MirceaKitsune

I think this is an interesting question, from a biological / psychological point of view... but which can probably have many answers. One subconscious and less obvious reason might be that, because being gay has been (sadly) condemned and demonized over the course of history, some might consider it thrilling because it has an "out of the ordinary" status. The mind tends to be drawn to unusual things, when they're identified as something that doesn't pose a threat and doesn't need to be avoided. From an evolutionary point of view, it also makes sense for this effect to be stronger in men... since males were usually the ones who went hunting in dangerous areas, so to survive they had to be motivated to venture into the unknown and learn / experience as much as possible. Of course this is a different thing... just saying the base concept might still relate. Other reasons are harder to think about in depth... especially on a still sensitive mater like this. But for example, males tend to be attracted to female stuff... and lesbians can be perceived as multiplied femininity. I'm not a psychologist to be clear. But I often wonder about many things, including how the brain works. Some functionality makes sense if you think about it, and add evolution into the mix at times... but yeah.

I noticed something funny a while ago. I'm not sure if it happens to everyone, but it's certainly an easy experiment anyone can preform on their self at any given moment. I'm curious if the reasons why it happens are known, and how this is related to how the brain works and evolved. When I'm not doing any physical effort and I'm not in a state of emotional distress, I tend to breathe rather slowly and rarely. However, if I ever think about my breathing or try to monitor it, I immediately feel like I'm suffocating, and need to take a deep breath. It's not just a simple tendency either... I have to breathe more at that moment, otherwise I feel deprived of oxygen. Why does thinking about your breathing instantly make you need to breathe more, and how does this work? Does it happen to everyone also, or might it be related to certain conditions?

Low mass particles, including electrons and photons, are subject to the laws of quantum physics. Earlier I was pondering the nature of electricity, and how quantum mechanics could play various roles in the behavior of electric currents. I became curious about one possibility, which might be of interest to the development of quantum computers or understanding how the brain and its neurons work: Can you have a circuit where an electric current might choose a different path based on its quantum state? I'm curious for both standard electronics as well as electrochemical circuits. In regard to electronic devices, I'm wondering if a circuit can be designed to redirect electrons based on their quantum state. For instance: You have a wire that splits into two wires. If an electron is in one quantum state when it reaches the junction point, it goes through the left wire... while if it's in another quantum state, it goes to the right. A more practical and concrete example would be: You have a single wire separated by a non-conductive obstacle, but which is thick enough to allow particles to tunnel through. If an electron that reaches this obstacle manages to tunnel, it's taken by the remaining wire and continues its journey... while if it doesn't, it stops there and does not pass. For electrochemical signals, I'm not fully sure where to direct my question, since I'm still not fully familiar with them and still learning about action potentials and electrolytes. But in essence, I'm curious if the quantum state of particles involved in transmitting the electrical signals can determine the outcome, from what's known so far. Could a quantum leap in an ionized particle cause a different neuron to fire, or the signal to reach or not reach a neuron? Or do quantum physics play no role in the path neural signals take?

I often work with what I do understand, and rather try to piece things together if you will... math is sadly not one of my strong points. I am aware I can be wrong, which is why I discuss things and can accept the opinions of others when they contradict mine. In this case, many documentaries about spacetime stated that time is a static and fixed dimension. I assume channels like National Geographic wouldn't air science films if they were made by people who have no idea what they're talking about. That's an idea that would make sense. Although if we're talking about the biological brain, those memories should exist in each time frame, or more precisely in each copy / state of the brain inside each moment in time. So something external would have to choose which memories are being compared and in what order.

I might indeed overestimate the speed of evolution then. My idea was that in the beginning, simple creatures had a lot of major mutations upon birth, where some 1 out of 1000 helped with survival. Considering that some small creatures even reproduce once an year, it caused the impression that life evolved very fast at first, but the process has now slowed down as creatures got bigger. I'm not very experienced with biology and physics otherwise, at least yet. It's mostly this year that I started getting into science and learning about things. Obviously this isn't enough time to learn all of the details, but I'll hopefully get a better understanding in time.

Ah... I understand now. Yes, when you have a massive object it's difficult for it to go between multiple superimposed states, because they have many atoms which interact with one another and clear the situation up.

