MirceaKitsune

For some reason I had the (potentially stupid) idea that some types of solar panels could work like radio receivers; Tune them in to a given frequency, and they respond to electromagnetic fields on that frequency... in this case by charging something. Because the underlying physics are the same... electromagnetic fields, for both sunlight and satellite light if you will. I understand now that's probably further from reality than I thought.

Aha, I understand now. Yes I was thinking about the fact that both radio and light are are at their core electromagnetic radiation. I didn't know they're so different though, due to simply being different frequencies... hence why for a moment I thought a solar panel might work for both theoretically.

Now that's interesting. You can actually draw power from a radio transmission, by sucking in the signal and converting it to electricity? How does that work exactly? This makes some sense actially. Since at the end, radio transimissions are just infrared light. And we can already convert photons to electricity, solar panels being the most common example. So theoretically at least, a solar panel sould be able to generate a current from any radio transmission too, right? Practically of course, most radio signals are way too weak for that... unless you're right near an antenna like this guy.

Thank you. That gives a pretty good idea as to where the technology is at this day. And it doesn't sound bad at all!

I remember hearing about this many years ago, and now I'm curious if any progress in this domain was made recently. From what I'm hearing, it's been a struggle for the medical community to discover how to allow the body to regrow lost organs and limbs. Which obviously, would be the most awesome thing to happen for people who had faulty organs removed or lost limbs in accidents. It was said that lizards provide clues regarding this, because if something cuts off their tail they will eventually grow a perfect new one. Earth worms are even more fascinating and even scary in this sense, since I often heard that cutting a worm in half will cause it to become two worms, each re-generating a head / tail where the cut took place (this might be incorrect however). From what I further understood, humans and all / most animals should be natively capable of this. Only problem is that the genes responsible for regrowing lost parts were shut down by evolution long ago, and no one found how to reactivate them yet. Last updates that reached my ears stated that scientists should be close to figuring it out... but it's happened for someone to have thought they're close while it took years / decades more for a discovery. So how does this really work? How are some creatures able to re-generate lost body parts, both internal and external? And how could this ability be enabled for other living beings that no longer have it?

I once heard something about this in a documentary on TV, and it's an idea I find fascinating and amazing even if slightly creepy too. Today's technology allows advanced biological manipulation and medical procedures to be possible... even things such as cloning to some extent. But what about creating and growing functional organs and body parts from scratch? Or, an even more daring question, creating complete forms of life in the lab other than just simple bacteria? By "from scratch" I mean creating an organ or body using man-made devices and primary matter only... maybe with existing biological parts (like ADN) involved. For instance, I've heard about medicine being able to renew donated organs for transplant... by washing them clean of any content and keeping them in a container until the patient is ready to receive them. But that's a different thing from what I'm wondering. Here's one way in which I think this could be possible: Bones. A device could simulate the chemical procedure the body executes to grow bones, which should allow obtaining bones of any shape and size of the exact same material as normal bones. Something similar could already be possible for muscles / skin / tissue / etc. Not sure how far it goes for more complex parts though. Do current medical instruments and knowledge allow scientists to design biological parts or bodies and maybe even small simple creatures entirely? What is the most ever achieved in this domain? Any upcoming technologies in this sense too?

Ahh... I actually remember seeing the Snowbird in a documentary judging by the picture. Also, the Atlas Human-Powered Helicopter looks amazing, it's impressive to see something like it working! But as expected, both are very large. Easy to see why they're dangerous to use outside of a carefully controlled area, and impossible to get and can keep at home. I wonder if smaller could be theoretically possible someday.

