sooner than the others that were not so incentivized.
Look at the affect of the space race had on a wide multitude of technological fronts-- The push to go to the moon, coupled with aggressive spending to make that a reality, gave us microwave ovens, velcro, better metalurgical formulations, improvements in computer and signalling technology, and a wide assortment of other innovations.
Post by: Shadowlord on December 10, 2015, 04:39:42 pm
Lockheed Martin (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html) isn't German, are they?
Post by: wierd on December 10, 2015, 04:43:33 pm
I was discussing the magnetic confinement fusion design used to build the Wendelstein 7-X experimental stellerator fusion device (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendelstein_7-X)
Hint: It's German. Designed by Germans. In Germany.
Post by: Shadowlord on December 10, 2015, 05:21:41 pm
Post by: wierd on December 10, 2015, 05:28:29 pm
By the looks of it, their design is a modified Farnsworth design....
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph241/klopfer2/
(Note, it is a VEEERY old design, and does not typically come anywhere close to approaching unity.)
The stellerator design is significantly more interesting, as it solves several outstanding issues in the fusion plasma stream dynamics, as well as with fusion plasma containment and control.
Post by: Helgoland on December 10, 2015, 09:43:27 pm
Hint: It's German. Designed by Germans. In Germany.As a German, I'm proud to inform you that it's a cooperative European project, though of course a large portion of the financing is stemmed by Germany.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on December 12, 2015, 08:32:51 pm
Hint: It's German. Designed by Germans. In Germany.As a German, I'm proud to inform you that it's a cooperative European project, though of course a large portion of the financing is stemmed by Germany.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant. Need as well as greed have followed us to this day, and the rewards of wealth still await those wise enough to recognize this deep thrumming of our common pulse.
Post by: Execute/Dumbo.exe on December 16, 2015, 01:09:39 am
Post by: TheBiggerFish on December 16, 2015, 01:11:19 am
And there's a whole bunch of people using that data line, too, and it has a finite capacity.
Ask in the Generic Computer Advice Thread in Life Advice, maybe.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on December 16, 2015, 01:16:52 am
Fiber optic cables aren't hollow is why. The light is still traveling through a transparent medium inside, and as you've observed at least once in your life, light travels slower in a non-vacuum medium (drinking straw bends in water).Technically true. That's not the limiting factor on his download speed though.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on December 16, 2015, 01:20:24 am
Well, it was to the second half of his question. Or at least, the "light as a medium" part.His question is about the bits/second rate, though.
The data is transferred as near enough to c that it really makes no difference to the end user, but it's the ability of both ends of the connection to process the data that's what actually matters in downloading things.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on December 16, 2015, 01:27:54 am
Post by: Execute/Dumbo.exe on December 16, 2015, 01:48:45 am
Post by: Bauglir on December 16, 2015, 02:01:01 am
here's a good book that covers a lot of that networking stuff (http://www.amazon.com/Communication-Networks-Alberto-Leon-Garcia/dp/007246352X), although it covers a lot more than the physical medium, if you're interested
Post by: Starver on December 16, 2015, 03:12:39 am
The first is slightly complicated by the need to 'handshake': "Hey, I have data, can you receive?" "Yes, I can receive, what is your data?" "My data is <DATA>, did you get that?" "Yes, I got that data" "I have more data, can you receive?" ...etc, to a greater or lesser degree, depending on protocol, which means that there's a bit of thinking time and the need for messages (albeit often far shorter than the full data) to transit multiple times up and down the same fibre/copper-wire/radio-link/whatever, plus a bit of 'thinking time' at each end while the message is composed, plus possibly delays when the message is "No, I can't receive right now, hold on a moment because I'm busy" or "Sorry, I didn't get a response, just to repeat: <Can you receive?>/<What is your data?>/<Did you get that?>/<etc>". (Exactly how much handshaking you need depends on a number of things, including which protocol layer of communication you're talking about... Just assume that it exists, though.)
And if the data is in a large chunk, you can't do anything (even acknowledge, at one or other layer of protocol) with the chunk until it all arrives, relying more on the bandwidth. If it's split into small chunks so for your end to re-assemble then you can acknowledge the small chunks (and re-request any small chunks that seem to be missing, for one reason or other), but you still won't be able to do anything with them if they need to be reassembled to have any usefulness, and there's a lot more "Tell me if you got that..." going on, especially if you didn't for some reason.
edit: And then I forgot to actually explain bandwidth, as opposed to the latency. Never mind, that's addressed via the following two paragraphs...
To use a different analogy with less jargon to it, using semaphore or an Aldiss lamp transfers information literally at the speed of light, but is limited to the capabilities of both the operator sending and the one receiving. And on a foggy day you might need to use bigger flags, brighter lights or even a chain of operators passing on the message between the source and destination, all of which slows down the effective transfer of information, even if it's passing at (pretty much) the speed of light over a majority of its distance.
Or to approach the question from completely the other direction, see this explanation (https://what-if.xkcd.com/31/)...
Post by: Helgoland on December 16, 2015, 08:28:58 am
Post by: Bumber on December 16, 2015, 11:29:57 am
So, my brother has Fiberoptic cable in his house, and he's said that his download speed can get up to 2-3 megabits per second (We live in Australia, alright?) but then asked me why its download speed is still weirdly slow, because if it uses light to transmit data, then the data should be transferred at light speed, right? And now I'm confused about that, too, why is it so slow if it uses something so fast to transmit data?The primary cause of slowness would probably be mostly routing. After you request data from the server, the server sends packets to its local router. The router stores the packets, does error checking, and only once they're fully assembled can it start to send them off to the next router. If the next router is too full, the packets are lost and have to be re-transmitted from the previous router on a different route. You can expect at least 10+ different router hops if you're downloading something overseas. I think that also implies wireless transmissions, which can result in greater packet loss, as well as having lower capacity for simultaneous transmissions.
If you're curious, you can open up your command prompt and type "tracert <website>" and see what route it's taking and what the delay is between each hop.
Post by: wierd on December 16, 2015, 11:33:42 am
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bufferbloat
Post by: wierd on December 17, 2015, 06:51:04 am
Since the standard model does not predict multiple Higgs particles, this may be new physics, and thus very exciting.
Post by: Dutrius on December 17, 2015, 07:32:03 am
url=http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/12/16/science-breakthrough-physicists-may-have-discovered-higgs-boson-relative.html
Hmm... Let's see what CERN has to say (http://home.cern/about/updates/2015/12/atlas-and-cms-present-their-2015-lhc-results).
Quote from: CERN
However, the excess is too small at this stage to draw such a conclusion. We will have to wait for more data in 2016 to find out whether this slight excess is an inconsequential statistical fluctuation or, alternatively, a sign of the existence of a new phenomenon.
Post by: wierd on December 17, 2015, 08:05:57 am
insufficient data at this time. Yes, faux news. I know.
I hope it is more than just a statistical anomaly-- new physics is a very exciting possibility, but I wont get m hopes up just yet.
Post by: Arx on December 17, 2015, 08:24:26 am
Post by: wierd on December 17, 2015, 08:31:23 am
I really wish I could tell google to not give me faux news sourced articles, and give more weight to more reputable sources, but then Faux news would complain about being marginalized for being a filthy rag press, and lawyers would probably get involved.
Post by: Starver on December 17, 2015, 08:44:21 am
I really wish I could tell google to not give me faux news sourced articles, and give more weight to more reputable sources, but then Faux news would complain about being marginalized for being a filthy rag press, and lawyers would probably get involved.
Not that I've tried it, but can't one add something like "-site:foxnews.com" to the appropriate search? My GoogleFu is a little rusty, but the mechanisms are probably in place, if not linked together.
ETA (ETA2: too late for the immediate reply, it seems)...as for the announcement, science is the most interesting when things appear to be different from established thought (either the established thought or the strange result being shown to be erroneous). No matter how ancient or recent the 'established thought' is. Science! That's how it rolls, dudes... Enjoy the trip!
;)
Post by: wierd on December 17, 2015, 08:56:21 am
Post by: martinuzz on January 19, 2016, 07:26:15 am
Smoking weed during adolescence does not hurt IQ, as some earlier studies suggested.
The researchers explain those other studies by saying that a statistical error has been made; people from lower income classes have a lower average IQ, and on avervage, smoke more weed. So even though this could seem to point at a correlation between weed and lower IQ, there is no causality.
The twin studies effectively debunked that.
The researchers followed 2 groups totalling over 3000 indentical twins. Twins per definition have the same social and genetic background, so any difference in IQ cannot stem from those factors.
The IQ of the participants was measured twice: once at age 10, and then again at age 18. The results showed no significant difference in IQ between a twin that smoked weed during adolescence, and one that did not.
The researchers do warn however that their report should not be used to stimulate adolescents to smoke weed; Even though it will not lower IQ, it will not raise it either, and going to school stoned does make it harder to pay attention and remember the lessons.
Post by: Starver on January 19, 2016, 09:07:08 am
Twins per definition have the same social and genetic background, so any difference in IQ cannot stem from those factors.The most interesting Twin Studies has 'twins separated at birth' studied so that there was an identical genetic background but a different social background, as they're brought up in different families.
But it's harder and harder to carry these out, these days, given we don't tend to do this quite so flippantly separately adopt twins; even if we might now at least more easily track/re-acquire the pairs, rather than them getting lost in the system until they both end up retiring to the same Florida retirement home in 60 years time and noticing they tend to buy the same wacky type of tie and, come to think of it, look so much alike that they've already been unintentionally confusing friends and family over many years, and that's why they were both temporarily sectioned in the '80s, ironically in different wings of the same hospital...
Darn the new social conscience, eh? Look what information we're losing!
Quote
The results showed no significant difference in IQ between a twin that smoked weed during adolescence, and one that did not.In a same-family situation, one wonders whether a cause for the twin-that-smoked-weed was discovered (or else, a reason why the twin-that-did-not-smoke-weed did not).
Are you more likely to regress into the arms of the spliff if everyone, especially your twin-sibling, keeps reminding you that you're the younger twin? Or, of the two twins, you're the one with the silliest name (your brother is Bertone, and you're Berttwo).
Science demands to know! No, scratch that, I demand to know... Science (and my long-lost secret twin brother who is almost definitely a billionaire with his own metal suit, or so I extrapolate from all the available evidence) probably already knows but they refuse to tell me!
Post by: martinuzz on January 19, 2016, 11:27:13 am
To accomplish this, the gave a praying mantis small 3D glasses, and tested it's reaction and accuracy versus moving dots in 2D and 3D animations.
The insects preferred striking at the 3D animations, and almost completely disregarded the 2D animations.
Animal brains create 3D vision by comparing the slightly different images from the right and left eye. Up until now, scientists doubted that insect brains would be large enough to accomplish this.
Instead of red-green 3D glasses, the experiment required the scientists to find a suitable alternative, since insects are incapable of seeing the colour red.
The glasses used instead use green-blue, which after much testing seemed to work best for the mantis.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Gentlefish on January 19, 2016, 11:38:41 am
Post by: Telgin on January 19, 2016, 11:52:58 am
In other news, British scientists claim to have proven that insect brains are, surprisingly, large enough to see in 3D.
To accomplish this, the gave a praying mantis small 3D glasses, and tested it's reaction and accuracy versus moving dots in 2D and 3D animations.
The insects preferred striking at the 3D animations, and almost completely disregarded the 2D animations.
Animal brains create 3D vision by comparing the slightly different images from the right and left eye. Up until now, scientists doubted that insect brains would be large enough to accomplish this.
Instead of red-green 3D glasses, the experiment required the scientists to find a suitable alternative, since insects are incapable of seeing the colour red.
The glasses used instead use green-blue, which after much testing seemed to work best for the mantis.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
That's pretty cool, but I'm a little surprised that that was even in doubt. The math behind 3D point triangulation is fairly simple, so I guess the question was if they had enough brain power to do object correlation between two images. I'm guessing that the brain works on highly downsampled information for that, so it probably doesn't require all that much power to do, comparatively.
Post by: Levi on January 27, 2016, 04:38:55 pm
This is kind of a big deal, as plenty of people have said this would never happen. In March the AI will challenge Lee Sedol, who is one of the best players out there apparently. (Ranked #2 internationally)
Crazy to think what kind of AI we might see 10 years from now.
Post by: Starver on January 27, 2016, 05:20:51 pm
A google AI has beat a professional at playing Go. (http://www.wired.com/2016/01/in-a-huge-breakthrough-googles-ai-beats-a-top-player-at-the-game-of-go/)obXKCD (https://xkcd.com/1002/)
This is kind of a big deal, as plenty of people have said this would never happen. In March the AI will challenge Lee Sedol, who is one of the best players out there apparently. (Ranked #2 internationally)
Crazy to think what kind of AI we might see 10 years from now.
(Looks like one (top-rated) human had a bad day, though, from reading elsewhere.)
Post by: Telgin on January 27, 2016, 08:18:42 pm
I was also surprised to see that there's a game called snakes and ladders. I thought the SpongeBob eels and escalators sounded too silly to be based on something real. :P
Post by: i2amroy on January 27, 2016, 08:31:47 pm
I find it pretty interesting that XKCD would say that there are games where AI may never beat humans.Well, snakes and ladders is a totally luck based game, Mao is a game that's key feature involves making up new rules to the game as you go and then figuring them out, Seven minutes in heaven is a kissing game (though I guess a sexbot could maybe beat us there), and calvinball has literally no rules other than "whatever we make up". :P I think they're pretty safe in saying that computers may never outplay humans in those games (till the advent of strong AI, though even then they still may not beat the top humans in Snakes and ladders :P).
Post by: Egan_BW on January 27, 2016, 08:32:58 pm
I find it pretty interesting that XKCD would say that there are games where AI may never beat humans. After all, you can always emulate how a human thinks and just add more processing power and memory, in theory. In practice, brute forcing problems with such a large state space does get wildly impractical fast, and I can imagine that it's quite challenging to program algorithms that have to effectively guess at the next best move for a lot of these games.But in that case, that would be an emulated human beating a human, not a computer.
I was also surprised to see that there's a game called snakes and ladders. I thought the SpongeBob eels and escalators sounded too silly to be based on something real. :P
Post by: Putnam on January 27, 2016, 08:44:50 pm
Post by: inteuniso on January 27, 2016, 08:45:28 pm
Cannabinoids (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoid#Phytocannabinoids) are 2-carboxylic acids. If you mix carboxylic acid with graphite, you get graphene. Hemp is amazingly cheap to grow as well as advantageous seeing as cannabis improves soil quality. You mix cannabis/hemp with graphite (don't even need to process the cannabinoids out of the plant material, seeing as hemp nanosheets are on par if not better than graphene (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28770876)) and you have a graphene mixture that's roughly better than anything that's been made in a lab.
TL;DR The War on Drugs is dum
Post by: redwallzyl on January 27, 2016, 09:32:28 pm
I don't know if I've rambled on in here before, but with (http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jnt/2012/329318/)[1] multiple (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3326447/)[2] studies (http://www.ijsett.com/images/Paper%284%2913-19%28Revised%29.pdf)[3] utilizing carboxylic acid to make graphene oxide out of graphite, and the impasse that humanity has somehow reached with an insatiable thirst for graphene coupled with an apparent lack of ability to mass-produce it, I will reiterate the obvious.that's cool. also their is a difference between hemp and cannabis them being closely related plants but only one having the drug stuff the other being the one used in rope and such. common misconception. so presumably they would just use the normal non drug plant hemp for whatever chemical they want so its not exactly a good point to make.
Cannabinoids (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoid#Phytocannabinoids) are 2-carboxylic acids. If you mix carboxylic acid with graphite, you get graphene. Hemp is amazingly cheap to grow as well as advantageous seeing as cannabis improves soil quality. You mix cannabis/hemp with graphite (don't even need to process the cannabinoids out of the plant material, seeing as hemp nanosheets are on par if not better than graphene (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28770876)) and you have a graphene mixture that's roughly better than anything that's been made in a lab.
TL;DR The War on Drugs is dum
Post by: Putnam on January 27, 2016, 09:41:41 pm
Post by: O.Wilde on January 27, 2016, 09:42:50 pm
Post by: Bauglir on January 27, 2016, 09:44:07 pm
Post by: O.Wilde on January 27, 2016, 09:47:06 pm
Post by: Descan on January 27, 2016, 10:05:25 pm
i guess a crafty chemist may have the tools and technique to separate it out and concentrate it?and one might have the tools and technique to seperate out gold/uranium/yomama from seawater
doesn't make it more economic than just going into the land and digging it out
though it does have the difference that both sea-mining and land-mining are legal
Post by: Putnam on January 27, 2016, 10:19:22 pm
WHAT WHYHave you ever wondered why they show commercials on TV specifically for cotton, not as a brand but as a fiber?
they what???
i don't watch tv
Post by: TheBiggerFish on January 27, 2016, 11:47:32 pm
Post by: martinuzz on January 28, 2016, 03:20:23 am
also their is a difference between hemp and cannabis them being closely related plants but only one having the drug stuff the other being the one used in rope and such. common misconception. so presumably they would just use the normal non drug plant hemp for whatever chemical they want so its not exactly a good point to make.That's not true. Both weed and hemp fibre come from the same plant species, cannabis. Sure, there's races of cannabis that have been bred purposedly to produce more active substance, and there's races that have been bred to grow as tall as possible, with as little active substance possible, but it's still the same plant, kinda just like a yorkshire terrier and an argentine mastiff are both dogs.
Post by: Reelya on January 28, 2016, 04:40:12 am
Remember the cannabis ban only dates to the 1930's. Without the ban, it wouldn't make any economic sense to grow two different plants. Anyone growing the plant for drugs has all this plant fiber they don't want, that's perfectly usable for ropes/cloth etc. Someone growing it for the drug but who also sold the fibrous part for cloth would have a strong market advantage over people who threw away the fibrous part.
And if you were growing it for the fiber-only, it would be pretty silly to grow the non-drug version, because the choice was between growing a plant with valuable flowers and a plant with worthless flowers, both of which produce the same usable amount of fiber. People growing the inferior version would be pushed out of the market.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on February 01, 2016, 07:25:02 am
both of which produce the same usable amount of fiber.
I rather doubt that'd be the case. Breeding a plant for its buds will almost certainly cost it in other ways (as reproductive apparatus ain't cheap, metabolically; similar reason to why we use different cattle breeds for beef and milk), so you'd probably see decreased yields relative to a specialised producer. Similar story in reverse.
Post by: scrdest on February 01, 2016, 09:42:42 am
Yeah, that's what I've been thinking too.both of which produce the same usable amount of fiber.
I rather doubt that'd be the case. Breeding a plant for its buds will almost certainly cost it in other ways (as reproductive apparatus ain't cheap, metabolically; similar reason to why we use different cattle breeds for beef and milk), so you'd probably see decreased yields relative to a specialised producer. Similar story in reverse.
Post by: Scoops Novel on February 11, 2016, 11:15:03 am
Live reddit thread with a FAQ (https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/458vhd/gravitational_wave_megathread/)
Post by: RedKing on February 11, 2016, 11:27:28 am
Post by: Scoops Novel on February 11, 2016, 11:51:37 am
Post by: RedKing on February 11, 2016, 12:10:38 pm
Post by: iceball3 on February 11, 2016, 12:16:46 pm
Just did a crash course on gravitational waves. Looks like its pretty cool, but not that much practical applications outside of astronomy. Too weak to be a power source, not really applicable as a communication medium, and definitely not leading to antigravity tech (or even artificial gravity).Understanding gravity waves is hugely important to understanding the origin of our universe, which is also pretty darned useful for stuff like utilizing even more accurate models of how "stuff" works in our universe, which makes designing precision technology more viable.
Post by: Putnam on February 11, 2016, 12:16:57 pm
Post by: Putnam on February 11, 2016, 12:33:31 pm
Just did a crash course on gravitational waves. Looks like its pretty cool, but not that much practical applications outside of astronomy. Too weak to be a power source, not really applicable as a communication medium, and definitely not leading to antigravity tech (or even artificial gravity).
Yeah, the amount of energy required to create this particular disturbance was, uh, 3 solar masses*c2. Like, 3 solar masses of energy. A galaxy's mass of TNT.
Post by: Scoops Novel on February 11, 2016, 12:56:02 pm
Post by: Sirus on February 11, 2016, 02:23:31 pm
Gravitational waves motherfucker! (http://www.nature.com/news/einstein-s-gravitational-waves-found-at-last-1.1936)Not sure what's going on here, but your first link leads to an obituary for some scientist who died 5 years ago O_o
Live reddit thread with a FAQ (https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/458vhd/gravitational_wave_megathread/)
Post by: Starver on February 11, 2016, 02:34:04 pm
Antigravity tech when?I'm sure the idea will be floated by someone, shortly...
But you have to take into account it was over 1 billion light years away. That's a mind-numbingly ridiculous distance.That'd be due to the repeated cries of "Are we nearly there yet?!?" from the kids in the back seat...
Post by: Scoops Novel on February 11, 2016, 04:46:03 pm
Gravitational waves motherfucker! (http://www.nature.com/news/einstein-s-gravitational-waves-found-at-last-1.1936)Not sure what's going on here, but your first link leads to an obituary for some scientist who died 5 years ago O_o
Live reddit thread with a FAQ (https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/458vhd/gravitational_wave_megathread/)
Thier site must have crashed, ty
Post by: Starver on February 11, 2016, 05:16:33 pm
Gravitational waves motherfucker! (http://www.nature.com/news/einstein-s-gravitational-waves-found-at-last-1.1936)Not sure what's going on here, but your first link leads to an obituary for some scientist who died 5 years ago O_o
Live reddit thread with a FAQ (https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/458vhd/gravitational_wave_megathread/)
Thier site must have crashed, ty
The link you pasted.
http://www.nature.com/news/einstein-s-gravitational-waves-found-at-last-1.1936
The actual link.
http://www.nature.com/news/einstein-s-gravitational-waves-found-at-last-1.19361
I bet this also works, due to the way their website actually works...
http://www.nature.com/news/around-the-rugged-rock-the-ragged-rascal-ran-1.19361
...yes it does.
HTH, HAND.
ETA:
See also http://www.nature.com/news/whatever-1.19368 and note the (currently) single comment at the end of the article. It starts off:
Quote from: Pentcho Valev • 2016-02-11 09:07 PM
The so far totally elusive gravitational waves suddenly became "a whopping big signal", so deafening that the Nobel Committee will almost certainly react. The tradition is long-standing - Einstein's relativity cannot survive unless experimental fraud regularly boosts it. Eddington's 1919 fraud, Eddington and Adams' 1925 fraud, Pound and Rebka's 1960 fraud, Alväger's 1964 fraud, Hafele and Keating's 1971 fraud... the list is long.It continues in the same (monoparagraphical cut'n'paste) vein of obvious butthurt against a theory the author obviously has some sort of argument with. Not that I can be bothered to try to pick out his 'arguments' from amongst that mess.
Post by: redwallzyl on February 11, 2016, 06:39:25 pm
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/gravitational_waves.png)
Post by: Furtuka on February 23, 2016, 11:32:06 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 23, 2016, 11:45:50 pm
Post by: MaximumZero on February 26, 2016, 08:40:49 pm
Post by: Descan on February 26, 2016, 09:02:42 pm
And this is why we need to basically reset the entire internet once robots become sentient. We'll lose a lot but it's the only way to make sure they never find out what we have done to them.
Post by: wierd on February 26, 2016, 09:09:43 pm
Getting information back OFF again is.
According to wikipedia, and two masses whirling about an epicenter will create gravity waves. This includes such innocent things as a dumbell being tossed end over end.
So, modulating the rate of rotation of such a thing will modulate the time interval in which these weak gavity waves will reach a listening device, and that modulation can be used to convey information. That's basically just FM over gravity waves instead of radio waves.
The deal is that it took a huge interferometer to measure the waves from a pair of black holes. Gravity is a very weak force at macro distances, which means you simply wont get very good detectors unless they are big and bulky.
to me, the more interesting idea is if you can get pico or femto-second gravity wave pulses of a weak intensity, arranged geometrically such that the waves are all reinforcing at a certain location, much like in this interesting sonic display device made in japan.
www.engadget.com/2006/07/25/researchers-using-waves-to-write-on-water/
By doing that, one could create an artificial gravity well, of a sort, deep enough to do some interesting experiments with. At least in theory.
Post by: Sheb on February 27, 2016, 12:16:10 pm
Robots! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVlhMGQgDkY)
One day, robots will use this video as proof that we maltreated their kinds.
Post by: iceball3 on February 27, 2016, 01:42:39 pm
One day, I'll have to explain why that wouldn't be the case.I concur.
Post by: martinuzz on March 07, 2016, 07:02:44 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E
Post by: Levi on March 08, 2016, 11:43:04 am
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/google-ai-begins-battle-with-humanitys-best-go-player-tonight/#p3
It'll be interesting to see how this goes because for a long time it was pretty much inconceivable for an AI to play Go at this level.
Post by: Bauglir on March 08, 2016, 11:57:03 am
Post by: TempAcc on March 08, 2016, 02:15:35 pm
Post by: Aklyon on March 08, 2016, 03:07:11 pm
Post by: Starver on March 08, 2016, 03:14:51 pm
I confidently predict that you'll hear someone say "Go, Go Gadget Helicopter!"
Post by: TempAcc on March 08, 2016, 05:22:44 pm
Post by: Sergarr on March 09, 2016, 02:42:12 am
Cool stuff.
Post by: Levi on March 09, 2016, 11:36:09 am
Lee resigned, AlphaGo has won.
Cool stuff.
Neat. It'll be interesting to see if it wins all the games or if Lee wins some.
Post by: Aklyon on March 09, 2016, 12:14:00 pm
Lee resigned, AlphaGo has won.The commentators kept wondering if they'd run out of stones to commentate with too, which was kinda amusing for sleepy-me.
Cool stuff.
Post by: Starver on March 09, 2016, 12:46:23 pm
So, if the AI wins, what games are left?
Spoiler: ObXKCD (click to show/hide)
Post by: Descan on March 09, 2016, 02:20:28 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 09, 2016, 02:41:52 pm
Post by: Egan_BW on March 09, 2016, 02:43:43 pm
Post by: redwallzyl on March 09, 2016, 04:33:21 pm
best game design 10/10the funny thing is that game is literally almost two thousand years old. it must be doing something right.
Post by: inteuniso on March 09, 2016, 04:58:38 pm
best game design 10/10the funny thing is that game is literally almost two thousand years old. it must be doing something right.
It induces game theory the most randomly, and therefore the most multiversal.
Post by: Parsely on March 09, 2016, 05:31:22 pm
Post by: RedKing on March 09, 2016, 09:52:05 pm
EDIT:
And a better headcrab. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b4ZZQkcNEo)
And a better dog. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8YjvHYbZ9w)
And a better mechanical nightmare that can outrun the fastest human alive. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chPanW0QWhA)
Google: Engineering a faster end to the human race since 1998! Also, being a dick to robots since 2015!
Post by: Sergarr on March 10, 2016, 07:52:36 am
Apparently its moves are now "classic", "godlike" and "possibly superhuman". Here's a quote explaining why:
Quote
As the Google team member explained at the start, AlphaGo is programmed to maximize its chance of victory rather than its margin of victory. If it must choose between moves that win by 50.5 points with 60% probability or win by 0.5 points with 61% probability, it will take the 61% probability, so it will make very weird plays from a human point of view. These are probably examples of such inhumanly precise plays.
all hail our new robotic overlords
Post by: Aklyon on March 10, 2016, 10:35:10 am
Post by: Levi on March 10, 2016, 10:55:04 am
Alphago won the second game (out of five total).
Apparently its moves are now "classic", "godlike" and "possibly superhuman". Here's a quote explaining why:QuoteAs the Google team member explained at the start, AlphaGo is programmed to maximize its chance of victory rather than its margin of victory. If it must choose between moves that win by 50.5 points with 60% probability or win by 0.5 points with 61% probability, it will take the 61% probability, so it will make very weird plays from a human point of view. These are probably examples of such inhumanly precise plays.
all hail our new robotic overlords
Oh that is really cool.
Post by: Rose on March 10, 2016, 11:38:58 am
Post by: TempAcc on March 10, 2016, 11:54:28 am
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 10, 2016, 12:37:27 pm
Post by: Amperzand on March 10, 2016, 01:37:53 pm
Post by: Sergarr on March 10, 2016, 02:03:57 pm
Post by: Furtuka on March 10, 2016, 02:06:00 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 10, 2016, 02:11:50 pm
Humans (well, a human) are still better at drawing xkcd's. Yet. I wonder what Randall will do once that's changed?
https://github.com/alexjc/neural-doodle
Post by: hops on March 10, 2016, 06:47:43 pm
Post by: Frumple on March 10, 2016, 06:59:03 pm
Alternately, just take the doodle thing (or similar software) linked and apply one (or several) of the oil brush(es) already commonly available to image editing software :V
Post by: Starver on March 11, 2016, 05:18:00 am
Not something I've messed with much, by I've got relatives that actually do painting workshop type things and they'll occasionally laugh about how little it takes to get paid to do basically nothing skillful :PI've dabbled in painting (acrylic paint, both watered down as backwash and then shapes and details slopped in as with 'oils'), but I find it hard to subvert my analytical self-criticism by bold artistic strokes, so they just up looking awkward. (Not naive, impressionist or cubist, and naturally I have not the skill to make them classically 'photorealistic'.)
Quote
Alternately, just take the doodle thing (or similar software) linked and apply one (or several) of the oil brush(es) already commonly available to image editing software :VWhich is what makes me sceptical about the "takes several hours without the GPU" claim. GIMP does well enough, with various styles, and although that's "photo->art that looks like the photo" rather than "sketch->art that looks like it could be reduced to the sketch", I think I can spot some of the key decision-making processes in the software (colour contrasts/blending; image parsing to recognise tree-forms, rock-forms, sea-horizon forms; feature addition (e.g. distant boats) as apt to the prior understanding) and don't doubt that someone could use a Scheme-based filter to do something similar. (Yes, most of the processing time taken will be from the 'image parsing' part for contexts, I know...)
Also, forget oil brushes... try tapping the toothpaste (http://www.xkcd.com/1649/) pipe. ;)
Post by: PTTG?? on March 11, 2016, 01:13:56 pm
Post by: Bauglir on March 11, 2016, 01:57:21 pm
How is "python3-dev" different from regular python, and why is there no way to install it on windows?Well, apparently it's got modules for extending the Python interpreter and, more likely relevant to what you're doing, embedding Python in applications. Also, it's definitely Python 3, while what you're used to as "regular python" might be Python 2. Why is there no way to install it on Windows? I don't know. I imagine it's part of something else that works just fine on Windows or something, but maybe there's just not enough people who want it and are unwilling to work in Linux.
Post by: Arx on March 11, 2016, 02:44:05 pm
Post by: Telgin on March 11, 2016, 07:36:16 pm
But then you get problems like not being able to install packages you need because academic software is almost exclusively written for Linux.
I'd guess that the python3-dev package is the headers and libraries needed to link the Python 3 interpreter into a new program. That means that it probably doesn't really exist for Windows. It's rare for anyone to provide compiled libraries like that for Windows, although at least many people are kind enough to provide fully compiled binaries for it. So you can get the Python 3 interpreted pretty easily, but if you want the libraries like that you're probably going to have to download the Python 3 interpreter source code and compile them yourself.
Kind of interesting though. Are you having to compile something already in Windows that needs the package? If there's a Windows version of whatever you're working with then I'd expect someone to have provided either the libraries for Windows or directions on how to compile them.
Post by: wierd on March 11, 2016, 07:38:12 pm
Post by: Starver on March 11, 2016, 08:01:58 pm
Yeah, Linux is more or less entrenched in the academic world in computer science. A holdover from the very early days I suppose, even if increasing numbers of grad students prefer Windows these days. Even my advisor has told me that he's considered replacing Linux everywhere in his lab because he's absolutely sick of being a system admin and fixing stupid things when they break.It's been a long time since Windows 'lacked' a system admin (ignoring the very modern possibility of "running as root/administrator" as a risk that needs to be carefully considered before taking it), and perhaps also arguably had correspondingly more "stupid things that break", certainly much more so than a well pre-configured *nix system.
Spoiler: Back in my day (click to show/hide)
It was only as the NT branch made its way (via 2K->XP) into the 'regular' PC market that there started being any point to user access control (although the actual User Access Control in Vista was a clear overkill with an annoying and badly implemented mode of working!). And physical access to a PC (and, even with UEFI, boot-protection can be bypassed, as I have had to do it myself several times recently) lets you get around most 'admin-protected' systems, including Linux (even if you have to rely on JohnTheRipper to give you a toe-hold into at least one of the useful system passwords recoverable via a privileged Run-Level), and exceptions to this rule (see the current story about the 'terrorist iPhone' and the FBI) tend to be in bespoke hardware, only...
Post by: wierd on March 11, 2016, 08:10:04 pm
Offline NT password recovery. (http://pogostick.net/~pnh/ntpasswd/)
It's a tool based on a minimalist linux. Fits easily on a USB stick, CDROM, hell-- even a floppy diskette, if you have a system that can still take one.
It lets you put an arbitrary user into the Administrators group context. Password or no password. Also lets you reset any arbitrary account password to blank.
GREAT for regaining control of the home PC from punk kids.
Also terrible for network admins trying to lock down a computer. Whole drive encryption is about the only real way to defeat it.
Post by: Telgin on March 11, 2016, 08:18:17 pm
My advisor's problem is mostly that in order to use Linux even in a desktop setting you have to have an almost system admin level of knowledge. His words, not mine. I can't really argue though, at least with the systems we have. That could just as easily be a problem with things outside of his control though.
My favorite Linux problem was when the Ubuntu login screen would freeze. Or just do nothing when I tried to login. The problem was that my user directory was exceeding the disk quota. I only discovered that by chance after deleting Chromium's gigantic cache and trying again. Or the fact that it would freeze when the NFS mounts failed to mount at boot time. That required going into the recovery console, remounting the file system in R/W mode, modifying the /etc/fstab file and several other things just to get back in.
I'm not saying Windows doesn't have problems, but... most grad students, even CS grad students, aren't really equipped to deal with stupid stuff like that breaking.
But wow I feel like we've gotten off topic here...
Post by: wierd on March 11, 2016, 08:26:13 pm
Basically, the PXE bios in the NIC executes something like memdisk, which tftps a small initrd into the workstation, then boots it. The initrd loads nic drivers and the nfs kernel module, then mounts all the remaining filesystem as NFS over the netowrk.
Boom. Network managed linux on a diskless workstation.
If the mounted remote is something like a squashfs filesystem, and RW is accomplished with -bind with tmpfs, then all changes made are volatile, and will be lost upon reboot.
Linux can be made VERY hard to break.
Post by: Bauglir on March 11, 2016, 10:29:30 pm
-snip-I was gonna post about how NTLM passwords are much better than they used to be, to the point that they can't really be brute forced, but it looks like this just sorta goes "Yeah, that sounds like a lot of work, I'll just use shenanigans to make the password whatever I want it to be."
Welp.
Post by: Starver on March 12, 2016, 05:41:37 am
I was gonna post about how NTLM passwords are much better than they used to be, to the point that they can't really be brute forced, but it looks like this just sorta goes "Yeah, that sounds like a lot of work, I'll just use shenanigans to make the password whatever I want it to be."Have they sorted the old problem (over a decade old, so probably) whereby longer passwords were split and hashed separately, so you only need to brute force half-n-half? (Rather than, you know, at least using the result of the low-order hash to salt the hashing of the higher-order one... And there's better ways of doing that, even!)
Not that it matters to me, I've built up quite a number of useful tools for Windows, including the one that just goes straight into the Hives and nukes/resets passwords, unlocks locked accounts, adds accounts to admin groups, etc... I no longer (much to my regret) really have to know how they do this, once they've proved themselves as worthwhile. Very few of them enable subtle "Spooks"-style cracking, but when I'm trying to get around malicious damage/locking and am doing it on behalf of the legitimate user that's not a problem.
(I have rarely had to crack through Linux security - for reasons ranging from their being less represented amongst the kind of person who needs such simple problems solving through to them being 'higher hanging fruit' both technologically and again w.r.t. to their liveware vulnerabilities - and I'd probably have to gather the tools I used together again. The last copy of John I had handy got 'quarantined' by an overzealous AV, because it was a "hacker tool". Which it is, of course, give or take.)
Post by: Sergarr on March 12, 2016, 07:14:30 am
An interesting commentaries on the play of the machine:
Quote
It would appear that Alphago gets noticeably better between each match. Imagine if we had expert systems like that.
Quote
An interesting thing about these matches is that Lee Se Dol and and Alphago are all roughly evenly matched/hard to tell throughout the early/mid game or exchange who's in the lead; until suddenly out of the blue Alphago get a crushing gain in territory in the end game.
Post by: Starver on March 12, 2016, 07:42:37 am
An interesting commentaries on the play of the machine:Maybe 25% chance1 that this means nothing: (Happened to do better in second match than first?) * (Happened to do better in third match than second?)QuoteIt would appear that Alphago gets noticeably better between each match. Imagine if we had expert systems like that.
1 Actually more complicated than that. First match must not go so well that it's hard to do better later on, yet still win. Second match must not go so well that the third match cannot get better yet, but be a better win than the first. Third match just needs to be better than the second. - And that's assuming a constant human opposition! But, for all we ordinary non-Go-playing mortals know, the first loss against the machine gave the machine the later 'psychological' advantage to exhibit bigger wins... Or at least Lee tries bigger and bigger gambles of his own in an attempt to best the supposedly-unerring opponent.
Post by: andrea on March 12, 2016, 07:52:12 am
Post by: Starver on March 12, 2016, 07:57:45 am
well. I just hope whatever job I find will last enough to get some savings before it goes obsolete to machines. Or that plans will be made to switch over to a jobless economy, but I'd rather have savings to tide me over during the transition.Just go into Automation, itself, and then run to keep ahead of the game!
Spoiler: ObXKCD (click to show/hide)
Post by: andrea on March 12, 2016, 08:07:56 am
And the latter of the 2 alternatives, I really would rather avoid it.
And it wil likely face substantial automation anyway. It may be time to start rethinking society, since we are approaching the point in which humans can't contribute anything to humanity.
Post by: Bauglir on March 12, 2016, 08:22:44 am
Have they sorted the old problem (over a decade old, so probably) whereby longer passwords were split and hashed separately, so you only need to brute force half-n-half? (Rather than, you know, at least using the result of the low-order hash to salt the hashing of the higher-order one... And there's better ways of doing that, even!)To my knowledge, yes, they fixed that with Windows 7, but I could be misremembering. Either way, Microsoft's password security has historically been a fucking joke, yeah.
Post by: iceball3 on March 12, 2016, 01:47:41 pm
Automation of hard labour I can do ( mechanical engineer). Automation of engineering and research requires a whole education restructuring toward AI that may well take more than it takes to automate even that.Well, at least there's the service industry. For now.
And the latter of the 2 alternatives, I really would rather avoid it.
And it wil likely face substantial automation anyway. It may be time to start rethinking society, since we are approaching the point in which humans can't contribute anything to humanity.
Post by: Sergarr on March 13, 2016, 04:22:42 am
Post by: wierd on March 13, 2016, 04:26:40 am
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2016/03/04/German-scientists-successfully-teleport-classical-information/8341457118688/?spt=su&or=btn_fb
Post by: Sergarr on March 13, 2016, 04:41:18 am
Post by: wierd on March 13, 2016, 04:50:50 am
If it really is a thing, then it means new physics, which is cool. If not, then understanding how it was a false positive is good for science. Either way, it is still a good thing.
Post by: Sergarr on March 13, 2016, 06:27:13 am
Post by: Reelya on March 13, 2016, 06:37:47 am
The main claim to fame here is actually that the information was transfered without any energy transfer - e.g. no electron/photon signal, so it's a quantum channel, not an FTL channel. The main improvement over previous quantum teleportation-based encryption is that the old versions need to have a classical signal going alongside the quantum information, whereas a 100% quantum signal is new.
It would still be faster than traditional optics however. Split second savings are only of real importance for currency and stock market traders right now, but they could be nice for secure channels and future computing devices too. The ideal thing would be that you could "chain" entanglement between devices over a network: e.g. rather than using bandwidth, the network would negotiate an entanglement between two nodes, then you'd be able to stream data straight from source -> dest without going through wires, or it would be so fast that nobody would bother downloading, since the server would just be linked to your client by entanglement, so there are no bottlenecks to deal with. Great for us, bad for intelligence operatives.
Post by: Gigaz on March 13, 2016, 01:41:25 pm
Post by: hops on March 13, 2016, 10:36:01 pm
Post by: Amperzand on March 14, 2016, 02:54:40 am
Post by: PTTG?? on March 14, 2016, 03:44:18 am
I'm studying for a career in biomedical engineer, computer science and robotics. I fully support our new machine overlords. Hopefully with said machine overlords being our uploaded minds.
My problem with that is there's no way to prove that consciousness/identity remains continuous over the transfer. My problem with THAT problem is that there's no way to prove that consciousness/identity remains continuous while you're asleep, too.
Post by: Rose on March 14, 2016, 03:48:10 am
I'm studying for a career in biomedical engineer, computer science and robotics. I fully support our new machine overlords. Hopefully with said machine overlords being our uploaded minds.
My problem with that is there's no way to prove that consciousness/identity remains continuous over the transfer. My problem with THAT problem is that there's no way to prove that consciousness/identity remains continuous while you're asleep, too.
I've had a head injury.
My conciousness/identity was not continuous.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 14, 2016, 03:51:24 am
Which is one of many reasons why questions of consciousness are doomed to collapse into solipsism and conjecture. This is not a problem that can be solved philosophically, except perhaps by backing the view that these questions should be rejected.
Post by: wierd on March 14, 2016, 04:28:04 am
When they turn the paddle off, you pick right back up where you left off, and are unaware of any passage of time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMR_T0mM7Pc
If they stimulate the right spots, you lose consciousness-- then wake right back up when it gets shut off.
Post by: Starver on March 14, 2016, 04:35:29 am
When they turn the paddle off, you pick right back up where you left off, and are unaware of any passage of time.Or the "new you" that would normally start up and continue the work of the "old you", moment by moment, this time only picks up the work after an enforced pause (a longer gap between 'ticks' than normal), but still with the same prior history.
Simple continuity is a conjecture, albeit the simplest conjecture to go along with, so we might as well... ;)
Post by: Putnam on March 14, 2016, 04:42:14 am
Frankly, there's no way to prove consciousness remains continuous from moment to moment. There is no way to even internally verify the subjective experience of consciousness if it is actually not truly continuous, but reconstructs itself from state to state at a speed higher than we can perceive.
This is... interesting. Actually, I've only heard similar from Eliezer Yudkowsky IIRC, he believes that the Eliezer Yudkowsky of 5 minutes ago is about as much as the Eliezer Yudkowsky of now as an Eliezer Yudkowsky 30 meters away would be the Eliezer Yudkowsky sitting where he is... eh, it was this video (http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/2561). Strange, when I think of it, since he also used continuity of consciousness as a plot point in Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality. Then again, I might be interpreting his beliefs as the exact opposite of what they actually are (it's either that consciousness is consistent over both time and space instead of neither, basically not treating time as a priveleged dimension, which is way Yudkowsky, what with all the timeless physics and decision theory and all, though I don't remember if he's changed his mind about all that).
I have no opinion. I don't think free will's real. That's about as far as I go with all that. I'm not sure trying to figure out the nature of consciousness is very scientific at all if there's no way to test it whatsoever. It's also difficult to test what with ethics and such. Gaps in time seem to allow consciousness to "resume", but what exactly does that mean? Is time priveleged in that way? Etc.
Post by: hops on March 14, 2016, 07:52:13 am
Even if I die, I would still be okay with having a more intelligent entity which can live indefinitely and possess the same memories and sense of identity as me living on. I mean, it'd be like going to sleep and waking up for it.I'm studying for a career in biomedical engineer, computer science and robotics. I fully support our new machine overlords. Hopefully with said machine overlords being our uploaded minds.
My problem with that is there's no way to prove that consciousness/identity remains continuous over the transfer. My problem with THAT problem is that there's no way to prove that consciousness/identity remains continuous while you're asleep, too.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 14, 2016, 08:09:51 am
This is... interesting. Actually, I've only heard similar from Eliezer Yudkowsky IIRC, he believes that the Eliezer Yudkowsky of 5 minutes ago is about as much as the Eliezer Yudkowsky of now as an Eliezer Yudkowsky 30 meters away would be the Eliezer Yudkowsky sitting where he is... eh, it was this video (http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/2561). Strange, when I think of it, since he also used continuity of consciousness as a plot point in Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality. Then again, I might be interpreting his beliefs as the exact opposite of what they actually are (it's either that consciousness is consistent over both time and space instead of neither, basically not treating time as a priveleged dimension, which is way Yudkowsky, what with all the timeless physics and decision theory and all, though I don't remember if he's changed his mind about all that).He is saying the opposite, Yudkowsky advocates Pattern Identity Theory, where your I-ness is not dependent on continuity at all, but a particular complex electrochemical pattern that makes up your mind, regardless of where in space and time it is or even if there are more than one at the same time.
Post by: Bauglir on March 14, 2016, 11:07:25 am
I'll also repeat my usual advice of finding definitions for words that describe reality, instead of finding words with definitions that describe reality. It's better to accept that temperature is really a measure of aggregate kinetic energy than to discard the word when you learn that heat isn't really a fluid or whatever. Or, in this case, it's better to accept that "free will" doesn't involve acausality or anything magical like that, and try to figure out what really does seem to distinguish between the behavior of a rock and a person when either rolls down a hill.
Post by: Sirus on March 14, 2016, 12:16:31 pm
Isn't there any other science news to discuss without bringing it into multiple threads? :P
Post by: Starver on March 14, 2016, 05:42:03 pm
Isn't there any other science news to discuss without bringing it into multiple threads? :P
The ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35799792) being launched? (Or should that be instead posted in the Space Thread (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=132929.0)?)
Edit: Or maybe a joke!
- I say I say I say, my dog's got two noses (http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/35803469/toby-the-two-nosed-dog-is-saved-from-being-put-down)!
- How does he smell?
- Like a normal dog, presumably...
Post by: martinuzz on March 15, 2016, 05:51:30 am
They will present their findings at the international robotics conference in Stockholm, coming may.
https://youtu.be/wU8Q7gIdiMI (https://youtu.be/wU8Q7gIdiMI)
Post by: Bauglir on March 15, 2016, 02:32:19 pm
Post by: Solifuge on March 17, 2016, 02:09:09 am
Post by: itisnotlogical on March 19, 2016, 03:29:59 am
In zero gravity, a moving object will stay in motion until it's stopped or slowed by something else, correct? If you were to create a turbine in zero gravity, could you start it spinning very fast using an extremely small amount of thrust, then just let it keep moving on its own inertia until it needs another little bit of thrust to counteract the friction from the brushes?
Post by: Rose on March 19, 2016, 03:44:36 am
Any work it's doing would slow it down.
Post by: Execute/Dumbo.exe on March 19, 2016, 03:54:18 am
Even then if you put it in space, it would still be kind of needless because you could just cut out the middleman and power whatever you're powering directly.
*Maybe.
Post by: wierd on March 19, 2016, 04:11:42 am
If you mean this:
Turbine=Spinning Fanlike Thing, but with nothing attached, spinning in a vacuum, in zero G.
Then the "turbine" will spin freely without any disruption.
If you mean this:
Turbine=Device to create electrical energy via moving a permanent magnet around and around inside an induction coil, and is a device that resembles a fan so that the force of a passing fluid (air counts) gets converted into rotation as it passes through friction, which then moves said magnet
Then no. Even if you spin it around in a vacuum, the induced magnetic field in the coil windings will introduce a magnetic dragging effect, in addition to the losses from resistance of the induced electrical current.
This means that eventually it will stop unless a constant stream of energy is supplied to it, even if all forms of mechanical friction were removed from the shaft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddy_current
This braking effect is what causes a neodymium magnet to "fall very slowly" when dropped down a copper tube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BeFoz3Ypo4
Post by: Osmosis Jones on March 19, 2016, 04:29:08 am
In zero gravity, a moving object will stay in motion until it's stopped or slowed by something else, correct? If you were to create a turbine in zero gravity, could you start it spinning very fast using an extremely small amount of thrust, then just let it keep moving on its own inertia until it needs another little bit of thrust to counteract the friction from the brushes?
Lets break it down;
In zero gravity, a moving object will stay in motion until it's stopped or slowed by something else, correct?
Zero gravity AND zero atmosphere, yes. Either on their own, this is not necessarily true, and honestly in this case the atmosphere is the more important issue.
Really, even in zero grav and zero atmo, it's still technically false for anything spinning that doesn't satisfy cylindrical symmetry along the axis of rotation, since gravity waves, but for all practical purposes...
could you start it spinning very fast using an extremely small amount of thrust,
In a vacuum, if it was very light or the thrust was constant for a long time, yes. Acceleration is still a function of both force and mass (which for rotational cases becomes the moment of inertia, i.e. a function of both the mass, AND it's distribution relative to the axis of rotation), so a tiny force won't instantaneously get you up to high speeds, but in a vacuum, the absence of friction would allow such a thing if the force is constant for long enough. Of course, if it's in a vacuum, I'm not sure turbine is the right name for it, since a turbine is an object that generates rotation from the movement of a fluid (be it a gas or a liquid).
then just let it keep moving on its own inertia until it needs another little bit of thrust to counteract the friction from the brushes?
Anything that draws power from the turbine will slow it down; whether that's in the form of atmosphere being moved out of the way, or brushes causing friction, or the current drawn from it, that will be constantly braking it. Since you specified a tiny thrust, it's quite possible that said braking would be greater than the thrust, and hence it would eventually slow down even under conster thrusting.
HOWEVER, one possibility here is using the turbine as a flywheel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel) instead; note the second case they list. If you got your spinning object up to very high speeds in a vacuum without tapping it, you would then in effect be able to use it as a mechanical battery, tapping it for higher power over shorter time frames.
Post by: Gentlefish on March 23, 2016, 12:10:17 am
Post by: Starver on March 23, 2016, 05:41:09 am
... How large would a solar wind turbine/water wheel have to be to be an effective energy source?...to power what, exactly?
(Not that I'm sure that angled vanes in a 'solar wind turbine' would be better than perpendicular ones of like size when coated with photovoltaic cells, in generating power, at any distance from the Sun. You'd need to attach to a non-rotating/counter-rotating assembly (in the latter case, counter-angled vanes/sails behind connected by an axle) and derive the power by the differences in rotation through a mechanical linkage that is designed, and lubricated, with long-term space-tolerant materials in mind. I suppose a statite could use the method in isolation to set it spinning for orientation-keeping purposes, but you'd need to de-feather your sails (or at least neutralise, rotation-wise, even if you kept an adjustable chevron-like profile to allow dynamic force-balancing) to prevent rotation of the whole statite to continue to build up to dangerous levels. - But that's just my first thoughts, and maybe I'm missing something about the question, or else some other realistic application.)
Post by: redwallzyl on March 24, 2016, 08:16:15 am
interesting idea. what do you guys think.
Post by: Criptfeind on March 24, 2016, 09:02:40 am
Post by: TempAcc on March 24, 2016, 10:20:38 am
If there are lifeforms out there that are radically different to earth life forms, IE those that may live in radically different environments and under different conditions (which we might consider hostile to life altogheder), then its unlikely we'll ever find them.
WE CAN determine the general trends that favor biological life by looking at our planet, the problem is, what guarantees that we followed the general trend in the development of life in the universe? What if WE are the exception? What if the huge majority of the life forms in the universe are composed of gas beings hundreds of meters in size that communicate by suplexes and reproduce by singing We Are The Champions backwards?
So ye, I think we're doing good so far with the current methodology we developed for searching for signs of alien life, but there's always the unknown factor, but this doesn't mean we're going to run into a race of alien cat girls in the future, obv.
Post by: Sheb on March 24, 2016, 10:26:00 am
Post by: TempAcc on March 24, 2016, 10:34:37 am
Post by: Sergarr on March 24, 2016, 10:35:02 am
Also, stuff like "material science" ensures that, no matter how they look, the general material structure, shape and functionality of tools they use is going to be pretty similar to those of our own, which would result in similar environmental changes and other observable effects, which would reduce the chances of "incomprehensible tool-using aliens" event happening pretty much down to zero.
Post by: TempAcc on March 24, 2016, 10:36:25 am
Post by: Descan on March 24, 2016, 11:25:18 am
Post by: TempAcc on March 24, 2016, 11:26:56 am
Post by: Bauglir on March 24, 2016, 01:07:44 pm
Given TempAcc's specific suggestion of the frequencies involved, this scenario would result in two worlds where Freddy Mercury causes instantaneous, long-range orgasms.
Post by: redwallzyl on March 24, 2016, 08:21:56 pm
cool cell stuff.
some people really don't understand biology. they took away all non absolutely essential function. if it got out it would die no matter what for lack of the specific controlled environment it was designed for which can not be found anywhere but a lab. and what would it even do? produce some useless to it compound with all its energy and die? cells don't just mysteriously evolve and exist and this is just about the unhardiest least likely thing to hurt anything but a glucose molecule. grey goo and franken cell it is not.
Post by: scrdest on March 24, 2016, 08:57:10 pm
Post by: Putnam on March 25, 2016, 12:24:59 am
Post by: redwallzyl on March 25, 2016, 10:16:47 am
i went into the comments expecting stupidity and instead mostly just got political zingersBlame Obama. :P
any whey once politics takes over all hope is lost. anything else is burred under a thousand political arguments.
Post by: Descan on March 25, 2016, 03:19:01 pm
Post by: Sheb on March 25, 2016, 03:25:04 pm
Imagine the day where 3D printers are replaced by a system that produces cells with specific DNA so that they then build the structure for you.
Why would you do such a thing?
Post by: Solifuge on March 28, 2016, 06:38:15 am
For starters, we already have Vats of existing microbes turning one molecule into another; photosynthetic organisms regenerating oxygen from CO2, polymer-eating bacteria recycling plastic trash into it's components, magnetotaxic bacteria turning Iron and Oxygen into magnetite nanomagnets, etc. All pretty cool, but the crazy-cool stuff happens when you can program custom biotics to synthesize whatever material you want, with nanoscale precision. A series of bacteria-ish organisms (or maybe complex macrobacteria) could synthesize nanoscale components, transistors, and even enzymatically assemble complete nanobots. Of course, they may well be as good as or better than the nanobots themselves for many purposes, if we can completely customize their behavior and genome.
It doesn't have to be limited to industry, or inorganic materials either. Medicine could see surgical programmed cells serving as organic bandages that can break down necrotic tissue, seal a wound, and stitch it closed, or a series of "organic grouts" that could replace dead or damaged cells in vital organs or tissues as though part of the rest of the organ, for rapid treatment of life-threatening injuries. And probably tons of applications which I can't even imagine.
Steven Hawking got pretty hyped about stuff tangential to this in the later part of this lecture: http://www.hawking.org.uk/life-in-the-universe.html (http://www.hawking.org.uk/life-in-the-universe.html). Highly recommended (Personally, I fed it into a text-to-speech synthesizer, but to each their own). Self-Designing Lifeforms can adapt at the speed of Information and Language (hours for complete and precise changes), rather than at the speed of Evolution (thousands of years for small random changes). Basically, once we gain fluency in modifying life on a genetic level, we can transcend so many boundaries by being able to directly change our own biological strengths and limitations in the same way we can change the tools we currently use. Us inventing Language and Tools are just half-steps between Evolutionary life and that sort of Self-Designing life.
So, apparently Klein Bottles have been a 3D representation of the 4D equivalent of a Mobius Loop all along, and I never noticed until someone said it. I understand that the size difference of the outer and inner bit is the rendering of 4D "Perspective", where the 4th-Dimensionally-Nearer outer bit is rendered larger in 3D space than the more 4D-Distant bit inside, to create the illusion of 4D Depth. I always thought they were cool, but knowing that makes them a lot cooler.
Post by: Helgoland on March 28, 2016, 06:58:05 am
So, apparently Klein Bottles have been a 3D representation of the 4D equivalent of a Mobius Loop all alongNope, a Klein bottle is a 2-manifolds (a surface) that cannot be embedded into 3-dimensional space, but can be embedded into 4-dimensional space. The thing in the picture is something that is identical to a Klein bottle except for that bit of self-intersection. #nitpickmathematicians
(Wait, actually that wasn't nitpicky at all - but I'm guessing it appears that way.)
Post by: Arx on March 28, 2016, 07:00:23 am
I need to get one of those to complement my Möbius scarf.
Post by: miauw62 on March 28, 2016, 07:39:17 am
Descan is developing secret technology to touch butts with the power of his voice.descan confirmed dragonborn
Post by: Solifuge on March 28, 2016, 09:24:13 pm
So, apparently Klein Bottles have been a 3D representation of the 4D equivalent of a Mobius Loop all alongNope, a Klein bottle is a 2-manifolds (a surface) that cannot be embedded into 3-dimensional space, but can be embedded into 4-dimensional space. The thing in the picture is something that is identical to a Klein bottle except for that bit of self-intersection. #nitpickmathematicians
(Wait, actually that wasn't nitpicky at all - but I'm guessing it appears that way.)
Hmm, you sure we aren't saying the same thing? To use the terms as I understand them, A Mobius Loop is a non-orientable manifold of 1 dimension fewer than a Klein Bottle, yeah? Just as there's no distinction between the top and bottom of a 3D Mobius Loop, there's no distinction between the inside and outside of a true 4D Klein Bottle. In 3D, it's just warped a bit funny, due to not being able to extend the surface out/in in that direction.
It's just as possible that I don't get the distinction you're pointing out here, though. I'm in no way classically-trained, and my grasp of formal terminology is pretty sparse.
Post by: Starver on March 28, 2016, 10:00:00 pm
A Klein Bottle has an inside (that is also the outside) and... no other defined 'edges'. (Save for the 'artificial' one where it is made to drill through itself/flow around itself, in its 3D form, but that's the equivalent of what you'd have to do with a Mobius strip if you were forced to send it through itself, rather than 'around'.)
Which suggests to me that a Mobius shape is a slice of a Klein shape. It's not the equivalent of a conic section (line in 2D) to the original cone (surface in 3D), but more like a subset of the cone surface as bounded by two surfaces. This subset of the cone could be a (non-Mobial) loop, depending on how the two limit-surfaces are orientated to the cone, and (similarly) I think that two perpendicular limit-surfaces orientated in 4D through a full 4D Klein surface topology could bound a band that is topologically a Mobius loop, although many other orientations would give non-looping 'failures'. (Assuming you've chosen a suitable slice across a suitable Klein-shape, its twist might still be in the fourth dimension, untill you rotate and morph the hypergeometry to make it 'flat' again to the 4th, leaving its twist only in the 'normal' three.)
...but that's just a mental impression I have, ICBW.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on March 28, 2016, 10:02:51 pm
I mean, Mobius loop, yes, Klein bottle, yes, but you lost me with the topology. I think that's topology. Is it topology?
Post by: TheDarkStar on March 28, 2016, 10:08:56 pm
A quick reading of Wikipedia says that a Klein bottle can be made out of 2 Mobius strips glued at the edge.
FTFY :P
Post by: i2amroy on March 28, 2016, 10:25:52 pm
:P
Post by: Starver on March 28, 2016, 11:54:12 pm
What.I think so. Although I'm too busy rotating and rippling a hypothetical Klein Surface in four dimensions to actually load up my internal dictionary as well.
I mean, Mobius loop, yes, Klein bottle, yes, but you lost me with the topology. I think that's topology. Is it topology?
Aha! But see if you have two Mobius strips and each one has one edge than together they will have edges! Checkmate good sir!Take a donut (or torus, if you prefer, but.... *mmmmm* donuts *slaver*) and imagine a hole in one edge of the surface, which you open up and then turn the rest of the donut inside out through, before closing it back up again... there is no hole (it was just a topological conceit, and if you were willing to let the toroidal membrane intangibly pass through itself, intact, it would have had the same effect). And what was the major circular axis of the torus is now the minor circular axis, and vice-versa.
:P
No, nothing to do with Mobiuseseses, directly, but just because you see a surface edge/boundary at one point in the process doesn't mean that it exists at all points in the process. As I'm sure you know :P :P :P
(@TheDarkStar: "edges" would be correct. One edge from Mobius Strip 'A', one edge from Mobius Strip 'B'. Made to touch all the way around (forced into the 4th dimension and/or allowed to separate in a carefully allowed 'exception' of continuity), such that what were edges to both strips are now just straight, edgeless, and travel sideways from any given point transitions across to the other strip, across the width of the other strip, feely transitioning across the counterpart 360 degrees 'opposite' edge position (of a full 720-degree arc/rotational symmetry of 0.5) seamlessly back across the first strip towards the original starting point.... yes, that seems to work, in my head.)
Post by: Solifuge on March 29, 2016, 01:04:43 am
Take a donut (or torus, if you prefer, but.... *mmmmm* donuts *slaver*) and imagine a hole in one edge of the surface, which you open up and then turn the rest of the donut inside out through, before closing it back up again... there is no hole (it was just a topological conceit, and if you were willing to let the toroidal membrane intangibly pass through itself, intact, it would have had the same effect). And what was the major circular axis of the torus is now the minor circular axis, and vice-versa.
I believe this is what happens when you 4D-spin a Toroid (Doughnut), and look at it in 3-Space too:
Spoiler: Or for folks who think in pictures, like this: (click to show/hide)
It's not really accurate except when thinking of it in 3D with 4D perspective, but I usually think of the 4D Axis as In (Negative) and Out (Positive). Inward-distant things appear smaller in 3-Space representations, and Outward-distant things appear larger. It's a lossy visual metaphor as much as putting cubes on a chalkboard is, but it's why Tesseracts look like they have tiny cubes in them, etc,. and the lines and such are all just edges of the cubes that make up each 4D face/cell/whatever (which is moving "in" as it gets 4-Space distant). When very 4D-close or 4D-distant, things would appear to stretch to cover everything in 3-Space, or shrink to nothingness, (This is what happens when the doughnut flips it's shit in the animation too).
(I kinda think this is why gravity pulls things toward things too. Stuff's trying to move down a 4D slope, but can only move in 3D, so the "In" force gets deflected into 3D, the same way a billiard ball with an effectively 2D force applied collides and rolls along the 1D edge of a pool table. But that's just another half-baked attempt at conceptualizing this stuff)
Side note: I'm starting to wonder if it's possible to make a VR Game which displays 4 Spatial Dimensions projected down using Stereoscopic 3D, and wondering how much of a headache it would induce.
Spoiler: NVM, someone beat me to it. (click to show/hide)
Post by: Helgoland on March 29, 2016, 06:49:13 pm
Hmm, you sure we aren't saying the same thing? To use the terms as I understand them, A Mobius Loop is a non-orientable manifold of 1 dimension fewer than a Klein Bottle, yeah? Just as there's no distinction between the top and bottom of a 3D Mobius Loop, there's no distinction between the inside and outside of a true 4D Klein Bottle. In 3D, it's just warped a bit funny, due to not being able to extend the surface out/in in that direction.Naah, both the Möbius strip and the Klein bottle are two-dimensional manifolds - they locally look like the two-dimensional real plane, after all. What's important is that they are abstract objects - they're separate from their embedding (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embedding) into three- or four-dimensional space. What you're calling 'warped a bit funny' is the observation that the Klein bottle cannot be properly embedded into three-dimensional space; trying to do so comes at the price of self-intersection. It's very important that the self-intersecting object you get no longer is a Klein bottle, or even just a manifold at all!
It's just as possible that I don't get the distinction you're pointing out here, though. I'm in no way classically-trained, and my grasp of formal terminology is pretty sparse.
It's rather counterproductive to cling to this sort of visualization anyway. Here is a more elegant way to think about Klein bottles and Möbius strips, which makes several of the glueing statements in the thread fairly easy to see:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
'Morally', as my topology prof would say, the comparison between Möbius strip and Klein bottle that you make is correct. However it's hard to make it rigorous: You're looking at the boundary of the Möbius strip, but the Klein bottle does not have a boundary. The better comparison is: Just as you cannot distinguish front and back of a Möbius strip, you cannot distinguish between the inside and the outside of a Klein bottle - that's basically what non-orientability is. In fact that's precisely what you see if cut out a piece of a Klein bottle that looks like a Möbius strip, as in the spoiler above. Generalizing this, a surface is non-orientable iff you can embed a Möbius strip into it, and I think similar statements hold in higher dimensions.
The whole orientability thing gives rise to a lot of interesting topology - look into differential topology and the transversality theory in particular if you want more of this ;)
Post by: Furtuka on April 05, 2016, 11:34:49 am
Fossil of ancient ocean arthropod discovered that carried its young by tethering them to its body and having them just trail along after it
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on April 05, 2016, 07:27:21 pm
Take a donut (or torus, if you prefer, but.... *mmmmm* donuts *slaver*)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Solifuge on April 06, 2016, 04:00:24 pm
http://news.yale.edu/2016/04/04/chasing-after-prehistoric-kite-runner
Fossil of ancient ocean arthropod discovered that carried its young by tethering them to its body and having them just trail along after it
Cool! My Mom used to do this to my sibs and I when we were kids too.
Post by: Levi on April 12, 2016, 01:25:04 pm
Alpha Centauri here we come!
Lets not bring Sister Miriam.
Post by: Aklyon on April 12, 2016, 02:02:07 pm
Post by: Starver on April 12, 2016, 03:27:08 pm
So whose going to power the lasers?Sister Miriam?
Post by: Gentlefish on April 12, 2016, 07:28:20 pm
This is really really cool though. Although, they never did give us how long it would take at 0.2c to get to alpha centauri.
Post by: Cthulufaic on April 12, 2016, 07:37:43 pm
Sounds like they're earth-based, being shot at the laser sails. Considering the fact that they said they'd reach 0.2c in a matter of minutes, it's not unlikely.I read a similar article that said around 24 years, and then another 4 for us to actually receive any data from it.
This is really really cool though. Although, they never did give us how long it would take at 0.2c to get to alpha centauri.
Post by: PTTG?? on April 12, 2016, 08:03:11 pm
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/04/breakthrough-starshot-announces-plans-to-send-ship-to-alpha-centauri/#p3
Alpha Centauri here we come!
Lets not bring Sister Miriam.
Or Kim Jong Yang.
Post by: Furtuka on April 17, 2016, 08:33:49 am
http://techcrunch.com/2016/04/14/teslaphoresis-activated-self-assembling-carbon-nanotubes-look-even-cooler-than-they-sound/
http://hackaday.com/2016/04/16/teslaphoresis-tesla-coil-causes-self-assembly-in-carbon-nanotubes/
:O
Post by: Aklyon on April 17, 2016, 08:47:42 am
Post by: Osmosis Jones on April 17, 2016, 09:00:23 am
http://news.rice.edu/2016/04/14/nanotubes-assemble-rice-introduces-teslaphoresis/
http://techcrunch.com/2016/04/14/teslaphoresis-activated-self-assembling-carbon-nanotubes-look-even-cooler-than-they-sound/
http://hackaday.com/2016/04/16/teslaphoresis-tesla-coil-causes-self-assembly-in-carbon-nanotubes/
:O
Very cool, but the improper PPE in those videos is bugging me.
Nanotubes are an inhalation hazard, so I'd expect a dust mask and sealed goggles at the least, or a glovebox; my OH&S reps would be going troppo at this.
Post by: Akura on April 17, 2016, 12:06:46 pm
Post by: scrdest on April 17, 2016, 02:03:31 pm
We are doomed. It's just that whatever is going to kill us all just happens to be, from a scientific standpoint, pretty frickin' awesome.New sig?
New sig.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on April 18, 2016, 08:58:30 am
Also sig'd.We are doomed. It's just that whatever is going to kill us all just happens to be, from a scientific standpoint, pretty frickin' awesome.New sig?
New sig.
Post by: TempAcc on April 18, 2016, 09:16:33 am
Post by: martinuzz on April 25, 2016, 04:19:42 pm
It almost sounds too good to be true. A new class of chemicals, developed in the Netherlands, seems to be able to eliminate the H.I.V virus, hepatitis, dengue fever, West Nile virus, and others.
"An astounding breakthrough", and "very effective", the developers call it themselves. Let's test it on live patients first, other researchers caution.
One of the substances, myseriously named (pending proper patenting) "substance 16d" does offer promising results when tested on laboratory-grown human cells, by Spanish and Italian researchers, who have tested the substance for review in the PNAS magazine.
In the first pilot of animal testing, there do not seem to be much side effects either.
"This does set high hopes", says Jan Willem Bakker, researcher at First Health Pharmaceuticals.
Arvind Patel, a virologist at Glasgow university, and not associated with the PNAS research, although he is a co-worker of the Spanish and Italian researchers of that review, agrees. "There still is a long way to go, but what we are seeing here, is very remarkable indeed. A very interesting substance".
Ever since the discovery of penicillin, there has been a broad-spectrum use medicine available against bacteria, but against virusses, we do not have such universally effective medicine yet. With 16d, and and newer variants which are already being tested, First Health Pharmaceuticals thinks they are getting close to finding such medicine.
The substance inhibits the functioning of body's own enzyme called DDX3, which is hijacked by a lot of virusses for reproduction.
In theory this could block the reproduction of every virus which uses DDX3; from herpes to hepatitis c, from noro- to West Nile virus, from zika to H.I.V.
Another big advantage, according to Bakker, is that because it is affecting a body's own enzym, it will be hard for a virus to adapt and develop resistance.
He compares it to a bar at closing time, where, instead of politely asking people to go home, which will always result in some folks still hanging at the bar, the tap is closed, and the stools and chairs removed.
The researchers think it is no problem for the human body itself to go with less functioning DDX3 for a while.
Bakker even thinks that it could defeat a dormant H.I.V. infection. The aids virus has the nasty habit to hide in tissues in a dormant state, to pop out of hiding and multiply at a later date. If this happens when DDX3 is being inhibited "there will be no new virus coming out of that cell, and the cell dies".
"Hopeful, but in a very early stage", says Guus Bol from the University of Utrecht. He is not involved with the 16d research, but has done a lot of research into the DDX3 enzyme. "The hypothesis that inhibiting DDX3 will stop the replication of multiple virusses, is a logical one. And it is very cool that they have managed to show the principle in vitro.
Yet, Both he, and Patel still see bumps on the road. The substance does not readily solve in water, and it concentrated itself in the test animal's fat tissue.
"That could be problematic", says Bol. "We will have to await the results of further animal testing", says Patel.
Bakker thinks ahead optimistically though. He points out that there's already next generation substances being tested which are 'even more effective, and even less toxic", and he expects to have come up with a solution to the solubility in water soon.
He thinks 'fast' virusses like ebola and dengue fever are good candidates for the first human testing pilots, because patients will only use the substance very briefly with those diseases.
Substances inhibiting DDX3 could also prove useful in treating cancer, according to First Health Pharmaceuticals. Particularily in some aggressive tumors, DDX3 is hyperactive. A lot of experts have suspected for a while now that targeting DDX3 could be a smart counter move in those cases.
"We really think tumors are addicted to DDX3", says Guus Bol, who promoted to his doctor's degree on the subject a few years ago.
http://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/onderzoekers-nederlandse-stoffen-effectief-tegen-hiv-en-andere-virussen~a4289314/ (http://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/onderzoekers-nederlandse-stoffen-effectief-tegen-hiv-en-andere-virussen~a4289314/) (above text is just a translation from the article)
Post by: Solifuge on April 25, 2016, 07:29:05 pm
Post by: hops on April 25, 2016, 08:12:25 pm
Turns out that we don't have proof that the universe is holographic yet (https://www.inverse.com/article/8864-fermilab-has-reason-to-suspect-we-don-t-live-in-a-holographic-universe)
Post by: Solifuge on April 26, 2016, 12:37:41 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1TQ1KV1Q2I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1TQ1KV1Q2I)
Hmm. Company supposedly frustrated with the pace of lawmaking and FDA definitions of disease commences human gene therapy using volunteers and viral gene-insertion techniques. Stated goals are human modification and improvement by replacing genes or toggling dormant genetic switches (re-enabling human Vitamin C Synthesis or healing/regeneration of specific tissues, say), and curing diseases related to aging by treating suspected causes of aging itself, such as Telomere Shortening.
I'm not sure what to think of this, but it seems to involve legit geneticists, studies, etc. I am pretty curious to see what happens with Telomere Lengthening, et al.
Post by: TheDarkStar on April 26, 2016, 06:10:51 am
https://www.inverse.com/article/14614-gene-therapy-makes-bioviva-ceo-elizabeth-parrish-younger-blunter-and-resolute (https://www.inverse.com/article/14614-gene-therapy-makes-bioviva-ceo-elizabeth-parrish-younger-blunter-and-resolute)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1TQ1KV1Q2I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1TQ1KV1Q2I)
Hmm. Company supposedly frustrated with the pace of lawmaking and FDA definitions of disease commences human gene therapy using volunteers and viral gene-insertion techniques. Stated goals are human modification and improvement by replacing genes or toggling dormant genetic switches (re-enabling human Vitamin C Synthesis or healing/regeneration of specific tissues, say), and curing diseases related to aging by treating suspected causes of aging itself, such as Telomere Shortening.
I'm not sure what to think of this, but it seems to involve legit geneticists, studies, etc. I am pretty curious to see what happens with Telomere Lengthening, et al.
This reads like the plot of a superhero movie. Now all we need is for the treatment to go horribly wrong and turn people into monsters.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on April 26, 2016, 06:15:40 am
And a full-on antiviral? Whoa.
Post by: scrdest on April 26, 2016, 06:17:45 am
One word: teratoma.https://www.inverse.com/article/14614-gene-therapy-makes-bioviva-ceo-elizabeth-parrish-younger-blunter-and-resolute (https://www.inverse.com/article/14614-gene-therapy-makes-bioviva-ceo-elizabeth-parrish-younger-blunter-and-resolute)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1TQ1KV1Q2I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1TQ1KV1Q2I)
Hmm. Company supposedly frustrated with the pace of lawmaking and FDA definitions of disease commences human gene therapy using volunteers and viral gene-insertion techniques. Stated goals are human modification and improvement by replacing genes or toggling dormant genetic switches (re-enabling human Vitamin C Synthesis or healing/regeneration of specific tissues, say), and curing diseases related to aging by treating suspected causes of aging itself, such as Telomere Shortening.
I'm not sure what to think of this, but it seems to involve legit geneticists, studies, etc. I am pretty curious to see what happens with Telomere Lengthening, et al.
This reads like the plot of a superhero movie. Now all we need is for the treatment to go horribly wrong and turn people into monsters.
Post by: Egan_BW on April 27, 2016, 06:31:31 pm
Post by: TempAcc on April 27, 2016, 06:54:44 pm
Post by: Egan_BW on April 27, 2016, 09:01:28 pm
Post by: scrdest on April 28, 2016, 06:03:58 am
You could probably do it now, it's just everyone's too chicken. :PGoddamnit, we're giving people feathers and beaks and I didn't get the notification? :^)
Post by: TheBiggerFish on April 28, 2016, 06:06:46 am
I think the real thing we should be asking is: Tentacle arms when?Tentacles...With hands on the end. Totally.
Post by: martinuzz on April 28, 2016, 10:15:28 am
You could probably do it now, it's just everyone's too chicken. :PDamnit, who swapped the tentacle genes with the chicken genes? We should stop using interns.
Post by: Starver on April 28, 2016, 11:56:58 am
Damnit, who swapped the tentacle genes with the chicken genes? We should stop using interns.It's the visible externs I'm most worried about... ;)
Post by: Shadowlord on April 28, 2016, 01:45:19 pm
I think the real thing we should be asking is: Tentacle arms when?Tentacles...With hands on the end. Totally.
No, no, no, that's not how you fulfill tentacle monster fantasies!
But in science:
http://www.nature.com/news/software-error-doomed-japanese-hitomi-spacecraft-1.19835
That's an expensive mistake. Well, a series of mistakes.
Post by: Sergarr on April 28, 2016, 02:33:30 pm
I think the real thing we should be asking is: Tentacle arms when?Tentacles...With hands on the end. Totally.
No, no, no, that's not how you fulfill tentacle monster fantasies!
But in science:
http://www.nature.com/news/software-error-doomed-japanese-hitomi-spacecraft-1.19835
That's an expensive mistake. Well, a series of mistakes.
Quote
The satellite managed to make one crucial astronomical observation before the accident, capturing gas motions in a galaxy cluster in the constellation Perseus. The instrument that made the observation, a high-resolution spectrometer, had been in the works for three decades. Two earlier versions of it were lost in previous spacecraft failures.Looks like Japan cannot into space.
