2011-12-26, 04:44 | Link #301 | |
Takao Tsundere Cruiser
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Classified
|
Robert Heinlein’s predictions for the Year 2000 (from 1952)
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2011-12-26, 05:09 | Link #302 | |
Absolute Haruhist!
Artist
Join Date: Mar 2006
Age: 36
|
Looks like he's almost completely wrong lol, and has no idea what art is about.
Even what he thinks is impossible has the first steps achieved. Astronauts are technically time traveling into the future since at their extreme velocity, they are ahead of us in time in minuscule amounts. And neutrinos seem to be traveling faster than speed of light. 'Radio matter' refers to teleportation, which means quantum entanglement: http://www.livescience.com/7647-tele...-achieved.html Creating life in the lab: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=127010591 Quote:
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/0903....2009.178.html The inventors of Carbon Nanotubes really deserved the 2010 Nobel Prize in physics, its the most amazing material ever created. Aerogel, metamaterials, nanotechology, its an exciting era to live in.
__________________
|
|
2011-12-26, 06:51 | Link #303 | |||
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Depending on what he meant, he was probably also wrong on the manlike robots and maybe the understanding of thought. He did get a few things right (or half-right) in the numbered ones, and I wish 7 had been one of them... |
|||
2011-12-26, 08:30 | Link #304 | |
Absolute Haruhist!
Artist
Join Date: Mar 2006
Age: 36
|
Quote:
Real teleportation mechanics is very different from fictional teleportation, because it is easier to duplicate matter over distance than to bring the matter itself over distance. The scientists who conducted the experiment have also said this: if human teleportation were to be achieved one day, what are the moral implications? The person being teleported in a traditional sci fi method would literally be broken down and killed, to have a clone of him recreated somewhere else. Would someone gladly volunteer himself to such an experiment? Quantum entanglement is the real world scientific way for teleportation, the scientists are slowly moving on to bigger particles for their experiments, protons to whole atoms and then bucky balls. Modern art is literally everything and everywhere, the most common modern medium for art now is the the screen. Film, video art, computer games, etc. these are all modern art, can these modern art be completely gone and be discussed only by psychiatrists? As an artist, I feel like talk about it more, but this is a technology thread. But then of course, maybe I could talk about Medium is the Message, since its directly related to the video Endless Soul posted on the previous page. That is an example of a contemporary art using a modern medium. The media of art has always been related to technology, from cave men using spit, blood and oil, to paint brushes, pencils, film cameras, digital cameras, computers etc. Phony art? That is an entirely different subject and definitely doesn't belong to this thread, could he be referring to art that's lacking content or art that's expressed poorly? Or could it be because of Dadaism and the infamous Fountain? I'll stop here for now.
__________________
|
|
2011-12-26, 11:01 | Link #305 | |||
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
2011-12-26, 11:55 | Link #306 | |
Absolute Haruhist!
Artist
Join Date: Mar 2006
Age: 36
|
Quote:
In physics, information is not 'knowledge' or 'instruction', it is the information of the state of matter, such as the spin of particles, the particle wavelength etc. Right now scientists are able to teleport a particle by synchronising the information of two particles using quantum entanglement, effectively making the target particle the exact same particle as the template. If scientists are able to achieve this at a molecular scale, they can create a duplicate mass, effectively 'teleporting' mass, matter over a distance. This technology is killing two birds with one stone actually, teleportation and duplication. Lets say you have a storage of atoms, you can entangle those atoms to become what you want to duplicate. Abstract art is quite a nuisance in art actually, but the general audience and the artist may see different things as abstract. Sometimes there are some artists who are too indulgent, they make things that nobody can understand but themselves, especially if expressed poorly. And then there are those that are just there to make something that looks interesting but really doesn't carry any content. Fine art, modern art, abstract art, they all have mean differently. But still abstract art is not a bad thing, there are really awe inspiring pieces of abstract art. Art does affect science as well, like Daniel Shechtman, the 2011 Chemistry Nobel Prize winner. His discovery of quasicrystals was because he got the idea from the patterns of elaborate embroidered tapestry. He was ridiculed for thinking that crystals could have multifold symmetry above 4, when he claimed to see a 10 fold symmetry in a crystal which he figured out from the tapestry patterns. As Aristotle said, art is the mimesis of nature, to put it very crudely, art is copying nature. Da Vinci studied nature for his art, his creations were artistic, but the observations and content were scientific. Even a film telling a story of a person, it is a mimesis of a human life, a part of nature. Aristotle Also means that nothing is original, because everything was originally inspired by nature, the first cave drawing was about the food cavemen hunted.
