View Full Version : Star Trek or Apocalypse?
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/11/17/breakthrough-mysterious-antimatter-created-captured/?test=latestnews
Even though I may not understand a lot of the science in much of today's technology, I find it fascinating. In the lifetimes of many of us on this board, what was once considered science fiction is now science fact. Jules Verne is probably sitting in some cloud somewhere saying "See, I told you so!"
What concerns me though is the speed with which science is "advancing." Animals have been cloned, maybe humans (tin foil hat moment?), definitely human parts, as well as synthetic human parts. The Manhattan Project showed us the destructive power we could unleash by monkeying around with atomic particles. Biological agents capable of horrible destruction have been artificially engineered. Now "Anti-Matter" is no longer a thing of science fiction or just theory.
In our rush to develop new technologies, are we really considering the possible consequences? Is this new discovery going to be our answer to the energy problem and actually propel us into the "final frontier", or is this going to be the last act of defiant children before the house burns down? Maybe the Zombie Apocalypse isn't so far fetched after all.
Dozer523
11-18-2010, 07:09
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-greatest-inventions-of-the-19th-century.php
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-inventions-of-the-20th-century.php
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-inventions-of-the-21st-century.php
Ret10Echo
11-18-2010, 07:19
Science for the sake of science, or science to improve mankind?
Frankenstein thought he was doing some great things too....just because he "could". (This isn't the Hollywood Frankenstein, but the original Mary Shelley book) but to the benefit of nothing other than his ego.
I do find it quite humorous that in the article the reader is supposed to make a huge supposition:
learn more about this strange substance, which mostly disappeared from the universe shortly after the Big Bang around 14 billion years ago.
Oh REALLY..:munchin
hey, maybe a new type of propulsion for the "one way" trip to mars they're talking about.
Hey...could happen.
I'm also a trekkie, so, anythings possible...:lifter
now....where are those sneaky dilithium chrystals..???:p
Along that line.... LINK (http://spectrum.ieee.org/static/singularity)
The link goes to an IEEE piece on the singularity - which is a discussion of what happens when we make a machine (robot, perhaps) as smart as a human. The idea is that we'll quickly be able to advance knowledge at a rate that simply cannot be imagined today.
What might we be able to do with the antimatter discovery? Well, we could have more energetic explosions on a very small scale...which could lead us to study the universe at the verge of when time began. So what? One theory holds that we live in a 10 dimensional universe, three of space, one of time, and 6 that are curled up in small packages. With an understanding of those dimensions, we might discover how to take control of the various nuclear forces - with the ability to generate new forms of energy. Or the ability to dispose of nuclear waste with ease. Maybe we could make nuclear weapons used against us simply not work.
Or we might learn what gravity really is - and, perhaps, how to control it. For example - why is gravity so weak? I can hold a magnet over a paperclip, and that little force overcomes the gravity of the whole planet. For those who use cream in their coffee...dump some cream in. Now rotate the cup on the table. Why does the coffee resist rotation with the cup. Momentum, of course - but what causes momentum? Can it be changed? (If you know, please tell me by PM, so we can get a Nobel prize out of the deal!)
Or we might learn more of quantum mechanics. Imagine perfect communication that cannot (not even in principle) be intercepted. Or computers that can break the most robust current encryption schemes well-nigh instantly.
Of course, how we use all of this will be the key to what comes next...
Nmap, all of those ideas you listed were for the betterment of mankind. What is usually one of the first uses thought of for advanced technology like this? Weapons. I don't know what they are qualifying as a large explosion in their experiments, but theoretically, it could make one of our nuclear weapons look like a Black Cat firecracker. IMO, there are things we just should not mess with under any circumstances. There are times when the old adage about the cat should be heeded.
In our rush to develop new technologies, are we really considering the possible consequences?
Potential profits tend to trump consequences these days.
Surf n Turf
11-18-2010, 22:12
Nmap,
Is singularity even possible --- I offer for your consideration :munchin
SnT
Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth
The human brain is truly awesome.
A typical, healthy one houses some 200 billion nerve cells, which are connected to one another via hundreds of trillions of synapses. Each synapse functions like a microprocessor, and tens of thousands of them can connect a single neuron to other nerve cells. In the cerebral cortex alone, there are roughly 125 trillion synapses, which is about how many stars fill 1,500 Milky Way galaxies.
These synapses are, of course, so tiny (less than a thousandth of a millimeter in diameter) that humans haven't been able to see with great clarity what exactly they do and how, beyond knowing that their numbers vary over time. That is until now.
Researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine have spent the past few years engineering a new imaging model, which they call array tomography, in conjunction with novel computational software, to stitch together image slices into a three-dimensional image that can be rotated, penetrated and navigated. Their work appears in the journal Neuron this week.
To test their model, the team took tissue samples from a mouse whose brain had been bioengineered to make larger neurons in the cerebral cortex express a fluorescent protein (found in jellyfish), making them glow yellow-green. Because of this glow, the researchers were able to see synapses against the background of neurons.
They found that the brain's complexity is beyond anything they'd imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief, says Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology and senior author of the paper describing the study:
One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor--with both memory-storage and information-processing elements--than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth.
Smith adds that this gives us a glimpse into brain tissue at a level of detail never before attained: "The entire anatomical context of the synapses is preserved. You know right where each one is, and what kind it is."
While the study was set up to demonstrate array tomography's potential in neuroscience (which is starting to resemble astronomy), the team was surprised to find that a class of synapses that have been considered identical to one another actually contain certain distinctions. They hope to use their imaging model to learn more about those distinctions, identifying which are gained or lost during learning, after experiences such as trauma, or in neurodegenerative disorders like Alzheimer's.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-20023112-247.html#ixzz15hLVDSv4
Nmap,
Is singularity even possible --- I offer for your consideration :munchin
SnT
Interesting article! Thank you!