Determining when an observation really takes place would be a challenge yes. But based on what another user said, I assumed an observation means matter being used in any form for an object to exert an influence onto another object... such as object #1 reflecting a photon onto object #2. So I did wonder if two planets too far away to reflect light from one another can be considered unobserved in relationship to one another... until the first photon of light / first dark matter / etc. reaches it. But I know this is probably not the case, and measurement might take place earlier in some other form.

Like I said, for me this is a logical question. If time is a fixed / static dimension, and each frame of time can be perceived as present by our awareness, then something external to it must be doing the perceiving. Because I don't see how you can create an impression of movement, or a presence of a dynamic nature, using only a static entity. Something must move through this static environment and interpret it. A good example is taking a sheet of paper and a pen. You can consider up - down to be space and left - right to be time. The challenge is to draw anything on that paper which causes or implies movement from the left side to the right... even of a fake informational entity. You likely can't, because anything you draw is static. If you put a line somewhere to indicate present, you can no longer erase it, so no other segment of that paper could ever be perceived as present. Best you can do is create an optical illusion, like a wheel that appears to spin if you look at a center point... which again requires an external observer. But I don't claim this to be absolute proof. It's just an idea which in my opinion makes sense, so I wanted to discuss it. As for relativity, I went with the essentials I knew about this theory... I know that an experienced mathematician understands it better than me and can tell me where I'm wrong.

Thank you, that explains it a lot better and I think I understand now. And yeah, isolating anything this well in practice would probably be very difficult or impossible. There might however be one thing: Objects so far away that no particle from one managed to reach the other. Earth and objects on it might have not interacted with planets so far away that no photon reflected by said planet reached us yes. Then again, we don't know whether there are things such as dark matter which travels faster than light, so such couldn't be known for sure either.

Thanks, I think that clears everything up... I see what you mean now. In that case my point here might be invalid, because all planets in this universe have probably interacted one way or another, so they should be part of the same state regardless of when life first started evolving. Or have they actually? What if we would apply my example in the first post to planets which are so far away that light didn't reach one another yet? What if on each planet, life evolved in a different superimposed state? What happens when the first photon (or any other particle) reflected by one planet touches the other one?

As discussed in the other thread, it appears I might have misunderstood what observation means in this perspective. I concluded it's when the person's mind realizes that one or the other thing happened. But now I understand that interaction is when the object in cause has any form of influence on the observer's body at all... such as reflecting a photon of light outside of a sealed container for example? In this case though, my planets example might be pointless. Since light from each planet shines on the other planet, so any creature on one world would one way or another interact with the other. Although I'm still confused what happens if a superimposed state somehow happens before the evolution of life, and influences life to evolve differently in each state.

I understand. I think I misunderstood what observation / measurement meant in that case, and went by the idea that it's the moment when the mind perceives the entity through any means. I'm still a little confused when a real interaction between the observer and object / particle takes place however, and how one is prevented. Do multiple states collapse if the object reflects any photons of light onto the person's body for example? And when is the object "sealed" away from observation?

But if the quantum state of one atom in a sun has a 50/50 chance of deciding whether that sun explodes or continues to go on, isn't that the same thing? As for observing, I thought of it as the act of a person being aware what the result is, through any means and measurements. We do see stars at night on the sky for instance, but not what planets orbit them or if these planets contain life. So I assumed this means a planet might or might not be there or in a certain state until we see clearly that it is or isn't.