__________________
|
|
2011-12-26, 11:58 | Link #307 | |
temporary safeguard
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Germany
|
He is kind of right on a lot of things.
The things he got wrong are mostly because of unreasonable economics. We COULD do them, but they would so expensive compared to what we are doing now, that there is really no reason to try. And for some things that is really sad. Space exploration for example. I don't see where the "intelligent life on Mars" line comes from though. It's not like there have ever been any hints in that direction. The "things we won't get soon" are 100% correct by the way. And no, we don't even have any first steps in any of those. The closest may be "Laboratory creation of life", but so far no one has succeeded to animate matter. You always need some living organism as a basis. The best thing someone has done, was building a bacteria genome from scratch (though it was copied from an actual bacteria) and implanting it into an empty cell. But this is more like reprogramming existing life. Then next up may be "Real understanding of what "thought" is and how it is related to matter.", with the recently developed technics to observe living brains in detail. You might argue some people have profound theories already, but nothing is sure yet. This is a good shot at this topic: http://www.ted.com/talks/antonio_dam...ciousness.html Edit: I really feel like going through all of those points now, looks like fun. Quote:
Last edited by Dhomochevsky; 2011-12-26 at 12:52. |
|
2011-12-26, 12:59 | Link #308 | |
Absolute Haruhist!
Artist
Join Date: Mar 2006
Age: 36
|
Quote:
Because as I've mentioned about, scientists have already been working on teleportation and have successfully achieved teleportation of a photon. I consider that a successful first step. And Dr. Ronald Mallett, who's the one scientist who dedicated his whole life to time travel research, already made a time machine since 2006 and have been experimenting since. No success yet, but that's a first step to achieving time travel. And also astronauts are all going forward in time due to high velocity and is proven because the same mathematics used to calculate their difference in time is used to calculate and adjust the same time dilations on all the satellites orbiting the planet. All those orbiting satellites are all traveling at speeds at that causes them to experience slower time relative to us people on the surface of the planet. In order to keep them in orbit and send precise information, they need constant adjustments to their clocks. Alot of times, things thought impossible are actually possible and can be achieved, scientists have already taken first steps and have been working on them.
__________________
|
|
2011-12-26, 13:07 | Link #309 | |
temporary safeguard
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Germany
|
Quote:
Teleportation: Only information is being transfered here, no matter of any kind is transfered. In the case described, a photon was already exisiting in both places before the "teleportation". What they did was making that one photon a perfect copy of the other one. But the original photon was still there and "unharmed", after they lost the quantum entanglement and no new photon was created at the target destination. If you call this teleportation, then you have just sucessfully teleported this text onto your screen too. The original idea of teleportation transfers matter from one place to another by transforming it into energy and then back into matter. Time Travel: Time travel really only makes sense if you go back in time. But you can not do that by going relativistic speeds. You merely "skip" time. Actually, as you have no universal time in a relativistic universe, you can't really apply the idea of time travel to it. It is just time moving at different "speeds" in different places. But anyway, it always moves forward, never backwards. These two are really the ones where we "know" (within our current theories) that they are in fact impossible. Some of the others are more realistic, as I said above, but I have not heard of any idea that might achieve one of them yet. As automation is my personal field of work, I can asure you, that we are not even close to manlike robots btw. Maybe we will get the perfect illusion of one sometime soon though. Last edited by Dhomochevsky; 2011-12-26 at 13:19. |
|
2011-12-26, 13:13 | Link #310 | ||||||||||||
* >/dev/null
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Age: 39
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
We're created organs using stem cells, and we're working on limb regeneration. It'll probably be expensive though... Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
(2) As long as general relativity continues to hold up, then correct again. (3) Physically moving a particle from one place to another by teleportation? Sure. Transferring its energy states (i.e. information) is doable though. (4) Welllll... I suppose the Sony Aibo doesn't count? (5) Cloning existing life is about as far as we've gotten with that. (6) Thought results in chemical reactions in the brain? I guess that's probably the closest answer we have so far? (7) Death is outside of the frame of reference of the living. So that's pretty much right. (8) Humans disagree (), they get cross, they fight. No surprises there :/ . |
||||||||||||
2011-12-26, 13:26 | Link #311 | |
Absolute Haruhist!