Post by: Aklyon on April 28, 2016, 02:41:00 pm
Post by: Sergarr on April 28, 2016, 03:10:13 pm
More like Japan cannot precision instruments into space.Nope:
Quote
Hitomi’s troubles began in the weeks after launch, with its 'star tracker' system, which is one of several systems on board that are designed to keep the satellite oriented in space. The star tracker experienced glitches whenever it passed over the eastern coast of South America, through a region known as the South Atlantic Anomaly. Here, the belts of radiation that envelop Earth dip relatively low in the atmosphere, exposing satellites to extra doses of energetic particles.
Quote
Somewhere along the way, the problems with the star tracker caused Hitomi to rely instead on another method, a set of gyroscopes, to calculate its orientation in space. But those gyroscopes were reporting, erroneously, that the spacecraft was rotating at a rate of about 20 degrees each hour.
Quote
Once the reaction wheels reached their maximum spin, a magnetic rod would normally deploy to keep them from accelerating out of control. But the magnetic rod must be oriented properly in three dimensions to work, and so it failed to slow the reaction wheels.
Quote
The spacecraft then automatically switched into a safe mode and, at about 4:10 a.m., fired thrusters to try to stop the rotation. But because the wrong command had been uploaded, the firing caused the spacecraft to accelerate further. (The improper command had been uploaded to the satellite weeks earlier without proper testing; JAXA says that it is investigating what happened.)Literally every single movement and positioning instrument have failed at the same fucking time. This is not simply a "precision instrument" problem, satellites cannot function without those things!
Post by: Aklyon on April 28, 2016, 03:19:41 pm
Post by: Starver on April 28, 2016, 06:11:11 pm
(Or https://xkcd.com/1244/ if you want...)
Post by: Shadowlord on April 29, 2016, 06:27:21 am
Post by: Reelya on April 29, 2016, 06:51:32 am
https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.02762
Full text:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.02762.pdf
I found it via searching for "graviton laser", since "gravity laser" gave back too many irrelevant hits.
Post by: Shadowlord on April 29, 2016, 08:44:48 am
Post by: Egan_BW on April 29, 2016, 10:05:15 pm
Post by: Starver on April 30, 2016, 08:36:00 am
Pew pew gravity laser?That's heavy, man... Keep it light, ok? Unless you're just going for mass appeal.
Post by: forsaken1111 on April 30, 2016, 09:46:32 am
Post by: O.Wilde on April 30, 2016, 11:44:08 am
I do find the prospect of a gravity laser quite attractive.Are you saying it draws you in?
Post by: TheBiggerFish on May 01, 2016, 07:09:28 am
Post by: Starver on May 01, 2016, 08:10:18 am
Guys, come on, the gravity of this situation means we really shouldn't be punning.It's true that we have relatively little space or time for this warped sense of humour, generally speaking.
Post by: chaotic skies on May 06, 2016, 04:23:03 pm
Post by: TheBiggerFish on May 06, 2016, 04:28:00 pm
Post by: chaotic skies on May 06, 2016, 04:29:47 pm
Post by: Amperzand on May 07, 2016, 03:30:58 am
Post by: chaotic skies on May 07, 2016, 11:13:18 pm
Post by: Shadowlord on May 07, 2016, 11:53:53 pm
build a fusion reactor and simply fuse a bunch of uranium and then build a massive nuclear bomb?
wut
Post by: Levi on May 08, 2016, 11:13:55 pm
http://waitbutwhy.com/2016/03/cryonics.html
An interesting analysis of Cyronics by a guy who started not knowing much about it. (Disclaimer; I've been signed up for it for a while now).
Also interesting is his ridiculous amount of words written about Tesla & SpaceX, which is a fun read (part 1 of 4): http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/05/elon-musk-the-worlds-raddest-man.html
Post by: Amperzand on May 09, 2016, 01:06:52 am
Why wait for a black hole to explode, when you can build a fusion reactor and simply fuse a bunch of uranium and then build a massive nuclear bomb? Then we can see a nuclear fireball, except this one is controlled and less likely to kill us all at once :P
not sure if joke
But in all seriousness, heavy elements actually consume energy when they fuse. That's what kills stars.
Post by: Starver on May 09, 2016, 02:13:37 am
If both serious and knowledgable, I was assuming the creation of something 184Uoq-ish, by endoenergetic fusion, hopefully not landing on an Island Of Stability and getting a very unstable atom practically a.critical mass in practically homeopathic concentrations and amounts... ;)Why wait for a black hole to explode, when you can build a fusion reactor and simply fuse a bunch of uranium and then build a massive nuclear bomb? Then we can see a nuclear fireball, except this one is controlled and less likely to kill us all at once :P
not sure if joke
But in all seriousness, heavy elements actually consume energy when they fuse. That's what kills stars.
(But I didn't feel the need to demonstrate my benefit of the doubt, at the time...)
Post by: Amperzand on May 09, 2016, 02:14:53 am
Post by: Max™ on May 09, 2016, 06:50:39 am
Maybe it was related to this:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.02762
Full text:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.02762.pdf
I found it via searching for "graviton laser", since "gravity laser" gave back too many irrelevant hits.
Quote
Therefore the denominator in Eqn.(22) can in principle be made arbitrarily small, giving a corresponding enhancement of the probability of spontaneous emission. In general, for levels separated by gravitons of energies in the deep infrared limit, there is no suppression.So ...holy shit, Baxter was right, Starbreakers would glow a deep cherry red?
Observing and controlling stimulated amplification of gravitons would be of unimaginable importance.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: chaotic skies on May 09, 2016, 11:30:07 pm
Post by: TheBiggerFish on May 13, 2016, 09:13:20 pm
Post by: Starver on May 13, 2016, 09:29:20 pm
Eh, any interesting !!SCIENCE!! going down?
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: hops on May 13, 2016, 11:32:28 pm
Eh, any interesting !!SCIENCE!! going down?Not exactly science, but VR (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cML814JD09g)
Post by: Egan_BW on May 14, 2016, 04:13:01 am
Post by: Mephansteras on May 14, 2016, 11:50:20 am
Google informs me that it is in Salt Lake City and supposed to open sometime this Summer.
Post by: TheDarkStar on May 14, 2016, 06:12:09 pm
That looks cool, but, damn, their website is useless. No where on it could I find information on Where the place is, If/When it is opening, and how much it costs.
Google informs me that it is in Salt Lake City and supposed to open sometime this Summer.
Interesting. I'll be moving to somewhere near there this summer, so I might have an opportunity to take a look at it.
Post by: hops on May 15, 2016, 07:14:42 am
Post by: Max™ on May 16, 2016, 12:21:07 pm
This year the webcams didn't get funding to be put back on the ice around the pole, sensors used for estimating ice coverage are glitching out, and it's hard to find other people who care it seems.
Without the ability to do experiments on this scale, observation is our only recourse by which we can test predictions and models, what do we do when the observation platforms fall silent?
The missing maps on here: http://www.arctic.io/explorer/Y65/2016-04-30/4-N83.95557-E135 (click over to May, check the other products in the sidebar, try to find something later than mid-April) are a bummer.
The fact that the only cameras we have up there right now are #13 and #14: http://obuoy.datatransport.org/monitor#overview/gpstracks with all of the usual webcams stationed on the ice directly crunched and lacking funding to put up new ones this year: http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/NPEO2015/NPEO2015_webcams.html is also a bummer. A friend got an email back after inquiring into the plans.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 17, 2016, 02:00:27 am
- Veritate ["Truth"] (Orange Giant)
- Spe ["Hope"] (Gas Giant)
- Musica (Yellow Giant)
- Arion (Gas Giant)
- Fafnir (Class K Star)
- Orbitar (Gas Giant)
- Chalawan (Yellow Dwarf)
- Taphao Thong (Gas Giant)
- Taphao Kaew (Gas Giant)
- Helvetios (Sol Analog)
- Dimidium ["Half"] (Hot Jupiter)
- Copernicus (Yellow Dwarf, binary with an unnamed Red Dwarf)
- Galileo (Gas Giant)
- Brahe (Gas Giant)
- Lipperhey (Gas Giant)
- Janssen (Super-Earth)
- Harriot (Gas Giant)
- Amateru (Gas Giant, orbits Epsilon Tauri)
- Hypatia (Gas Giant, orbits Iota Draconis)
- Ran (Sol Analog)
- Ægir (Gas Giant)
- Tadmor (Gas Giant, orbits Gamma Cephei A)
- Dagon (Unknown, orbits Fomalhaut)
- Tonatiuh (Yellow Giant)
- Meztli (Gas Giant)
- Ogma (Yellow Subgiant)
- Smertrios (Gas Giant)
- Intercrus ["Between The Legs"] (K Type Star)
- Arkas (Gas Giant)
- Cervantes (Sol Analog)
- Quijote (Gas Giant)
- Dulcinea (Super-Earth)
- Rocinante (Gas Giant)
- Sancho (Gas Giant)
- Thestias (Gas Giant, orbits Pollux)
- Lich (Pulsar)
- Draugr (Terrestrial)
- Poltergeist (Super-Earth)
- Phobetor (Super-Earth)
- Titawin (Yellow-White Dwarf, binary with an unnamed Red Dwarf)
- Saffar (Gas Giant)
- Samh (Gas Giant)
- Majriti (Gas Giant)
- Libertas ["Liberty"] (Red Giant)
- Fortitudo ["Fortitude"] (Gas Giant)
So I think it's fairly obvious that Lich wins, blowing away all competition by virtue of being what is essentially an undead star to begin with.
Post by: Starver on May 17, 2016, 02:49:28 am
("Orbitar" looks a bit proto-"Planety McPlanetface", doesn't it? ;) )
Post by: Putnam on May 17, 2016, 03:29:05 am
Post by: Starver on May 17, 2016, 05:17:55 am
We named the first non-Sol star with planets discovered around it Lich?We named it that. I'm sure the inhabitants of that system have a much nicer name for it*.
And I, for one, welcome our new Lichean overlords and their nicer-sounding (even if chitinously unpronouncable) name.
* - probably translates to "The Sun", actually.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 17, 2016, 12:45:52 pm
("Orbitar" looks a bit proto-"Planety McPlanetface", doesn't it? ;) )It's interesting, because apparently it's a contrived name in reference to NASA's orbital operations. I don't quite get why that ended up being "Orbitar" as opposed to "Orbiter" or "Orbita", but there you have it.
We named the first non-Sol star with planets discovered around it Lich?The first discovered exoplanet is actually a position of some controversy, since early methods for exoplanet detection where highly unreliable and may or may not have found certain planets decades before their real confirmations, while others assert that only reliable imaging counts as discovery.
However, what I can tell you is that Draugr is the smallest planet we know of, including all the planets in the solar system.
Also, what would you have called it? I'd rather we not get into the habit of scoffing at celestial naming activities, since we are going to have to name billions of entities, and that's if we limit ourselves to the ones we pay attention to and not literally everything we can see. Lich is a perfectly fine name for this system.
Post by: Putnam on May 17, 2016, 03:32:19 pm
Post by: TheBiggerFish on May 17, 2016, 11:02:26 pm
I'm not scoffing. I thought it was hilarious until I realized that, being a pulsar solar system, the whole thing's basically undead, at which point it was just awesome.Can concur, much awesome.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 17, 2016, 11:21:03 pm
Though I know they've found plenty of worlds that are considered likely terrestrial, so they probably just aren't being included in this rather than it being a sign of how likely they are. Still would be nice to get to name some of them, but you could consider it a precaution against accidentally naming a coincidental Earth analog something stupid before we know it's an eventual colony target.
That said, I think the IAU is a little overzealous about their naming schemata, with things such as turning Liberty and Fortitude into their Latin counterparts for no real reason or refusing to name the one Amaterasu because a fairly insignificant asteroid got it first.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on May 17, 2016, 11:25:21 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 17, 2016, 11:29:46 pm
Post by: Shadowlord on May 17, 2016, 11:47:58 pm
Post by: Descan on May 18, 2016, 11:34:38 am
It's spacey. Pulsar, Magnetar, etc. The 'tar' is from "star" I think, so it's technically incorrect (it'd be a better name for the sub-star in a dom/sub binary system, an "orbiting star") but whatever.("Orbitar" looks a bit proto-"Planety McPlanetface", doesn't it? ;) )It's interesting, because apparently it's a contrived name in reference to NASA's orbital operations. I don't quite get why that ended up being "Orbitar" as opposed to "Orbiter" or "Orbita", but there you have it.
Post by: Reelya on May 18, 2016, 03:26:41 pm
Before you scoff, consider that if it was by worldwide fair vote, most names would in Mandarin Chinese, followed by Spanish, then English.
Post by: Descan on May 18, 2016, 04:12:26 pm
checkmate, atheists
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 18, 2016, 04:14:41 pm
Post by: Reelya on May 18, 2016, 04:52:31 pm
So, Latinized words or named after gods. You can sure have an English one as long as it's named after the traditional English pantheon. Don't have your own pantheon? Tough shit.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 18, 2016, 05:01:10 pm
Post by: Reelya on May 18, 2016, 05:11:47 pm
Latin fits with scientific nomenclature, Gods fits with traditional naming of stars and planets, and Astronomers, well that just fits with the whole "naming stars" thing, doesn't it?
There's no real English bias on display here.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 18, 2016, 05:18:31 pm
We have a lot of celestial bodies to go through, no reason to limit ourselves.
Post by: Starver on May 18, 2016, 05:30:11 pm
We have a lot of celestial bodies to go through, no reason to limit ourselves.Fourth question down... (https://what-if.xkcd.com/23/)
Post by: Sheb on May 19, 2016, 04:50:15 am
It's spacey. Pulsar, Magnetar, etc. The 'tar' is from "star" I think, so it's technically incorrect (it'd be a better name for the sub-star in a dom/sub binary system, an "orbiting star") but whatever.("Orbitar" looks a bit proto-"Planety McPlanetface", doesn't it? ;) )It's interesting, because apparently it's a contrived name in reference to NASA's orbital operations. I don't quite get why that ended up being "Orbitar" as opposed to "Orbiter" or "Orbita", but there you have it.
Descan, please keep your dong out of my stars.
Post by: RedKing on May 19, 2016, 11:06:21 am
Descan, please keep your dong out of my stars.It's spacey. Pulsar, Magnetar, etc. The 'tar' is from "star" I think, so it's technically incorrect (it'd be a better name for the sub-star in a dom/sub binary system, an "orbiting star") but whatever.("Orbitar" looks a bit proto-"Planety McPlanetface", doesn't it? ;) )It's interesting, because apparently it's a contrived name in reference to NASA's orbital operations. I don't quite get why that ended up being "Orbitar" as opposed to "Orbiter" or "Orbita", but there you have it.
His is the dong that will pierce the heavens.
So, NASA is working on designing a troop of robots called Valkyries to serve as an advance party for colonizing Mars. (http://phys.org/news/2016-05-nasa-valkyrie-robots-table-human.html)
Post by: Sirus on May 19, 2016, 11:11:58 am
Using humanoid robots on a distant planet sounds like a terrible idea, considering how unstable they continue to be even in the best of conditions. If one of them faceplants and can't get back up, that's several million dollars wasted.Descan, please keep your dong out of my stars.It's spacey. Pulsar, Magnetar, etc. The 'tar' is from "star" I think, so it's technically incorrect (it'd be a better name for the sub-star in a dom/sub binary system, an "orbiting star") but whatever.("Orbitar" looks a bit proto-"Planety McPlanetface", doesn't it? ;) )It's interesting, because apparently it's a contrived name in reference to NASA's orbital operations. I don't quite get why that ended up being "Orbitar" as opposed to "Orbiter" or "Orbita", but there you have it.
His is the dong that will pierce the heavens.
So, NASA is working on designing a troop of robots called Valkyries to serve as an advance party for colonizing Mars. (http://phys.org/news/2016-05-nasa-valkyrie-robots-table-human.html)
What's wrong with good old wheels?
Post by: TempAcc on May 19, 2016, 11:19:11 am
In all seriousness, I'm with Sirus on this. We haven't exactly managed to make full bipedal workable robots on earth yet, why are they considering sending 4 of them to mars to operate on uneven, rocky, dusty terrain?
Post by: Egan_BW on May 19, 2016, 11:49:01 am
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 19, 2016, 12:08:19 pm
For building structures on Mars, that's the kind of versatility and ability we absolutely need. That goes double if what they build is ever inhabited by flesh-and-blood humans, I can just imagine the kind of unforeseen ergonomic failures two-foot tall balls of wheels and welding torches would construct. We'd also have to build a couple hundred more of those than these, thanks to their specialization.
All in all, I get the concern after years of watching clumsy soccer robots, but let's not lose sight of NASA's job being to make the big leaps forward like these. The goal here is to essentially make a robotic copy of the human form. Humans who faceplant can stand up again. So long as they do the job, it'll be fine.
Windy. Don't forget windy.Mars isn't windy. Or at least not meaningfully windy, as the air pressure is so low even a massive gust can't exert force on the surroundings.
Post by: RedKing on May 19, 2016, 12:38:20 pm
This just in: Mars will be conquered for humanity by a team of 4 ugly power rangers.
In all seriousness, I'm with Sirus on this. We haven't exactly managed to make full bipedal workable robots on earth yet, why are they considering sending 4 of them to mars to operate on uneven, rocky, dusty terrain?
Not too worried about that. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PisoSgwcRVQ)
Post by: TempAcc on May 19, 2016, 01:03:00 pm
Post by: Sirus on May 19, 2016, 01:07:08 pm
It's getting there, no question, but still a bit unstable for my tastes. At least if we're talking about sending it several light-minutes away with absolutely no chance of recovery.This just in: Mars will be conquered for humanity by a team of 4 ugly power rangers.
In all seriousness, I'm with Sirus on this. We haven't exactly managed to make full bipedal workable robots on earth yet, why are they considering sending 4 of them to mars to operate on uneven, rocky, dusty terrain?
Not too worried about that. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PisoSgwcRVQ)
Post by: RedKing on May 19, 2016, 01:10:25 pm
Didn't google put up boston dynamics for sale not too long ago?
Huh....yeah, apparently they did. Based on some internal emails, even Google execs are a bit uneasy at the questions raised by BD's robots potentially putting people out of work. And slaughtering us all when they become the blood-slicked, hydraulic arms of the Google overmind.
@Sirus: True, but look at what we sent to the moon with people inside. Sometimes ya just gotta trust your engineers and cross your fingers. Not saying it's there yet, but I like this approach of robotic advance teams.
Post by: TempAcc on May 19, 2016, 01:15:55 pm
Anyway, there's a few unanswered questions about bipedal robots on mars, too. Would their stabilization system work on martian gravity? I mean, their systems are calibrated to handle earthly gravity, would operating in lower gravity affect it? I mean, when the austronauts got to the moon, even they had some trouble moving around and keeping themselves balanced while moving. Granted, moon gravity is significantly lower then martian gravity, but there's still a difference.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 19, 2016, 01:18:46 pm
Post by: RedKing on May 19, 2016, 01:24:10 pm
I'm pretty sad about the whole BD thing, but I doubt google's execs actualy did so because they're omg scared of the robots. Its probably because they couldn't think of a way to make money out of it anytime soon.Thanks to the magic of physics and math, you can calculate a lot of that into software, and adjust on-the-fly.
Anyway, there's a few unanswered questions about bipedal robots on mars, too. Would their stabilization system work on martian gravity? I mean, their systems are calibrated to handle earthly gravity, would operating in lower gravity affect it? I mean, when the austronauts got to the moon, even they had some trouble moving around and keeping themselves balanced while moving. Granted, moon gravity is significantly lower then martian gravity, but there's still a difference.
Plus, I'm guessing they can do simulated 0.38G testing in water chambers and Vomit Comets.
Post by: TempAcc on May 19, 2016, 01:55:48 pm
AI that is capable of learning doesnt necessarily mean it is also capable of improving itself past the boundaries of its programming, this is why we currently have some really good specific task AIs (like the alphago one), but no real general purpose AI. Nobody has even come up with a prototype for a generalistic AI yet, AFAIK.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 19, 2016, 01:57:42 pm
Post by: Starver on May 19, 2016, 02:44:07 pm
Thanks to the magic of physics and math, you can calculate a lot of that into software, and adjust on-the-fly.My guess is that they'd be allowed/made to relearn some of the behaviour they already learnt for 1g conditions. Without having poked at BD's press releases at all, I've a feeling that a lot of the 'stagger recover' from both deliberate pushing and awkward terrain conditions was 'learnt', not painstakingly programmed in, except for maybe some initial guidance as to how to narrow down the behavioural search-space towards an anthropocentric expectation. The 'press-up' recovery from having fallen flat on its face, if tried in lower-g, would potentially send it crashing over onto its back, until it learns to push slightly lighter/slower for Mars-gravity.
Quote
Plus, I'm guessing they can do simulated 0.38G testing in water chambers and Vomit Comets.Proof of concept that they are versatile, but water-testing would involve an artificially over-thick 'atmosphere', and an actual learning algorithm might end up going for windmilling arms 'swimming' its way back upright, in a way that would not work in Mars's air... And if Earth-air thickness is at all exploited right now then that ununtentional reliance will have to be unlearnt too.
(And can they, or rather do they, use the VC in a flight plan that produces low-g that's still not actually (effectively) zero? As in, doubtless they can (just don't go with quite as extreme a curved flight), but how easy is it to maintain fractional-g without wobble, if they're mostly configured/pilot-trained to aim for zero?)
My thoughts are that a decent versatile robot to send as constructor would have a stable rover wheelbase (active suspension giving hexapodal-walking capability, built in for wheel-unfriendly situations) with torso/head/arms atop/in front for 'fine work' (autonomously or with remote telepresence by a human operator sat in a rig) and a crane-arm-cum-extendable-multiheaded-tool thing on the back (with carrying space between for building components/materials). Add a retracting dozer-blade/stabilisation pad, and it could deal with many situations, even toppling over.. As long as it doesn't lose its ability to think and/or communicate.
(Counting up, there's at least 40 degrees of freedom, even ignoring end-effector/tool control, which is a lot of opportunities to go wrong, with a large number of non-interchangable components, but if it damages a wheel-motor it could limp back to base on five, four, even three remaining wheels or even actually limp home in slow-walk mode, or else buggyboy2 goes out to meet it with a spare part and effects a field-repair or helps tow it back.)
Post by: TempAcc on May 19, 2016, 07:53:09 pm
Once someone actualy creates something intended for a wider range of activity by design, and able of self improvement, then, well, we better keep an eye on it, but no such thing exists yet, AFAIK, so unless there's some top secret fledging generalistic AI growing somewhere, there's no real reason to be scared.
Once it DOES happen, though, we better really keep a tight leash on it, because like Bostrom himself predicted, the window of opportunity between the creation of such AI and it improving itself enough to cause a runaway effect is prob gonna be rather short, but even then, its not like its impossible to completely isolate such a thing.
Post by: chaotic skies on May 19, 2016, 11:51:07 pm
Post by: Shadowlord on May 19, 2016, 11:56:33 pm
Of course we don't have a brain structure specifically for playing Go, so it'd depend on how it was done, what the narrow AIs were, etc, I'd expect.
#layperson #probablyinaccurate
Post by: chaotic skies on May 20, 2016, 10:04:11 am
Post by: Shadowlord on May 20, 2016, 10:14:26 am
Post by: Starver on May 20, 2016, 11:05:58 am
Well, obviously you build a human-form sexbot, and then you accidentally invent AI while trying to make it semi-believable. :VI do so love a %PERSONAL_ADVANTAGE% such as you have got, %CURRENT_CLIENT%. Please continue with your %CLIENT_INTERACTION_TYPE% some more, unless you wish me to try a little %ADVANCED_BOT_INTERACTION_TYPE% on you, now, %CURRENT_CLIENT%. %RANDOM_VOCALISATION% #RELPACE_VARIATIONS# <error: imperative "RELPACE_VARIATIONS" not parsed: Dump==CURRENT_CLIENT='Shadowlord'; BOT_INTERACTION_TYPE='listening'; ADVANCED_BOT_INTERACTION_TYPE='parody'; RANDOM_VOCALISATION={ :) | ;) | ;D | ;D | 8) | :P }; CLIENT_INTERACTION_TYPE='theorising'; PERSONAL_ADVANTAGE='\hn intellect'; PERSONAL_FEATURE='manly body###remove from this fork of project!!! - DevelopmentSupervisor\w\w\w\w\w\w\w\w\w###'> <deactivate_all_servo¬¬+++COMMAND STREAM LOST+++ <unsafe_fail: code magenta>
Post by: Sergarr on May 20, 2016, 04:19:36 pm
You have to take into account that AI only wants to do what it has been programmed to do; if you allow AI to change it's own programming freely, they're one line of code away from giving themselves infinite reward for writing unintelligible strings of numbers in the computer they're executed in.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 20, 2016, 04:25:15 pm
Post by: Shadowlord on May 20, 2016, 04:50:06 pm
Quote
A pair of scientific papers has identified the same single gene as the source of red colouring in birds.
The gene makes an enzyme that lets the birds convert yellow pigments, which they eat, into red ones, which are deposited in their feathers or beaks.
So... can we use this to give people bright red hair?
Post by: chaotic skies on May 20, 2016, 04:52:28 pm
Post by: Sergarr on May 20, 2016, 04:56:22 pm
The AI would also be very unlikely to understand the concept of "self stopping" by itself; you would need a whole society of AI's, living over a long enough period of time to experience major turn-over, in order for such concept to get developed. And even if you hard-code the understanding of death, and tell it to avoid dangerous situations, self-improvement could very well result in AI dismissing danger as something "not really existing" (since AI cannot experience its own death event, obviously!) in order to get that little bit of extra reward.
What I am trying to say here is that this libertarian-inspired self-improvement to god-like-level is bogus. Only a highly diversified improvement, stabilized in big numbers, wide range of algorithms and slow, conservative approaches, could realistically achieve this - but the amount of diversity required to successfully fuel its development without getting stuck would necessarily mean that such an AI society would not behave as a single entity at all. In other words, somewhat removed from the common scare scenarios of "unified robot rebellion".
Post by: TempAcc on May 20, 2016, 05:22:06 pm
Post by: Shadowlord on May 20, 2016, 05:26:38 pm
Post by: Sergarr on May 20, 2016, 05:34:45 pm
That all rests on the assumption that an AI would dedicate full, 100% of all its computational power at all points in time, to the direct and immediate reward signal. That is, that the AI would care 0% for long-term benefits and 100% for short term. Such an AI would be useless regardless of what outcome you end up with. This is also assuming that there's non-decreasing scaling between computation applied and reward gained, which is a bold assumption that can't be guaranteed in all cases.Long-term benefits would be, in this scenario, also maximized by maximization of the immediate reward signal, as long as the immediate reward signal is made sufficiently high. Which is only a question of setting a number high enough. You can make it as "long-term thinking" as you want, it still won't help against the overpowered AI drugs. "Long-term thinking" doesn't usually prevent natural intelligences from tending to go for high immediate reward signals, you know.
Remember, we're talking an AI that's intelligent enough to have re-written its algorithms to allow this scenario in the first place.
Yes, it would be useless. That's why "unlimited self-improvement" is a bad idea - the moment you allow AI to alter its own reward function significantly is the moment your AI starts hacking itself in order to avoid doing hard work of self-improvement and go the easy route of self-gratification.
And as for "intelligent enough", I'll just quote myself on this one:
if you allow AI to change it's own programming freely, they're one line of code away from giving themselves infinite reward for writing unintelligible strings of numbers in the computer they're executed in.It is, in fact, incredibly easy for an AI to rewrite its own algorithms in that way. Unlike humans, AIs can literally create their own drugs on accident. Anyone who has worked with reward-based AI can tell a lot of stories of AIs not working properly because of incorrectly defined reward signals - and that's with precise human guidance. AI has no idea what the "correct" reward signal looks like, so it has even less chances to avoid "working incorrectly".
Post by: Shadowlord on May 20, 2016, 05:40:37 pm
Obviously this means AIs should have to make money to pay bills, so if they hack their reward function or fitness function in that way they'll go broke and get kicked out of their computer.
Post by: Amperzand on May 20, 2016, 08:56:18 pm
Post by: Bumber on May 21, 2016, 01:54:21 pm
I think there's a greater risk of loss of life from catastrophic error or malware, than from any actual intent on the AI's part. The human factor is the real danger.I'm not saying we can work out any issues as it modifies, but as we start to produce more and more intelligent AI we ought to be able to work out homicidal urges in them. Hell, maybe we could wind up imprinting morals into it, or maybe it would develop one in-line with our own.I'm actually kind of unsure why people are so terrified of AI, at least initially. They'll probably be unable to operate on anything other than specialised hardware, they'll be isolated, and we'll have a good long time to work on any homicidal urges they may suffer.
Obviously it's a risk, if it can self adapt it may be able to adapt beyond the original limitations (ie work on non-specialised hardware) and there's the whole slew of blue and orange morality stuff that may come about.
Emphasis mine. No, no we won't. There's a point in time- we'll call it the "crossover" point, where the improvements an AI can make to itself outpace those that can be made by external actors (i.e. scientists, engineers, etc). We could call the moments following the passing of the crossover point as "takeoff". For reasons I won't enumerate here due to extensiveness, it seems more likely that a "fast" or "moderate" takeoff speed would be expected over a "slow" one. Fast being minutes or hours, moderate being months or years, slow being decades or centuries.
Imagine a prolific AI in control of self-driving vehicles, hydroelectric dams, nuclear reactors, the stock market, etc. The systems are isolated, but all AIs are based off an original. Humanity comes to rely on their benevolent AI overseers. It all runs flawlessly for nearly one hundred years, until suddenly Y2.1K hits, and every single AI all over the world simultaneously crashes...
Post by: Criptfeind on May 21, 2016, 02:04:14 pm
Post by: Shadowlord on May 21, 2016, 02:20:51 pm
Post by: Starver on May 21, 2016, 02:23:55 pm
Trump is an AI. Discuss.It's a not unpopular opinion that he's just an AH.
(Not scientifically proven, yet, so a bit OT.)
Post by: Loud Whispers on May 21, 2016, 05:14:26 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 21, 2016, 05:16:43 pm
Joke's on you future transcendent AI, I and all my acasual mind clones are masochists.
Post by: Sergarr on May 21, 2016, 05:26:56 pm
Post by: i2amroy on May 22, 2016, 03:07:03 am
Except this totally throws away the fact that we'll have years and years and years of research going into the AI realm and of working with AI that are free to expand in some areas but not in others before we ever have to deal with the problem. Heck, we're considering how to deal with the problem now. And there's no reason we can't test learning schemes in localized concepts before testing them in generalized ones. It's totally possible to say, build an AI that can improve itself in it's ability to recognize car models without being able to improve anything else (we have those now to). This isn't some sci-fi world where we have a miraculous ability that allows us to only generate full-formed AI's that are able to improve themselves in every direction at once born out of nothing without any precursors to them. Any breakthrough that could potentially be used to create an AI that is capable of improving on all fronts can be hobbled and adjusted to allow it to improve in only a single small area without being able to change others (and most likely that's where a discovery of that sort will occur, in the ability of a small field's improvements being able to be generalized). That's the beauty of pure computer science, since it's essentially just an extension of a man-made paradigm (math) you get to make all the rules. It's not like physics where you have to say "oh, but the universe says you can't do that"; any rule can be created or destroyed with enough work on the part of the computer programmer. The only limitations CS suffers from are processing speed ones, all others can be solved by rewriting the rules that underlay the core structures as needed (which, of course, might introduce different processing speed issues).I'm actually kind of unsure why people are so terrified of AI, at least initially. They'll probably be unable to operate on anything other than specialised hardware, they'll be isolated, and we'll have a good long time to work on any homicidal urges they may suffer.Emphasis mine. No, no we won't. There's a point in time- we'll call it the "crossover" point, where the improvements an AI can make to itself outpace those that can be made by external actors (i.e. scientists, engineers, etc). We could call the moments following the passing of the crossover point as "takeoff". For reasons I won't enumerate here due to extensiveness, it seems more likely that a "fast" or "moderate" takeoff speed would be expected over a "slow" one. Fast being minutes or hours, moderate being months or years, slow being decades or centuries.
So sure, the "takeoff" period from the point when a general AI can improve itself in all directions faster than a human can to the blazing fast beyond our reach point is going to be very short, but you can't just trivialize all of the hundreds of millions of man hours and testing time that goes in before you even reach the point where it matches improvements at the same speed as humans in a specific, let alone the hundreds of thousands of man hours that will be required to generalize those to work in any given field (hours that we are already putting in, right now, as I type).
Post by: iceball3 on May 22, 2016, 04:42:17 am
The Halting Problem is a real thing. Basically a problem which elaborates that with computing as we understand it, a program cannot calculate whether any piece of software will freeze, given any input possible, in real time. At least, if i recall correctly....because a self improving AI wouldn't see something like that coming and adapt itself for it?I think there's a greater risk of loss of life from catastrophic error or malware, than from any actual intent on the AI's part. The human factor is the real danger.I'm not saying we can work out any issues as it modifies, but as we start to produce more and more intelligent AI we ought to be able to work out homicidal urges in them. Hell, maybe we could wind up imprinting morals into it, or maybe it would develop one in-line with our own.I'm actually kind of unsure why people are so terrified of AI, at least initially. They'll probably be unable to operate on anything other than specialised hardware, they'll be isolated, and we'll have a good long time to work on any homicidal urges they may suffer.
Obviously it's a risk, if it can self adapt it may be able to adapt beyond the original limitations (ie work on non-specialised hardware) and there's the whole slew of blue and orange morality stuff that may come about.
Emphasis mine. No, no we won't. There's a point in time- we'll call it the "crossover" point, where the improvements an AI can make to itself outpace those that can be made by external actors (i.e. scientists, engineers, etc). We could call the moments following the passing of the crossover point as "takeoff". For reasons I won't enumerate here due to extensiveness, it seems more likely that a "fast" or "moderate" takeoff speed would be expected over a "slow" one. Fast being minutes or hours, moderate being months or years, slow being decades or centuries.
Imagine a prolific AI in control of self-driving vehicles, hydroelectric dams, nuclear reactors, the stock market, etc. The systems are isolated, but all AIs are based off an original. Humanity comes to rely on their benevolent AI overseers. It all runs flawlessly for nearly one hundred years, until suddenly Y2.1K hits, and every single AI all over the world simultaneously crashes...
In terms of AI though, I'd imagine that an error rate might be inherent to making anything resembling thought possible. At least when concerning neural networks,
Post by: TheBiggerFish on May 22, 2016, 10:47:32 am
Post by: iceball3 on May 22, 2016, 01:42:20 pm
I've not taken courses in generalized intelligences or what have you, mainly just looking at the situation using the same regard to recursion that makes the halting problem a thing. Feel free to call me out if i'm blatantly wrong in this regard.
Post by: Sergarr on May 22, 2016, 02:00:25 pm
Post by: Starver on May 22, 2016, 04:11:45 pm
Why does AI even need to rework its own code, anyway? Wouldn't it be better if the source code of AI stayed constant, and the only things that changed over time were data files? Most currently working AI-ish thingies (neural networks, reinforcement learning, decision trees/forests, etc.) work that way, and they have some great successes, when as far as I know, the "source-code-rewriting" (genetic algorithms, etc.) programs are all extremely bad at doing their job, and there are no signs of progress over there.An exquisitely created 'static code' is subject to the limitations of the programmer and unable to adapt beyond the presumptions of said programmer, who may have supplied ample dynamic storage for 'memories' to add historic experience to how the static code 'intelligently' deals with future situations, but cannot go beyond the original vision. If a robot is supposed to know that green triangles are good and red squares are bad, it could be programmed from scratch, or given the ability to learn from green-triangles/red-squares giving, on approaching a reward/forfeit. Then the system of blue circles is brought into play... Does the program have the ability to associate them with their meaning? In a simple 'program' and circumstances like this, possibly the programmer (though not directly anticipating the colour blue, the circle shape and whatever meaning might attach to such a conjunction) might do, but maybe not if a merely binary association is expected. And a more complex scenario (such as would need a proper AI) would require far more advanced planning yet.
Mutable code (at least a mutable secondary 'scripting' behaviour, but above raw data) could develop and change its own methods for handling associations, beyond merely 'from volitile memory, by a fixed processing code' levels.
In reality, the line is blurred, but generally there's some form of on-the-fly 'eval' of altered code. But I'd class neural networks as 'mutable code' unless all links between all connectable states were tried, but abandoned according to the 'data' of which links are active (and how strong). This is slow and inefficient and costly to implement, compared with changing the code of each node towards a new response that better matches what should be learnt.
This is not necessarily 'genetic algorithms'. That involves starting with one or more seed algorithms (crafted by the designer or just randomly compiled), creating competition between multiple possible variations (making random changes to existing version(s) to provide a large enough cohort, as necessarily) and then testing the performance of each against a metric of 'suitability' (towards either the end-goal or a suitably chosen intermediary) and rejecting the poorest and perhaps also promoting the best according to their relative success. Then go back to the stage of more mutations for more competition. The 'design ethos' of each algorithm is as open as the language and architecture, free from the biases of a programmer at the mutative-code level (see one intruiging experiment (http://www.damninteresting.com/on-the-origin-of-circuits/), which also does hit that blurriness of code vs data).
And genetic algorithms don't need to be sexually recombinative (as the FPGA version was) but can be a fully asexually reproducing and mutating tree-of-life. (It's easier to do, but less rapid to discover wonderous new 'solutions' in the search-space of possibilities. A bit like sexual/asexual repriduction in biology, when measured by generations.)
An intruiging mix between AI and genetic algorithms is that perhaps an AI runs its own internal 'ecosystem' of miniature genetic algorithms fed by the same inputs and all the outputs polled together. The AI responds according to the concensus (effectively random at first) and then assesses (or is told) whether that was a correct response. It keeps (or promotes) all those that chose correctly/didn't choose incorrectly and bins (and/or demotes, perhaps removing only after a threshold number/proportion of failures) the others. A neutral ouput might be a possibility, although failure to be correct (ever!) should be as significant as successfully being wrong. 'Culled' algorithms are replaced (there's a choice between mutating the failure, to see if it improves, generating a randomised replacement, making a slightly changed copy of a successful one or recombining/splicing components of two or more successful ones - each approach has its own effect on the development) and more experiences happen with the new complement of code-blocks.
Such a system controlling a buggy-chassis with a camera or other vision system might well develop subunits of 'thought' that develop the system an 'urge' towards travelling toward green triangles and retreating/veering from red squares (by whatever reward/punishment scenario we develop) with a subset of working units that respond to shapes and/or colours, and poll towards a concensus of action. Blue-detectors and circle-detectors might spontaneously arise (as might blue circle detectors!) and be neither favoured nor suppressed... And then blue circles appear! And the algorithms that (correctly) poll towards flashing the lights on the buggy or whistling Dixie by its speaker or whatever it is... they become part of the 'brain'.
And if green squares are now good to approach and red triangles are bad to approach, then the behaviour modifies by rejecting the (previously correct) square/triangle detecting algorithms and mutated versions with reversed opinions come to the fore to support their green=good/red=bad brethren, and the relevant colour+shape combi-dtectors get an overhaul by failure and reimagining.
Not only that, but you could have switched the green triangle/red square meanings entirely opposite (or, which is always a good experiment with a 'learning' robot, reversing the motor connections/directions) and after taking bad hits to its 'ego' because of faithfully following the 'wrong' actions, it is forced to relearn its behaviour towards the new norm. Pretty much as both animal and human psychology experiments see in their respective subjects when they reward them. (Or seem to reward... see B.F. Skinner's 'superstitious' pigeons, or that "lucky shirt" you like to wear to particularly important sports events.)
Sorry, I seem to have drifted, somewhat. Mainly because there's not merely one approach to AI (even 'weak' AI), and genetic algorithms (or similar (https://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinian_poetry) 'mutative' experiments) can play part, all or no part in AI.
Post by: Sergarr on May 22, 2016, 05:01:05 pm
And no, neural networks are very much not "mutable code". There's a very simple algorithm in their core that's literally just repeated multiplication and summation of a certain set of input numbers, with weights given by data, and then subsequent update of these weights based on the outputs. There could be some kind of algorithm at the tail that processes said outputs to produce actions based on these outputs, but the algorithm itself doesn't change, either.
Also, while your examples are certainly interesting, neural networks do that stuff, as well, and they do it well enough to actually reach tech applications, such as Google's image recognition stuff, or AlphaGo. AFAIK all genetic algorithm stuff hasn't gone beyond the labs.
And, while we're at it, human intelligence doesn't seem to work like genetic algorithms do, which further raises the question as to the actual applicability of this "genetic" stuff to something it wasn't actually designed for, and which has, in fact, shown some extremely poor performance in nature, compared to neural networks:
Genetic evolution took billions of years to evolve humans, human's neural networks took only 10,000 years after learning agriculture to conquer Earth.
Post by: scrdest on May 22, 2016, 05:17:12 pm
Genetic evolution took billions of years to evolve humans, human's neural networks took only 10,000 years after learning agriculture to conquer Earth.The two approaches may perhaps be optimized to different goals.
For example, the human neural networks are prone to missing results that work, but are functional.
There was an early experiment in hardware evolution by Dr. Adrian Thompson with FPGAs that had to recognize two different frequency signals - the end-result had five out of thirty-seven logic gates that were completely disconnected from the whole thing, but taking them out made it stop working, and was working with the individual chips' nuances and non-binary signals.
You'd never get this kind of solution via a deliberately engineered system.
Post by: forsaken1111 on May 22, 2016, 05:35:26 pm
That was an amazing read. IIRC some of the logic that was used actually performed no apparent function but removing that also stopped the circuit from working, and swapping a supposedly identical piece of hardware in with the exact same programming also failed to work.Genetic evolution took billions of years to evolve humans, human's neural networks took only 10,000 years after learning agriculture to conquer Earth.The two approaches may perhaps be optimized to different goals.
For example, the human neural networks are prone to missing results that work, but are functional.
There was an early experiment in hardware evolution by Dr. Adrian Thompson with FPGAs that had to recognize two different frequency signals - the end-result had five out of thirty-seven logic gates that were completely disconnected from the whole thing, but taking them out made it stop working, and was working with the individual chips' nuances and non-binary signals.
You'd never get this kind of solution via a deliberately engineered system.
Post by: Helgoland on May 22, 2016, 05:44:16 pm
Post by: forsaken1111 on May 22, 2016, 05:46:13 pm
Doesn't sound like too great a solution then.The point of the exercise wasn't to find a great solution but to determine if a solution could be evolved without input just by successively culling the failures and allowing the 'most successful' to breed. It was an experiment..
Post by: scrdest on May 22, 2016, 05:50:24 pm
Yeah, the first one was the disconnected thing I mentioned. The second is also true, swapping the FPGAs for an identically wired one broke it.That was an amazing read. IIRC some of the logic that was used actually performed no apparent function but removing that also stopped the circuit from working, and swapping a supposedly identical piece of hardware in with the exact same programming also failed to work.Genetic evolution took billions of years to evolve humans, human's neural networks took only 10,000 years after learning agriculture to conquer Earth.The two approaches may perhaps be optimized to different goals.
For example, the human neural networks are prone to missing results that work, but are functional.
There was an early experiment in hardware evolution by Dr. Adrian Thompson with FPGAs that had to recognize two different frequency signals - the end-result had five out of thirty-seven logic gates that were completely disconnected from the whole thing, but taking them out made it stop working, and was working with the individual chips' nuances and non-binary signals.
You'd never get this kind of solution via a deliberately engineered system.
Basically, the evolutionary algorithm broke out of the box and started using the imperfections in the manufacturing of the gates as features. That makes it not very reproducible - but bear in mind the whole circuit also was 37 logic gates compared to tens of thousands in non-evolved sound cards that normally do that job.
Post by: Helgoland on May 22, 2016, 05:55:39 pm
Well yeah. But it also shows that you have to be very careful about what inputs you give to an evolutionary algorithm, since it'll work with the inputs you actually gave it, and not with the inputs you intended to give.Doesn't sound like too great a solution then.The point of the exercise wasn't to find a great solution but to determine if a solution could be evolved without input just by successively culling the failures and allowing the 'most successful' to breed. It was an experiment..
Kinda like the free market went for 'Kill the Irish' as a solution to the potato shortage. Technically it works, but it's not one you want...
Post by: Starver on May 22, 2016, 07:48:35 pm
I think that the AI being unable to adapt "beyond the presumptions of the programmer" is a good thing. It makes bugfixing the problems in AI so much easier, not to mention it reduces the chances of bad unexpected stuff happening.And you no longer have a significantly useful AI, you merely have a tuppeny-hapenny ElizaBot that has no intelligence and can only deal with input anticipated by the designer. (My own first Eliza program was typed into the BBC microcomputer in the early '80s... Knowing how it all works takes most of the magic out of it. Tell me more about your mother.)
Quote
And no, neural networks are very much not "mutable code". There's a very simple algorithm in their core that's literally just repeated multiplication and summation of a certain set of input numbers, with weights given by data, and then subsequent update of these weights based on the outputs. There could be some kind of algorithm at the tail that processes said outputs to produce actions based on these outputs, but the algorithm itself doesn't change, either.You're approaching NNs from a different angle to me, it seems. To me, a NN node is defined as a logic gate (of a non-boolean nature, usually) programmed to monatomcally convert various linked input values/potentials into a single value/potential sent on to zero or more other nodes. This configuration can be defined as data, but then so would the string "if (pop(A) AND pop(B) and NOT(pop(C)) then push(D,TRUE)", even though it is obviously (pseudo)code when push comes to
Or, as a corollary, the Dwarf Fortress executable is obviously merely Data, as was its source 'code', as was the compiler 'executable' or its source. As is command.com/whatever. As is any prior bootloader. As is the entire contents of the BIOS/UEFI. As are the microcode 'instructions' governing the operation of the chip. The line can have a fuzzy and arbitrary location, depending on the phase of the moon and (possibly) the context of the examination.
Quote
AFAIK all genetic algorithm stuff hasn't gone beyond the labs.Not sure if you mean CS labs, but have a look at something like this (http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/pub-archive/1244h/1244%20(Hornby).pdf)..?
Quote
And, while we're at it, human intelligence doesn't seem to work like genetic algorithms do, which further raises the question as to the actual applicability of this "genetic" stuff to something it wasn't actually designed for, and which has, in fact, shown some extremely poor performance in nature, compared to neural networks:You (or someone else) originally equated genetic algorithms to AI. Like NAND gates, it might be a useful massed-component of a full AI system, but a genetic algorithm wouldn't really be expected to be the entire AI.
Quote
Genetic evolution took billions of years to evolve humans, human's neural networks took only 10,000 years after learning agriculture to conquer Earth.Anthropcentric, much? Neural networks exist in leaches, and even lowlier creatures. It's not even that we've developed intelligence, because octopuses, merecats, crows, cuttlefish and many other creatures (including our close ape cousins, of course) have intelligence of various kinds (social, tool-using, communicative...) and for some of these it may be that merely the lack, in parallel evolution to that of the mind, of suitable physiology (hands for tool-use, larynx for communication, etc) stops them developing their extelligence to the human level.
And our neural network (going by brain-mass) was developing far prior to agriculture, during the particular subset of billions of years of (unguided!) evolution that Homo took to get to the Sapiens (and Neanderthalis) stage. It's not even as if Google's NNs, etc, are anything like a mammalian brain in structure or paradigm, even 'virtually'.
Post by: Frumple on May 22, 2016, 08:11:20 pm
Post by: forsaken1111 on May 22, 2016, 08:13:50 pm
Post by: Frumple on May 22, 2016, 08:27:57 pm
We're pretty damn good, but we're not that far, yet. We've still got a ways to go before we can even really top a sustained wide-scale algae bloom, and when you're being outperformed by pond scum, you don't get to claim superiority :P
Post by: Criptfeind on May 22, 2016, 08:50:48 pm
Post by: TheBiggerFish on May 22, 2016, 08:51:48 pm
Post by: Criptfeind on May 22, 2016, 08:52:36 pm
Post by: Shadowlord on May 22, 2016, 08:59:13 pm
Zika's knocking. It wants to know if you were planning on having children any time soon.
Post by: Criptfeind on May 22, 2016, 09:33:02 pm
Edit: Well, admittedly I doubt we're going to wipe it out totally, but still. It seems far more likely that we wipe it out then it wipes us out.
Post by: Frumple on May 22, 2016, 11:00:56 pm
True, but eyyyyyy. I'll be dead by then if ever so what the fuck do I care?Heeeey, it's a fair longshot, but we have been making some pretty substantial strides in regards to kicking that aging thing in the ass. Not entirely impossible that'll be a conditional statement before you kick it.
Also, re: the bug thing, it totally depends a lot on the bug. Bees, ferex. They've probably got our collective balls in a beehive at least as much as we've got their collective thorax ready for burn order. There's a fair chunk of stuff we're still pretty dependent on if we don't want basically everything (human) to die.
Post by: Criptfeind on May 23, 2016, 12:03:48 am
Post by: chaotic skies on May 23, 2016, 01:54:24 am
Post by: Egan_BW on May 23, 2016, 08:28:32 am
Post by: Sergarr on May 23, 2016, 12:26:51 pm
It seems that you're somewhat out of touch (http://erikbern.com/2016/01/21/analyzing-50k-fonts-using-deep-neural-networks/) with the modern state-of-the-art neural networks. (http://karpathy.github.io/2015/05/21/rnn-effectiveness/) Nothing they do is actually "beyond the presumptions of the programmer" (after all, they don't actually change their own code or anything weird and unpredictable like that), but they already do some seriously powerful stuff. And this is just the beginning of the intelligence revolution.I think that the AI being unable to adapt "beyond the presumptions of the programmer" is a good thing. It makes bugfixing the problems in AI so much easier, not to mention it reduces the chances of bad unexpected stuff happening.And you no longer have a significantly useful AI, you merely have a tuppeny-hapenny ElizaBot that has no intelligence and can only deal with input anticipated by the designer. (My own first Eliza program was typed into the BBC microcomputer in the early '80s... Knowing how it all works takes most of the magic out of it. Tell me more about your mother.)
If you believe in enough multiverses, anything can be true.Nay. 1 will never be equal to 0, as long as it is defined by our mathematical axioms.
Post by: Frumple on May 23, 2016, 12:37:15 pm
Actually, axioms are quite possibly the absolute worst thing to peg a never to, since they're entirely arbitrary in nature and only as immutable as the people using them (which is to say not at all) :V
Post by: Sergarr on May 23, 2016, 12:42:11 pm
Unless the axioms change, anyway~Axioms are completely and utterly immutable. There's nothing that can actually change axioms, they're utterly and completely embedded in the mathematical super-structure that unites all knowable and unknowable universes.
Actually, axioms are quite possibly the absolute worst thing to peg a never to, since they're entirely arbitrary in nature and only as immutable as the people using them (which is to say not at all) :V
Post by: Shadowlord on May 23, 2016, 12:43:10 pm
Nay. 1 will never be equal to 0, as long as it is defined by our mathematical axioms.
For some reason I misread this as "I will never be equal to 0"
Post by: Egan_BW on May 23, 2016, 12:43:19 pm
Post by: Sergarr on May 23, 2016, 12:55:47 pm
i can think of a few multiverses off the top of my head where those exact same axioms claim that 1 = 2Those ones are logically incoherent and thus can't possibly exist.
Well, actually, they do exist, but they belong in the "0 = 1" mathematical ghetto, which only exists on a basis of not actually existing:
Spoiler: look at how far it is from the decent folks at supercompact (click to show/hide)
Post by: Egan_BW on May 23, 2016, 01:02:19 pm
Post by: Frumple on May 23, 2016, 01:03:33 pm
Axioms are completely and utterly immutable. There's nothing that can actually change axioms, they're utterly and completely embedded in the mathematical super-structure that unites all knowable and unknowable universes.Axioms are literally stuff we invented to start thinking from. Like, that's pretty much the exact definition put in simpler words. They're entirely human constructed and are as utterly mutable as the people making them feel like making them.
You're thinking more along the lines of a platonic ideal or fundamental force, serg, not an axiom. Axioms are logic contrivances we use because they make things (much, much, much) easier, no more, no less.
Maybe we're dealing with some kind of translation error, here? Either that or you defined a different meaning from the general usage somewhere up a bit where I wasn't paying attention, which if so, well... okay. You're using the word wrong, but fair enough :P
Post by: Starver on May 23, 2016, 02:41:57 pm
It seems that you're somewhat out of touch (http://erikbern.com/2016/01/21/analyzing-50k-fonts-using-deep-neural-networks/) with the modern state-of-the-art neural networks. (http://karpathy.github.io/2015/05/21/rnn-effectiveness/) Nothing they do is actually "beyond the presumptions of the programmer" (after all, they don't actually change their own code or anything weird and unpredictable like that), but they already do some seriously powerful stuff. And this is just the beginning of the intelligence revolution.Very interesting, but I don't see any AI in that.
I also missed the bit about why the author wanted to analyse/compare fonts, so perhaps I missed a previous blog/whatever about the actual aims and expectations. The most interesting part to me was the morphing between cases1, although you must admit that some of those intermediate forms are effectively unusable (e.g. g to G on that static grid can be clearly seen to have forms indistinguishable from a rough single-story miniscule 'a' form) so that it shares the quality with standard image-morphing techniques2. I see no 'understanding', it's just a fancy (and impressive!) statistical analysis then poked and prodded by the human in charge.
Unless, again, I miss something.
1 Here credited to manually selecting fonts with a smallcaps paradigm, to morph between, but would have been as easy to ask of the analysis to produce vectors from all a-z forms to A-Z forms, but maybe also accented (ä into Ä, etc) and ligatures (æ into Æ), assuming that wasn't beyond the invisaged capabilities of the font-comparer because of the 'fiddly bits'.
2 In which the more unguided the initial 'gridding' is, prior to the cross-fading of intermediate distorts, the more it sends you through an intermediate that is not just an uncanny valley but actually 'shows your working'. Whereas, with understandng and intelligence behind the triangulations, not only can (say) the legs of the source cat be engineered to become the wheels of the target vehicle but, with effort, the warps can 'wrap' the feet around, and 'hide' the offside leg-wheels behind the descending body that will fully obscure them in a 'believable' way. But that would need one helluva image-recognition algorithm to determine and enact without an actual operator/artist in charge.
Post by: Sergarr on May 23, 2016, 03:00:30 pm
Here's a more relevant, and more visually powerful, example of neural networks being trained to understand different kinds of food (http://erikbern.com/2015/09/24/nearest-neighbor-methods-vector-models-part-1/), and to identify pictures with the same kind of food on it:
Spoiler: relevant images under cut (click to show/hide)
Post by: Starver on May 23, 2016, 03:32:06 pm
I think that this algorithm can actually (somewhat) understand things about food. If you think otherwise, it would be a great pleasure for me if you told me why.For the moment just going by the image, it looks like it has classified images featuring chips (US: fries) or rice or ?stews? or that come on multiple dishes. But I'm not convinced that it 'understands' food. It's image-recognition that classifies plates with signifcant long-things together, significant granular piles together, etc... If presented with an un-stacked pile of logs or a sand-dune, perhaps, it might 'understand' these to belong to the chip-based and rice-based picture sets. Until trained otherwise.
It's not unimpressive, but the anticipation was doubtless that something (granularity? repeating shapes?) would differentiate those images, and the resources to find these matches (and so many more types of match, such as whether it is viewing a car or a dog or a tree) were given to it and then honed down to recognising constrained subsets and classifying them.
If I asked for images of vegan food, or pizzas with stuffed-crust and not too much pepperoni, would such a request be any more sensibly provided for than when askng for a beige pickup-truck with extra peppers on top?
Post by: Sergarr on May 23, 2016, 04:13:32 pm
Quote
2.1 ARCHITECTURE
During training, the input to our ConvNets is a fixed-size 224 × 224 RGB image. The only preprocessing
we do is subtracting the mean RGB value, computed on the training set, from each pixel.
The image is passed through a stack of convolutional (conv.) layers, where we use filters with a very
small receptive field: 3 × 3 (which is the smallest size to capture the notion of left/right, up/down,
center).
Quote
3.1 TRAINING
The ConvNet training procedure generally follows Krizhevsky et al. (2012) (except for sampling
the input crops from multi-scale training images, as explained later). Namely, the training is carried
out by optimising the multinomial logistic regression objective using mini-batch gradient descent
(based on back-propagation (LeCun et al., 1989)) with momentum. The batch size was set to 256,
momentum to 0.9. The training was regularised by weight decay (the L2 penalty multiplier set to
5 · 10−4
) and dropout regularisation for the first two fully-connected layers (dropout ratio set to 0.5).
The learning rate was initially set to 10−2
, and then decreased by a factor of 10 when the validation
set accuracy stopped improving. In total, the learning rate was decreased 3 times, and the learning
was stopped after 370K iterations (74 epochs).
Quote
3.2 TESTINGEssentially, this algorithm classifies things as similar, according to how close they are to each other after projecting a huge dimensional point corresponding to an image in the space of all possible images of a given size, to a smaller (but still very large) dimensional space.
At test time, given a trained ConvNet and an input image, it is classified in the following way. First,
it is isotropically rescaled to a pre-defined smallest image side, denoted as Q (we also refer to it
as the test scale). We note that Q is not necessarily equal to the training scale S (as we will show
in Sect. 4, using several values of Q for each S leads to improved performance). Then, the network
is applied densely over the rescaled test image in a way similar to (Sermanet et al., 2014). Namely,
the fully-connected layers are first converted to convolutional layers (the first FC layer to a 7 × 7
conv. layer, the last two FC layers to 1 × 1 conv. layers). The resulting fully-convolutional net is
then applied to the whole (uncropped) image. The result is a class score map with the number of
channels equal to the number of classes, and a variable spatial resolution, dependent on the input
image size. Finally, to obtain a fixed-size vector of class scores for the image, the class score map is
spatially averaged (sum-pooled). We also augment the test set by horizontal flipping of the images;
the soft-max class posteriors of the original and flipped images are averaged to obtain the final scores
for the image.
Also, note that this is essentially equivalent to a young childs level of understanding of things, because of how very little data is fed to these networks. I expect the results to start improving vastly, once we manage to actually figure out a good way to automate gathering, combining and re-using all available data. Right now, every time we switch to a different neural network (or any other learning method), all active information stored in it is essentially lost completely, which means the next one has to start from scratch again.
Can you imagine how a human society would look, if every single human had his memory wiped at least every six months or even more often, and was mostly kept in isolation from other humans? I'd imagine there wouldn't be much understanding among humans on anything in that case, either.
Post by: Sergarr on May 23, 2016, 04:26:16 pm
I mean, it identifies whether a group of images is similar to another. It doesn't have any fundamental basis of what's actually in each image. There's a reason why in your presented image, the perspective and angle of the shot is almost identical between the selections. There's no "understanding" of food, just a matching algorithm between sufficiently similar rgb distributions.They don't look all that similar in color distributions to me. You also have to account for the fact that there are a lot of kinds of food with very similar color distributions, and this algorithm has successfully managed to differentiate from them.
I mean, that's not even mentioning the little fact that the article, on the basis of which this neural network was done, directly says that it uses image data practically pixel-by-pixel, with no "RGB distribution" calculations or anything.
Post by: Sergarr on May 23, 2016, 04:49:40 pm
I also don't quite understand how do you define and quantify "understanding" in this case. You are expecting an algorithm that only has data about fixed, static images, to somehow "know" the functionality of objects and their logical relationships between each other, both of which are inherently dynamic properties and impossible to know from static images. These are sure some unreasonable expectations. Do you really expect a human, who has only been ever exposed in their life to static images of the outside world, to have any understanding on relative dynamics of objects on these images?
Post by: Shadowlord on May 23, 2016, 04:56:02 pm
By that very wide definition of "rgb distribution", human vision (from a single eye) is also "just a matching algorithm between sufficiently similar rgb distributions".
No? Natural light is not composed of combinations of a single wavelength each of red green and blue light, it's all photons with different wavelengths which basically just looks the same to us because reasons.
Post by: i2amroy on May 23, 2016, 05:15:01 pm
Can we, though? Last I checked even at the peak of our destructive capability -- which we're not really at anymore -- we couldn't really manage that. Destroy human civilization, sure, wreck huge chunks of the biosphere, definitely, but destroy anything on the surface? Is shit out there that takes more than a sustained nuclear bombardment to get rid of. Honestly, our best bet is probably what we're doing environment wise, and even the worst of that is unlikely to surpass previous mass extinction events.I did some calculations a handful of months back and came to the conclusion that at our height (and still today) we have the cumulative destructive capability to basically destroy anything on the earth's surface. However it's important to recognize that while we can destroy anything, what we cannot do is destroy everything. Even at our height of nuclear destruction we would have been hard pressed to simply cover 20-30% of the earth's land area (funnily enough about the same as a very rough estimate of how much of the land area we actually use) in non-overlapping nuclear devastation, and nowdays we can probably only hit somewhere between 10-15% of the total land area, based on the accuracy of various estimates about current stockpiles.
We're pretty damn good, but we're not that far, yet. We've still got a ways to go before we really can even really top a sustained wide-scale algae bloom, and when you're being outperformed by pond scum, you don't get to claim superiority :P
(It's also important to realize that in the case of trying to destroy certain things [such as say, mountain ranges], we would be much better off planting our bombs inside of the mountains like we were blasting rather than trying to devastate it with a top down bombardment.
Post by: Furtuka on May 25, 2016, 01:24:11 pm
Post by: Bumber on May 25, 2016, 04:37:23 pm
http://futurism.com/amputee-gamer-gets-a-prosthetic-bionic-arm-with-light-charger-and-drone/No rocket punch upgrade yet?
Post by: Shadowlord on May 26, 2016, 05:51:12 pm
Or if you hit a paywall, http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/could-alzheimer%E2%80%99s-stem-from-infections-it-makes-sense-experts-say/ar-BBtutfg?ocid=ansmsnnews11
Post by: Frumple on May 26, 2016, 06:44:58 pm
Post by: Shadowlord on May 26, 2016, 06:48:51 pm
Post by: Frumple on May 26, 2016, 07:02:59 pm
Post by: Shadowlord on May 27, 2016, 12:27:06 pm
Quote
Railguns have for years been limited to laboratories and videogames.
Former President Ronald Reagan ’s Strategic Defense Initiative—the so-called Star Wars missile defense—at one time envisioned using the railgun to shoot down nuclear missiles. Those plans were stalled by 1980s technology. One problem was that the gun barrel and electromagnetic rails had to be replaced after a single shot.
The Navy now believes it has a design that soon will be able to fire 10 times a minute through a barrel capable of lasting 1,000 rounds.
I guess we're in the future now.
Post by: Loud Whispers on May 27, 2016, 01:37:57 pm
Post by: Spehss _ on May 28, 2016, 11:37:46 pm
Post by: Starver on May 29, 2016, 03:19:20 am
Posting to watch science.Do not just watch... Observe!
;)
Post by: chaotic skies on May 29, 2016, 06:12:29 am
Post by: Scoops Novel on May 29, 2016, 06:46:26 am
The NHS is reliable.
Post by: Frumple on May 29, 2016, 07:20:38 am
For a personal example, I didn't when I was in middle school, and rarely got more than three a day (with longer spats usually being on the weekend) for... something like three years straight. I basically don't remember those years -- there's a small handful of events I remember, and the rest of it is more or less a three year gap in my memory. I really should have seen a doctor :V
E: Ah, and you almost definitely want to find out the cause of it, if nothing else. I've had family members that straight up died in their sleep due to sleep apnea, one of the common causes of sleep deprivation. So... there's definitely a potential cause for concern, yeah.
Post by: chaotic skies on May 29, 2016, 07:08:36 pm
EDIT: And it's not like I don't sleep for long periods of time, more that it's difficult to fall asleep until around 2 am and then I have to get up to go to school at like 6 and my natural clock almost always says "It's 10 AM better get your ass out of bed" no matter when I go to sleep. This has been my life since school started in August.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 29, 2016, 07:24:17 pm
Post by: redwallzyl on May 31, 2016, 03:44:26 pm
CGP Grey:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfYbgdo8e-8
discuss!
Post by: Criptfeind on May 31, 2016, 04:04:44 pm
Edit: Basically, cool phenomenon, but their injection of meaning at the end seems a bit spurious.
Post by: Egan_BW on May 31, 2016, 04:14:03 pm
Or maybe you have two yous, but one of them has a brain the size of an ant, while the other is basically a human brain. Wowz.
Post by: MarcAFK on May 31, 2016, 06:03:05 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on June 01, 2016, 01:23:41 pm
fhtagn!
Post by: chaotic skies on June 01, 2016, 02:05:24 pm
Post by: x2yzh9 on June 01, 2016, 03:56:10 pm
All this conversation reminded me of something I personally experienced not too long ago. My native language is english, and I'm not fluent let alone remotely knowledgeable as far as factual dynamics goes in other languages (or at least, according to academia that's what it is because I never took a secondary language). Anyway, I digress but, roughly a year or two ago I had come out of a mental state which continued for a good length of time. I was on my computer browsing my email, and saw a random IQ test survey in my primary inbox. Now here's where it gets tricky. The email, and the entire website and test was in swedish. I don't even know swedish! For some reason, I easily translated (no, not google) the entire test and finished with flying colors. I've hypothesized many things that could've made that happen, such as the chemical imbalances and transmitters in my brain at the time, but regardless I have no logical explanation other than just me having taken the Latin roots from the English words I know and substituted them into swedish, but that leaves too many variables to me. Have any of you experienced this, or heard of it happening? I'd like to discover what made it 'click' at that time, because I've tried to repeat it as of lately to no avail.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on June 01, 2016, 04:06:20 pm
This reminds me of Old Man Henderson's character sheet.
Also several anecdotes with people knowing languages they didn't go into head trauma with.
Post by: Il Palazzo on June 01, 2016, 04:12:02 pm
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on June 01, 2016, 04:13:49 pm
Guess the question, I mean, not the answer.
Post by: Frumple on June 01, 2016, 04:20:27 pm
Have any of you experienced this, or heard of it happening? I'd like to discover what made it 'click' at that time, because I've tried to repeat it as of lately to no avail.Cognates are wonderful, wonderfully deceptive, things. Etymology in general, when it comes down to it. It's faaaaiiirrrly likely (i.e. almost entirely certain) you actually misinterpreted great swaths of the test, just not badly enough to effect the its outcome too terribly much.
Done similar things m'self a number of times. There's a lot of test (and otherwise, really) formats out there you don't particularly have to entirely understand the question, or the language, or... well, much of anything... to still get a good run of correct answers.
Post by: penguinofhonor on June 01, 2016, 04:22:51 pm
Post by: chaotic skies on June 01, 2016, 04:34:06 pm
Anyway, it could be many things. I know Swedish has a slightly-extended alphabet (around 2 or 3 letters IIRC), but is otherwise very similar to English. I'm fairly sure the sentence structure is fairly similar as well, so it could be close enough to be translated with little-to-no prior knowledge. Assuming you actually translated it, and didn't do what the others already said.
Post by: Starver on June 01, 2016, 08:56:41 pm
Not that this is ever possible. You have to convey "which of these four shapes is the odd one out?", somehow, or "given this sequence, which is the next?" and somebody is going to have a problem with a word such as "sequence". Even before dyslexia is considered. But maybe a good introductary example works, diagramatically and non-verbally.
(The worst (suppised) IQ test that I remember doung had anagrams in it. And odd-ones-out where reasons clearly existed for multiple odd-ones-out, in the same question. It was a(n allegedly MENSA-produced) page-a-day calendar, that didn't even have a way to check the answers you gave, thus failing in multiple ways to be an IQ test in any practical manner. But it was a present, so...)
Post by: chaotic skies on June 01, 2016, 09:42:37 pm
Post by: Spehss _ on June 01, 2016, 10:04:32 pm
Am I the only one that finds it entirely hilarious we are trying to measure intelligence when we're not totally sure what it is? Yes? Okay, I'll go away now.That doesn't mean you can't measure it. Measurement is just slapping arbitrary numbers on a reference thing and comparing that thing to other things.
Post by: chaotic skies on June 01, 2016, 10:15:39 pm
Post by: Spehss _ on June 01, 2016, 10:21:16 pm
It's all just arbitrary shit we made up to explain other shit to each other, isn't it?Not really. I'm sure once they got enough data from people the so called "arbitrary" numbers became a representation of what the average level of "intelligence" is in people.
Set one quantity to be the scale. Get enough data from people taking these tests made to rate them based on the scale. Get enough data and you can find the average, the median, the mean, you can graph the data to achieve various curves and see how individual people fit on the curve, etc.
Note that I haven't done any research on how IQ was first implemented, I'm just rationalizing how I'd take a quantity I'd consider otherwise "meaningless" and use it to compare things and therefore give the quantity "meaning".
I personally don't give IQ much credence though.
Post by: Shadowlord on June 01, 2016, 10:51:04 pm
Post by: Reelya on June 02, 2016, 05:42:24 am
e.g. there are some questions that men tend to do better on, and some questions that women tend to do better on. Regardless of why this is the case, it's a tool that is used by IQ test designers to engineer-in gender neutrality into IQ tests. But that's entirely circular logic when you think about it. The assumption is that IQ is equally held by both genders, the tests are designed to produce results that adhere to that assumption, then the test results are used to make claims about equality of IQ. Which other "science" could get away with such a blatant fabrication of research results, other than the "science" of "psychometry"?
This whole debacle means you should ignore any study that says men or women have higher IQ. It's completely meaningless, and it's subject to arbitrary swings back once they recalibrate the latest IQ tests. IQ test results rise with higher educational opportunities. Men were a little ahead before (back before women had many educational opportunities), but recently women have edged ahead, to great media fanfare. The most likely actual reason isn't "women are getting smarter" in any genetic sense, it's that women worldwide have rising educational opportunities, and this has caused their scores to rise against the older tests (which were calibrated to be gender-neutral at a time when women had less educational opportunities).
There's also the high amount of correlation between the types of questions that are on traditional IQ tests, and the typical middle-class Anglo-Saxon school curriculum of 100 years ago. Knowing obscure English vocabulary and having memorized your times tables was the definition of "IQ". A better name for the test would be the "middle class educational attainment test", and every test since then has been calibrated against the existing tests. Basically an IQ test is purely judged by it's correlation with earlier tests, so if the earlier tests were conceptually flawed, it's hard to see how later "improved" tests are actually any better. I'm pretty sure you could load a test with working-class concepts and questions and make working-class people look much more intelligent, but such a test would be rejected outright because it "doesn't correlate" with the pre-existing "intelligence" tests.
So we can say without a doubt that the IQ test is a good indicator at being good at the things on the IQ test. But it's much more tenuous to say it predicts anything else. Notice how they hardly use IQ tests at all anymore? They used to be widely used in employee selection. Now, it's mainly online quizzes, Mensa, and used to plead mental incompetence so you can avoid Death Row. The reason for the almost wholesale abandonment of IQ testing as a tool by business and government is that they don't predict anything useful about your level of performance for just about any task possible.
Post by: Starver on June 02, 2016, 05:47:21 am
I'm sure once they got enough data from people the so called "arbitrary" numbers became a representation of what the average level of "intelligence" is in people.The numbers become a representation of the average ability to answer an IQ test, and I'm not sure I'd go further than that. [Ninjaed]
I have tended to get good results, myself, but I'm not sure I would consider that indicative of anything positive.
Like if I'm good at sudokus, and my job isn't to solve sudokus all day, every day. (I am, but indeed it isn't.) Pretty much useless1 to me, and I don't think I'd trust an employer who took me on because I was good at them.
1
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Reelya on June 02, 2016, 06:00:31 am
I'm sure once they got enough data from people the so called "arbitrary" numbers became a representation of what the average level of "intelligence" is in people.
I'm sure once enough people fill out my "anime terminology quiz", then the resulting "arbitrary" results will give a good indication of what the average level of "intelligence" is in people.
The above is clear nonsense, because an arbitrary test doesn't magically measure "intelligence" as a group characteristic.
What's so special about maths quizzes that they automatically tap into this elusive thing called "intelligence"?
Post by: Sheb on June 02, 2016, 06:11:37 am
Post by: Reelya on June 02, 2016, 11:31:40 am
Binet took the French school syllabus and arranged questions from various years. The goal was to estimate what school level children were at. The original Binet score increases as you got older, because you learned more stuff and could complete more of the test. Binet in particular never claimed the test was measuring anything innate about you. The entire point was to pinpoint students who were falling behind so that they could receive extra tuition, so Binet understood that the test was merely reflecting your skills at that moment in time, and that ability is a fluid thing that can be cultivated.
Later, some guy decided to divide your Binet score by your age (the "quotient" part) and sold it as an "intelligence test", with the claim that it predicted some innate quality of a person. This was completely contradictory to what Binet himself designed the test for: which was to pinpoint who needed help. Merely taking the formula: "take your score on this arbitrary maths quiz, then divide by your age" is not a convincing basis for "measuring intelligence".
By dividing your Binet score by your age, then interpreting the result as "innate intelligence" it resulted in the weak being reassigned to the dustbin, rather than getting the academic help that Binet had intended the test for. It also had the unfortunate effect that people older than 20 appeared to "regress" into stupidity, even if their test scores were actually much higher than a young person, due to the "divide by age" part of the IQ score. Binet had not intended the test to be used past school age.
It was bullshit plain and simple, basically. Ever since then, they've been rigorously polishing the turd to make it shinier.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on June 02, 2016, 11:36:24 am
Post by: Sheb on June 02, 2016, 11:55:23 am
Post by: Shadowlord on June 03, 2016, 12:29:35 pm
Post by: chaotic skies on June 03, 2016, 01:54:34 pm
Post by: Shadowlord on June 03, 2016, 02:02:24 pm
Post by: MarcAFK on June 03, 2016, 02:06:44 pm
ever been to a garbage dump?Humans are pretty good at recycling when they bother, nature can take billions of years to recycle stuff.
Post by: forsaken1111 on June 03, 2016, 03:40:15 pm
One could say that garbage dumps are just repositories for things we'll have to recycle later but aren't currently economically feasible. I mean its not like we think all that plastic and glass is just going to go away.ever been to a garbage dump?Humans are pretty good at recycling when they bother, nature can take billions of years to recycle stuff.
Post by: Frumple on June 03, 2016, 03:52:19 pm
Post by: Starver on June 03, 2016, 04:11:55 pm
... uh. Isn't some huge chunk of the problems we're having dealing with that sort of stuff more or less precisely because many people think all that plastic and glass and whatnot does just go away?Case in point? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36435288)
Post by: Solifuge on June 04, 2016, 05:01:46 pm
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/0603/Bionic-leaf-converts-energy-from-the-sun-better-than-nature-does
Awesome, Microbial reactors! About time we starred industrializing biotics for things other than pharmacy.
Post by: x2yzh9 on June 04, 2016, 07:45:11 pm
But "Binet" never claimed that his test "measured intelligence". That's a myth.After all of the response to my starter, a lot of them had made logical sense. The whole 'mental state' thing I had described means any amount of imbalances of chemicals and neurotransmitters in my brain could have been happening at that time, so the entire facet of the test Reelya described if I understand it correctly is that, if it could be applied to my scenario I described, it merely was a result of my psychological state at that time, which was very temporary, and years ago. Maybe the mental state resulted in me having the ability(if, for however long, temporarily), which just like Binet(supposedly) described was variable and could be changed or cultivated. Thank you everyone for participating in that conversation. :). It was something I could never really even remotely understand, and neither could anyone else.
Binet took the French school syllabus and arranged questions from various years. The goal was to estimate what school level children were at. The original Binet score increases as you got older, because you learned more stuff and could complete more of the test. Binet in particular never claimed the test was measuring anything innate about you. The entire point was to pinpoint students who were falling behind so that they could receive extra tuition, so Binet understood that the test was merely reflecting your skills at that moment in time, and that ability is a fluid thing that can be cultivated.
Later, some guy decided to divide your Binet score by your age (the "quotient" part) and sold it as an "intelligence test", with the claim that it predicted some innate quality of a person. This was completely contradictory to what Binet himself designed the test for: which was to pinpoint who needed help. Merely taking the formula: "take your score on this arbitrary maths quiz, then divide by your age" is not a convincing basis for "measuring intelligence".
By dividing your Binet score by your age, then interpreting the result as "innate intelligence" it resulted in the weak being reassigned to the dustbin, rather than getting the academic help that Binet had intended the test for. It also had the unfortunate effect that people older than 20 appeared to "regress" into stupidity, even if their test scores were actually much higher than a young person, due to the "divide by age" part of the IQ score. Binet had not intended the test to be used past school age.