Minutes after creating this thread, in which I spoke about the Schrödinger's Cat idea in relation to astronomy and life on other planets, I realized that applying the concept to life in the universe uncovers an interesting paradox as well, which I'm not sure was given quite as much thought. Since this is a subject of its own, I decided to create a new thread for it. - The idea: Schrödinger's Cat is the idea that, when an event noticeable to the human eye can be influenced by quantum physics (such as a particle's quantum leap), all outcomes must exist in a superimposed state until someone measures or observes the outcome and knows which of the possibilities had happened. The Copenhagen interpretation states that, the moment someone measures or observes the outcome, all states collapse into one reality. The Many-worlds interpretation on the other hand states that all outcomes exist, and the act of observing only puts the individual doing the observation into the reality of that outcome. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat My issue here is simple: If an observer collapses multiple possible outcomes into a single reality, what happens if another observer is born inside another state, and therefore this state has its own unique observers? I think Schrödinger's Cat already includes this paradox to some extent... but here's the practical question: What if we and all life on Earth exist in a different super-imposed state from an alien life form? Such could be possible if a random event caused life on another planet to exist instead of life on Earth, before any observers existed in the universe. Would we cancel each others existences out upon observation that denies the other side's reality? - Thought experiment: Let's put everything into an easy example; Let's pretend that the only thing in this universe is our solar system, but it contains only two planets revolving around the sun: Earth and Mars. We're at a point in time where life is yet to evolve on either of the two, so no observers exist. Suddenly, a random event inside the sun has a major effect: If false, the sun will continue to shine and soon make life possible on Earth but destroy Mars's atmosphere. If true, a chemical reaction causes solar winds to permanently stop and the sun to emit light of a different brightness and frequency, in a way that makes life impossible on Earth but possible on Mars. A few million years pass. In the first state, life on Earth begins to evolve, and eventually leads to intelligent humans and the world as we know it. In the second state, Martian life begins to take hold, and in a similar amount of time Mars if full of little green men with big heads, and with the same intelligence and similar technology to humans. Around the same time, humans in one state launch a space probe to Mars to see if there's any life there, while in the other state Martians launch their own space probe to Earth to see the same thing. When the human space probe arrives, humanity is disappointed to see that Mars is a barren world which couldn't possibly support life. And when the Martian space probe arrives, Martians find out that Earth is a dead world without any life. At that moment we have two different observers experiencing two different outcomes. So who's in the right? If upon observation both probabilities collapse into one, then either the existence of Martians or that of humans is canceled out. Normally, the first who observes the other planet to be barren would wipe out the existence of life there. But what if somehow, both humans and Martians made their observation at the exact same moment of time? Who would erase who? Would the choice be random, or would the universe simply crash with a Blue Screen Of Death? Could one or both existences even be wiped out at all? This means that in the higher-dimension fabric of the universe, both humans and Martians have lived out their lives, and there are observers unique to each state. This would mean that a person is taking a walk through the park enjoying their self, when suddenly everything goes black and they cease existing, because Martians in a parallel dimension just discovered that their planet is devoid of life. - So: What do you think about this? And in my example with Earth and Mars, what should happen at the moment of observation? Is this indeed proof that time lines exist, or is it more likely that observers unique to one state can remove those unique to another from existence, upon observing an element that indicates they couldn't have existed?

A few days ago I read in more depth about Schrödinger's Cat. The thought experiment in which, if you put a cat inside a box and rely a deadly hazard on the quantum state of an atom, there's a 50/50 probability for the cat to be either alive or dead, which is uncertain until someone observes or measures which of the two things has happened. So I thought to myself: How would this concept apply to something even greater... like planets, and life on other worlds? After all, there's countless processes involved in the the formation of planets which could be influenced by the quantum state of various particles. For example, what if a sun reaches a point where it becomes so unstable, the electron spin of one atom might decide whether it and its entire solar system blow up or not? This is an amazing perspective, and it's already changed the way I look at solar systems and alien life. Here's why: First of all, this might fundamentally change the question "how many planets out there harbor life". If we're talking about our observable universe, the most likely answer is that most planets don't but there are exceptions like Earth. To find the answer, we would have to observe the surface of each planet... and this is where the fun part comes in: What if life on the planet was subject to quantum probability at some point? Until someone finds a way to see the planet, it might or might not harbor life simultaneously! We'd only know which of the two is true once we finished exploring the entire planet. At that moment, all probabilities would collapse into one (Copenhagen interpretation) or we position ourselves on a definite time line in relation to the planet (Many-worlds interpretation). The many-worlds version is the most fun part. Because it would imply that, in a parallel time line, every planet we observe to be without life in relationship to us might in fact be full of life in a different dimension... and vice-versa. Mars for example is a dead world... mostly a rock boulder covered in dust. But what if a quantum dependent event millions of years ago removed the reason why it lost its rivers and atmosphere? At this very moment in time, Mars might have rivers plants and animals just like Earth! We here on Earth have unwillingly decided that it doesn't, the moment we observed its surface and the universe "fed" us one of many realities. But what about Earth itself? Obviously the universe has to be full of quantum states where Earth is either a barren world like Mars, was destroyed completely, or was never born at all. We like to think of Earth as being lucky to have the perfect conditions to harbor life, as if it's a miracle that it does; We're just the right distance from the sun, we have a molten core that creates a magnetic field and shield, we have a moon that stabilizes our orbit, etc. But is it really a miracle? In quantum realities where the Earth didn't have all these factors, there wouldn't be any life on Earth. Even if there's just one out of a trillion states where Earth has these conditions, while in all other states Earth is barren or dead / unborn, life automatically exists in that quantum state only. This means that we aren't lucky, because Earth as we know it doesn't exist a zillion times more than it does, and was destroyed much more often / likely than it hasn't. Life evolved only in those states where Earth kept having the right conditions... and since we don't exist to see the others, we think we are lucky. Taking the idea further, it's also likely that there are many quantum states in which Earth was already destroyed by now. Maybe in a parallel timeline, a meteor hit just 10 minutes ago, and now the Earth is flying around in pieces. Or maybe in yet another timeline, the meteor that killed off the dinosaurs missed... meaning humans don't exist and the world might be filled with raptors who now have cars and computers similar to ours. This also means that there are different observers to decide which quantum state is the "truth"... because in states where life took a different turn, you and I aren't here to ask these questions, but another creature might be. So how do you think the concept behind Schrödinger's Cat should change our view of planets and alien life? Does it mean we misunderstand how likely it is for life to exist, considering planets might have states where they both do and don't contain life? How many planets out there, which from our perspective are barren, might harbor life if we consider all quantum probabilities? In how many states is Earth still here, compared to states where it no longer is?

