Science fact thread

[NeonKnight]

I'm glad I donned my lead-lined, quantum-string-knitted booties before stepping in here!

I'm glad you decided to join the SF/Fact thread. You might need those booties.

I'm mainly commenting on the mention of Shermer's singularity prediction. It sounds fun to place a date on such a moment... like predicting the end of the world in 2012. Realistically-speaking, however, so many things have to happen to achieve that point, and as most computer scientists and engineers will attest to, achieving Moore's equation-doubling has required a significant ramping up of effort, technology, resources and money over time, almost to the point of matching Moore's equation itself. The closer we approach that singularity, therefore, the more energy, technology, money, etc, will have to be poured into the effort, on a (probably) exponential scale. Sooner or later, we'll be unable to keep pushing that limit, because the cost will just be too high... and I don't think we'll reach the singularity before then.

Still, we might be able to go far enough to get pretty damned close, as far as we're concerned..

Shermer's article is 8 years old already, he might have a different date in mind by now. But I'm not sure how much he knew about the potential for quantum computational power at that time:

The potential power of quantum computing comes from the possibility of performing a mathematical operation on both states simultaneously. In a two-qubit system it would be possible to compute on four values at once, in a three-qubit system on eight at once, in a four-qubit system on 16, and so on. As the number of qubits increases, potential processing power increases exponentially.

There is, of course, a catch. The mere act of measuring or observing a qubit can strip it of its computing potential. So researchers have used quantum entanglement — in which particles are linked so that measuring a property of one instantly reveals information about the other, no matter how far apart the two particles are — to extract information. But creating and maintaining qubits in entangled states has been tremendously challenging.

“We’re at the stage of trying to develop these qubits in a way that would be like the integrated circuit that would allow you to make many of them at once,” said Rob Schoelkopf, a physicist who is leader of the Yale group. “In the next few years you’ll see operations on more qubits, but only a handful.”

The good news, he said, is that while the number of qubits is increasing only slowly, the precision with which the researchers are able to control quantum interactions has increased a thousandfold.

The Santa Barbara researchers said they believe they will essentially double the computational power of their quantum computers next year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/science/09compute.html

I'm not saying we're anything close to a "singularity" yet. Steven, when you say, "Sooner or later, we'll be unable to keep pushing that limit, because the cost will just be too high...." are you accounting for advances in quantum computers?

Oh: I saw a Popular Science article on the former astronaut who is developing the Plasma Engine Technology. Without having enough info to be able to tell where his biggest hurdles will be, I wish him well. What I'd really like to see, myself, is a better way to just get from ground to orbit. I think the many things we should be doing in Earth orbit (clean-up, Earth and distant observation, habitats and platforms, materials and manufacturing research, etc) actually outweigh trips to other planets, in the short term.

Yes, this guy is really impressive. You may be aware, he is indeed talking about exactly some of the very things you mentioned, including a sort of Triple AAA Space Junk patrol commercial enterprise, to help get Ad Astra Rocket company off the ground.

As far as better ways of getting to orbit, I'm all for that as well. Back in post #52, I linked some ideas for Space elevators. True, we're a long way from that becoming reality, we will need nanotech materials I think to do it right.

Still your thoughts on those ideas would be welcome. I think we're probably at least 2 or 3 decades from gravity well solutions like that, but with the rate of accelerating technology, who really knows?

Of course, if you have any other ideas on how to achieve orbit more easily, I'm all ears.

 

[Steven L Jordan]

I'm not saying we're anything close to a "singularity" yet. Steven, when you say, "Sooner or later, we'll be unable to keep pushing that limit, because the cost will just be too high...." are you accounting for advances in quantum computers?

I'm not sure anyone can account on quantum computers! (rimshot)

But seriously, folks, I think there's a long way between proving theoretical models and practical computers here. Although, our entire electronics system today is based on theories that we haven't actually proven about quantum particles we can't actually see in practice, but seem to do what we want them to do, and that is apparently fine by most people.

Bottom line, I don't think there's any way to reliably guess how soon we'll have working (and useful) quantum computers, so I'm just keeping an eye on them and expecting a breakthrough... whenever. And how far that will push us up that wall towards the singularity is anyone's guess. (Ask the quantum computer, once it's running...)