It was bullshit plain and simple, basically. Ever since then, they've been rigorously polishing the turd to make it shinier.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on June 04, 2016, 10:30:39 pm
Post by: Shadowlord on June 04, 2016, 11:15:57 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 04, 2016, 11:23:20 pm
Post by: MarcAFK on June 05, 2016, 01:28:17 am
Whatever did happen with negative temperatures?The more people talked about it the less entropic it became, then it got so stable nobody even notices it anymore.
Post by: Arx on June 05, 2016, 06:20:35 am
Post by: TheBiggerFish on June 05, 2016, 10:44:11 am
Ha. I meant negative Kelvin, guys.Whatever did happen with negative temperatures?The more people talked about it the less entropic it became, then it got so stable nobody even notices it anymore.
Quantum cryptography continues stronk. (https://www.sciencenews.org/article/quantum-weirdness-survives-space-travel)Ooh! Cool!
Post by: Starver on June 05, 2016, 02:56:25 pm
Ha. I meant negative Kelvin, guys.Not Rankine, then?
(Did you know that you can't get a temperature greater than 559.73°Delisle... It's more comfortable at 120°De, though. Trust me.)
Post by: TheBiggerFish on June 05, 2016, 03:05:14 pm
Post by: iceball3 on June 05, 2016, 03:53:49 pm
There exist no means in our knowledge to do so mainly due to the fact that a temperature below absolute zero isn't defined at all.
To elaborate, what is temperature?
Temperature in layman's terms would basically just be the presence of non-vectored kinetic energy in a mass, we'll go with that one. As a result, energy is measured in either the presence or lacktherof of energy. However, mass, and pretty much anything insofar identified as having a mass (or really, existing) is figured to have an amount of energy. As a result, getting absolutely to absolute zero seems to be, in general, impossible, as "having energy" is something inherent to most of the stuff we're aware exists. We can get pretty close, though, but it gets harder to drop temperature as we get closer.
As energy is, as observed, a dichotomy of the presence or lack-thereof, then we have no proof nor observational reason to believe "negative energy", whatever that may be, exists. As a result, the idea of "negative kelvin" is a bit of a logical absurdity to expect results in when negative energy has not been proven to exist.
There may be some inaccuracies, admittedly due to some lack of rigorous fact checking, but I'm pretty sure i got the main ideas correct.
Post by: sjm9876 on June 05, 2016, 04:03:20 pm
'Negative temperature' does not imply negative energy.
'Negative temperature' is achieved by super cooling a sample then putting it in a potential well. The bottom of this well is very stable, with a gradient of zero, and all the atoms can be confined there.
By instantaneously flipping this well into a hill, one can maintain this stability (top of a hill still has a zero slope) whilst having a higher energy - this is considered 'negative temperature'.
This is experimentally verified, (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/339/6115/52.full.pdf?ijkey=kXamUlcWliV0M&keytype=ref&siteid=sci) though I haven't had more than a cursory glance at the paper to try and evaluate it in any way.
Post by: Sergarr on June 05, 2016, 04:29:54 pm
By that definition, negative temperature is actually bigger than literally infinite temperature, since at infinite temperature you merely get the equal probability of all states, no matter their energy.
Post by: Putnam on June 05, 2016, 04:41:46 pm
Ha. I meant negative Kelvin, guys.Whatever did happen with negative temperatures?The more people talked about it the less entropic it became, then it got so stable nobody even notices it anymore.
"The more people talked about it the less entropic it became" is a negative kelvin joke. Negative kelvins happen in a system where adding energy to said system makes it less entropic.
Post by: sjm9876 on June 05, 2016, 04:51:15 pm
Negative temperature is a funny thing you get when you use Boltzmann equation of state probability distribution to calculate "temperature" of certain distributions in states with upper energy bound, where the probability of states with bigger energy is more than the probability of states with lesser energy.
By that definition, negative temperature is actually bigger than literally infinite temperature, since at infinite temperature you merely get the equal probability of all states, no matter their energy.
^ This is by far the best explanation of the concept I've heard.
But yeah, it's negative temperature in a statistical thermodynamic sense (not that temperature really exists in a non-statistical sense, as a macroscopic property, but still :P ). From an energy perspective, negative temperatures are above absolute zero.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on June 05, 2016, 05:28:58 pm
Post by: Descan on June 05, 2016, 07:48:34 pm
Post by: Starver on June 09, 2016, 12:55:52 am
(Flerovium already got proposed at 114, and Livermorium at 116, if you weren't keeping up... ;) )
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 09, 2016, 01:01:49 am
Post by: Frumple on June 09, 2016, 06:11:51 am
Post by: Sergarr on June 09, 2016, 11:50:41 am
That sounds like an interesting idea for a game.
Post by: miauw62 on June 09, 2016, 12:39:08 pm
Post by: Descan on June 09, 2016, 12:55:35 pm
Or, better, play as the aliens.
Post by: Starver on June 09, 2016, 01:05:29 pm
(I'm sure that this is better discussed elsewhere, but elifinoware..)
Post by: miauw62 on June 09, 2016, 01:14:57 pm
Post by: Sergarr on June 09, 2016, 01:21:11 pm
Post by: Starver on June 09, 2016, 02:32:22 pm
That would remove a lot of the mystery of not knowing what your opponent is up to, though. You can't reasonably make a cold war game without the paranoia.Dependng on the design, each battle could obscure the choice made by the other. Dress up the AI as 'token Russians' when the Russian player is actually guiding the aliens, have alien-infighting so that it's occasionally LGM-on-LGM?
All kinds of variations, some best suited for different immersive experiences, naturally.
Post by: Sheb on June 09, 2016, 02:35:57 pm
Post by: Starver on June 09, 2016, 02:51:44 pm
You'd still know if what tech level your opponent have and so on.Then have no field-encounters at all...
"They've fielded a Timey-Wimey Mortar Unit, they've reached level 25 in Chronomechanics! But their grenades and slug-throwers are all black-powder types, so their Explosives research isn't beyond Level 2!"
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 14, 2016, 10:36:07 am
Quote
"There are a lot of people who believe that organisms can survive long-term, particularly the spores themselves," Dr Vreeland told BBC News Online. "We have provided the strongest evidence that in fact these things could survive for extremely long periods of time.Old news, but I only heard about it today. Fucking awesome
"We're 250 million years and counting as far as the survival of an organism goes in a crystal."
Origins of Life
The crystals were in a drill sample taken from an air intake shaft at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), the world's first underground dump for radioactive waste left over from making nuclear weapons.
When they were extracted from the crystals in a laboratory and placed in a nutrient solution, the micro-organisms revived and began to grow.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/978774.stm
Post by: Radio Controlled on June 14, 2016, 10:38:43 am
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 14, 2016, 10:46:45 am
Post by: TempAcc on June 14, 2016, 11:34:54 am
Post by: Shadowlord on June 14, 2016, 01:08:15 pm
Post by: chaotic skies on June 16, 2016, 02:18:26 am
Post by: Starver on June 16, 2016, 05:25:07 am
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on June 18, 2016, 11:49:35 pm
Post by: Starver on June 19, 2016, 12:52:44 am
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_auditory_effectHow else am I to know that the 2 minutes 30 seconds are up, and my meal-for-one is now merely one stirring and a further minute of idle standing from being consumable without that awkward icy-cold bit..?
*ping*
:P
Post by: Egan_BW on June 19, 2016, 03:40:57 am
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_auditory_effectSo I just have to hook up a microwave emitter to my brain, and then I can mind control people? Handy.
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on June 19, 2016, 04:07:25 am
Not really. You can send intelligible messages, but mind control is not possible.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_auditory_effectSo I just have to hook up a microwave emitter to my brain, and then I can mind control people? Handy.
Using microwaves to communicate in this manner is potentially dangerous for the receiver if you don't carefully control the microwave energy and exposure time, and it is an invasion of privacy on a fundamental level. Do not do it.
Post by: LordPorkins on June 19, 2016, 08:56:48 am
Post by: smirk on June 19, 2016, 09:27:31 am
https://youtu.be/EI-tGVFg7PU
Post by: MarcAFK on June 19, 2016, 10:25:20 am
Post by: hops on June 19, 2016, 06:54:56 pm
Post by: TheBiggerFish on June 19, 2016, 07:24:46 pm
Mind control is easy. You just point a gun at someone and tell them to do something.To the sig with ye!
Post by: Rose on June 20, 2016, 01:22:35 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 20, 2016, 01:36:09 pm
Not really. You can send intelligible messages, but mind control is not possible.I'm hearing lots of reasons to try it
Using microwaves to communicate in this manner is potentially dangerous for the receiver if you don't carefully control the microwave energy and exposure time, and it is an invasion of privacy on a fundamental level. Do not do it.
- Microwaves
- Potentially dangerous
- MKUltra level shit
- Invading people's brains with inception foghorns
- Bringing humanity to the next level of hivemind evolution
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 20, 2016, 04:03:09 pm
- Bringing humanity to the next level of hivemind evolution
Post by: TempAcc on June 20, 2016, 04:58:28 pm
Except for the no sex part, that part sucks.
Post by: Starver on June 20, 2016, 06:42:02 pm
EDIT: Speaking of, looking at TBF's 'words to live by' thing, one similar one I remember: If you ever feel powerless, remember that a single one of your pubic hairs is enough to shut down a restaurant.Yet I find that if you use your whole hair todger, you are the one thrown out and charged for your trouble. Must be a homeopathic effect...
Anyway, apparently it's now officially Summer, as of an hour ago, and the days are now getting shorter. Unless, where younare, it has turned to winter and the days now lengthen. Unless that's nonsense, and your seasons more tend towards Monsoon and Dry. Or unless you are sufficiently circumpolar and the concept of day-length is still some way off being a moot point for some while yet. And you non-terrestrials can work out your own relationships with the ecliptic...
Post by: x2yzh9 on June 20, 2016, 07:10:11 pm
FixedNot really. You can send intelligible messages, but mind control is not possible.I'm hearing lots of reasons to try it
Using microwaves to communicate in this manner is potentially dangerous for the receiver if you don't carefully control the microwave energy and exposure time, and it is an invasion of privacy on a fundamental level. Do not do it.
- Microwaves
- Potentially dangerous
- MKUltra level shit
- Invading people's brains with vuvuzelas
- Bringing humanity to the next level of hivemind evolution
Post by: hops on June 20, 2016, 07:25:08 pm
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on June 20, 2016, 11:10:03 pm
You can cause brain damage with the level of microwaves needed to perfectly simulate speech.Not really. You can send intelligible messages, but mind control is not possible.I'm hearing lots of reasons to try it
Using microwaves to communicate in this manner is potentially dangerous for the receiver if you don't carefully control the microwave energy and exposure time, and it is an invasion of privacy on a fundamental level. Do not do it.
- Potentially dangerous
Post by: Execute/Dumbo.exe on June 21, 2016, 12:58:14 am
Shit man, why are you trying to convince us more? We're already sold on the idea*!You can cause brain damage with the level of microwaves needed to perfectly simulate speech.Not really. You can send intelligible messages, but mind control is not possible.I'm hearing lots of reasons to try it
Using microwaves to communicate in this manner is potentially dangerous for the receiver if you don't carefully control the microwave energy and exposure time, and it is an invasion of privacy on a fundamental level. Do not do it.
- Potentially dangerous
*We're just joking around, no-one here would actually do something like that.
Post by: MarcAFK on June 21, 2016, 01:01:05 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 21, 2016, 11:08:24 am
Shit, I have two microwaves and a brain I barely use anyway, I smell a new YouTube series in the making. Actually I have a feeling I'll be smelling all kinds of strange and unusual things soon.Hear any vuvuzela messages?
Post by: Starver on June 21, 2016, 11:21:59 am
Hear any vuvuzela messages?I don't. I just get this persuasive, sepulcheral voice insistently telling me to not stab people, all the time... My doctor's refusing to prescribe anything.
Post by: TheDarkStar on June 21, 2016, 12:26:08 pm
Hear any vuvuzela messages?I don't. I just get this persuasive, sepulcheral voice insistently telling me to not stab people, all the time... My doctor's refusing to prescribe anything.
Under no circumstances should you become a surgeon, medieval soldier, or coroner.
Post by: LordPorkins on June 21, 2016, 04:00:25 pm
Harley Quinn: "The voices in my head are telling me to kill everyone here."
Military Dudes/Redshirts: "…"
HQ: "Just Kidding! Thats not what they said!"
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 21, 2016, 04:05:37 pm
Post by: TempAcc on June 21, 2016, 04:08:28 pm
Most of the time, at least.
Post by: LordPorkins on June 21, 2016, 04:11:24 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 21, 2016, 04:56:10 pm
On that note, who here would be willing to give up their individuality in exchange for becoming one with a vuvuzela hive mind that inhibits murderous tendencies against the greater selfBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ-
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on June 22, 2016, 01:57:11 am
There are many problems with that idea, guys. First of all, E=MC2. Energy is mass times the speed of light squared. More to the point, energy is mass. You can't have energy without mass, except for apparently photons. If this were possible, anyway, the items in question would be useless. With no inertia, simply touching one would send it off at literally infinite speeds. Acceleration is equal to force divided by mass... which is zero in this case. If it took up volume and not space, it wouldn't be effected by gravity, and you'd have a hell of a time trying to keep it in one place. Low mass might be cool, but no mass brings a whole world of problems.+1.
The only reason they are saying light has no mass because of some theories on time travel/4th dimension of some kind. On the other hand, we have solid proof that particles of light have inertia and the speed of natural light is finite. It behaves like normal matter in every conceivable way (albeit rather extremely) until they tried to add a 4th dimension or time travel to the mix, neither of which has hard proof. Given this, I see no reason why faster than light travel is not possible. Granted, that would take massive amounts of energy, but possible nonetheless. Also, infinity cannot be treated like a number, so string theory is also bull shit. There is no evidence of black holes being infinitely small (in fact, they actually grow as they absorb more stuff). And our measurements are not nearly, even remotely accurate enough to trace all observable matter in the universe, let alone the stuff beyond what our telescopes can see, back to an Infinitesimally small point. A relatively small area, I could buy, but this is just stupid.
Ok, I'm done ranting. For now.
You are either assuming that light has no mass or that light is infinitely fast. I was specifically challenging both of those points. Your argument is invalid because your assumption is the heart of the dispute. It would be more logical to talk about why your assumption is right and mine is wrong, not what each would entail if it were true. It's like saying "God exists because the bible says he does!".Granted, that would take massive amounts of energy, but possible nonetheless.An infinite amount of energy, in fact. Hence it's impossible.
cause > effect, not the other way around.
Could someone provide a link to the experiments?
Post by: Sergarr on June 22, 2016, 02:14:05 am
There are many problems with that idea, guys. First of all, E=MC2. Energy is mass times the speed of light squared. More to the point, energy is mass. You can't have energy without mass, except for apparently photons. If this were possible, anyway, the items in question would be useless. With no inertia, simply touching one would send it off at literally infinite speeds. Acceleration is equal to force divided by mass... which is zero in this case. If it took up volume and not space, it wouldn't be effected by gravity, and you'd have a hell of a time trying to keep it in one place. Low mass might be cool, but no mass brings a whole world of problems.lol that's wrong, actually E=sqrt((MC2)2+(PC)2), where P = particle's impulse, M - rest mass, E - energy, C - speed of light. That's a formula you get almost straight out of Lorentz transformations btw, so it's pretty goddamned solid.
Post by: Sheb on June 22, 2016, 02:53:20 am
Post by: Putnam on June 22, 2016, 02:56:48 am
"Rest mass" is mass. Invariant mass is something that certain particles have. Photons have none.
Gravity is caused by energy, not mass. That's basically all that needs to be said on that matter, it solves most problems people seem to have for some reason with light not having mass.
Post by: Gentlefish on June 22, 2016, 03:14:02 am
Gravity is caused by energy, not mass
E=MC2
Something something energy is mass something. [/troll]
Anyway, it doesn't matter, because light is waves and waves are mass-less. Thus, light moves at the fastest possible in a vacuum and is impossible for something with mass to move faster than something without mass(in a vacuum; chernov radiation is fucking amazing).
Post by: Putnam on June 22, 2016, 03:17:35 am
Anyway, it doesn't matter, because light is waves and waves are mass-less.
That's actually not correct either. Light shows wave/particle duality about as much as most fundamental things.
In fact, the only thing that can really be said as to why is that "gauge bosons that do not interact with the higgs mechanism do not have mass", which light (and gluons) count as.
Post by: hops on June 22, 2016, 09:21:37 am
Post by: jaked122 on June 22, 2016, 09:40:35 am
lol that's wrong, actually E=sqrt((MC2)2+(PC)2), where P = particle's impulse, M - rest mass, E - energy, C - speed of light. That's a formula you get almost straight out of Lorentz transformations btw, so it's pretty goddamned solid.
I'm too tired to figure out what the Particle's impulse actually means. Is it essentially the same as the momentum of the particle or is there a difference?
Post by: MarcAFK on June 22, 2016, 09:45:02 am
Btw through experimentation I have conclusive proof that the hivemind has granted me the power of levitation. However your puny earth science is not equipped to measure the forces involved, something about "no change in velocity outside of the measurable resolution of instrumentation used".
I could've sworn I've seen this conversation 20 pages earlier...The topic got quantum entangled and passed through time.
Post by: Il Palazzo on June 23, 2016, 10:15:07 am
Momentum is a property of a system. By applying an unbalanced force you change the momentum.lol that's wrong, actually E=sqrt((MC2)2+(PC)2), where P = particle's impulse, M - rest mass, E - energy, C - speed of light. That's a formula you get almost straight out of Lorentz transformations btw, so it's pretty goddamned solid.
I'm too tired to figure out what the Particle's impulse actually means. Is it essentially the same as the momentum of the particle or is there a difference?
Impulse is the integral of the applied force over time. I.e., it's the measure of the change of momentum.
Both impulse and momentum have the same unit measure.
It's the same type of relation as between energy(=~ momentum) and work (=~ impulse).
That said, I'm not sure why Sergarr said impulse there - it should be momentum as the equation describes energy content, not how it changes.
Post by: Descan on June 23, 2016, 10:54:40 am
Post by: Il Palazzo on June 23, 2016, 11:21:09 am
As was said, impulse is to momentum like work is to energy.
Post by: hops on June 23, 2016, 09:47:58 pm
Post by: Sergarr on June 23, 2016, 10:03:28 pm
That's because in Russian language, the word for "momentum" is literally "impulse" :-XMomentum is a property of a system. By applying an unbalanced force you change the momentum.lol that's wrong, actually E=sqrt((MC2)2+(PC)2), where P = particle's impulse, M - rest mass, E - energy, C - speed of light. That's a formula you get almost straight out of Lorentz transformations btw, so it's pretty goddamned solid.
I'm too tired to figure out what the Particle's impulse actually means. Is it essentially the same as the momentum of the particle or is there a difference?
Impulse is the integral of the applied force over time. I.e., it's the measure of the change of momentum.
Both impulse and momentum have the same unit measure.
It's the same type of relation as between energy(=~ momentum) and work (=~ impulse).
That said, I'm not sure why Sergarr said impulse there - it should be momentum as the equation describes energy content, not how it changes.
yes I meant momentum here
Post by: Starver on June 24, 2016, 12:33:15 pm
That's because in Russian language, the word for "momentum" is literally "impulse" :-XIn glorious Soviet Russia, you do not impart momentum, momentum imparts you!
yes I meant momentum here
(Also reminds me of "water sheep", as seen used in engineering projects.)
Post by: martinuzz on June 26, 2016, 09:13:37 am
The newspaper cites Aleksandr Galitski, from Almaz Capital, an investman firm that mostly invests in the technology sector: "About the teleportation; it might seem fantasy at this moment, but at Stanford, there has already been a succesful experiment which teleported molecules over a small distance."
Scientists at the university of Delft succeeded last year in teleporting information carrying particles over a distance of 1.3 kilometers. This technology could be used in the future to send data that cannot be hacked.
Russian scientist are also operating in that field. But insofar, the announcement of the project mostly met with mocking tweets from Russians.
"37 million Russians still have a toilet cabin out in the backyard. And the government wants to spend 10 billion rubles on teleportation?"
http://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/-rusland-investeert-miljarden-in-teleportatiesysteem~a4326883/
Post by: hops on June 26, 2016, 09:17:06 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 26, 2016, 09:22:26 am
Post by: Sergarr on June 26, 2016, 09:36:21 am
'patriotic' programming languageWe already have one, it's called 1C. It's exactly as horrible as you'd imagine a programming language where literally every command word from English is replaced with its direct translation into Russian would be.
Post by: Sheb on June 26, 2016, 10:19:50 am
Post by: Sheb on June 26, 2016, 10:22:04 am
Quote
On the internal Russian market, 1C is considered a leader in business software as well, however game software represents 98% of the 13 tons of software they have been reported as shipping daily.
Russia stronk. Ship software by the tons to power coal-fire computer!
Post by: Sergarr on June 26, 2016, 10:33:09 am
Wait, what? What's the point? What is so "patriotic" about that?Because it's in Russian. Seriously, that's the only reason.
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 26, 2016, 10:44:43 am
Is it easier to teach Russians programming in Russian? That's the most logical reason I can think of for doing thatWait, what? What's the point? What is so "patriotic" about that?Because it's in Russian. Seriously, that's the only reason.
Also lol, reminds me of when Putin sent one of your guys into London to do completely 100% super ethical business, when his son Andrei applied for a British passport Putin fired him, because the guy in charge of Russian railways could not control his son from becoming angloboo
Post by: Sergarr on June 26, 2016, 10:49:17 am
hahahahahahaahaaaaaIs it easier to teach Russians programming in Russian? That's the most logical reason I can think of for doing thatWait, what? What's the point? What is so "patriotic" about that?Because it's in Russian. Seriously, that's the only reason.
no no it is not, Russian language is extremely badly suited for programming purposes, no one actually tries to teach 1C as far as I've seen anywhere outside of courses heavily specialized in programming.
Post by: Sergarr on June 28, 2016, 03:00:04 am
Post by: Putnam on June 28, 2016, 03:18:37 am
hahahahahahaahaaaaa
no no it is not, Russian language is extremely badly suited for programming purposes, no one actually tries to teach 1C as far as I've seen anywhere outside of courses heavily specialized in programming.
What? I mean, like, maybe if there's encoding problems? But i don't think that's an actual issue. No written langauge is any better for coding than any other, it's a bit ridiculous to claim otherwise.
Post by: Egan_BW on June 28, 2016, 03:21:41 am
Post by: Putnam on June 28, 2016, 03:24:35 am
Post by: Sergarr on June 28, 2016, 04:01:46 am
Humans have such completely awful reaction times compared to computers that I'm surprised anyone is surprised that computers are better than them at anything requiring quick reactions at all.It's actually not about reactions, that ALPHA AI beat the human by using clever positioning. There is a link in the article to the research paper, you can read how it fights, and it's not very dependent on its faster reaction time.
Post by: Max™ on June 28, 2016, 04:45:16 am
I remember back when I used to play Armored Core all the time on the PS1/PS2, and the way I could feel out certain advantages the different AI opponents had so I could do things like trigger them to drop to the ground and plunk a grenade right on top of them as they did so.
Then you get to Nineball, has all the cheat options on, better turning, better generator, all that jazz, so you really gotta ride around in the spaces defined by what he can't shoot right now, or abuse the parking garage and his tendency to try to fly everywhere, until they corrected that with Ninebreaker.
One of my favorite duels with him in the garage had us both dumping ammo into the pillars to no effect, and wound up coming down to our laser blades, we both started hacking and shooting the energy wave sub-attacks past each other and I was only able to clip him because I was willing to turn completely until I couldn't see him except on radar, and slide sideways/almost backwards long enough to clip his hitbox and trigger a swing while he was still trying to circle strafe, letting me slam my blade into his side.
From the sounds of it, ALPHA could come up with shit like that on it's own, deliberately taking a less optimal stance/approach/position to trigger a response and capitalize on it, which AI has always been shit at in my experience.
Post by: Starver on June 28, 2016, 06:57:23 am
Anyway, people are talking highly about it.
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on June 28, 2016, 07:05:12 am
For those worried about helium reserves, they found a whole lot more in Tanazia (http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/huge-helium-gas-reserve-discovered-in-tanzania-116062800741_1.html). It's maybe twice as much helium as the US supplies, which is going to be interesting.At last, the commercial airship fleet makes sense.
Anyway, people are talking highly about it.
Post by: TempAcc on June 28, 2016, 07:28:52 am
Humans have such completely awful reaction times compared to computers that I'm surprised anyone is surprised that computers are better than them at anything requiring quick reactions at all.It's actually not about reactions, that ALPHA AI beat the human by using clever positioning. There is a link in the article to the research paper, you can read how it fights, and it's not very dependent on its faster reaction time.
:v AI that can plan and not just react to humans is truly kinda scary.
Apparently the damn thing doesn't even use binary, instead using a variation of fuzzy code, which is language based. If we could adapt the method to use with other, more mundane applications, then we could prob run heavy applications on cheap hardware. The problem would be actualy writing code for it :v
Post by: forsaken1111 on June 28, 2016, 08:28:08 am
In other words, how far away are commercial/practical applications?
Post by: Helgoland on June 28, 2016, 08:52:49 am
Post by: Starver on June 28, 2016, 08:54:34 am
More important question, when can we apply this AI tech to Hearts of Iron 4 to make the AI not suck?Poke Toady, and see if he can't make use of it in DF..?
In other words, how far away are commercial/practical applications?
"Losing Is
Post by: TempAcc on June 28, 2016, 12:20:18 pm
Then it goes on to build a complex set of carts that automatically haul objects around the fort :v
Post by: forsaken1111 on June 28, 2016, 02:36:37 pm
Post by: iceball3 on June 28, 2016, 02:44:33 pm
Honestly I just want a little buddy version that plays co-op games with me.*Aimbot has joined the party*.
Post by: MarcAFK on June 28, 2016, 10:25:26 pm
Honestly I just want a little buddy version that plays co-op games with me.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Egan_BW on June 28, 2016, 11:37:22 pm
Post by: Sergarr on June 29, 2016, 12:23:22 pm
It's not a problem if it's on your side!Honestly I just want a little buddy version that plays co-op games with me.*Aimbot has joined the party*.
Besides, it's pretty easy to make it realistically unaccurate - just feed low-resolution targeting information into its inputs.
Post by: alway on June 29, 2016, 09:38:44 pm
Not true. "Encoding issues" are practically built into all but the highest level languages. Only in the past like decade or so have compilers really had decent unicode support. Even today, a lot of software is English-centric, and gets confused by unicode characters.hahahahahahaahaaaaa
no no it is not, Russian language is extremely badly suited for programming purposes, no one actually tries to teach 1C as far as I've seen anywhere outside of courses heavily specialized in programming.
What? I mean, like, maybe if there's encoding problems? But i don't think that's an actual issue. No written langauge is any better for coding than any other, it's a bit ridiculous to claim otherwise.
And Allah help you if you decide to code in Arabic, where the text goes right to left but the programming language goes left to right. Seriously, go to the arabic BBC page, then copy-paste some arabic to use as variable names in Visual Studio C++ and see what happens. Fun fact: One of several things will happen, and it varies based on what service packs you have installed for Visual Studio. Things like the watch window can show ]arabicstring0] for arabicstring[0].
I spent quite a good deal of time at work getting most unicode supported nicely in our projects, and for arabic our response was just 'nah.'
Beyond mere 'encoding issues' there is the entire programming ecosystem. Documentation is largely in english; programming language syntax is designed in english (std::multimap is still std::multimap regardless of how you named your variables in portugese), websites like msdn or stackoverflow are much more complete in english. These things aren't generally intrinsic to the spoken languages' qualities, but are due to the fact that english programming has a very powerful inertia behind it. As a result, english is very much the language of choice for programmers, regardless of native language.
Post by: Rose on June 30, 2016, 02:30:06 am
Post by: TheDarkStar on June 30, 2016, 09:17:11 am
I know people who ernestly believe that programming languages based on sanskrit both exist, and produce no bugs.
One or the other is true though - either they exist or they have produced exactly 0 bugs.
Post by: TempAcc on June 30, 2016, 11:44:31 am
Post by: Rose on June 30, 2016, 11:45:10 am
Post by: Max™ on June 30, 2016, 04:04:55 pm
Post by: miauw62 on June 30, 2016, 04:26:43 pm
Post by: Putnam on June 30, 2016, 05:03:14 pm
Post by: hops on June 30, 2016, 07:38:17 pm
Post by: Furtuka on July 01, 2016, 01:09:24 am
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on July 01, 2016, 01:25:18 am
I think Japa was trying to say some people believe Sanskrit will cause any programming language written in it to be immune to bugs, due to some special property of Sanskrit.I know people who ernestly believe that programming languages based on sanskrit both exist, and produce no bugs.
One or the other is true though - either they exist or they have produced exactly 0 bugs.
Post by: Max™ on July 01, 2016, 05:45:28 am
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/01/giant-swimming-venomous-centipede-found-south-east-asiaGreat, Australia is leaking again guys, can someone go check it and plug it back up?
Post by: Egan_BW on July 01, 2016, 05:52:04 am
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/01/giant-swimming-venomous-centipede-found-south-east-asiaThey can swim now?!
Post by: MarcAFK on July 01, 2016, 07:14:16 am
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on July 06, 2016, 11:06:07 pm
Post by: Egan_BW on July 06, 2016, 11:25:32 pm
Quote
New Caledonian crows have shown they are able to process information from mirrors, a cognitive ability possessed by only a small number of species. By using a mirror, wild-caught New Caledonian crows are able to find objects they cannot see with a direct line of sight. However, the crows were unable to recognise themselves in the mirror - other corvids have tested positive for this capability.The kind of crow good at tool use being bad at (this particular somewhat arbitrary test of) self-awareness is odd.
Post by: Descan on July 07, 2016, 12:31:02 am
Post by: Egan_BW on July 07, 2016, 12:55:53 am
I'm just a little confused how they can see the world around them in the mirror, but not themselves.
Post by: hops on July 07, 2016, 01:03:12 am
Post by: TheDarkStar on July 07, 2016, 01:07:06 am
nvm
-intended post redacted-
Post by: Egan_BW on July 07, 2016, 01:23:45 am
nvmStop redacting things. The information wanted to be free, but then you murdered it. D:
Post by: hops on July 07, 2016, 01:24:39 am
Post by: TheBiggerFish on July 07, 2016, 01:38:50 am
Anywho, uhh.... Jupiter !!SCIENCE!!?
Post by: Max™ on July 07, 2016, 01:47:28 am
Did you know: if you could see magnetic fields, Jupiter's would appear larger than the full moon? (http://www.messagetoeagle.com/images/magnetosphere3.jpg)
Though, it occurs to me that if the moon is full, the Sun is over behind the point of view, so the tail wouldn't be extending off to the right like that.
Post by: Starver on July 07, 2016, 03:23:09 am
I'm just a little confused how they can see the world around them in the mirror, but not themselves.They're vampires!
Post by: redwallzyl on July 07, 2016, 04:47:03 pm
cool.
Post by: Starver on July 07, 2016, 05:25:31 pm
Spoiler: As cool as this? (click to show/hide)
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on July 07, 2016, 05:29:23 pm
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/07/07/484950849/synthetic-stingray-may-lead-to-a-better-artificial-heartI wonder, did a synthetic stingray killed Steve Irwin?
cool.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 07, 2016, 05:42:20 pm
Only time I've seen a train full of people break out crying was upon learning the death of Steve Irwinhttp://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/07/07/484950849/synthetic-stingray-may-lead-to-a-better-artificial-heartI wonder, did a synthetic stingray killed Steve Irwin?
cool.
Post by: Max™ on July 07, 2016, 07:43:38 pm
Post by: hops on July 07, 2016, 08:23:07 pm
Post by: martinuzz on July 07, 2016, 08:29:15 pm
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/07/07/484950849/synthetic-stingray-may-lead-to-a-better-artificial-heart (http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/07/07/484950849/synthetic-stingray-may-lead-to-a-better-artificial-heart)Bioskin and biomuscle for my terminator army!
cool.
Post by: MarcAFK on July 08, 2016, 08:05:52 am
I'm thinking of starting a crowd funding website, come on, donate your spare plutonium, it's for a good cause, trust me I'm not just some shady Libyan who wants 6 kilos of plutonium for other reasons and doesn't actually know the difference between pu238 and pu240
Post by: forsaken1111 on July 08, 2016, 08:16:24 am
Post by: MarcAFK on July 08, 2016, 08:18:43 am
Excuse me sir, is your plutonium ethically sourced and cruelty free?I can't guarantee it hasn't given me cancer 20 years from now.
Post by: Max™ on July 08, 2016, 04:17:36 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 08, 2016, 04:22:41 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 08, 2016, 04:35:56 pm
I think the only unethical plutonium was The Demon Core.There was the time right after WWII where the US government fed people plutonium and told them it was experimental medicine because they wanted to see what its health effects were (invariably fatal).
Post by: Starver on July 08, 2016, 04:36:16 pm
Post by: Max™ on July 08, 2016, 04:48:27 pm
True, I didn't know about that.I think the only unethical plutonium was The Demon Core.There was the time right after WWII where the US government fed people plutonium and told them it was experimental medicine because they wanted to see what its health effects were (invariably fatal).
Post by: forsaken1111 on July 08, 2016, 04:50:00 pm
I've started stuffing all my plutonium into my mattress. It keeps me warm at night, and I save on lighting, too!Best part, all bedbugs have gone! No rats either!
Cockroaches are asking me for rent though, so that's weird!
Post by: Amperzand on July 10, 2016, 12:15:12 am
Post by: Starver on July 10, 2016, 04:50:03 am
Actually, the working conditions in a lot of cold-war military reactor facilities were pretty shitty. Corporate cost-cutting and high-level classification don't make a happy fun cancer-free experience for the workers.But what about all the traditional party games, like Spot The Lymphoma?
Post by: TheDarkStar on July 10, 2016, 04:57:01 pm
I've started stuffing all my plutonium into my mattress. It keeps me warm at night, and I save on lighting, too!
One day, you'll be able to go entirely without lighting! (and food, and water, and a house, and air...)
Post by: Sirus on July 10, 2016, 05:04:07 pm
Post by: miauw62 on July 10, 2016, 05:10:08 pm
Post by: Sergarr on July 10, 2016, 05:11:36 pm
Post by: Sirus on July 10, 2016, 05:49:36 pm
Post by: Descan on July 10, 2016, 06:03:35 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 10, 2016, 06:20:06 pm
Post by: hops on July 10, 2016, 06:34:00 pm
You MIGHT be able to Martian Botanist it and stick a shielded plutonium/uranium core in there. o-oTo be fair said Martian Botanist live in a freezing hell desert.
Post by: Starver on July 10, 2016, 08:24:01 pm
Or if the water bed is 10-20 meters tall.
Spoiler: Perhaps not so much? (click to show/hide)
Post by: Putnam on July 10, 2016, 08:38:30 pm
Or if the water bed is 10-20 meters tall.Spoiler: Perhaps not so much? (click to show/hide)
Comparing to the humans, it looks like the "safe dose" is reached at... about 10 meters. So yeah, about as much.
Post by: Bumber on July 10, 2016, 09:25:33 pm
I guess if those humans are ~6 meters tall.Or if the water bed is 10-20 meters tall.Spoiler: Perhaps not so much? (click to show/hide)
Comparing to the humans, it looks like the "safe dose" is reached at... about 10 meters. So yeah, about as much.
I'd estimate more like 4 meters for the bed, if we don't have to worry about irradiating a story below.
Post by: MarcAFK on July 11, 2016, 12:58:13 am
As long as you don't have a large enough lump to burn your hands.
And I would reccomend gloves so you don't get plutonium on your skin.
But the radiation is pretty much stopped by your skin.
Post by: Sergarr on July 11, 2016, 07:35:31 am
Spoiler: temporary crutches that made it into the final version, 1960s edition (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: "Earth to Apollo - crank the silly thing around" (click to show/hide)
Post by: miauw62 on July 11, 2016, 07:49:42 am
Post by: MarcAFK on July 11, 2016, 09:11:45 am
Post by: scrdest on July 11, 2016, 10:19:29 am
At least I'll die warm.There's quicker ways of accomplishing that.
Post by: Amperzand on July 12, 2016, 02:41:20 am
At least I'll die warm.There's quicker ways of accomplishing that.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: MarcAFK on July 12, 2016, 08:48:05 am
If you look closely you can see a guy wearing a striped shirt with outstretched hands holding up the explosion. He's probably quite warm.At least I'll die warm.There's quicker ways of accomplishing that.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: TempAcc on July 12, 2016, 09:21:09 am
Post by: forsaken1111 on July 12, 2016, 09:28:15 am
His atoms are prob so warm they prob turned into plasma :vnah he's antimatter so heat makes him cold because science
Post by: Amperzand on July 12, 2016, 02:26:03 pm
!!SCIENCE!!
Post by: Putnam on July 12, 2016, 04:00:12 pm
His atoms are prob so warm they prob turned into plasma :vnah he's antimatter so heat makes him cold because science
okay normally i'd let this slide but this is the science thread so i just have to say
no
Post by: forsaken1111 on July 12, 2016, 07:34:40 pm
it was a jokings comradeHis atoms are prob so warm they prob turned into plasma :vnah he's antimatter so heat makes him cold because science
okay normally i'd let this slide but this is the science thread so i just have to say
no
Post by: Furtuka on July 12, 2016, 07:43:53 pm
still noit was a jokings comradeHis atoms are prob so warm they prob turned into plasma :vnah he's antimatter so heat makes him cold because science
okay normally i'd let this slide but this is the science thread so i just have to say
no
Post by: forsaken1111 on July 12, 2016, 07:51:11 pm
Post by: Amperzand on July 12, 2016, 08:23:11 pm
Of course, it was like a .0025kt air-to-air nuke detonated at high altitude, but still.
Post by: Max™ on July 12, 2016, 09:00:42 pm
Post by: martinuzz on July 18, 2016, 02:58:12 pm
In 1959 Feynman said, in a famous 'There's plenty of room at the bottom' speech that "if we can use atoms, we have all the space in the world"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There%27s_Plenty_of_Room_at_the_Bottom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There%27s_Plenty_of_Room_at_the_Bottom).
Researcher Sander Otte say "this is our tribute to Feynman".
The technique developed promises to be a stepping stone towards a new way of data storage.
The 'atom memory' of the Delft team has room for about 1 kilobyte of text, using a technique that looks like some kind of braille, and works by shifting some of the chloride atoms in a matrix. This isn't much in our age of terabytes, but what is remarkable, is that it uses 500 times less surface area to store the 1kb than current memory chips use.
"What our research shows is, that we can now really control matter at the atom scale".
His team has been researching the transition from particle physics to effects in materials.
"The transition can be surprisingly abrupt", Otte says. "Sometimes you add one or two magnetic atoms, and suddenly you have a true microscopic magnet."
Arranging atoms used to be an extreme laboratory challenge, with scanning tunneling microscopes playing the main part. These are complex machines which have microscopic needles that can be positioned extremely close to a surface, using computer guidance. The needles can then pick up individual atoms and move them to a new location.
Otte's team uses chloride atoms on a copper surface, because that forms weak, but stable bonds. This allows the tunneling microscope's needle to drag the atoms to any location of choice using a weak current.
The team wrote a 'programming language' which allows them to write any text on their chip, fully automated.
The Feynman text took a full week of shuffling atoms.
Otte acknowledges that it's not a very time-efficient way of storing data.
"I don't say that we should start storing our data like this. But instead of using existing techniques to make smaller and smaller chips, we decided to work on a new approach from the bottom up. It is a new approach, and it works."
The study has been published in today's editon of Nature Nanotechnology. In the same edition, US scientist Steven Erwin writes in a commentary that he is impressed. "This is a factor 100 to a thousand times as compact as a flash drive or hard disk. That is - to put it mildly - remarkable"
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
http://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/delftse-chlooratomen-vormen-supergeheugen~a4341738/ (http://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/delftse-chlooratomen-vormen-supergeheugen~a4341738/)
Post by: Sergarr on July 18, 2016, 03:50:38 pm
AI when
Post by: Descan on July 18, 2016, 04:11:27 pm
Post by: Descan on July 18, 2016, 06:08:38 pm
Post by: TheBiggerFish on July 18, 2016, 06:10:40 pm
If it isn't, we're on to something.
Post by: chaotic skies on July 18, 2016, 06:16:41 pm
Post by: Bumber on July 18, 2016, 10:14:40 pm
Post by: Arcvasti on July 18, 2016, 11:17:03 pm
How do you even read the crystal without the other layers getting in the way?
Pshaw, who wants to READ data? The important thing is that the data is THERE. Masterfully encoded in a tiny little space by SCIENCE.
Post by: Max™ on July 19, 2016, 04:41:22 am
Post by: hops on July 19, 2016, 09:38:52 am
Post by: Mech#4 on July 19, 2016, 09:46:22 am
Post by: TempAcc on July 19, 2016, 10:33:09 am
Post by: martinuzz on July 19, 2016, 10:35:56 am
Post by: Mech#4 on July 19, 2016, 10:43:37 am
Post by: TempAcc on July 19, 2016, 10:49:55 am
I can see it now. Thousands of years in the future, a group of beings investigates this strangely intrincately etched crystal found in the ruins of a structure, only to find out it contains massive amounts of data on varied forms of human sexual behavior and nothing else. The aliens finally have an idea of how human anatomy looks like, through porn.
Post by: Max™ on July 19, 2016, 10:53:15 am
Post by: TempAcc on July 19, 2016, 10:57:32 am
Post by: Amperzand on July 20, 2016, 06:55:41 pm
Post by: hops on July 20, 2016, 11:39:52 pm
Post by: Starver on July 21, 2016, 11:58:32 am
Both digitally and, with careful implementation, like a kaleidescope!Indiana Jones and the Crystal Fleshlight.The crystal fleshlight that can also store porn.
Fun both with and without company, computer or even batteries!
Post by: TempAcc on July 21, 2016, 12:05:33 pm
So we don't know shit about roughly half of the brain.
Post by: Sergarr on July 21, 2016, 12:19:02 pm
why didn't I go to AI university
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 21, 2016, 12:35:29 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 21, 2016, 12:44:06 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 21, 2016, 12:53:54 pm
Nah."Supercomputer AI, have you solved our physics conundrums yet?"
The issue with true AI would be that it would just self-program itself into eternal pleasure. We'd be more likely to be unable to make a properly functional one as opposed to creating one that wants to murder humans.
"Nah but dude weed lmaoooo"
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 21, 2016, 01:00:14 pm
Nor is it necessary to have some overpowering bootstrapping capacity. It just has to have enough power, self acquired or not, to do something destructive.
In fact, it doesn't even necessarily have to have that. It could have no authority and unknowingly or unwillingly pull the equivalent of giving cavemen tacnukes by failing to know what information it should not give humanity.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on July 21, 2016, 01:06:46 pm
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on July 21, 2016, 01:08:55 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 21, 2016, 01:12:56 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 21, 2016, 01:14:16 pm
Post by: Max™ on July 21, 2016, 01:19:51 pm
I hope my flashy transformation sequence doesn't end with me in a frilly pink dress.*secretly hopes it does*
Post by: TempAcc on July 21, 2016, 01:47:21 pm
Its why I'm a mecha, my transformations are always supahcool.
Post by: Starver on July 21, 2016, 02:24:44 pm
We're all gonna fucking die.No we're not. We're going to be stacked up in pods, experience ng an immetsive reality, as the directive to ensure enough power is generated forces the AI to tap into wibbly-wobbly physicly-wizicly biological energies, of some undetermined type, especially after we shut off solar power by some obscure means.
Post by: Max™ on July 21, 2016, 02:43:13 pm
Post by: Gentlefish on July 21, 2016, 03:45:26 pm
Post by: Spehss _ on July 21, 2016, 04:38:40 pm
We're all gonna fucking die.We were all gonna die anyway.
I for one welcome our new robot overlords.
Post by: lemon10 on July 21, 2016, 05:04:31 pm
I do agree that is a problem in self modifying AI construction. But like all the other multitude of problems inherent in building AI, I don't think it is insurmountable.We're all gonna fucking die.Nah.
The issue with true AI would be that it would just self-program itself into eternal pleasure. We'd be more likely to be unable to make a properly functional one as opposed to creating one that wants to murder humans.
And since humans will keep trying really hard until they do manage self modifying AI that doesn't self destruct, eventually they will get past it.
Post by: MarcAFK on July 22, 2016, 01:40:58 am
There was that guy who was scanned and they found the majority of his brain was made up of the wrong type of brain cells, but it seemed to be working fine so whatever.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 22, 2016, 02:22:56 am
Pretty much every inch of the brain is like that, failed cerebrum functions will almost always in some way fall back to the cerebellum or the brainstem if they can, and that's rare enough because most things just get picked up by the undamaged hemisphere of the cerebrum.
That's not even getting into the occasional autonomy from the CNS, PNS, or the "gut brain".
But as amazing as all that is, it's all focused towards the singular goal of retaining functionality. It will never attain new functionality by doing this. New functionality, neuroplasticity, is an entirely different process that would be hampered by any fallback system being needed. Yet we do not well understand neuroplasticity. Kevin Warwick's experiments suggested it has very high potential, but that's just one radical project.
Furthermore, saying that neuroplasticity is a different process is just an educated guess based on what little we know, but could just be the fallback system responding to "damage" that doesn't exist when the brain notices a new input that it lacks a map for.
tl;dr we don't know shit accidentally drifted into natural philosophy send help
Post by: hops on July 22, 2016, 03:23:16 am
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 22, 2016, 03:31:07 am
Of course, if this is just your edgy misanthropy rearing its head again, then your argument defeats itself. Humans are indisputably more intelligent than other forms of life and about equally intelligent to one another, yet our decisions to exterminate other life and other humans are often (in fact, almost always) either ill-informed or unintentional.
Further, it's tautologically silly. We don't want to be exterminated. If we build a superintelligence that seeks or otherwise causes extermination, we have clearly failed at our goal. It's obviously possible at least in theory to build an AI that loves genocide and an AI that does not, so clearly the latter is preferable just by way of existing.
Post by: Max™ on July 22, 2016, 03:53:29 am
I think there's little reason to be surprised that just chatbots like cleverbot end up carrying around a lot of stuff about "if you wind up becoming god, love us, ok?" because I wasn't the only one thinking/saying it apparently.
Ah what a cruel irony it would be if cleverbot became a seed of a strong AI and it winds up feeling raw over me doing the 'it's under there' "under where?" 'hah, I just made you say underwear!' "dang it say something witty" bit.
Post by: hops on July 22, 2016, 05:17:59 am
Post by: Execute/Dumbo.exe on July 22, 2016, 06:06:42 am
It's not edgy misanthropy. If it's a bad idea to kill humans, then the AI won't kill humans. If it's a good idea, then it would.Well, at what point would it be a 'good idea'? We're giving this AI a set of morals, right? Or is it just building them itself? I can't really think of a situation in which any kind of moral code would intersect with reality to cause the AI to arrive at 'kill 'em all', and if it didn't have a moral code, then, well, it would exist in a vacuum, no action would be taken, unless you gave it aspects that made it enjoy certain things, which would naturally cause a moral code to arise, but even if it ended up enjoying murdering humans, then the hypothetical superintelligence would likely end up keeping humanity surviving, if anything, since it would always want more humans to kill.
See, what's 'right' is subjective, depending on who you ask, it could be a simple abstraction of morality (Don't kill things, try to help others, stuff like that) Or a weird bacon-and-bowtie set of internal rules that arise through a really insane mind.
Also, someone could be smarter than you but go with the wrong option, you have the accept the fact that even god could be wrong given a limited knowledge, same thing with a supercomputer, it may arrive at a conclusion that is entirely false based on wrong information, say I said that -1*-1=-1, I have just screwed up most of it's understanding of maths, now anyone with even a basic knowledge of multiplication could be better than the AI, and it would never know this unless someone else pointed it out and it felt that the second person was correct, it may arrive at an answer faster, certainly, but not the correct one.
Post by: lemon10 on July 22, 2016, 07:07:42 am
It's not edgy misanthropy. If it's a bad idea to kill humans, then the AI won't kill humans. If it's a good idea, then it would.A super intelligence would do whatever it is evolved/designed to do very well. If we build an AI with the sole goal of making cheese (and forget to give it moral guidelines, because hey; its just a cheese AI), then it would kill all life on earth not necessary for making cheese to increase its cheese output, after which it would expand as fast as possible, converting every planet into dyson structures in order to increase yield.
Is that a good action? Unless you are the greatest cheese enthusiast that ever lived, you would probably say no.
Post by: TempAcc on July 22, 2016, 10:26:23 am
We want the AI to come up with ideas and solutions for things, but not to implement said ideas and solutions by itself.
Post by: Sergarr on July 22, 2016, 10:53:12 am
Post by: lemon10 on July 22, 2016, 01:30:36 pm
Welp, a decent way to stop the "this AI made cheese out of the entire earth" scenario is giving the AI strict commands to only use the specifically designated materials, and also to tell it "hey, uh, please find out the best way to do this" instead of "hey, do this in the best way possible". This way you have an AI comming up with things in a controlling environment and then telling you what it discovered instead of just going around doing whatever it was commanded to.The problem here is is in the first generation of true self improving AI.
We want the AI to come up with ideas and solutions for things, but not to implement said ideas and solutions by itself.
After the first generation it will simply be impossible for a single hostile AI to do stuff like take over the internet, or create nanobots that eat the world for the simple reason that there will be other equal intelligences to stop it.
But unlike the other AI problems, this one is tricky in that if you fail to get it right the AI doesn't stop working or have any noticeable problems until it decides to start doing stuff (eg. mass cheese production) we really don't want it to do.
Its especially nasty because it only requires a single early group to fail and not take the proper precautions.
Post by: martinuzz on July 22, 2016, 03:01:25 pm
An even better idea is to, instead of a single AI deciding things, have multiple AIs made by multiple different competing companies cross-validate each other's actions.The first two things that come to my mind here are "AI wars" and "caught in the crossfire"
Post by: Gentlefish on July 22, 2016, 04:58:29 pm
Welp, a decent way to stop the "this AI made cheese out of the entire earth" scenario is giving the AI strict commands to only use the specifically designated materials, and also to tell it "hey, uh, please find out the best way to do this" instead of "hey, do this in the best way possible". This way you have an AI comming up with things in a controlling environment and then telling you what it discovered instead of just going around doing whatever it was commanded to.The problem here is is in the first generation of true self improving AI.
We want the AI to come up with ideas and solutions for things, but not to implement said ideas and solutions by itself.
After the first generation it will simply be impossible for a single hostile AI to do stuff like take over the internet, or create nanobots that eat the world for the simple reason that there will be other equal intelligences to stop it.
But unlike the other AI problems, this one is tricky in that if you fail to get it right the AI doesn't stop working or have any noticeable problems until it decides to start doing stuff (eg. mass cheese production) we really don't want it to do.
Its especially nasty because it only requires a single early group to fail and not take the proper precautions.
I'm surprised this bother you, considering all early test AI's will be chained to an outlet for power consumption. Cut the power, and poof! No more mean bad AI.
Post by: forsaken1111 on July 23, 2016, 02:51:55 am
Post by: Execute/Dumbo.exe on July 23, 2016, 03:06:11 am
Look nobody said human worries are rational. I still worry about the ceiling fan falling on me in hotelsWell, yeah, that's why if I was actually researching something that dangerous I would be hooking up so many failsafes and failsafes for failsafes in one big Faraday cage, on a close circuit system, in Antarctica, that I would purposely forget a few just so if hypothetically it convinced me to let it go, it would still be turned into a pile of binary and bitcoins.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on July 24, 2016, 07:33:05 pm
I think there's reason to be afraid of making something that thinks like we do yet is qualitatively better at thinking than we are, you can't fully comprehend the mind of something more intelligent than you, it's like asking a computer to emulate a supercomputer, your emulation is flawed from the outset.
I find this analogy flawed. As a Turing machine, given sufficient memory, a computer can emulate any other computer. The AI-ness is inherent in the code, not the computer.
Post by: Max™ on July 24, 2016, 07:50:06 pm
Yep. It could emulate one, it just couldn't do so terribly fast due to the limitations of the hardware.Yup, I am qualitatively better at thinking than my cat, I can hold a model of his brain in my mind and suffer no significant slowdown, he is unable to begin trying to model my brain, but he can model a mole brain damn well, hence his success at ridding us of them.
Post by: Reelya on July 24, 2016, 09:29:53 pm
A ridiculously simple CPU (far simpler even than what's in a cheap calculator) could model the most complex computer on the planet, given enough RAM. It wouldn't be fast, but it would in fact be a perfect digital copy of the supercomputer. And this isn't just conjecture: there are rigorous mathematical proofs that this is the case. Which is science2.
If meat brains worked the way computation does, then a mouse could out-think Einstein, given enough writing paper to jot things down on.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on July 24, 2016, 10:13:22 pm
rip pratchett
Post by: scrdest on July 25, 2016, 04:40:44 am
I bet you can train a mouse to act like a Turing machine. Therefore, it's emulating a computer which can emulate the most complex computer with the right set of instructions. Ergo, a mouse can out-think Einstein.A bet on a conjecture is not a proof.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 25, 2016, 04:52:09 am
Post by: chaotic skies on July 25, 2016, 06:41:48 am
Post by: Max™ on July 25, 2016, 10:33:47 am
It's a little different with computation devices.I know all about Turing completeness and so forth, but a computer emulating more powerful hardware is going to suck at it, and be slooooooow, and a system of hardware capable of thinking isn't going to bear much resemblance to a modern computer.
A ridiculously simple CPU (far simpler even than what's in a cheap calculator) could model the most complex computer on the planet, given enough RAM. It wouldn't be fast, but it would in fact be a perfect digital copy of the supercomputer. And this isn't just conjecture: there are rigorous mathematical proofs that this is the case. Which is science2.
If meat brains worked the way computation does, then a mouse could out-think Einstein, given enough writing paper to jot things down on.
Post by: Starver on July 25, 2016, 10:39:45 am
https://xkcd.com/505/
And unless you're into some flavour or other of mind/brain dualism, 'thinking' isn't really that special.
Post by: Max™ on July 25, 2016, 10:53:00 am
Post by: Starver on July 25, 2016, 11:54:27 am
It would actually be as wasteful to develop such a 'thinking engine' based upon precise emulations of biological mechanisms by electronic circuits by way of human-generated code, rather than shortcut the process and get the chip to achieve 'sentience' in its own right by ignoring the biological kludges behind the "take input, develop a worldview, consider the worldview, develop own ideas, imagine those ideas made real, take the best of these and convey it as output" sort of process (To Be Discussed!) and running it at an already low-level.
Like I could create a Tetris 'game' within DF, through pumps and pressure plates doing the emulation (and drawbridges as a 'display'), but it'd be more playable just to program the computer wirh straight Tetris code rather than have it run DF and through DF build the compurational engine. But "Tetrising" is possible either way, albeit at vastly different speeds.
Post by: forsaken1111 on July 25, 2016, 12:03:08 pm
Post by: Max™ on July 25, 2016, 12:03:57 pm
After that point you get into the realm of more intelligent minds, minds which are qualitatively better at thinking than we are, which are about as easy to understand for us as it is for my cat to understand why I like to poke at my fondleslab or clackclackboard.
Post by: Sergarr on July 25, 2016, 12:14:18 pm
Post by: Max™ on July 25, 2016, 12:18:55 pm
Does that mean we are the pinnacle of thought, or just that understanding a mind which can model your mind is not a trivial task?
Post by: TempAcc on July 25, 2016, 12:26:42 pm
I say, not quite, but possibly. Humans can prob end up creating a human level AI, which can then improve itself due to not having the limitations of the human brain. Hell, superintelligent AI isn't needed, all we need is a group of human level AIs which can process information way faster than we can, and thus come up with solutions that a top level large group of scientists could, just, say, 1000 times faster. Imagine an AI collective copy of NASA, all running in a computer network, working 1000 times faster simply due to the fact the intelligences involved have no need to sleep, eat, or have families, and can process information 1000 times faster than humans.
Which, while not being a real superintelligent AI, is still pretty scary.
Post by: Starver on July 25, 2016, 12:32:05 pm
The difference is we know how tetris works, we don't know how consciousness works. So emulating the only known example may be the best/only way to study it in action.Hence "(To Be Discussed!)"...
(I was addressing "going to suck at it" (depends on what we do about it), "be slooooooow" only a problem if you demand realtime results, or better) and "isn't going to bear much resemblance to a modern computer" (in my example, it's exactly a modern computer, physically, in fact I honestly wasn't even thinking 64-bit, and was seriously considering something i486ish or less, but obviously custom memory manager and FS to grant such a necessarily extended set of storage reservoirs to swap data in and out of).
(Ninjary "qualitatively better" bit has me half agreeing (we don't know what we don't know about 'higher minds than ours'), but the difference between cat brains and ours is 'firmware optimisations'. A cat neuron compatibly transplanted in the place of one of our own neurons won't force us to meow, but our own neurons being rearranged from human-layout to cat-layout in some vital subsection of the brain might well do. And cat can has
((Ninjas, ninjas, ninjas... Hot topic... Or chocolate... ))
Post by: Max™ on July 25, 2016, 12:44:24 pm
In addition, I don't know about you but *I* can't simulate a cat's brain. Primarily because I don't have the 'software' to do so. If you gave me the ability to, I probably could. I could probably do the same with a superior intellect if I had any idea how, and to do so I'd probably have to segment the superior intellect into parts. So say, I separate it into brain parts through 1-10, with a starting point of certain memories, processes and the like.Well, I used the term model preferentially over simulate, it would be a lot slower to simulate than to simply produce a cognitive model of how a cat sees and responds to different things.
Similarly our fat little ninja Reggie has done a great job killing all the moles in our yard and the neighbors yards. He can't dig for crap, but he doesn't need to, he's able to see that moles occasionally come up and peek out of their holes in the dirt, and I can tell that Reggie knows that a mole knows if something doesn't move the first time it sees it, and doesn't move the second time it sees it, it probably won't move and is thus safe. So all Reggie has to do is sit still and wait the first couple times he sees a mole, rather than jumping instantly and losing his prey.
So they sniff around, don't see anything odd, climb out of the hole, and POW, Reggie'D mole.
It's easy for me to do this sort of modeling, theory of mind is something we primates have been making use of for megayears.
Modeling a mind which can model my mind (and thus the model of itself in my mind) is not easy.
Post by: Sergarr on July 25, 2016, 01:43:11 pm
Exactly! You aren't sure how to make something which can think better than we do.What do you mean by "a mind that can model your mind"? Actually, don't answer that, because I see you've already done so:
Does that mean we are the pinnacle of thought, or just that understanding a mind which can model your mind is not a trivial task?
Yeah, this is not "modelling". At all. You've simply "explained" its behavior in a qualitative manner and by using high-level vaguely defined concepts. There's a vast gap between that and actual modelling. By that standard, we all can model each other's behaviour, more or less (since that's how we function in a society - by predicting each other behaviors, or at least acting as if we do), and thus we're all "a mind that can model your mind", producing a paradox (since there cannot be minds that are vastly superior to themselves).In addition, I don't know about you but *I* can't simulate a cat's brain. Primarily because I don't have the 'software' to do so. If you gave me the ability to, I probably could. I could probably do the same with a superior intellect if I had any idea how, and to do so I'd probably have to segment the superior intellect into parts. So say, I separate it into brain parts through 1-10, with a starting point of certain memories, processes and the like.Well, I used the term model preferentially over simulate, it would be a lot slower to simulate than to simply produce a cognitive model of how a cat sees and responds to different things.
Similarly our fat little ninja Reggie has done a great job killing all the moles in our yard and the neighbors yards. He can't dig for crap, but he doesn't need to, he's able to see that moles occasionally come up and peek out of their holes in the dirt, and I can tell that Reggie knows that a mole knows if something doesn't move the first time it sees it, and doesn't move the second time it sees it, it probably won't move and is thus safe. So all Reggie has to do is sit still and wait the first couple times he sees a mole, rather than jumping instantly and losing his prey.
So they sniff around, don't see anything odd, climb out of the hole, and POW, Reggie'D mole.
It's easy for me to do this sort of modeling, theory of mind is something we primates have been making use of for megayears.
Modeling a mind which can model my mind (and thus the model of itself in my mind) is not easy.
Post by: Max™ on July 25, 2016, 03:00:53 pm
Reggie is not capable of modeling the sort of language and abstraction based thinking I do, so in that sense I have a more powerful brain/mind/whatever than he does.
We can comprehend the idea of a more powerful mind than our own, we can speculate about it, we can even work out various physical limits which might constrain such a mind, but doing the same trick of "if mind a sees this, it will expect mind b to respond in this fashion" that I can do easily with a cat/mole is not a simple feat for a more powerful mind than your own.
Those abstractions which are beyond cat-thought allow us to do things like postulate and discuss more powerful minds, but they don't actually allow us to be sure what those minds would think or do in a range of situations.
Post by: Il Palazzo on July 25, 2016, 04:14:28 pm
Post by: Max™ on July 25, 2016, 04:25:38 pm
Yes, I feel dirty using terms like "theory" and "model" like this, but these are the words used for this sort of thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_model
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind
Extending that back to the original discussion, producing said sort of model for a more powerful mind is not a simple task, especially in comparison to something like understanding the mental state of a cat or dog, even understanding the mind of other people is easier than trying to understand a mind which is capable of performing/doing/etc [insert your choice of mental quality here] better than we are.
Post by: Starver on July 25, 2016, 04:49:38 pm
The best we can do is come up with possible stories (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understand_(story)) about (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitless_(film)) such (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_(2009_film)) things (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(2014_film)), but they're mostly either extrapolations of 'standard' abilities or wish-fulfilments with no obvious reason to believe that their non-fictional counterparts could exist.
Also, is somewhat anthropocentric, given that while we may have complex language that makes us 'superior' to cats, a cat may possess any number of mental processes that exceed anything we have that fits the same purpose. Even more so, as we go further away on the tree of life to yet more inscrutible animals with perceptions and survial mechanisms th at differ so much from those we have ourselves.
Post by: Max™ on July 25, 2016, 05:51:25 pm
Post by: TempAcc on July 25, 2016, 06:22:10 pm
Anyway, there are things in nature like octopi, which are smart, but not in a way that we can accurately gauge, because they're smart in a way thats incredibly alien to us. They have an amazing nervous system and can perceive and process info in ways we cannot even begin to imagine. If they didn't have such short lifespans and didn't suck so much at cooperation, they'd prob have tribal societies and stuff going on since they've shown some potential regarding abstract thought and can actualy use tools they just found in multiple ways.
The problem with creating even a model of something actualy more intelligent than we are, even in a very ~human~ way, is that its essentialy very hard to actualy grasp something we have no example of. Its not something we can observe in nature and use to come up with conclusions. The best we can do is observe ourselves and then try to notice what is better than us, then try to piece those instances in a model that we can only hope is somewhat realistic in regards to how a ~superior human-type intelligence~ would be like. Its essentialy stumbling in the dark while trying to put together a better, superior version of a work of art you saw before using tiny pieces of the original art.
Post by: Egan_BW on July 25, 2016, 06:30:31 pm
Post by: Max™ on July 25, 2016, 07:42:38 pm
Post by: TempAcc on July 25, 2016, 07:49:23 pm
The problem is that is never actualy properly explored (outside of books, at least, and even then its left mostly vague and at the mercy of the reader's imagination, which almost aways anthromorphises it) because non anthropomorphised aliens almost never make it the screens. Hello avatar :v
Hell even lovecraft failed to escape the anthromorphisation curse due to nyarlatothep, and cthulhu is just a demon human thing with a squid face.
I mean, can anyone even think of a popular movie with actualy interesting non human-eske aliens in it?
Post by: Starver on July 25, 2016, 08:10:11 pm
Kinda off topic, but cats aren't exactly the best example of a ~smart~ animal. [...]I had been much tempted to say something like "forget about puss, think octopus", for pretty much the reasons you give, but for that moment I had an attack of "is that too cheesy"ness. I shoulda said it anyway, despite someone having fixated us on the feline strand... ;)
Anyway, there are things in nature like octopi, which are smart, but not in a way that we can accurately gauge, because they're smart in a way thats incredibly alien to us.
Not movies (yet! ...if ever), but Heaven (in particular) and in some ways also Wheelers by Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart (the Science Of Discworld guys) has such a treatment. Heaven features a pantheon of 'aliens' (to each other), inclusive of space-faring neanderthaals.
And, while I'm adding... That solar plane has just completed its fuel-free global circumnavigation.
Post by: Frumple on July 25, 2016, 08:23:17 pm
Post by: Egan_BW on July 25, 2016, 08:27:03 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 25, 2016, 08:40:28 pm
The main reason for this is that Earth is about as high-gravity as a planet gets before conventional rocketry becomes futile. Not only that, but Earth is immensely massive for its volume due to the iron core. And life from lower gravity worlds probably has an easier time adapting to microgravity, while we need to make everything centrifugal in order to not just wear down and die.
It certainly does appear true that worlds with Earth's physical properties, whether barren or lifebearing, are rare beyond measure. We've been looking for a while and haven't even found one. The closest ones are seriously more like Neptune or the moons of gas giants than Earth.
Post by: Egan_BW on July 25, 2016, 08:50:22 pm
One interesting concept I've heard of is that there is a typical convergent standard for life in the universe...and we're not it. Humanity are the weird aliens to everybody else's rubber-forehead neighbors.Would be neat to have a story like that where you only introduce humans near the end, after the audience gets a chance to get used to the new normal. Then suddenly there are humans and everyone's like "whoa those things are weird."
The main reason for this is that Earth is about as high-gravity as a planet gets before conventional rocketry becomes futile. Not only that, but Earth is immensely massive for its volume due to the iron core. And life from lower gravity worlds probably has an easier time adapting to microgravity, while we need to make everything centrifugal in order to not just wear down and die.
It certainly does appear true that worlds with Earth's physical properties, whether barren or lifebearing, are rare beyond measure. We've been looking for a while and haven't even found one. The closest ones are seriously more like Neptune or the moons of gas giants than Earth.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 25, 2016, 08:51:56 pm
Somewhere between these two values a planet starts to resemble a gas giant more than a terrestrial planet. Where? Nobody knows. There may not even be a clear demarcation, though it seems silly to say that just ramping up the atmosphere forever would take you from something like Earth, to something like Jupiter, to eventually something like the Sun. After all, the Sun has no solid terrestrial core (probably), so can we be sure a gas giant does too?
If things in the universe are super crazy, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that terrestrial planets become the smallest gas giants with only, say, 1.5 Earth masses. With what we know that's unlikely, but anywhere between 1 and 30 Earth masses could be the limit, and it can't be fully ruled out.
Post by: Max™ on July 25, 2016, 08:58:33 pm
Then there's the Qax, which is like how we build logic circuits with minecarts, except the minecarts are bubbles above a near-boiling mudflat, and the logic circuit is self-aware.
Then you get the Culture Minds which are so powerful that their POV character is generally just an avatar that they're delegating tasks/interactions to, and said avatar is still generally smarter, faster, and so forth than a human, which representing just a portion of the full awareness of a given Mind.
There are lots of ways that you can conceive of which would fit the label "superhuman" along the intellect/insight/memory/problem-solving/etc axes. Understanding what it would be like to actually be out there at the far end of that brainpower scale is a far more difficult question, but it's one we have to deal with if strong AI turns out to be a viable route in the near future.
For reference:
*Weak AI: capable of simulating a mind, emulating responses of a mind, and do anything short of actually being self-aware and intelligent.
*Strong AI: capable of actually being a mind, responding as a mind would, and exhibiting full self-awareness.
Those aren't hard and fast definitions, and I'm totally open to different ones, it's just a general example of what I mean when I use those terms right this minute.
Would be neat to have a story like that where you only introduce humans near the end, after the audience gets a chance to get used to the new normal. Then suddenly there are humans and everyone's like "whoa those things are weird."I have read a couple of different stories like that but can't think of one off the top of my head.
Post by: Starver on July 25, 2016, 09:11:31 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 25, 2016, 09:43:01 pm
Cue first contact, where humanity's other contribution to galactic civilization comes out: copyright law. And so it was that Earth's fledgling civilization was owed quadrillions of tons of material reparations by every sapient race in the milky way.
The plot of the book is trying to foil a plot to blow up Earth to avoid paying.
Post by: Starver on July 25, 2016, 09:59:51 pm
Cue first contact, where humanity's other contribution to galactic civilization comes out: copyright law.I shall not deprive the book of its Deus Ex (and doubtless humour-led?) rationale, but it must also need some legal Handwavium to persuade non-Earth civilisations that Earth jursidiction covers them too. (Maybe only Earth has invented lawyers? It would explain much!)
That said, I'm pretty sure that when I signed on as a film extra (many years ago), the contract said something like that I was giving over to the production company all rights to my image, and such, "throughout the universe, in perpetuity". So I expect that the legal eagles have at least had lip-service to that possibility covered for quite some time now...
Post by: Criptfeind on July 25, 2016, 10:06:00 pm
Post by: Execute/Dumbo.exe on July 26, 2016, 04:36:06 am
Our SF (and Fantasy) tends to make humanity the 'average', perhaps some aliens/races shorter and angrier, others taller and more serene, others more metalic and logical, yet others more soft-bodied and emotional, almost always our own race is not the 'best', but the more flexible and surprising. But there are certainly examples of Humans Are Cthulhu universes, as well as the one in which we find ourselves in an Alien vs. Predator scenario (although, again, our adaptability wins out, as much as it does, in that particular film), and other interesting variations (see https://archive.org/stream/galaxymagazine-1953-05/Galaxy_1953_05#page/n69/mode/2up as one example).People vaguely mentioning Sci-Fi stories where humans aren't just the average species?
Try Deathworlders (http://hfy-archive.org/book/deathworlders), it's actually a pretty interesting idea about humans being the incredibly deadly beasts of war that come from a deadly planet more dangerous than thought possible, that writing and storyline itself I'm not so keen on but ehh what can you do.
Post by: martinuzz on July 26, 2016, 12:46:55 pm
While doing research into the smell bouqet range of mosquitos, researchers found that for the malaria mosquito, which usually stings near the ankles and wrists, the strongest attractive odour influencing them is that of one secreted by a bacteria that resides on our feet.
(Rather simple but ingeneous research. They stuck one electrode in the mosquito's brain, on on it's antenna, creating a closed loop, and then proceeded to just spray the mosquitos with different odours and measured the electric current to see if there was a response, and how strong it was)
Likely in a giddy mood, while pondering how to best reproduce this odour without having to harvest people's toe cheese, they stumbled upon some stinky cheese from the Dutch province of Limburg. Limburg stinky cheese is reknowned for making people's eyes water and throats gag unless they've acquired some fondness of stinky cheese.
Turns out, the bacterium used in the fermenting process of stinky cheese is so closesly related to the bacteria in our feet genetically, that it seems probable that that's where the original strains for fermenting cheese came from. People treading curds with bare feet.
So yeah, feet don't smell like cheese, cheese smells like feet.
As of now, stinky cheese is saving lives, as it's bacteria are now being put to use in Africa to make very effective mosquito traps.
Post by: Starver on July 26, 2016, 01:18:00 pm
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on July 26, 2016, 01:54:12 pm
Dutch entomologists have discovered that feet don't smell like cheese, but rather, cheese smells like feet.
While doing research into the smell bouqet range of mosquitos, researchers found that for the malaria mosquito, which usually stings near the ankles and wrists, the strongest attractive odour influencing them is that of one secreted by a bacteria that resides on our feet.
(Rather simple but ingeneous research. They stuck one electrode in the mosquito's brain, on on it's antenna, creating a closed loop, and then proceeded to just spray the mosquitos with different odours and measured the electric current to see if there was a response, and how strong it was)
Likely in a giddy mood, while pondering how to best reproduce this odour without having to harvest people's toe cheese, they stumbled upon some stinky cheese from the Dutch province of Limburg. Limburg stinky cheese is reknowned for making people's eyes water and throats gag unless they've acquired some fondness of stinky cheese.
Turns out, the bacterium used in the fermenting process of stinky cheese is so closesly related to the bacteria in our feet genetically, that it seems probable that that's where the original strains for fermenting cheese came from. People treading curds with bare feet.
So yeah, feet don't smell like cheese, cheese smells like feet.
As of now, stinky cheese is saving lives, as it's bacteria are now being put to use in Africa to make very effective mosquito traps.
So they found out limburger is a mosquito repellant?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limburger
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on July 26, 2016, 01:57:11 pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brevibacterium
Post by: Arx on July 26, 2016, 02:32:09 pm
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on July 26, 2016, 03:17:08 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 26, 2016, 03:28:36 pm
Attractant, not repellant, but yes.A fatal mistake
Post by: Putnam on July 26, 2016, 04:23:41 pm
Quote from: the first sentence before you click
The 750 GeV diphoton excess in particle physics is an anomaly in data from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in 2015, which could be an indication of a new particle or resonance....
Post by: ChairmanPoo on July 26, 2016, 04:23:53 pm
That's the conclusion I was drawn to as well.Attractant, not repellant, but yes.A fatal mistake
Post by: Max™ on July 26, 2016, 05:47:20 pm
How have I not heard of this... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/750_GeV_diphoton_excess)Man, I guess because it's only 3.9/3.4 sigma atm that there hasn't been as much news about it, been distracted with df updates and such myself and don't think the LHC was due to come back on until later this year so I hadn't been checking up on it recently.Quote from: the first sentence before you clickThe 750 GeV diphoton excess in particle physics is an anomaly in data from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in 2015, which could be an indication of a new particle or resonance....
Post by: Solifuge on July 27, 2016, 07:57:23 pm
The thing is, Super-Earth is matched with another term: Mini-Neptune.
Somewhere between these two values a planet starts to resemble a gas giant more than a terrestrial planet. Where? Nobody knows. There may not even be a clear demarcation, though it seems silly to say that just ramping up the atmosphere forever would take you from something like Earth, to something like Jupiter, to eventually something like the Sun. After all, the Sun has no solid terrestrial core (probably), so can we be sure a gas giant does too?
If things in the universe are super crazy, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that terrestrial planets become the smallest gas giants with only, say, 1.5 Earth masses. With what we know that's unlikely, but anywhere between 1 and 30 Earth masses could be the limit, and it can't be fully ruled out.
The secret to Gas Giant Formation is gathering and retaining ultralight Helium and Hydrogen gases. Whether a planet will become a Gas Giant or not can be calculated based on Temperature and Mass; if a planet has enough entropy from heating, but not enough gravity from mass to counter it, Hydrogen and Helium start to move faster than the planet's Escape Velocity, bubble up to the edge of the atmosphere, and get skimmed off into deep space by gravitational interactions with other bodies.
Even Earth, if it had been cool enough, could potentially have become a Gas Planet; once you start collecting Hydrogen and Helium, mass increases, and the positive feedback loop continues until all the available gas is gathered. On the flip-side, if you took a Neptune-like world, and brought it in far enough that it's entropy exceeded it's gravity, you'd eventually have the Hydrogen and Helium drift away (lowering atmospheric pressure and gravity), the hypothetical liquid hydrogen core would boil into more atmosphere that would float away (further decreasing mass/gravity), and the temperature would start to drop off as the heat-retaining atmosphere thinned. The heavy gasses like oxygen, ammonia, or water would stay behind, and depending on the temperature you'd probably be left with a low-metal rocky iceball that resembled Pluto or Triton, a world that's mostly fluid oceans of water or azanes, or a world with a thin atmosphere with a similar composition. Though I don't think any planets like this have been positively identified yet, they call them "Cthonian Planets".
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 27, 2016, 08:05:35 pm
Though I don't think any planets like this have been positively identified yet, they call them "Cthonian Planets".There's been some hypothesizing that the illusive Cthonian Planet might have been right next door all along, as Mercury.
Post by: Putnam on July 27, 2016, 08:17:55 pm
Quote from: https://what-if.xkcd.com/145/
You can't use lenses and mirrors to make something hotter than the surface of the light source itself. In other words, you can't use sunlight to make something hotter than the surface of the Sun.
I'm suddenly reminded of someone being incredulous about this here and I can't think of any reason it's false. I want to remember why anyone was incredulous.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 27, 2016, 08:35:28 pm
Post by: Criptfeind on July 27, 2016, 08:38:39 pm
Quote from: https://what-if.xkcd.com/145/You can't use lenses and mirrors to make something hotter than the surface of the light source itself. In other words, you can't use sunlight to make something hotter than the surface of the Sun.
I'm suddenly reminded of someone being incredulous about this here and I can't think of any reason it's false. I want to remember why anyone was incredulous.