This is a device typically seen in fiction. Or if you're like me, you might have actually considered them as a kid. But I'm still wondering about them today, and curious if they're really an impossible task. I'm talking about manned ornithopters, capable of allowing a person to fly and land safely. The contraption is either wearable like a backpack or a light vehicle (similar to a bicycle), and powered by pedaling or using your arms (no engines or electronics). Obviously, they would be for one person only, and useable up to altitudes where low pressure and temperature aren't a biological hazard. Although a fantasistic idea, I'm well aware of the limitations. Unlike birds, people don't benefit from a light body architecture, and are way to heavy to lift off the ground with a simple contraption. The trick is making the device capable to lift its own weight plus the person's weight, by converting a force the person is capable of generating (eg: pedaling). This makes the task even trickier... since typically, the stronger a person is the heavier they are, so the contraption would need to do very much with very little. On top of that, you also need some safety mechanisms designd... so if control over the vehicle breaks or the person faints, they don't just crash to the ground and die or break their limbs. The wings would have to automatically act as a paracture, or glide forward without ever tipping over or going out of control. Still, this doesn't sound absolutely impossible. If you use smart materials to create something light yet resistant, and a very intelligent array of wings flapped by the person's motion, it might just be possible to have someone rise up to an altitude and fly in any direction. In my opinion, this would be more amazing than a good jetpack happening... since jetpacks are much more unstable and require a lot of costly fuel. So do real ornithopters exist in today's world? Could reliable ones be doable someday... even useable in everyday life as a means of transportation? Under what conditions would they be safe also?

That's sad. From what I heard, most scientists who made great discoveries were credited for what they did... but I guess there would be exceptions too. Anyway, what I think I'd like to see isn't copyright for maths and physics... but rather a Creative-Commons like license. Copyright means crediting the author, but also restricting usage of these theories. If someting like CC-BY-SA could be applied to such formulas, scientists would get the credit they rightfully deserve, while there wouldn't be the risk of science going in anyone's pocket and holding progress back.

This is a little thing I've been idly wondering about; We usually know at what velocity a solid object must hit another to deal damage. It's also easy to tell at which speed hitting the water could harm a person, making diving from excessive heights potentially dangerous. But what about air? At what velocity would an air current be powerful enough to break a solid object by itself, or even hurt a person? Can anything on Earth generate a current strong enough to wound someone for instance? What's the highest damage air itself was ever known to cause? Note that I'm not talking about air currents that indirectly cause damage... such as the wind picking up a wooden plank and smashing a window with it. I'm talking about air alone.

Thank goodness, this is one of the things that can't be copyrighted / patented in today's world. At least physics can't be put in anyone's pocket, unlike innovation with certain patent trolls for instance. That said, I agree with mathematicians and scientists being credited for their discoveries... that's more than fair to do! But history takes care of this thankfully. Actual copyright would only mean evil restrictions.

I've finished watching one of the most beautiful science documentaries I've seen so far, Cosmos: A SpaceTime Odyssey. Its author and host, Neil deGrasse Tyson, who I read is an astrophysicist himself, discussed about a lot of fascinating things, with what felt like much involvement and interest for those subjects... many in which I'm interested myself. For this reason, I was wondering if there's any way that everyday people can contact him for science related matters, by email or PM. I found a contact page but it's pretty fuzzy, and mostly takes me to the American Museum of Natural History website. Considering he's a popular person and would be covered in spam if everyone knew, I imagine that might not be possible... but I still thought to ask just in case.

I find it hard to even understand how someone could go by the logic that "everything is true until proven wrong", which to me feels extremely flawed. To use a silly and simplistic example: If I said that aliens have landed a spaceship in your back yard, would you be inclined to believe that it's true more than you'd tend to believe it's false, until you get there and see for yourself? I go by another logic, which is one I also encourage to others: If you have more reasons to believe that something is false, conclde that it's most likely false for the time being. If more pointers of something being true are known, conclude that it's most likely true for now. But never with 100% certainty, and be ready to chance that conclusion whenever information comes and goes. Also, the fewer proof you have in a sense, the less you should take action, as you are theoretically more likely to act based on incorrect knowledge. By reasons / pointers, I refer especially to solid proof, but also logics and conclusions when actual proof is not available. If you absolutely must conclude something permanent in a given amount of time, probe it however you are able to, make sure you have any other evidence in its sense, and also ask for the opinions of other people... all unrelated from each other so you can be sure they're individual conclusions.

Yes, disorder is certainly more likely and abundent, as I believe I stated as well. Order means a pattern, whereas disorder means random... and randomness is far more likely. Just saying that both happen in the universe, and I believe all / most particles go more or less between the two throughout their existence.

Thank you, this clarifies a lot. Yeah, the statement that order goes toward disorder only might apply to a few restriced cases. But throughout the universe, it's back and forth between the two.