Projections decades in the future are notorious for their errors - but, they're still great fun.
PedOncoDoc
11-19-2010, 05:50
Nmap, all of those ideas you listed were for the betterment of mankind. What is usually one of the first uses thought of for advanced technology like this? Weapons. I don't know what they are qualifying as a large explosion in their experiments, but theoretically, it could make one of our nuclear weapons look like a Black Cat firecracker. IMO, there are things we just should not mess with under any circumstances. There are times when the old adage about the cat should be heeded.
True, but the limitation of antimatter (as I understand it) is that it can only exist in a vacuum; as soon as it comes into contact with any matter (including air), it proceeds to the energetic, nullifying explosion. Weaponizing it would require making a large enough volume to cause sufficient damage, containing and transporting it (or creating it in place within the desired target) safely in order to get clear of the explosion.
I guess this could all be potentially done through the use of a remotely controlled vehicle/device - but it would be a one-time use weapon. I'm not sure an antimatter round/munition would be feasible.
I believe antimatter may be more promising as an energy source if we can find the means to make it in an energy-efficient, cost-effective manner. If the expolosions are as energetic as suggested, this could replace nuclear power in the future.
YMMV...
Dark Matter
11-19-2010, 09:11
I wouldn't get too worried just yet. They have been creating antimatter in particle colliders for a long time; they are a natural consequence of many particle interactions. In fact any interaction of sufficient energy produces matter-antimatter pairs (eg. cosmic rays colliding with our atmosphere produce antimatter every day, this antimatter then annihilates producing photons that we can detect).
A quick look on Wikipedia confirms that, "The biggest limiting factor in the large scale production of antimatter is the availability of antiprotons. Recent data released by CERN states that, when fully operational, their facilities are capable of producing 10^7 antiprotons per minute.[25] Assuming an 100% conversion of antiprotons to antihydrogen, it would take 100 billion years to produce 1 gram or 1 mole of antihydrogen (approximately 6.02×10^23 atoms of antihydrogen)."
So the first sentence of the article is very very misleading. First off, I am assuming by 'big bang machine' they mean LHC. Second, creating and capturing antimatter is far from impossible (or seeming that way), it has been demonstrated for the last 50 years. They release the antimatter because it escapes the magnetic confinement (this is also a large problem in magnetic confinement nuclear fusion devices).
This experiment is a step forward. It is the first time neutral antimatter (without an electric charge) has been captured for any appreciable amount of time. It does not herald doomsday bombs or anything like that. I am disappointed with the article's sensationalist title and introduction, and generally with the quality of science reporting across the country (the fear of LHC destroying the world with a black hole comes to mind...). I think this directly contributes to speculations like the opening post, "Star Trek or Apocalypse".
nmap, as for gravity, I believe I can answer your question about why a magnet overcomes the gravitational attraction of the planet. This has to do with the fact that the gravitational attraction between objects is far weaker than the electromagnetic attraction between them (something like 10^35 times weaker). The other reason is because both follow an inverse-square law in terms of the magnitude of the attraction with respect to distance. So you have a very strong force that is perhaps one inch from the paperclip, and a very weak force that, while there is a lot of mass there, integrates to being about 6300km away from the paperclip (which has a very small mass). You will also notice that the magnet does not always overcome the force of gravity to attract the paperclip, but that it only does so within a certain small range. It is this point at which the electromagnetic attraction is greater than or equal to the gravitational attraction between paperclip and earth. For all other distances, this is not true.
mark46th
11-19-2010, 10:16
Maybe a magnetic field will eventually be created that is strong enough to contain anti-matter. Or Commander LaForge can lend us one of his Warp Drive containment fields....
nmap, as for gravity, I believe I can answer your question about why a magnet overcomes the gravitational attraction of the planet. This has to do with the fact that the gravitational attraction between objects is far weaker than the electromagnetic attraction between them (something like 10^35 times weaker).
While you make some good points, the issue of why it is 10^35 times weaker remains. You might find the attached PDF from New Scientist to be of interest. I've hi-lited a few items.
GratefulCitizen
11-20-2010, 12:47
The link goes to an IEEE piece on the singularity - which is a discussion of what happens when we make a machine (robot, perhaps) as smart as a human. The idea is that we'll quickly be able to advance knowledge at a rate that simply cannot be imagined today.
Not so sure about the whole singularity thing.
It assumes that the human mind is analgous to a Turing Machine (computers have Turing Machine limitations*).
If the human mind is merely a supreme Turing Machine, this would have some interesting philisophical implications (determinism, specifically).
Humans have a creative ability and can get meaningful results using divergent thinking.
Computers are pretty much just good at counting very fast.
The combination of a creative human mind (the programmer) and a computer's counting ability is what makes computers useful.
There would also seem to be some 2nd Law asymptotes which would constrain computing power.
If computing power were high enough, chunks of irrational numbers could be found and used in compression algorithms.
Used recursively, this would lead to the ability to compress any size data set to an arbitrary level.
If computing power were high enough, some form of Maxwell's Demon could be achieved.
Power consumption used by the computer would necessarily have to exceed any net benefit from such a device, or else it would be a perpetual motion machine.
Rational machines have their limits.
I'll place my bets with the 2nd Law.
A good book on this subject:
Beyond Reason: Eight Great Problems That Reveal the Limits of Science by A.K. Dewdney
*To be fair to computers, the Church-Turing thesis cannot be proven.