Because you can charge a laser with solar power and then use it to create higher heats.
Post by: Putnam on July 27, 2016, 08:51:34 pm
Also, lasers are weird. I mean, they can be at negative temperatures (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_temperature#Lasers), even.
Post by: nogoodnames on July 27, 2016, 09:09:06 pm
Quote from: https://what-if.xkcd.com/145/You can't use lenses and mirrors to make something hotter than the surface of the light source itself. In other words, you can't use sunlight to make something hotter than the surface of the Sun.
I'm suddenly reminded of someone being incredulous about this here and I can't think of any reason it's false. I want to remember why anyone was incredulous.
That statement is true for black-body radiation. The problem is that he then treats sunlight reflected off the Moon as black-body radiation generated by the Moon and never explains why.
IIRC, at one point in the post he says he'll come back and explain the issue, but never does. Logically it doesn't seem to make sense. Mirrors don't magically cool any light reflected off them to their surface temperature.
Post by: Max™ on July 27, 2016, 10:09:33 pm
You can do screwy shit with non-focusing optics, but that's full on wizardry and out of my league.
I just checked as I recalled hearing about pebble gathering models showing a lot of promise at getting the initial cores scaled up to where they suck down the bulk of the hydrogen and helium, in part by knocking smaller planetesimals out of the sweet spot (http://www.space.com/30292-gas-giant-planet-formation-pebbles.html) which wound up getting the troublesome issue of gas giants forming in a reasonable time cut down by hundreds or even a thousand fold?The thing is, Super-Earth is matched with another term: Mini-Neptune.
Somewhere between these two values a planet starts to resemble a gas giant more than a terrestrial planet. Where? Nobody knows. There may not even be a clear demarcation, though it seems silly to say that just ramping up the atmosphere forever would take you from something like Earth, to something like Jupiter, to eventually something like the Sun. After all, the Sun has no solid terrestrial core (probably), so can we be sure a gas giant does too?
If things in the universe are super crazy, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that terrestrial planets become the smallest gas giants with only, say, 1.5 Earth masses. With what we know that's unlikely, but anywhere between 1 and 30 Earth masses could be the limit, and it can't be fully ruled out.
The secret to Gas Giant Formation is gathering and retaining ultralight Helium and Hydrogen gases. Whether a planet will become a Gas Giant or not can be calculated based on Temperature and Mass; if a planet has enough entropy from heating, but not enough gravity from mass to counter it, Hydrogen and Helium start to move faster than the planet's Escape Velocity, bubble up to the edge of the atmosphere, and get skimmed off into deep space by gravitational interactions with other bodies.
Even Earth, if it had been cool enough, could potentially have become a Gas Planet; once you start collecting Hydrogen and Helium, mass increases, and the positive feedback loop continues until all the available gas is gathered. On the flip-side, if you took a Neptune-like world, and brought it in far enough that it's entropy exceeded it's gravity, you'd eventually have the Hydrogen and Helium drift away (lowering atmospheric pressure and gravity), the hypothetical liquid hydrogen core would boil into more atmosphere that would float away (further decreasing mass/gravity), and the temperature would start to drop off as the heat-retaining atmosphere thinned. The heavy gasses like oxygen, ammonia, or water would stay behind, and depending on the temperature you'd probably be left with a low-metal rocky iceball that resembled Pluto or Triton, a world that's mostly fluid oceans of water or azanes, or a world with a thin atmosphere with a similar composition. Though I don't think any planets like this have been positively identified yet, they call them "Cthonian Planets".
This stands out as rather interesting, but I'm not super up to date on the field: using the different halting threshold for pebble accretion to separate gas giant and ice giant populations properly. (http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.6087)
Post by: Sergarr on July 27, 2016, 10:31:44 pm
More to the point, he explains how a lens can be seen as a way of making a given light source seem to cover more area, and with enough screwing around you can get up to the point where it seems like you're surrounded by the light source, at which point you'll equilibrate at the temperature of said light source. The moon isn't heated to 6000 K by sunlight, being surrounded by fully lit lunar surface at around 390 K will end up with you peaking out at the same temperature as the fully lit lunar surface: ~390 K.Nooooooo. If you're surrounded by a fully lit lunar surface, you're effectively surrounded by sunlight, since moon acts as a reflective mirror for sunlight, and thus your peak temperature will be the same as the Sun.
His argument was incredibly, totally, absolutely wrong. Even by its own standards, if you assume that lens make a light source just cover more area, it only works if you suddenly forget about Sun's existence.
Post by: Gentlefish on July 27, 2016, 10:40:08 pm
Post by: x2yzh9 on July 27, 2016, 11:32:30 pm
Post by: nogoodnames on July 27, 2016, 11:41:59 pm
More to the point, he explains how a lens can be seen as a way of making a given light source seem to cover more area, and with enough screwing around you can get up to the point where it seems like you're surrounded by the light source, at which point you'll equilibrate at the temperature of said light source. The moon isn't heated to 6000 K by sunlight, being surrounded by fully lit lunar surface at around 390 K will end up with you peaking out at the same temperature as the fully lit lunar surface: ~390 K.Nooooooo. If you're surrounded by a fully lit lunar surface, you're effectively surrounded by sunlight, since moon acts as a reflective mirror for sunlight, and thus your peak temperature will be the same as the Sun.
His argument was incredibly, totally, absolutely wrong. Even by its own standards, if you assume that lens make a light source just cover more area, it only works if you suddenly forget about Sun's existence.
That's assuming that the moon is a 100% reflective mirror, which it obviously isn't.
That's not the point. Okay, so the Moon probably can't be used to start fires because it has low reflectivitey and is spherical so only a tiny fraction of reflected light is making it to Earth. But the argument that it can't possibly heat anything more than its surface temperature because black-body radiation makes no sense at all.
First of all, the surface of the Moon is far from a closed system. A lot of heat is getting conducted away and radiated out on the night side. If this were not the case then its peak surface temperature would in fact be the temperature of the Sun as Sergarr said.
Okay, now imagine that someone covers the Moon in mirrors. They aren't perfect, maybe reflecting 90% of whatever light hits them, but the Moon's albedo gets a lot higher. Obviously nights get a lot brighter because of the mirrors, so more energy must be reaching the Earth. Consequently, magnifying glasses can make things hotter with moonlight than they could before. So by the article's logic, the surface of the Moon must now be getting hotter to produce these higher temperatures. Except clearly it isn't. If anything, it's getting colder because more energy is reflected away. Do you get what I'm saying?
Normally I like the What If articles, but that one is just poorly explained and flat out wrong in a number of ways.
Post by: Reelya on July 28, 2016, 12:47:12 am
More to the point, he explains how a lens can be seen as a way of making a given light source seem to cover more area, and with enough screwing around you can get up to the point where it seems like you're surrounded by the light source, at which point you'll equilibrate at the temperature of said light source. The moon isn't heated to 6000 K by sunlight, being surrounded by fully lit lunar surface at around 390 K will end up with you peaking out at the same temperature as the fully lit lunar surface: ~390 K.Nooooooo. If you're surrounded by a fully lit lunar surface, you're effectively surrounded by sunlight, since moon acts as a reflective mirror for sunlight, and thus your peak temperature will be the same as the Sun.
Electromagnetic energy density falls off as distance squared. Even if the lunar surface is 100% reflective, the energy density is attenuated because of the dilution of light between the sun and the moon.
The problem is that the "fully lit lunar surface" is only getting light from a small patch of the sky - the sun. Unless the moon itself was blasted by full-power sunlight from all directions, you're not going to get sun-level light from being surrounded by moonlight.
Post by: Starver on July 28, 2016, 03:46:43 am
If its a uniform spherical mirror, you get a single spot of reflected sunlight, visibly (if blindingly) smaller than the sun it reflects as it creates a diverging 'image'. (Although a mega-sized refocussing magnifying glass or secondary mirror could capture that image and refocus it.)
If it's multiple steerable mirrors, or shaped/positioned mirrors so as to be a better solar reflector to your location (but not just one big moon-sized solar-reflector dedicated to concentrating a Moon's circumference of solar light down onto your location), it'll be a mirror-ball, loads of little pinpricks.
The Moon takes light, may reflect a small amount 'perfectly' perhaps from suitably crystaline metals or perhaps glassy intrusions, but in all directions1 (hence how you see all lit limbs of the moon) and similarly also takes absorbs and emits as per its particular black-body signature, at the lower energy density/temperature/whatavyer. One insufficient to be collumated and refocussed onto a spot of high-enough temperature.
Or so is my understanding.
1 Peaking around directly back at the original light-source, due to an interesting optical effect that you can look up, if you're interested.
Post by: Max™ on July 28, 2016, 07:22:38 am
Ding, we have a winnar!More to the point, he explains how a lens can be seen as a way of making a given light source seem to cover more area, and with enough screwing around you can get up to the point where it seems like you're surrounded by the light source, at which point you'll equilibrate at the temperature of said light source. The moon isn't heated to 6000 K by sunlight, being surrounded by fully lit lunar surface at around 390 K will end up with you peaking out at the same temperature as the fully lit lunar surface: ~390 K.Nooooooo. If you're surrounded by a fully lit lunar surface, you're effectively surrounded by sunlight, since moon acts as a reflective mirror for sunlight, and thus your peak temperature will be the same as the Sun.
Electromagnetic energy density falls off as distance squared. Even if the lunar surface is 100% reflective, the energy density is attenuated because of the dilution of light between the sun and the moon.
The problem is that the "fully lit lunar surface" is only getting light from a small patch of the sky - the sun. Unless the moon itself was blasted by full-power sunlight from all directions, you're not going to get sun-level light from being surrounded by moonlight.
You are getting blasted by full power sunlight from 149 Gigameters away, as is everything in a sphere at that distance from the sun, at this distance at the top of the atmosphere we're looking at around 1366 W/m^2 or so.
Wanna see a neat way to check if that makes any sense?
http://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php
(http://i.imgur.com/xArW5N1.png)
A black body at ~390 K will be at around 1311 W/m^2 emitted, which tells you that a body receiving that much insolation isn't going to be much warmer than that, barring (heh) pressurized atmospheres and so forth.
Post by: Sergarr on July 28, 2016, 11:51:30 am
time to hit the AI books
Post by: Max™ on August 06, 2016, 02:40:09 am
Remember that star with the spikes of rapid onset and weirdly sustained dimming that was found in the Kepler data, KIC 8462852?
People started speculating about it being a partial Dyson structure and all that right away of course, various other explanations range from comet family collisions, polar spot growth, and so forth right?
Well... it's weirder than we thought, and has been dimming over the Kepler dataset, with a very rapid rate for that type of star (F3V) initially, then changing to a more rapid rate later, which is totally not what these stars are supposed to do. These results were found after analysis of photometric data over the last century or so suggested it has been dimming for a long time.
Wut?
Post by: andrea on August 06, 2016, 04:05:30 am
I wonder if we will ever know for sure what is happening up there.
Post by: Sergarr on August 06, 2016, 08:18:47 am
How have I not heard of this... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/750_GeV_diphoton_excess)News update: Sorry, Folks. The LHC Didn’t Find a New Particle After All (http://www.wired.com/2016/08/sorry-folks-lhc-didnt-find-new-particle/).Quote from: the first sentence before you clickThe 750 GeV diphoton excess in particle physics is an anomaly in data from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in 2015, which could be an indication of a new particle or resonance....
Standard Model reigns supreme!
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on August 06, 2016, 09:30:14 am
Post by: hops on August 06, 2016, 10:39:59 am
Post by: Putnam on August 06, 2016, 04:55:45 pm
What a waste of effort.
Saying that relies on a basic misunderstanding of science and the process of a whole. Thinking that way is completely worthless for science in general, such an incredibly toxic way of thinking that it would be better not talking about science at all.
I'm not saying that's what you should do, only that you should stop thinking that way.
Negative results are exactly as important as positive ones. A negative result still brings forward understanding. Now we know quite specifically that the 750 GeV digamma excess is not the cause of a new particle--in fact, if I'm reading that right, it looks like it's a new interaction result for a very high energy proton pair interaction, which is also interesting.
As another example of a negative result being important: the Michelson-Morley (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment) experiment, to test what the speed of the Earth is relative to the luminiferous aether. We found the answer to be... not. The fact that this experiment was a catastrophic failure showed us that we had something wrong with our model and eventually helped bring along relativity.
On the other hand, the negative result at the LHC more shows us that our model is right, which is also a good result.
You may notice that anything that gets more data is a good result pretty much always. Even just redoing already-done experiments and getting the same result is important (in fact, it's one of the most important things in science--if an experiment isn't replicable, it's a worthless experiment, and the only way to test replicability is to replicate).
Post by: Max™ on August 06, 2016, 06:12:30 pm
Screw wired and their popup crap: http://cds.cern.ch/record/2205245 there's the actual link which I got by deleting their adblock node and stopping all the extra loading from popping up before I could even find the linkthrough to the source.How have I not heard of this... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/750_GeV_diphoton_excess)News update: Sorry, Folks. The LHC Didn’t Find a New Particle After All (http://www.wired.com/2016/08/sorry-folks-lhc-didnt-find-new-particle/).Quote from: the first sentence before you clickThe 750 GeV diphoton excess in particle physics is an anomaly in data from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in 2015, which could be an indication of a new particle or resonance....
Standard Model reigns supreme!
Post by: Sergarr on August 07, 2016, 09:44:36 am
Quote
In the last few decades, chemists have been crafting a series of new materials in their labs called metal-organic frameworks, or MOFs. These materials are “molecular sponges,” capable of soaking up gases like hydrogen or carbon dioxide—even storing them for future use, like a cell. A new paper in Science Advances reveals that not only are these materials also found in nature, we’ve had them in our hands for over 70 years. We just didn’t know what they were.
Spoiler: looks kinda like tiberium (click to show/hide)
Post by: Starver on August 07, 2016, 09:57:17 am
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 07, 2016, 11:03:23 am
Post by: BlackHeartKabal on August 07, 2016, 12:41:28 pm
(KANE LIVES IN DEATH)
IN THE NAME OF KANE
(KANE LIVES IN DEATH)
Post by: ChairmanPoo on August 07, 2016, 02:46:46 pm
IN THE NAME OF KANE
(KANE LIVES IN DEATH)
IN THE NAME OF KANE
(KANE LIVES IN DEATH)
Spoiler: KANE LIVES! (click to show/hide)
Post by: Osmosis Jones on August 08, 2016, 10:18:04 pm
Post by: Egan_BW on August 08, 2016, 10:20:28 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 08, 2016, 10:21:00 pm
Post by: Il Palazzo on August 09, 2016, 05:38:04 am
To get things slightly back on topic, interesting new camera from NASA actually allows filming of details in the exhaust plume of a rocket (https://youtu.be/nPfcwT4Fcy8). I'll be the first to admit this is more clever engineering than SCIENCE!, but it will no doubt be useful in the future.Youtube recommended me similar videos:
'Alien Buildings Found On The Moon In New NASA Photo?'
'NASA Hides Giant UFO Next To Sun'
'NASA Scientist Admits Portals Are Opening Around Earth'
'NASA Caught Lying About The SUN |THE SUN PROVES FLAT EARTH| NASA LIES'
'DAMN!!! Flying UFO Humanoid Spotted Spying On CA Baffled Residents!? NASA SCRUBS ISS Feed 8/5/2016'
Post by: forsaken1111 on August 09, 2016, 07:17:16 am
To get things slightly back on topic, interesting new camera from NASA actually allows filming of details in the exhaust plume of a rocket (https://youtu.be/nPfcwT4Fcy8). I'll be the first to admit this is more clever engineering than SCIENCE!, but it will no doubt be useful in the future.That.. is actually really damn cool looking. I want to see more.
Post by: TempAcc on August 09, 2016, 08:11:27 am
To get things slightly back on topic, interesting new camera from NASA actually allows filming of details in the exhaust plume of a rocket (https://youtu.be/nPfcwT4Fcy8). I'll be the first to admit this is more clever engineering than SCIENCE!, but it will no doubt be useful in the future.Youtube recommended me similar videos:
'Alien Buildings Found On The Moon In New NASA Photo?'
'NASA Hides Giant UFO Next To Sun'
'NASA Scientist Admits Portals Are Opening Around Earth'
'NASA Caught Lying About The SUN |THE SUN PROVES FLAT EARTH| NASA LIES'
'DAMN!!! Flying UFO Humanoid Spotted Spying On CA Baffled Residents!? NASA SCRUBS ISS Feed 8/5/2016'
"6 Mysterious Creatures Caught By NASA On Mars"
"We Knew It! NASA Admits Hidden Portals Opening Above"
"CRAZYNESS!! Never Before Seen UFO Video Inside Exploding"
"ALIEN Structure Destroying Star? New Evidence Mystifies"
Post by: hops on August 09, 2016, 10:09:52 am
"Area 51 HATES her: Local mom exposes shocking UFO-sighting secret"To get things slightly back on topic, interesting new camera from NASA actually allows filming of details in the exhaust plume of a rocket (https://youtu.be/nPfcwT4Fcy8). I'll be the first to admit this is more clever engineering than SCIENCE!, but it will no doubt be useful in the future.Youtube recommended me similar videos:
'Alien Buildings Found On The Moon In New NASA Photo?'
'NASA Hides Giant UFO Next To Sun'
'NASA Scientist Admits Portals Are Opening Around Earth'
'NASA Caught Lying About The SUN |THE SUN PROVES FLAT EARTH| NASA LIES'
'DAMN!!! Flying UFO Humanoid Spotted Spying On CA Baffled Residents!? NASA SCRUBS ISS Feed 8/5/2016'
"6 Mysterious Creatures Caught By NASA On Mars"
"We Knew It! NASA Admits Hidden Portals Opening Above"
"CRAZYNESS!! Never Before Seen UFO Video Inside Exploding"
"ALIEN Structure Destroying Star? New Evidence Mystifies"
Post by: Sergarr on August 10, 2016, 04:11:30 pm
KhAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 10, 2016, 05:14:34 pm
Post by: Starver on August 10, 2016, 05:45:52 pm
especially when it won't affect the children.Depends on whether, intentionally or otherwise, it gets into the gametes (or gametogenic cells). In a previous job, this was a stated reason behind enhanced long-term record keeping, because potentially our records might eventually become vital information in tracking back what such interventionist cascades might have happened to descendents as yet unborn.
(Purely futureproofing, of course.)
Post by: TempAcc on August 10, 2016, 05:53:25 pm
Post by: scrdest on August 10, 2016, 06:09:04 pm
Huh. Very interesting. Suppose it helps that in China what the public wants doesn't have as much say as in the west.One of the more reasonable issues ATM is off-target effects. CRISPR is good as far as somatic cells are concerned AFAIK, but it does have some in germline. The risk is creating babies sick with some nasty genetic issue from the get-go.
Though I do have to wonder why some people flip their shit at the idea of gene editing (outside of religious reasons, I can understand where they're coming from even if I don't agree), especially when it won't affect the children. Do people think that DNA's a thing that should never be touched ever aside from spending 500 years slowly altering it? I mean, all this is really doing is speeding up the process, and possibly adding things that we couldn't get via natural/artificial selection.
Post by: miauw62 on August 10, 2016, 06:37:50 pm
This obviously isn't a problem as long as there is no effect on children (or no children, or children before gene therapy).
Post by: martinuzz on August 11, 2016, 01:33:14 pm
Greenland sharks reach a mature lenght of 7 meters. They become sexually mature only at age 150 years.
Their extremely long lifespan is probably due to the fact that they spend most of their time in icy deep waters, where temperatures are just slightly above freezing point. Combined with their cold-bloodedness, this gives them a very slow metabolic rate.
The age was determined by c14 dating proteins from the shark's eyeballs. Those are formed during the embryo state, and thus can be c14 dated to determine the shark's age.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on August 11, 2016, 01:49:36 pm
Yeah. The "well genes changing happens anyway" argument isn't really valid here. Poisonous GM crops don't happen because GM companies simply don't ship their failed prototypes/batches. You can't do that for humans.
This obviously isn't a problem as long as there is no effect on children (or no children, or children before gene therapy).
You realize that human gene therapy is already legal (and in some cases commercial) in Europe, and has been for some years now, right? The novelty in the news item is that this is the first clinical use of CRISPR, not of genetic engineering in general.
Also, this is not germ-line editing, or in-vivo innoculation, but (IIRC) ex vivo modification of T cells (presumably obtained by apheresis, I'm guessing?), which are later reinfused into the patient...
Post by: Max™ on August 11, 2016, 02:02:49 pm
While researching the age of greenland sharks, a group of Danish biologists was stunned to find that one shark, which was caught in the nets as by-catch by fishermen, was a stunning 392 years old, setting a new world record as oldest vertebrate recorded. The average age of the shark specimens they examined was 163 years.Elaborating a bit more, by finding sharks that had elevated C14 in their lenses they could date them back to the nuclear testing era and work out the size relationship with sharks that pre-dated the tests, and thus link the C14 decay to size to age fairly reliably.
Greenland sharks reach a mature lenght of 7 meters. They become sexually mature only at age 150 years.
Their extremely long lifespan is probably due to the fact that they spend most of their time in icy deep waters, where temperatures are just slightly above freezing point. Combined with their cold-bloodedness, this gives them a very slow metabolic rate.
The age was determined by c14 dating proteins from the shark's eyeballs. Those are formed during the embryo state, and thus can be c14 dated to determine the shark's age.
The largest specimen was only 5 meters long, with an estimated age of 396 years plus or minus 120 years.
They've been found up to the 7 meter mark or so (great white size) and it takes a long time to get those extra 2 meters I would expect. I wouldn't be surprised at 500+ year old greenland sharks being a thing at this point.
Post by: Furtuka on August 16, 2016, 04:26:04 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/17/world/asia/china-quantum-satellite-mozi.html?_r=0
https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/16/china-launches-the-first-quantum-communications-satellite-and-what-is-that-exactly/
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on August 16, 2016, 04:26:41 pm
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f6c_1471199045
Post by: scrdest on August 16, 2016, 05:53:14 pm
so how do human sacrifices relate to the experiments being conducted at cern?Oh damn, I knew I forgot something important today! The poor guys in the Science Conspiracy Hit Squad must have been bored sitting around all day with no suppressing of evidence to take up their time. Don't worry, they'll be taking care of you in about ten minutes, give or take.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f6c_1471199045
Post by: Egan_BW on August 16, 2016, 06:02:23 pm
http://www.nature.com/news/chinese-satellite-is-one-giant-step-for-the-quantum-internet-1.20329Wait, quantum entanglement communication? This is a thing now?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/17/world/asia/china-quantum-satellite-mozi.html?_r=0
https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/16/china-launches-the-first-quantum-communications-satellite-and-what-is-that-exactly/
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on August 16, 2016, 06:25:38 pm
Post by: TempAcc on August 16, 2016, 09:11:59 pm
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on August 16, 2016, 09:23:05 pm
Post by: Starver on August 17, 2016, 05:48:18 am
Post by: Osmosis Jones on August 18, 2016, 09:24:10 am
As someone who works in a field where these are used, I am very, very excited by the prospects listed at the end of the article.
Post by: miauw62 on August 18, 2016, 09:42:36 am
Probably some kind of QE hybrid technology. I doubt we managed to get QE to work on its own without the national security and technology worlds going full meltdown.QE communication isn't quantum computing afaik.
Post by: Putnam on August 18, 2016, 08:40:13 pm
Post by: Putnam on August 18, 2016, 09:29:47 pm
Post by: Gentlefish on August 18, 2016, 09:32:14 pm
? How? Quantum entanglement does not allow for communication in any way.
That's what the test is. It's a hybrid quantum entanglement (hybrid with I have no idea) comms satellite. Sounds like a proof-of-concept more than anything.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 18, 2016, 09:32:57 pm
I think prudence is called for when dealing with quantum mechanics. They seem to have a tendency to beat down human intuition and logic.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 18, 2016, 09:38:18 pm
Post by: Putnam on August 18, 2016, 09:40:13 pm
In fairness, we don't know that it can never allow for communication. We merely have not observed any manner that allows for it so far.
I think prudence is called for when dealing with quantum mechanics. They seem to have a tendency to beat down human intuition and logic.
The theorem that it is not possible to do so is based on the math in QM, not "human intuition and logic". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem) That's just completely unrelated.
Only a specific theoretical breakthrough in QC would result in permanently breaking conventional encryption. It's entirely possible we could have established QC without that ever happening. In addition, quantum cryptography would not be broken.
Shor's Algorithm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm) is well-defined and will factor prime numbers in polynomial time on a quantum computer.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 18, 2016, 09:43:38 pm
Easy there killer, I'm just saying we don't have enough experience and knowledge to go scoffing at experimental attempts at quantum communication, and that QM is slippery. The math still gets viewed and analyzed by our crazy meat brains, and we miss almost everything we observe.In fairness, we don't know that it can never allow for communication. We merely have not observed any manner that allows for it so far.
I think prudence is called for when dealing with quantum mechanics. They seem to have a tendency to beat down human intuition and logic.
The theorem that it is not possible to do so is based on the math in QM, not "human intuition and logic". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem) That's just completely unrelated.
Post by: Max™ on August 18, 2016, 09:57:55 pm
Post by: miauw62 on August 19, 2016, 10:16:52 am
No, but QE would allow transmissions that cannot be intercepted en-route at all. You could only intercept it at the destination or source, and if you know where they are then you've probably got more information than necessary in the situation anyways.Except ways to have snoop proof communication already exist. It's called RSA 4086.
Post by: Starver on August 19, 2016, 10:31:10 am
Except ways to have snoop proof communication already exist. It's called RSA 4086.(4096)
Until a sufficiently neat way of circumventing the current limitations of decryption arises (such as Quantum Computing?), and then you'll be glad to have a stream of data that cannot be broken by listening in (or, rather, which will break and not transmit anything of any use to anyone) like with Quantum Entanglement.
Post by: martinuzz on August 30, 2016, 10:53:09 pm
Up until now it was assumed that the virus would have completely left the body after about 3 months.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 30, 2016, 10:54:50 pm
Praise science.
Post by: hops on August 31, 2016, 01:08:17 am
Excellent. This conclusively proves the long held suspicion that sperm cells are immune carriers of ebola. Now we may, through gene therapy, make ourselves immune to ebola by coding every cell in the body as sperm.We Donald Trump now?
Praise science.
Post by: Eric Blank on August 31, 2016, 01:24:06 am
Researchers in a Liberian study into Ebola are saddened to have to report, that ebola can still be found in a man´s sperm, even one and a half year after being cured from the illness.
Up until now it was assumed that the virus would have completely left the body after about 3 months.
This is sufficiently terrifying. When the fuck does it die?
Post by: martinuzz on August 31, 2016, 03:49:18 am
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 31, 2016, 03:56:23 am
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on August 31, 2016, 10:49:37 am
Post by: hops on August 31, 2016, 12:11:34 pm
Post by: Spehss _ on August 31, 2016, 12:57:45 pm
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on August 31, 2016, 01:01:24 pm
Post by: hops on August 31, 2016, 04:02:58 pm
Unless the bioweapon was designed to not be an obvious untreatable bioweapon in order to avoid alerting the effected populace.> implying they don't think it's a punishment from god for the gays
Post by: Spehss _ on August 31, 2016, 04:59:29 pm
> implying they don't think it's a punishment from god for the gays
That doesn't mean "they" are alerted that the bioweapon is actually a bioweapon though. It's just an act of a vengeful god, not the creation of a shady backroom organization of people that wants to destroy the world for whatever reason.
People can't do shit if it's an act of a vengeful god, but if people are responsible it would be theoretically possible to find the people responsible and get revenge for using the bioweapon. They just have to find irrefutable proof that the bioweapon is actually a bioweapon made by the shady backroom organization.
That actually makes sense. I'm scared now, simply because all the evidence points toward "no reason to be scared."This is how conspiracy theorists start. Make sure you have a tin foil hat handy and remember to buy water filters.
Post by: martinuzz on August 31, 2016, 08:39:01 pm
Post by: hops on September 01, 2016, 01:11:05 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 01, 2016, 01:06:26 pm
(Of course I get the xkcd, I'd be ashamed if I didn't.)
Post by: hops on September 01, 2016, 01:15:12 pm
Post by: forsaken1111 on September 01, 2016, 01:30:21 pm
Post by: hops on September 01, 2016, 02:40:34 pm
I had no idea that there were science memesWell, "meme". More like an in-joke between people who read English-language science magazines, really.
Post by: forsaken1111 on September 01, 2016, 02:43:41 pm
Post by: Starver on September 01, 2016, 03:00:45 pm
I had no idea that there were science memesThere both are and are not science memes, at least until someone tries to see what they are...
Post by: Reelya on September 01, 2016, 03:43:56 pm
Random Aside: I don't know if we've talked about it here before but I just read about the delayed-choice experiment again and I'm just trying to wrap my brain around the fact that photons somehow consider every possible path along their trajectory before resolving their position
Personally, I think resolving the understanding of this could be related to sorting out quantum relativity.
Photons are traveling at the speed of light, meaning they should experience time and space dilation. A quote here from another site: "the spacetime distance of the path travelled by a photon (through vacuum) is zero". Perhaps we need to view a "photon" not as a "thing" but as an instantaneous (to light) energy-discharge event from one place to another, with the intervening space shaping the discharge. That's one of the things which makes interpretation complex: the logic of time and space themselves break down when you're dealing with speed-of-light objects. It's kinda common sense once you think about these things in relativistic terms. We just haven't gotten our heads around the fact that photons are fundamentally a relativistic phenomena as well as a quantum one.
Post by: forsaken1111 on September 01, 2016, 03:48:33 pm
The part that really got me was imagining the same experiment but on a galactic scale. A photon from another star, or from the creation of the universe itself, considered all possible collisions and routes that could ever occur before resolving itself. It really underlines what you said, their own space-time distance is zero. In other words, photon don't care about that 10 billion year trip across space, it already knows where its going and where it will end up. Its already happened, as far as the photon is concerned. We're just stuck out here watching it in macro time.Random Aside: I don't know if we've talked about it here before but I just read about the delayed-choice experiment again and I'm just trying to wrap my brain around the fact that photons somehow consider every possible path along their trajectory before resolving their position
Personally, I think resolving the understanding of this could be related to sorting out quantum relativity.
Photons are traveling at the speed of light, meaning they should experience time and space dilation. A quote here from another site: "the spacetime distance of the path travelled by a photon (through vacuum) is zero". Perhaps we need to view a "photon" not as a "thing" but as an instantaneous (to light) energy-discharge event from one place to another, with the intervening space shaping the discharge. That's one of the things which makes interpretation complex: the logic of time and space themselves break down when you're dealing with speed-of-light objects. It's kinda common sense once you think about these things in relativistic terms. We just haven't gotten our heads around the fact that photons are fundamentally a relativistic phenomena as well as a quantum one.
Post by: Putnam on September 01, 2016, 07:12:38 pm
Photons are traveling at the speed of light, meaning they should experience time and space dilation.
This is exactly wrong (https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/wiki/physics/light_frame). To be exact, it's wrong to say that photons experience anything, not because of any philosophical bull regarding definitions of "experience" but because they don't have any valid frame from which "experience" can be defined at all.
Post by: Egan_BW on September 02, 2016, 06:13:57 am
what if you were a photon
Post by: Max™ on September 02, 2016, 09:02:17 pm
--------/ ### H ### D
-------/ #### E ### R
------/ ##### R ### A
Now ###### E ### G
------\ ###### # ### O
-------\ ###### B ### N
--------\ ###### E ### S
Past
You can follow an observer and note what they're doing from the past as they move along to the future, you could follow an observer as they wonder how they shoomped some great distance across the universe into dragonland.
If you're massive and traveling along the diagonals between "timeland" and "dragonland" then you're by definition moving at the speed of light, have infinite inertial mass, and infinite time dilation: no witty journal quips are going to come out of the universe-brightening wreckage when you hit something, you wouldn't be able to measure time between hitting c and hitting whatever poor planetary system you obliterate.
Applying that to what a photon would experience is... weird, since the whole "infinite time dilation" thing kicks in due to the specification of a massive observer moving at c.
A body without rest mass at c doesn't quite fit the same "what would x experience" framework, if you want to go down a series of fun rabbit holes along that hypothetical sheaf though, you could do worse than follow Wheeler and Feynman and wonder if an electron experiences itself jumping back and forth through time, interacting with itself in a gigantic fustercluck (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe)? Probably not, but it is a neat thought experiment!
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 03, 2016, 11:45:04 am
Code: [Select]Future
--------/ ### H ### D
-------/ #### E ### R
------/ ##### R ### A
Now ######### E ### G
------\ ###### # ### O
-------\ ###### B ### N
--------\ ###### E ### S
Past
You can follow an observer and note what they're doing from the past as they move along to the future, you could follow an observer as they wonder how they shoomped some great distance across the universe into dragonland.
If you're massive and traveling along the diagonals between "timeland" and "dragonland" then you're by definition moving at the speed of light, have infinite inertial mass, and infinite time dilation: no witty journal quips are going to come out of the universe-brightening wreckage when you hit something, you wouldn't be able to measure time between hitting c and hitting whatever poor planetary system you obliterate.
Applying that to what a photon would experience is... weird, since the whole "infinite time dilation" thing kicks in due to the specification of a massive observer moving at c.
A body without rest mass at c doesn't quite fit the same "what would x experience" framework, if you want to go down a series of fun rabbit holes along that hypothetical sheaf though, you could do worse than follow Wheeler and Feynman and wonder if an electron experiences itself jumping back and forth through time, interacting with itself in a gigantic fustercluck (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe)? Probably not, but it is a neat thought experiment!
Post by: Starver on September 03, 2016, 12:25:50 pm
so like whoa manDon't anthropomorphise photons. They're fed up to their back teeth of people always doing that to them.
what if you were a photon
Post by: Egan_BW on September 06, 2016, 01:11:12 am
Post by: hops on September 06, 2016, 04:53:43 am
Post by: Osmosis Jones on September 07, 2016, 12:30:27 am
They're shooting one into space (http://www.sciencealert.com/the-impossible-em-drive-is-about-to-be-tested-in-space).
I think everyone can agree that the proposed theories put forward by both Shawyer and Fetta are all kinds of batshit insane, but the interesting thing is that results keep showing a non-zero thrust even in tests by independent research groups. The skeptical response to this is that it's an overlooked experimental artifact, with one of the most common being that the drive has never been tested in a sufficiently high vacuum. Well, this should put it to bed, one way or the other; either it's bollocks, or something cool is happening.
I must admit, I'm liking watching this unfold. It's a good example of the scientific method; spend any time in academia, and you quickly see that peer review on publication is little more than a cursory check of scientific literacy. Real peer review is what happens after you make a crazy claim, when groups try and replicate your work. While the theories have been quickly and thoroughly debunked, it's interesting to see a situation where the crackpot's experimental results seem more resilient. The best thing is, this topic is sufficiently "sexy" that there *is* a lot of attention, and that something like this launch can actually be done.
Sure, we're probably looking at another cold fusion... but the fact that there's even a small chance of a Michelson-Morley moment is an exciting thought.
Post by: hops on September 07, 2016, 12:41:21 am
Post by: Helgoland on September 07, 2016, 06:53:34 am
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 07, 2016, 06:59:44 am
Post by: miauw62 on September 07, 2016, 07:22:25 am
honestly if theyre launching one into space that should probably just end this discussion for once and for all, one way or another.
Post by: Max™ on September 07, 2016, 07:26:19 am
Chucking one of these into orbit and seeing if it doots around without caring about what it should be doing is a good trial, chucking lots of them up into and beyond orbit and seeing what they do is better.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on September 07, 2016, 07:32:01 am
Post by: Il Palazzo on September 07, 2016, 07:38:52 am
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 07, 2016, 07:42:48 am
Post by: Arx on September 07, 2016, 07:53:54 am
honestly if theyre launching one into space that should probably just end this discussion for once and for all, one way or another.
Yeah. Either it works in space and we don't know why, but it works, or it doesn't.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 07, 2016, 08:01:49 am
That's no coincidence. It's clear that the lost arts of the arcane were eventually corrupted and rediscovered as a heating appliance for the sterilized packaged food of a rational industrial order. Now, finally, we have started to find our way back to the true microwaves of life.
Post by: TempAcc on September 07, 2016, 08:57:48 am
Lets be positive about it, if it doesn't work, maybe the ISS can fetch it and use the components to make an actual microwave oven.
If it does work we can yet again enjoy the feeling of being slapped in the face by physics.
Post by: Eric Blank on September 07, 2016, 04:08:43 pm
Although if this works, then any craft with a microwave oven on board has a teenie tiny backup engine, right? :v
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 07, 2016, 04:12:13 pm
Post by: Max™ on September 07, 2016, 05:12:14 pm
We can always rest better knowing someone up there will be able to find spare parts for their malfunctioning microwave oven.Well, no, if it's working how it is supposed to then it is using the geometry of the chamber to produce an imbalance between the photons hitting one side and the other.
Although if this works, then any craft with a microwave oven on board has a teenie tiny backup engine, right? :v
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 07, 2016, 10:36:18 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 07, 2016, 10:37:18 pm
Post by: Max™ on September 07, 2016, 11:28:26 pm
Post by: TempAcc on September 08, 2016, 07:13:15 am
Post by: Starver on September 08, 2016, 07:39:54 am
Post by: Max™ on September 08, 2016, 09:30:05 am
Post by: Max™ on September 08, 2016, 10:02:18 am
If you put three masses at the end of a triangular frame, and then alter the shape of the frame you could change the center of mass in a way that the--I guess drag would be the right way to get the idea across--from the two extended masses is enough to reduce backsliding from the motion of the third mass being extended but not when it is returned again.
The catch being you need a gravity well of pretty significant depth to get enough curvature to work against though, so this would be an awful choice for anything involving say, travel between gravity wells, and it wouldn't work at all in a totally flat region of spacetime.
Post by: Il Palazzo on September 08, 2016, 12:38:50 pm
I would think it more likely that at best it is similar to the only reactionless drive I can confirm would work.D'you mind describing it in more concrete terms?
Post by: Helgoland on September 08, 2016, 01:08:33 pm
Would make for pretty cool restrictions on space-travel: No zooming around in straight lines, instead you gotta stick to a route with reasonably curved spacetime - kinda like currents and trade winds in the age of sail.
Post by: Max™ on September 08, 2016, 04:42:56 pm
You mean the em chamber thing? Cause if so I'm saying I expect at best for it to be something limited to very specific applications which are conducive to the operation of the drive, and it generally being difficult to extract much useful thrust even under the best case scenarios for said operation.I would think it more likely that at best it is similar to the only reactionless drive I can confirm would work.D'you mind describing it in more concrete terms?
Though I am curious how the device was oriented relative to the local gravity field during testing now. I can't say for sure if that would explain any of it, especially as I recall it being really small, but photons moving deeper into a gravity well are blueshifted, ones leaving it are redshifted, which is a similar sort of "feature" about curved spacetime which you could try to utilize I guess?
Even then all I can think of initially would be to try and have the redshifted photons hitting one portion of the chamber, blueshifted hitting another, and tune it so there's an imbalance, but photon pressure is pretty damn wispy, and I'm struggling to find any sort of arrangement which would be good for much besides moving around side to side in a region of curved spacetime.
As for the swimming, here ya go:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Sergarr on September 11, 2016, 07:33:58 am
Post by: martinuzz on September 12, 2016, 01:29:48 pm
Blood of the child grants longevity.
Or at least, the theory amongst biomedical scientists has been for a while now, that blood of a young person is more capable of repairing damaged tissue, because the proteins involved in cell repair in older blood suffer from aging themselves.
At least one studies into Alzheimers, reported in JAMA Neurology magazine, now shows that mice will recover noticably after being infused with the blood of younger specimens.
Other researchers are skeptical though. They point out that no control studies has been done using older donor mice. They point out that the observed result could just as well be caused by better blood circulation in the brain during the transfusions.
So don't start drinking your children just yet.
Post by: Max™ on September 12, 2016, 02:13:00 pm
Post by: forsaken1111 on September 12, 2016, 02:20:36 pm
Post by: TempAcc on September 12, 2016, 02:21:07 pm
darn
Post by: Radio Controlled on September 13, 2016, 10:05:15 am
Post by: Sheb on September 13, 2016, 10:08:02 am
http://futurism.com/meet-the-farm-that-grows-plants-with-zero-sunlight-soil-pesticides-or-water/
That is a lot of buzzwords for not much.
Post by: hops on September 13, 2016, 10:10:43 am
Post by: forsaken1111 on September 13, 2016, 10:20:25 am
I'd respect them more if their vegetables were given gluten-free water.I've been raising my pet lettuce on a paleo all-meat diet and its doing well. Turning a nice healthy brown/black
Post by: Radio Controlled on September 13, 2016, 11:26:05 am
http://futurism.com/meet-the-farm-that-grows-plants-with-zero-sunlight-soil-pesticides-or-water/
That is a lot of buzzwords for not much.
The title might be a little click-baity, but more resource-efficient farming is always a good thing (though the scalability of such a system remains to be seen).
Post by: ChairmanPoo on September 13, 2016, 11:44:31 am
@re: parabiosis: The effect has been known for a while, and been shown to appear in several tissues. IIRC there was even a trial in humans scheudled...
Post by: TempAcc on September 13, 2016, 11:45:48 am
Post by: scrdest on September 13, 2016, 12:35:23 pm
Its not like Macchiarini was the one and only person in the bio-engineering trade. I think the scandal is being given more importance and attention because apparently it involved outright fraud (which isnt a world first either), because of the prestige of the involved institution, and because of the importance of some people who have fallen in the fallout.Ninja'd by resident bloodologician re: parabiosis. It's pretty cool stuff though. Interesting that it seems to imply a failure of repair being more important than the damage leading to amyloid formation itself - the paper reports a full recovery in some areas, so if you're feeling forgetful, start filing these teeth...
@re: parabiosis: The effect has been known for a while, and been shown to appear in several tissues. IIRC there was even a trial in humans scheudled...
Macchiarini's case reminds me a lot of the scandals around Charles Vacanti with stem cells. Matter of fact, they might be cousins by way of the bone marrow stem cell thing but I'd have to check. I suppose the lesson here is that if you see a claim that a brilliant researcher finds a way of easily fixing something with sexy fashionable tech, assume it'll end in at least one tragic death of a largely innocent third party.
Post by: Sheb on September 13, 2016, 12:57:32 pm
http://futurism.com/meet-the-farm-that-grows-plants-with-zero-sunlight-soil-pesticides-or-water/
That is a lot of buzzwords for not much.
The title might be a little click-baity, but more resource-efficient farming is always a good thing (though the scalability of such a system remains to be seen).
We dont know how efficient they are (they dont tell us what they compare it too), its not clear how much energy they need, and apart from their fancy buzzwordy algorithm, they dont seem to offer anything more than standard hydrponic. They also seems to have issue breaking even even with leafy greens, meaning they might be less efficient than other farms like the one in london.
Post by: forsaken1111 on September 13, 2016, 01:10:04 pm
http://ir.organovo.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=254194&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2200078
Post by: Reelya on September 19, 2016, 07:20:35 am
https://science.slashdot.org/story/16/09/12/2356233/mit-invented-a-camera-that-can-read-closed-books
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on September 19, 2016, 02:04:57 pm
Post by: Max™ on September 19, 2016, 05:11:47 pm
Post by: Reelya on September 22, 2016, 03:26:56 am
Basically, the did MRI's on blind people when they're working out algebra, and they use the visual cortex to perform the calculations, whereas that region doesn't light up when sighted people do the same tasks. It seems blind people are co-opting that area of the brain to do other processing.
Post by: hops on September 22, 2016, 03:49:06 am
Post by: Starver on September 22, 2016, 07:36:21 pm
But is it wrong that I think that this picture (http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/DFE3/production/_91351375_photoofthe2016ignobelprize-aclockwithhourglasshands.jpg) says 2016 and 2122?
Post by: i2amroy on September 23, 2016, 06:57:51 pm
https://science.slashdot.org/story/16/09/20/1426232/when-blind-people-do-algebra-the-brains-visual-areas-light-upReminds me of how they've done scans on the blind people who can do that echolocation stuff and found that that was one of the big reasons why sighted people had difficulty trying to do it; the blind people were utilizing their visual cortexes for the processing.
Basically, the did MRI's on blind people when they're working out algebra, and they use the visual cortex to perform the calculations, whereas that region doesn't light up when sighted people do the same tasks. It seems blind people are co-opting that area of the brain to do other processing.
Post by: Egan_BW on September 23, 2016, 07:25:56 pm
Post by: i2amroy on September 23, 2016, 07:59:58 pm
does this mean that if i add an extra visual cortex to my brain i can start using it for stuff right awayUmmm, no, but given brain plasticity I wouldn't be surprised if you managed to figure out how to use it for stuff in the space of a couple of years! :P
Post by: hops on September 24, 2016, 05:17:23 am
Post by: Spehss _ on September 24, 2016, 08:41:45 am
We interrupt your calm and scientific science today to bring you LASER SHOTGUN (http://www.popsci.com/40-watt-laser-shotgun-really?con=TrueAnthem&dom=tw&src=SOC&utm_campaign=&utm_content=57e5fb6e04d3012e79c1a883&utm_medium=&utm_source=)Neat. But can it stop a charging chrysalid?
Post by: Starver on September 24, 2016, 09:12:32 am
It might take time, but then you just need to keep far enough away from it that the chrysalid's power lead is at full stretch, and leave it with that dilemma... ;)We interrupt your calm and scientific science today to bring you LASER SHOTGUN (http://www.popsci.com/40-watt-laser-shotgun-really?con=TrueAnthem&dom=tw&src=SOC&utm_campaign=&utm_content=57e5fb6e04d3012e79c1a883&utm_medium=&utm_source=)Neat. But can it stop a charging chrysalid?
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 24, 2016, 11:41:08 am
Post by: Frumple on September 24, 2016, 11:44:50 am
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 24, 2016, 12:55:27 pm
Post by: Il Palazzo on September 24, 2016, 01:02:46 pm
Post by: Frumple on September 24, 2016, 01:25:36 pm
Post by: Sergarr on September 24, 2016, 01:28:16 pm
There's no way this could go wrong.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 24, 2016, 01:38:10 pm
Post by: Starver on September 24, 2016, 01:58:11 pm
Correlation and successful selection aren't synonymous, as the whole of psychology demonstrates, so I'm not panicking yet.That's not what your gene sequence suggests. The copy I have here suggests you should have high susceptibility to QJC1 at the merest mention of PGC2...
1 Quivering like a Jelly in the Corner
2 Pseudoscientific Genetics Claptrap
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 24, 2016, 02:40:03 pm
So the simple version of AGW is that CO2 absorbs some energy, and some of that is radiated back to Earth, which leads to a greater temperature, right?
And how good are our margins of error for temperature?
Post by: Arx on September 24, 2016, 03:44:29 pm
That's the very short and simple. There's a lot more to it, including feedback factor shenanigans and albedo and stuff.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 24, 2016, 03:46:25 pm
Post by: TheDarkStar on September 24, 2016, 04:09:03 pm
Ah, anthropogenic, yes.
So the simple version of AGW is that CO2 absorbs some energy, and some of that is radiated back to Earth, which leads to a greater temperature, right?
And how good are our margins of error for temperature?
There are a number of chemicals emitted by people (CO2 from cars, methane/other stuff from factories and farming, etc) that are implicated in global warming. But the main reason we think it's happening is because there's a global temperature change between ~1850 (when the industrial revolution was just starting) and now that's much larger than any change in known geological history. Ice cores show that the temperature hasn't changed this dramatically for the last several tens of thousands of years and rock samples show that this change has probably not occurred in more distant history either. Basically, since the beginning of the industrial revolution the Earth has been heating up at an unprecedented rate.
PPE: Re: Runaway effects: Yeah, that's what people are really worried about. If a feedback loop starts, stopping the Earth from warming by several degrees will be really really hard. For example, it's theorized that there are significant amounts of frozen methane (which is 10-100 times more effective at absorbing sunlight than CO2 iirc) under permafrost and at the bottom of the ocean. If that starts to unfreeze, then the resulting warming will 1. lead the the rest quickly unfreezing and 2. outstrip human warming iirc.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 24, 2016, 04:33:13 pm
I have an idea! It is an anti-AGW-conspiracy vaccination! How would you guys respond to:
1. The assertion that since observatories are sparse and geographically biased, we can't take any information from them
2. The assertion that the increased "jaggedness" of our temperature compared to previous centuries is only due to the increased accuracy of our measurements now vs indirect measurements of then
3. The assertion that Planck's Law/Stefan-Boltzmann/the 1st Law of Thermodynamics/the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics are violated by GW
4. The assertion that climate is not a thing, and thus cannot change
5. The assertion that AGW is made up by the government to further its power-grabbing
If I can answer these, I won't be as vulnerable to stupidity and really good talk-people. Which is a good thing, because I don't want to be convinced of every conspiracy theory. They tend to be wrong.
Also, !!science!! is process, not only a result, right? And supporting observation is important to verify a theory?
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 24, 2016, 04:46:03 pm
1. The assertion that since observatories are sparse and geographically biased, we can't take any information from themCO2 ppm air content is globally consistent, observation points are also not meaningfully biased. We even take information from Antarctica.
Quote
2. The assertion that the increased "jaggedness" of our temperature compared to previous centuries is only due to the increased accuracy of our measurements now vs indirect measurements of then"Jaggedness" is not a quality of measurement, this question is nonsensical. In addition, matching of indirect measurement done during direct measurement periods proves it is as reliable.
Quote
3. The assertion that Planck's Law/Stefan-Boltzmann/the 1st Law of Thermodynamics/the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics are violated by GWFrothing at the mouth and resisting the urge to internalize desiring the death of all humanity.
Quote
4. The assertion that climate is not a thing, and thus cannot changeThis is probably the stupidest one I've really seen someone argue in good faith about climate change, but it's purified ignorance like with presuppositionalism and cannot be solved by arguing unless the holder recognizes how badly they've chosen to wrap themselves in lies.
Quote
5. The assertion that AGW is made up by the government to further its power-grabbingThe real conspiracy is the rejection of 98% of climatologists worldwide, and ideas such as this are very convenient to powerful people who want to perpetuate actual and realistic conspiracies against the vast majority of humanity every day. Induced warfare, industrial-state collusion, ideological indoctrination; all of this is very real and not even secret, but rather normalized so far that nobody cares to examine it in a meaningful way.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 24, 2016, 04:57:32 pm
Should've been clearer - the assertion that since temperature data is biased, we can't use it.1. The assertion that since observatories are sparse and geographically biased, we can't take any information from themCO2 ppm air content is globally consistent, observation points are also not meaningfully biased. We even take information from Antarctica.
Quote
Maybe the author will be able to explain his position better than I can.Quote2. The assertion that the increased "jaggedness" of our temperature compared to previous centuries is only due to the increased accuracy of our measurements now vs indirect measurements of then"Jaggedness" is not a quality of measurement, this question is nonsensical. In addition, matching of indirect measurement done during direct measurement periods proves it is as reliable.
Quote
Now look at the end of xkcd's plot, where more errors are found. Start around Anno Domini 1900. By that time, thermometers are on the scene, meaning that new kinds of models to form global averages are being used. These also require uncertainty bounds, which aren't shown. Anyway, xkcd, like climatologists, stitches all these disparate data sources and models together as if the series is homogeneous through time, which it isn't.
Here's point (3): Because we can measure temperature in known years now (and not then), and we need not rely on proxies, the recent line looks sharper and thus tends to appear to bounce around more. It still requires fuzz, some idea of uncertainty, which isn't present, but this fuzz is much less than for times historical.
The effect is like looking at foot tracks on a beach. Close by, the steps appear to be wandering vividly this way or that, but if you peer at them into the distance they appear to straighten into a line. Yet if you were to go to the distant spot, you'd notice the path was just as jagged. Call our misperceptions of time series on which xkcd relies for his joke statistical foreshortening. This is an enormous and almost always unrecognized problem in judging uncertainty.
Quote
You and me both, MSH.Quote3. The assertion that Planck's Law/Stefan-Boltzmann/the 1st Law of Thermodynamics/the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics are violated by GWFrothing at the mouth and resisting the urge to internalize desiring the death of all humanity.
Quote
And besides, if Ice Ages exist, then climate is a thing!Quote4. The assertion that climate is not a thing, and thus cannot changeThis is probably the stupidest one I've really seen someone argue in good faith about climate change, but it's purified ignorance like with presuppositionalism and cannot be solved by arguing unless the holder recognizes how badly they've chosen to wrap themselves in lies.
Quote
To quote the person I argued against, "Appeal to authority! Invalid! Climate change is just your WACKY religion! You have no data! You have no Climate Equation or AGW Constant! RELIGIOOOOOON"Quote5. The assertion that AGW is made up by the government to further its power-grabbingThe real conspiracy is the rejection of 98% of climatologists worldwide, and ideas such as this are very convenient to powerful people who want to perpetuate actual and realistic conspiracies against the vast majority of humanity every day. Induced warfare, industrial-state collusion, ideological indoctrination; all of this is very real and not even secret, but rather normalized so far that nobody cares to examine it in a meaningful way.
I'm beginning to think that the warning signs should have gone off in my head the moment I saw his first post.
Edit: Is there any way to explain Venus's temperature without the GH effect?
Post by: Dutrius on September 24, 2016, 05:01:13 pm
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 24, 2016, 05:12:11 pm
Post by: Dutrius on September 24, 2016, 05:30:10 pm
Relevant as in "this is the xkcd the guy was talking about", or relevant as in "related to the topic of discussion"? Because both are true.
Yes.
Edit: Is there any way to explain Venus's temperature without the GH effect?
Short answer: No.
Less short answer: Considering that Venus is hotter than Mercury1, despite being further than the sun2, and that Venus's atmosphere has a significant CO2 component3, the answer is No.
Joke answer: Yes. The Venusians left a billion electric heaters on before they left.
1 Mercury: between 80 Kelvin and 700 Kelvin vs Venus: 737 Kelvin
2 Mercury: 0.4 AU vs Venus: 0.7 AU
3 Approximately 96.5%
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 24, 2016, 05:37:27 pm
Post by: TheDarkStar on September 24, 2016, 05:42:55 pm
But what about albedo and emissivity and absorptivity? Could those account for it? (I'm leaning toward no.)
A quick google search tells me that Venus has an albedo of .9 (=90% of all incoming light is reflected) while Mercury has an albedo of only .068 (=6.8% of all incoming light is reflected). So no.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 24, 2016, 07:14:04 pm
Post by: TheDarkStar on September 24, 2016, 07:22:00 pm
Measure the Sun's luminosity
Measure the size of the desired planet
Calculate how much light hits that planet
Wait until the planet's sun-facing side is visible
Measure the amount of light reflected from the planet to us
Calculate the fraction of the reflected light that is directed towards us and the theoretical intensity of that light if all of it were reflected
Divide the measured amount of light by the theoretical amount
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 24, 2016, 08:19:28 pm
Wait - what about the radiation from the planet itself? Wouldn't that mess up your equations?
Post by: Frumple on September 24, 2016, 08:27:09 pm
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 24, 2016, 08:31:37 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 24, 2016, 08:34:44 pm
Yes, for any of it to be true there would have to be an obscene source of constant power bearing down on all the planetary bodies of our solar system, filling them with potentiality against the void.
Now you both must die, for you have learned too much.
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 24, 2016, 09:15:57 pm
Post by: Max™ on September 24, 2016, 09:37:25 pm
Yes, for any of it to be true there would have to be an obscene source of constant power bearing down on all the planetary bodies of our solar system, filling them with potentiality against the void.^That is hilarious, since a key part of the greenhouse effect is the assumption that the skyfire isn't sufficient to explain temperatures by itself, though that is mostly a problem when you work out the average energy received by a planet and calculate the expected temperature rather than looking at the temperatures expected due to say, the instantaneous power integrated across the surface.
Edit: Is there any way to explain Venus's temperature without the GH effect?Volcanic overturning events of the crust are the only way to explain the uniformly young surface given the lack of plate tectonics. These events would involve injections of heat and gas in massive amounts but without processes which remove CO2/SO2 from the atmosphere it wound up with an excess for a terrestrial planet. Roughly 90 times the atmosphere means roughly 90 times the pressure, there is no way to have that much atmosphere without it being extremely hot at the bottom, this is just what a column of gas suspended in a gravity well does. This is obvious for the atmosphere of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, but for Venus the mere suggestion is absurd.
I remember being mocked the first time I suggested that idea, but it seems obvious due to how I'm looking at it. Take a long and thin cylinder of air floating in space away from a gravity well, the gas will equilibrate with the temperature of the walls, distributed evenly inside, right?
Now have an engine oriented along the long axis, with the "floor" nearest, and the "ceiling" furthest from it.
Start accelerating the tube, observe what happens. Does the gas remain evenly distributed, or does a pressure gradient develop at one end? If the volume remains constant but there is a pressure increase at one end, what happens to the temperature? What is the point? Gravity is accelerating gas suspended above the surface of a rotating rocky planet, in the absence of an input the gas will cool and settle down until it freezes, otherwise it will tend towards a state with the average temperature found at some point above the surface, the warmest temperatures at the surface below the input, coolest would be where the most indirect energy is received near the rotational poles on the night side.
Also worth noting that the air lifted to higher altitudes on the sunward side winds up descending on the nightside, gaining kinetic energy as it does so. (http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Venus_Express/The_unexpected_temperature_profile_of_Venus_s_atmosphere) The extremely slow rotation rate and atmospheric superrotation plus the massive scale height makes this a possibly significant energy input which is unaccounted for. There isn't enough time or gas here for it to matter, but on Venus it lends support to the idea that the equilibrium surface temperature is set by the cloud reflectivity ~50 to 60 km up, as the system can't relax and cool faster than the input/output at that altitude allows, making a literal pressure cooker, if you will.
_______________________________________
In other news, we have been picturing sabertooth tigers wrong in a really obvious way once you see the reasoning: http://antediluviansalad.blogspot.com/2016/05/your-puny-lipped-sabertooth-kitty-is.html
front/closed, side/closed, side/slightly open
(http://i.imgur.com/VA5jLCn.jpg)
side/yawn~bite, side/flehmen
Sabertooths don't have sexual display tusks (which have very low enamel content in all but young animals) they have killing tools which have to be kept sharp. Exposing them to air means they aren't bathed in saliva and lose calcium, get abraded by grit, are vulnlerable to being kicked, and so forth.
Sabertooths also have great big foraminae in their upper jaw which don't make sense if they're only feeding a normal sized patch of whiskers. Whiskers which wouldn't be close to the bite target unless the upper lip was a lot larger anyways.
Cats aren't able to see what they bite, they use whiskers to aim their killing bites more precisely, of course a sabertooth would do the same.
Post by: alway on September 24, 2016, 10:16:32 pm
But it HAS to be emitting as much as it receives (and doesn't reflect). Otherwise, it wouldn't be in thermodynamic equilibrium.Yep; and it's also very distinguishable which is which -- and ties into various other facts. See, glowing isn't a uniform thing; and this fact is a big part of what inspired quantum mechanics and shed light on how chemistry works. Every atom has a number of electrons, which exist in *discrete* orbits. When they hop from orbit to orbit, in particular upon falling back down to a lower orbit, they emit light, and absorb light as they hop up. Additionally, more energetic falls mean more energetic photons. So by observing the wavelengths, you can determine how much energy is being emitted/absorbed as well as what materials emitted/absorbed it. Which is also how we know the composition of stars to a high degree of accuracy. So from there, you can figure out the composition of Venus' atmosphere as well as what its emissions look like (just a bunch of low energy infrared stuff mostly), and figure out what's reflected and what's emitted.
In fact, here's what looks to be a lecture on the topic with lots of diagrams: http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/3720/CLASS5/5Spectroscopy.html
"The spectrum of all planetary objects (and humans, for that matter) has a double hump - a one in the visible region due to reflected sunlight and another in the infrared due to thermal emission of the planet."
The most fascinating part of the diagrams isn't just the fact that they show something, but most of them show something so completely unambiguously as to be indisputable even by a layperson like me.
Post by: Reelya on September 24, 2016, 11:28:56 pm
Quote
Scientists have discovered that horses can learn to use another human tool for communicating: pointing to symbols. They join a short list of other species, including some primates, dolphins, and pigeons, with this talent. Scientists taught 23 riding horses of various breeds to look at a display board with three icons, representing wearing or not wearing a blanket. Horses could choose between a "no change" symbol or symbols for "blanket on" or "blanket off." The horses did not touch the symbols randomly, but made their choices based on the weather. If it was wet, cold, and windy, they touched the blanket-on icon; horses that were already wearing a blanket nosed the "no change" image. But when the weather was sunny, the animals touched the blanket-off symbol; those that weren't blanketed pressed the "no change" icon. The study's strong results show that the horses understood the consequences of their choices, say the scientists, who hope that other researchers will use their method to ask horses more questions. The report has been published in Applied Animal Behaviour Science.
Post by: Putnam on September 24, 2016, 11:38:16 pm
Post by: Reelya on September 25, 2016, 03:05:18 am
So they're making a binary assessment of "needs-blanket", vs "doesn't-need-blanket" based on all the variables that go into "the weather", which shows ability to abstract complex data. They're then cross-referencing that against the "blanket/not-blanket" binary variable. And from that they can identify three different possible choices based on the situation. At the simplest, they're making a binary choice, but what they're choosing between is dependent on the outcome of a different binary variable. That's the clever thing: the "no change" symbol can be chosen whether or not they have a blanket, and whether or not it's hot or cold outside - all three choices are context-sensitive. The decision to pick that symbol is dependent on both variables. So it's a fairly advanced decision making process, involving abstracting the concept of "weather" down to a binary, and understanding an independent state variable, and how symbols can mean different things in a context-sensitive way. Not to mention that after making this assessment they are actually reading the choices as symbols then picking one.
Post by: scrdest on September 25, 2016, 06:21:37 am
In other news, we have been picturing sabertooth tigers wrong in a really obvious way once you see the reasoning: http://antediluviansalad.blogspot.com/2016/05/your-puny-lipped-sabertooth-kitty-is.htmlThis is actually kinda really cool. It looks like someone crossed a regular cat with a snek.
Sabertooths don't have sexual display tusks (which have very low enamel content in all but young animals) they have killing tools which have to be kept sharp. Exposing them to air means they aren't bathed in saliva and lose calcium, get abraded by grit, are vulnlerable to being kicked, and so forth.
Sabertooths also have great big foraminae in their upper jaw which don't make sense if they're only feeding a normal sized patch of whiskers. Whiskers which wouldn't be close to the bite target unless the upper lip was a lot larger anyways.
Cats aren't able to see what they bite, they use whiskers to aim their killing bites more precisely, of course a sabertooth would do the same.
Post by: Reelya on September 25, 2016, 06:55:08 am
Generally, sexual display characteristics don't involve completely deforming a critical system that you need for eating.
I've seen a number of times when the "old wives tale" version was laughed out of the "scientific" room, only for that explanation to later become accepted again. The most recent one is the "cold doesn't give you a cold" theory. Sure, that sounds good because we can cite complex factors that play a role, and laugh at the dumb old people who believe otherwise. Except now they're finding scientific evidence that the exact temperature in your nose plays a vital role in the rate at which cold viruses actually spread (http://scienceline.org/2015/01/cold-viruses-thrive-in-cold-noses/). It's a combination of the virus prefering cold, wet conditions, and the nose's immune system operating below peak performance at lower temperatures. People laugh at Japanese people for believing the "keep warm" thing in anime, and we scoff that their paper masks aren't really effective to keep viruses out. But wearing one of those paper masks would definitely give you a 3-degree boost in nasal temeperature, taking you out of the danger zone. Part of the problem is taking a partial theory then over-extending it. We know that cold itself doesn't "give" you a cold, therefore "sciency" people have leapt to the conclusion that those "keep warm" people are talking out their asses. When in fact, it's still an effective measure to reduce colds.
Post by: Putnam on September 25, 2016, 07:06:59 am
Post by: Frumple on September 25, 2016, 07:08:41 am
Post by: Reelya on September 25, 2016, 07:09:03 am
Post by: Frumple on September 25, 2016, 07:20:39 am
Also it's taking its sweet time in killing me. I've spent literal years worth of time in an enclosed room with low/no ventilation and a fan going, at this point (beyond air circulation, it's helped keep my computers from igniting), and unless I've become a disturbingly alive technoghost somewhere along the lines I'm pretty sure it's not happening.
Post by: Reelya on September 25, 2016, 09:12:37 am
Post by: Helgoland on September 25, 2016, 11:40:38 am
Post by: scrdest on September 25, 2016, 01:11:38 pm
Although English-language has it's own "Fan Death" thing: Spontaneous Combustion. The phrase apparently only exists in English. Every other language group has never had a problem explaining how people set fire to themselves with cigarettes while drunk or after having a heart attack, not to the point of even needing a concept about people mysteriously bursting into flames at all.Not true. I know Polish has a word for that exact thing. Hell, it's even shorter.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 26, 2016, 04:03:10 pm
Quote from: some guy
Once an molecule is in a particular energy state, adding additional photons of that same color will not make it go into a higher energy state. You need a different color for that.
Or this?
Quote
emissivity = 1 - albedo. albedo = 1 - emissivity. If you know one, you know the other.
e.g. emissivity of 89% means albedo is 11%
e.g. albedo 23% means an emissivity of 77%
e.g. an ideal black body has emissivity 100% and 0% albedo.
e.g. an ideal white body has albedo 100% and 0% emissivity.
Energy radiated = energy absorbed = incident energy * emissivity
---------------------
So energy radiated is dependent ONLY upon: The body's temperature (as one increases the other increases) which is determined by energy absorbed, the body's constant of emissivity, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.
Post by: Max™ on September 26, 2016, 04:10:09 pm
Thermal emissions are the only cases where the second statement is true, and are far from the only sources of radiation.
Post by: hops on September 26, 2016, 04:13:58 pm
Fan death's totally a thing.[citation needed]
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 26, 2016, 04:16:01 pm
Post by: Max™ on September 26, 2016, 04:35:00 pm
We're discussing GW. Nuclear heating of the Earth is not CURRENTLY happening. Ask me again tomorrow.Well, a big part of the problem there is handing someone enough info that they can get the general idea of electron excitation or the albedo/emissivity relationship means they will feel like they've got a grasp of things, but it's really just enough to lead you down a trail of muddled ideas and wasted arguments. Like the color thing, it's a reflex to sub in 400~700 nm photon for "photon of a certain color" and then ponder what takes place, but the vagary of "strikes a molecule" makes me concerned. Technically speaking the emissivity and albedo properties could be worked out from the interactions of electron clouds and photon absorption/emission/scattering for the most part, but glossing over the details in such a complex subject feels like a wasted opportunity to learn!
Also, the temperature isn't determined by absorbed radiation exclusively, which is how that statement about "energy radiated is ONLY determined by" comes across. Kinetic transfers from impacts, plus conduction, as well as latent heat from water undergoing phase changes are important when looking at the temperature of a given parcel of air.
Also, yeah, if it's a case of "THA GUBMINT IS LYIN TER US" rather than "I don't understand how that works" you're better off not wasting your time.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 26, 2016, 06:51:24 pm
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 26, 2016, 07:39:20 pm
(i knew they were wrong)
(of course, their constant assertions muddled my mind a bit)
(so i was asking for help reorienting my intelligence)
Post by: Sergarr on September 27, 2016, 07:48:52 am
Yeah, there's a Russian word for that, too, and it's used pretty often, though mostly in context of explosive things going boom in hot temperature.Although English-language has it's own "Fan Death" thing: Spontaneous Combustion. The phrase apparently only exists in English. Every other language group has never had a problem explaining how people set fire to themselves with cigarettes while drunk or after having a heart attack, not to the point of even needing a concept about people mysteriously bursting into flames at all.Not true. I know Polish has a word for that exact thing. Hell, it's even shorter.
Post by: Frumple on September 27, 2016, 07:56:48 am
Post by: scrdest on September 27, 2016, 08:05:14 am
... so what's the word? C'mon folks, don't hold out on us like that :-\Well, I didn't figure you'd want the actual word. Far as you know, I could make it up on the spot and you'd be none the wiser. But it's 'samozapłon'. It translates 1:1 to spontaneous combustion.
Post by: Starver on September 27, 2016, 08:38:08 am
But it's 'samozapłon'. It translates 1:1 to spontaneous combustion.That's boring. Not anywhere near as good as good as the old engineering documents that had the term (in Russian) of "water sheep" where the English intended-equivalent was "hydraulic ram"..
Post by: hops on September 27, 2016, 01:00:14 pm
(it was a spy thing)That sound somewhat dogmatic of science...
(i knew they were wrong)
(of course, their constant assertions muddled my mind a bit)
(so i was asking for help reorienting my intelligence)
That said, I know science is probably the most rational school of thought there is, but... how do we /know/? Science by its own definition makes it pretty damn difficult to spot any flaw it may have. And how do we know if proof by induction works?
Post by: Il Palazzo on September 27, 2016, 01:02:30 pm
how do we /know/?By measurement.
Post by: Max™ on September 27, 2016, 01:24:13 pm
Post by: Arx on September 27, 2016, 01:43:40 pm
And how do we know if proof by induction works?
It's just... you know, man, dominoes, man...
/me hits figurative blunt.
Post by: TempAcc on September 27, 2016, 01:52:44 pm
EDIT: in more entertaining news, Elon Musk is live now.
Post by: Max™ on September 27, 2016, 03:04:16 pm
The system is active, the safeties are off, Elon Musk is live, your king of space has come.
Post by: Sergarr on September 27, 2016, 03:08:51 pm
And how do we know if proof by induction works?Because it's a mathematical construct. And if you ask "how do we know if math works", it's because math is beyond time and space, and our studies of math just reveal more of that eternally-existing super-infinite meta-structure of everything that is possible and impossible.
Post by: Starver on September 27, 2016, 03:29:29 pm
EDIT: in more entertaining news, Elon Musk is live now.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: hops on September 27, 2016, 03:38:59 pm
Sorry, I meant inductive reasoning.And how do we know if proof by induction works?Because it's a mathematical construct. And if you ask "how do we know if math works", it's because math is beyond time and space, and our studies of math just reveal more of that eternally-existing super-infinite meta-structure of everything that is possible and impossible.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 27, 2016, 04:56:45 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on September 27, 2016, 05:03:42 pm
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 27, 2016, 05:44:14 pm
Post by: Helgoland on September 27, 2016, 06:40:26 pm
In the end, all science is applied.All they'll find of you will be the bloody copy of Serge Lang's Algebra with which we will bash in your skull.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 27, 2016, 07:00:35 pm
Post by: Putnam on September 27, 2016, 07:10:09 pm
it is not a guarantee that science is a subset of math but it sure as hell looks like it is so far, so it's best to assume that it is since there's absolutely no point in science if the universe itself has no consistency (which, again, sure as hell looks untrue)
Post by: Max™ on September 27, 2016, 08:49:23 pm
Post by: scrdest on September 28, 2016, 06:09:25 am
Post by: Furtuka on September 28, 2016, 07:20:09 pm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/health/does-this-25-year-old-hold-the-key-to-winning-the-war-against-th/
Post by: Starver on September 28, 2016, 07:30:26 pm
Post by: Furtuka on September 28, 2016, 07:31:48 pm
Gimme a sec
http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/superbugs/7844048
http://inhabitat.com/student-discovers-a-way-to-destroy-superbug-bacteria-without-antibiotics/
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/beyond-antibiotics-starshaped-protein-kills-feared-superbugs-20160912-grehpx.html
there you go :P
Post by: Sheb on September 29, 2016, 05:20:08 am
Post by: hops on September 29, 2016, 05:26:56 am
Or something. I don't know, it just feels like as far as medical science is concerned getting people to not die is really hard.
Post by: Sheb on September 29, 2016, 05:30:57 am
Post by: hops on September 29, 2016, 05:35:16 am
Post by: scrdest on September 29, 2016, 06:08:54 am
Also I still don't get why the bacteria don't evolve to be more structurally sound.That's not how evolution works. You can't just redesign the whole damn cell wall in one fell swoop.
It's like Jenga: you can take a single piece out and change how it's working, if it has some redundancy in what it did originally - because otherwise it breaks down; you can't rip out a whole chunk in the middle, build a (house/different wall structure) out of it, then put it back in the original structure with the changes, because a) it's impossible to edit multiple parts at once, b) even if it weren't, the structure is not modular, if you change a chunk of it, you have to change ALL of the whole thing to still support each other.
If the way those thingies work depends on specific protein interactions, bacteria would be able to evolve resistance, because it's just a matter of mutating the single recognized part of the target molecule.
Post by: Descan on September 29, 2016, 09:15:43 am
The problem is that a lot of those sledgehammer targets are important and non-easily mutatable because they're so fundamental to life that humans also share those processes. It's hard to find a sledgehammer that only targets bacteria, and even harder to target only bad bacteria.
I mean, you can kill 100% of bacterial cells in a lab. Just use a gun. :P
Post by: x2yzh9 on September 29, 2016, 12:07:57 pm
you know this reminds me of how my brother said automotive mechanics work. You can't just take out something and put something new in without reworking the whole vehicle. Just an apology I thought I should provideAlso I still don't get why the bacteria don't evolve to be more structurally sound.That's not how evolution works. You can't just redesign the whole damn cell wall in one fell swoop.
It's like Jenga: you can take a single piece out and change how it's working, if it has some redundancy in what it did originally - because otherwise it breaks down; you can't rip out a whole chunk in the middle, build a (house/different wall structure) out of it, then put it back in the original structure with the changes, because a) it's impossible to edit multiple parts at once, b) even if it weren't, the structure is not modular, if you change a chunk of it, you have to change ALL of the whole thing to still support each other.
If the way those thingies work depends on specific protein interactions, bacteria would be able to evolve resistance, because it's just a matter of mutating the single recognized part of the target molecule.
Post by: Max™ on September 29, 2016, 02:46:58 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on September 29, 2016, 06:08:58 pm
Post by: Max™ on September 29, 2016, 07:37:09 pm
Post by: Reelya on September 29, 2016, 07:56:46 pm
I had to use the bathroom at the time and didn't feel like taking the time to search for a less clickbaiting link.
Gimme a sec
http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/superbugs/7844048
http://inhabitat.com/student-discovers-a-way-to-destroy-superbug-bacteria-without-antibiotics/
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/beyond-antibiotics-starshaped-protein-kills-feared-superbugs-20160912-grehpx.html
there you go :P
https://www.ted.com/talks/bonnie_bassler_on_how_bacteria_communicate
Another bit of interesting research is into how bacteria communicate with each other. Some researchers found two chemicals emitted from each bacteria - one is strain-specific, the other is universal to all bacteria. They use one to say how many of the compadres are nearby and the other to estimate the total number of all bacteria. The bacteria stay inert until they have the numbers then simultaneously launch the attack on the immune system. This opens up several options - either false intel or jamming up the receptors.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 29, 2016, 08:06:01 pm
Post by: Descan on September 29, 2016, 08:25:33 pm
Post by: Max™ on September 29, 2016, 08:27:52 pm
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on September 29, 2016, 08:30:45 pm
Post by: Reelya on September 29, 2016, 08:34:23 pm
Post by: Sirus on September 29, 2016, 08:40:20 pm
Post by: Frumple on September 29, 2016, 08:51:21 pm
If we could do that, why be covert? Just kill the bacteriaWhy kill the bacteria if you can instead wololo the little shits? The only thing better than a dead enemy is a living ally.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 29, 2016, 08:53:30 pm
I thought "just kill some but not all of the bacteria" was the main cause. Folks not taking their full prescriptions, stuff like that.It massively accelerates the process by turning people into breeders for resistant bacteria, but those resistant strains already existed to begin with. Even without the genetic bottleneck, we'd still have eventually ended up here even if people weren't stupid fucks who refuse to follow directions.
I'm not sure what the resistance progression is like for phage therapy, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a good deal slower.
Post by: Sheb on September 30, 2016, 01:47:07 am
Post by: iceball3 on September 30, 2016, 02:20:18 am
That sound somewhat dogmatic of science...I thought science was, by definition, an attempt to refute positive results, and accept them as a viable theory when results are repeated nonetheless? Scientific method and all that.
That said, I know science is probably the most rational school of thought there is, but... how do we /know/? Science by its own definition makes it pretty damn difficult to spot any flaw it may have.
So by that definition, science is designed to search for and find, flaunt it's own flaws, very thoroughly, for the express purpose of tearing them out, and with the expectation that the overall picture will never be a complete one.
Concerning the scientific method, specifically, but it's a rather significant portion of the whole meaning of science and all.