I remember hearing about the brain perceiving everything at a delay of a few milliseconds. But I don't think this contradicts my hypothesis, and this is why and how I think it relates: The brain has parts where information coming from all other senses (seeing, hearing, touching, etc) is processed and interpreted, then compiled into logical results... this processing being what causes the delay. For example, the signal eyes transmit are just some gibberish dots of different colors. The brain translates them into a format that allows us to see an image, understand what each object means, perceive 3D depth, etc. My speculation is that the consciousness interprets a body by sticking to a select few atoms inside the brain, based on a structure well defined by biology and evolution. So those end results are the only thing it would need to care about. The physical and biological processes that lead to a part of the brain representing the environment don't need to be of any interest, only that there is something representing the environment which it can "read" per time frame. This does mean the consciousness is offset by 50ms from the physical present it aims at perceiving, but it still involves a consciousness reading chunks of physical matter orderly across the time dimension. As for how relativity relates, see my posts above... about the man traveling at light speed compared to the man standing still, and how their points of awareness might get out of sync. I did however include more physics concepts under "relativity" than the theory of relativity really speaks about, so I now realize the thread title might be a bit misleading and incorrect.

The big question remains what actually moves through time... or what is it that moves at all? If time is fixed and modeled into the fabric of spacetime, nothing really travels. In programming terms, we can consider that the physics of all particles are pre-computed and pre-rendered. If we pick up a rock and throw it, we see it flying away until if falls, but in reality that's just a 4D "drawing" where the rock has an arched trail between the location it's thrown from to the location it lands at, and we perceive 3D segments of this shape in order (which makes us see time flow). If of course this is indeed the nature of spacetime, which is what I understand and currently believe based on the standard physics model. You have a good point with photons, and that raises some ideas. If the speed of light is indeed the speed at which time is stretched to the highest point, a photon should theoretically have the same state in every time frame. But even if the brain uses photons, this still wouldn't solve the puzzle I think... since photons too have a fixed state in each time frame. If anything, this makes them an even more unlikely candidate... because they contain even less information throughout each moment of time, compared to particles which could be in different locations during different moments and therefore create more complex patterns. I might be envisioning this incorrectly however, it needs to be given more thought. As for the time dilation statement, I might be imagining this a bit incorrectly as well. I'm assuming that if a person stays still while another travels at the speed of light, the consciousness of the person standing perceives the passing of time at standard speed, while that of the person traveling sees time for the surrounding world passing at a different rate. But in relation to their own bodies, both see time passing the same way. This might mean that one person's consciousness could have their sense of present offset from the other person's. Either way, this is mostly relevant to rule out the possibility that the universe has an universal reference of what is "now", which all forms of consciousness synchronize to.