As far as better ways of getting to orbit, I'm all for that as well. Back in post #52, I linked some ideas for Space elevators. True, we're a long way from that becoming reality, we will need nanotech materials I think to do it right.

I'm hoping for breakthroughs in manufacturing Buckminster-Fullerenes, myself. Being able to create and manage carbon chains, and use them to capture other elements, may be the materials coup of the next era, and may be what we need to build space elevators. (It may also help us solve how to sequester all that loose carbon building up in the atmosphere... we can only hope.)

Fullerenes may also make better engine technology possible, and negate the need for space elevators (if I was a betting man, I'd put my money on engines before elevators). There may also be possibilities in different launching methods (piggyback systems, multiple launch orbital rendezvous, etc) that will negate the need for elevators... although they would ultimately be more efficient, the effort of actually creating them might not ever be practical, even with fullerenes.

 

[pox]

I can't get my head around the whole singularity idea myself. It smacks of rapture or the last imam... something just about within reach that'll remove all responsibility and send us whirling into a higher plane alongside Wesley Crusher.

 

[pox]

ahhhh finally.

http://www.gizmag.com/video-capable...aign=139637aca3-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email

 

[Steven L Jordan]

I can't get my head around the whole singularity idea myself. It smacks of rapture or the last imam... something just about within reach that'll remove all responsibility and send us whirling into a higher plane alongside Wesley Crusher.

I don't know about you, but I don't want Wesley Crusher in my higher plane.

ahhhh finally.

http://www.gizmag.com/video-capable...aign=139637aca3-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email

I'm all for more display choices... especially for all those "LCDs are the display of the Divil!" whiners. But if it is as power-miserly as B/W e-ink, that'll go a long way to extending battery capabilities in many devices. Always a good thing.

 

[pox]

I don't know about you, but I don't want Wesley Crusher in my higher plane.

quite!

who else is up there? There's annoyingly wet Kez (sic?) off voyager!
[shudder] and 'Q'

I did have a nice dream once where I'd transcended... well kinda...

I'm all for more display choices... especially for all those "LCDs are the display of the Divil!" whiners. But if it is as power-miserly as B/W e-ink, that'll go a long way to extending battery capabilities in many devices. Always a good thing.

yeah, and thin, and flexible, and cheap, and video capable...

not yet, but soooon.

 

[pox]

smoooooth

http://cargocollective.com/4thamendment

 

[Steven L Jordan]

smoooooth

http://cargocollective.com/4thamendment

What a waste of a perfectly good idea! Instead of printing the fourth amendment, they should have put an image of a clown-face flipping the guards off...

 

[pox]

http://www.astrosurf.com/sguisard/Pagim/GC.html

nice

 

[NeonKnight]

I'm not sure anyone can account on quantum computers! (rimshot)

I'm hoping for breakthroughs in manufacturing Buckminster-Fullerenes, myself. Being able to create and manage carbon chains, and use them to capture other elements, may be the materials coup of the next era, and may be what we need to build space elevators. (It may also help us solve how to sequester all that loose carbon building up in the atmosphere... we can only hope.)

Fullerenes may also make better engine technology possible, and negate the need for space elevators (if I was a betting man, I'd put my money on engines before elevators). There may also be possibilities in different launching methods (piggyback systems, multiple launch orbital rendezvous, etc) that will negate the need for elevators... although they would ultimately be more efficient, the effort of actually creating them might not ever be practical, even with fullerenes.

No offense Steven, but Fullerenes are just another version of nanotech.

If they can help us get into orbit without the need for elevators, great.

Thats a nice view of the Milky Way there pox, thanks!

Here are some other interesting articles:

Following a study of what is in effect a miniature galaxy buried inside a normal-sized one -- like a Russian doll -- astronomers using a CSIRO telescope have concluded that massive black holes are more powerful than we thought.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101124114711.htm

...Ah. At last, a portable galaxy. I need to get me one of those.... Then, I'll be able to rule it along with my dark son. It is our destiny!


Steven, it appears your icon may need just a slight revision. The Earth may not be flat, but the universe? :

The team's conclusions suggest the Universe is indeed flat - an assumption first put forth by Albert Einstein and seemingly confirmed by more recent observations but that remains one of the most difficult ideas to put on solid theoretical footing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11810553

And for those who think I'm only interested in Space science:

http://news.discovery.com/animals/squidworm-marine-life.html

But of course I can relate this to Space science...