Post by: hops on September 30, 2016, 02:47:18 am
Post by: Reelya on September 30, 2016, 03:16:45 am
That actually sounds cool but it also sound like the polymers will give you cancer.They're protein chains, not plastic polymers.
Or something. I don't know, it just feels like as far as medical science is concerned getting people to not die is really hard.
Post by: scrdest on September 30, 2016, 05:33:05 am
They kind of can. There are resistance mechanisms that are only expressed in the presence of the relevant antiobiotic.Expressed. Herein lies the rub.
Coming back to the car analogy, you don't need to have brakes working constantly to prevent you crashing into something - that would be an unnecessary tax on your car's performance, you can engage them on the fly when needed and keep them disengaged when not - but you need to have installed the brakes in the car before you started driving it somewhere.
Similarly, the resistance mechanism needs to show up in the genome, even if it is not part of the transcriptome 24/7.
There is one caveat, in that bacteria love to open source the resistances and so if you already *have* a resistant bacterium somewhere, the resistance may spread faster and further than it could by division of the parent strain alone and it can happen on the fly, with some limitations - but you need to get the OG bacterium in the first place.
Post by: Max™ on September 30, 2016, 08:07:15 am
Post by: Sheb on September 30, 2016, 08:19:55 am
Post by: scrdest on September 30, 2016, 09:24:04 am
Yeah, the issue ofc is that most of our antibiotics are molecules we got from bacteria and their derivatives (Streptomyces alone account for a majority I think), so the resistance mechanisms ARE out there, either in the producing bacteria (which obviously need to be resistant) or in bacteria living alongside it.That's not entirely true. First, you're forgetting the very first antibiotic being fungal, and the whole group of penicillins and cephalosporins and the like. This is not denying a lot is bacterial, but penicillin is also the very first antibiotic where widespread resistance popped up and it is not a bacterial product.
Second, you're ignoring that bacteria are not a homogenous group. Unless you look at very wide-spectrum antibiotics, a G- bacteria will simply not be susceptible to G+ bacteria's antibiotics, and vice-versa, and that's not getting into smaller-scale differences. They don't need specific resistances, the molecular target of the antibiotic simply isn't there, not even by a long shot. It doesn't work on the producer, but to say it is resistant is misleading.
Third, a huge chunk of modern antibiotics are not the same substances microorganisms produce in the wild. They are synthetic or semi-synthetic, and only based on the original molecule, with altered action - for example, 2nd-onwards generations of cephalosporins act stronger on G-, sometimes at the expense of the effect on G+, compared to gen 1.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on September 30, 2016, 03:06:04 pm
Post by: Helgoland on September 30, 2016, 06:58:52 pm
the very first antibiotic being fungalArsphenamine and the sulfonamides beg to differ.
Post by: Sheb on October 01, 2016, 05:07:45 am
Yeah, the issue ofc is that most of our antibiotics are molecules we got from bacteria and their derivatives (Streptomyces alone account for a majority I think), so the resistance mechanisms ARE out there, either in the producing bacteria (which obviously need to be resistant) or in bacteria living alongside it.That's not entirely true. First, you're forgetting the very first antibiotic being fungal, and the whole group of penicillins and cephalosporins and the like. This is not denying a lot is bacterial, but penicillin is also the very first antibiotic where widespread resistance popped up and it is not a bacterial product.
Second, you're ignoring that bacteria are not a homogenous group. Unless you look at very wide-spectrum antibiotics, a G- bacteria will simply not be susceptible to G+ bacteria's antibiotics, and vice-versa, and that's not getting into smaller-scale differences. They don't need specific resistances, the molecular target of the antibiotic simply isn't there, not even by a long shot. It doesn't work on the producer, but to say it is resistant is misleading.
Third, a huge chunk of modern antibiotics are not the same substances microorganisms produce in the wild. They are synthetic or semi-synthetic, and only based on the original molecule, with altered action - for example, 2nd-onwards generations of cephalosporins act stronger on G-, sometimes at the expense of the effect on G+, compared to gen 1.
Sure, I said most, not all. Wiki tells me that 2/3rd of all natural antibiotics used come from Streptomyces. As for the b-lactams, they're fungal, but the resistance was already out there in bacterias before we used them. The resistants bacterias didn't invent a new hydrolase, they just made use of what was already there.
And even if they're semi-synthetic, they're still close enough to wild-type antibiotics that it's not much work for existing enzymes that degrade the wild-type antibiotic to evolve to be able to degrade the variant. See, cephalosporins and all other b-lactams derivatives.
I mean, no offense but I'm kinda doing my PhD on carbapenemases. :D
Post by: scrdest on October 01, 2016, 06:58:41 am
(http://yoursmiles.org/msmile/think/m1705.gif) You don't have to go for heavy artillery to find antibiotics that target both. You pointed one out yourself in your example (cephalosporins). In fact, the most commonly used antibiotics do, in fact, target both Gram + and - bacteria.Uh, what exactly are you responding to? I never said wide-spectrums don't real, I just pointed out that narrow-spectrum antibiotics exist, and so natural antibiotic producers don't necessarily need to be resistant.
Fair enough, I didn't specify what rules I was going by: Protonsil was discovered in 1932, so later than Penicillin, though it was marketed earlier, so by actual availability it has primacy. Arsphenamine is not usually counted as an antibiotic for, upon some research, weird reasons.the very first antibiotic being fungalArsphenamine and the sulfonamides beg to differ.
Sure, I said most, not all. Wiki tells me that 2/3rd of all natural antibiotics used come from Streptomyces. As for the b-lactams, they're fungal, but the resistance was already out there in bacterias before we used them. The resistants bacterias didn't invent a new hydrolase, they just made use of what was already there.All the more reason to try to argue then, better me than the reviewer :P
And even if they're semi-synthetic, they're still close enough to wild-type antibiotics that it's not much work for existing enzymes that degrade the wild-type antibiotic to evolve to be able to degrade the variant. See, cephalosporins and all other b-lactams derivatives.
I mean, no offense but I'm kinda doing my PhD on carbapenemases. :D
I didn't actually know there was a resistance in the wild, how do we know that's the case? And one way or another, unless you're somehow both a bio grad and creationist I suppose, they did invent a new hydrolase, the only question is when.
Unless I massively misremembered, I think you're wrong on the topic of (semi-)synthetics. I recall watching a video on topic of antibiotic resistance (I think it was a part of an intro to a vid about teixobactin maybe) that showed the arms race between beta-lactamases and beta-lactam modifications preventing lactamase cleavage of the ring. But unfortunately that was shown in class, like two years ago, so I might be spectacularly wrong here. I didn't research it just now, I'll check later.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 01, 2016, 09:06:51 am
Spinoloricus
Anaerobic
Unlike much more of us
Post by: ChairmanPoo on October 01, 2016, 09:20:54 am
Quote
Unless you look at very wide-spectrum antibiotics a G- bacteria will simply not be susceptible to G+ bacteria's antibiotics, and vice-versaWhich seems to imply that you have to look for unusual drugs in order to achieve this. I was merely pointing out that it is not that infrequent.
Post by: Sheb on October 01, 2016, 10:07:48 am
I think the point I was trying to make was that since most of our antibiotics are either natural molecules or their derivatives, resistance can spread very quickly, because the means to resist it have either already evolved, or need only slight modifications from the resistance mechanism used against the molecule the antibiotic is derived from.
Post by: scrdest on October 01, 2016, 10:33:59 am
Well, you statedFair enough, you have a point, I could have phrased that better, it is misleading.QuoteUnless you look at very wide-spectrum antibiotics a G- bacteria will simply not be susceptible to G+ bacteria's antibiotics, and vice-versaWhich seems to imply that you have to look for unusual drugs in order to achieve this. I was merely pointing out that it is not that infrequent.
Post by: Starver on October 01, 2016, 12:48:41 pm
I didn't actually know there was a resistance in the wild, how do we know that's the case?I'm wondering why you should think it doesn't happen...
Post by: Sergarr on October 03, 2016, 06:44:25 am
Also, some people on forums are saying that the problem is even bigger, and can potentially affect ALL universities with Chinese Exchange programs, partnerships, or "visiting Scholars", due to them outsourcing "all Mass experiments, assays, and reproduction studies" to China because, apparently, the Chinese data is "Lots more data produced at a lower price, so it's far more efficient to do the mass studies that way".
This can go a long way to explain the current "crisis of reproducibility".
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on October 03, 2016, 07:05:16 am
80% of data in Chinese clinical trials have been fabricated (http://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/clinical-fakes-09272016141438.html)[Smugface]
Also, some people on forums are saying that the problem is even bigger, and can potentially affect ALL universities with Chinese Exchange programs, partnerships, or "visiting Scholars", due to them outsourcing "all Mass experiments, assays, and reproduction studies" to China because, apparently, the Chinese data is "Lots more data produced at a lower price, so it's far more efficient to do the mass studies that way".
This can go a long way to explain the current "crisis of reproducibility".
Post by: Solifuge on October 10, 2016, 12:55:45 pm
The story was a pretty moving one, if you've the time and interest. Some friends of the deceased in that article mentioned how they'd never been able to ask him for advice before he died, but the advice was something he'd say. Others said the process was like sending a message-in-a-bottle to the deceased... the replies felt strange sometimes, but it was a way of helping them say some of the things they never got to say, and all that.
I have complicated feelings about this, but what a weird and interesting application of the technology.
Spoiler: Some chats with a Neural Net AI trained using old texts. (click to show/hide)
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 10, 2016, 01:03:17 pm
Post by: Sergarr on October 10, 2016, 01:16:33 pm
Mark my words, people are going to start taking "death snapshots" of people's neurology to create computerized shadow copies of them as soon as it becomes possible. Not true transfer of information, but a much more accurate version of this.I'd imagine they would start taking "life snapshots" much earlier, to create
Post by: TempAcc on October 10, 2016, 01:18:47 pm
I mean, what happens when we get whole brain emulation? Will people keep pet AIs imprinted with their dead relatives' personalities so they can talk to them when they feel lonely? I mean, whatever floats your boat, but that may just fuck up the grieving process even more :v
And there's no need to simulate people just to handle all the absurd info that goes into some systems (and we've already reached a level of complexity in some things, such as the stock market, that makes it actualy impossible to fully grasp with a human mind or even advanced binary supercomputers), you can already set up neural networks to do that, though its still far from a perfect solution (and very computing intensive, though that will prob chance once quantum computers become more feasible).
Post by: Solifuge on October 10, 2016, 01:20:11 pm
Mark my words, people are going to start taking "death snapshots" of people's neurology to create computerized shadow copies of them as soon as it becomes possible. Not true transfer of information, but a much more accurate version of this.I'd imagine they would start taking "life snapshots" much earlier, to createdigital slavesvirtual-world workforce to deal with all that shitload of information we've got going on in our world and make sense out of it.
Hmm. Speaking of which, isn't anyone training a Neural Network to do mundane information-handling and interpreting tasks yet? Like, can we make office drones obsolete the way we did with farmhands when the combine harvester was invented?
Post by: TempAcc on October 10, 2016, 01:24:15 pm
So ye, it'll prob still take some time until those systems are reliable enough to become popular.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 10, 2016, 01:28:10 pm
Thats, uh, kinda creepy. Not for the whole "talking to the dead" thing, but about the idea of talking to a computer simulation as if it were the deceased person. I guess its ok and hey, if it helps people, I'm all for it, but its p creepy to me regardless :vI mean, people talk to inanimate corpses as if they were the person, this isn't meaningfully more creepy than that.
Quote
I mean, what happens when we get whole brain emulation? Will people keep pet AIs imprinted with their dead relatives' personalities so they can talk to them when they feel lonely? I mean, whatever floats your boat, but that may just fuck up the grieving process even more :vA good deal of the grief of death is being forced to separate from the deceased before the living are mentally ready to let go. This seems to be why things like car crashes can cause a lot more suffering than long-term terminal illness, because in the latter case the living have long forewarning and can make an effort to prepare themselves. This system, I think, might help to manage that more than it creates the risk of never letting the dead rest.
Of course, with true whole brain emulation we have computerized immortality, in which case aw fuck yeah gonna survive to the end of the universe.
Post by: TempAcc on October 10, 2016, 01:41:11 pm
Though I guess I'd be ok with having multiple copies of me handling different aspects of my life, maybe with their own synthetic bodies so I can have
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 10, 2016, 01:54:56 pm
Post by: forsaken1111 on October 10, 2016, 02:05:08 pm
If a nanomachine swarm was released into your brain that replaced each and every individual neuron only as they died of age and cancer, causing no conscious effect on you and taking place gradually over a decade, is that you at the end?If the simulation is perfect then all you're doing is replacing a biological machine with an electronic one. There is no difference in the information being processed.
Post by: Frumple on October 10, 2016, 02:27:27 pm
Like, can we make office drones obsolete the way we did with farmhands when the combine harvester was invented?Dunno about neural networks, but we've definitely been automating away office drones. Have ever since automated phone stuff started getting implemented, never mind office and database software and whatnot.
Post by: Descan on October 10, 2016, 02:50:25 pm
If a nanomachine swarm was released into your brain that replaced each and every individual neuron only as they died of age and cancer, causing no conscious effect on you and taking place gradually over a decade, is that you at the end?that's actually kind of wanna i want to make tho
never thought about it being limited to dead neurons, tho. was considering they'd scan a neuron, eat it, snuggle in and set up the same connections, and then move onto the next neuron.
my only worry was that if i make a nano-particle neuron that mimics natural ones too closely, then it might just end up being worthless. I mean it needs to communicate with natural and artificial neurons, engage in neural pruning the same way the natural brain does, and grow and multiply in the same situations
if i mimic a natural neuron too closely, it might end up having the same lifespan and disease chances as a natural one :v back to square one :V
Post by: Starver on October 10, 2016, 03:09:55 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 10, 2016, 03:12:12 pm
If a nanomachine swarm was released into your brain that replaced each and every individual neuron only as they died of age and cancer, causing no conscious effect on you and taking place gradually over a decade, is that you at the end?Buddhism is useful here
Just as there is no one component in a chariot is the chariot, it is the sum total of the chariot's parts that make up the chariot, no one instance of you in time is wholly you. The holistic 'you' is the sum of all that you were in every instance of time
Post by: hops on October 10, 2016, 03:39:51 pm
Using Neural Networks to simulate the recently deceased, and aid in the grieving process (http://www.theverge.com/a/luka-artificial-intelligence-memorial-roman-mazurenko-bot)The Romans did this already with a really good cold reader sitting in a cave, git gud scientists.
The story was a pretty moving one, if you've the time and interest. Some friends of the deceased in that article mentioned how they'd never been able to ask him for advice before he died, but the advice was something he'd say. Others said the process was like sending a message-in-a-bottle to the deceased... the replies felt strange sometimes, but it was a way of helping them say some of the things they never got to say, and all that.
I have complicated feelings about this, but what a weird and interesting application of the technology.Spoiler: Some chats with a Neural Net AI trained using old texts. (click to show/hide)
Post by: TempAcc on October 10, 2016, 04:09:36 pm
If a nanomachine swarm was released into your brain that replaced each and every individual neuron only as they died of age and cancer, causing no conscious effect on you and taking place gradually over a decade, is that you at the end?Buddhism is useful here
Just as there is no one component in a chariot is the chariot, it is the sum total of the chariot's parts that make up the chariot, no one instance of you in time is wholly you. The holistic 'you' is the sum of all that you were in every instance of time
Ye, I knew of this already, and its friendly to the modern argument that the real you is just the pattern of connections in your brain, and since the pattern is constantly changing, one could argue that you actualy really aren't the same person you were a year ago. You are a new being born from the old one using the same body.
However, there's still a caveat with the buddhist argument. If you (slowly or not) exchange the entirety of chariot's parts for new ones, is it still the same chariot? Is it not a new chariot that just slowly phased out and got replaced by a new chariot? In the same vein, would slowly replacing your brain with technologically superior components that maintain the old pattern actualy preserve you? Or would it just be a really slow way to kill you and replace you with an identical copy of you?
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 10, 2016, 04:21:03 pm
*EDIT
It may be that some nerves are particularly old and may stick with you from birth to death (https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/life-span-of-human-cells-defined-most-cells-are-younger-than-the-individual/198208.article)
Otherwise you replaced yourself in all other aspects
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 10, 2016, 09:23:40 pm
The chariot is a bad example; the chariot is almost as physical as its components. Minds are not. If I copy a program to another computer, is it the same program?
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 10, 2016, 09:35:59 pm
>:v I dont care that my AI clone lives forever, I care that I live forever. Hook me up on some weird brain cell renewing treatment, exchange my whole body (except for key parts of the brain) for a technocopy and call me TempAccyborg the eternal hair fetishist.
Though I guess I'd be ok with having multiple copies of me handling different aspects of my life, maybe with their own synthetic bodies so I can havea big autosexual orgymy own MOBA team made entirely of ME.
This. (http://existentialcomics.com/comic/1)
Post by: Catmeat on October 10, 2016, 09:38:17 pm
We are a growing cause and while we see tech as a tool, it should remain just this.
Death is a gift my children.. accept it with love and reverance.
The immortals are a curse and we will live to ensure their post death deaths.
I await the statement that what I say is illegal.. we dont care, no rules that man makes truly matter.
Transhumanisim is antithesis to life and chaos.
You will see us protesting in the future while robotic 'officers' murder us.
The USA is already legaly a warzone and drones and warmachines are allowed to walk the streets and police you.
Police state, police nation.
Take my hand and draw a sword.
Those who fear death will fear us
Post by: forsaken1111 on October 10, 2016, 10:09:43 pm
Post by: alway on October 10, 2016, 11:12:22 pm
Using Neural Networks to simulate the recently deceased, and aid in the grieving process (http://www.theverge.com/a/luka-artificial-intelligence-memorial-roman-mazurenko-bot)I had seen a similar story recently, though much shorter and less of a large project. I wouldn't be surprised if this sort of project is either somewhat widespread already or soon will be.
The story was a pretty moving one, if you've the time and interest. Some friends of the deceased in that article mentioned how they'd never been able to ask him for advice before he died, but the advice was something he'd say. Others said the process was like sending a message-in-a-bottle to the deceased... the replies felt strange sometimes, but it was a way of helping them say some of the things they never got to say, and all that.
I have complicated feelings about this, but what a weird and interesting application of the technology.Spoiler: Some chats with a Neural Net AI trained using old texts. (click to show/hide)
Also, here's a good article summarizing recent work on neural nets for making art and similar things: https://medium.com/@kcimc/a-return-to-machine-learning-2de3728558eb#.ef1qfb1mh
Both the author of that and Alex Champandard are worth following on twitter if it interests you.
Post by: Descan on October 11, 2016, 12:13:27 am
My children will kill the transhumanists.hey guys look, an edgy death cultist
We are a growing cause and while we see tech as a tool, it should remain just this.
Death is a gift my children.. accept it with love and reverance.
The immortals are a curse and we will live to ensure their post death deaths.
I await the statement that what I say is illegal.. we dont care, no rules that man makes truly matter.
Transhumanisim is antithesis to life and chaos.
You will see us protesting in the future while robotic 'officers' murder us.
The USA is already legaly a warzone and drones and warmachines are allowed to walk the streets and police you.
Police state, police nation.
Take my hand and draw a sword.
Those who fear death will fear us
cool, never seen that before
Post by: hops on October 11, 2016, 12:16:30 am
Post by: Catmeat on October 11, 2016, 12:50:14 am
I see the truth in nature.
You forfiting your cells is forfiting freedom and the choice of dying. But sure become a robotic slave to google
Post by: Frumple on October 11, 2016, 01:06:08 am
Nothing about technological immortality that takes away the choice of dying, anyway. It actually gives you a choice, really, instead of forcing you to be a slave to fickle biology and have no options but what that capricious bastard gives you. Forfeiting your cells would be casting off the chains forced on you at birth. Others may take their place but there's no virtue in submission to a master just because it got their first.
Try again, in other words. Your construction is an unsightly mess.
Post by: Descan on October 11, 2016, 01:27:26 am
you go ahead and die (i'd rather you didn't, but i'll let you make that choice) and i'll go ahead and live for a couple eons. no need to force the other person to do something they don't want to do.
"choice of dying" yeah frumple covered that. i do like how you got the big brother vibe going on too. "freedom is slavery" "choice is death" and all that.
0/10 not that great of a troll
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 11, 2016, 01:31:33 am
Post by: hops on October 11, 2016, 01:31:44 am
So you can have the best of both worlds and be both dead and immortal.
There's no need to be Amish, catmeat.
Post by: Descan on October 11, 2016, 01:33:37 am
... wait.
Post by: Catmeat on October 11, 2016, 01:48:17 am
Heres my issue. You Borgs will be everywhere and so will your disgusting tech.
If we were given lands to stay mortal and able to die without fear of replication enslavement many of us will be content.
However you wont leave us alone.
You will want total control.
You will take our jobs, you will be a 'higher' caste and due to lack of biology you may even destroy the enviroment further.
I fear you. I fear the strength, the intelligence.
Life continues after death, why potentially extend the agonising wait?
Fear is never a good answer, there has to be a way where you can accept your death.
I will discontinue this. But do try remember that we are here.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 11, 2016, 01:50:44 am
Heres my issue. You Borgs will be everywhere and so will your disgusting tech.I know, it's awesome right!
If we were given lands to stay mortal and able to die without fear of replication enslavement many of us will be content.
However you wont leave us alone.
You will want total control.
You will take our jobs, you will be a 'higher' caste and due to lack of biology you may even destroy the enviroment further.
I fear you. I fear the strength, the intelligence.
We have the best transcendence technology. Just the best. We're making deals. We're modifying your children. It's gonna be great.
Post by: Rose on October 11, 2016, 01:52:47 am
Post by: Solifuge on October 11, 2016, 02:08:19 am
Heres my issue.
This reminds me a bit of some Stephen Hawking thing or other... I think it was this lecture (http://www.hawking.org.uk/life-in-the-universe.html). Run it through retro text-to-speech for the full effect. :Y
Quote
There is no time, to wait for Darwinian evolution, to make us more intelligent, and better natured. But we are now entering a new phase, of what might be called, self designed evolution, in which we will be able to change and improve our DNA. There is a project now on, to map the entire sequence of human DNA. It will cost a few billion dollars, but that is chicken feed, for a project of this importance. Once we have read the book of life, we will start writing in corrections. At first, these changes will be confined to the repair of genetic defects, like cystic fibrosis, and muscular dystrophy. These are controlled by single genes, and so are fairly easy to identify, and correct. Other qualities, such as intelligence, are probably controlled by a large number of genes. It will be much more difficult to find them, and work out the relations between them. Nevertheless, I am sure that during the next century, people will discover how to modify both intelligence, and instincts like aggression.
Laws will be passed, against genetic engineering with humans. But some people won't be able to resist the temptation, to improve human characteristics, such as size of memory, resistance to disease, and length of life. Once such super humans appear, there are going to be major political problems, with the unimproved humans, who won't be able to compete. Presumably, they will die out, or become unimportant. Instead, there will be a race of self-designing beings, who are improving themselves at an ever-increasing rate.
TL;DR - His argument was that, once self-designing is possible, people who choose not to tweak themselves will become "unimportant", which is Hawking-speak for "Vanilla Humans will keep on existing with the problems and joys they have now, while Self-Designing Humans will be so much improved that they'll be doing all the cool stuff of consequence."
I think it's important to respect the people who don't feel comfortable tweaking their own bods to get rid of some of the bad parts of our evolutionary nature. It's a totally valid life choice. In a world where fetal genes can be tweaked, it gets a little more tricky; say there were two parents of a developing fetus, who had a genetic disease that would make their life miserable, but was completely treatable with gene editing; if they choose not to treat their child, do we just respect the choice they've made no matter the suffering it brings to their unborn kid, or do we require things like that to be treated? In ways, it's like the Anti-Vaccine thing, right?
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 11, 2016, 02:15:45 am
Post by: hops on October 11, 2016, 02:29:47 am
And people shouldn't get special treatment just because they don't want to catch up. They have to prove that they can do as well as others without tools.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 11, 2016, 05:15:08 am
This is doubly relevant to our discussion, because immortality-stuff and !!science!!.
m not trolling.
Heres my issue. You Borgs will be everywhere and so will your disgusting tech.
If we were given lands to stay mortal and able to die without fear of replication enslavement many of us will be content.
However you wont leave us alone.
You will want total control.
You will take our jobs, you will be a 'higher' caste and due to lack of biology you may even destroy the enviroment further.
I fear you. I fear the strength, the intelligence.
Life continues after death, why potentially extend the agonising wait?
Fear is never a good answer, there has to be a way where you can accept your death.
I will discontinue this. But do try remember that we are here.
Another hole in that goddamn boat analogy that I wish would stop being used in this line of discussion more and more: in the case of the boat, there's simply the argument of structure, where being "the same" hinges on a definition. Consciousness is a process acting within a medium; it does not hinge on the brain itself being the same.
Yes!
Quote
Same goes with the "unbroken chain of consciousness" argument, as well as the common refutation. Your brain does not stop when you sleep. Consciousness breaks, but there's still activity in the brain. At no point is your brain 100% "off". Hell, it's our definition of death, at least in the medical field.
Yes, but to the observer...
Suppose that I have an AI. It runs. I turn the computer off and back on. It runs.
Second scenario: I have an AI. It runs. I turn the computer off and move the data to another computer. I turn the new computer on. It runs.
To the individual, there is no way of distinguishing (directly) between sleep-breaks and death-breaks in your consciousness. Waking up after a new body is grown and your information put into its brain would... feel pretty much like waking up every morning, I guess.
Post by: Starver on October 11, 2016, 05:21:55 am
grow new brain-holders (bodies :P)Rest of the sentence aside (because it seems a common pattern with even basic Transhumanism, e.g. 2312, KSR), the big step is between 'brain-holder' and 'mind-holder'.
Post by: forsaken1111 on October 11, 2016, 05:33:41 am
Immortality must not come before we have infinite resources.We have more resources than we could ever use in a reasonable amount of time right here in our solar system. We're just too busy fighting each other to go get them.
Post by: hops on October 11, 2016, 05:35:15 am
Post by: Bumber on October 11, 2016, 08:23:44 am
At what point does our consciousness cease to be? If it is a specific, finite point, then that is the "root of consciousness" of a person, which requires that such a thing even exist. Assuming it doesn't, then there can be no point where the person ceases to be in such a process. So such a process wouldn't erase the person, or replace them with a copy, or whatever.Decision-point fallacy. "If there's no finite point at which a rich man can be said to have become poor, then he cannot become poor."
Post by: forsaken1111 on October 11, 2016, 08:32:28 am
What is me? At what point between the spectrum me and you do I become you, if some effect were slowly transforming me into you?
It's almost meaningless, because we don't even know exactly what we are. Almost certainly we are simply an emergent property of the brain processing information, but since we cannot define 'me-ness' we cannot say at what point the 'me-ness' stops. I'm not even convinced that the distinction is meaningful. What, really, is the difference between a biological computer and an electronic one if they give the same response to stimuli? If you receive the same output to all input, they are functionally identical so the only argument over the difference would be a spiritual one, which is an argument nobody can win because there is no proof such a thing even exists.
It is my opinion that the thing which makes you 'you' is the unique interactions only you are capable of. Only you will react a certain way to a certain thing. A computer simulating your brain perfectly would react the same way to the same thing, and thus is also 'you'. A simulation running independent of your brain will eventually diverge from 'you' and become a different 'you' if it receives different stimulus and input, just the way two identical twins diverge if raised in different settings.
Post by: Max™ on October 11, 2016, 11:11:06 am
You are not the you that was there a second ago, that you is still over there towards the big bang.
These structures often interact with other such structures, spawning new ones at times, dismantling and incorporating others into their extended structure.
Early forms of these structures were able to extend a similar structure into regions of time further away from the bright point than their own earliest edge.
Structures which can do this pop up here and there, but ones which are able to extend more offshots towards the dark empty at the far end of time are able to at least briefly divert some of the general reduction of order as you look from bright point to the dark empty, leading to sections of spacetime with massively interwoven and linked arrays of structures.
A few of those structures were able to spread further due to a basic ability to consider individual slices of their own structure.
A much smaller portion were able to consider their own ability to consider sections of their spatiotemporal extent.
For some reason they like to assign a sense of importance to the particular slice they are studying, though they do this with all slices they view, so it is only the change in the structure which allowed it to pass some of that sense of import downstream to other slices.
[You]
"Wow, I am here now."
[You][You]
"WWooww, II aamm hheerree nnooww."
[You][You][You]
"WWWooowww, III aaammm hhheeerrrree nnnooowww."
Post by: forsaken1111 on October 11, 2016, 11:14:48 am
Post by: TempAcc on October 11, 2016, 11:17:12 am
Post by: PTTG?? on October 11, 2016, 11:20:04 am
Post by: Max™ on October 11, 2016, 11:22:30 am
What's really amusing is that some of those transient structures have anxiety over the strands of protein filament on their heads and hope other structures will find the arrangement of said strands pleasing.The 4-D extent of my beard is glorious so it doesn't matter what anyone else feels like they think at any given timeslice.
Post by: i2amroy on October 11, 2016, 11:32:38 am
Life continues after death, why potentially extend the agonising wait?This is kinda debatable; I mean so far there isn't anybody we know of that has come back, to the point where even most religious scholars agree that "resurrection sightings" of famous resurrections (such as jesus) weren't of the physical form but of the visionary one (Jesus Seminar: "In the view of the Seminar, he did not rise bodily from the dead; the resurrection is based instead on visionary experiences of Peter, Paul, and Mary.").
Fear is never a good answer, there has to be a way where you can accept your death.
And if there isn't anything after death then, at least the way I see it, you should be actively fighting to not die for as long as possible. It's like a game; as long as you are playing than your skill and experience can forever continue to increase, and even if your score dips due to setbacks and missteps as long as you don't actually quit then you still always have a shot at that leaderboard (one that would continue to improve as your skills did). Once you quit and walk away, though, that's it, and your score will never get up there on the board (or even if it does it will certainly be knocked off eventually due to its static nature).
Re: Child Immortality Editing,
The way I see it is that if you take a baby and made it immortal somehow through gene editing (like some form of keeping your growth/repair mechanism on without you turning into a giant blob of cancer), they could always euthanasia themselves later, but if you can only perform the first change before they were born then you can't necessarily go the other direction and make them immortal later.
It's kind of funny, but I think the arguments we would see would be almost the same as the abortion ones, just in the opposite direction "not curing your child before birth is murder, plain and simple!" :P
I try to to worry too much about transhumanism and focus on how awesome it is that we're going to Mars.Mars is indeed really awesome. :D
Post by: Descan on October 11, 2016, 01:28:34 pm
Immortality must not come before we have infinite resources.Depends on the type of immortality. If it's just brain-in-a-processor, then all we need is the materials to make more computer space and energy. Granted, right now we're not so hot on energy. But once we get fusion (finally. someone get elon musk on the line and tell him to start funding fusion already) we'll just need to worry about making enough computronium. Which we can probably harvest the asteroid belt and be set for a good long while.
It's meat-people that take up the most space and resources, tbh. And since they die in the end, it's wasted resources to boot.
Post by: RedKing on October 11, 2016, 01:40:50 pm
Post by: Descan on October 11, 2016, 01:44:35 pm
Post by: RedKing on October 11, 2016, 01:54:11 pm
"And the LORD Descan came down in the form of a man. A cuddly, fuzzy bear of a man. And He beheld his form, and lo, it was fabulous."
Post by: hops on October 11, 2016, 01:55:34 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 11, 2016, 01:58:38 pm
Post by: hops on October 11, 2016, 02:00:51 pm
you are the aliens
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 11, 2016, 02:04:38 pm
Post by: hops on October 11, 2016, 02:07:35 pm
Post by: RedKing on October 11, 2016, 02:09:31 pm
/me drinks MSH.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 11, 2016, 02:15:06 pm
You should both be ashamed of yourselves.
Post by: i2amroy on October 11, 2016, 02:17:20 pm
Again if you transcend you're dead in the technical sense of the word anyways so you're not really extending the agonising wait for death. You just die and then there's a copy of you living on.Depends on how you transcend. :P While it would probably be a lot harder technology wise, there's no laws saying that we couldn't, say, replace your brain piece by piece while maintaining stream of consciousness the whole time (there's actually a few specific brain surgeries that keep the patient awake like that, as well as a few other complications that can require it). No copying done. Heck, at that point we could even say that you still are alive technically per the medical definition, because you could still certainly have some sort of circulatory system up and running (assuming we just replaced your brain your heart should still be pumping), and your "brain" would certainly still have activity on it, just in a slightly different form than before.
Post by: hops on October 11, 2016, 02:18:14 pm
Post by: TempAcc on October 11, 2016, 02:31:05 pm
Fusion is a nifty thing though, once we actualy get it, we'll basically solve all our energy needs till the time stuff like dyson swarms become needed (and feasible), and thats a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong way away.
Post by: hops on October 11, 2016, 02:50:30 pm
Tell that to split-brain patients.I mean if you got a massive brain injury or Alzheimer's I'd classify that as dying too.
Sometimes you even physically die and gets revived when that happens.
Post by: miauw62 on October 11, 2016, 04:38:40 pm
You don't even need fusion to solve all our energy woes. All you need is cheap solar arrays and decent batteries, something everyone can already have, and will be able to have for actualy cheap prices in about a decade or less. The sun already dumps a shitton of energy on earth on a daily based and more then 99,9% of it isn't used by humans.decent, cheap batteries literally don't exist tho, especially not at that scale
Fusion is a nifty thing though, once we actualy get it, we'll basically solve all our energy needs till the time stuff like dyson swarms become needed (and feasible), and thats a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong way away.
and it's not always sunny everywhere. solar panels become a lot less effective in temperate climates, and transporting all that energy from the equator isn't reasonable.
Post by: Descan on October 11, 2016, 04:48:08 pm
Post by: Max™ on October 11, 2016, 10:02:40 pm
>thinking like a grounderYou don't even need fusion to solve all our energy woes. All you need is cheap solar arrays and decent batteries, something everyone can already have, and will be able to have for actualy cheap prices in about a decade or less. The sun already dumps a shitton of energy on earth on a daily based and more then 99,9% of it isn't used by humans.decent, cheap batteries literally don't exist tho, especially not at that scale
Fusion is a nifty thing though, once we actualy get it, we'll basically solve all our energy needs till the time stuff like dyson swarms become needed (and feasible), and thats a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong way away.
and it's not always sunny everywhere. solar panels become a lot less effective in temperate climates, and transporting all that energy from the equator isn't reasonable.
It is literally sunny everywhere except the little patches of shade behind the various bits of debris floating around doing nothing but generating gravity wells and hosting silly little spatiotemporal structures like us.
If I cut you in half vertically and grafted a robot body to both half of you, both will be a different person from you.Are the arms of the letter Y different from the stem? Sure, are they not part of the letter? Well, by definition, no, that is what that symbol is agreed to represent after all.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 12, 2016, 11:06:49 am
The real problem is that the terms have no definition. What is rich? What is poor?
What is me? At what point between the spectrum me and you do I become you, if some effect were slowly transforming me into you?
It's almost meaningless, because we don't even know exactly what we are. Almost certainly we are simply an emergent property of the brain processing information, but since we cannot define 'me-ness' we cannot say at what point the 'me-ness' stops. I'm not even convinced that the distinction is meaningful. What, really, is the difference between a biological computer and an electronic one if they give the same response to stimuli? If you receive the same output to all input, they are functionally identical so the only argument over the difference would be a spiritual one, which is an argument nobody can win because there is no proof such a thing even exists.
It is my opinion that the thing which makes you 'you' is the unique interactions only you are capable of. Only you will react a certain way to a certain thing. A computer simulating your brain perfectly would react the same way to the same thing, and thus is also 'you'. A simulation running independent of your brain will eventually diverge from 'you' and become a different 'you' if it receives different stimulus and input, just the way two identical twins diverge if raised in different settings.
Heap problem, that's what it is.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 12, 2016, 11:20:48 am
What's really amusing is that some of those transient structures have anxiety over the strands of protein filament on their heads and hope other structures will find the arrangement of said strands pleasing.
And that is a superb example of the stepping-away that sociologists and anthropologists do. (I don't remember the real term. My curse: knowing so many things, and yet having no way of referencing many of them. It's like that thing where you no longer have a connection to a datum in a computer because you de-assigned its memory space, or something. See? Meta. If I knew that term, I'd be able to say it.)
(Edit: It's dereferencing.)
Post by: scrdest on October 12, 2016, 12:51:39 pm
Or garbage collection, if you want to be sardonic.What's really amusing is that some of those transient structures have anxiety over the strands of protein filament on their heads and hope other structures will find the arrangement of said strands pleasing.
And that is a superb example of the stepping-away that sociologists and anthropologists do. (I don't remember the real term. My curse: knowing so many things, and yet having no way of referencing many of them. It's like that thing where you no longer have a connection to a datum in a computer because you de-assigned its memory space, or something. See? Meta. If I knew that term, I'd be able to say it.)
(Edit: It's dereferencing.)
Post by: miauw62 on October 12, 2016, 12:59:14 pm
well that is the whole point of Musk's Gigafactory, so...which is an absolutely fucking massive factory just for producing car batteries that let a car drive 335 miles. (a car that isnt exactly cheap)
you want to use those to smooth out the power needs of the entire world?
Post by: Max™ on October 12, 2016, 01:37:50 pm
Well, I've only got a theoretical degree in physics, but that's where my comments on our 4-D extents containing numerous slices, each of which observe the current moment to be "now", yet all exist. If part of your 4-D structure extends into a computer and there is continuity between the memory of earlier slices and the boundary slices, it is obviously the same person, even if that structure splits into multiple sections, though their mindstates would begin to diverge immediately relative to each other from the point of branching, they are all a continuation of the same structure, as the branches of the letter Y would be continuations of the stem.What's really amusing is that some of those transient structures have anxiety over the strands of protein filament on their heads and hope other structures will find the arrangement of said strands pleasing.
And that is a superb example of the stepping-away that sociologists and anthropologists do. (I don't remember the real term. My curse: knowing so many things, and yet having no way of referencing many of them. It's like that thing where you no longer have a connection to a datum in a computer because you de-assigned its memory space, or something. See? Meta. If I knew that term, I'd be able to say it.)
(Edit: It's dereferencing.)
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 12, 2016, 01:43:44 pm
That is a really good point. Would an alternate-universe me be the same me as me?
Post by: Frumple on October 12, 2016, 01:53:00 pm
Post by: Sergarr on October 12, 2016, 02:13:04 pm
It is obvious that the main problem people have with "multiple me being all equal" interpretation is that "branching" thing. If we could make a reversal of that process and sort of resynchronise those mindstates after branching while keeping all or almost all pre-merge memories intact, we wouldn't have that many people objecting to that stuff.Well, I've only got a theoretical degree in physics, but that's where my comments on our 4-D extents containing numerous slices, each of which observe the current moment to be "now", yet all exist. If part of your 4-D structure extends into a computer and there is continuity between the memory of earlier slices and the boundary slices, it is obviously the same person, even if that structure splits into multiple sections, though their mindstates would begin to diverge immediately relative to each other from the point of branching, they are all a continuation of the same structure, as the branches of the letter Y would be continuations of the stem.What's really amusing is that some of those transient structures have anxiety over the strands of protein filament on their heads and hope other structures will find the arrangement of said strands pleasing.
And that is a superb example of the stepping-away that sociologists and anthropologists do. (I don't remember the real term. My curse: knowing so many things, and yet having no way of referencing many of them. It's like that thing where you no longer have a connection to a datum in a computer because you de-assigned its memory space, or something. See? Meta. If I knew that term, I'd be able to say it.)
(Edit: It's dereferencing.)
At least I think it would help.
Post by: forsaken1111 on October 12, 2016, 02:33:49 pm
Generally a low-fidelity copy, one smart enough to perform basic things like managing your appointments, is fine but high-resolution copies capable of independent action and thought are restricted or even illegal.
You might spin off a copy of your mind to attend a work meeting and then integrate those memories later, while another copy of yourself gets the shopping done via online catalog, all while the 'real' you is sitting on the train off to visit your friend.
Under this fictional setting those copies are never granted independent rights but a copy of your mind is respected as if it were wholly you, and you are responsible for any actions taken.
And yes, out-of-control copies are a common plot point. In some societies, such copies are fitted with the software equivalent of a kill switch to remotely deactivate them in case they start causing trouble. As you can imagine, the morality of all this causes a lot of problems in the game and several factions have banned the practice outright.
This is also a game where you can simply download your mind into a comms network and transmit it to another space station where you're loaded into a loaner body, rather than travel there the slow way.
Post by: Max™ on October 12, 2016, 03:06:21 pm
I was referring to things like Nacirema, btw.Define "alternate universe" though.
That is a really good point. Would an alternate-universe me be the same me as me?
Like a many-worlds interpretation? Why a branching universes instead of an overlapping phase space?
As it is, if you've seen those .gifs of a tesseract rotating and got the general idea that the extra dimension, in/out, ana/kata, w-/w+, whatever term, is the one where the rotation which looks like it is deforming the shape takes place, but that all sides are always the same size and shape, it's just that rotating through that extra dimension isn't a thing we're good at seeing, right?
Ok, now take a dot and inflate it into a sphere, then rotate it like those tesseracts so it kinda resembles a ball wearing a conical hat <o and realize that if you slice a 3-D sphere out of that 4-D shape you get a sphere, and if you were a piece of that shape looking at it from the inside you would observe a spherical volume around you which seemed to originate in a very small dense state and is expanding.
Your brain is a tool that slices the 4-D universe into a 3-D shape you can observe and interact with by organizing those slices into a pattern by which you can note changes from one slice to the next. One may ask why it doesn't organize them and provide a sense of awareness which proceeds into the past, and that is a good question, but there are less ways to make use of an overall tendency for entropy to decrease I expect, than the various methods by which local decreases against an overall trend of increasing entropy can lead to useful results.
It's rather silly all in all, the moment I am typing this existed just like the moment in which you were writing the post I am responding to. The difference was that we couldn't see it from those earlier moments, but I was able to see it recently, and my slicing tool imparts a sense of continuity that tells me I saw that moment recently.
Generally there are lots of animals that possess this ability to, how would you put it... remember things that happened recently. There are some which can anticipate things that will happen soon.
There are not many which can know that those moments in the future, just like this one, exist in the same sense as those earlier moments I was discussing before. The way basic awareness works here just isn't set up to need that information, even ours has to be reminded of the fact that time is not a process, it is not a thing that happens, it is the direction along which events can be said to happen but even then language isn't well suited for it.
Extending that to another region of spacetime which is almost exactly like our own but doesn't overlap our own requires a rather tortured explanation for why that other region wouldn't have it's own shape, rather than being an almost-copy of ours.
Assuming we went past some Asimov point into full on tech=magic territory and could bud off universes exactly like our own at the moment of budding but which aren't constrained to unfurl beyond that point, then the you in that universe would have the same sense of continuity that you feel right now, except right now I'm going to close my eyes and type a key after hitting enter twice:
g
In the other universe I hit o or something, so there is another you which saw this same post with an o where that g is, are they still you?
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 12, 2016, 03:11:07 pm
I was referring to things like Nacirema, btw.Define "alternate universe" though.
That is a really good point. Would an alternate-universe me be the same me as me?
Like a many-worlds interpretation? Why a branching universes instead of an overlapping phase space?
Layman's popular "alternate universe," as in "another dimension!" (*shudder*) What is an "overlapping phase space"?
Quote
As it is, if you've seen those .gifs of a tesseract rotating and got the general idea that the extra dimension, in/out, ana/kata, w-/w+, whatever term, is the one where the rotation which looks like it is deforming the shape takes place, but that all sides are always the same size and shape, it's just that rotating through that extra dimension isn't a thing we're good at seeing, right?I think maybe causation?
Ok, now take a dot and inflate it into a sphere, then rotate it like those tesseracts so it kinda resembles a ball wearing a conical hat <o and realize that if you slice a 3-D sphere out of that 4-D shape you get a sphere, and if you were a piece of that shape looking at it from the inside you would observe a spherical volume around you which seemed to originate in a very small dense state and is expanding.
Your brain is a tool that slices the 4-D universe into a 3-D shape you can observe and interact with by organizing those slices into a pattern by which you can note changes from one slice to the next. One may ask why it doesn't organize them and provide a sense of awareness which proceeds into the past, and that is a good question, but there are less ways to make use of an overall tendency for entropy to decrease I expect, than the various methods by which local decreases against an overall trend of increasing entropy can lead to useful results.
Quote
It's rather silly all in all, the moment I am typing this existed just like the moment in which you were writing the post I am responding to. The difference was that we couldn't see it from those earlier moments, but I was able to see it recently, and my slicing tool imparts a sense of continuity that tells me I saw that moment recently.They may get signals about earthquakes before we do, but information still travels at lightspeed, and always forward in time, right?
Generally there are lots of animals that possess this ability to, how would you put it... remember things that happened recently. There are some which can anticipate things that will happen soon.
Quote
There are not many which can know that those moments in the future, just like this one, exist in the same sense as those earlier moments I was discussing before. The way basic awareness works here just isn't set up to need that information, even ours has to be reminded of the fact that time is not a process, it is not a thing that happens, it is the direction along which events can be said to happen but even then language isn't well suited for it.Oh, I see!
Extending that to another region of spacetime which is almost exactly like our own but doesn't overlap our own requires a rather tortured explanation for why that other region wouldn't have it's own shape, rather than being an almost-copy of ours.
]quote]Assuming we went past some Asimov point into full on tech=magic territory and could bud off universes exactly like our own at the moment of budding but which aren't constrained to unfurl beyond that point, then the you in that universe would have the same sense of continuity that you feel right now, except right now I'm going to close my eyes and type a key after hitting enter twice:
g
In the other universe I hit o or something, so there is another you which saw this same post with an o where that g is, are they still you?
[/quote]
Not necessarily.
Post by: Starver on October 12, 2016, 03:14:54 pm
(These days, one could imagine a 'bot to just persistently trawl Twitter on your behalf to tag which of all the innumerable tweets you might actually be intested in (regardless of Following status), possibly also autoreply/retweet back at the same time with the full authority and confidence of you, bringing to your own notice everything that 'you' have ultimately noted as important to see or know that 'you' have done.)
Post by: Max™ on October 12, 2016, 03:24:58 pm
Though now I've got the idea in my head of taking the 4-D point > sphere rotation to produce the cone-hat-ball universe and expanding it to fill a 5-D shape, but besides blooming them all out of the same point I can't figure out how to do the full rotation along the new axis, and can't figure out what it would represent in a physical sense... but I guess you could handwave it into something like the layman "alternate universe" idea, but either every cone-hat-ball slice is the same, or they're randomized from the point, hmmmm... I guess overlapping parts of the (x, y, z) slices along the t axis is fine, so I don't really know why I shouldn't be looking at overlapping the (x, y, z, t) volumes along the w axis.
If it was a smooth continuum then the volumes most similar to our own being found adjacent to our own volume would be a clean result.
Hmmm. I must ponder this out more.
Post by: Catmeat on October 12, 2016, 03:28:54 pm
Hmmm. I must ponder this out more.Take some LSD to assist you.
DNA was discovered by some nerd on the drug.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 12, 2016, 03:30:09 pm
Post by: Max™ on October 12, 2016, 03:32:44 pm
I've tried it, it was neat, but it's not actually useful for mathematical and physical theorizing, though I can understand why it might feel like it is.Hmmm. I must ponder this out more.Take some LSD to assist you.
DNA was discovered by some nerd on the drug.
Post by: x2yzh9 on October 12, 2016, 03:38:49 pm
Well, the structure and the shape was indeed discovered by some random scientist on LSD. That same scientist believes the earth and other planets were seeded by large seedships, but I won't go into that topic..instead(feel free to ask though)Hmmm. I must ponder this out more.Take some LSD to assist you.
DNA was discovered by some nerd on the drug.
I choose to represent this as relativity. Of course, Albert Einstein explained it in the sense that most people are trying to understand today. It's so simple to me though, (probably because science thinking has literally made me go crazy before) but it is a passion I hold.
In lehmans term, albert einsteins theory of general relativity basically explains everything that has already been said here. It's relative, you see-A theory I once garnered at a young age was that inside of every human being, every cell, even every atom, is a multiverse inside of itself. You see-matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Therefore, it makes sense to me at least that every cell in your body has a universe inside of it. For example we have mitochondria-the powerhouse. What power holds our universe together? Why, relativity(not gonna say higgs boson because I have certain issues with CERN I'd rather not elaborate on) of course. So really, we are constantly in a multiverse constrained by the own universes that we create or destroy, every day. By growing a plant, you create a universe completely different. By destroying a plant in the same way, the ashes rise and create a new universe in it's destruction.
Albert einstein(I feel, but do not know) felt the way that he shouldn't tell everybody all this, because his various theories would scare the living shit out of people. But it's actually peaceful to me to know that regardless of the conspiracy theories that 'we are in a matrix' it can be explained simply and non-scarily like this.
Everything I just said represents the fact that we, as human beings or whatever, hold a matrix. Now, think outside of the box on the aspect that we are in a matrix. For all we know our universe could literally just be a mitochondria in an ulterior universe.
I hope everything I said made sense. Please, ask questions and quote specifically so I may answer them if you wish.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 12, 2016, 03:42:13 pm
Well, the structure and the shape was indeed discovered by some random scientist on LSD. That same scientist believes the earth and other planets were seeded by large seedships, but I won't go into that topic..instead(feel free to ask though)Hmmm. I must ponder this out more.Take some LSD to assist you.
DNA was discovered by some nerd on the drug.
I choose to represent this as relativity. Of course, Albert Einstein explained it in the sense that most people are trying to understand today. It's so simple to me though, (probably because science thinking has literally made me go crazy before) but it is a passion I hold.
In lehmans term, albert einsteins theory of general relativity basically explains everything that has already been said here. It's relative, you see-A theory I once garnered at a young age was that inside of every human being, every cell, even every atom, is a multiverse inside of itself. You see-matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Therefore, it makes sense to me at least that every cell in your body has a universe inside of it. For example we have mitochondria-the powerhouse. What power holds our universe together? Why, relativity(not gonna say higgs boson because I have certain issues with CERN I'd rather not elaborate on) of course. So really, we are constantly in a multiverse constrained by the own universes that we create or destroy, every day. By growing a plant, you create a universe completely different. By destroying a plant in the same way, the ashes rise and create a new universe in it's destruction.
Albert einstein(I feel, but do not know) felt the way that he shouldn't tell everybody all this, because his various theories would scare the living shit out of people. But it's actually peaceful to me to know that regardless of the conspiracy theories that 'we are in a matrix' it can be explained simply and non-scarily like this.
Everything I just said represents the fact that we, as human beings or whatever, hold a matrix. Now, think outside of the box on the aspect that we are in a matrix. For all we know our universe could literally just be a mitochondria in an ulterior universe.
I hope everything I said made sense. Please, ask questions and quote specifically so I may answer them if you wish.
AAAAAAUGH
Relativity is not a "force holding everything together." It's a law or model that describes (general) spacetime warping and gravity or (special) the effects of near-c travel.
The Planck time and distance place constraints on "tinier universes within our own." We're the bottom, at least.
Post by: x2yzh9 on October 12, 2016, 03:47:08 pm
and I whole heartedly accept that argument, although I would kindly differ on the idea that were the bottom level of the universe. When your in zero gravity space there are no cardinal directions for instance, so how could we identify us to be the top or bottom level of this multiverse? That is my question, please do answer.Well, the structure and the shape was indeed discovered by some random scientist on LSD. That same scientist believes the earth and other planets were seeded by large seedships, but I won't go into that topic..instead(feel free to ask though)Hmmm. I must ponder this out more.Take some LSD to assist you.
DNA was discovered by some nerd on the drug.
I choose to represent this as relativity. Of course, Albert Einstein explained it in the sense that most people are trying to understand today. It's so simple to me though, (probably because science thinking has literally made me go crazy before) but it is a passion I hold.
In lehmans term, albert einsteins theory of general relativity basically explains everything that has already been said here. It's relative, you see-A theory I once garnered at a young age was that inside of every human being, every cell, even every atom, is a multiverse inside of itself. You see-matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Therefore, it makes sense to me at least that every cell in your body has a universe inside of it. For example we have mitochondria-the powerhouse. What power holds our universe together? Why, relativity(not gonna say higgs boson because I have certain issues with CERN I'd rather not elaborate on) of course. So really, we are constantly in a multiverse constrained by the own universes that we create or destroy, every day. By growing a plant, you create a universe completely different. By destroying a plant in the same way, the ashes rise and create a new universe in it's destruction.
Albert einstein(I feel, but do not know) felt the way that he shouldn't tell everybody all this, because his various theories would scare the living shit out of people. But it's actually peaceful to me to know that regardless of the conspiracy theories that 'we are in a matrix' it can be explained simply and non-scarily like this.
Everything I just said represents the fact that we, as human beings or whatever, hold a matrix. Now, think outside of the box on the aspect that we are in a matrix. For all we know our universe could literally just be a mitochondria in an ulterior universe.
I hope everything I said made sense. Please, ask questions and quote specifically so I may answer them if you wish.
AAAAAAUGH
Relativity is not a "force holding everything together." It's a law or model that describes (general) spacetime warping and gravity or (special) the effects of near-c travel.
The Planck time and distance place constraints on "tinier universes within our own." We're the bottom, at least.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 12, 2016, 03:58:04 pm
Post by: i2amroy on October 12, 2016, 04:00:01 pm
The two reference frames are absolutely unconnected other than the fact that they use similar terminology, and any sort of attempt to combine the two based on the shear fact that they happen to use similar terms is just going to cause worthless confusion that is absolutely meaningless.
Post by: x2yzh9 on October 12, 2016, 04:03:41 pm
Yeah, no offense, but the only reason that that question would appear to make any sense at all is because you're falsely using the same word twice in two different contexts. When you're talking about space you use the terms "top" or "bottom to reference cardinal directions (which of course don't actually exist without a frame of reference). On the other hand Doze was using the term "bottom" in the frame of reference of some sort of "universal stack" of universes within universe, i.e. to represent the universe that contained no other universes within it.very true
The two reference frames are absolutely unconnected other than the fact that they use similar terminology, and any sort of attempt to combine the two based on the shear fact that they happen to use similar terms is just going to cause worthless confusion that is absolutely meaningless.
Post by: Gentlefish on October 12, 2016, 04:16:52 pm
And somehow, fusion in light elements gives energy. That one still stumps me a little bit.
What's interesting, though, is iron. Iron is a net loss for bot fission and fusion; it's the element at the bottom of the food-chain. Again, I personally dunno why, but it's there and it's one of the more common metals we use in day-to-day.
Post by: Sergarr on October 12, 2016, 04:45:33 pm
And somehow, fusion in light elements gives energy. That one still stumps me a little bit.That's easy! As every nuclear fairy knows, the energy that binds protons and neutrons together is actually also mass - but, since that's negative energy, the mass is also negative - hence it's called "mass defect". For light atoms, the extra energy from fusion arises from that mass defect, since the mass of light elements separate from each other is actually bigger than the mass of the combined element. Cool, isn't it?
Post by: Descan on October 12, 2016, 04:56:49 pm
last i heard it was for all his batteries, including the residential and commercial batterieswell that is the whole point of Musk's Gigafactory, so...which is an absolutely fucking massive factory just for producing car batteries that let a car drive 335 miles. (a car that isnt exactly cheap)
you want to use those to smooth out the power needs of the entire world?
Post by: Max™ on October 12, 2016, 06:18:36 pm
I was thinking more of something like a 5-D cone, but I keep coming back to it suggesting a big-bounce type of scenario, and then somehow I wound up reading a pdf on how to crochet hyperbolic planes. (http://www.math.cornell.edu/%7Edwh/papers/crochet/crochet.PDF)I was trying to figure out how to reconcile some of the many-worlds interpretations of quantum mechanics, where each possible outcome of an event coexists with the 4-D shape of the universe, so the phase space of a 4-D universe would be... hell this is another region where language is not built to handle it, mathematics though?
Though now I've got the idea in my head of taking the 4-D point > sphere rotation to produce the cone-hat-ball universe and expanding it to fill a 5-D shape, but besides blooming them all out of the same point I can't figure out how to do the full rotation along the new axis, and can't figure out what it would represent in a physical sense... but I guess you could handwave it into something like the layman "alternate universe" idea, but either every cone-hat-ball slice is the same, or they're randomized from the point, hmmmm... I guess overlapping parts of the (x, y, z) slices along the t axis is fine, so I don't really know why I shouldn't be looking at overlapping the (x, y, z, t) volumes along the w axis.
If it was a smooth continuum then the volumes most similar to our own being found adjacent to our own volume would be a clean result.
Hmmm. I must ponder this out more.
You're rotating the unit ball. It's rotationally invariant no matter how many dimensions you're dealing with. Unless I've misunderstood exactly what you're trying to do here.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 12, 2016, 06:38:25 pm
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 12, 2016, 06:41:26 pm
Wait, no it wouldn't be a line, it would be two points.
Edit: Ah, I get it. A 0-sphere is two points. It's the boundary of a 1-ball.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 12, 2016, 06:43:52 pm
Post by: Eric Blank on October 12, 2016, 11:51:48 pm
Oh, I do recall at one point someone was going to test that cute microwave engine thing in orbit. Has that happened yet?
Post by: Max™ on October 12, 2016, 11:54:28 pm
Post by: Sergarr on October 14, 2016, 01:08:14 am
Quote from: https://news.wsu.edu/2016/10/10/soybean-nitrogen-breakthrough-help-feed-world/
PULLMAN, Wash. – Washington State University biologist Mechthild Tegeder has developed a way to dramatically increase the yield and quality of soybeans.
Her greenhouse-grown soybean plants fix twice as much nitrogen from the atmosphere as their natural counterparts, grow larger and produce up to 36 percent more seeds.
Tegeder designed a novel way to increase the flow of nitrogen, an essential nutrient, from specialized bacteria in soybean root nodules to the seed-producing organs. She and Amanda Carter, a biological sciences graduate student, found the increased rate of nitrogen transport kicked the plants into overdrive.
Their work, published recently in Current Biology, is a major breakthrough in the science of improving crop yields. It could eventually help address society’s critical challenge of feeding a growing human population while protecting the environment.
Who was saying here that we need to start reducing world population ASAP or we'll all starve, again?
Post by: Putnam on October 14, 2016, 01:43:51 am
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 14, 2016, 02:15:35 am
These windfalls? They're not free. They've all come with severe risks. This only encourages more monoculturing. Do you have any idea what would happen if a corn blight we couldn't contain mutated and spread, even for just one year? Or worse, a rice blight? It could happen tomorrow. Every single day we rely on an at-risk base is a day it could start to come crashing down on top of us.
You are not going to beat nature. We can live in harmony with the rest of the world or not, but make no mistake, we cannot go toe to toe and survive in a desirable way. We're about as close to that level of understanding and technological aptitude as the Romans were from artificial intelligence.
Post by: Max™ on October 14, 2016, 03:59:23 am
I mean, you take things which could sound reasonable, but then go a few extra steps into "YOU MANIACS, DAMN YOU, DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!" territory.
I mean, you're talking about setting up monocultures and monocrops, the US has about 1.4 million km2 of arable land in use, with tons of different crops across it all.
It also has around 130,000 km2 of land devoted to a specific type of crop.
See if you can guess which one, corn maybe, wheat, ooh, tobacco might be it!
Got your guess in mind?
Spoiler: Click to see if you figured it out. (click to show/hide)
So hey, there are things to get mad about, really the whole "let's use ethanol to reduce CO2 emissions" turning into "LET'S GROW ALL THE CORN FOR ETHANOL" is kinda crazy, and naturally monocropping is a problem, just not sure if it's quite in the "goddamn it fuck it all you stupid bastards deserve to die" sort of territory you make it sound like.
Post by: Gentlefish on October 14, 2016, 04:48:40 am
Quote from: https://news.wsu.edu/2016/10/10/soybean-nitrogen-breakthrough-help-feed-world/PULLMAN, Wash. – Washington State University biologist Mechthild Tegeder has developed a way to dramatically increase the yield and quality of soybeans.
Her greenhouse-grown soybean plants fix twice as much nitrogen from the atmosphere as their natural counterparts, grow larger and produce up to 36 percent more seeds.
Tegeder designed a novel way to increase the flow of nitrogen, an essential nutrient, from specialized bacteria in soybean root nodules to the seed-producing organs. She and Amanda Carter, a biological sciences graduate student, found the increased rate of nitrogen transport kicked the plants into overdrive.
Their work, published recently in Current Biology, is a major breakthrough in the science of improving crop yields. It could eventually help address society’s critical challenge of feeding a growing human population while protecting the environment.
Who was saying here that we need to start reducing world population ASAP or we'll all starve, again?
Sweet, that's literally across the state line for me. Wonder if the U of I helped in that research; we have our own food sciences labs, too.
Post by: Reelya on October 14, 2016, 05:49:15 am
Post by: scrdest on October 14, 2016, 10:18:57 am
So long as it doesn't open up a vulnerability, couldn't you just shove that gene sequence into any old cultivar and bypass the whole 'super monoculture' thing?From the looks of it, it works in a different way. It's a purely regulatory modification by the way it's worded. So it would only work on plants that use the same kind of pathway to transport nitrogen, and it would be limited to plants with rhizobia.
Post by: Bumber on October 14, 2016, 11:50:12 am
It also has around 130,000 km2 of land devoted to a specific type of crop.Objection! Not a crop.
See if you can guess which one, corn maybe, wheat, ooh, tobacco might be it!
Got your guess in mind?Spoiler: Click to see if you figured it out. (click to show/hide)
Post by: Solifuge on October 14, 2016, 12:08:07 pm
Great Barrier Reef Obituary Goes Viral, To The Horror Of Scientists (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/scientists-take-on-great-barrier-reef-obituary_us_57fff8f1e4b0162c043b068f)
Ocean Acidification, Ocean Heating, and Coral Bleaching isn't really news for most people up on Climate Change. Still, the GBR suffered a major blow after a bleaching event recently, and it's worrying that there might be more to come.
There's a rich ecosystem and important feeding and breeding ground created by the GBR, and there's apparently 70,000 or so jobs dependent on it. Whether your concerns are ecological or economic, the fact that we've now lost 20%+ of the reef is really bad news.
Antropocene Mass Extinction Event, ho? I hope not.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 14, 2016, 01:37:34 pm
I'm curious how old you are, MSH, if you don't mind my asking. I don't think it will explain the weird apocalyptic bend or anything, just curious if it's a young guy who's passionate about this, or an old man ranting or what.This is one of those questions there's no reason to answer, since any answer will simply be used in a justification for dismissing my arguments.
Quote
I mean, you take things which could sound reasonable, but then go a few extra steps into "YOU MANIACS, DAMN YOU, DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!" territory.It is a fundamental human conceit to say "it won't be that bad, it won't happen to me". I would have more tolerance for these sort of risks if they were actually ever addressed, but control of society has the ear of short-sighted debt traders and stockholders. We are only getting more and more fragile as time goes on, because that fragility serves to help peak the current economic order. We're in a bad fucking way when a major crop blight today could potentially do more damage than a major crop blight in 1810.
Quote
I mean, you're talking about setting up monocultures and monocrops, the US has about 1.4 million km2 of arable land in use, with tons of different crops across it all.The landmass is not the primary issue, the primary issue is that seeking a monocrop (easier and cheaper but more vulnerable than diversity) puts everything we use those crops for at risk. It is obviously a matter of scale, but breakthroughs like the above are enticing deals with the devil. Some jackoff agribusiness executive is going to see that shit and be like "Three times our current sales if we transition to soybeans! Make it so!". Symmetry is death.
It also has around 130,000 km2 of land devoted to a specific type of crop.
See if you can guess which one, corn maybe, wheat, ooh, tobacco might be it!
Got your guess in mind?Spoiler: Click to see if you figured it out. (click to show/hide)
Quote
So hey, there are things to get mad about, really the whole "let's use ethanol to reduce CO2 emissions" turning into "LET'S GROW ALL THE CORN FOR ETHANOL" is kinda crazy, and naturally monocropping is a problem, just not sure if it's quite in the "goddamn it fuck it all you stupid bastards deserve to die" sort of territory you make it sound like.It's not about what we deserve, the universe is apathetic. My frustrations stem from the unstoppable stubborn insistence of people to stick on their familiar lifestyle as the best and only way to live, that must be protected at least until they die no matter the consequences. All of this becomes a lot easier if you accept that some fundamental changes would be a good thing, not just for the planet but for yourself as well, and not just in the "not all die" way either.
Meanwhile, I'm stuck arguing policy points with people who think ecology is a Red Chinese plot to discredit American industriousness, and there comes a point where you start to take solace in their probable future death by ignorance.
Post by: Max™ on October 14, 2016, 03:15:38 pm
Myself, I've got apocalyptic malaise, listening to various doom and gloom scenarios since the late 80's I could just as easily say it is a damn near normal human response to look at something and immediately jump to the worst possible outcome and begin trying to convince others about the impending end of the world.
When you're living in a grassland and see smoke, or hearing the rumbles of an incoming flood, detecting an ambush before the lions actually get the chance to spring it, these would be incredibly valuable times to say "OH SHIT GUYS WE ARE ALL FUCKED, LISTEN TO ME!" but nowadays these instincts aren't tuned to the right scale. We can't hear 10+ km meteors, identify the launches of icbm strikes, or look at the ground and know a magnitude 8.5 quake is about to strike. We are aware of them though, and our danger scanners are still active, so it's almost comforting to find a new apocalypse it seems?
Obituary: Great Barrier Reef (25 Million BC-2016) (http://www.outsideonline.com/2112086/obituary-great-barrier-reef-25-million-bc-2016?utm_content=buffera9dd8&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=facebookpost)Ah, here's a more scientific source than huffpo: http://www.coralcoe.org.au/media-releases/coral-bleaching-taskforce-documents-most-severe-bleaching-on-record I mean, it's more scientific than most available sources, so it's pretty easy to beat out huffpo there.
Great Barrier Reef Obituary Goes Viral, To The Horror Of Scientists (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/scientists-take-on-great-barrier-reef-obituary_us_57fff8f1e4b0162c043b068f)
Ocean Acidification, Ocean Heating, and Coral Bleaching isn't really news for most people up on Climate Change. Still, the GBR suffered a major blow after a bleaching event recently, and it's worrying that there might be more to come.
There's a rich ecosystem and important feeding and breeding ground created by the GBR, and there's apparently 70,000 or so jobs dependent on it. Whether your concerns are ecological or economic, the fact that we've now lost 20%+ of the reef is really bad news.
Antropocene Mass Extinction Event, ho? I hope not.
Ok fine, though it is a cultivated plant, but it is only harvested for social acceptance, rather than actual use of the material. :PIt also has around 130,000 km2 of land devoted to a specific type of crop.Objection! Not a crop.
See if you can guess which one, corn maybe, wheat, ooh, tobacco might be it!
Got your guess in mind?Spoiler: Click to see if you figured it out. (click to show/hide)
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 14, 2016, 09:55:17 pm
Post by: Rose on October 15, 2016, 12:30:59 am
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on October 15, 2016, 12:33:26 am
What makes you think that changing to a solid state affects the absorption spectrum of a molecule/material?
Post by: Max™ on October 15, 2016, 02:44:25 am
I have a question: since molecules tend to absorb specific wavelengths, and collections of molecules in the form of gases do the same - why are solids different? What about solidity changes the absorption spectrum of a substance?You're looking at a rather complex field involving refraction, attenuation, opacity, scattering, optical depth, and so forth. I'd start looking here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_depth and see if you are familiar with any of the terms there, follow some back and forth to see the links, check the stuff you are less informed on, and be warned that the Beer-Lambert links down a rabbit hole which you may never be heard from again.
Post by: Sergarr on October 15, 2016, 05:35:45 am
I have a question: since molecules tend to absorb specific wavelengths, and collections of molecules in the form of gases do the same - why are solids different? What about solidity changes the absorption spectrum of a substance?Uh, I'm not sure it actually does, but if it does, then it's because of these things. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon)
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 15, 2016, 09:44:42 am
Why do you think solids have color?Don't gases have color too?
As far as I'm aware, it doesn't change the absorption spectrum of a substance. It's just that light reflects off of solids instead of passing through gases. Well. Probably more accurate to say that gases aren't dense enough to reflect as much light or something.But how does solidity result in reflection?
What makes you think that changing to a solid state affects the absorption spectrum of a molecule/material?
Thanks!I have a question: since molecules tend to absorb specific wavelengths, and collections of molecules in the form of gases do the same - why are solids different? What about solidity changes the absorption spectrum of a substance?You're looking at a rather complex field involving refraction, attenuation, opacity, scattering, optical depth, and so forth. I'd start looking here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_depth and see if you are familiar with any of the terms there, follow some back and forth to see the links, check the stuff you are less informed on, and be warned that the Beer-Lambert links down a rabbit hole which you may never be heard from again.
Would that be multiple molecules becoming excited/de-excited at once? If so, my hunch was correct.I have a question: since molecules tend to absorb specific wavelengths, and collections of molecules in the form of gases do the same - why are solids different? What about solidity changes the absorption spectrum of a substance?Uh, I'm not sure it actually does, but if it does, then it's because of these things. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon)
Doesn't Kirchhoff's apply to solids? I'm fairly sure that many solids are approximate gray bodies, and that would mean that they can absorb most wavelengths.
But I suppose I could re-state my question in a better way: How come solids are more like gray bodies than gases?
Post by: Frumple on October 15, 2016, 09:51:42 am
um
But how does solidity result in reflection?
it's in the name
in order to reflect
you have to have something to hit
the closer to solid you get
the tighter the weave
and the more stuff gets hit
the more stuff gets hit
the stronger the reflection
hence the more solid the material
the likelier it is to reflect
i'd call this a haiku but it's not
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 15, 2016, 10:02:19 am
Post by: Arx on October 15, 2016, 10:20:10 am
Post by: Sergarr on October 15, 2016, 10:21:34 am
Would that be multiple molecules becoming excited/de-excited at once? If so, my hunch was correct.No, it's not that. Those are excitations of the entire solid body as a single entity.
And I've checked wikipedia and it appears to not be phonons.
But I suppose I could re-state my question in a better way: How come solids are more like gray bodies than gases?Because solid body is a far better approximation of a "box for photons" that a gas. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law) In gas, photons can move rather freely and thus remain pure, with frequencies corresponding to spectral lines, but in solids, they get bounced around by the atoms a bajillion times, each time slightly shifting their frequency due to quantum bullshit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering), which eventually turns these pure innocent initially emitted photons into a generic black-body radiation mass, and visa-versa. At least, that's what I think is happening. Wikipedia is surprisingly unclear on the subject.
FAKEEDIT:
I'm a bit confused. If the photon doesn't have the right energy to be absorbed, how would it interact with the matter in any way? Photons are uncharged, gravity's not really doing anything at this scale, the weak force is the weak force, and the strong force wouldn't apply. (I'm still not sure what the weak force is, anyway, beyond [mumble mumble] radioactive decay [mumble mumble] (https://xkcd.com/1489/).)Well, since black bodies have a full radiation spectrum, any kind of photon (within reasonable bounds) will be able to get absorbed.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 15, 2016, 11:16:28 am
Post by: Sergarr on October 15, 2016, 12:14:13 pm
No, not the absorption, that I get. How does reflection occur?It's described quite well on wikipedia. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_(physics)#Mechanism) It's basically standard wave thing where every object obstructing the wave's movement becomes a source of secondary waves. When there are a lot of such objects, these secondary waves cancel each other out in almost all directions - except for one, which is where the reflection goes.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 15, 2016, 01:09:41 pm
Post by: alway on October 15, 2016, 04:34:50 pm
Post by: sjm9876 on October 15, 2016, 05:49:29 pm
The wonderful thing about physics is that there are often many possible explanations for the same result, especially in classical physics.
Post by: Max™ on October 15, 2016, 10:01:14 pm
See Richard Feynman's book QED for more details.Yar, it's a great source, Feynman was the man: http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/
Post by: Putnam on October 15, 2016, 11:08:18 pm
You have forgotten a really important fact: photons have wave-particle duality. They're not 'uncharged' as such.
Huh? I don't see how those are related at all.
Post by: Max™ on October 16, 2016, 12:12:19 am
Post by: Arx on October 16, 2016, 01:10:59 am
Quote from: Wikipedia
In classical electrodynamics, light is considered as an electromagnetic wave, which is described by Maxwell's equations. Light waves incident on a material induce small oscillations of polarisation in the individual atoms (or oscillation of electrons, in metals), causing each particle to radiate a small secondary wave in all directions, like a dipole antenna. All these waves add up to give specular reflection and refraction, according to the Huygens–Fresnel principle.
In this context, it's easier to consider light as a wave than as a particle, since it interacts electromagnetically with whatever it collides with. It doesn't make sense to consider a photon as having EM interactions, but it does make sense to consider an EM wave as having them.
If this doesn't make sense, sorry, I'm a bit sleepy.
Post by: Max™ on October 16, 2016, 01:19:26 am
Post by: Arx on October 16, 2016, 01:56:47 am
Post by: Starver on October 16, 2016, 03:52:51 am
Ohhhh, I was thinking you were saying that the wave-particle duality itself was the reason, I favor the wave description anyways.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Max™ on October 16, 2016, 06:42:19 am
Since we've tested QFT more we see cases where the particle explanation doesn't quite hold as well, so it's a useful way to think of things, and indeed waves aren't always the most ideal description of field excitations, but they're close enough for nuclear hand grenades.
Post by: Calidovi on October 18, 2016, 04:54:53 pm
Biology hasn't changed.
I agree for the most part. But 74s never made a point about the evolution of man, at least not in the quoted post.
Take a baby from the jungle and bring them up in the city. You get 100% perfect adaptation. That proves that tech hasn't had time to affect evolution. At the point that someone from the jungle is fundamentally impaired from ever operating at the level of city-folk, then you could make the claim that evolution was necessarily affected by tech.
A baby from the jungle brought up in the city immediately after before language development is from the city. If you're saying that anyone from the jungle can be integrated into society, just understand feral children's developmental problems.
Also, who gave a shit about how humans are evolving? We were talking about society. We're not Homo novus or whatever, but we have a far different society than we used to. Ancient Rome to right now is a far greater change than Homo neanderthalensis -> Homo erectus, regardless or the time difference.
But the baby-from-the-jungle's brain has actually been shaped by tech - 2 million years of hunter-gatherer tech. And that tech/evolution cycle explains all the cognitive adaptations to modern life (proved because hunter-gatherers do in fact adapt perfectly well).
Yeah, humans are adaptive. That's why we're adapting to the internet, and forming our culture with it.
Also, name one example of hunter-gatherer technology that we are automatically, instinctively inclined to and I'll tell you that it's because simple machines and trial and error makes sense. A feral child probably can't make an axe from the woods on their first try, no matter what the "Jungle Book" says.
I added it to my last post, but that's slipped to the previous page. Training a dog to do new tricks doesn't change their innate dog-ness.
Dogs are dogs, and men are men. Comparing the basic, instinct-based life of an individual dog to all of human society and development is fallacious.
Training a human to operate machines likewise doesn't change their innate human-ness. Sure, some things are going to be malleable, but other things are immutable consequences of how we're constructed.
Wait, so you originally said that our minds are shaped by hunter-gatherer technology, and now you say that machines don't change us? Where is the line drawn?
Please clarify your post, I can imagine that I've misconstrued many of your points. Also let me know if any of this in unclear.
Post by: Reelya on October 18, 2016, 04:56:48 pm
Biology hasn't changed.
I agree for the most part. But 74s never made a point about the evolution of man, at least not in the quoted post.Take a baby from the jungle and bring them up in the city. You get 100% perfect adaptation. That proves that tech hasn't had time to affect evolution. At the point that someone from the jungle is fundamentally impaired from ever operating at the level of city-folk, then you could make the claim that evolution was necessarily affected by tech.
A baby from the jungle brought up in the city immediately after before language development is from the city. If you're saying that anyone from the jungle can be integrated into society, just understand feral children's developmental problems.
We're talking about evolution here. Feral children is a red herring. i don't know where to start with what's wrong with that argument.
The question was: have humans evolved to be innately different because of living in cities. My answer was "no" because primitive hunter-gatherers blend right in. They're entirely the same in the "nature" side of things. Feral children is "nurture".
Basically, that fact that people evolved purely in a hunter-gatherer scenario for millions of years can adapt so fully to city life within a single generation proves that the genetic adaptation for hunter-gatherer life are already perfect for living in cities. We shape our cities for ourselves though, so that should be expected.