Articles on the matter explain how everything started out with a bacteria that evolved into all the complex life forms we know today, during the course of millions of years. But one thing which hasn't been described is how frequently and to what extent a newborn had to experience mutations in order to evolve. I got curious because I noticed that at this day, few large creatures experience any visible mutations... except of course traits like face shape, fur color, etc. Almost as if humans and most animals people encounter stopped evolving... or rather the process got too slow to even notice. I'm curious since this would help better understand how fast life started diversifying, soon after it got started. How many mutations per newborn would have early forms had, and to what frequency and extent? And together with that, how long would have they lived and how frequently would have they reproduced? Why is it that large animals these days barely have offspring with visible mutations, whereas at some point this should have been at least somewhat more common?

I didn't know the "fixed past and future" theory isn't part of the theory of relativity. I shall look more into this in that case, and also read up on the uncertainty principle later. Either way, this debate is valid if time is indeed a static dimension. If time is somehow being constructed as it flows, and the past is wiped out of existence while the future is yet to exist, this subject is probably baseless. Since in this case, there's only one space which automatically represents the present, so consciousness doesn't need to interpret pieces of time from a static entity that time is modeled into. Although such a truth would overturn everything I've understood about timespace and physics, and make quantum physics an insane mystery. From what I otherwise understood regarding relativity, it means that if a person travels near the speed of light while another person stands still, the stationary person would see the moving person frozen in time... such as moving their hand in slow motion. The part related to consciousness which intrigued me was: From the stationary person's perspective, time passes more slowly for the moving person, while the moving person sees his / her self passing normally through time. Therefore when the moving person stops traveling, he / she should have their aware perspective in the future compared to the perspective of the person who stood there. A more intriguing fact is that the person who traveled near light speed is still able to interact with the person who didn't. Both can talk to each other, take aware decisions in relationship to one another... yet one's perspective of present should be off compared to the others. Then again, if timespace is indeed static, it means both people have already taken all the choices they're going to take in their entire existence (at least on one time line), and their conscious perspective is going to catch up to this moment later on as it "reads" through time.

Yes, we are indeed spread throughout both space and time. Each atom in our body exists in a given location and state at every given moment. My question is, how could consciousness choose that moment and keep its momentum across it, if it's created by matter in an environment that's static (spacetime)? By momentum, I mean our perspective sticking to a certain time and only moving toward future... so for example we don't constantly re-experience 10 exact seconds from our lifetime, or see time unfold in reverse. The mind indeed integrates signals from various sources, and processes information in an incredible way and to a fantastic extent. But again, it does so in every frame of time, and every frame of time is engraved in a static timespace as far as it's known. What creates a reference to a specific fraction of time, given that the same process happens throughout the entire lifetime of the brain (from the person's birth day and its death day)? As for whether the time dimension of spacetime is fixed, the theory of relativity strongly implies that as far as I know. If one object can travel faster through time than another, it means that object can (in a sense) check that this other object already exists in the future. Otherwise I do believe in free will, as much as this hypothesis might imply otherwise. But I'm of the belief that choice is the product of the consciousness switching lanes to different forks of time (or time lines). This concept is of course not proven either, but common in quantum theory debates from what I've seen (such as Schrödinger's Cat). Either way it might be a slightly different subject from this, and I don't want to focus on every idea and hypothesis at once. Otherwise, a camera recording a series of images is a great example. First of all, the act of the camera recording the video already exists in timespace, whether from the perspective of a consciousness it has yet to take place or has taken place. Second, the camera records a series of images and compiles them into a video file as frames. But that video file is a static entity. We see video because a media player opens the file up and interprets it, showing one image on the screen at a time.

Thanks, this explains it. The idea was probably superstition, or based on the thought that if you're running you're likely traveling through an open area. I'd have otherwise assumed that laying flat on the ground decreases chances of being hit by lightning, because you're not as tall and therefore deferred. But yeah, you're also making more contact with the ground then. Good to know this as well.