Artist
Join Date: Mar 2006
Age: 36
|
Quote:
The 'old' concept of fictional teleportation is a flawed concept, in the real world, it means the killing of a person to have him rebuilt in another location. Would you want to completely unscramble and disintegrate your body to teleport to another location? If we can make a copy of you right where you wanted, would you want yourself killed in the position you were at? Another thing about quantum entanglement is that it happens instantaneously, unlike an electronic signal which travels at the speed of an electron, it 'travels' faster than light. Time Travel makes sense both ways, forwards or backwards. In fact the idea of time traveling to the future came first before traveling to the past. And there are no laws in physics that says going backwards in time is impossible, in fact there are many calculations and theories that says time traveling backwards is possible. To be able to test those theories is only a matter of technological advancement. In the past hundred years, humans went from horse carriages to space travel, from thinking that flying is impossible to flying in space.
__________________
|
|
2011-12-26, 13:29 | Link #312 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
In the early 1950s, before any space travel, Mars was still the goal of many rocket scientists and those with early sci-fi dreams based on stuff written around the turn of the century. This was still the Mars that had canals as far as anyone could tell. Canals would imply civilization since it would be an artificial construction. Into the 1960s, as more space travel began and better telescopes xoomed in on Mars, the "canals" disappeared from the clearer images. By the 1970s and the Viking probes...Mars was found to be what we know it to be today. A very cold planet.
Several of these predictions seem viable in the 1950s based on the pace of advancements in the early 20th century. And up to the end of tht 1960s these things still seemed viable. Sometime in the 1970s and 1980s we seemed to have missed the boat, so to speak. The line of advancement either slowed down, or it shifted departments heavily. We have advanced in other areas than were expected in the 1950s, but not advanced in other areas that were expected based on research happening at that time, or the general sci-fi pushes happening at that time. Going by the old ideas...we "should" be operating regularly in Earth orbit, with multiple stations, mostly for civilian use (since the UN treaties forbid war in space). But also early spaceships heading out to explore the other planets. Primative, but large ships, like the Discovery and Leonov from the films "2001" and "2010". It is almost 2012....space commerce is just starting with tourism (Virgin Galactic) and civilian operated spacecraft (Cygnus and Dragon designs) to ferry goods and eventually people to the lone orbiting space station (ISS).
__________________
Last edited by Ithekro; 2011-12-26 at 13:42. |
2011-12-26, 13:34 | Link #313 | |||||||
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So, yeah. No lag, but I don't know what the bandwidth's like. And, like ambassadors carrying codes in their baggage, you have to carry stuff from one point to another before you can transmit a given volume of data. Quote:
|
|||||||
2011-12-26, 13:38 | Link #314 | ||
temporary safeguard
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Germany
|
Quote:
I had a hard time grasping the mathematical background of quantum mechanics and we only scraped the surface of it back when I was a student. I know what they did in that experiment, and im not disregarding it. It is an amazing feat. But it is not the teleportation Heinlein was thinking of. The establishment of the entanglement state is not instantious as far as I know. So the "teleportation" isn't either. Quote:
Last edited by Dhomochevsky; 2011-12-26 at 13:55. |
||
2011-12-26, 13:50 | Link #315 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
However, people want instant (or nearly instant) transportation. If it "kills" you at one end, but you are "alive" at the other end as a clone that to yourself feels no different than you did before being "transported"...will you actually care? (especially if one can't tell the difference on a spiritual/religious level. ie Souls)
However, having two of you around via entanglement cloning might be odd...especially if they both think themselves as "you", but the original you does not get to share the experiances of the new "you" nor remember whatever it is they do. That isn't tranportation in the sci-fi sense of the word. That is replication. What is being designed is more along the lines of a Star Trek replicator than a Star Trek Transporter....though admittedly both operated on similar principles. The end results were slightly different.