Can't you just imagine something like this swimming around the methane seas on Titan? Or perhaps crawling out of one of HG Wells' spaceships?

 

[pox]

..........ace

 

[pox]

so I was thinking... if graphene is just lifted from pencil marks with tape, then you could get a ping pong ball and a really chunky pencil, and just scribble on it until you has a gas impermeable sphere, them pump all the air out through a little tiny nipple, giving you the perfect lifting body!

YEAH

cost.

20p

plus the pump.

 

[Steven L Jordan]

Steven, it appears your icon may need just a slight revision. The Earth may not be flat, but the universe?

That's merely the representative viewpoint of two interconnected branes of our own dimension from an ascendant dimension.

 

[Steven L Jordan]

From the BBC article above:

The team formed a kind of average of all of those binary galaxies, and corrected for the varying speeds at which the galaxies might be orbiting each other.

The calculation also takes into account the relative proportion of dark energy in the Universe.

The equation was then juggled until the collection of binaries did indeed look like a uniform mix of directions.

The results suggest that the Universe is made up of about 70% dark energy.

You can't get more vague than that. Sounds like the way politicians conduct their polls. Did you know that according to the latest poll, the majority of Americans want to eat their young? I read it. It must be true.

And of course, the article doesn't explain how the scientists went from all this kind-of-averaging, juggling and suggesting, to a flat universe.

 

[pox]

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/nov/HQ_M10-167_Astrobiology.html

FRACKING ALIENS!!!!

 

[Steven L Jordan]

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/nov/HQ_M10-167_Astrobiology.html

FRACKING ALIENS!!!!

They probably think they detected moss on Io.

 

[pox]

yeah, looking at the list of people I'm guessing at a spectral hint of organic molecules using one of the new telescopes. I realise this isn't the best forum in the world for getting all excited so I shall attempt to temper my enthusiasm.

 

[pox]

l.l.l.l.l.a.s.e.r projectors
http://www.microvision.com/store/SH...+MicroVision+Online+Store+and+get+yours+today

 

[NeonKnight]

From the BBC article above:

The team formed a kind of average of all of those binary galaxies, and corrected for the varying speeds at which the galaxies might be orbiting each other.

The calculation also takes into account the relative proportion of dark energy in the Universe.

The equation was then juggled until the collection of binaries did indeed look like a uniform mix of directions.

The results suggest that the Universe is made up of about 70% dark energy.

You can't get more vague than that. Sounds like the way politicians conduct their polls. Did you know that according to the latest poll, the majority of Americans want to eat their young? I read it. It must be true.

And of course, the article doesn't explain how the scientists went from all this kind-of-averaging, juggling and suggesting, to a flat universe.

Yes, theories like this often sound pretty vague. It may have something to do with the fact that we know almost nothing about dark energy and dark matter. (We're in the dark )

Of course, that's all theories like this are. I'm just linking stories that I think provoke interesting thoughts and discussion.

That said, are you really just dismissing the idea since the writer was likely out of his depth on concepts?

Einstein did actually think something like this was possible...

Professor Marinoni and Dr Buzzi's idea was to use a number of binary galaxies - pairs of galaxies that orbit each other.

Since nature shows no preference for the direction these galaxies would be orbiting one another, a look across the whole sky should spot the full spectrum of orbital planes - up, down, left, right, side-on and so on.

Put all of them together and they should approximate a sphere.

The team formed a kind of average of all of those binary galaxies, and corrected for the varying speeds at which the galaxies might be orbiting each other.

The calculation also takes into account the relative proportion of dark energy in the Universe.

The equation was then juggled until the collection of binaries did indeed look like a uniform mix of directions

My understanding is that they expected results that would show the universe's geometry to be spherical. Instead they found the binary galaxy data indicating a much flatter shape.

I'm sure there will be something that comes down the pike to blow this out of the water. It just seemed like a pretty cool concept to consider solving the shape of the universe question in this way.

(now my "brane" hurts)

 

[NeonKnight]

yeah, looking at the list of people I'm guessing at a spectral hint of organic molecules using one of the new telescopes. I realise this isn't the best forum in the world for getting all excited so I shall attempt to temper my enthusiasm.

I've heard rumors about planets in the "Goldilocks" ranges. (perhaps lots of them)