Sorry if I posted parts of my idea in a confusing way. First of all, the part of relativity that comes into play here is that time is a fixed dimension, and therefore everything that happened or will happen already exists and doesn't change. This is relevant because it clarifies that time isn't being "built" as we see it flow, and everything is already there. The interesting part is that this implies there is a still copy or representation of all matter in each moment of time... such as one of ourselves and the world around us as it was a minute ago, one as it will be a minute from now, etc. But in each of these copies, our brain is active and functional... making decisions, analyzing the environment, as well as thinking that very frame of time is the present. Every atom that makes up our brain, every electrochemical signal generated by it, are all represented by a still spacetime. So how can spacetime mark an exact moment from this huge chain of time frames as being "now"... especially since objects and people can travel through time at slightly different rates? A mental system, brain pattern, neural wiring, etc. that could create the illusion of time flowing stops making sense logically, because the brain and all matter it's made of or it influences exists in a still state in every moment of time. So every moment of time can be a potential "now" for our consciousness. Here's another way to look at the problem: In order for our perception to move from past toward future and for us to see time animate, information regarding which moment of time is "now" for our perspective needs to be stored somewhere and somehow. Even if it's just virtual data created by a brain trick, because information must too reside in something. But if timespace is fixed and cannot be modified, where do you store it? Our consciousness needs to be something that moves on top of time itself... like the needle of a pickup disc reader must be moved over the surface of the disk for music to play. No matter how intelligently you draw something on the pickup disk itself, you cannot create a virtual needle that interprets it... and we clearly have a consciousness that somehow interprets the passing of time.

When I was young, my parents told me never to run when there's a thunderstorm, because running increases one's chances of being struck by lightning. I know that standing out in the open makes you an easy target for lightning... but what about running? Did me or my parents misunderstand physics back then, or get this out of some superstition? Or does changing your velocity, or having a velocity in relationship to the clouds, make you more likely to be hit by lightning than standing still?

I've been working on finding scientific arguments that spirits and an out-of-body consciousness exist, and that our awareness isn't just an effect created by signals in the brain as some speculate. Yesterday I realized something rather obvious, but very important if my understanding is proven correct. My argument relies on the theory of relativity... with focus on the idea that time is a fixed dimension, where the past and present both exist in a static state across a 4th axis. After nearly a day of pondering this view, I couldn't find any counterfacts to it, and I'd like to hear what others think and other pro / con arguments. So let's consider this: Right now you are sitting on a chair. 10 seconds before that, you were opening the door to your room and walking inside. Both moments are fixed frames of time, and each frame contains the state of everything physical: The atoms that make up your body and the room around you, the particles of light flooding the room, and (most importantly in this discussion) every particle involved in any electrochemical process taking place in your brain. In both time frames, your brain is functioning and biologically perceiving that very moment as present. So why is it that you, the aware living being, are now experiencing the moment when you are sitting on the chair, and no longer live the time when you were opening the door? There's nothing to indicate that a certain frame of time is "now"... as far as your body and physics themselves know, every moment is now! Let's think of it as a film strip which contains many images in order. The 50th shot might be you walking through the door, and the 100th is you sitting on the chair. To each shot in the strip, you can add any information you want... even numbers or arrows so we know which frame is which. But whatever you do, the strip doesn't know when and if it's being played by a projector, nor that it's even meant to! As far as the storage unit is concerned, each shot could be "now", or there is no now at all. The only way to put the strip to use is by running it through something that interprets it, like a projector. That projector alone knows how to roll the film in front of a light beam, at what speed, and how each frame represents time and motion. To use another analogy: Imagine that you're reading a comic book, with panels containing all sorts of images and text. Each page in the book is also numbered, so you can easily resume where you left off in case you take a break. But one piece of information you cannot print on the comic book is what panel the reader is looking at. From the comic's perspective, no one might be looking, or the author might be reading any panel on any page... and in any order if he really wants. My logical conclusion is: No matter how advanced the processes going on in the brain are, they alone cannot create an awareness that perceives time to be flowing. In order for us to have our perception of time, an external consciousness must interpret every state of our body in an orderly fashion, reading the 4th dimension like a comic strip. If spacetime is still, you cannot encode information in it regarding when now is now... because it was always now in a fraction of time, yet all fractions of time would say it's now. Or to put it differently, you cannot "summon" a dynamic effect using a static shape, although you can add markers that help guide the way. An external reader understands that shape, and interprets fractions of it orderly to do so. I pondered whether warping spacetime around itself could work around this, but couldn't find how even that might "program" a dynamic consciousness in relative spacetime.

Yes, but that's because it's the frequency the eye is tuned to. Otherwise I agree with the other comments about using radio waves for charging: Normal wireless transmitters simply spread a weak signal in all directions, since the purpose is simply having enough strength for it to travel hundreds / thousands of kilometers. Even if it could be harnessed by a special solar panel theoretically, it should only produce a silly amount of electricity.