__________________
|
2011-12-26, 14:04 | Link #316 | |
Absolute Haruhist!
Artist
Join Date: Mar 2006
Age: 36
|
Quote:
Lets say its achievable and you want to entangle this crystal of potassium chromium sulfate, you will have potassium, chromium, sulphur and oxygen on the other end. And then you start the entanglement process and all the atoms recieve the exact same information as the source crystal and all the atoms fall into place, creating a mass of the crystal. And if we go down another level, subatomic level, lets say we want to entangle the same crystal, instead this time we have electrons, protons, neutrons and gluons. You can just entangle the crystal and all these subatomic particles will fall into place. Pollock is always the one mentioned when it comes to abstract art. His work is an art exactly because he allowed nature to takeover, his technique involves letting his body and mind loose and letting the paint go on the canvas naturally. The flow of the paint, the dripping rate, the rate of absorption on the canvas, he controls neither of those, he just lets the paint go. His art is in the way he completely breaks away from how art was normally done, instead of thinking and laying down the brush where it should be, he does the complete opposite. And he is so used to this state where he frees his mind that he can actually generate a natural fractal pattern on his works with equal amounts of positive and negative space throughout the canvas. Not anyone can just throw paint anywhere and make sure theres equal amount of colour everywhere without thinking.Well one other major difference is actually the energy involved. If complete transportation of mass from one point to another is possible, it would require infinite or near infinite amount of energy and data processing. Quantum entanglement would require a much lesser amount of energy with instantaneous effect.
__________________
|
|
2011-12-26, 14:11 | Link #317 |
temporary safeguard
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Germany
|
I guess that makes modern art very 'geekish' in a way. Some guy experimenting and trying to find out what is possible, with a focus on the process of creation, not on the endproduct.
I can see why someone who is searching for a new painting to hang on his bedroom wall would not understand how this makes sense. But some people just don't understand why you would go out of your way to create your own (often useless) gadgets, when you can get more refined ones on the shelves, either. |
2011-12-26, 14:16 | Link #318 | |
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
|
|
2011-12-26, 14:24 | Link #319 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
It would be much more satifying to have just a generic pile of protons, electrons, and nuetrons at one end (with perhaps some amount of their antimatter equivalents if needed), and the process arranges them into the atoms from the original material you want duplicated. Instead of having like kind atoms at one end just being remade into a different pattern of the same atoms, because then you would have to know what is being "sent" before hand and have the exact materials on hand. The generic method means you don't need specific atoms, just building blocks for any atomic pattern.
At least that would be ideal from a fuctional use. Practical use and energy viability is where things "fall apart" in sci-fi to reality development.
__________________
|
2011-12-26, 14:26 | Link #320 |
temporary safeguard
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Germany
|
Has anyone entangled different kinds of particles with each other?
Is this even possible? As you can deduct from the photon entanglement experiment, doing that imposes the same state onto both photons making them perfect copies at the moment of measuring one of them. But if you would entangle say a Proton with a Neutron, how should that work out? How can one ever become a copy of the other/exist in the same state, as they are fundamentally different? The biggest entangled body we know of is the Bose–Einstein condensate. But this is formed of identical particles (bosons? They use actual gas made of atoms, but it seems to get broken down to bosons in the process... or maybe you just cant tell which boson belongs to which nucleon anymore?). I really think we are not fit to discuss this. At least I'm not.. looking at the math: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2...ein_condensate Edit: Turns out I don't even know what bosons really are. Learn something new every day. Last edited by Dhomochevsky; 2011-12-26 at 14:45. |
|
|