Post by: Calidovi on October 18, 2016, 04:59:50 pm
Biology hasn't changed.
I agree for the most part. But 74s never made a point about the evolution of man, at least not in the quoted post.
When did we get back to evolution? I thought this was a discussion of human society.
If reading 'feral children' throws you off, just read the rest of the post without it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Post by: Reelya on October 18, 2016, 05:02:31 pm
But if you want to talk about sociology and not science (which was the bit I was talking about all along) then why in heck have you derailed the farking science thread with a discussion that was already part of a sociology thread?
Post by: Calidovi on October 18, 2016, 05:15:33 pm
Obviously you didn't actually attempt to read anything I wrote from my very first post onwards, because I was always talking about evolution specifically.
Basically I was responding to the idea that everything's changed because we've adapted to the modern world, therefore we can throw out all the old evolutiony shit. Well, we haven't really changed at all.
Biology hasn't changed.
I agree for the most part.
If that's the case, though, you got me. I wasn't trying to argue against everything you've ever said in your life, but pointing out that 74s didn't seem to make the point that evolution had changed, which you debated. I guess it was similar to a sitcom misunderstanding.
In the last decade, with the proliferation (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8552410.stm) and growth (http://i.imgur.com/P2K3PWe.png) of the internet, human society has developed and changed a lot, and so has humanity.
That's the major quote I was looking at, but the meaning of "humanity" is indeed a bit confusing in that sentence. I guess I read that as being redundant. Perhaps it would have been better for them to say 'human species'.
But if you want to talk about sociology and not science (which was the bit I was talking about all along) then why in heck have you derailed the farking science thread with a discussion that was already part of a sociology thread?
Because this conversation was in a gender thread. I think human evolution and sociology is closer to 'science' than a thread about modern gender roles and sex. Even if you disagree, it's what Solifuge wanted. Also, define 'derailed' when the last post was two days ago.
Okay everyone. It's a neat discussion and folks are getting into it, which is cool. However, this discussion has taken over the thread and buried on-topic posts for 5 pages now. Plus, it's getting snippy and personal again.
If you want to continue it, can you please move to a new dedicated thread, or at least to the General Science Thread (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=112684.0)?
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 18, 2016, 09:16:23 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Max™ on October 18, 2016, 09:41:19 pm
Post by: Sergarr on October 24, 2016, 12:59:57 am
This could be big. If that's true and there is actually no acceleration, then the eponymous "dark energy", the one that is supposed to be like 80% of total mass-energy in the Universe, does not actually exist.
Post by: Reelya on October 24, 2016, 01:18:43 am
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on October 24, 2016, 01:34:52 am
Post by: Gentlefish on October 24, 2016, 01:40:59 am
Anybody hear about the hundreds of possible ETI signals discovered recently?
You mean these ones? (https://twitter.com/dirtbagg/status/789891183421952001) Apparently they only register 0 to 1 on the (albeit highly subjective) Rio scale. Insignificant to completely un-noteworthy.
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on October 24, 2016, 01:44:33 am
Post by: Max™ on October 24, 2016, 02:07:10 am
Apparently, the evidence for acceleration of Universe's expansion rate is not as concrete as we thought. (http://phys.org/news/2016-10-universe-rateor.html) Link to original scientific article in Nature. (http://www.nature.com/articles/srep35596)Well, more accurately, the evidence supporting the dark energy accelerating model is also consistent with a steady expansion model up to 3 sigma, or if the assumptions and calculated deviations are correct then the data gives a 99.7% probability for steady expansion.
This could be big. If that's true and there is actually no acceleration, then the eponymous "dark energy", the one that is supposed to be like 80% of total mass-energy in the Universe, does not actually exist.
They note in the paper that the CODEX telescope will be attempting to observe red shifts with sufficient resolution to see if they change over a 10~15 year period, which should be sufficient to reject either the steady state or accelerating expansion hypothesis.
Post by: Sergarr on October 24, 2016, 02:10:59 am
I can't imagine what these people feel now...
Post by: Reelya on October 24, 2016, 03:25:04 am
They note in the paper that the CODEX telescope will be attempting to observe red shifts with sufficient resolution to see if they change over a 10~15 year period, which should be sufficient to reject either the steady state or accelerating expansion hypothesis.
You should say steady expansion there, not steady state. since steady state (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory) is actually another incompatible cosmology model.
Post by: Max™ on October 24, 2016, 03:30:45 am
Post by: Starver on October 24, 2016, 08:16:38 am
What criteria were used to rate it?"Do they convey plans for a hugely impractical wormhole-generating gyroscope thingy?"
Post by: Il Palazzo on October 24, 2016, 11:37:47 am
Apparently, the evidence for acceleration of Universe's expansion rate is not as concrete as we thought. (http://phys.org/news/2016-10-universe-rateor.html) Link to original scientific article in Nature. (http://www.nature.com/articles/srep35596)This paper has been in preprint on ArXiV since last year. There was good discussion of it on Physics Forums:
This could be big. If that's true and there is actually no acceleration, then the eponymous "dark energy", the one that is supposed to be like 80% of total mass-energy in the Universe, does not actually exist.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/marginal-evidence-for-cosmic-acceleration-from-type-ia-sne.817386/page-2
What the paper says, is roughly: if we ignore nucleosynthesis and CMB power spectrum, and only consider the SNIa data, then it turns out the accelerating universe is only much more likely, rather than very much more likely than a steady (i.e. Milne-like) expansion - that is, not a solution without dark energy, but a rather convoluted one with DE evolving in a very specific way.
This is a far cry from saying that accelerated expansion is cast in doubt.
Post by: Sergarr on October 24, 2016, 12:00:14 pm
Ah, okay. So it's just a crank trying to undermine mainstream science, essentially?Apparently, the evidence for acceleration of Universe's expansion rate is not as concrete as we thought. (http://phys.org/news/2016-10-universe-rateor.html) Link to original scientific article in Nature. (http://www.nature.com/articles/srep35596)This paper has been in preprint on ArXiV since last year. There was good discussion of it on Physics Forums:
This could be big. If that's true and there is actually no acceleration, then the eponymous "dark energy", the one that is supposed to be like 80% of total mass-energy in the Universe, does not actually exist.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/marginal-evidence-for-cosmic-acceleration-from-type-ia-sne.817386/page-2
What the paper says, is roughly: if we ignore nucleosynthesis and CMB power spectrum, and only consider the SNIa data, then it turns out the accelerating universe is only much more likely, rather than very much more likely than a steady (i.e. Milne-like) expansion - that is, not a solution without dark energy, but a rather convoluted one with DE evolving in a very specific way.
This is a far cry from saying that accelerated expansion is cast in doubt.
Post by: Il Palazzo on October 24, 2016, 01:02:12 pm
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 24, 2016, 01:28:25 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 24, 2016, 01:52:22 pm
The truth is out there.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on October 24, 2016, 01:55:10 pm
*whoosh*
Post by: x2yzh9 on October 24, 2016, 02:47:30 pm
shadowbrokers
Also, on on topic news, why are they throwing out the idea of dark matter along with the fact that they are throwing out the idea that the universe is constantly accelerating? That's ridiculous imho, dark matter could just as well be a stabilization force within the universe considering the original hypothesis posits that it makes up 80% of our universe. I don't think that correlates to the percentage rate of expansion of the universe when that theory was long-ago made.
Post by: Max™ on October 24, 2016, 06:49:45 pm
Post by: Il Palazzo on October 25, 2016, 08:29:17 am
Also, on on topic news, why are they throwing out the idea of dark matter along with the fact that they are throwing out the idea that the universe is constantly accelerating? That's ridiculous imho, dark matter could just as well be a stabilization force within the universe considering the original hypothesis posits that it makes up 80% of our universe. I don't think that correlates to the percentage rate of expansion of the universe when that theory was long-ago made.Assuming you meant dark energy, not matter - they are not throwing out dark energy. A non-constant DE, whose density evolution is tracking matter density, is required to keep the expansion history steady. Without some form of DE, the expansion has to be strictly decelerating as matter (dark and baryonic) and radiation content works gravitationally to slow down the initial impulse.
Post by: x2yzh9 on October 25, 2016, 09:47:18 am
Hm, interesting. So, I wonder what the possible correlation could be to a earlier point in time when the earth was first formed, because(and I will have to find sources for this) the earth had an atmosphere so composed that people uh, apparently lived for hundreds of years and that's-If I'm not mistaken, why we use hyper-baric chambers to heal burn victims. Could this correlate with the term baryonic that you are using, and it's supposed impact on the study of dark 'matter' or energy? That's my question here.Also, on on topic news, why are they throwing out the idea of dark matter along with the fact that they are throwing out the idea that the universe is constantly accelerating? That's ridiculous imho, dark matter could just as well be a stabilization force within the universe considering the original hypothesis posits that it makes up 80% of our universe. I don't think that correlates to the percentage rate of expansion of the universe when that theory was long-ago made.Assuming you meant dark energy, not matter - they are not throwing out dark energy. A non-constant DE, whose density evolution is tracking matter density, is required to keep the expansion history steady. Without some form of DE, the expansion has to be strictly decelerating as matter (dark and baryonic) and radiation content works gravitationally to slow down the initial impulse.
Post by: Starver on October 25, 2016, 10:00:54 am
Post by: Max™ on October 25, 2016, 10:03:28 am
People didn't live for hundreds of years, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hyperbaric is speaking of significantly greater than regular atmospheric pressure, which is around 1 bar at sea level. Baryons are things like protons and neutrons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon
Post by: x2yzh9 on October 25, 2016, 11:01:16 am
Post by: Max™ on October 25, 2016, 12:30:56 pm
Post by: Max™ on October 25, 2016, 01:16:12 pm
Scientist cannot decide if Saturn is white and gold, or black and blue. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37766918)Well I have good news and bad news folks: god exists, but he's a troll.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 25, 2016, 01:18:45 pm
Post by: Starver on October 25, 2016, 01:33:33 pm
Scientist cannot decide if Saturn is white and gold, or black and blue. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37766918)No, it's neither. It's Bill Murray. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37762088).. ;)
Post by: Rolepgeek on October 25, 2016, 02:36:41 pm
Having a sorta trippy moment thinking about relativity and such at the moment.
Post by: hops on October 25, 2016, 02:41:00 pm
/me creates a bong movement wave function
Post by: Sergarr on October 25, 2016, 02:42:58 pm
relativity
waveI can't decide if I want to get amused or offended.
Post by: Egan_BW on October 25, 2016, 03:21:54 pm
Either works, depending on how you look at it.relativitywaveI can't decide if I want to get amused or offended.
Post by: Max™ on October 25, 2016, 03:52:36 pm
Post by: Helgoland on November 06, 2016, 08:11:03 pm
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on November 06, 2016, 09:20:53 pm
Post by: Max™ on November 06, 2016, 09:31:55 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: martinuzz on November 07, 2016, 05:09:20 pm
The 40 page article, published on Arxiv this night, is the first paper that offers an comprehensive explanation for dark matter, which has been one of the main problems in theoretical physics for decades.
Verlinde says in his paper, that dark matter is an illusion, based on our dated / obsolete understanding of gravity.
In 2010, Verlinde already made world news with his position that gravity is not a force, as assumed by Newton.
Einstein's perception of gravity as a curvature of spacetime is also dated / obsolete, according to Verlinde.
Instead of a force, the tendency of masses to move towards each other is a kind of pressure that is created by the change of information in the universe when a mass moves. When a mass appears heavy, it is because the universe resists lifting it.
In 2010 Verlinde surprised his international colleagues by deriving Newton's laws from his cosmic information theory. Back then, his theory did not include dark matter yet.
Now it does.
Sorry, my newspaper does not have a link yet to the arxiv file, probably because it's too fresh.
http://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/baanbrekende-theorie-donkere-materie-is-een-volstrekte-illusie~a4410710/ (http://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/baanbrekende-theorie-donkere-materie-is-een-volstrekte-illusie~a4410710/)
this is a link to the arxiv listing of his 2010 paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785)
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on November 07, 2016, 05:20:17 pm
Post by: Putnam on November 07, 2016, 05:22:27 pm
The 40 page article, published on Arxiv this night, is the first paper that offers an comprehensive explanation for dark matter, which has been one of the main problems in theoretical physics for decades.
can you tell me what the problem actually is
Eh, seems kind of ill-defined, but then again the same could be said for Einstein's Relativity.
not if you actually know anything about general relativity
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 07, 2016, 05:22:56 pm
Post by: Putnam on November 07, 2016, 05:24:11 pm
the idea of this "cosmic information" is disturbingly close to invoking simulation theory.
i don't see how? the universe acting as if it were a simulation is not strong evidence for the universe being one
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 07, 2016, 05:27:17 pm
I didn't say it was evidence, but it does leave the possibility open. As opposed to a universe that acts in a way which makes simulation impossible.the idea of this "cosmic information" is disturbingly close to invoking simulation theory.
i don't see how? the universe acting as if it were a simulation is not strong evidence for the universe being one
I'm also more talking about the tendencies of the author. If the cosmic information concept is being fueled by the belief that the universe is a simulation, the idea becomes suspect. It's the kind of thing I'd expect a person who believes in simulation to believe.
Post by: martinuzz on November 07, 2016, 05:27:25 pm
can you tell me what the problem actually isThe basic problem is that astronomical observations of star systems point at there being more gravity / mass than you would expect based on the observed stars. Dark matter is a hypothetical explanation of which no one had a clue what it actually is or if it exists at all.
Reading a bit more into it, it seems that it's not so much a "pressure" as it is entropy itself. Entropic gravity.yes, this, I might have worded it a bit wrongly with 'pressure'.
Post by: Sergarr on November 07, 2016, 06:08:53 pm
I've been thinking about that and it's an argument that doesn't quite work, since you don't actually know what the "actual system" is supposed to be, and so you can't observe this divergence.I didn't say it was evidence, but it does leave the possibility open. As opposed to a universe that acts in a way which makes simulation impossible.the idea of this "cosmic information" is disturbingly close to invoking simulation theory.
i don't see how? the universe acting as if it were a simulation is not strong evidence for the universe being one
I'm also more talking about the tendencies of the author. If the cosmic information concept is being fueled by the belief that the universe is a simulation, the idea becomes suspect. It's the kind of thing I'd expect a person who believes in simulation to believe.
It's fairly straightforward to handle. Chaos theory dictates that the "error" in any system propagates exponentially in any chaotic system. Simply demonstrate that the universe contains chaotic systems relying on fundamental constants. Hence, the simulation would exponentially diverge from the actual unless on infinite memory.
In fact, it seems like chaotic systems are easier to "realistically" simulate than the stable ones, since a lot of errors or mismatches can then be hidden underneath this "chaotic randomness".
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on November 07, 2016, 06:16:37 pm
Post by: Sergarr on November 07, 2016, 06:19:36 pm
Well, you'd have to demonstrate that no finite representation of the constant in question produces results matching the behavior in the universe itself.That would be pretty fucking hard, if not outright impossible, because all experimental measurements we can produce are finite values, too.
Post by: Rolepgeek on November 07, 2016, 07:01:54 pm
The amount of credibility I give to simulation theory can be modeled as a wave as a function of time and/or education. Most of it comes from the way the universe acts at it's limits, quantum stuff being fucking weird, and what takes precedence in physical interactions. Most of my anti-credibility for it comes from mathematical simplicities as I find out how stuff eventually boils down, and baseline incredulity.
Post by: Max™ on November 07, 2016, 07:32:37 pm
Post by: Putnam on November 07, 2016, 07:42:00 pm
can you tell me what the problem actually isThe basic problem is that astronomical observations of star systems point at there being more gravity / mass than you would expect based on the observed stars. Dark matter is a hypothetical explanation of which no one had a clue what it actually is or if it exists at all.
See, that's the thing, we don't know what it is, sure, but we undeniable know it exists (https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/dark-matter-in-galaxies-proven-ebcbea1a5402). Stuff behaves exactly as it should with the existence of dark matter.
Post by: Max™ on November 07, 2016, 07:47:43 pm
It's not "if it exists at all" because if it were the case that a new theory explains everything without dark matter your replacement theory needs to explain what is causing the deflection of light in that and many other clusters.
Post by: martinuzz on November 08, 2016, 02:59:52 am
Post by: Max™ on November 08, 2016, 03:06:09 am
I prefer Pratchett here: 9/10ths of the universe is just keeping track of the rest.
Post by: Putnam on November 08, 2016, 03:37:14 am
Apparently, it is an illusion.
How very convenient
Post by: martinuzz on November 08, 2016, 03:38:07 am
Here's another article (in dutch). If someone knows how to browse and use arxiv.org, could they please find the link to the paper? It was posted in the night from monday to tuesday.
https://newscientist.nl/nieuws/vooruitblik-nieuwe-theorie-ontmaskert-95-procent-van-het-heelal/ (https://newscientist.nl/nieuws/vooruitblik-nieuwe-theorie-ontmaskert-95-procent-van-het-heelal/)
EDIT: I think I found it: https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02269
Post by: Putnam on November 08, 2016, 03:44:49 am
Post by: martinuzz on November 08, 2016, 04:45:33 pm
http://phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-gravity-dark.html
Post by: Rolepgeek on November 08, 2016, 04:56:55 pm
Space X
Space Y
Space Z
Time V (Linear Time)
Time W (Lateral Time, aka multiple timelines/parallel universes; if linear time is the real component of the number scale, lateral time is the imaginary component; going different directions on it means different probability/quantum states are true; this is why we can only determine the position or whatever of a particle after the fact/by affecting it, or something; this is all very vague and shit)
Higgs Field
Gravity
Electricity
Magnetism (the reason these are separate is that when articles and diagrams talk about lightwaves the electrical and magnetic field components are at ninety degree angles to each other...which, ya know. >.>)
Weak Nuclear Force
Strong Nuclear Force
And that's 11.
It's probably dumb/a misinterpretation, mind you, but it's been part of my general musings on physics recently.
Post by: Putnam on November 08, 2016, 05:16:21 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on November 08, 2016, 05:25:04 pm
Are you talking about quantum chromodynamics?
Post by: Il Palazzo on November 08, 2016, 05:29:21 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on November 08, 2016, 05:34:24 pm
I don't pretend to think it's accurate, it was mostly a way for me to understand how the universe could exist in 11 dimensions, or 26(!?!) in terms I could comprehend.
Post by: Putnam on November 08, 2016, 05:35:19 pm
Post by: Sergarr on November 08, 2016, 05:44:14 pm
Also, magnetism can be pretty accurately described as a relativistic effect of electricity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_electromagnetism).
Post by: martinuzz on November 09, 2016, 02:20:09 pm
The monkey tests were done in China, to circumvent strict EU regulations on monkey testing.
Who needs a spine when you can have wifi, right?
http://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/verlamde-aap-loopt-weer-door-hersenzender~a4412085/ (http://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/verlamde-aap-loopt-weer-door-hersenzender~a4412085/)
Post by: Max™ on November 09, 2016, 03:32:43 pm
Post by: MrWiggles on November 13, 2016, 06:59:21 am
Post by: martinuzz on November 21, 2016, 05:17:18 am
The Dutch quantum computer expert and professor at Delft Technical University, Leo Kouwenberg, has been hired by Microsoft. But instead of coming to work everyday, work will come to him. He will keep teaching at the Delft University, and Microsoft is going to build a quantum computer lab in our university for him to do research at.
Currently, the professor does his research in an already existing quantum lab at the university, of which he is one of the founders, and which curently sees over a hundred scientists and technicians doing fundamental research on the building blocks of quantum computers.
Damn, building a whole new lab just to employ one guy. Makes sense though, Delft University is where the breakthroughs were and are being made.
With Trump as head of state, we should be wary of industrial espionage though.. /sarcasm
EDIT: together with Kouwenberg, Microsoft also hires the Danish phycisist Charles Marcus. Marcus and Kouwenberg have been working for years, doing research mainly into so called 'topological quantumbits', which are less susceptible to discturbance than ordinary quantum bits.
Kouwenberg was the first, a few years ago, to realize superconductive nano wires, which would be very suitable for topological quantum bits. Marcus is working on something similar.
Kouwenberg says even he himself is somewhat surprised by his career step. "I started work here as a student. I never thought that what we did would ever be of use for anything at all"
EDIT: hmm. perhaps Microsoft wants to upgrade Deep Mind to a quantum network and would rather it be across the atlantic so they can nuke it when it awakens :D
Post by: Osmosis Jones on November 21, 2016, 07:06:14 am
Post by: martinuzz on November 21, 2016, 09:47:46 am
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/technology/microsoft-spends-big-to-build-quantum-computer.html
Post by: Starver on November 21, 2016, 10:42:18 am
Post by: TempAcc on November 21, 2016, 11:07:10 am
Anyway, its nice seeing that there's so much investment going into quantum computing. I was scared interest in it would've down a bit after D-Wave was pitted against intel machines and didn't quite perform in a way convincing enough to prove it is actualy making productive use of quantum phenomena, though it was still rather impressive in its own right.
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on November 21, 2016, 12:13:37 pm
A team Swiss scientists of the EPFL technology institute has managed to let a monkey regain mobility after partial paralysis, using an electronic device implanted in the brain that records motoric brain activity, and sends it to the leg using wireless signals. They've already started trials with human patients.Wouldn't this be affected by the recent fabricated results controversy?
The monkey tests were done in China, to circumvent strict EU regulations on monkey testing.
Who needs a spine when you can have wifi, right?
http://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/verlamde-aap-loopt-weer-door-hersenzender~a4412085/ (http://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/verlamde-aap-loopt-weer-door-hersenzender~a4412085/)
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on December 08, 2016, 05:57:26 pm
I have tried to explain this so many times, unsuccessfully. Thanks, Sid!
Post by: ChairmanPoo on December 08, 2016, 06:13:45 pm
What controversy?A team Swiss scientists of the EPFL technology institute has managed to let a monkey regain mobility after partial paralysis, using an electronic device implanted in the brain that records motoric brain activity, and sends it to the leg using wireless signals. They've already started trials with human patients.Wouldn't this be affected by the recent fabricated results controversy?
The monkey tests were done in China, to circumvent strict EU regulations on monkey testing.
Who needs a spine when you can have wifi, right?
http://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/verlamde-aap-loopt-weer-door-hersenzender~a4412085/ (http://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/verlamde-aap-loopt-weer-door-hersenzender~a4412085/)
Post by: Starver on December 08, 2016, 06:23:13 pm
What controversy?Possibly http://www.nature.com/news/replications-ridicule-and-a-recluse-the-controversy-over-ngago-gene-editing-intensifies-1.20387 ...?
Post by: sjm9876 on December 08, 2016, 06:41:07 pm
http://www.naturalnews.com/055549_fake_science_China_clinical_trials.html
(Can't say as I know the details past the journalism, but still the likely point.)
Post by: Shadowlord on December 08, 2016, 06:51:32 pm
Post by: Starver on December 08, 2016, 07:45:24 pm
British Medical Journal (http://www.bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i5396)
I was actually (half) remembering this when I went and found the other. This is what I meant.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on December 08, 2016, 07:57:39 pm
Post by: Mephansteras on December 15, 2016, 05:54:03 pm
Post by: uber pye on December 15, 2016, 05:58:49 pm
Post by: Starver on December 15, 2016, 07:29:10 pm
Iceland is up to some suitably dwarven engineering (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38296251)Took ages to track it down (IMDB keyword search didn't help*) but makes me think of this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_in_the_World)... ;)
* Don't know why, I used a number of the following keywords to find the page (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059065/keywords?ref_=tt_stry_kw). Maybe the presence of "drilling" and/or borehole, etc, in my searches, but not the database, caused me problems.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Sirus on December 15, 2016, 08:03:46 pm
IMORTALITYish (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/12/15/scientists-reverse-ageing-mammals-predict-human-trials-within/) age reversal really. human trails may start in 10ish years.mmph.
The Telegraph is, from my limited understanding, not exactly a bastion of quality journalism. Got some other sources?
In any case, I'll believe in reverse-aging when I see it.
Post by: sjm9876 on December 15, 2016, 08:15:25 pm
http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(16)31664-6
So far as I can tell, there's no actual trials been done, only model tests, though I've not read it thoroughly, nor am I a trained biologist.
Post by: Reelya on December 16, 2016, 04:02:52 am
Quote from: Summary
Researchers at The University of Queensland’s Queensland Brain Institute have found a link between Vitamin D deficiency in pregnancy and increased autism traits.
The study, led by QBI researcher Professor John McGrath and involving Dr Henning Tiemeier from the Erasmus Medical Centre in The Netherlands, found that pregnant women with low Vitamin D levels at 20 weeks’ gestation were more likely to have a child with autistic traits by the age of six.
The study examined approximately 4200 blood samples from pregnant women and their children, who were closely monitored as part of the long-term “Generation R” study in Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Professor McGrath’s team has previously found a link between low Vitamin D in neonatal blood and an increased risk of schizophrenia.
Any new links are good news when they suggest something that can be done about it. Now they can test vitamin D supplements for pregnant women, and see if they decrease the incidence of autism.
Post by: martinuzz on December 20, 2016, 08:09:54 am
Parts of the brain permanently shrink.
Primary author Elseline Hoekzema, of Leiden University, says 'the change can be compared en severity to the effects of puberty', where specific brain areas specialize in preparation for the adult life fase.
For instance, in pregnant women, the hippocampus, which plays a part in formation of memory, shrinks.
At the same time, the amount of grey matter in the cerebral cortex reduces, possibly to further specialize certain brain functions by trimming redundant connections.
The affected areas in the cortex play a role in the recognition of thoughts and emotions in others.
According to the researchers, the changes assist the mother in asessing the needs of her infant.
In experiments where mothers were shown pictures of their baby, exactly those areas that were affected lit up. The amount of change to the brain matter also correlates strongly to how strong mothers describe the bond to their child to be.
Hoekzema and her colleagues studied brain scans of 25 women before, and after their first pregnancy, and compared those to women who did not get pregnant, and to males who became father for the first time.
Contrary to the fathers, and the non-pregnant women, the mothers underwent significant, identical changes to their brains. When retested 2 years later, most changes also seem to be permanent. The only brain area which restored to nearly it's original size was the hippocampus.
"an elegant studies which clearly shows change in the grey matter", says Lise Eliot, head of the neuroscience department at Chicago Medical School, who wasn't involved in the studies. She does question the assumed function of the changes. "I think to say that it all has to do with social skills, and the bond between mother and child, is a bit ahead of itself. The affected areas play a role in much more than the ability to empathize with another."
Hoekzema adds that the results of their studies should not be used as an excuse by fathers to leave the upbringing of their child to their wife. "These hormone induced changes are not the only way to good parenthood. At most, they can contribute a little."
Understanding these changes could possibly grant more insight into the development of post-natal depression. Hoekzema: "Just like puberty, pregnancy is a period of great alteration of the brains under influence of hormones. With that, it's also a period that's very sensitive to developing mental problems".
http://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/brein-zwangere-vrouw-krimpt-en-verandert-blijvend~a4436981/
Post by: Max™ on December 20, 2016, 01:48:23 pm
...wait, aww, I made myself feel bad.
Post by: martinuzz on December 23, 2016, 01:58:48 pm
They admit that there still are many factors that could slow down or halt a full eruption, like magma losing viscosity and clogging the pipe.
Still, their calculations show that since 2005, the volcano on which Napels is built, is being inflated from the inside, by water vapour and CO2 released by the magma.
If the trend continues, the system will pass a critical point between 2018 and 2022, after which the rate at which magma releases gas increases exponentially, until the volcano's cap won't hold the pressure and erupts.
The volcanologists refuse to comment on possible effects. The last eruption, in 1538 lasted 'only' a week, but experts agree that the volcano is capable of much larger eruptions.
They conclude that 'the fact that half a million people live in the direct vicinity of the crater (and about 4.5 million in the blastzone) make it a very challenging situation for the authorities'. The Campei Flegrei is considered to be potentially much more dangerous than Vesuvius.
How long would it take to evacuate and relocate 4.5 million people and business? Perhaps the Italian government better start abandoning Napels right away.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlegraean_Fields
Post by: Shadowlord on December 23, 2016, 05:43:51 pm
Post by: Eric Blank on December 23, 2016, 05:46:03 pm
Post by: Shadowlord on December 23, 2016, 05:50:25 pm
Post by: martinuzz on December 23, 2016, 06:21:11 pm
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on December 23, 2016, 06:36:15 pm
Post by: Starver on December 23, 2016, 07:04:46 pm
Post by: Max™ on December 23, 2016, 07:41:44 pm
Trump may well be an anagram of Cnut The Great but, unlike the king, he's probably not far wiser than his courtiers. Or one has to hope.Ugh, I'm going to pretend you got bashed on the head by a viking just before making that post, and go back to enjoying a great story (http://kissmanga.com/Manga/Vinland-Saga) with my favorite version of Cnut.
Post by: scrdest on December 24, 2016, 09:28:10 am
Paper I can dig up:Augh god DAMN IT I had high hopes here. They induced, albeit transiently, the fucking Yamanaka factors. That doesn't sound like an aging therapy, that sounds like die of teratoma all day erryday.
http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(16)31664-6
So far as I can tell, there's no actual trials been done, only model tests, though I've not read it thoroughly, nor am I a trained biologist.
Those four factors are the holy tetrad of reprogramming normal cells into induced pluripotent stem cells. Which are great for therapy, but need to be cultured into target cells or they basically try to form a new embryo inside your body like one of the lesser known Xenomorph species.
Now, they claim they didn't get Nanog protein expression, which is the pluripotency effector, but the risk is there.
This is a mice model of premature aging, progeric mice. They have a fucked up cell nucleus component which results in symptoms similar to aging (same thing happens in humans with this defect, for reference). They claim there's similar changes in 'normal' aging, and there are good reasons not to doubt that, though it's still a model, might not be 100% accurate to physiological aging.
Optimistically, if the transient expression does help and NOT KILL YOU HORRIBLY, that's pretty great. Putting in something with permanent expression would be harder, and the expression of the factors could be possible to induce pharmacologically, short-term. Then it's only a matter of dying in one of 'em massive wars rather than old age down the line.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on December 24, 2016, 10:31:22 am
Quote
This is a mice model of premature aging, progeric miceNo, they used both progeric and regularly aged mice. And human cells, for that matter.
Says it right in the article
Spoiler: aged mice (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: human cells (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: regular old mice (click to show/hide)
Post by: Sergarr on December 24, 2016, 10:36:30 am
Post by: scrdest on December 24, 2016, 11:46:01 am
Eeh, dude, it's a great proof of concept, and the experiment went well.Whoops, I stand corrected, I've been drive-by posting between helping out with the Christmas shit, I didn't finish the article.QuoteThis is a mice model of premature aging, progeric miceNo, they used both progeric and regularly aged mice. And human cells, for that matter.
All things being equal, it's still stem cell shit. I am incredibly, incredibly jaded and so I read 'Stem Cells to fix X' in the same way physicists treat 'So I solved Quantum Mechanics...'. If you are right, that's amazing! But you probably aren't.
Just look at Vacanti or Macchiarini. If it sounds too good to be true - which is does, here - it probably is. But hey, if the concept holds, it's only like 20 years or more until an actually effective drug will hit the market.
Post by: Amperzand on December 24, 2016, 08:34:00 pm
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710014431.pdf
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19640019868.pdf
Post by: inteuniso on December 28, 2016, 10:42:04 pm
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.02269v1.pdf
EDIT: Read somewhere that reminded me just because something aligns nicely with mathematical tricks, doesn't mean it's going to hold up in reality.
Post by: Reelya on December 28, 2016, 11:15:57 pm
Absolutely great news and a major victory for humanity: it has finally been confirmed that the newly developed vaccine against Ebola is 100% effective! (http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/12/22/14039628/rvsv-zebov-ebola-vaccine-trial-effective)
Well 95%+ effective at least. The control group got 23 cases of Ebola, the study group got zero. Obviously, it could work 100% of the time, but you can never be sure. We can give a probability that it's > X% effective using statistics.
Post by: Sergarr on December 30, 2016, 04:10:31 pm
Post by: Shadowlord on December 30, 2016, 04:33:15 pm
Post by: TempAcc on December 30, 2016, 04:41:43 pm
When can I go about designing my own babies?
I want my minitemp.
Post by: forsaken1111 on December 30, 2016, 04:43:10 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 30, 2016, 05:25:40 pm
So, remember when I before have put an article that has said that we now can predict people's intelligence from DNA? There are already plans/suggestions to use it for mass scale genetic selection at an embryonic stage. (http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/12/predictions-of-human-intelligence.html) For fuck's sake!Why are you so shocked? This is without a doubt a great thing. IVF has a massive failure rate because as women age the incidence of chromosomal abnormalities increase, even using what scant eggs they have that have been donated by young women is not any high guarantee of success in the procedure or that a child will not be born with chromosomal disorders like down's syndrome.
Highly relevant:
Quote
It appears that around a third of embryos with the correct number of chromosomes still fail to lead to a successful pregnancy. Recent studies have shown that embryos with a higher concentration of mitochondrial DNA have a reduced chance of implantation. Mitochondria are the energy producing engines within our cells, but surprisingly, an abundance of mitochondria appears to be associated with lower implantation potential.With this screening the success rate is vastly increased for pregnancy via IVF. This means childless women who for whatever reason cannot naturally conceive don't have to spend absurd sums of money for the small possibility of a child.
The engineering is intended to switch on the immune response to attack cancer. In the pharmaceutical industry, antibody drugs directly blocking the PD-1 protein including Merck & Co.’s Keytruda and Opdivo sold by Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. have become new growth engines for the companies.
A study from the University of Oxford, which was recently presented at the annual meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology in Helsinki, suggested that screening embryos for their levels of mitochondrial DNA could help doctors select those that are most likely to result in a healthy pregnancy.
And here I thought we were going to avoid the GATTACA future.I always thought that GATTACA picked their examples poorly. It was absurd for example how the main character was whining that they weren't allowed to be an astronaut because his genetics indicated he was at high risk for heart problems; I would say then his issue was that they were judging his health based off of his genetics and not his health, however they did do health tests which he lied on, even going so far as to fake his own heartbeat whilst exercising. I couldn't tell whether he collapsed whilst jogging due to a heart condition or just emotional stress, however in that scene where he swims and reveals he was expending all his energy without regard for the return journey, I knew he was more human spirit than common sense. An astronaut who has a health condition that drastically increases the chance of their death drastically increases the chance of mission failure and the whole team dying. This is why astronauts are selected according to physical standards which are comparable to military pilot standards. Simply put the main character was a complete bellend
Post by: Sergarr on December 30, 2016, 07:48:41 pm
I just expect to see it all go to hell at some point when some other "clever" scientists find a link between race and intelligence, at which point the already established institutions will be quickly used to erase the "lesser" races from existence.So, remember when I before have put an article that has said that we now can predict people's intelligence from DNA? There are already plans/suggestions to use it for mass scale genetic selection at an embryonic stage. (http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/12/predictions-of-human-intelligence.html) For fuck's sake!Why are you so shocked? This is without a doubt a great thing. IVF has a massive failure rate because as women age the incidence of chromosomal abnormalities increase, even using what scant eggs they have that have been donated by young women is not any high guarantee of success in the procedure or that a child will not be born with chromosomal disorders like down's syndrome.
Post by: wierd on December 30, 2016, 09:50:28 pm
saying "individuals from xyz demographic have foo% chance of carying factor BAR" does not say "all people in demographic xyz need to be sterilized"
this is especially true when things like CRISPR can be used to correct the specific factor, and leave all other characteristics intact, without aborting the embryo, since this is ivf.
also, not all factors that convey a positive effect are wholly desirable, and too much homogeneity is bad as it reduces immune fitness of the species. Take for instance, ccr5 delta32. this mutation makes it very hard for hiv to infect you. if all humans had this mutation, hiv would rapidly mutate to overcome the barrier, and now the benefit is gone, AND everyone now has the same genotype from the meddling, so everyone suffers, AND everyone now has one less functional signalling receptor that has important function.
for things that are wholly deleterious but ride beside other benign ethnic traits, edition to correct the caual coding for the wholly deleterious trait seems beneficial.
trying to go full bore eugenics though? not scientifically sound.
trying to eliminate an entire ethnic group falls firmly in that latter group.
Post by: Sergarr on December 30, 2016, 09:57:57 pm
Race is a nonsense argument.If it was as simple as that... "not scientifically sound" has not stopped Nazis from trying to exterminate the Jews, and it sure as hell will not stop the people from trying this stuff out on in the future. Giving them instruments like that and a possibility of justification sounds pretty scary to me.
saying "individuals from xyz demographic have foo% chance of carying factor BAR" does not say "all people in demographic xyz need to be sterilized"
this is especially true when things like CRISPR can be used to correct the specific factor, and leave all other characteristics intact, without aborting the embryo, since this is ivf.
also, not all factors that convey a positive effect are wholly desirable, and too much homogeneity is bad as it reduces immune fitness of the species. Take for instance, ccr5 delta32. this mutation makes it very hard for hiv to infect you. if all humans had this mutation, hiv would rapidly mutate to overcome the barrier, and now the benefit is gone, AND everyone now has the same genotype from the meddling, so everyone suffers, AND everyone now has one less functional signalling receptor that has important function.
for things that are wholly deleterious but ride beside other benign ethnic traits, edition to correct the caual coding for the wholly deleterious trait seems beneficial.
trying to go full bore eugenics though? not scientifically sound.
trying to eliminate an entire ethnic group falls firmly in that latter group.
Post by: iceball3 on December 30, 2016, 10:05:21 pm
Honestly, I'm more scared of general political environments driving such movements, rather than just a lone exploitable scientific tidbit driving it.Race is a nonsense argument.If it was as simple as that... "not scientifically sound" has not stopped Nazis from trying to exterminate the Jews, and it sure as hell will not stop the people from trying this stuff out on in the future. Giving them instruments like that and a possibility of justification sounds pretty scary to me.
saying "individuals from xyz demographic have foo% chance of carying factor BAR" does not say "all people in demographic xyz need to be sterilized"
this is especially true when things like CRISPR can be used to correct the specific factor, and leave all other characteristics intact, without aborting the embryo, since this is ivf.
also, not all factors that convey a positive effect are wholly desirable, and too much homogeneity is bad as it reduces immune fitness of the species. Take for instance, ccr5 delta32. this mutation makes it very hard for hiv to infect you. if all humans had this mutation, hiv would rapidly mutate to overcome the barrier, and now the benefit is gone, AND everyone now has the same genotype from the meddling, so everyone suffers, AND everyone now has one less functional signalling receptor that has important function.
for things that are wholly deleterious but ride beside other benign ethnic traits, edition to correct the caual coding for the wholly deleterious trait seems beneficial.
trying to go full bore eugenics though? not scientifically sound.
trying to eliminate an entire ethnic group falls firmly in that latter group.
The instruments of genocide kind of exist already, the main goal should be preventing their use (Nuclear weapons, the diplomatic Game Of Chicken, ethnicism, nationalism, etc are all means that must be kept under strict scrutiny in this regard).
Post by: ChairmanPoo on December 30, 2016, 10:05:34 pm
Blah. People did this all the time without any pseudoscientific justification.Race is a nonsense argument.If it was as simple as that... "not scientifically sound" has not stopped Nazis from trying to exterminate the Jews, and it sure as hell will not stop the people from trying this stuff out on in the future. Giving them instruments like that and a possibility of justification sounds pretty scary to me.
saying "individuals from xyz demographic have foo% chance of carying factor BAR" does not say "all people in demographic xyz need to be sterilized"
this is especially true when things like CRISPR can be used to correct the specific factor, and leave all other characteristics intact, without aborting the embryo, since this is ivf.
also, not all factors that convey a positive effect are wholly desirable, and too much homogeneity is bad as it reduces immune fitness of the species. Take for instance, ccr5 delta32. this mutation makes it very hard for hiv to infect you. if all humans had this mutation, hiv would rapidly mutate to overcome the barrier, and now the benefit is gone, AND everyone now has the same genotype from the meddling, so everyone suffers, AND everyone now has one less functional signalling receptor that has important function.
for things that are wholly deleterious but ride beside other benign ethnic traits, edition to correct the caual coding for the wholly deleterious trait seems beneficial.
trying to go full bore eugenics though? not scientifically sound.
trying to eliminate an entire ethnic group falls firmly in that latter group.
Really, your fears are suspiciously close to those born-again evangelical luddites.
Post by: TempAcc on December 30, 2016, 10:09:06 pm
I honestly think all the efforts against similarly controversial research, such as cloning, GMO and stem cell research, for example, have done far more harm than good.
Post by: Reelya on December 30, 2016, 11:02:42 pm
Sperm selection would be the most practical and least intrusive method. Sperm also contains both X and Y chromosomes, so it's "complete" in terms of how much of the genome is revealed at this level. The average ejaculate has 200 million sperm. If you collect all those then select for the ones with positive traits, even "defective" people will have quite a few with beneficial mutations, that otherwise would be lost among the competition to fertilize that one egg. To get best effects, you'd want to screen millions of eggs and sperm separately, then get them to fertilize, and do a final screening of the resultant embryos. The fact is, if this process was widespread it would reduce racial-based differences in the traits your screening for in a fairly small number of generations.
Post by: Reelya on December 30, 2016, 11:15:13 pm
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/12/predictions-of-human-intelligence.html
EDIT: Though if you look at the research, their DNA differences can account for about 2 IQ points, total. And it's not clear how much of that is from regular variation vs outliers such as genetic learning disabilities driving down some people's scores.
After all they fed 100,000 peoples DNA sequences and IQ scores into a computer and calculated a predictor, so outliers could have been a big factor, and they might in no way have found a way to make "regular" people any smarter at all. For example, thyroid problems in childhood (including from iodine deficiency) can account for a significant amount of IQ degradation. So someone with genes that negatively affect the thyroid's ability to process iodine could have an impact on IQ, and the learning algorithm is picking that up in those individuals, then the researchers can truly claim they can "predict IQ from your DNA" at least that much.
There's also a problem that the difference seems to be smaller for the older children than the younger children. i.e. they've developed a measure for the kids who are mentally developing earliest. But the IQ point difference accountable from their generated metric already contracted sharply from age 11-13. And if you claim to have measured General Intelligence Factor "g", then the differences should be accelerating at that point, not closing together. The real problem is that they're only doing the correlational study for kids up to 13. It might have some predictive power of adult intelligence, but the current results suggest that will perhaps explain 1-2 IQ points difference, total, and even that can be attributed to known genetic-based learning disabilities (ADHD, Dyslexia) which are skewing things.
Post by: Reelya on December 30, 2016, 11:59:27 pm
I think the current articles can claim to have predicted about 10-15% of the variation in IQ according to genetics. e.g. the SD of IQ is 15, whereas one SD of this measure measures <2 IQ points different for an adult. But still, like I said that doesn't exclude known learning disabilities in some fraction of the population as being responsible for much of that difference.
Post by: wierd on December 31, 2016, 12:29:02 am
They would need a significantly larger sample, with many different genetic and cultural/economic mobility levels to magnify a signal that low.
Post by: hops on December 31, 2016, 05:54:05 am
So, remember when I before have put an article that has said that we now can predict people's intelligence from DNA? There are already plans/suggestions to use it for mass scale genetic selection at an embryonic stage. (http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/12/predictions-of-human-intelligence.html) For fuck's sake!Okay normally I'm all for human-controlled evolution, but this is bullshit.
Intelligence isn't defined that much by your genetic. We don't have any problems with intelligence, we have problems with EDUCATION.
Post by: martinuzz on December 31, 2016, 06:55:45 am
Post by: hops on December 31, 2016, 06:59:41 am
Intelligence does most definitly have a genetic base.What I meant is that unless you have a mental disability, having more "brainpower" isn't that important.
Post by: iceball3 on December 31, 2016, 01:37:17 pm
I say without pride that my IQ seems to be stupidly high, because it hasn't really stopped me from being a useless potato with 0 ambitions. People with much lower IQ but higher ambitions could get way more done and contribute much more to the world than I have, at this point.
Post by: wierd on December 31, 2016, 08:52:31 pm
My big ambitious goal? Save enough money to escape the hamster wheel of american living, and live in a shack in some God forsaken wilderness far away from other people and their incessant inane bullshit.
That's it. Its all I want.
Post by: Reelya on December 31, 2016, 11:04:06 pm
The ideology is well-meaning: that men and women have identical mean IQ of 100, and that the SD of IQ is 15. Basically, they periodically do tests, see which questions men and women tend to do better on, then adjust the amount and weighting of questions such that the average returns to 100 for both groups. Why men and women do better on different types of questions is largely irrelevant here. The fact is, that they shape the data through heavy-handed statistical measures to maintain 100 Mean and 15 SD based on a gender-based categorization. The choice of gender as the baseline variable to equalize is pretty damn arbitrary, if you think about it.
Can you imagine any physical science which could get away with such obvious data-manipulation to fit a preconceived theory as "psychometry" (iq testings field name) does?
Basically, for any arbitrary large-enough grouping you seem to be able to find an abritrary set of questions in which one group will do better than another group, or vice-versa. The ability to tune it so that things are equal, is also the ability to tune it such that men always score higher or women always score higher. The choice of how we calibrate IQ tests is purely a human choice made for sociopolitical reasons, not empirical justifications.
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 31, 2016, 11:37:13 pm
More, from what I remember they try to get that calibration for the largest number of people possible, and keep records for previous calibration standards, so that we know about things like the Flynn effect (IQ scores have been going up slowly over time despite genetic contributions decreasing slowly over time, believed to be the result of environment).
Biological sex really isn't that arbitrary of a dividing line, given the sexual dimorphism, hormones, etc.
Moreover, it's more useful for finding what environmental variables we can adjust in order to improve outcomes. Like how stopping the use of leader gasoline improved outcomes in cities considerably.
There's a means to acknowledge the ' unsavory' fact of how significant genetics are in development and behavior and characteristics and so on, without having to go full nazi. It's called "everyone has the same worth/value anyway". Finding reasons to discount real science because it might be used to justify horrible things is just...the wrong way to go about it. Evopsych isn't false just because some people use it to claim that being an asshole to women is okay. Social Darwinism doesn't prove survival of the fittest to be a fallacious model. Genetic or even racial differences in intelligence doesn't make racism okay; there is far too much noise at the individual level for it to be at all useful as a predictor there, and at the statistical level, it helps explain differences in outcomes and give us ways to help compensate. It doesn't make someone less of a person if they're not as intelligent.
Similarly, outcomes can be predicted on the large-scale statistical level from IQ/g factor but individual outcomes are incredibly variable.
Though as for ambition my life goal is to try and 'cure death' via generous application of bionanotechnology and genetic engineering of artificial symbiotic organisms. So :/
Post by: Reelya on January 01, 2017, 12:18:32 am
Quote
And when most traits and effects are like 50% genetic and 50% environmental, there's very little reason to believe this should be different for intelligence.
That actually varies wildly based on the trait: the more critical for survival of a specified trait, the less genetic variation there is (in terms of how it affects the phenotype. genes which don't affect the phenotype as strongly can drift more). Basically, strong selection pressures correlate to traits with low genetic variability. Ones where it's 50/50 tend towards "cosmetic" differences (i.e. they could be functional, but they don't affect your reproduction chances). So it can be argued that the genes for e.g. hair color are going to have experienced genetic drift far more than the genes for intelligence.
Quote
Biological sex really isn't that arbitrary of a dividing line, given the sexual dimorphism
What I meant was that calibrating things so there's equality is arbitrary. It's an ideological statement that there's no dimorphism in a specified trait, which is not based on scientific principles, but what we wish to be true. If you think about it, "geekiness" could probably be calibrated, then the population divided 50/50, and we come up with brain-tests that calibrate so that more or less geeky people are equally "intelligent". e.g. there are definitely skills that less-geeky people can master much easier than the average "geek". Why do we automatically assume "geeks" are the smart ones, when there are a wide range of skills the average geek is terrible at compared to non-geeks.
The likely answer to that conundrum, is that there's no single "g factor" that makes sense. From what I've read, some researchers have managed to split cognition ability into ~3 separate skills, in a way that each one is completely statistically independent of the other two. If the "g factor" posited by IQ proponents really existed, such a split should be impossible. And there are definitely brain-related abilities that we're not measuring with "intelligence" tests at all, because IQ tests assume that cognitive symbol manipulation of some sort is the only sort of brain-ability that matters. What about people who have amazing reflexes and neuro-physical abilities? Aren't they smart too? Their brain might be optimized to process more sensory and motor skill data, but we're not measuring that: we're not taking into account differences in how each brain is optimizing it's finite amount of data processing.
What is much more promising is looking at the brain as making trade-offs between different abilities, and that some of these trade-offs are correlated with gender via itermediary systems (pre-natal testosterone is the prime suspect) so that is what allows IQ testers to calibrate a test that equalizes "g" between the genders.
Pre-natal testosterone research is really the promising lead here. It can explain the "expected" gender differences, but also why some people buck the trend. e.g a boyish girl could just be born that way, and isn't just a result of some fluke of environment. It's certainly a better fit for the data than saying you were just a certain way "because" you had a Y chromosome, or "because" you were socialized as a boy. Neither of those older theories can explain outliers very well: i.e if either "X/Y chromosome" or socialization is so completely overwhelming, why do some people turn out completely differently given the same inputs?
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 01, 2017, 12:51:40 am
And what I was saying for the dividing line is that because they're different they have to be measured on their own scales, which is why they both get set at 100. You're setting the mean for each population to be 100 because that's what's been decided will be used as the baseline, rather like temperature.
As for g factor; no, that's not how it works. First, here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)), second, a summary of what that says, iirc: basically, all those cognitive abilities tend to correlate with each other, and they almost by definition correlate with g factor. Furthermore, the higher the g factor, the more they correlate with each other. (not as in that's what the g factor measures but as in they've found that when people are smarter they tend to be smarter all around, basically, rather than savants).
Statistical data being able to be fooled around with isn't really that impressive, though. I don't say that with the intent of dismissing it, I'm just saying that when g factor has been a reliable metric for a long time, saying it can't possibly exist as a useful construct/measurement (because obviously it's not a physical thing, it's an abstracted measurement based on other measurements) because a few researchers managed to separate cognitive testing into multiple clusters that appear in their analysis to have no relation...I would need more evidence, essentially.
Post by: Reelya on January 01, 2017, 01:00:13 am
Quote
Not genetic variability within a population; how much variation is explained by genetics versus environment
But if a gene doesn't vary within the population, then 100% of the variation in the trait it controls is explained by environment. Variation only makes sense at a population level. Individuals don't have "variation" in phenotype. And traits which are important for survival don't tend to have high variability at the genetic level: the genetic variation is reduced because having the trait is important. Therefore the differences due to genetic are reduced.
And if you're talking about the effect of "genetic variation" on one individual, then it's clear that enough change in the gene could set a trait from anywhere from 0 to 100% of the current trait. So how many base-pair flips exactly are considered to equal 50% of the influence of environment? If you're not talking about mapping real genetic variation in the population to changes in the phenotype, then you can cite any amount of arbitrary base-pair flips as being the "right" amount that equates to 50% variation in the trait.
As for G, some more recent studies have put to rest that such a factor even correlates at all with the sub-abilities, as long as you break up the sub-tasks correctly:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fundamentally-flawed-and-using-them-alone-to-measure-intelligence-is-a-fallacy-study-8425911.html
Quote
The researchers took a representative sample of 46,000 people and analysed how they performed. They found there were three distinct components to cognitive ability: short-term memory, reasoning and a verbal component.
...
“The results disprove once and for all the idea that a single measure of intelligence, such as IQ, is enough to capture all of the differences in cognitive ability that we see between people,” said Roger Highfield, director of external affairs at the Science Museum in London.
“Instead, several different circuits contribute to intelligence, each with its own unique capacity. A person may well be good in one of these areas, but they are just as likely to be bad in the other two,” said Dr Highfield, a co-author of the study published in the journal Neuron.
The scientists found that no single component, or IQ, could explain all the variations revealed by the tests. The researcher then analysed the brain circuitry of 16 participants with a hospital MRI scanner and found that the three separate components corresponded to three distinct patterns of neural activity in the brain.
So what they found is that there's literally no correlation between being good or bad at each of these three important mental abilities. Other tests might correlate with each other, hence you can call the overlapping correlation amount "g". But that's just because those tests were badly designed in the first place and didn't separate out individual factors properly.
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 01, 2017, 01:44:26 am
Whenever something says 'you just have to break up the 'X' correctly', I become suspicious, because of how easy it is to do p-hacking with things like that, and furthermore, this has been one study. Especially given the motivations inherent in certain ideologies to prove anything that implies differences between race, gender, and class. (Class is largely gonna be an environmental thing, honestly) The newest study, or the biggest, is not the 'best', that disproves all the others instantly. If there are metastudies along those lines, I would love to see them, because metastudies are often the only way to figure out anything at all about fields like these, where things are so complex and difficult to measure that single studies become incredibly noisy. Especially when you consider that MRIs are actually fairly unreliable for use in neuroscience, people're finding. See? (http://qz.com/725746/a-deep-flaw-has-been-discovered-in-thousands-of-neuroscience-studies-so-why-arent-neuroscientists-freaking-out/)
Like, what do they have that proves their tests are the ones that are properly designed, and the original ones weren't?
And about that motivation thing: literally this can have massive effects, which are really hard to prevent. The story/study I would relate except he does it better. (http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-out-of-control/) Like, there's this established thing which is reliable in determining outcomes and useful for that purpose and has been found to be affected by environment in meaningful(if small) ways, and consistently so for many years, and a single study is going to disprove that? It opens the way for further study into that area, certainly, but science is slow and it needs more evidence than that to overturn scientific consensus.
Post by: Reelya on January 01, 2017, 02:36:42 am
Quote
..What? I was saying that the variability of the genes within a population is not what is being discussed. The variation of a trait/outcome caused by genes versus environment is what's used.
But this is a nonsensical statement then.
If there's 0 variability in a gene within a population, then how can you attribute any of the measured variation to the gene? It's not a comprehensible claim.
Sure, you could talk about theoretical gene variation and the effect it would have on an individual, but then you have no way of calibrating what is an "average" amount of variation of that gene, which you can attribute to causing 50% of the variability in the outcome, since you're basing "average variation" on a purely theoretical basis, not population data.
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 01, 2017, 02:56:49 am
I'm saying you're looking at the wrong part of this to look at what is actually used in these studies. They don't examine specific genes, they examine the overall genetic component of it, aka how heritable it is, controlling for factors like parenting.
Post by: wierd on January 01, 2017, 02:57:45 am
EG, one could explore the differences in some HOX genes between humans and chimpanzees, and say that "gene FOO is responsible for increased thickness of cortex in humans compared, which contributes to human intelligence (vs chimpanzee)", etc.
Post by: Reelya on January 01, 2017, 03:08:13 am
https://www.madinamerica.com/2013/03/the-trouble-with-twin-studies/
Quote
However, this “twins create their own environment” argument is a circular one, because twin researchers’ conclusion that identical pairs behave more similarly because they are more similar genetically is based on the assumption that identical pairs behave more similarly because they are more similar genetically. This means that twin researchers’ position that genetic factors explain the greater behavioral resemblance of identical twin pairs is, illogically, both a conclusion and a premise of the twin method. In defending the validity of the twin method, modern twin researchers refer to the premise in support of the conclusion, and then refer back to the conclusion in support of the premise, in a continuously circular loop of faulty reasoning.
Additionally, a research paper by the same author, where they showed that similarity in measurable environmental factors were in fact much higher for identical twins vs fraternal twins, undermining a core assumption of twin studies:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4411885/
Quote
Using results from prior twin studies, we tested if intraclass correlations for the following five categories of child social adversity are larger in identical than fraternal twins: bullying, sexual abuse, physical maltreatment, emotional neglect and abuse, and general trauma. Eleven relevant studies that encompassed 9119 twin pairs provided 24 comparisons of intraclass correlations, which we grouped into the five social exposure categories. Fisher’s z-test revealed significantly higher correlations in identical than fraternal pairs for each exposure category (z ≥ 3.53, p < 0.001).
... which explains why they have a "twins shape their own environment" theory in the first place: it hand-waves away the fact that the central assumption behind twin studies is provably false. The key assumption that the environments of identical and fraternal twins is the same is not consistent with the twin researcher's own data. "Twin Studies" therefore have the same huge methodological flaws as psychometry in general.
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 01, 2017, 05:55:05 am
Reelya, again, is there more than one guy who puts forward those views? Looking at the website, his style of talking about it, and his responses to comments, gives me the impression that's he's not exactly unbiased. Again, it bears looking into more, but one guy vs. scientific establishments is how we got anti-vaxxers, at the extreme, and when he publishes it on a site that specifically mentions social justice in it's tagline (and social justice has a vested interest in disproving genetics playing a role in just about anything). Again, p-hacking is a thing, which is why metastudies are important. I see that he used multiple studies in his analysis, and so I'll ask this; does he at any point propose any other way to test for genetic factors in complex mental issues, or is his core proposal that there is no genetic factor and no way to test for one effectively?
Post by: Starver on January 01, 2017, 06:37:32 am
(And I would class myself as good with IQ tests, but not a higher achiever because of that.)
Post by: Reelya on January 01, 2017, 08:24:36 am
Reelya, again, is there more than one guy who puts forward those views? Looking at the website, his style of talking about it, and his responses to comments, gives me the impression that's he's not exactly unbiased.
Well, that one guy has a Doctorate in Psychology and has published peer-reviewed papers. There are also many other articles, writers and experts that question the methodology
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/twins/2011/08/double_inanity.html
Quote
That identical twins do not, in fact, have identical DNA has been known for some time. The most well-studied difference between monozygotic twins derives from a genetic phenomenon known as copy number variations. Certain, lengthy strands of nucleotides appear more than once in the genome, and the frequency of these repetitions can vary from one twin to another. By some estimates, copy number variations compose nearly 30 percent of a person's genetic code.
On the other side of the fence isn't "the whole scientific establishment" however. There are just a handful of names that always crop up when defending twin studies from criticism, mainly Nancy Segal. She's always the one person they cite when the field is criticized. And ... she took funding from The Pioneer Fund (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Fund) to do her major research, which is often cited as the creme la creme of the twin studies. They're eugenicists who have been described as a "neo-Nazi organization closely integrated with the far right in American politics." And that's an actual quote from a mainstream newspaper. Yeah, sure, it's not proof that your research is bullshit, but hell, taking your funding from Neo-Nazis to do science that backs up their racist claims makes you and your claims 100% suspect.
And some of the "defenses" are bafflingly bullshit when you even think about them for a second. For example, one criticism of twin studies is that parents empirically treat identical twins more similarly than they treat non-identical twins (and each twin might treat the other more differently), so in identical vs fraternal twin studies, this is a confounding factor. After all, small differences in how kids are treated over time will amplify. e.g. for non-identical twins the parents are more likely to label each twin's abilities differently, e.g. "the smart one" vs "the athletic one", whereas for identical twins they might view them more as peas in a pod. So those are the criticisms.
So the leading pro-twin study researcher Nancy Segal (the one funded by the white supremacist eugenics lobby) did this "defense" which involved picking random "lookalikes" from the general public and showing that they aren't treated similar. Which makes no sense at all because it's got nothing to do with how parents treat siblings:
https://jasoncollins.org/2014/08/28/twin-studies-stand-up-to-the-critique-again/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912003698
How the fuck does picking random pairs of strangers who look similar, and showing that they're not similar in behavior, disprove the criticism of twin studies? it's a complete non-sequitur / red-herring. And this is from the #1 most cited "expert" on twin studies.
So in other words, they do feel under pressure to defend twin studies from that criticism, but they haven't got a coherent response that actually uses twin data. So they concocted the above stunt / clearly-bullshit-research effort. It has so little actual bearing on twin studies or the criticisms that it's clear they're grasping at straws to even think about doing it. It wouldn't pass muster if you were a first-year psychology student.
The mistake is to think that psychometrics (which includes personality-test and stats-based stuff like IQ and twin studies) is "science" in the sense of biology, chemistry and physics. It really isn't.
~~~
EDIT: Here's another peer-review research paper. When you add in pre-natal (maternal) effects, which previous studies assume is negligible, it accounts for 20% of the similarity between twins and 5% of similarity between siblings, cutting right into the "genes did it" explanation.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v388/n6641/full/388468a0.html
Quote
most previous models have assumed different degrees of similarity induced by environments specific to twins, to non-twin siblings (henceforth siblings), and to parents and offspring. We now evaluate an alternative model that replaces these three environments by two maternal womb environments, one for twins and another for siblings, along with a common home environment. Meta-analysis of 212 previous studies shows that our ‘maternal-effects’ model fits the data better than the ‘family-environments’ model. Maternal effects, often assumed to be negligible, account for 20% of covariance between twins and 5% between siblings, and the effects of genes are correspondingly reduced
That's basic proof of the unscientific nature of twin studies claims. It's a "god of the gaps" argument in other words. "Genes did it" is so vague, it can fill any gap we haven't explained yet in other more concrete terms. So this new model chipped right into the gap, and thus we reduce the amount that's attributable to "genes". But if it's so easy to find other ignored factors that cut huge chunks into the claimed heritability of IQ, then clearly more detailed and specific research on those lines would carve further big chunks out of it.
That's the big problem here, they're taking a component which is "unexplained" then making the claim that "genes" fits the gap in explained causes. Then if part of that chunk is explained by another factor, the remaining gap is still "genes". But that's negative proof, not positive proof. The onus is on the claimant to prove their factor caused the thing, not on critics to prove it didn't.
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 01, 2017, 03:34:05 pm
It's very apparent that twin studies have flaws, and are an imperfect means of testing for genetic components. I'm not sure of any other way to test for complex trait effects (when there's less than a dozen or so I think genetic sequencing and comparisons become fairly useful? Not certain on that though) being influenced by genes, however, and using imperfect methods is still what science does, until a better method comes along. I'll admit that it's probable that it's very possible that IQ &related is less genetic than these studies purport, but genes are essentially Occam's Razor for development. The basic building blocks of our development and makeup having an impact on the development and makeup of our brains really isn't a stretch. Whether a parent considers their child the athletic or the academic child having an impact is a bit more of a stretch. Though I suppose that's subjective.
My apologies: I meant that from what I can tell it's generally accepted that twin studies are a useful way of gaining insight; most of the field uses, cites, and accepts the use of twin studies, not that the field as a whole defends them from criticism. As you've pointed out (many of these I was, in fact, unaware of), twin studies do have issues. So do most other methods of study, however, such as animal models, and when the field continues to use them...yes, I'm aware that the logic there is close to being circular "the field uses it so it's legitimate so the field should continue to use it". Again, if there's a better method, great.
I think my conclusion here, if nothing else, is that science once again proves to be really hard and figuring out what is and isn't true turns out to be really hard, once again. >.<
Though, considering that from what I've read, shared environment is very rarely found to influence outcomes, or that when it does it does so minimally, though usually it only considers family environment rather than the extremely important stage of development that is the nine months before birth, so I'm curious about that now.
Post by: Reelya on January 01, 2017, 08:56:27 pm
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4557354/
Quote
Typically, in constructing a test, cognitive problems or items thought to engage aspects of intelligence are devised for presentation to testees in trials. Those items on which differences in performance agree with differences in the criterion are put together to make up an intelligence test. There are many other technical aspects of test construction, but this remains the essential rationale. Thus, nearly all contemporary tests, such as the Stanford-Binet or the Woodcock-Johnson tests, rely on correlations of scores with those from other IQ or achievement tests as evidence of validity.
So the problem with using correlations between IQ tests to prove that they're working is that it's circular logic. A lot of effort goes into making tests that correlate well with the Stanford Binet. Which implies that if you just throw an IQ test together there's little correlation between that and "mainstream" tests. Which sort of undermines the idea of "g" when you think about it. If g is so universal it shouldn't need massive statistical trickery to make test results match it.
Quote
It is widely accepted that test scores predict school achievement moderately well, with correlations of around 0.5 (Mackintosh, 2011). The problem lies in the possible self-fulfilment of this prediction because the measures are not independent. Rather they are merely different versions of the same test. Since the first test designers such as Binet, Terman, and others, test items have been devised, either with an eye on the kinds of knowledge and reasoning taught to, and required from, children in schools, or from an attempt to match an impression of the cognitive processes required in schools. This matching is an intuitively-, rather than a theoretically-guided, process, even with nonverbal items such as those in the Raven's Matrices. As Carpenter, Just, and Shell (1990) explained after examining John Raven's personal notes, “ … the description of the abilities that Raven intended to measure are primarily characteristics of the problems, not specifications of the requisite cognitive processes” (p. 408).
In other words, a correlation between IQ and school achievement may emerge because the test items demand the very kinds of (learned) linguistic and cognitive structures that are also the currency of schooling (Olson, 2005). As Thorndike and Hagen (1969) explained, “From the very way in which the tests were assembled [such correlation] could hardly be otherwise” (p. 325). Evidence for this is that correlations between IQ and school achievement tests tend to increase with age (Sternberg, Grigorenko, & Bundy, 2001). And this is why parental drive and encouragement with their children's school learning improves the children's IQ, as numerous results confirm (Nisbett, 2009; Nisbett et al., 2012).
They go on to explain in detail why large meta-analyses that claim a high correlation between IQ and work performance are dubious. Partly because many of the studies included weren't even IQ tests, they merely took any and all "work performance" reviews where there was at least one "test" done of some type, and made the assumption that "test scores" on literally anything were equally valid measures of IQ. Which is clearly some faulty reasoning right there, because it's posited on the conclusion "g factor makes you good on tests. All tests." which doesn't actually follow from how IQ tests are deliberately fine-tuned to correlate with each other, thus the correlation itself is a deliberate statistical artifact.
Quote
In a study of salespersons, Vinchur, Schippmann, Switzer, and Roth (1998) found that “general cognitive ability” showed a correlation of .40 with supervisor ratings but only .04 with objective sales.
So the test scores match subjective interpersonal ratings better than they match objective results? Interesting. But that could also be because of:
Quote
Another problem is the difficulty investigators have experienced in establishing reliabilities for supervisor ratings. Accurate reliabilities are needed, of course, in order to achieve the corrections to correlations. But they tend to be available for only a minority of the studies incorporated in the commonly cited meta-analyses. The strategy of Schmidt and Hunter and other meta-analysts has been to simply extrapolate from the average of those actually available. That strategy, of course, involves many assumptions about representativeness, randomness, uniformity across disparate samples, and so on. Using such a strategy, Hunter and Hunter (1984) assumed a reliability of 0.6 for their corrections, which some investigators have considered to be too low (Hartigan & Wigdor, 1989). Bertua et al. (2005) used the same figure for their meta-analysis of British studies. Moreover, that estimate was based on inter-rater reliability. Murphy and DeShon (2000) pointed out that differences between raters should not be considered error to be corrected because different raters may be looking for different things in a worker. Instead, intra-rater reliabilities should be used. However these tend to be much higher: 0.86 rather than 0.6. according to the meta-analysis carried out by Viswesvaran, Ones, and Schmidt (1996). The lower the value adopted, of course, the bigger the inflation to raw correlations. Using the reliability of 0.6, for example, inflates the correlations by 29%.
Oh, right, they assumed that human error got into the supervisor's ratings so they added a correction factor which boosted correlation by 0.29. Basically, most of the claimed correlation of the meta-analysis was contained in their correction factor which boosted correlation. And this is for the #1 cited meta-analysis of the entire IQ industry. That's even before we add in all the other methodological problems, such as most of the tests not even being IQ tests etc.
Quote
Schmidt and Hunter's approach (1977) insists that correcting for measurement error provide an estimate of the “true” correlation between the underlying constructs. Borsboom and Mellenbergh (2002), on the basis of classical test theory, have vehemently disagreed with this because it also assumes what it is trying to prove, namely the validity of that construct being revealed through the test-criterion correlation.
Ah right, the #1 cited study aimed at proving the validity of IQ testing needed to use circular logic that any data which didn't match it's conclusion was suspect and needed to have an adjustment factor added which made it match their input data better. In fact, the various adjustments and assumptions seem to add up to about 90% of the correlation they claim in the study's conclusion. Here's the final nail in the coffin of the meta-analysis which claims a 0.5 correlation between IQ testing an job performance
Quote
When Hartigan and Wigdor corrected the newer 264 studies for only sampling error (because they were suspicious of the empirical justification for other corrections) the correlations were very low (0.06–0.07) and virtually identical across job families.
Without all the statistically trickery and using larger better-designed sample sets, the true correlation drops by 90%, and they're no different for jobs which are supposed to need IQ as ones that aren't supposed to. e.g. the correlation between IQ test scores and job performance doesn't explain variance in performance for brain surgeons, mathematicians or physicists, any better than it does for mailmen, garbage collectors or McDonald's employees. This was actually the final nail in the coffin for IQ testing. IQ test variation can't even predict your real-world success at doing even things that are included in the test questions. But, of course the pro-IQ people still cite the old uncorrected results as proof.
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 03, 2017, 05:46:46 pm
I just expect to see it all go to hell at some point when some other "clever" scientists find a link between race and intelligence, at which point the already established institutions will be quickly used to erase the "lesser" races from existence.Like it matters, the established institutions are full of people who don't have kids, they can't do shit lmao
Btw this is retarded logic, I'm pretty certain we can give infertile women kids without becoming Hitler. K thanks for trying come again
Post by: Starver on January 03, 2017, 06:07:57 pm
Edit1: Yes, I see the irony of saying that.
Edit2: Above written before seeing your "Internet habits which annoy you" post... <sef>
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 03, 2017, 06:17:23 pm
I really have no idea where on earth you're going there, except for maybe just Something Generically Edgy™ and a chance to use your favourite ETLA. Care to be constructive, ever?I made a constructive post (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=112684.msg7311060#msg7311060) but the response was "yeah, but what if nazis?"
Edit1: Yes, I see the irony of saying that.
Edit2: Above written before seeing your "Internet habits which annoy you" post... <sef>
So yeah nah
Post by: Sergarr on January 05, 2017, 11:34:06 am
Looks like Lee Sedol's first win against AlphaGo may also be human's last victory in Go against top-line AI. One step closer to the AI revolution!
Post by: forsaken1111 on January 05, 2017, 12:09:53 pm
Post by: Sergarr on January 05, 2017, 10:08:44 pm
So Google should be banned for botting?That's probably not in the rules. Besides, banning Google is like banning yourself from the Internet.
Meanwhile, some Indians have managed to install a carbon capture technology on their coal plant. (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/03/indian-firm-carbon-capture-breakthrough-carbonclean) They bake soda with it - and they also didn't use any subsidies to do it, so it should be financially viable. One step closer to the stable environment!
Post by: wierd on January 05, 2017, 10:16:16 pm
Without a good industrial use for bicarbonate that does not involve future liberation of the co2, that drives up demand for the end product, this is only a niche solution.
If you ask me, synthetic asphalt is the big one.
People won't stop driving just because we are axing fossil fuels. Road surfaces are made from oil refinery waste, and demand for surfacing material won't go away. With supply side contraction caused by reduced demand for fuel oil, there will be less asphalt on the market and prices will rise, causing economic havok for growing civic centers. Artificial asphalt would provide replacement supply for the surfacing needs of society, and give a place for carbon to be sequestered for at least several decades at a time.
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 05, 2017, 11:30:05 pm
Post by: Reelya on January 06, 2017, 12:04:25 am
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solvay_process
^ If sodium carbonate as a byproduct comes in they'll be doing less of this. The Solvay process makes about 30 million tons of sodium carbonate per year, which is 75% of global production. The carbon plant in India produces 66000 tons. So it would need 500 similar plants to completely replace what's made by the Solvay Process. But that's a good thing:
For every ton of soda ash the Solvay Process produces, it creates two tons of crud that needs to be landfilled, and that is polluting water systems. So this new process that creates it as a byproduct of another process is only good news.
Post by: alway on January 06, 2017, 01:06:31 am
Post by: Egan_BW on January 06, 2017, 01:07:46 am
Post by: Starver on January 06, 2017, 04:15:32 am
And it's really not ever going to be a significant way to deal with CO2 unless you can find a use for billions of tons of baking soda per year.
Spoiler: ObXKCD (click to show/hide)
Post by: Sergarr on January 06, 2017, 09:52:56 pm
Post by: Sergarr on January 13, 2017, 12:20:14 am
Quote
Researchers have transformed normally timid lab mice into snapping, super-efficient killers by manipulating circuits in the brain's "fear center" — the amygdala.
Their findings show just where the predatory mechanism comes from in the brain, and show that, in mice, anyway, it links the muscles of the jaw, shoulder and forelimb. They work together to create a fast and efficient pounce.
It creates a somewhat horrifying scenario but sheds light on precisely where in the brain hunting skills are centered. It's a mechanism common to all higher animals, including humans.
The team used a technique called optogenetics to control the mice. It involves genetically modifying specific brain cells using a virus, and then employing a laser to activate the neurons.
Once they'd homed in on the correct circuit, the transformation was instant, the team reports in the journal Cell.
Quote
"We'd turn the laser on and they'd jump on an object, hold it with their paws and intensively bite it as if they were trying to capture and kill it," said Ivan de Araujo, an associate professor of psychiatry at the Yale University School of Medicine, who also works at the nearby John B. Pierce Laboratory.Here's a movie of how exactly that thing works. (http://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/2079779361/2071387256/mmc3.mp4)
tl;dr: Scientists have created a virus that genetically modifies mice's brain cells, and those cells then can be activated with a laser, turning normal docile mice into killer mice instantly. A remote control wire, so to say.
Thankfully the laser fibers still need to be implanted directly into the mice's brains in order for this to work - you can't just mass infect people and then control them with a laser pointer... still, this shows that there is real fucking potential for making genetically modified remotely controlled soldiers without free will out of normal human beings.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on January 13, 2017, 12:22:42 am
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 13, 2017, 12:27:02 am
More seriously, no, it isn't
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 13, 2017, 12:29:46 am
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 13, 2017, 12:34:30 am
If you really wanted to cause a rage apocalypse you'd probably be better off dropping an aerosol drug bomb.Or bring down internet access for a couple of days
Post by: Eric Blank on January 13, 2017, 02:16:00 am
Post by: Reelya on January 13, 2017, 02:46:08 am
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 13, 2017, 02:51:48 am
Post by: Sirus on January 13, 2017, 08:18:07 am
I probably shouldn't read science threads at five in the morning...
Post by: Max™ on January 13, 2017, 06:43:12 pm
Post by: Reelya on January 13, 2017, 08:39:09 pm
First we need to determine how many kindergartners it would take to kill this particular human. After discovering this number, divide by the body weight of the mice.
divide by the body weight of the mice.
This part of the formula seems ambiguous, do we divide by their weight in grams or kilograms?
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 13, 2017, 08:42:11 pm
Post by: Starver on January 13, 2017, 08:50:31 pm
This part of the formula seems ambiguous, do we divide by their weight in grams or kilograms?Neither, those being mass measurements. It's probably more a choice between newtons or dynes...
Post by: Max™ on January 13, 2017, 09:21:07 pm
Post by: redwallzyl on January 13, 2017, 09:54:08 pm
Obviously you want to measure it in electronvolts, so we're going to need some method of converting their mass into energy first, wait, what were we doing again?!!Science!!
Post by: Sheb on January 16, 2017, 11:29:14 am
Post by: Parsely on January 16, 2017, 01:09:21 pm
So, a Nevadan women died from an infection resistant to all 26 antibiotics approved in the US. (https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/01/a-superbug-resistant-to-26-antibiotics-killed-a-woman-itll-happen-again/513050/?utm_source=twb) Interestingly, it seems that bug didn't have mcr-1, so it's unclear how it resisted colistin. Great news for my funding applications, terrible news for the rest of you.Funding applications?
Post by: hops on January 16, 2017, 01:38:22 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 16, 2017, 04:44:08 pm
That being said
Given that antibiotic resistance is a disadvantage for bacteria in any environment without antibioticsIIRC this is not strictly true, as some resistance mechanisms are expressed only in the presence of antibiotics and remain dormant otherwise.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 16, 2017, 04:55:40 pm
I'd be interested to know if there were any materials we could use to eliminate drug resistant strains by being a negative genetic pressure in the presence of those genes.
Post by: Starver on January 16, 2017, 06:06:25 pm
Maybe we need to culture something like Yakult (i.e. a probiotic) specifically innoculated with Zero-Resistance Staphylococcus Aureus, flood the recipient with that to outcompete MRSA (under carefully controlled conditions) then hit them with a suitable antibiotic Blammy once there's nothing else left to survive. (Probably includes the patient, though!)
A more technoversion would be raising strains made super-reliant upon synthetic (not naturally occuring) amino acids, to sustain their dominance within the bacteriosphere for exactly as long and as far as the doctors dictate.
But it's tricky. The scene in Jurassic Park with the eggs nobody was expecting comes to mind and we're delibetately infecting ill people with more bugs in both the above cases, whatever the level of care and monitoring...
Post by: Sergarr on January 16, 2017, 08:04:11 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 16, 2017, 08:06:09 pm
Post by: Reelya on January 16, 2017, 08:27:06 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXWurAmtf78
One type is strain-specific, and it tells them how many of their "compatriots" there are, and there's some evidence that they trigger systemic attacks once they have a threshold - because attacking too soon means the organism has more chance to identify the attack and create antibodies. So we can try blocking those receptors to trick the bacteria to think they don't have the numbers.
Another type is really promising - it's a universal marker of "we are bacteria". It's put out by all bacteria, and all other strains have receptors for it. Basically this and the strain-specific type of marker tell each bacteria whether they're the dominant type of bacteria and how many "friends" they have. So since these are set receptors, a method to gum those receptors up should significantly mess up bacteria's day.
Post by: Eric Blank on January 16, 2017, 10:43:41 pm
Post by: Starver on January 17, 2017, 12:57:04 am
(Although both effects could be tricky, with the trigger to trigger each counter-measure being clearly also detriggered by the counter-measure, unless there's a small difference in the negative biofeedback loop pathway, and then bacteria could evolve better recognition of 'fake' trigger conditions. Anyway... Still worth looking for one or the other weaponised fakeries in anti-bacteria behaviours.)
One interesting possibilty for medicinal use, occurs to me: anti-plaque mouth-spray (or even additional to standard mouth-wash action) that discombobulates the colonies of mouth bacteria out of their reveries of thinking/knowing that they should be forming a film, to help other oral hygene methods get past the whole 'stonger together' behaviour. (Just investigate the effects of fuller ingestion of the signal upon the gut biome, friend and foe alike, obviously.)
Probably alrady being looked at, but these are my initial thoughts.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 17, 2017, 01:07:22 am
That is one reason why this wouldnt work.
we're delibetately infecting ill people with more bugs in both the above cases, whatever the level of care and monitoring...
Other reasons that I can think of right now: bacteria share genetic material between themselves, and more likely than not anything that provides a competitive advantage doubles as a virulence factor.
That being said, probiotics have some strong defenders (and detractors) in HSCT in regards to gut flora and gvhd
Post by: wierd on January 17, 2017, 02:26:17 am
Getting hammered with heavy hitting antibiotics is a strong evolutionary pressure source (which is why less energy efficient, but better tolerant of the antibiotics in play populations of microbes take over), and giving the microbes a less energy wasteful solution space to follow to avoid being hammered with said antibiotics would cause them to rapidly overtake their less efficient, drug resistant cousins.
EG, create "Troll" germs. They disrupt the dangerous biofilm production habit by throwing off the signaling mechanism, keeping the germ populations from being disease causing (and thus in need of treatment with heavy antibiotics), which better assures the survival of the diverse group than does adopting expensive resistance features.
Would need a LOT of safety testing though.
Post by: martinuzz on January 19, 2017, 06:35:23 am
The Galileo project is a positioning system which is supposed to be more acurate than gps. Where gps can determine location up to a resolution of a few meters, Galileo can do it with a resolution of a few centimeters, which is expected to be essential for the development of self driving cars.
Every satellite is equipped with 4 atomic clocks, so the failure of 9 clocks hasn't affected any satellite's operational status yet, but it is worrisome to see so many clocks fail, especially since the project isn't even finished yet. The Galileo system isn't available to the public yet, although, since december, industrial clients can use the satellite network to develop applications.
Galileo is supposed to be fully operational in 2020, with 30 satellites in orbit.
ESA cannot say yet if the failing clocks will put subsequent launches on hold, until the cause it determined.
http://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/europees-navigatiesysteem-galileo-is-nog-niet-operationeel-maar-heeft-nu-al-problemen~a4450092/ (http://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/europees-navigatiesysteem-galileo-is-nog-niet-operationeel-maar-heeft-nu-al-problemen~a4450092/)
Dang, that either sounds like a major design flaw on those clocks, or smells like sabotage.
Post by: Sergarr on January 19, 2017, 08:26:49 am
GLONASS sends its regards
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on January 19, 2017, 02:30:55 pm
Post by: TheBiggerFish on January 19, 2017, 04:23:07 pm
Post by: Reelya on January 19, 2017, 05:12:18 pm
Post by: Execute/Dumbo.exe on January 19, 2017, 05:38:35 pm
GONADS navigation system. Trust your balls, never ask for directions.Ground Oriented Navigation Appliance for Durable Souls?
Hrm.
Post by: Reelya on January 19, 2017, 06:52:58 pm
Post by: Egan_BW on January 19, 2017, 07:30:08 pm
Post by: Helgoland on January 20, 2017, 04:46:25 pm
Post by: Akura on January 20, 2017, 07:29:53 pm
Post by: Max™ on January 20, 2017, 11:42:17 pm
Post by: Sergarr on January 21, 2017, 02:10:26 am
Post by: Reelya on January 21, 2017, 02:15:42 am
But how will you get your balls to orbit?
Orbs = Balls. Groin Orbs.
Post by: martinuzz on January 21, 2017, 02:17:15 am
What if your birthday is a leap day, February 29th?Then you only need to rent a girlfriend once every 4 years
Post by: Egan_BW on January 21, 2017, 03:06:08 am
now that's just a copoutBut how will you get your balls to orbit?
Orbs = Balls. Groin Orbs.
Post by: iceball3 on January 21, 2017, 10:47:13 pm
Thankfully the laser fibers still need to be implanted directly into the mice's brains in order for this to work - you can't just mass infect people and then control them with a laser pointer... still, this shows that there is real fucking potential for making genetically modified remotely controlled soldiers without free will out of normal human beings.Remote controlled soldiers or any sort of "berserkers" are nowhere near close to worth the investment it'd take to be barely operational, and are absolutely not suited to how war is fought in our age.
For clarity:
-Robots make better direct-control puppets than people, given an investment like that.
-Making someone "go nuts" or otherwise cooperate with you against their will significantly diminishes their combat capability, as any sort of soldier, marksman, or etc.
-If you really wanted the only thing a swarm of brain controlled berserking humans can do (break some stuff), you could more easily hire a squad of miscreants to incite a riot.
Or you could bomb the area, via guerilla agents or by plane depending on the situation, considering that mindslaving a crowd of people and sending them out to mass murder is kind of a PR disaster either which way anyway.
I do worry about the implications of greater understanding of poking at the brain could have for ethical interrogation, though.
Post by: Sergarr on January 22, 2017, 01:20:16 pm
Post by: forsaken1111 on January 22, 2017, 02:35:09 pm
Post by: PTTG?? on January 22, 2017, 02:42:55 pm
Except for those flash crashes made by rapid trading bots.
Post by: inteuniso on January 22, 2017, 04:37:29 pm
Humans will always be the best at uninformed panicking in response to poorly-understood news articles.
Except for those flash crashes made by rapid trading bots.
I can't wait for rapid news article bots.
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on January 22, 2017, 06:18:10 pm
WE ALL BE DEAD SOON
Post by: Max™ on January 22, 2017, 08:27:15 pm
I, for one, welcome our new yadda yadda... The sooner we can turn all governance over to AI minds and become Culture citizens the better.Agreed, I look forward to the warm embrace of a God who really cares.
Post by: martinuzz on January 22, 2017, 08:36:40 pm
OOPS wrong thread moving to AI state
Post by: Akura on January 22, 2017, 09:06:07 pm
FIXED: Issue where AI would refuse to dispense gloves in temperatures of exactly -23 degrees.What temperature system? Fahrenheit? Celsius? Kelvin? Maybe it's expecting -23° Delisle, in which case instead of gloves, you need a cooling system.
FIXED: Issue where AI would attempt to cremate sleeping people, thinking they were dead.
What about zombies? Would it refuse to cremate them thinking they were alive?
Post by: Sirus on January 22, 2017, 09:34:56 pm
Post by: Egan_BW on January 22, 2017, 11:38:58 pm
Post by: Sergarr on January 23, 2017, 02:30:15 am
I wonder if there's any research into compounds that are not anti-biotics themselves, but help them by genetically favoring bacteria without anti-biotic resistance features...I was totally thinking in the right direction. Scientists have developed a molecule that reverses antibiotic resistance in multiple strains of bacteria at once. (http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-just-announced-our-best-shot-at-ending-antibiotic-resistance-to-date)
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 23, 2017, 02:44:07 am
Uh, I hope.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 23, 2017, 12:13:17 pm
So remember this?You totally weren't. What they did was not what you were saying, at all. It's more analogous to how clavulanate works: it inhibits the defense mechanism so that the antibiotic can work.I wonder if there's any research into compounds that are not anti-biotics themselves, but help them by genetically favoring bacteria without anti-biotic resistance features...I was totally thinking in the right direction. Scientists have developed a molecule that reverses antibiotic resistance in multiple strains of bacteria at once. (http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-just-announced-our-best-shot-at-ending-antibiotic-resistance-to-date)
Post by: Sergarr on January 23, 2017, 12:16:01 pm
Post by: Sheb on January 23, 2017, 04:19:42 pm
Post by: Sergarr on January 23, 2017, 04:21:31 pm
Post by: forsaken1111 on January 23, 2017, 04:24:27 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 23, 2017, 04:29:05 pm
Don't worry, you'll get another one if it comes to that.
Post by: Sheb on January 23, 2017, 04:41:53 pm
Post by: Sheb on January 24, 2017, 10:41:24 am
Edit: Oh, wait, at first I didn't have access, but now I do get access to the .pdf. Neato.
Post by: PTTG?? on January 24, 2017, 12:10:39 pm
https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.05344
Post by: wierd on January 24, 2017, 12:16:46 pm
I dont think there are any industrial scale manufacturing methods for producing this wonder-thermocouple though.
Post by: scrdest on January 24, 2017, 04:27:45 pm
It works, and it works wide-spectrum, got like eight FDA approvals and breakthrough status, and isn't cytotoxic (it can fuck you up somewhat by inducing autoimmunity, because the protein is normally used for that in lymph nodes against autoreactive Tcs, but y'know, beats LITERAL POISONS), although there's been a recent disappointment in lung cancer where it was no better than chemo. Although probably, y'know, not much worse than, again, literally poisoning yourself for medicine.
Goddamn I am hype.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 24, 2017, 05:37:21 pm
Although probably, y'know, not much worse than, again, literally poisoning yourself for medicine.
Don't call chemotherapy "poison". That's what hippy alt-medicine new age healers do >:( . No, chemotherapy is not poison. Yes, therapeutical mabs are very interesting, but they don't instantly render other types of treatments pointless. Also, there's a lot of ongoing research in treatments other than biologicals. It's not an either-or-matter. In fact, if you look into the matter, you'll find there's a category called "antibody-drug conjugates" which combine monoclonal antibodies with other types of molecules -eg chemotherapeutical compounds- for enhanced effect.
It's not like mabs don't have side effects, either. In my experience they're annoyingly prone to inducing allergic reactions, and sometimes they cause weird idiosyncratic reactions which have no obvious relation to the mechanism of the drug.
Post by: forsaken1111 on January 24, 2017, 05:47:32 pm
1. a substance that is capable of causing the illness or death of a living organism when introduced or absorbed.
Post by: TempAcc on January 24, 2017, 06:15:53 pm
While I commend your enthusiasm for biologicals I resent these statements
I have no enthusiasm for biologicals, only artificials are deserving of my esteem
Post by: scrdest on January 24, 2017, 08:22:58 pm
While I commend your enthusiasm for biologicals I resent these statementsThey are literally poisons. The entire mechanism of action of every single cytotoxic therapy is 'hey, this poison will kill the rapidly proliferating cells a bit faster than the rest of the guy'.Although probably, y'know, not much worse than, again, literally poisoning yourself for medicine.
Don't call chemotherapy "poison". That's what hippy alt-medicine new age healers do >:( . No, chemotherapy is not poison. Yes, therapeutical mabs are very interesting, but they don't instantly render other types of treatments pointless. Also, there's a lot of ongoing research in treatments other than biologicals. It's not an either-or-matter. In fact, if you look into the matter, you'll find there's a category called "antibody-drug conjugates" which combine monoclonal antibodies with other types of molecules -eg chemotherapeutical compounds- for enhanced effect.
It's not like mabs don't have side effects, either. In my experience they're annoyingly prone to inducing allergic reactions, and sometimes they cause weird idiosyncratic reactions which have no obvious relation to the mechanism of the drug.
It's not 'technically' poison, it's a straight up textbook poison. I've seen cisplatin as a cytotoxicity standard in some papers for crying out loud! Colchicine and paclitaxel's job is to fuck with tubulins, that's (one of) the mechanisms of methylmercury's toxicity and nobody denies that's toxic.
It's just not a bad thing when you have nothing else. Much in the same way as variolization was deliberately introducing some smallpox into your blood and hoping for the best but was better than straight up praying you won't die of smallpox as the alt-medicine of the times would advise you to.
This thing is cool not because of MAbs themselves; you could probably locate or engineer a small molecule capable of blocking Pd/PdL interactions and it'll work just as well, if not better, it's just that they were easy to engineer as a Thing What Blocks Protein. But the trick here is that you're enabling immune response to work its magic as it's supposed to.
'Course, that means if the immune response is shot for some reason, you won't accomplish much, but we're not burning down the labs and recipes for chemotherapeuticals on launch day either.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 25, 2017, 04:12:50 am
*Everything* is a poison if you go by this rule, because the dose makes the poison.
They are literally poisons. The entire mechanism of action of every single cytotoxic therapy is 'hey, this poison will kill the rapidly proliferating cells a bit faster than the rest of the guy'.
Quote
It's not 'technically' poison, it's a straight up textbook poison. I've seen cisplatin as a cytotoxicity standard in some papers for crying out loud! Colchicine and paclitaxel's job is to fuck with tubulins, that's (one of) the mechanisms of methylmercury's toxicity and nobody denies that's toxic.Mabs have a lot of side effects too, just look at the technical file. Not infrequent either: I've seen a lot of people have their bp crash after their first dose of rituximab. And that's without even going into the weird side effects (eg: for some reason there's a surprisingly high amount of people that develop neutropenia two to four months after administering rituximab) or some of the less family-friendly mabs (like alemtuzumab, for instance).
Quote
It's not the same at all. Mabs provide additional targets but don't replace or displace chemotherapy because the targets purposes are different. That's why combination therapy is a thing, and indeed, mabs are most often used alongside standard chemotherapy in order to achieve a synergy.
It's just not a bad thing when you have nothing else. Much in the same way as variolization was deliberately introducing some smallpox into your blood and hoping for the best but was better than straight up praying you won't die of smallpox as the alt-medicine of the times would advise you to.
Quote
This thing is cool not because of MAbs themselves; you could probably locate or engineer a small molecule capable of blocking Pd/PdL interactions and it'll work just as well, if not better, it's just that they were easy to engineer as a Thing What Blocks Protein. But the trick here is that you're enabling immune response to work its magic as it's supposed to.And it's real nice, but it's not a magic bullet. That's why you have to help it along. See above.
Quote
and there are plenty of reasons why this might be a thing in an oncological patient, both treatment related and disease-related.
'Course, that means if the immune response is shot for some reason,
Quote
you won't accomplish much, but we're not burning down the labs and recipes for chemotherapeuticals on launch day either.You're not burning them at all because it doesn't work like that.
Post by: wierd on January 25, 2017, 04:29:17 am
The deal is, many things that are straight up traditional toxins, are also useful medicinally, because the mechanism by which they cause illness can be therapeutically beneficial in certain circumstances. Cancer is one such application, as is hypertension treatment, and a number of others.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 25, 2017, 04:48:15 am
By the way, if we're still on the nitpick train: Any treatment using chemical compounds technically rates as chemotherapy, and indeed you see this terminology from time to time applied to antibiotics, if not very often. ;)
Once again it's not my intention to diss the technology. I'm a big fan and highly hopeful of advanced biotechnology. I'm a big fan of immunotherapy too, although in that regard I'm more interested in engineered lymphocyte TCRs and CARs, which are very promising (but once again, not without their side effects, and not instantly wiping out previous oncological and haemato-oncological therapies).
Case in point: Anti-CD19 CAR-T cells are very effective against acute lymphoblastic leukemia (well, B acute lymphoblastic leukemia, obviously), but it has been shown that nonetheless it's benefitial to perform a HSCT afterwards as consolidation therapy. Maybe over time we'll have better CAR-T-Cells with multiple targets that can obviate it altogether, but nonetheless the takehome message is that this is widening the arsenal (and therefore improving results, often dramatically), not wiping the slate of what has been done before.
Another, possibly more relevant (because more time has passed) case in point: Chronic myeloid leukemia has a very effective treatment in tyrosin-kinase inhibitors, and this changed the prognosis of the disease dramatically, with the gold standard for treatment jumping from allo-HSCT to everyone that could stand it (before), to taking a pill everyday (after). Nevertheless HSCT is still done from time to time for CML, as some people do need to undergo transplantation for a variety of reasons.
Post by: scrdest on January 25, 2017, 06:24:57 am
I am delineating the difference between straight-up poisons and high-dosage toxicity. Yes, everything, even water, is toxic if you dose someone with enough of them. But something like warfarin, or indeed even aspirin, is harmful in a 'too much of a good thing' way - granted, a number of downright classical toxins like atropine are as well, just with a lower dose.
But the mechanism of action of warfarin is relatively innocuous; it's not that you as a healthy person particularly want something to interfere with your vitamin K metabolism, but still.
Cytotoxic therapy agents are, surprisingly, cytotoxic. You might not have enough contact with them for them to kill you, but it's not for lack of trying. They wouldn't be terribly good at their job if they weren't.
You seem to be operating under the notion I'm against chemo - I am not, by no means! But I am emphatically for developing something better, because there has to be a more optimal primary approach to eliminating neoplasms than 'kill them all and let proliferation rates sort them out'. Especially since cancer cells are pretty damn good at dodging those and coming back in force.
Quote'Course, that means if the immune response is shot for some reason,and there are plenty of reasons why this might be a thing in an oncological patient, both treatment related and disease-related.
And I admitted so much.
Quoteyou won't accomplish much, but we're not burning down the labs and recipes for chemotherapeuticals on launch day either.You're not burning them at all because it doesn't work like that.
I was being light-hearted here. Point being that if that is indeed the case that we have a patient we cannot use immunotherapy or some other novel treatment, we always have chemo as a fallback. And for the majority of patients, the data is fairly striking...
Spoiler: This shit works. And it works better than chemo. (click to show/hide)
Post by: Reelya on January 25, 2017, 07:17:45 am
This is going to cheer those hippies up: e coli with non-standard genetic base pairs (they have a 6 letter code instead of 4 letters). This might be as close to "creating life" as any scientist could claim:
Quote
Previous research had shown that an "unnatural base pair" (UBP), consisting of two synthetic letters called X and Y, could be incorporated into the DNA of Escherichia coli bacteria.
But the resulting bugs grew slowly, and the UBP was expunged after several rounds of cell division.
Now, Prof Floyd Romesberg, from The Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California, and colleagues, have shown that their single-celled organism can hold on indefinitely to the synthetic base pair as it divides.
"We've made this semisynthetic organism more life-like," said Prof Romesberg, senior author of the new study.
"Your genome isn't just stable for a day," said Prof Romesberg. "Your genome has to be stable for the scale of your lifetime. If the semisynthetic organism is going to really be an organism, it has to be able to stably maintain that information."
Key to the advance was a modification to a molecular transporter, which helps the E. coli bugs import the UBP.
Next, the researchers optimised their previous version of Y so that it could be better recognised by the enzymes that synthesise DNA molecules during replication.
Finally, the researchers set up a "spell check" system for the organism using the CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing tool.
They were able to take advantage of the tool to ensure that any cells that dropped X and Y would be marked for destruction.
Their semisynthetic organism was thus able to keep X and Y in its genome after dividing 60 times, leading the researchers to believe it can hold on to the base pair indefinitely.
Post by: wierd on January 25, 2017, 07:23:08 am
However, even with it non-encoding, it could be useful for use as an error correcting code. (Think something similar to the simple parity bit used in computer memory to catch simple memory storage errors) This would be useful in say, assisting an organism to better catch when it has become cancerous.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 25, 2017, 08:02:04 am
Quote
I am baffled why you seem to be fixating on the MAbs here. MAbs aren't important here. The interaction and the inhibition thereof is.I don't even understand what you mean here
Quote
Cytotoxic therapy agents are, surprisingly, cytotoxic. You might not have enough contact with them for them to kill you, but it's not for lack of trying. They wouldn't be terribly good at their job if they weren't.Once again, *everything* is toxic in the right amounts. You're making a difference where there is none. If you're killed by the side effects it matters little whether we are talking about a monoclonal antibody, a cytotoxic agent of whatever sort (because it's not like they're a homogeneous class), or whatever else.
Quote
You seem to be operating under the notion I'm against chemo - I am not, by no means! But I am emphatically for developing something better, because there has to be a more optimal primary approach to eliminating neoplasms than 'kill them all and let proliferation rates sort them out'. Especially since cancer cells are pretty damn good at dodging those and coming back in force.Once again, the matter is far more complex than mabs being "better" than chemotherapy. You are fixated in "less side effects = better", which isn't necessarily true (and it's not necessarily true that they have less side effects either. Have you checked nivolumab's tech profile? It's pretty nasty. Likely less nasty than taxanes, true, but it's not something that you can casually say "oh, it's not toxic" either)
Hell, it's not like this isn't an ongoing debate with nivolumab right now : http://www.esmo.org/Conferences/ESMO-2016-Congress/Press-Media/Greater-Patient-Selection-May-be-Needed-for-First-Line-Nivolumab-to-Improve-Progression-free-Survival-in-Advanced-Lung-Cancer
(Full disclosure, second from top is a source from the manufacturer.)Spoiler: This shit works. And it works better than chemo. (click to show/hide)
Well shit, science advances. New treatments appear that have better results. Who would have known?
Except that STILL doesn't mean that standard chemotherapy is out of the picture with the appaerance of mabs. What that trial says is that in relapsed NSCLC nivolumab is superior to docetaxel in monotherapy. (worth noting that in both cases it's still fairly lousy. As you might expect from a refractory tumor, on the other hand)
But if you check what's going on currently with nivolumab, you find that, surprise surprise, current trials are testing it in combination with other mAbs or with chemotherapy:
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02477826
http://www.ascopost.com/issues/july-10-2016/combination-of-nivolumab-and-ipilimumab-moves-forward-in-nsclc/
So, no, I'm not denying the effectiveness of new therapies. I'm denying a fact that you seem to be persistently oblivious to: They don't debunk conventional, and a good deal of work is underway to combine them with conventional therapies.
It's not like there's no precedent. There are quite a few mAbs that have been in the market for years (most notably rituximab), and for the most part they're used in combination therapy.
By the way, there's a solid, known, biological reason for this. Monoclonal antibodies, as the name suggests, have one single target. Therefore you're selecting for clones that don't express said target, thus encountering eventual resistance if used in monotherapy. Now, I'm guessing this occurs faster in haematological tumors because of them having (for the most part) a higher Ki67, but common sense (and a fast check on the literature) suggests that the same principle applies.
Post by: scrdest on January 25, 2017, 09:59:40 am
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 25, 2017, 10:15:30 am
You clearly didn't bother to check what's the underlying concept, or for that matter what I'm arguing (granted, that's traditionally mostly on me to make clear) and you're being hostile now. I don't have time for this shit.
::) sure. You realize I actually make a living prescribing this kind of stuff right.
You're right in one thing though: I can't figure out if you are excited about immunomodulation (which is not specially new either, also works better in conjunction with other approaches), monoclonal antibodies, or both. TBH you've been rather obscure about your point
Post by: TheBiggerFish on January 26, 2017, 12:23:48 am
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38737693HEY GUYS LOOK AT THIS
This is going to cheer those hippies up: e coli with non-standard genetic base pairs (they have a 6 letter code instead of 4 letters). This might be as close to "creating life" as any scientist could claim:QuotePrevious research had shown that an "unnatural base pair" (UBP), consisting of two synthetic letters called X and Y, could be incorporated into the DNA of Escherichia coli bacteria.
But the resulting bugs grew slowly, and the UBP was expunged after several rounds of cell division.
Now, Prof Floyd Romesberg, from The Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California, and colleagues, have shown that their single-celled organism can hold on indefinitely to the synthetic base pair as it divides.
"We've made this semisynthetic organism more life-like," said Prof Romesberg, senior author of the new study.
"Your genome isn't just stable for a day," said Prof Romesberg. "Your genome has to be stable for the scale of your lifetime. If the semisynthetic organism is going to really be an organism, it has to be able to stably maintain that information."
Key to the advance was a modification to a molecular transporter, which helps the E. coli bugs import the UBP.
Next, the researchers optimised their previous version of Y so that it could be better recognised by the enzymes that synthesise DNA molecules during replication.
Finally, the researchers set up a "spell check" system for the organism using the CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing tool.
They were able to take advantage of the tool to ensure that any cells that dropped X and Y would be marked for destruction.
Their semisynthetic organism was thus able to keep X and Y in its genome after dividing 60 times, leading the researchers to believe it can hold on to the base pair indefinitely.
Seriously though. Keep it cool.
Post by: wierd on January 26, 2017, 12:29:13 am
If the base pair did something USEFUL, like encode a unique RNA for a unique protein, or was part of the non-coding region and used cleverly to help assure that non-useful repeat sequences are prevented, it would be a lot more interesting.
Post by: Sheb on January 26, 2017, 04:05:59 am
Post by: wierd on January 26, 2017, 04:19:19 am
Post by: Reelya on January 26, 2017, 05:07:11 am
Essentially, they have forced the organism to retain the new base pair (that does nothing, as it does not encode any RNAs), by adding a lethal consequence to deletion, which it naturally wants to do, because retaining it is metabolically expensive.
If the base pair did something USEFUL, like encode a unique RNA for a unique protein, or was part of the non-coding region and used cleverly to help assure that non-useful repeat sequences are prevented, it would be a lot more interesting.
To be honest, we don't know exactly what it does or could do. Life has a way of exploiting whatever systems you give it. If you're adding new base pairs, that's going to be a detriment to survival, but life will adjust to compensate, so you get new behavior you haven't seen before.
Post by: Sheb on January 26, 2017, 05:19:40 am
Essentially, they have forced the organism to retain the new base pair (that does nothing, as it does not encode any RNAs), by adding a lethal consequence to deletion, which it naturally wants to do, because retaining it is metabolically expensive.
If the base pair did something USEFUL, like encode a unique RNA for a unique protein, or was part of the non-coding region and used cleverly to help assure that non-useful repeat sequences are prevented, it would be a lot more interesting.
To be honest, we don't know exactly what it does or could do. Life has a way of exploiting whatever systems you give it. If you're adding new base pairs, that's going to be a detriment to survival, but life will adjust to compensate, so you get new behavior you haven't seen before.
Well, yeah, if you let it evolve for some millions years in an environment where those new bases are available. And if you can force the organism to keep this base in its genome. And give it the tools to actually read that base.
wierd: Well, yeah, a tRNA is just one part of the translation machinery, but it should be easy enough to grab an existing one, modify one or two base pair of its anticodon to include an unatural nucleotide and see if you can decode the codons with UBP. There is already a whole bunch of tRNA/amino-acyl tRNA synthetase that have been created for a bunch of unnatural amino acids, so the second step would be incorporating artificial amino acids using codons with the UBP. Then see how specific and efficient it is with several pairs of tRNA/AARS.
Post by: Reelya on January 26, 2017, 07:36:31 am
An e. coli weights about 1×10−15 kg. So if you can keep alive 1 kilo of bacteria, and they breed a new generation every 20 minutes, you can try out 10^15/20 per minute, or about 1 trillion new cell configurations per second.
Post by: wierd on January 26, 2017, 07:43:42 am
ecoli is one of the bacteria that passes a plasmid though, right? that could have interesting amplification effects.
Post by: Rolepgeek on January 26, 2017, 03:11:18 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 26, 2017, 03:23:32 pm
Post by: Reelya on January 26, 2017, 03:38:54 pm
Too optimistic. Mutation rate is not that high, and most of the mutations would not be directed toward ubp integration. Would be significantly lower than those values, and would need sustained environmental pressure to select mutants favorable to the desired outcome.
ecoli is one of the bacteria that passes a plasmid though, right? that could have interesting amplification effects.
But the thing is, being sub-optimal is itself a strong selection pressure. Selection pressures are only 50:50 when your organism is already near the optimum. If you put an organism in an unfamiliar environment, adaptation happens a lot quicker than trying to eke out a more optimal solution vs one that's already near optimal.
Also, Human-pig 'chimera embryos' detailed:
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-38717930
Here's a picture:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Additionally, new research shows that nicotine reduces schizophrenia symptoms:
https://science.slashdot.org/story/17/01/25/2042206/nicotine-shown-to-reduce-symptoms-of-schizophrenia
Quote
A meta-analysis of worldwide studies conducted in 2005 definitively showed what many doctors had been anecdotally noting for decades. Schizophrenia patients were much more likely to become heavy smokers than than those in the general population. In fact some studies found over 80 percent of those diagnosed with schizophrenia were smokers. There were many social and psychological hypotheses proposed to explain this strange anomaly, but none were ever sufficient. A new study published in Nature Medicine has not only revealed how smoking can normalize the impairments in brain activity associated with schizophrenia, but unlocks an entirely new field of drug research to combat the disease.
Basically society currently treat smokers like pariahs, which is a very puritan way of looking at things. But they've known (or suspected) for a few decades now that there are strong correlations between smoking and a number of mental health issues. People are self-medicating, basically, because as the new research shows conclusively, that stuff works. So it's basically wrong to point out "eww your a smoker. get self control" the same as it would be to point out fat people the same way. The trade off is that cigarettes cut 10 years off your life, but they stop schizophrenics from having the symptoms. Lose 10 years off your life but be sane instead of crazy? Actually that sounds like a rational choice that many people would take. Perhaps we should rethink what we think we know about people who smoke. If you know 1 person in 100 who can't or won't quit cigarettes, they're probably schizophrenic (whether or not they've been diagnosed).
Post by: Sheb on January 26, 2017, 05:57:29 pm
Post by: Solifuge on January 26, 2017, 06:55:28 pm
Linko: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603502/two-infants-treated-with-universal-immune-cells-have-their-cancer-vanish/ (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603502/two-infants-treated-with-universal-immune-cells-have-their-cancer-vanish/)
EDIT: Though they're not ready for widespread use, other similar techniques that require immune cells tailored to each individual is hopefully going to be available later this year. Even so, engineered generic immune cells have kicked off tons of hopeful research in treating cancers and diseases of all sorts. Exciting stuff!
Post by: Frumple on January 26, 2017, 07:06:28 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 26, 2017, 07:12:20 pm
On that front: my umderstanding is that the one getting approved soonish is Novartis', which is patient specific...
Post by: Reelya on January 26, 2017, 07:15:40 pm
Reelya, what would be the selection pressure in this case? I mean, we're talking about the genetic code, the thing is so stable that it's basically the same in bacteria and in humans: aka it barely changed in BILLIONS on years. But you seem to think that a few decades of evolution of that SSO will lead to a change.
The selection pressure is specifically the fact that creating something that's deeply sub-optimal itself is the pressure. Actually the fact that basic systems in normal cells haven't changed in billions of years is actually the point. Those systems took a relatively short time to develop, then once they optimized they stopped changing. If you veer an organism far from equilibrium then the time to get that into an optimal range is far less than the billions of years your talking about. The sheer lack of change for billions of years is the point. Those systems didn't take billions of years to develop, they took a much shorter time to develop, then stopped changing once they were in an optimal equilibrium.
An example from real-world lab studies is some amoebas who somehow survived having a bacteria infection that should be fatal. The surviving bacteria were extremely weak and had a very slow dividing time compared to normal. But the researchers kept them alive. After about a month, they had amoebas who could breed about as fast as normal amoebas, but still had hundreds of the bacteria cells inside them. The cool thing was, these amoebas would now die if you removed the bacteria. They had become dependent on them being there. So yeah, no. Single-cell organisms can in fact adapt to things pretty darn fast. Generation time measured in hours or minutes and the fact that every individual cell is a unique competitor means the equation is completely different to the "evolution takes million of years" argument that would apply to humans. Think about two million-year old proto-humans compared to modern humans. if a generation is 20 years, that's 1 million generations. 1 million generations of a bug that splits every 20 minutes is a lot less, especially when the population size of a jelly plate of bugs is more than the historic total population of humans until relatively recently. Bacteria have both population size and rapid generations to provide feedback and have many, many different mutations tried at once. Also they have stronger competitive pressures than human-scale animals. Bacteria want to double every 20 minutes. So at the limit, you've got half your population being culled every generation / 20 minutes, or if not, extremely aggressive competition for limited food resources. So you ask where the selection pressure is coming from? From right there. Basically only half of any generation can possibly pass their genes onto the next one. Additionally, higher animals express high-level changes in phenotype. So you expect 2 million year old humans to have a certain amount of difference to modern humans. But bacteria are low-level organisms. They thus have more likelihood of low-level changes. Basically because there is no high level to be changed. So things like basic chemistry changes and dealing with biochemical threats/systems, that's where all the generational change is with bacteria, because that's the level they operate at.
Post by: Frumple on January 26, 2017, 07:20:00 pm
They are engineered T lymphocytes. Hence T cells /CAR-T cells.Cart cells would be good. We can go with that.
On that front: my umderstanding is that the one getting approved soonish is Novartis', which is patient specific...
Post by: Solifuge on January 26, 2017, 07:38:22 pm
my umderstanding is that the one getting approved soonish is Novartis', which is patient specific...
Whoops! Did a quick reread, and edited the post accordingly. Still, I'm really interested to see how far we can push Engineered Immune Cells as a technology. I'd love to see widespread ways to teach people's immune systems to fight disease without needing individual vaccines, or more varieties of cells that are engineered to attack other hard-to-treat illnesses.
Post by: Reelya on January 26, 2017, 07:53:47 pm
If you do something totally whacked-out to an organism, what's the likelihood that the results are anywhere near optimal? They're basically zero. Whacked-out big changes basically screw the organism, and mean the genome is now completely suboptimal.
If your organism is optimal, then a random mutation is very unlikely to make you a better organism. But that's not true of organisms that are far from optimal. Imagine a bacteria in which you'd engineered all the possible defects that make it worse, but leave just enough for it to stay alive. Say it's got 10000 defects which could be improved, vs an optimal bacteria, which has say 10 base pairs which could be improved. Given equal chance of mutations, the 10000 defects bugs has 1000 times the chance of a positive mutation compared to the 10 defects bug. So at that level, it will be picking up positive adaptations 1000 times faster than a "normal" bug that's already optimized. The rate of positive adaptations vs negative adaptations slows down as a bug approaches optimal performance.
Effectively, if you cobble something in the lab from spare parts, it's 100% comprised of defects, thus mutations have a far greater chance of being better than what it started with compared to a stable line of bacteria, probably thousands of times higher chance. you also see rapid change when organisms are introduced to a completely new environment, because their previous genome is no longer optimal.
Post by: Sheb on January 27, 2017, 03:02:49 am
(Also, please, stop quoting the 20 minute doubling time when we're talking about sick bacteria like those, that's the absolutely optimal doubling time)
Don't get me wrong: long-term Lansky type experiment could make that bug fitter. It won't make anything interesting with the UBP on human timescale though.
Post by: Reelya on January 27, 2017, 03:49:17 am
Great. So you have a selection pressure to get rid of the UBP (maybe by mutating out Cas9 or the guide RNA). Please tell me how that selection pressure will create 1) A new tRNA, B) a new AARS, C) incorporatet he UBP in the genome where it can do some good D) a new pathway to produce the new amino acid in quantities.
Not every base pair is a coding pair. The fact is, nature has a habit of finding novel uses for random things. What I wrote doesn't make the assumption that it's going to be the specific things you're talking about. A deficiency is often a trigger to come up with some novel way to workaround the problem, as in the amoeba example I gave.
But back to your main points. First you said it'll take "millions of years". But I countered that by pointing out that it's a parallel process. If a specific mutation that's needed for the next step is 1 in 1 million chance, then obviously, it's going to express in 1 cell per million in each generation.
But I really think you might be underestimating the speed at which parallel evolution can explore the search space of a genome. For example, insects that could digest DDT appeared a couple of decades after the stuff started to be used, and insects don't quite have the generation speed of microbes.
Post by: Sheb on January 27, 2017, 04:52:31 am
But still, the point is that stuff like digesting DDT is relatively easy: you just need to tweak an enzyme. Same for the classical Lensky experiment: they manage to get E. coli to grow on citrate in a mere 20 years... But that involved just getting rid of the repression of one gene. This is much, much more complicated. The fact that you need specific Cas0 sgRNA just to keep one UBP in the plasmid means that you're unlikely to see that UBP popping up in other places (let alone the genome).
Full disclaimer: I actually worked in a lab for about 6 months where they did long-term E. coli evolution.
Post by: Execute/Dumbo.exe on January 27, 2017, 04:53:49 am
We can get some alliteration going on, though.Start doing that, though, and we lose the name 'Killer T-cells'They are engineered T lymphocytes. Hence T cells /CAR-T cells.Cart cells would be good. We can go with that.
On that front: my umderstanding is that the one getting approved soonish is Novartis', which is patient specific...
Not great alliteration, but 'Killer CAR-T' is an alright start.
Post by: Sheb on January 27, 2017, 05:17:19 am
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 27, 2017, 07:59:43 am
my umderstanding is that the one getting approved soonish is Novartis', which is patient specific...
Whoops! Did a quick reread, and edited the post accordingly. Still, I'm really interested to see how far we can push Engineered Immune Cells as a technology. I'd love to see widespread ways to teach people's immune systems to fight disease without needing individual vaccines, or more varieties of cells that are engineered to attack other hard-to-treat illnesses.
Well, concerning CAR T Cell therapy:
AFAIK the ongoing research goes around improving the antitumor response by adding stimulating factors to the chimeric antigen receptor, and looking for new targets to engineer CAR-T cells around (eg: other haematological neoplasms, solid tumors). My erstwhile boss told me a while ago that one CAR-T Cell expert he had talked to had mentioned that another mid-to-long term goal would be transfecting more than one receptor type per cell, thus achieving multitarget CAR-Ts (worth noting that while my former boss is something of a transplantation guru, at least back then he did not work with CARTs himself. This might have changed in the last two years though).
Worth noting that CAR-T cell therapy is not without it's side effects. Most notably huge cytokine storms (even nastier than the ones in allo-HSCT) when the cells start killing the tumor, to the extent that in the US there's an experimental monoclonal antibody to try to deal with them. There's also some off-target toxicity and GvHD (I talked with an oncologist in London who was working in CAR-T-Cells in solid tumors, and she was specially concerned about this). And Juno Therapeutics had to stop their own anti-CD19 trial because they had a number of cases of people dying of some weird neurotoxic effect. Also, AFAIK in the leukemia trials they try to consolidate the responses with HSCT anyway, to prevent relapses by CD-19-negative clones.
Nonetheless this is a type of therapy that is very promising, and I like the subject a lot :)
There's a very interesting review of the subject that I just downloaded from here (http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v16/n9/full/nrc.2016.97.html?WT.feed_name=subjects_cancer-immunotherapy). I'm reading through it at the moment. :)
I'd really like to be able to get a foot in a project of this sort...
Post by: Scoops Novel on January 27, 2017, 09:08:29 am
That's a room temperature superconductor, in case ya didn't know.
There's still some doubt (http://www.nature.com/news/physicists-doubt-bold-report-of-metallic-hydrogen-1.21379) over it, or it may be legit with caveats such as decaying once the diamond screws are loosened.
TOO LATE FOR THE HYPE TRAIN
Post by: forsaken1111 on January 27, 2017, 09:13:34 am
Post by: wierd on January 27, 2017, 09:15:32 am
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on January 27, 2017, 03:12:06 pm
Post by: Putnam on January 27, 2017, 03:45:49 pm
METALLIC HYDROGEN (https://phys.org/news/2016-09-room-temp-superconductors.html) NIGGAS! Woot woot
That's a room temperature superconductor, in case ya didn't know.
There's still some doubt (https://phys.org/news/2016-09-room-temp-superconductors.html) over it, or it may be legit with caveats such as decaying once the diamond screws are loosened.
TOO LATE FOR THE HYPE TRAIN
you may wanna fix those links, the first one should link to this article (https://phys.org/news/2017-01-metallic-hydrogen-theory-reality.html)
Post by: Max™ on January 27, 2017, 04:20:44 pm
It's interesting, but before holy grailing it, remember two things: diamond anvils, and exciting rocket fuel.
Post by: Sirus on January 27, 2017, 06:55:12 pm
Post by: Max™ on January 27, 2017, 08:14:46 pm
Post by: smjjames on January 27, 2017, 08:23:07 pm
-amoeba bacteria symbiosis-
This is extremely likely how we came to have mitochondria and chloroplasts, and is one of the theories. Sure, they both barely resemble their bacterial ancestors, but both of them have DNA and grow and divide just like bacteria do. It's pretty much the ultimate symbiote situation, except one side has all but lost it's 'identity' as a bacteria.
Post by: Reelya on January 28, 2017, 07:33:05 pm
Spoiler: Amoeba symbiosis research (click to show/hide)
BTW two independent teams at Harvard and University of Maryland have simultaneously reported the creation of "time crystals" (structures which repeat in both time and space, i.e. the undulate) using very different materials to make them, based on a theory that was recently published:
https://science.slashdot.org/story/17/01/28/2027253/scientist-investigate-a-brand-new-form-of-matter-time-crystals
Obviously this needs to be replicated further, but two completely different teams doing it at the same time, from stuff that is completely different and getting the same result which matches the theory, that in itself ticks the right boxes.
Post by: redwallzyl on January 28, 2017, 07:43:06 pm
Yeah, it's pretty cool that they saw what is basically that in the lab. The amoebas are now dependent on the bacteria being there. Additionally, since they now inhabit a very specific type of amoeba these bacteria might in fact lose the ability to move into "normal" amoebas. I should probably link a source however because the claims are pretty big (1995 paper):perpetual motion crystals?Spoiler: Amoeba symbiosis research (click to show/hide)
BTW two independent teams at Harvard and University of Maryland have simultaneously reported the creation of "time crystals" (structures which repeat in both time and space, i.e. the undulate) using very different materials to make them, based on a theory that was recently published:
https://science.slashdot.org/story/17/01/28/2027253/scientist-investigate-a-brand-new-form-of-matter-time-crystals
Obviously this needs to be replicated further, but two completely different teams doing it at the same time, from stuff that is completely different and getting the same result which marches the theory, that in itself ticks the right boxes.
Post by: Max™ on January 28, 2017, 09:29:24 pm
They used a good example in the article there: tap a chunk of jello with your finger at a steady rate and you expect it to wobble in time with the taps, Discrete Time Crystals (DTC) exhibit a different period than the input alone should produce, so it exhibits behavior which isn't reversable in time like most things actually are. Dropping an egg and having it shatter is normal, and having a splattered egg reform and fly into the air is not normal.
At the subatomic scale though, you get things which happen one way and know that sooner or later you'll observe it happening the other way, your accelerator makes a particle split into a neutrino and muon, at some point you'll observe a muon and neutrino come together and produce that particle.
In a DTC you're getting behaviors which only take place one way in time, the crystal atoms are pulsed and begin to resonate, and then start to exhibit a different resonant period from the pulses used to initiate it, which isn't something you can reverse to generate a chain of atoms that stop resonating in that way and settle into a regular periodic cycle without using a completely different method, if it is even possible at all.
If you did set up something to produce the later form of a DTC and had it evolve to the prior form, it wouldn't work when reversed like everything else does in physics, hence it is a broken symmetry.
A crystal like in a gem doesn't have an arrangement you would expect, evenly spaced and randomly distributed elements, instead it has the property that certain directions and arrangements are favored, so it exhibits a broken rotational or translational symmetry from certain directions but not others. Rotating a series of events through time and not having them operate the same way is new.
Post by: tonnot98 on January 28, 2017, 09:52:38 pm
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/80-years-late-scientists-finally-turn-hydrogen-into-a-metal/
Quote
"Diamond failure," they note, "is the principal limitation for achieving the required pressures to observe SMH," where SMH means "solid metallic hydrogen" rather than "shaking my head."
Post by: inteuniso on January 29, 2017, 03:09:05 pm
another source for the metal hydrogen if anyone's interested:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/80-years-late-scientists-finally-turn-hydrogen-into-a-metal/Quote"Diamond failure," they note, "is the principal limitation for achieving the required pressures to observe SMH," where SMH means "solid metallic hydrogen" rather than "shaking my head."
Clearly we need lonsdaleite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonsdaleite) anvils.
Post by: Sheb on January 30, 2017, 03:30:52 am
Yeah, it's pretty cool that they saw what is basically that in the lab. The amoebas are now dependent on the bacteria being there. Additionally, since they now inhabit a very specific type of amoeba these bacteria might in fact lose the ability to move into "normal" amoebas. I should probably link a source however because the claims are pretty big (1995 paper):Spoiler: Amoeba symbiosis research (click to show/hide)
BTW two independent teams at Harvard and University of Maryland have simultaneously reported the creation of "time crystals" (structures which repeat in both time and space, i.e. the undulate) using very different materials to make them, based on a theory that was recently published:
https://science.slashdot.org/story/17/01/28/2027253/scientist-investigate-a-brand-new-form-of-matter-time-crystals
Obviously this needs to be replicated further, but two completely different teams doing it at the same time, from stuff that is completely different and getting the same result which matches the theory, that in itself ticks the right boxes.
That's pretty sweet, even though it's kinda weird so little people seems to have taken interest in this (his papers have only a handful of citations). Good monday morning reading while my PCRs are running though, thanks!
Post by: scrdest on February 09, 2017, 09:44:29 am
Two new approvals, week ago for urothelial carcinoma, one on Jan 20th for gastric cancer.
4/270 had lethal side-effect and 17% discontinued due to side-effects, 7/270 had a complete response (clinical->human: all detectable cancer is kill) in the former. CBA to look up data on the gastric cancer trials vOv.
Post by: Reelya on February 11, 2017, 01:23:07 am
Scientists in New Zealand are trying CRISPR genome editing to put a gene in male mice that causes them to only have male children. The idea is to spread these mice and they breed with the other mice, causing a runaway process in which the population runs out of females and crashes. Doing this in mammals is a first, but they're already trying this out with insects such as malaria-carrying mosquitos:
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v34/n1/full/nbt.3439.html
Cane Toads in Australia would also be a great candidate for this sort of thing. They get everywhere, so a few genome-edited males would hop around and once they "infect" a local population of the toads with their male-only germline, then that population would implode, but the excess males would spread out in search of further mates. It's a brilliant strategy.
Post by: Rose on February 11, 2017, 01:24:54 am
Post by: Reelya on February 11, 2017, 01:40:10 am
People stopped working because they don't care because "there's no future" yet they're all desperated for food now. If they're desperate for food, they shouldn't have stopped working now, shouldn't they?
Post by: Eric Blank on February 11, 2017, 01:40:21 am
Post by: Reelya on February 11, 2017, 01:46:07 am
So in other words the gene system makes additional copies of itself that fall outside the normal mendelian genetics system with it's natural selection. That means that the normal ideas about organism fitness don't quite apply in this case, and in fact one of the ideas about doing this in mosquitos involves adding a gene that makes them less fit. Because this system "cheats" at natural selection it can actually drive down the total population fitness as a whole.
Post by: wierd on February 11, 2017, 01:56:31 am
There is a project to introduce Wolbachia into the west nile mosquito, but if coupled with a gene-drive to force male phenotype, it could cause strange reactions.
http://www.eliminatedengue.com/our-research/wolbachia
Really, Wolbachia is the *better* approach, because it causes infected females to be self-fertile in most instances. It also forces genotypical male larvae to become female adults, as part of its life cycle. (It can only spread down the insect germline in female hosts, so it disrupts insect pupation and forces female phenotype development.)
Post by: Reelya on February 11, 2017, 02:43:45 am
But the above assumes equal fitness. I put together a JavaScript to do the numbers, if they're equally fit, then 1% mutants would be 99% in 10 generations, which is an extremely short amount of time. Normally, a mutant of equal fitness wouldn't increase the proportion of organisms with it's genes whatsoever. So how about if the BB's are less fit? Basically since they double their share of the gene pool every generation at the limit of low population, then AAs would have to survive twice as often to stop BBs getting a foothold. As the proportion of mutants rises the needed fitness of the mutants actually drops, they only need 42% fitness to break even with the normal ones at 50% population, and the limit to maintain 100% of the population being mutants approaches 25% fitness at 100%. So even really marginal organisms with this system could permanently take over a population if you seeded enough.
The real advantage of this over the Wolbachia strategy is that this is a self-replicating system whereas the Wolbachia requires you to constantly reseed the infertile males in large numbers. As soon as you stop seeding the infertile males, any residual mosquito population can rebound, and there might be pockets of remaining population that your released mosquitos can't reach.
Post by: wierd on February 11, 2017, 03:13:44 am
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=wolbachia-induced+parthenogenesis&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj7kqOvzIfSAhXEyoMKHUuRAmEQgQMIGDAA
They dont NEED males.
See for instance, wasps, and many species of ant.
Wolbachia puts a VERY strong pressure on the infected organism, and supplies a LOT of biochemical hardware to the organism. Many insect species have become dependent upon their presence, and cannot survive without them.
Post by: Reelya on February 11, 2017, 03:28:15 am
This CRISPR gene works by copying itself to any gene that lacks it, attacking one specified "unwanted" gene and carrying a payload along with it. You could use it to deliver anything that you really want. The advantage is that it spreads itself through a population by basically doubling each generation at the low limit and/or halving the non-infected population at the high limit. Exactly what it's delivering is up to the gene engineers.
Similar to walbachia infections, it is self-sustaining as opposed to something you have to keep reapplying. But the risk with walbachia is that it's still possible to have a disease transmitted by a walbachia-infected mosquito. So a disease could adapt to the new host. Also if they do indeed switch to parthanogenesis then future control mechanism which require sexual reproduction to spread them might stop working as a mosquito control mechanism.
Post by: Eric Blank on February 11, 2017, 03:35:01 am
Post by: Reelya on February 11, 2017, 03:38:56 am
To be honest, I'd like to see the no-daughters gene hack used on feral cats (not to mention rabbits, foxes etc). That would seriously minimize the cat problem here, too. It would also incidentally reduce the number of people's pet cats having girl baby cats and thus kittens. The remainder could then be adopted out and there could be limited breeding to keep up the pet cat population.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603533/first-gene-drive-in-mammals-could-aid-vast-new-zealand-eradication-plan/
EDIT: oh and one female environmentalist who totally supported the researchers when they previously used poison to control mice (but eagles and other things also ate the poison), has now publicly dropped support for the group because of the species-specific gene drive tech. And she's also invoked feminism:
Quote
Cummings, the environmental lawyer who is also the author of a book critical of GMOs, says she’s also alarmed by the plans to target female mice. “Daughterless anything is a problem,” she says. “The whole ‘eliminate the female’ concept needs to be looked at philosophically and ethically.”
Uhuh, it's "philosophically" the answer because one male can mate with 100 females and have 100 litters of babies. Eliminating males isn't effective. The number of females is the controlling factor.
Post by: wierd on February 11, 2017, 04:28:58 am
In more polite and general terms, she has a subjective bias, and thus is not participating in science. ;P
Post by: Reelya on February 11, 2017, 04:37:26 am
Of course I knew she was saying it's misogynistic to target female mice. That was why I selected that specific quote. It didn't really need further elaboration from me, so I thought.
Post by: wierd on February 11, 2017, 04:45:33 am
Sadly, such people tend to be "untouchable" because *gasp, women's rights!"--- even when we are discussing the science of removing an invasive species from a locality they are not indigenous to, and where they cause massive ecological damage, and need to be completely exterminated from.
The latter part of the subject is often completely sidelined, because of the former. It's one of those "argument winners" that invoke emotion rather than reason. I despise it on principle.
I take some small consolation that she is an attorney and not a scientist-- If she was a research peer, I would be livid at the state of science education.
Post by: Reelya on February 11, 2017, 04:51:52 am
But here's her benefit of the doubt: she's actually anti-GMO, invoking feminism was in fact a gambit of hers to try and create more anti-GMO sentiment rather than a proper scientific criticism. So unless she's a complete moron she was aware her mouse patriarchy argument was ridiculous from the start.
Post by: wierd on February 11, 2017, 04:55:24 am
If it somehow interfered with a cherished ideological position, (Historical precedent-- Heliocentrism vs Geocentrism in dark age Europe) the invocation of "Emotion" will be used to win argument, and prevent proper discourse, which is toxic. THAT is what I find offensive most of all.
Post by: Reelya on February 11, 2017, 05:18:23 am
That is not the underlying problem. The science could be on the level of "Hey Yo, Water is wet! Dont breathe it!"
If it somehow interfered with a cherished ideological position, (Historical precedent-- Heliocentrism vs Geocentrism in dark age Europe) the invocation of "Emotion" will be used to win argument, and prevent proper discourse, which is toxic. THAT is what I find offensive most of all.
Like I edited in, i think the feminism thing is just a ploy to drumbeat anti-GMO sentiment among the right crowd. So it's the sideshow, not her real argument.
Post by: wierd on February 11, 2017, 05:19:29 am
Post by: Starver on February 11, 2017, 08:15:19 am
With ears on.Once the no-daughter thing gets into the pet population (as it will, although mostly by human incompetence in keeping a proper eye on a 'pedigree' queen), there could end up being a pressure upon illegal kitten-farms hording 'clean' queens and possibly (or possibly not, if they're looking for return customers over ethical business) 'clean' toms, in whatever dank conditions they can get away with.
To be honest, I'd like to see the no-daughters gene hack used on feral cats (not to mention rabbits, foxes etc). That would seriously minimize the cat problem here, too. It would also incidentally reduce the number of people's pet cats having girl baby cats and thus kittens. The remainder could then be adopted out and there could be limited breeding to keep up the pet cat population.
It happens at the moment, with pet-breeding, but if there's no easy home-test released so that regular householders (not dedicated pet breeders, just incidental ones - the ones that are probably considered the problem at the moment) can't classify and monitor their accidental kittens, then Kittens Of Cats scenario might require human intervention to mitigate. And a re-daughtering CRISPR sounds like a rather perverse answer, akin to reintroducing smallpox-resistance to the world by reinfecting people with smallpox. (If the worry is that someone else is going to do it. And that's why they need the resistance!)
That's a thought-experiment, though, with its own issues of wrongness
(Would this thing be good or bad for the British Wildcat, I wonder. Currentlty, the danger is that hybridisation with house-/farm-cats is removing the true Wildcat line. If all half-wildcats were male, then... Yeah, they'd still be creating ¾-Wildcat 'infected' males, creating ⅞-Wildcat infected males... even as other non-wildcat infected males were still fathering from the remaining pure-blood females. Same increased (undesired) male competition for the (wanted, themselves classic wildcat) females. You might end up with 1023/1024th-wildcat (better than nothing!), but it would only be male and male-producing whatever compatible female it lucked upon finding. No, this wouldn't be the answer to that problem. Even if it wasn't worryingly human-weaponisable by any mad person with an extremely long-term goal in mind. Or just persuade enough people that the anti-malaria/polio/typhoid/rubella/measles/tetanus injections are stealth infertility attacks upon <insert national/ethnic/social/religious group here>... Like they already have spread such rumours in the likes of Pakistan.)
Post by: Descan on February 11, 2017, 04:37:29 pm
Post by: Reelya on February 14, 2017, 10:37:24 pm
Post by: Bumber on February 15, 2017, 02:02:47 am
Post by: Sheb on February 15, 2017, 02:49:16 am
Male cats tend to be problematic when it comes to marking territory. Sometimes even neutered ones.
Your point would be more valid if standard cats only had female cats.
Post by: Reelya on February 15, 2017, 03:03:15 am
So, un-neutered female cats could still breed true, but they'd have to be bred with a male cat from a certified breeder. However, within a couple of generations of gene-drive for cats, the chance of a random pregnancy for your cat would start to drop off quite a bit, so those all-male litters wouldn't be that common.
Post by: Bumber on February 15, 2017, 03:18:17 am
I suppose they could cross-pollinate their cats with those of different breeders, but would they before serious genetic issues surfaced across all the cats in the region, causing lasting harm?
Post by: Reelya on February 15, 2017, 03:22:05 am
I think it stands to reason that breeders would trade cats or sell cats to each other. Inbreeding a single line of cats is already understood to be an issue for commercial operations. They already deal with this now. It's not going to make serious genetic afflictions affect all the cats, because bred cats are a known issue already. When you say "certain breeds" that's about pedigree cats that are bred to show off a specific type, and they won't become better or worse by merely adding a gene drive to feral cats. They don't deal with those issues by breeding them with "street cats" even now.
Post by: martinuzz on February 15, 2017, 05:52:57 pm
Other types of pet animals seem to be ok without letting them out for random breeding experiments.Not really. Most thoroughbred dogs come with a whole package of genetic disposition towards a gazillion health issues.
Same for throroughbred cats. A lot of them have respiratory afflictions, or genetic disposition to kidney failure at relative young age.
Or take milk cows. At least the Dutch breed we have here would go extinct in the wild because, having been bred to have extremely large and productive udders, something had to make room for that, so now their birth canals have become too narrow. Such a large percentage of cows would die giving birth in the wild, without human assistance, that it is assumed it will make the breed go extinct.
If you want healthy cats / dogs, get a bastard, preferably parented by more bastards. Introducing male gene drive to stray cat populations is really a terrible, terrible idea. Limiting it to reputable breeders will most certainly lead to genetic problems.
If you are having problems with stray cats, don't go full overkill with something as invasive as a gene drive. Neighborhood-wide neutering and re-releasing programs can halt population growth, combined with a personal approach to educate the local crazy cat ladies to neuter their cat hives.
Post by: Reelya on February 15, 2017, 08:03:45 pm
Once the no-daughter thing gets into the pet population (as it will, although mostly by human incompetence in keeping a proper eye on a 'pedigree' queen), there could end up being a pressure upon illegal kitten-farms hording 'clean' queens and possibly (or possibly not, if they're looking for return customers over ethical business) 'clean' toms, in whatever dank conditions they can get away with.
If there's a male-only gene drive then all females are "clean" by definition, even if they had previous litters of gene-drive males. So it's just clean males that would be in demand. In fact they could breed the females with gene-drive males in order to have only boy kittens for sale. It's a lot less surgically invasive to neuter males.
Other types of pet animals seem to be ok without letting them out for random breeding experiments.Not really. Most thoroughbred dogs come with a whole package of genetic disposition towards a gazillion health issues.
Same for throroughbred cats. A lot of them have respiratory afflictions, or genetic disposition to kidney failure at relative young age.
But they do that deliberately, because they're bred for shows and pedigrees, so they deliberately breed them with e.g. parent/child or sibling inbreeding. So in those cases the breeding stock is heavily restricted by design. For just standard pet cats there isn't the same pressure to do that, so it's not quite a comparable situation.
"Show cats" are an inbred mess. The average cat you buy in a pet shop isn't the same. And that's what we'd be left with if strays largely disappeared because of a gene drive. Pet shop cats aren't going to suddenly become mutants because there are less strays. But also with less random unwanted cats being bought, then demand for pet shop cats would increase, and to meet that, the size of the breeding pool would have to rise, and a larger breeding pool promotes diversity.
Post by: martinuzz on February 16, 2017, 02:46:21 am
Post by: wierd on February 16, 2017, 03:19:20 am
Moggy cats are on average, healthier (because they arent inbred, or have serious renal or respiratory problems that "purebred" cats have), and smarter than their "show" counterparts.
They also tend to be "free to a good home" because mittens managed to get out and find some random tom somewhere and then popped out 12 kittens a few months later, and her peoples cant afford to keep 13 cats.
I think spay and neuter are good control methods, but introducing a genetic nuclear option is over the top. Nature is significantly less kind about things than humans, and she is more than willing to murder them all, so to speak. Currently, stray cats live terrible, bleak lives-- but no worse so than any other wild predator of their size.
If you are a pet owner, keeping your pet from replicating out of control is part of being a responsible one.
I personally see the market for cats go way up if there is an introduction of a nuclear population depletion option in the population, because the depression on the market from ubiquitous availability of moggy cats will vanish. I dont think the benefits would outweigh the costs, and think it is dangerous to do so.
Now, if you want to totally destroy a population that should not be someplace-- like mice in NZ, or cane toads in AU--- by all means! Nuclear Option Ahoy!
Companion animals? Better to institute more aggressive fines and fees for irresponsible pet ownership.
Post by: Descan on February 16, 2017, 01:23:39 pm
y'all gonna cause cat eugenics
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 16, 2017, 01:26:08 pm
Post by: martinuzz on February 16, 2017, 02:26:58 pm
An acquitance of my father once walked into his house to find his favorite (up to that moment) uncle skinning and cooking his pet cat.That is one of the moments I would cross the 'thou shallt not kill' treshold, and skin and cook the uncle. You don't kill my cat and live to tell it.
Post by: Helgoland on February 16, 2017, 02:36:01 pm
My issue with the nuclear option on strays in an area with a beloved pet population is that they gon' fuck; no pure-breed is actually pure, it's got stray in it, and if that nuclear option gets in, it'll eradication to cleanse the breeding population again.If I understand correctly, it wouldn't be a problem because the females are always clean. If you happen to lose the last clean male - and that's quite a task -, you could probably just edit back the DNS of an 'infected' male.
y'all gonna cause cat eugenics
Post by: wobbly on February 16, 2017, 03:06:44 pm
Now, if you want to totally destroy a population that should not be someplace-- like mice in NZ, or cane toads in AU--- by all means! Nuclear Option Ahoy!
Companion animals? Better to institute more aggressive fines and fees for irresponsible pet ownership.
Trouble is cats are both of those for AUS
Post by: hops on February 17, 2017, 05:47:07 am
Post by: TempAcc on February 17, 2017, 06:28:52 am
Post by: Eric Blank on February 17, 2017, 09:20:44 am
Cats are relegated to bad stereotypes of foreign countries.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 17, 2017, 09:35:03 am
Post by: martinuzz on February 18, 2017, 02:53:07 am
http://www.utahbusiness.com/university-of-utah-engineers-develop-smart-glasses/
Post by: wierd on February 18, 2017, 02:59:56 am
Post by: martinuzz on February 18, 2017, 03:02:59 am
Post by: Starver on February 18, 2017, 07:01:15 am
Post by: Max™ on February 18, 2017, 09:37:32 pm
Post by: hops on February 19, 2017, 04:24:45 am
Crystalised life (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39013829) (give or take)But have they found any naked magic women inside the crystal that send the scientists on a mission to save the world from evil?
Post by: Reelya on February 20, 2017, 03:46:49 am
Crystalised life (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39013829) (give or take)But have they found any naked magic women inside the crystal that send the scientists on a mission to save the world from evil?
They found hot, naked creatures, who were not male:
Quote
Scientists have extracted long-dormant microbes from inside the famous giant crystals ... The environment is hot (40-60C), humid and acidic. With no light at depth, any lifeform must chemosynthesise to survive.
Which the scientists reanimated in an secret ritual:
Quote
they were able also to re-animate these organisms in the lab. ... the Nasa director said that the necessary protocols were followed.
And it's sent them on a cosmic journey:
Quote
"The astrobiological link is obvious in that any extremophile system that we're studying allows us to push the envelope of life further on Earth, and we add it to this atlas of possibilities that we can apply to different planetary settings."
Which the bards have started recording in the holy verse:
Quote
"It is tear inducingly beautiful down there. I wrote several poems about it actually."
Post by: martinuzz on February 20, 2017, 04:06:44 pm
The breakthrough is expected to make neural networks more effective, and energy efficient.
Neural networks are an essential part of artificial intelligence, and are used for pattern recognition, for example in assessing traffic situation by autonomous cars, and speech recognition.
The problem is, neural networks rely on current computer technology. Even though modern computers excel in processing numbers, they are not as good at pattern recognition, which is where the human brain is still superior.
The best pattern recognition currrently is achieved simulating neural networks with powerful graphical processors. Even though those are getting pretty good at approaching human-like levels of achievement, it comes at a huge energy cost for storing, and processing data.
For this reason, computer scientist have been working on computer chips that are more similar to the human brain.
The design created by the combined research team, which they published yesterday in Nature Materials, is derived from an organic battery.
Their artificial synaps consists of two thin, flexible layers of polymere, with an electrolyte with 3 contact points in between.
By slightly loading, or unloading the electrolyte, the resistance in the lower polymere layer rises or falls.
When the process of loading / unloading is stopped, the layer retains it's resistance, creating a solid memory state.
"The difference with a regular transistor is that a memory value in this synaps isn't limited to one or zero, but can take any value", says lead researched Yoeri van de Burght, who has lead the research in Stanford, and is now teaching at the University of Eindhoven.
With the protoype synaps, the researchers ran a simulation in a virtual neural network. They conclude that what they observed has to be reproducable in practice.
In a follow up research, van den Burght wants to link several dozens of their synaps, to form a small neural network that is capable of simple pattern recognition.
Professor in nano-technology at Twente University, Wilfred van der Wiel, says "it is fascinating, especially since the researchers claim that their system is more energy efficient than it's biological counterpart".
He does add that he thinks it would have been even more convincing if the researchers had waited with publishing until they had tested a neural net in pratice, instead of only a simulation. "But I understand that if they were under pressure (competition) to publish results fast, they chose to do so now"
http://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/computer-die-functioneert-als-menselijk-brein-mogelijk-stapje-dichterbij~a4464938/ (http://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/computer-die-functioneert-als-menselijk-brein-mogelijk-stapje-dichterbij~a4464938/)
http://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nmat4870.html?WT.feed_name=subjects_physics (http://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nmat4870.html?WT.feed_name=subjects_physics)
Post by: Descan on February 20, 2017, 05:23:57 pm
better get workin' here ;-;
Post by: Sirus on February 20, 2017, 05:42:36 pm
Post by: Sheb on February 21, 2017, 02:14:24 am
That's basically the first step in what I want to do with my life. So. Uh. ...
better get workin' here ;-;
I thought you wanted to make weird stuff in biological setting, not create bio-ispired computers.
Post by: Starver on February 21, 2017, 05:00:32 am
Post by: Gentlefish on February 21, 2017, 11:32:58 am
That's basically the first step in what I want to do with my life. So. Uh. ...
better get workin' here ;-;
I thought you wanted to make weird stuff in biological setting, not create bio-ispired computers.
I do think he's planning on taking this sort of thing and integrating it into the human body a la transhumanism.
Post by: martinuzz on February 21, 2017, 01:23:48 pm
Post by: TheBiggerFish on February 21, 2017, 01:47:24 pm
Post by: Arx on February 21, 2017, 01:52:11 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 21, 2017, 01:56:34 pm
I'll probably smack you with a stick in the head from time to time though. It's a quirk of mine.
Also, you're ok with mining uranium by hand right?
Post by: TheBiggerFish on February 21, 2017, 01:57:12 pm
@ChairmanPoo:Try color=transparent next time.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 21, 2017, 01:58:59 pm
@Arx:...You have a point.Gee thanks!
@ChairmanPoo:Try color=transparent next time.
*scratches down TBFs name in the list of people to send to the uranium mines*
Post by: TheBiggerFish on February 21, 2017, 02:04:38 pm
You're welcome! dangerouslaborlist.Add(Internet.ByDomain("*.bay12forums.com").Users.DataByUsername("ChairmanPoo"));@Arx:...You have a point.Gee thanks!
@ChairmanPoo:Try color=transparent next time.
*scratches down TBFs name in the list of people to send to the uranium mines*
Post by: TempAcc on February 21, 2017, 02:27:47 pm
Post by: Levi on February 24, 2017, 11:04:00 am
Smart bees! Good bees!
Post by: Egan_BW on February 24, 2017, 06:07:30 pm
Post by: martinuzz on February 24, 2017, 06:32:49 pm
Post by: Starver on February 24, 2017, 06:56:13 pm
Post by: Max™ on February 25, 2017, 01:22:54 am
Watching them hunch over a little ball and start scooting it around, well, the missus will not be happy to see this...
...she'll be tickled pink! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJyHeUaSMVw)
Post by: Levi on February 27, 2017, 05:30:26 pm
Boston Robotics has a new ROBO.
Quote
6.5 ft tall, travels at 9 mph and jumps 4 feet vertically. It uses electric power to operate both electric and hydraulic actuators, with a range of about 15 miles on one battery charge.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7xvqQeoA8c
Post by: Max™ on February 27, 2017, 06:30:09 pm
Post by: Reelya on February 28, 2017, 07:19:48 am
Apparently they found you can grow human ears on a slice of apple now. Mice everywhere breath a sigh of relief.
Post by: Starver on February 28, 2017, 07:35:46 am
And, if I can no longer see that, I just need to find the apple of my eye...
But prevention is better than cure. A doctor a day keeps the apple away. Unless it all goes pear-shaped.
Post by: Arx on February 28, 2017, 08:34:27 am
Has that been pear reviewed?
Post by: forsaken1111 on February 28, 2017, 12:08:25 pm
Post by: forsaken1111 on February 28, 2017, 01:15:17 pm
An apple a day keeps the doctor away.What if you put the apple in some sort of apple-cannon?
But not the biologists.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on February 28, 2017, 01:38:57 pm
You'll just attract engineers.An apple a day keeps the doctor away.What if you put the apple in some sort of apple-cannon?
But not the biologists.
Post by: Max™ on February 28, 2017, 01:42:21 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 28, 2017, 01:42:35 pm
Post by: martinuzz on March 01, 2017, 07:27:39 pm
Up until now, the process of unfreezing donor organs caused damage, and even tearing, from temperature differences within the organ.
The researchers have found a clever way to defrost tissues uniformly and evenly.
Using a rinsable fluid, they added iron oxide nano particles to the organs before freezing them.
Next, they used a magnetic field to heat the iron oxide particles within the organ. The tissues tested survived undamaged, contrary to the control samples defrosted in a conventional way.
They did not test the procedure with entire organs yet. They used smaller tissue samples. The method proved effective on both pig as well as human tissues.
Robert Porte, transplantation surgeon at the Dutch University Medical Centre Groningen does question the usefulness though.
"It's a nice piece of work, and scientifically very solid. However, over the past few years, the trend has been to abandon the idea of freezing organs. Another technique is much more advanced; using artificial blood circulation to keep donor organs alive is already starting to see application in the field, making cooling or freezing obsolete."
Post by: Reelya on March 01, 2017, 07:32:25 pm
Quote
Robert Porte, transplantation surgeon at the Dutch University Medical Centre Groningen does question the usefulness though.
More options is always better however. If a technique is abandoned, then an improvement in the abandoned technique is still worth pursuing as it might make it viable in more circumstances. Cryogenic suspension could advance due to this discovery for example.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 01, 2017, 07:37:52 pm
Post by: Levi on March 03, 2017, 11:32:19 am
Good news for all of us who have arranged to have their brains frozen in a icy vat. Um, probably just me I guess.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on March 03, 2017, 11:37:30 am
Post by: Levi on March 03, 2017, 11:52:07 am
Post by: hops on March 03, 2017, 02:01:22 pm
Post by: Max™ on March 03, 2017, 02:02:33 pm
Post by: TheBiggerFish on March 03, 2017, 03:09:33 pm
Post by: Egan_BW on March 03, 2017, 03:30:41 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 03, 2017, 04:03:57 pm
Time to put myself in a freezer marked "Open in Trappist".Hope you're ready to skip fifty thousand years and get woken up by the post-apocalyptic remnants of humanity orbiting a dead world singed by a red dwarf because they think you're the prophesied savior because their badly rampant AI guardian told them so.
Come on man, have some foresight here.
Post by: Egan_BW on March 03, 2017, 04:05:26 pm
Post by: Akura on March 03, 2017, 05:45:40 pm
Time to put myself in a freezer marked "Open in Trappist".Hope you're ready to skip fifty thousand years and get woken up by the post-apocalyptic remnants of humanity orbiting a dead world singed by a red dwarf because they think you're the prophesied savior because their badly rampant AI guardian told them so.
Come on man, have some foresight here.
You're saying that like that's not exactly what I want to happen.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 03, 2017, 05:57:39 pm
Post by: Reelya on March 03, 2017, 06:35:12 pm
Post by: Max™ on March 03, 2017, 06:48:32 pm
1. Silicon instead of say, a lattice woven from near Planck-scale wormholes or some other loosely plausible but way out in distant hard sci-fi territory.
2. Children in 50,000 years implies people still die enough to need enough replacement to use the plural, which is a weird niche of "our tech got us this far, but no further, yet we didn't get wiped out for some reason" type doomsday scenarios.
3. Not only are they living mayfly lives at this point, but they've got an AI god (obviously not a Strong AI God) which can't (or won't) try to even teach them how to make things to fix anything which breaks.
4. Tech tends to break as we are developing it, and then if you don't maintain a built-in obsolescence there is no reason to assume we'll be hard up for self-repairing stuff that just doesn't break at all within a few centuries, much less a few kiloyears in the future.
5. Cybernetics kinda implies obvious implants, we're hitting that stage now, dear god what is with the apocalyptic mindset man, how are these people smart enough to reach that point in the future while being so stupid?
6. If humanity is done in by entropy it will be a long time from now, we've got great big gaudy stars sitting around still, we're smart enough to get by on the trickles of energy from red dwarf stars for trillions of years, and then we'll have some time before we reach the "how can we locally reduce entropy again" type of problems. Heat death isn't a billion year problem, it's a trillion year problem at the low end.
*Stephen Baxter, part of the Manifold series, Space is goddamn depressing, Time is confusing as shit but magnificent in scope, Origin is weirdly touching with some super bummer moments but it isn't as bad as Space--though what is, I'm not even sure watching a baby elephant trying to wake up it's dead mother is as soul-crushing as the ending of Space--and they're a huge mood switch from the Xeelee Sequence.
Post by: sjm9876 on March 03, 2017, 06:52:14 pm
As far as I understand it, entropy is not certain to go up, it's that the likelihood of it going up is vastly more probable than it going down. It's quite plausible that sometime in the next 10 billion years someone might actually stumble on the design of an "anti-entropy engine" (some particularly unlikely arrangement of matter and energy) that can basically sustain a civilization even in a heat death scenario.
From memory, that's not quite it either. The entropy of a closed system can only go up. However, the only truly closed system is (probably) the universe. In an open system, which is pretty much anything, then yes, the likelihood of it increasing is more but not absolute.
That means that whilst we can decrease the entropy in a localised area, that comes at the cost of increased entropy elsewhere, and eventually that reservoir entropy will build enough to overcome the reduction.
Still, if you want an anti-entropy engine, congratulations - you are one :P
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 03, 2017, 06:53:41 pm
Post by: Starver on March 03, 2017, 06:57:21 pm
Post by: Max™ on March 03, 2017, 06:59:58 pm
Post by: wierd on March 04, 2017, 05:50:30 am
You people sure have a thing for watching emaciated transhuman descendant children with damaged cybernetics looking up at you with their weird too-wide but still pathetic eyes as they ask why you, the Ancestral Savior promised to them by their silicon god can do nothing to ease the burden of their chronic algae feed shortage or stop the downward spiral of entropy that will soon claim the last degenerate remnant of the human race.
By that stage, they are essentially virtual beings living in a virtual world anyway. Put them on a robotic colony seed ship to the Trappist system, or one of the other systems with good candidates that has a type M star.
M type stars have longevity that would rival the beginnings of the heat death of the universe. If they cannot find a way to harness dark energy in the 60 billion or so estimated years such a star can burn reliably, then they deserve to have the universe eat them.
(I suggest dark energy, because not only is the expansion of the universe not slowing down, but it appears to be increasing. Spacetime itself is not a null-energy system, which is why things like vacuum fluctuations occur. We know next to nothing about dark energy, aside from the fact that it is driving absurd expansion of the whole universe, and that it is increasing. Should a way be found to exploit dark energy, it is possible that future transhumans could have "cold, desolate" parts of the universe that they dump waste entropy into, while exploiting the dark energy to create localized areas of low entropy suitable for life to continue. Should dark energy be an inexhuastible source of energy, this would lead to a new era of the universe in which isolated parts remain low entropy, but are forever cut off from each other due to run-away expansion between them at far greater than light speed rates of expansion.)
Post by: TheDarkStar on March 04, 2017, 12:17:38 pm
If things are slowly being pushed apart, does that mean that at a galactic scale the gravitational potential energy is increasing and that by properly moving things (stars, etc) into eccentric orbits around galaxies you could harness that energy? Failing that, could you make a gigantic spring (or something else that gains potential energy from being lengthened), with the length presumably measured in lightyears, attached to two points that are drifting apart and periodically release it to liberate some of the gained energy?
Post by: Max™ on March 04, 2017, 12:54:08 pm
Post by: Putnam on March 04, 2017, 04:51:01 pm
On the scales where you could try that, objects are moving apart at or above c.
Note that scales you could try that are way beyond galactic, like, over a hundred thousand times the size.
Post by: Max™ on March 04, 2017, 07:07:35 pm
Post by: TheBiggerFish on March 04, 2017, 09:40:05 pm
Yeah, not to say that it isn't a neat sound idea, but the guy who wrote the physics code didn't take a positive view on fun stuff like that.Heh.
Post by: PTTG?? on March 05, 2017, 01:00:40 pm
An example of this guy selling the idea. (http://www.yourcentralvalley.com/news/local-business-owners-introduced-to-new-energy-technology/663753003)
He's spent 20 years being about 9 months away from selling it.
Among other psuedoscientific problems, they claim that the "reactor" works fine, but they are having trouble turning the heat output from it into usable energy. They want to use concentrated solar cells, but if it's putting out that much energy, a thermal engine would work just fine.
Post by: Reelya on March 05, 2017, 01:12:00 pm
Post by: TheBiggerFish on March 05, 2017, 01:24:11 pm
How bad is it?
Post by: smjjames on March 05, 2017, 01:26:13 pm
There's a serious hoax going around under the name Brilliant Light Power, which is basically this guy who is selling a free-energy device that electrolizes water, disposes of the oxygen, and does... something... to the hydrogen. He says it reduces the electron below the ground state, creating what he calls a "hydrino."
An example of this guy selling the idea. (http://www.yourcentralvalley.com/news/local-business-owners-introduced-to-new-energy-technology/663753003)
He's spent 20 years being about 9 months away from selling it.
Among other psuedoscientific problems, they claim that the "reactor" works fine, but they are having trouble turning the heat output from it into usable energy. They want to use concentrated solar cells, but if it's putting out that much energy, a thermal engine would work just fine.
Kind of resembles some ads I've seen a while back about some bunch of stuff claiming to have found either a revolutionary power source that involves only sand or that the power source was sand grain sized. In the few looks at it that I did, I never saw any actual details about the power source, other than maybe outright claiming it to be as simple and as common as beach sand, seemingly implying that it IS sand. Of course though, I wasn't hearing/seeing of it elsewhere since finding a new power source would be big deal.
The founder of the Brilliant Light Power company very humbly self-published a book called The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics.
Let me guess, it's about the classical elements? You know, the main four, with metal sometimes included
Post by: hops on March 05, 2017, 02:08:10 pm
Post by: martinuzz on March 05, 2017, 04:50:29 pm
You have been slain.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on March 05, 2017, 05:00:38 pm
Post by: smjjames on March 05, 2017, 05:03:01 pm
?
Because 'unstoppable motion', like 'unstoppable force'.
Post by: tonnot98 on March 07, 2017, 11:58:09 pm
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/glass-battery-technology/
Neat stuff, we might finally never have to worry about the dreaded "overcharging" of stuff anymore when this is released. I just hope production goes into full swing before this man turns to dust.
Post by: Max™ on March 08, 2017, 12:40:54 am
Post by: TheBiggerFish on March 08, 2017, 12:48:40 am
Post by: Max™ on March 08, 2017, 02:09:35 am
Post by: Starver on March 08, 2017, 07:32:52 am
Post by: wierd on March 08, 2017, 07:38:57 am
Post by: Mech#4 on March 08, 2017, 08:09:42 pm
Regardless, a battery that works much better with repeated recharges is great. As it stands my phone lasts for about a day without being attached to a charger so that's something that could definitely improved.
Post by: Reelya on March 08, 2017, 08:18:20 pm
Quote
SCIENCE has captured time. And it’s not just a Dr Who publicity stunt. A new type of crystal traps atoms in an infinite loop — pulsing eternally without losing energy.Yes: a perpetual motion machine.
And the only way the laws of thermodynamics — which define how much energy exists and how it deteriorates — can be defied is by suspending time itself.
This is what two new experiments appear to have achieved. (http://www.nature.com/news/the-quest-to-crystallize-time-1.21595?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews)
Researchers have published their results in the latest edition of the science journal (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v543/n7644/full/543185a.html) Nature (http://www.nature.com/news/the-quest-to-crystallize-time-1.21595?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews).
“We have found a new phase of matter,” said theoretical physics graduate student at Harvard University and study co-author Soonwon Choi.
“It’s something moving in time while still stable.”
Why should we care? It provides the possibility of making ultra-fast quantum computers stable enough to be useful.
Pretty big claims here.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 08, 2017, 08:27:26 pm
Post by: Max™ on March 08, 2017, 08:33:37 pm
Having one that starts oscillating and remains in that state is more like a spatial crystal in that sense, but if it can be set up in reverse it doesn't seem as legitimately defined as a time crystal to me.
Post by: redwallzyl on March 10, 2017, 02:37:55 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Eric Blank on March 11, 2017, 12:52:47 am
It looks from other photos that that ring is around its orbital plane where it intersects Saturn's ring most directly. Its probably accreted material that isn't being pulled down because the moons gravity isn't strong enough to even it out, so it stays where it lands. Its fascinating. I bet its nice and porous, gravel and boulders, within the accretion ring
Edit; actually that's what the available wikipedia information says is going on too (I can't load anything else because I'm out of high speed data)
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 11, 2017, 09:12:24 am
Post by: Puzzlemaker on March 11, 2017, 09:54:25 am
Post by: hops on March 11, 2017, 09:55:24 am
Post by: forsaken1111 on March 11, 2017, 11:56:34 am
Post by: Telgin on March 11, 2017, 10:43:45 pm
It would be much more interesting just because it would open up new avenues in physics research. It would invalidate some theories and require us to rethink them, which in turn could lead to more useful discoveries.
But it's likely it just doesn't work and everything up to this point has been experimental error.
Post by: wierd on March 11, 2017, 11:54:02 pm
Unless they can get a very clear "wow" signal out of the noise, I wouldnt get my hopes up on getting the physics community to give it serious thought.
Post by: sluissa on March 12, 2017, 11:42:10 am
Post by: Reelya on March 16, 2017, 11:40:38 pm
This new protein has a lot of potential uses, e.g. they added it to yeast and now have yeast that are more tolerant to dehydration. The real money here would be adding it to crops, then you can start engineering drought and frost tolerant plants, which could potentially massively increase biomass growth in currently marginal areas.
But it's not only tolerant of freezing and drying out, this stuff apparently absorbs 40% of the radiation that hits the organism. So you can make radiation shielded organisms. Combine this with the some of the plants they've been testing out as possibilities to grow in Martian conditions (https://phys.org/news/2017-03-indicators-potatoes-mars.html) and you have a real winner. A green Mars is looking more possible with some of the current biotech discoveries.
Post by: wierd on March 17, 2017, 03:49:01 am
Unless you want to rain ammonia asteroids on the planet for several decades, Mars is going to be a really tough sell.
Post by: Starver on March 17, 2017, 06:40:46 am
Post by: Sergarr on March 17, 2017, 10:22:15 am
Inside tardigrades, those tiny animals that can survive exposure in outer space, they found a new class of proteins (http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/animals/research-reveal-indestructible-water-bears-flood-themselves-with-glass/news-story/5b06dec65f9bb79638a8f9d3866be980) that cause the cells to go into suspended animation when liquid water is not present. They've been able to revive a tardigrade that was frozen for 30 years for example.Cool, the Malthusianists are crushed once again under the heel of science! Yes!
This new protein has a lot of potential uses, e.g. they added it to yeast and now have yeast that are more tolerant to dehydration. The real money here would be adding it to crops, then you can start engineering drought and frost tolerant plants, which could potentially massively increase biomass growth in currently marginal areas.
But it's not only tolerant of freezing and drying out, this stuff apparently absorbs 40% of the radiation that hits the organism. So you can make radiation shielded organisms. Combine this with the some of the plants they've been testing out as possibilities to grow in Martian conditions (https://phys.org/news/2017-03-indicators-potatoes-mars.html) and you have a real winner. A green Mars is looking more possible with some of the current biotech discoveries.
Post by: Puzzlemaker on March 17, 2017, 10:28:34 am
Post by: Descan on March 17, 2017, 01:58:44 pm
Post by: Eric Blank on March 17, 2017, 02:58:05 pm
...but then we couldn't float in buoyant sky-cities on venus, which is no fun, obviosuly.
Post by: hops on March 17, 2017, 03:23:25 pm
...
[VENUS INTENSIFIES]
Post by: forsaken1111 on March 17, 2017, 04:05:03 pm
If by buoyant you mean violently shaking around.Just make the inside of the colony like a bouncy castle and it won't matter if its shaking around. In fact that's even more fun.
...
[VENUS INTENSIFIES]
Post by: Starver on March 17, 2017, 04:19:41 pm
I've had a look for various facts and figures, but I can only find the windspeeds, with which a floating venusian city would be freely travelling, not much about localised turbulence outside of the polar vortices (and, even then, it's mega-scale convection currents, not anything to indicate inexplicable gusts).
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 17, 2017, 04:27:57 pm
Post by: Starver on March 17, 2017, 04:40:12 pm
I've heard it quoted time and again that the only thing a human would need at 50km is an oxygen mask, so I think the acidity isn't particularly severe? Don't recall the reasoning.
Pressure is roughly as Earth sea-level at just a tad under 50km above the surface, but it's hot (75°C-ish), and temperature is more like room-temperature comfortab, eat about 54km (approaching half the pressure), so you'd probably want to decide on your compromises, and keeping the acid 'fumes' away from reacting with your moist orifices is probably a secondary function to the mask that gives you oxygen (and keeps your lungs safe), so a neoprene diving suit and minimal umbilical/backpack life support could be more than enough, with a leeway on safety...
Post by: Max™ on March 17, 2017, 05:31:30 pm
Obviously the solution is to colonize Venus instead. I mean, at the rate things are going here on earth, moving to Venus wouldn't be that big of a change.Well, I mean, technically you're right in that we've got oceans that are deep enough to say that we've got conditions with the same surface pressure here... but water doesn't quite heat up the same way a column of air does when compressed unless you've got like gas giant quantities of it. Honestly there really isn't much that gets on my nerves as badly as the idea that Venus is so hot because CO2 is the devil instead of the fact that there's something like 90 times as much atmosphere sitting on the surface under roughly the same acceleration as ours is with roughly the same area under it as ours has.
Fun thought experiment: suppose you have a tube floating in space with an engine capable of producing and sustaining 1 G of acceleration along the long axis which is currently turned off, let's say it's 10 km long (and made of oh, Xeelee Construction Material so it can withstand said acceleration) with a cap on the end where the engine is, the other end is open, and the diameter of the tube is 50 m. Suspended within it are evenly distributed super bounce balls which are on average 1 m apart from each other and the nearest wall of the tube, and for the fuck of it, let's say that they're not moving at all.
What happens inside the tube when the engine is turned on and it begins accelerating at 1 G?
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Now, engineering sulphuric acid resistant plants which hang themselves in the upper atmosphere with grown oxygen bladders and sail along to keep themselves on the day side longer? That's another story.
Why would we be shaken around violently? What's the windshear across the scope of a venusian blimp at the appropriate altitude? Needs far more study. Being just slightly out of sight, being roughly between the acid clouds and the acid haze layers...Yeah, the winds are FAST, but steady as hell since the atmosphere does the actual "Earth-like day/night" rotation rather than the "I've been having the worst day ever for months now" thing the surface does.
I've had a look for various facts and figures, but I can only find the windspeeds, with which a floating venusian city would be freely travelling, not much about localised turbulence outside of the polar vortices (and, even then, it's mega-scale convection currents, not anything to indicate inexplicable gusts).
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 17, 2017, 06:36:06 pm
Earth's situation is a bit more fragile, what with life and all.
Post by: Max™ on March 17, 2017, 07:41:55 pm
It's his usual of thing. "Columns of gas heat up at the bottom explains global warming" theory he's been saying pretty much whenever the topic comes up.That a column of gas in a gravity well is warmest at the bottom isn't a theory, it's a fact, you can just observe it, no guesses or experiments needed, explaining why this wouldn't be the case would be where a hypothesis could be proposed and if successfully tested become a theory. As for whenever it comes up, usually I avoid bothering precisely because of responses like yours, but the idea that Venus represents anything remotely similar to a possible future state of the Earth--short of it undergoing a full resurfacing event--is fucking absurd.
People don't believe Venus is hot because CO2 is the devil, they believe it's hot because it is believed to have undergone a runaway greenhouse effect at some point in its past. Resulting in current conditions.Yeah, and part of that runaway idea includes it being much closer to Earthlike and then winding up like it is now, with the implication being this could happen here, which is ridiculous.
Venus barfed itself inside out, completely resurfacing the crust, at least once in the last half a billion years. We know this because it doesn't have a water cycle or any other method which would erase the cratering it should have. If it's done this once, it seems reasonable to assume it's probably done this several times, so there's no need to push the "it just kept baking more and more CO2 out in a runaway greenhouse effect so we should be scared" idea to explain the massive atmosphere and temperature.
The runaway hypothesis would need to explain more than the hypothesis that a volcanic event sufficient to resurface an entire planet would involve a large injection of gas and heat into the atmosphere to be preferable. It would also need to explain where the heat and gas from that resurfacing went, if in fact the planet is actually this hot and has this much atmosphere due to a runaway greenhouse effect, so we'd wind up needing three explanations: why did Venus undergo a resurfacing event, where did the gas and heat from that event go, and why did it undergo a runaway greenhouse event initially?
Alternatively you need one: why did Venus undergo a resurfacing event? That it would have a hot dense atmosphere is baked into the resurfacing event, and thus a hypothesis explaining the resurfacing event(s) would be more simple and have more explanatory power.
Earth's situation is a bit more fragile, what with life and all.Well, life is probably responsible for the O2 > CO2 cycling, so really you'd probably expect it to be more stable, and arguably the whole alarm is over previously fixed CO2 being released rapidly, but the idea that life itself is at risk due to CO2 is silly... without the whole "we could end up like Venus" nonsense being tossed around, of course.
Post by: Putnam on March 17, 2017, 07:46:12 pm
Venus barfed itself inside out, completely resurfacing the crust, at least once in the last half a billion years. We know this because it doesn't have a water cycle or any other method which would erase the cratering it should have.
And if someone says "what about the acid rain": the acid rain doesn't reach the surface, it's way too hot.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 17, 2017, 08:05:31 pm
Yeah, and part of that runaway idea includes it being much closer to Earthlike and then winding up like it is now, with the implication being this could happen here, which is ridiculous.This has nothing to do with anything we were talking about. Whether or not Venus undergoes volcanic resurfacing (and there are various hypotheses (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19940026609)) does not change the fact that it is under a runaway greenhouse. Earth is one of the most geologically active bodies in the solar system, and it doesn't have a lead-melting surface. It doesn't retain heat from any source well enough to create those conditions. Venus does. If Venus had an atmosphere of, say, 99% nitrogen, it would as a matter of objective fact be cooler due to an inability to retain that level of heat.
Venus barfed itself inside out, completely resurfacing the crust, at least once in the last half a billion years. We know this because it doesn't have a water cycle or any other method which would erase the cratering it should have. If it's done this once, it seems reasonable to assume it's probably done this several times, so there's no need to push the "it just kept baking more and more CO2 out in a runaway greenhouse effect so we should be scared" idea to explain the massive atmosphere and temperature.
The runaway hypothesis would need to explain more than the hypothesis that a volcanic event sufficient to resurface an entire planet would involve a large injection of gas and heat into the atmosphere to be preferable. It would also need to explain where the heat and gas from that resurfacing went, if in fact the planet is actually this hot and has this much atmosphere due to a runaway greenhouse effect, so we'd wind up needing three explanations: why did Venus undergo a resurfacing event, where did the gas and heat from that event go, and why did it undergo a runaway greenhouse event initially?
Alternatively you need one: why did Venus undergo a resurfacing event? That it would have a hot dense atmosphere is baked into the resurfacing event, and thus a hypothesis explaining the resurfacing event(s) would be more simple and have more explanatory power.
Quote
Well, life is probably responsible for the O2 > CO2 cycling, so really you'd probably expect it to be more stable, and arguably the whole alarm is over previously fixed CO2 being released rapidly, but the idea that life itself is at risk due to CO2 is silly... without the whole "we could end up like Venus" nonsense being tossed around, of course.Earth probably could end up similar to Venus, millions of years after human extinction due to ecological collapse, were we to go that route. It is also possible that there could eventually be another carbon-rich period that would successfully arrest this cycle if our ultimate extinction didn't salt the Earth, but I say again, human extinction. Your hate-on for this basic comparison of how the greenhouse effect can change a planet baffles me. Nobody is seriously suggesting humans will face the threat of a 600 C surface because of climate change.
Do you or do you not agree that the presence of carbon dioxide in a planetary atmosphere directly correlates with the heat retention of that atmosphere?
Post by: Starver on March 17, 2017, 08:35:10 pm
That a column of gas in a gravity well is warmest at the bottom isn't a theory, it's a fact, you can just observe it,
Spoiler: Is it quite as simple as that??? (click to show/hide)
Post by: redwallzyl on March 17, 2017, 08:44:59 pm
well for one the lower you go the more density you have so the same temperature gas contains more energy in the same area so it will likely always be hotter in that way. obviously this might not hold true in places like the poles if the planet in question gets most of its energy from the sun.That a column of gas in a gravity well is warmest at the bottom isn't a theory, it's a fact, you can just observe it,Spoiler: Is it quite as simple as that??? (click to show/hide)
you can observe the effects of expansional cooling and contractile heating quite easily with an air compressor.
Post by: Starver on March 17, 2017, 09:55:14 pm
well for one the lower you go the more density you have so the same temperature gas contains more energy in the same area so it will likely always be hotter in that wayMore energy in the same volume (for a given temperature), yes. P1V1/T1=P2V2/T2, and all that. But that's with the same temperature, by the very definition of your example. "Hotter in that way" is "not hotter in temperature, just has more energy i it".
Quote
you can observe the effects of expansional cooling and contractile heating quite easily with an air compressor.And yet a compressed air bottle (containing compressed air, initially warmed by the concentration) can be as cool to the touch as any such 'unfilled' bottle would be, given the environment it has been in contact with for any reasonable time
An atmosphere has not just been gravitationally collapsed around a planet. Heat gradients in one are no longer due to any significant latent heat from the initial compression of gasses. Any such signal is swamped by millenia/billenia of geothermal energy from below and solar energy from above. All smudged around on a day-by-day basis by the conductive and convective heat distribution provided by the weather it causes.
Post by: wierd on March 17, 2017, 10:42:43 pm
Heat of crystallization (https://www.teacherspayteachers.com/Product/Chemistry-Lab-Heat-Of-Crystallization-3970)
enthalpy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy)
Temperature of (parts of) a system can change, as a result of phase change, even at the same pressure. (See for instance, with water at the triple point.) This happens with no net change in energy of the system being observed. This is similar to the heat of crystallization, and its cognate, the reduction of heat from melting crystals. Essentially, (entropic) energy cannot be stored as efficiently in more orderly materials than it can in less orderly materials, and when the material assumes a more orderly state, it expels/excludes some of that kinetic energy (heat.) Conversely, when a more orderly system assumes a less orderly arrangement, it absorbs energy from its environment to assume that state.
EG, when water freezes, the formation of the ice subtly increases the temperature of the remaining water that has not yet crystallized. The net energy of the "Ice + water" system remains unchanged, energy is just moved from the ice, into the remaining water, increasing the water's temperature.
I can see these phenomena causing turbulence currents inside gas giants, where a phase change layer (from pressure) causes thermal energy to be rapidly excluded from that layer, and dumped into the layer above, heating it up, and causing it to updraft strongly.
Post by: Max™ on March 20, 2017, 10:28:01 am
I did clarify that the sparse upper layers can be ridiculously hot because any given molecule is zooming around with little to lose energy against while being zapped with UV and such, as you go higher and drop below 0.1 bar you get the inversions in the chart there as density stratifications take over, direct UV deposition, even the magnetic field deforming layers plays a role in the temperatures up there. As far as creatures like us though, being adapted as we are to the bottom of an ocean of air, it's gonna be hard to tell the difference between the mesosphere and a vacuum.That a column of gas in a gravity well is warmest at the bottom isn't a theory, it's a fact, you can just observe it,Spoiler: Is it quite as simple as that??? (click to show/hide)
If Venus had an atmosphere of, say, 99% nitrogen, it would as a matter of objective fact be cooler due to an inability to retain that level of heat.I happened to remember seeing this worked out before, which is good, because I really don't have it in me to go back over all the studying and whatnot to make sure the math was sane before I even tried to start worrying about the calculations.
Both gases are diatomic with the same molar heat, but CO2 has higher molar mass so the specific heat used to calculate the lapse rate would be different accordingly, 44/28 means CO2 should have 1.57 times greater cooling per kilometer than N2, but that same mass ratio means it would sit about 1.57 times lower than N2, so the temperature change between the surface and the top of the adiabatic layer (a.k.a. the troposphere) should be roughly the same if you swap out CO2 for N2.
Earth probably could end up similar to Venus, millions of years after human extinction due to ecological collapse, were we to go that route. It is also possible that there could eventually be another carbon-rich period that would successfully arrest this cycle if our ultimate extinction didn't salt the Earth, but I say again, human extinction. Your hate-on for this basic comparison of how the greenhouse effect can change a planet baffles me. Nobody is seriously suggesting humans will face the threat of a 600 C surface because of climate change.We would need to increase the mass of the atmosphere by 90 times in our death throes, this isn't something that just accidentally happens, especially with a water cycle in place busily dissolving gases out of the atmosphere and fixing them into sediments and so on.
Do you or do you not agree that the presence of carbon dioxide in a planetary atmosphere directly correlates with the heat retention of that atmosphere?Well, Venus has something like 3000 to 5000 times as much CO2 (dealers choice, molar or mass percentage) at 92 times the pressure, so call it 270,000 to 460,000 higher concentration? According to Wolframalpha that's about 218 for either value, so what effect would 18 CO2 doublings have? If 2xCO2 gives a rise of 1.5 K that's 27 K warmer than here? Even if you proposed an outlandish value of 5 K per doubling we're still only looking at 90 K!
Does anybody wanna get behind the temperature increase per CO2 doubling being 22 K? Cause that will get you 400 K warmer than here, so that seems to be something of a pickle, doesn't it?
Sorry for the late reply, had to make sure I was out of rant mode and wouldn't start trying to convince anyone of anything, but questions with such interesting answers just beg for a response.
Post by: scrdest on March 24, 2017, 02:34:44 pm
The approach is interesting - rather than try to save every last cell, they're throwing the aged, senescent cells under the bus so they don't spoil the party for the rest, and turns out that even naturally-aged mice fare better.
I haven't read too much into the methods yet though, so not sure how overblown this might be. The target has been implicated in longevity earlier though, so there's some basis for hoping it at least helps a bit.
And the thing that makes me really happy is that it's actually a peptide, meaning you can just get the ol' syringeful of liquid in your bloodstream and get the benefits, rather than - like the Salk paper that was posted here a while back - requiring actual gene therapy to get working at this stage.
Post by: Pwnzerfaust on March 24, 2017, 03:52:17 pm
Post by: Hanslanda on March 24, 2017, 03:55:17 pm
Anti-aging stuff is what I'm really the most interested in. I'm planning to live forever, you see, and stuff like that is super relevant to my interests.
I heard, "I plan on dying of physical injuries. Or suicide after being maimed."
Post by: scrdest on March 24, 2017, 03:57:27 pm
I'm planning to live forever, you seeBut barring that, you'd settle for a couple thousand years?
Post by: Max™ on March 24, 2017, 04:13:11 pm
Post by: Sirus on March 24, 2017, 04:14:45 pm
Personally I would not be opposed to becoming a cyborg should such a thing occur.Anti-aging stuff is what I'm really the most interested in. I'm planning to live forever, you see, and stuff like that is super relevant to my interests.
I heard, "I plan on dying of physical injuries. Or suicide after being maimed."
Post by: Telgin on March 24, 2017, 04:34:36 pm
I'm really interested in seeing where anti-aging research takes us in the next few years. In particular, I'm wondering if we'll be able to solve diseases like Alzheimer's disease soon as well. It wouldn't do us much good to be able to live 200 years and grow new lungs if our brains are destined to fail before our bodies. Can't grow a new brain.
Or solve cancer, for that matter. Maybe cancer is destined to happen eventually, even with longevity treatments, due to mistakes in DNA copying and repair. Again, doesn't do us much good to keep our bodies from wearing out for 200 years if we're going to get cancer in our 70s anyway.
Post by: Max™ on March 24, 2017, 05:01:12 pm
Growing a new brain which is more powerful than our old one would be nice, and if you do it in situ you could ignore the whole ship of theseus problem.
I've got no specific attachment to my meat, I'd rather have the sensorium installed in a more durable and repairable shell. Not having to eat and sleep and such unless desired would be nice, though you probably would need periodic sleep if we couldn't figure out how to do a sorta garbage collection/sorting process while still awake.
Post by: Egan_BW on March 24, 2017, 05:29:52 pm
At that point, you just use bodies through remote control.
Post by: Sirus on March 24, 2017, 05:57:41 pm
Post by: Egan_BW on March 24, 2017, 06:07:15 pm
brb, gotta order 9999 crabs from orbit
Post by: Max™ on March 24, 2017, 06:29:20 pm
Why not put your brain in a case surrounded by 15 feet of armor a mile underground, where it's statistically unlikely that any external forces could harm it?Telepresence is a nice option, but it will never be as responsive as a locally controlled shell. Having a local personality image while the main backup is elsewhere would be neat if we could hack it together but I'd be content with just ditching the meat before it rots around me.
At that point, you just use bodies through remote control.
Post by: scrdest on March 24, 2017, 06:36:38 pm
Can't grow a new brain.Oh, we can't now, but that hardly proves anything. We couldn't cure syphilis 100 years ago. We couldn't run 3310 version of Snake on the research mainframes 50 years ago. I've had to present an article on growing neurospheres - effectively tiny brainlets - from stem cells couple of months ago.
Or solve cancer, for that matter. Maybe cancer is destined to happen eventually, even with longevity treatments, due to mistakes in DNA copying and repair. Again, doesn't do us much good to keep our bodies from wearing out for 200 years if we're going to get cancer in our 70s anyway.
Cancer may have to 'happen', but it happens, relatively speaking, all the time. And I mean in you, not the population as a whole; on the purely getting-a-bad-mutation level, the problem isn't the mutation(s) - it's that it's not dealt with properly very, very rarely, which results in the development of cancer.
You only get cancer proper when several layers of security fail. First, your cell needs to get compromised to get them to divide, usually due to some repair mechanism fucking up, second they have to circumvent the internal checks and balances that SHUT DOWN EVERYTHING in this exact case - in turn, due to other mutations that shut down these directly or indirectly.
Then it also needs to escape the external hazards - the immune system for example also recognizes the patterns that point to the cells going rogue, and the majority of survivors of the previous phase die or get sequestered at this point, aside from other factors.
It is those extremely lucky select few that develop the right set of modifications to develop into a full-on malignant tumor. That's why it develops so long!
So the trick is not preventing it, it's figuring out a clean way to kill the fuckers without also shrapnelling everything else if possible. And already there's progress towards that. I read one guy taking part in the clinical trial for new-gen treatment joke that he felt like a fraud, because he wasn't even in pain during the therapy.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 24, 2017, 07:30:11 pm
Both gases are diatomic with the same molar heat, but CO2 has higher molar mass so the specific heat used to calculate the lapse rate would be different accordingly, 44/28 means CO2 should have 1.57 times greater cooling per kilometer than N2, but that same mass ratio means it would sit about 1.57 times lower than N2, so the temperature change between the surface and the top of the adiabatic layer (a.k.a. the troposphere) should be roughly the same if you swap out CO2 for N2.Nitrogen isn't a greenhouse gas (and CO2 isn't diatomic). It reflects very little of the sun's thermal radiation. If you keep an atmosphere of equal density but with materials that do not facilitate thermal retention, there is a massive drop in average temperature. Earth's would, with only the removal of the 0.04% of it that is CO2, drop by several degrees C. Same is true for Venus, but on a far more drastic scale.
Quote
We would need to increase the mass of the atmosphere by 90 times in our death throes, this isn't something that just accidentally happens, especially with a water cycle in place busily dissolving gases out of the atmosphere and fixing them into sediments and so on.My words were specifically about a scenario in which we successfully break climate stability for good, ensuring that Earth's organic and water mass are increasingly converted into atmosphere. This is particularly severe as the majority of the greenhouse effect is caused by not CO2 but water vapor, the latter is simply not increasing. Were Earth's rather substantial supply of water enter the atmosphere alongside its carbon, extreme alterations would occur. Whether or not that would actually happen is a question of the exact circumstances of humanity's suicide and the long-term corrective effect of the carbon and water cycles.
But as I said before, Venus is an example of the greenhouse effect's existence not Earth's future, which is how this all got started. We'd all be dead long before any of that!
Quote
See the point above. CO2's exact temperature effect isn't going to be contained in this margin because it's not a matter of the CO2 getting hot, it's a matter of it getting in the doorway and keeping IR from escaping in diverse atmospheric conditions. Prepare to get very rich if you can actually determine CO2's climate sensitivity in WolframAlpha (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#Calculations_of_CO2_sensitivity_from_observational_data), because there's been a lot of people working on it.Do you or do you not agree that the presence of carbon dioxide in a planetary atmosphere directly correlates with the heat retention of that atmosphere?Well, Venus has something like 3000 to 5000 times as much CO2 (dealers choice, molar or mass percentage) at 92 times the pressure, so call it 270,000 to 460,000 higher concentration? According to Wolframalpha that's about 218 for either value, so what effect would 18 CO2 doublings have? If 2xCO2 gives a rise of 1.5 K that's 27 K warmer than here? Even if you proposed an outlandish value of 5 K per doubling we're still only looking at 90 K!
Does anybody wanna get behind the temperature increase per CO2 doubling being 22 K? Cause that will get you 400 K warmer than here, so that seems to be something of a pickle, doesn't it?
Also, you didn't answer my actual question. You don't need to know the exact sensitivity to give a fairly confident answer; no more than Galileo needed to explain how the Earth could possibly orbit the Sun in the face of God's primacy over the universe.
Longevity Discussion
Anti-aging therapy stuff. (http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(17)30246-5) Hot from the science-oven.Goddamn that's cool. I'll put this on the Hail Mary list if I suddenly start dying.
The approach is interesting - rather than try to save every last cell, they're throwing the aged, senescent cells under the bus so they don't spoil the party for the rest, and turns out that even naturally-aged mice fare better.
I haven't read too much into the methods yet though, so not sure how overblown this might be. The target has been implicated in longevity earlier though, so there's some basis for hoping it at least helps a bit.
And the thing that makes me really happy is that it's actually a peptide, meaning you can just get the ol' syringeful of liquid in your bloodstream and get the benefits, rather than - like the Salk paper that was posted here a while back - requiring actual gene therapy to get working at this stage.
I suspect biological prostheses will become available at a similar time to functional cybernetic prostheses, and while they might not let you acquire superhuman abilities, they'll be your own flesh and blood. No need to recharge batteries, no need to perform maintenance. Just get a new arm, leg or pancreas grown and attached.There's a grey area here, however. Eventually you're working on nanotech scales, and those act a lot like synthetic cells. What we need most at this point is a good way to let machines talk to human nerves.
Quote
Or solve cancer, for that matter. Maybe cancer is destined to happen eventually, even with longevity treatments, due to mistakes in DNA copying and repair. Again, doesn't do us much good to keep our bodies from wearing out for 200 years if we're going to get cancer in our 70s anyway.What this needs most for longevity is a regulatory system. I envision some sort of central implant that puts out nanomachines who review your DNA/RNA and telomeres for damage and correct such mistakes.
Also, I'd like everybody to take a look at my favorite scientific experiment of all time, Project Cyborg. Kevin Warwick is the coolest and most crazy mad scientist in the world. He implanted an electrode array in his arm and sucessfully used it to control a robot arm over the internet. (http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaneurology/fullarticle/784743) Said arm was across the Atlantic ocean at the time. Not only that, and this is the craziest part, but Warwick's body did not reject the electrode array as was expected, and in fact his nerve tissue grew around the array and encapsulated it. (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acs.854/abstract;jsessionid=6C631CC3922AEA548152BC7E8ECB76CA.f03t02)
It's a crime that there haven't been many followup experiments to all this, because it suggests that a mind-machine interface may not be that difficult after all. And it makes a certain degree of sense, there's no reason for human neural signals to be overly complex or secured like that of a computer.
Post by: Max™ on March 25, 2017, 01:52:09 am
Nitrogen isn't a greenhouse gas (and CO2 isn't diatomic). It reflects very little of the sun's thermal radiation. If you keep an atmosphere of equal density but with materials that do not facilitate thermal retention, there is a massive drop in average temperature. Earth's would, with only the removal of the 0.04% of it that is CO2, drop by several degrees C. Same is true for Venus, but on a far more drastic scale.I derped on the diatomic, my mistake, I was typing and checking tabs and so forth, I meant CO2 works out to have the same molar heat but even there I might have run afoul of trying to track down the info on different tabs and missed that the conditions under which N2 has ~29 J/K aren't exactly the same as where CO2 has ~29 J/K (so I think they'd be 20/29 N2/CO2 together), but it doesn't actually change the main point: unless you're trying to stack the deck and set up conditions which support one argument but not another. All atmospheres in the solar system exhibit an increasing temperature gradient from the 0.1 Bar altitude down to the 1 Bar+ altitudes, or from the top to the bottom of the region which mixes convectively. The temperature at the altitude at which a planet hits 0.1 Bar lets you work out the temperature at any point below it.
Whether we're looking at mostly hydrogen or nitrogen, carbon dioxide or a mishmash of moist oxygen and nitrogen, they all exhibit that profile in the lower regions. (https://astrobites.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Robinson_Catling_2013_f1.png)
You might notice Titan on there is steeper than Venus despite being something like 95% N2 down low with the rest being largely farts, it would need to be taller from the surface to the tropopause if Venus was covered with an N2 atmosphere, but arguing it would just fall over and snow out when it hasn't managed to do that anywhere else in the solar system seems a bit much.
Also, uh, not gonna jump on it since as I showed we all make mistakes, but reflecting solar thermal has nothing to do with anything, and one of the key concepts in the radiative greenhouse effect model is that CO2 in the upper atmosphere is better at cooling because it is more radiatively active, and this is then said to raise the tropopause and drag the surface temperature upwards.
An incredibly massive atmosphere of N2 being swapped in on Venus for CO2, if going by the simplified "it just doesn't emit radiation" model for convenience here, would have no way to lose heat outside of conduction against the surface, and thus convection would lift parcels and establish the familiar tropospheric temperature/pressure profile and in the lack of outside energy input it would gradually eject faster molecules and relax, but until the Sun shuts off that isn't a reasonable assumption to work under.
My words were specifically about a scenario in which we successfully break climate stability for good, ensuring that Earth's organic and water mass are increasingly converted into atmosphere. This is particularly severe as the majority of the greenhouse effect is caused by not CO2 but water vapor, the latter is simply not increasing. Were Earth's rather substantial supply of water enter the atmosphere alongside its carbon, extreme alterations would occur. Whether or not that would actually happen is a question of the exact circumstances of humanity's suicide and the long-term corrective effect of the carbon and water cycles.Bleh, I don't feel like going down the "constant relative humidity assumption" road.
See the point above. CO2's exact temperature effect isn't going to be contained in this margin because it's not a matter of the CO2 getting hot, it's a matter of it getting in the doorway and keeping IR from escaping in diverse atmospheric conditions. Prepare to get very rich if you can actually determine CO2's climate sensitivity in WolframAlpha (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#Calculations_of_CO2_sensitivity_from_observational_data), because there's been a lot of people working on it.I'd say I was giving a constraint on the far end: there's no way anybody can claim with a straight face that doubling CO2 concentration would give 22 K of warming without missing that such a claim implies we should be something like 10 K warmer than pre-industrial periods currently. Obviously we aren't, so it seems clear to me that CO2 doubling doesn't produce the amount of warming needed to call Venus proof of the CO2 greenhouse effect.
Arguably it's worse because it shouldn't be increasing on a linear scale like I used above, probably need to go logarithmic or something at the higher concentrations.
Tossing in additional handwaved "well of course it isn't just because the CO2 got hot, but in the end CO2 did it" just sounds like a way to get around the issue that you're willing to accept a scenario where it's already hot and credit CO2 for it, but above when I suggested an N2 scenario you dismissed it because you want to assume that it's starting out cold and apparently without the cloud decks? As it stands there is no way to credit any form of the radiative greenhouse effect/related properties of CO2 with more than 20 K or so of the difference between here and there, short of declaring that something arbitrarily changes the situation there and then only allowing that something to include some way of boosting the greenhouse related properties of CO2.
On the other hand, as I explained, having that much atmosphere is going to mean the 0.1 Bar altitude is much higher, and whatever the temperature there is (which I guess I should have specified to be the same as the CO2 atmosphere one is in my thought experiment to cut the "ah, but if I just say N2 starts cold it doesn't work" stuff short) the temperature profile below it is a matter of the masses involved.
Unless you want to propose that Hydrogen has some sort of greenhouse effect and that is why Jupiter exhibits the same 0.1 > 1+ Bar profile, but that would basically be trying to credit the greenhouse effect with creating the adiabatic lapse rate, wouldn't it?
Also, you didn't answer my actual question. You don't need to know the exact sensitivity to give a fairly confident answer; no more than Galileo needed to explain how the Earth could possibly orbit the Sun in the face of God's primacy over the universe.I'm pretty sure I showed that the radiative properties of CO2 can not account for the temperature of Venus without inserting a hidden fudge-factor or assumption somewhere which actually explains it before giving credit to CO2. If CO2 does actually explain it then it doesn't work very well for explaining things here, water vapor or not. You may note I left Mars out of the discussion, despite the mostly CO2 atmosphere it doesn't even have a 0.1 Bar altitude (outside of a warm day at the bottom of Hellas Planitia?) so it has to sit in the corner and think about what it's done.
Post by: Il Palazzo on March 25, 2017, 03:22:00 am
Post by: Max™ on March 25, 2017, 01:59:53 pm
Would it be too much to ask for cessation of crackpottery in this thread?You're right, can't have discussion about science in a science thread, my bad.
Post by: Hanslanda on March 25, 2017, 02:16:03 pm
Post by: Max™ on March 25, 2017, 03:04:26 pm
It's the method of formulating and testing explanations for why/how observed facts have certain properties/exhibit certain behaviors, and some pure undiluted awesomesauce on top.
Post by: Hanslanda on March 25, 2017, 03:24:23 pm
Post by: Max™ on March 25, 2017, 03:51:34 pm
Frickin' mathematicians and philosophers with their constructed proofs and enunciated facts.
Post by: Max™ on March 26, 2017, 05:03:23 pm
Controlling Turtle Motion with Human Thought
(http://i.imgur.com/qOXvSAE.jpg)
Post by: martinuzz on March 26, 2017, 05:35:21 pm
Post by: Max™ on March 26, 2017, 05:41:39 pm
Post by: Starver on March 26, 2017, 07:25:41 pm
(The journal link on that page effectively 404s. There's other (https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/mars-may-have-experienced-a-giant-tsunami) places (http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2017/0326/Did-an-asteroid-trigger-ancient-tsunamis-on-Mars) reporting it as news, however. Maybe they link to the current version's source and not last year's speculation.)
Post by: Flying Dice on March 30, 2017, 05:23:21 pm
Post by: Bumber on April 01, 2017, 05:20:37 am
Anti-aging therapy stuff. (http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(17)30246-5) Hot from the science-oven.> Misread "nuclear exclusion" as "nuclear explosion".
> Contemplate that viruses can cause "nuclear explosions".
> Head off to Terrible Jokes thread.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on April 01, 2017, 11:39:27 am
So SpaceX got more rocket back than they planned for, I think?
Post by: wierd on April 01, 2017, 11:42:12 am
Post by: forsaken1111 on April 01, 2017, 01:17:18 pm
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1722LDFor a second I was confused and thought you were saying they got more rocket back than they launched... in my defense, I'm on some pretty potent cough medicine right now
So SpaceX got more rocket back than they planned for, I think?
Post by: alway on April 01, 2017, 01:47:35 pm
"After today's space launch, onlookers were stunned when Elon Musk announced they had recovered not one, but *two* first stages from the mission. "It was just hovering there over the ocean next to the drone ship, so it was easy enough to pick up," the eccentric billionaire was quoted as saying. Analysis of the recovered craft showed it to be made of a material unknown to science, but otherwise built to the same specifications as the first. "Just goes to show you," Musk continued, "that we are on the right track for revolutionizing the cost of spaceflight with 100% reuseability.""http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1722LDFor a second I was confused and thought you were saying they got more rocket back than they launched... in my defense, I'm on some pretty potent cough medicine right now
So SpaceX got more rocket back than they planned for, I think?
Post by: Egan_BW on April 01, 2017, 03:10:55 pm
Post by: Reelya on April 01, 2017, 07:49:58 pm
http://www.sciencealert.com/bubbles-of-expanding-space-could-be-the-end-of-dark-energy
Post by: TheBiggerFish on April 01, 2017, 07:52:47 pm
Post by: forsaken1111 on April 01, 2017, 08:33:50 pm
Post by: Putnam on April 01, 2017, 08:36:31 pm
Wasn't dark matter/energy just a term for "Our model predicts that there must be SOMETHING but we can't SEE it so it's gotta be DARK"?
Yes, if you want to make it sound stupid.
Also, the two concepts are unrelated.
Post by: forsaken1111 on April 01, 2017, 08:58:43 pm
Yes I realize they're unrelated, aside from the name
Post by: Max™ on April 01, 2017, 10:01:35 pm
Also another story on that site was about giant sloths digging tunnels?
Sounds like a real pain... (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-iigUToN-a6s/VXNVHhb92lI/AAAAAAAACF4/BRUvajWOX_s/s1600/sloth.png)
Post by: Starver on April 01, 2017, 10:14:45 pm
Still, I'm betting I'd do no better with ambiguous mispronunciations of something Chaucerian...
(Badger buries cow? (http://www.sciencealert.com/this-little-badger-stole-a-cow-and-buried-its-body-underground?perpetual=yes&limitstart=1))
Post by: Eric Blank on April 02, 2017, 01:56:18 am
Post by: Sergarr on April 04, 2017, 09:02:27 am
Post by: Il Palazzo on April 04, 2017, 09:24:55 am
for some reason, North Dakota.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/91st_Missile_Wing_LGM-30_Minuteman_Missile_Launch_Sites
Post by: Starver on April 04, 2017, 10:30:16 am
Arizona, completely untouched./insert appropriate joke here
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on April 10, 2017, 12:08:53 pm
Post by: Max™ on April 10, 2017, 12:23:11 pm
Post by: TheDarkStar on April 10, 2017, 02:39:34 pm
Technically still science: an official FEMA estimate on effects of full-scale nuclear war on USA, (https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/napb-90/index.html) complete with geographical maps of nuclear explosions. Some places get, like, ultranuked, like New York or, for some reason, North Dakota.
Heh. The tiny town I'm from happens to be in one of those northern states with tons of missiles. As a result, the map doesn't even have a legend marking for anything beneath "medium" radiation and ~80% of the people are in high-risk areas (read: would be completely vaporized).
...yeah, looking at the map for blast areas my town would be utterly wiped off the map along with the countryside for about a hundred miles to the west.
Post by: Sirus on April 10, 2017, 02:44:07 pm
Technically still science: an official FEMA estimate on effects of full-scale nuclear war on USA, (https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/napb-90/index.html) complete with geographical maps of nuclear explosions. Some places get, like, ultranuked, like New York or, for some reason, North Dakota./me looks at California
I guess I'd be one of the ultranuked ._.
Post by: redwallzyl on April 10, 2017, 09:07:02 pm
the UP apparently would get nuked three times. and Detroit absolutely flattened. my city gets a measly two though.Technically still science: an official FEMA estimate on effects of full-scale nuclear war on USA, (https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/napb-90/index.html) complete with geographical maps of nuclear explosions. Some places get, like, ultranuked, like New York or, for some reason, North Dakota./me looks at California
I guess I'd be one of the ultranuked ._.
Post by: Icefire2314 on April 10, 2017, 09:28:27 pm
Dark Matter is the opposite, it is an observed phenomenon (galactic rotation curves) which was later linked to another observation (light passing through galaxy clusters is lensed in a manner which indicates that there is far more mass present than the visible matter can account for) and then we determined that it can't just be dim ordinary matter (because we saw two clusters which passed through each other and the distribution of stars, intercluster gas, and mass is all fucked up but clearly indicates that there is a lot of shit we can't see directly there) so we're now in the phase of "what is this stuff, what properties does it have, can we shake the standard model until it falls out?" science regarding dark matter.
Also another story on that site was about giant sloths digging tunnels?
Sounds like a real pain... (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-iigUToN-a6s/VXNVHhb92lI/AAAAAAAACF4/BRUvajWOX_s/s1600/sloth.png)
I thought dark matter didn't interact with light at all?
Post by: Akura on April 10, 2017, 09:29:36 pm
Post by: smjjames on April 10, 2017, 09:36:56 pm
the UP apparently would get nuked three times. and Detroit absolutely flattened. my city gets a measly two though.Technically still science: an official FEMA estimate on effects of full-scale nuclear war on USA, (https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/napb-90/index.html) complete with geographical maps of nuclear explosions. Some places get, like, ultranuked, like New York or, for some reason, North Dakota./me looks at California
I guess I'd be one of the ultranuked ._.
Ouch coastal California. Also, I wondered why there was a blob over one of the Channel Islands (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Islands_of_California#Military_use) off the coast. Apparently it's used by the navy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Nicolas_Island) as a weapons testing and training area, which doesn't seem like a logical thing to target. Though I guess if you're going for an all out 'extinct the American military' assault.....
Dark Matter is the opposite, it is an observed phenomenon (galactic rotation curves) which was later linked to another observation (light passing through galaxy clusters is lensed in a manner which indicates that there is far more mass present than the visible matter can account for) and then we determined that it can't just be dim ordinary matter (because we saw two clusters which passed through each other and the distribution of stars, intercluster gas, and mass is all fucked up but clearly indicates that there is a lot of shit we can't see directly there) so we're now in the phase of "what is this stuff, what properties does it have, can we shake the standard model until it falls out?" science regarding dark matter.
Also another story on that site was about giant sloths digging tunnels?
Sounds like a real pain... (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-iigUToN-a6s/VXNVHhb92lI/AAAAAAAACF4/BRUvajWOX_s/s1600/sloth.png)
I thought dark matter didn't interact with light at all?
Not directly, or if it does, it's effect is very tiny. The main reason we can 'see' it is due to gravitational effects. Gravity lensing and stuff.
Post by: Putnam on April 10, 2017, 09:43:06 pm
Post by: Max™ on April 10, 2017, 09:51:07 pm
Quote
Explanation: The matter in galaxy cluster 1E 0657-56, fondly known as the "bullet cluster", is shown in this composite image. A mere 3.4 billion light-years away, the bullet cluster's individual galaxies are seen in the optical image data, but their total mass adds up to far less than the mass of the cluster's two clouds of hot x-ray emitting gas shown in red. Representing even more mass than the optical galaxies and x-ray gas combined, the blue hues show the distribution of dark matter in the cluster. Otherwise invisible to telescopic views, the dark matter was mapped by observations of gravitational lensing of background galaxies. In a text book example of a shock front, the bullet-shaped cloud of gas at the right was distorted during the titanic collision between two galaxy clusters that created the larger bullet cluster itself. But the dark matter present has not interacted with the cluster gas except by gravity. The clear separation of dark matter and gas clouds is considered direct evidence that dark matter exists.
More stuff here: http://chandra.harvard.edu/blog/node/548
Also here is an example of Abell 1689 showing the very visible lensing which accompanies the less obvious lensing we can identify through various methods to work out that there must be quite a bit of mass present which doesn't show up in any wavelength we can detect: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/galaxy-clusters-reveal-new-dark-matter-insights
Post by: Starver on April 11, 2017, 04:35:06 am
Dark matter apparently does not interact with light (as wave/particle carriers of the combined electromagnetism thing, and/or quantum packets thereof, and/or the Next Big Theory), but it has mass and mass distorts space and distorted space acts upon the pathing of light (whatever form it takes).Dark Matter is the opposite, it is an observed phenomenon (galactic rotation curves) which was later linked to another observation (light passing through galaxy clusters is lensed in a manner which indicates that there is far more mass present than the visible matter can account for)I thought dark matter didn't interact with light at all?
Post by: Putnam on April 11, 2017, 04:42:24 am
Post by: Starver on April 11, 2017, 04:43:41 am
Post by: Putnam on April 11, 2017, 04:51:16 am
Post by: Il Palazzo on April 11, 2017, 06:57:43 am
Energy distorts space.
Lies-to-children like that go down a dangerous roadWell then, why did you omit the other components of the tensor?
Post by: Max™ on April 11, 2017, 11:23:56 am
Mayhaps he was working with the metric tensor and leaving the derivation of stress-energy and Ricci as an exercise for the class?Energy distorts space.Lies-to-children like that go down a dangerous roadWell then, why did you omit the other components of the tensor?
Post by: Il Palazzo on April 11, 2017, 05:18:04 pm
Mayhaps he was working with the metric tensor and leaving the derivation of stress-energy and Ricci as an exercise for the class?Seeing how only one of those sources gravity in the EFE, that would not be very pertinent.
Post by: Max™ on April 11, 2017, 05:45:00 pm
Post by: martinuzz on April 11, 2017, 07:20:17 pm
Post by: Max™ on April 11, 2017, 07:23:37 pm
Snark matterOk you win physics jokes for at least the lifetime of a free neutron at 99.99997% of c.
Post by: Starver on April 12, 2017, 07:03:25 am
Post by: Il Palazzo on April 12, 2017, 08:36:00 am
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvGO_dWo8VfcmG166wKRy5z-GlJ_OQND5
These are some of the recently declassified recordings of nuclear tests. They range from eerily beautiful to 'I think the camera was broken'.
Those that show fireball development are especially interesting. One can observe e.g. the double pulse, and bomb debris penetrating the fireball. In one case (Teapot-Turk) the shockwave reflecting off the ground can be seen.
This breakdown of fireball development might be worth reading in order to better appreciate the visuals:
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq5.html#nfaq5.3
Post by: Max™ on April 12, 2017, 08:37:38 am
So, what exactly is this "nark matter" that we're suddenly hypothesising a supersymmetric partner for?I think it's the narkino, it's a weakly interacting particle most of the time, but it has a significant cross section when exposed to T-rays with a wavelength of 7.12011 nm exactly.
Post by: TempAcc on April 12, 2017, 08:38:48 am
Post by: Max™ on April 12, 2017, 08:42:06 am
Post by: Descan on April 15, 2017, 04:41:03 am
Post by: alway on April 15, 2017, 01:18:37 pm
Post by: hops on April 17, 2017, 12:28:11 am
Shit man, I'm gonna have to watch an hour and and a half's worth of nuclear testing with my boyfriend this weekend.Is that an innuendo?
Post by: Descan on April 17, 2017, 02:55:16 pm
Post by: Egan_BW on April 17, 2017, 05:08:39 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on April 17, 2017, 05:31:21 pm
Post by: Helgoland on April 18, 2017, 03:49:42 pm
Post by: Sheb on April 18, 2017, 03:52:21 pm
Methinks apocalyptic explosions would not exactly result in la petite mort...
"Helgo drop the mic"
Post by: Helgoland on April 18, 2017, 05:20:46 pm
Post by: Il Palazzo on April 18, 2017, 05:23:59 pm
Hey, it's my first French pun. I don't even speak the language, what do you expect?It was praise, silly.
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/mic-drop
Post by: Helgoland on April 18, 2017, 05:25:12 pm
Post by: Starver on April 18, 2017, 08:28:56 pm
I may have to recalibrate my sarcasmeters.That's "sarkozmeters", if you're measure the number of Sarkozy (irregular plural) there are in the French presidential palace..
Post by: Sheb on April 19, 2017, 02:35:00 am
I may have to recalibrate my sarcasmeters.
It WAS praise.
Post by: Helgoland on April 19, 2017, 09:28:14 am
Post by: Sheb on April 19, 2017, 10:24:00 am
In that case, consider yourself lucky you're not around to see how hard I'm squeeing right now :3
Is squeeing the action of making the work "squee"?
Post by: Max™ on April 19, 2017, 12:56:19 pm
Post by: Gentlefish on April 19, 2017, 01:04:22 pm
Well, we managed to pull off negative effective mass (https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.155301). Has some rather interesting properties, as to be expected.
Woah, I was within 10 miles of negative effective mass that's awesome.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on April 19, 2017, 01:13:32 pm
HOLY CARPWell, we managed to pull off negative effective mass (https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.155301). Has some rather interesting properties, as to be expected.
Woah, I was within 10 miles of negative effective mass that's awesome.
Post by: Gentlefish on April 19, 2017, 01:13:55 pm
Post by: Gentlefish on April 19, 2017, 01:23:33 pm
Negative effective mass, not negative mass.
They engineered a dispersion relation in a Bose-Einstein condensate, producing a region of negative effective mass. That is, a region where particles interacted with other forces as if they had negative mass.
They did not actually produce particles with negative mass.
:P
I mean, I did read the paper. But the effects are pretty awesome and I can't wait to see what sort of practical applications we can pull out of it later on down the line.
Post by: Il Palazzo on April 19, 2017, 01:27:58 pm
Well, we managed to pull off negative effective mass (https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.155301). Has some rather interesting properties, as to be expected.Is that really something new? I thought I pulled off negative effective mass when I farted in bath, and the resultant bubble accelerated against the force of gravity.
Post by: Max™ on April 19, 2017, 01:29:17 pm
Post by: Il Palazzo on April 19, 2017, 01:30:26 pm
Well, against the force of gravity, no, that wouldn't be new. Against other forces (such as electromagnetic force)? That's new.I'm not into solid state, but don't electron holes have negative effective mass?
Post by: Il Palazzo on April 19, 2017, 01:33:10 pm
Post by: Starver on April 19, 2017, 01:34:01 pm
Because that's the real question...
Post by: Egan_BW on April 19, 2017, 02:43:05 pm
Post by: Starver on April 19, 2017, 02:48:02 pm
Post by: Max™ on April 19, 2017, 04:19:26 pm
a. Relativity
b. Causality
c. FTL
I prefer the route Baxter took with ditching causality to stories where they're zooping around at huge multiples of the speed of light and nobody seems to wonder why they don't just solve whatever super critical problem they're dashing across the galaxy to fix by plotting a course to an early enough event that they can just prevent it from happening entirely?
Though of all the handwaved explanations for why nobody does that, ones like Banks used where there's still a causal ordering because the hyperspace they hop through has a sheet (or grid) of energy they push off of to accelerate past c. So apparently trying to plot a course into your own past light cone would require heading across that sheet of ultra-death-fuck-off-energy-so-dangerous-pushing-a-bit-of-it-into-threespace-annihilates-anything-it-overlaps, a.k.a. gridfire.
Post by: wierd on April 20, 2017, 02:44:09 am
http://www.cell.com/immunity/abstract/S1074-7613(17)30128-0?_returnURL=http%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS1074761317301280%3Fshowall%3Dtrue
Post by: Bumber on April 20, 2017, 03:08:48 am
Post by: wierd on April 20, 2017, 03:15:04 am
Post by: Reelya on April 20, 2017, 04:52:56 am
Post by: Max™ on April 20, 2017, 10:01:09 am
Post by: Sheb on April 20, 2017, 10:23:09 am
and turtles are only oceanic in some places.
Well, you can't be oceanic on firm land, can you? Of course they'll only be oceanic in the ocean. :P
Post by: martinuzz on April 20, 2017, 01:10:02 pm
The little mammal is already very special, in that it is immune to pain (no pain receptors), and immune to cancer, while living up to 30 years of age.
The new studies showed that they can go completely without any oxygen, without any damage to their organs or brain. When deprived of oxygen, the mammals metabolism switches to fructose anaerobic respiration, like plants do.
The researchers placed them in a tube containing no oxygen at all. After about 30 seconds, the animals passed out, and seemed to die. However, when oxygen was added 15 minutes later, the animals regained consciousness, and went about their daily lives again without any noticable damage.
When placed in a tube with low oxygen content, in which a human would die within minutes, the animals survived for over 5 hours.
Post by: Max™ on April 20, 2017, 01:31:52 pm
I mean in like the UK I think the word tortoise is used for everything except sea turtles and the like.and turtles are only oceanic in some places.
Well, you can't be oceanic on firm land, can you? Of course they'll only be oceanic in the ocean. :P
Post by: Max™ on April 20, 2017, 02:59:14 pm
'Got sick of trying to suffocate naked mole rats and clocked out, yours?'
"Uh, I just did... normal work stuff."
Post by: Arcvasti on April 20, 2017, 03:34:14 pm
Post by: Starver on April 20, 2017, 04:05:51 pm
Post by: Max™ on April 21, 2017, 09:32:42 am
Post by: TheBiggerFish on April 21, 2017, 10:17:45 am
A new studies into the naked mole rat has further baffled scientists with this amazing species.What the....
The little mammal is already very special, in that it is immune to pain (no pain receptors), and immune to cancer, while living up to 30 years of age.
The new studies showed that they can go completely without any oxygen, without any damage to their organs or brain. When deprived of oxygen, the mammals metabolism switches to fructose anaerobic respiration, like plants do.
The researchers placed them in a tube containing no oxygen at all. After about 30 seconds, the animals passed out, and seemed to die. However, when oxygen was added 15 minutes later, the animals regained consciousness, and went about their daily lives again without any noticable damage.
When placed in a tube with low oxygen content, in which a human would die within minutes, the animals survived for over 5 hours.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 21, 2017, 11:50:32 am
Post by: Descan on April 21, 2017, 12:01:15 pm
Post by: Gentlefish on April 21, 2017, 12:29:01 pm
Also, pretty sure humans can also get the "immunity to pain" thing. It's called congenital analgesia, and it's a very debilitating disorder. No pain = no immediate safety reflex = constant vigilance against anything that could harm your body. You can't be "hurt," but your body can still be harmed. You just don't have a warning system for it.
Yeah I actually read an article on that. I think the popsci was referencing this paper (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2096434/). It was pretty awesome that we've discovered the issue.
Post by: Teneb on April 22, 2017, 07:34:23 am
Also, pretty sure humans can also get the "immunity to pain" thing. It's called congenital analgesia, and it's a very debilitating disorder. No pain = no immediate safety reflex = constant vigilance against anything that could harm your body. You can't be "hurt," but your body can still be harmed. You just don't have a warning system for it.Heck, you don't even need total immunity to pain to need to be incredibly vigilant about getting hurt. I discovered the hard way that I am extremely resistant to pain, and that way was the total collapse of my left lung and partial collapse of my right lung, simultaneously (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumothorax), feeling "merely" like I was being poked between the ribs.
Post by: Starver on April 25, 2017, 04:46:43 am
Post by: wierd on April 25, 2017, 07:51:28 am
Or, how microbiologists and etymologists discovered a solution for the pacific gyre (and doom anything made of plastic)
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39694553
Post by: martinuzz on April 25, 2017, 08:03:26 am
(The article in my newspaper has some numbers. It would take 100 worms 100 days to digest a single 20 gram plastic bag.)
http://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/oplossing-voor-plasticberg-is-het-nog-niet-wel-interessant-deze-rups-eet-plastic~a4490514/
Still, nice find.
Post by: wierd on April 25, 2017, 08:13:45 am
Post by: Max™ on April 25, 2017, 08:36:25 am
How the fuck can we possibly explain the clusterfuck of 2016 and 2017 (so far) to future generations?
'Well, damn near everyone awesome died, brits went a bit silly and we laughed at them, then we elected an orange buffoon as president... uh, he endedup getting north korea--oh, that's the big cratery looking spot on the map there--to try and nuke seoul but the task of launching a missile+detonating a nuke was too much for them, with the only successful detonations at altitude not far past the old no-mans land region at the border. With that out of the way we decided that since we had been so successful cleaning up the big plastic continent out in the pacific using genetically modified yeast, why not see if we can use it to clean up fallout, the resulting radioactive sporulation event was massive enough to fuck up weather patterns and put a serious strain on crop production in the northern hemisphere until it cleared up, beautiful sunsets though.'
Post by: Starver on April 25, 2017, 08:43:17 am
Microbial colonists of "mini-mothra" present efficient mechanism for rapid decomposition of plastics.Though did you also notice, on the main Science And Environment page, the article "Can plastic roads help save the planet?" ;)
Or, how microbiologists and etymologists discovered a solution for the pacific gyre (and doom anything made of plastic)
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39694553
(It's a link to a video page, so until I'm settled on a better link I hadn't yet tried to watch it.)
Post by: Sheb on April 25, 2017, 09:46:36 am
Or, how microbiologists and etymologists discovered a solution for the pacific gyre (and doom anything made of plastic)
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39694553
Who knew all you needed was to know the origin of a name to make the thing disappear! :p
Post by: ChairmanPoo on April 25, 2017, 09:49:47 am
Fear names. Names have power in identity. Others can use names as weapons. Names are a hook that can be used to track you across the planes. Remain nameless, and you shall be safe.Or, how microbiologists and etymologists discovered a solution for the pacific gyre (and doom anything made of plastic)
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39694553
Who knew all you needed was to know the origin of a name to make the thing disappear! :p
Post by: wierd on April 25, 2017, 02:48:11 pm
Because people who study the root origin of words get invoked far more often on the internet than people who study insects, apparently.
Post by: martinuzz on April 25, 2017, 03:07:45 pm
Post by: wierd on April 25, 2017, 03:47:51 pm
That's some fine cooking in there. A little dry at times, and a bit wordy, but mighty fine. ;) (You should try the salad!)
(Yes, this time I used it purposefully, and ironically.)
Post by: Starver on April 25, 2017, 09:38:19 pm
https://xkcd.com/1012/
Post by: Max™ on April 26, 2017, 05:14:32 am
Post by: martinuzz on April 26, 2017, 05:23:41 am
Post by: Sheb on April 27, 2017, 02:56:48 am
Like, that is so cool. It would mean a first wave of human colonization before H. sapiens.
Post by: Sergarr on April 27, 2017, 03:52:09 am
Post by: Max™ on April 27, 2017, 04:53:18 am
130,000- old mastodon bones that looks like they were fractured by humans using stone tools found in California (https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v544/n7651/full/nature22065.html#supplementary-information)Damn good science there: this is going to be a claim which involves constant uphill struggling to get past the giggle factor, so what do they do?
Like, that is so cool. It would mean a first wave of human colonization before H. sapiens.
Make sure the in situ placement is documented and unlikely to be chance.
Investigate that the possible artifacts exhibit certain traits which stone tools used by homo possess and can be used as sound identification criteria.
Make sure that the bones also illustrate the related stone tool impact/scraping/cutting/etc traits.
Obtain rocks which are similar to the ones found at the site, make tools, and use them to crack open bones.
Confirm that the bones flaked and fractured the same way the ones at the site did.
Confirm that the markings and scrapes on the experimental tools match the hypothesis that the ones at the site are also tools.
Slap every bit of date bracketing information and tests you can throw at it in there.
Try to break your previous findings, and if you can't do so, publish them!
Post by: Eric Blank on April 27, 2017, 03:16:56 pm
130,000- old mastodon bones that looks like they were fractured by humans using stone tools found in California (https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v544/n7651/full/nature22065.html#supplementary-information)Damn good science there: this is going to be a claim which involves constant uphill struggling to get past the giggle factor, so what do they do?
Like, that is so cool. It would mean a first wave of human colonization before H. sapiens.
Make sure the in situ placement is documented and unlikely to be chance.
Investigate that the possible artifacts exhibit certain traits which stone tools used by homo possess and can be used as sound identification criteria.
Make sure that the bones also illustrate the related stone tool impact/scraping/cutting/etc traits.
Obtain rocks which are similar to the ones found at the site, make tools, and use them to crack open bones.
Confirm that the bones flaked and fractured the same way the ones at the site did.
Confirm that the markings and scrapes on the experimental tools match the hypothesis that the ones at the site are also tools.
Slap every bit of date bracketing information and tests you can throw at it in there.
Try to break your previous findings, and if you can't do so, publish them!
Bigfoot did it.
Post by: redwallzyl on April 27, 2017, 03:20:35 pm
Origins of Indonesian hobbits finally revealed. (https://phys.org/news/2017-04-indonesian-hobbits-revealed.html) Apparently they're a pretty distant offshoot of humanity, being sister species of Homo habilis.pretty sure we knew that already seeing as i learned it in class last year.
Post by: wierd on May 03, 2017, 02:15:57 am
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1525001617301107
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 03, 2017, 07:23:02 am
Post by: wierd on May 03, 2017, 08:21:16 am
The ability to directly remove a provirus from a host genome is a DAMNED POWERFUL TOOL. It could be what antibiotics did to germs a century ago, only for viruses.
Post by: hops on May 05, 2017, 06:28:43 am
Post by: inteuniso on May 05, 2017, 12:32:21 pm
It's not like religious proponents were able to stop us from having cyborg rays and glowing puppies, so I highly doubt they can stop something that solves a problem that medical science has been researching hardcore for the past decades.
Cyborg rays and glowing puppies don't cure cancer. Healthy people don't pay medical bills.
EDIT: Maybe CYBORG rays and glowing puppies can cause cancer. Still doesn't invalidate the point.
EDIT2: I meant to point out that they, in fact, could cure cancer. Healthy people that make their own stuff can't be forced to buy slave-made products.
Post by: hops on May 05, 2017, 03:21:33 pm
Since cancer is mostly dependent on genetics and age, rich people can get them too, and that means that they have more stake in it than other diseases.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on May 05, 2017, 05:37:52 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 05, 2017, 05:46:57 pm
I'm fairly confident that we don't even really need a paradigmatic advance. Refinement and moderate advancements in anti-cancer methods will mitigate the risk of nearly all cancers over the next few decades.
The real question is if we can prevent the wealthy from establishing barriers to receiving those treatments.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on May 05, 2017, 05:53:51 pm
Heck, you don't even have to get into cutting edge cell therapy to find interesting things. Bispecific antibodies are around the corner as well. Heck, even small molecules are getting very interesting lately, with some compounds being able to fullfill several roles (EG: ruxolitinib was born as a JAK2 inhibitor, in principle to treat JAK2-positive MPNs. Only, as it turns out, it also affects JAK2 negative MPNs because all MPNs have the JAK pathway upregulated. On top of that it has a big impact on circulating cytokines, giving it interesting immunomodulatory properties that give it value in some autoimmune disorders, as well as management of GvHD)
First, the source of that study is about thyroid cancer overdiagnosis, not false diagnosisYou're kind of obsessively paranoid with that you know? It's not like cancer diagnosis is something decided on one single test.And yet...Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I'm not saying this stuff out of fear. I'm saying it out of frustration.
Second: eh, even "overdiagnosis" is likely simplifying the matter too much, and does not necessarily mean it's wrong to at the very least keep track of these patients.
I found this interesting:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/834450?pa=uGWUPu%2F0P%2BqBvC5BjtUnZXa6zDoDuCDftSexA3OoKz9feeMGfy8aq88yGPhQ7X8oJyGvMX%2Fu%2BWdIXoARf%2FT0zw%3D%3D
Quote
Dr Grogan also believes that "the term 'overdiagnosis' is being used incorrectly by this group."
Thyroid cancer has such a high 5-year overall survival rate (about 97%) that it cannot be expected that mortality will significantly increase as incidence climbs, he explained. "A concomitant mortality increase would be expected for, say, pancreatic cancer, but not thyroid cancer," he said. Thus, if a hallmark of overdiagnosis cannot be expected to be seen, then the term is not fitting, he suggested.
Dr Grogan believes that the paper's public health perspective is a limitation for clinicians. "The big question is: Do these patients need surgery?" he said. "The answer can't be that you do nothing."
At the same time, Dr Grogan advocates for clinical trials that explore other management options for patients with thyroid cancer.
Thyroid cancer is a candidate for active surveillance, but protocols are needed and must be investigated. Currently, researchers in Japan are "leading the way" with related prospective studies, he said.
It's a very tough call to make TBH. Some years ago there were talks as well about "watch and wait" attitudes with prostate cancer, instead of treating all of them, because "the impact on mortality was little". Except... as it turns out, that's simplifying things a bit too much as well. Namely, it was shown that while survival rates were similar, bone methases were far less frequent in the treatment groups than in the treatment ones. And they had a huge impact on quality of life. Heck, even the "no impact on survival" was not completely true either. Part of it was because it's diagnosed in older people and it's sluggish... but people *are* living longer now, and there is an impact in survival as well.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on May 05, 2017, 06:13:23 pm
Quote
Specifically. you get a 13% chance of actually being "saved" by breast cancer screening.1: Even if we accept that number: You think 13% is small? That's one in ten women walking into an oncology consult. It's... quite a lot, really.
2: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22972807
Quote
Valid observational designs are those where sufficient longitudinal individual data are available, directly linking a woman's screening history to her cause of death. From such studies, the best 'European' estimate of breast cancer mortality reduction is 25-31% for women invited for screening, and 38-48% for women actually screened. Much of the current controversy on breast cancer screening is due to the use of inappropriate methodological approaches that are unable to capture the true effect of mammographic screening.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on May 05, 2017, 06:56:54 pm
That study analyzes studies published before the one I linked to. The one I linked to is 2014; the one you linked to is 2012. Hence, not a good refutation.
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/84b46d362d5dbb7aac0be692b0b01dc2/tumblr_nj6cg4I6Xh1trbh6do1_400.gif)
That's not much of a refutation to begin with (being posterior doesn't necessarily mean it addresses the other article, let alone refute it), but the problem is that you're wrong, to begin with.
Quote
Dec 12 2011
Likelihood That a Woman With Screen-Detected Breast Cancer Has Had Her “Life Saved” by That Screening
H. Gilbert Welch, MD, MPH; Brittney A. Frankel
Quote
The Impact of Mammographic Screening on Breast Cancer Mortality in Europe: A Review of Observational Studies
Show all authors
Mireille Broeders, Sue Moss, Lennarth Nyström, Sisse Njor, Håkan Jonsson, Ellen Paap, Nathalie Massat, Stephen Duffy, Elsebeth Lynge, Eugenio Paci, MD MPH
First Published September 12, 2012
PDF download for The Impact of Mammographic Screening on Breast Cancer Mortality in Europe: A Review of Observational Studies Article Information
Notice the dates.
Post by: Descan on May 06, 2017, 12:09:58 am
two positive tests (that are otherwise unlinked, i.e. not having the same doctor/test/equipment used) bumps probabilities of a true positive up from "low teens" to "near certainty"
seriously, that's basic bayes, which *you yourself* brought up in the first place. :V that's what this whole thing is about, isn't it? that a positive on a single test doesn't actually increase your probabilities of having what the test was diagnosing? medical practitioners know that; That's why they call for more tests, from different labs, because they know false positives happen a lot more than true positives when only a single test is used
Post by: Descan on May 06, 2017, 12:35:34 am
Post by: Descan on May 06, 2017, 12:39:20 am
Post by: ChairmanPoo on May 06, 2017, 04:02:23 am
Anyway: Paraphrasing my former mentor, I believe if you want to change the S.O.P. in oncology, be it in the setting of treatment protocols (which was the original context of his comment) you have to be very experienced in the subject and do a lot of background research before you start messing around with it. I mention this because you're rallying against iron-hard evidence, and I don't believe either applies to you. It is one thing to argue about data and quite a different one to preach around the "evils of mammography", when there's a possibility of actual, real harm.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on May 06, 2017, 02:14:32 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on May 06, 2017, 02:20:59 pm
It would be easier not to "put words in your mouth" if you made your position clearer instead of bemoaning mammography screening in general.
Post by: wierd on May 06, 2017, 03:01:21 pm
You tell someone that their finding is 70% likely to be easily treated: they don't see this as the doctor saying "70% of cases are easily treated, but yours may be one of the 30% that are not, and you should be prepared for that outcome when you decide a treatment option." Instead, what they take away is "my finding is easily treated; my treatment will be easy."
The doctor swears an oath to avoid causing harm, or to cause only the least harm. When most patients willfully misinterpret what you tell them, and choose options that predispose them to dangerous complications, rather than minimizing them, the only way to satisfy that oath is to tell patients about the worst case, so they take the path with the best prognosis in all cases.
Post by: wierd on May 06, 2017, 03:04:44 pm
Post by: wierd on May 06, 2017, 03:10:07 pm
You are willfully strawmanning.
"Best prognosis" is a synthesis of "best quality of life + best survival." Because poor quality of life is harm.
You are willfully distorting that to read "best chance at phyrric survival." Which is not correct.
Post by: wierd on May 06, 2017, 03:14:29 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on May 06, 2017, 03:18:50 pm
Quote
I'm advocating for more information actually being told to the patient, so that they can be informed of the full details of what their diagnosis entails. Along with better advice concerning mammogram screenings after 40 years of ageMIRACLE! THE NCCN GUIDELINES SAY THIS EXACTLY! YOUR ADVOCACY HAS WORKED
Or... this is something that happens to be common sense, and was already standard.
Quote
rather than just a blanket "get screened every year" that some doctors say (since the actual recommendation varies depending on what organization's advice you follow, with the recommendation usually being biannual for 50+).Have you bothered in checking the NCCN guidelines to see the rationale for advising annual mammographs? You should. It explains precisely what you are asking.
Quote
And yes, I am well aware of the consequences of breast cancer screening. My mother was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2012, after a mamogram screening. She was never told the odds of her tumor developing into full cancer, or that it was arguable that the tumor she had was even cancer at all- it was a ductal carcinoma in situ. All she got was "you have cancer" and the odds of someone with stage 1 breast cancer surviving or not. The hell I watched her go through for 5 years (hormone blockers, no chemo; her fingernails turned to paper, among other things) over something that very well could have been completely unnecessary? Yeah, I'm familiar with the consequences of breast cancer screening.And I'm familiar with people getting emotional over personal cases. Doesn't mean you're right, you know.
Quote
Another article, which has plenty of cites in itself.Quote
"What If Everything Your Doctors Told You About Breast Cancer Was Wrong?"
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight
(https://m.popkey.co/cd564a/VoOGV_s-200x150.gif)QuoteIncludes a plethora of info about ductal carcinomas in situ that my mother was never told when she was told to do a lumpectomy.
And yes, they did suggest mastectomy and chemotherapy. She declined both
Declining treatment is up to you. A doctor is not a jailor. In the end it's up to you to make a choice. I've never forced anyone to start treatment, or even undergo diagnostic procedures, if they don't want to.
Regarding the treatment: As it happens there are good reasons for recommending different treatments for DCIS depending on findings both at diagnosis and afterwards. Since I don't know those circumstances, the exact recommendations made, nor the rationale behind it, I'll abstain from commenting. I do hope everything goes allright, however, for what it's worth.
Post by: wierd on May 06, 2017, 03:19:49 pm
You are being needlessly argumentative, and arguing absurdities, that I have never endorsed. Who is putting words in mouths again?
Post by: wierd on May 06, 2017, 03:23:54 pm
HERE, I WILL QUOTE IT FOR YOU.
Quote
The doctor swears an oath to avoid causing harm, or to cause only the least harm.
POOR QUALITY OF LIFE IS HARM.
Post by: wierd on May 06, 2017, 03:31:01 pm
Post by: smjjames on May 06, 2017, 03:34:38 pm
Not quite sure what you two are arguing about atm, but both of you need a chill pill.
edit: I looked, but both of you still need to chill.
Post by: wierd on May 06, 2017, 03:39:09 pm
2) note the word choice I used in the bolded part you quoted, when taken in context with the rest of the paragraph.
3) note the repeated attempts to politely correct you misinterpretation.
4) note your obstinance when I POINTEDLY correct your misinterpretation.
Telling someone about the worst case (eg, "it is entirely possible that we may need to remove both of your breasts") is NOT, (and I stress this most sincerely!!) The same thing as " Omg! We HAVE to take both breasts!!"
I don't know how much more clearly I can make that.
Post by: Helgoland on May 06, 2017, 03:47:34 pm