There's no scientific law or term that I can possibly contradict. Although there is a small exception to this rule, which I've pondered for a bit now. That's the law of Entropy... with the statement that "everything tends from order to disorder". The reason why I find this statement incorrect might be obvious; I don't believe that things constantly tend from one to the other, but back and forth between the two. Of course, it depends on how someone sees these words. Myself, I understand order as everything being sorted in a neat pattern, or arranged based on a set of logics. Whereas disorder is something being moved around chaotically, or simply broken and splattered all over. Hopefully I'm not wrong about something so obvious, as change alone might be interpreted as disorder too. So why do I question that this statement might be wrong? Well, there's certainly more things likely to cause disorder over order. To use the simplest example, taking a basket full of apples and spilling it all over the garden is easier and requires less energy than doing the opposite, which is talking an empty basket and placing every apple in the garden inside. But both exist and manifest throughout the universe. When it comes to disorder, it's easy to find examples; Meteors flying all over the place and smashing into each other, suns exploding and throwing their energy and gases into space, planetary storms causing materials of all sorts to mix together, and more... while virtually anything becoming unstable can be a trigger for disorder. But what about order? In my view, there are at least two primary forces in the universe which bring things from disorder to order; Gravity and intelligence. Intelligent life is obvious; People who combine dirt and powder to obtain cement with which they make buildings with perfectly aligned walls, or simply someone sorting through their tool box to put every screw of a certain size in the right compartment. We could also say that biology itself tends toward order... as various materials are shaped based on strict patterns (bones, internal organs, etc). Gravity is also a mechanism who's purpose can actually be seen as bringing order, because it pulls things together and lets them sort themselves out. When tons of dust float around space, they gather to form a sphere (planet) which theoretically tends toward a perfectly round shape. Another example of how gravity brings order is that in some cases, it separates mixed materials. Put oil in water... at first the two will be all over one another, but eventually one floats to the top while the other remains at the bottom. Or try throwing a hand of dirt into a lake... the dirt will float through the water for a bit but soon settle at the bottom. So why is the statement that "everything tends from order to disorder" still used, and not changed into "everything tends between order and disorder"? Isn't that more correct, or am I missing something?

AtomicMaster: From what I discussed in other places about this, it seems that this is thankfully not the case so much. Particularly, the Rift should use a standard architecture for the basics, although a few parts might require additional software to work properly. The two important things I consider basics are (stereoscopic) rendering to the lenses and head tracking. The lenses are said to be detected as standerd video devices, the same way VGA / DVI / HDMI monitors are... which is what I'd expect and hope. I don't know if dividing the image to each lens is understood by the standerd display system, but I was told that the OS should detect when side-by-side stereo splitting is appropriate so this should be generic. As for the head tracking mechanism, that's apparently detected as a standerd input device as well (joystick or mouse) which is great! My example with the mouse also applies in this case, and what you said is correct; Complex mice, like those gaming mice with tons of buttons and more than one wheel, will require their own driver in case you want to use those extra buttons. But the standerd behavior as a mouse, which is tracking the pointer + understanding the left / middle / right buttons + the standerd mouse wheel, work automatically with any and every mouse. Unless of course it's a very weird and unusual mouse I imagine. That's the same idea I'm hoping the Rift and other VR devices go for.

Interesting... this isn't something I've thought of before. Many animals simply make loud noises to attract attention about a danger, and sometimes transmit extra information that way. But others do something that can be considered closer to singing. Wolves howling to the moon are a good example. First of all, it doesn't seem to be something they do for a practical reason... such as attracting attention toward danger. They appear to do out of enjoyment if anything, somewhat similar to why singers enjoy singing. Second, howling has sort of a pattern to it. If barking is more like yelling at someone, howling is like playing the violin in a simple pattern so to say. So I imagine that's something that can become part of wolves the same way modern music is part of our lives basically. And of course the concept can apply to many species out there, which are past a certain level of intelligence. This might bring more insight into how humans evolved to like music as well.

I mostly wanted to discuss it from a geometrical point of view, then relate that to how the concept could be used in physics if there is a way. Especially since many users said they wish to see more mathematics behind such ideas, so I felt this could be theoretically possible enough to do so. I admit there might be a lot of things wrong here, since I'm very far from a mathematician and more of a thinker if anything. Like I said, a point in this system would be defined as its location on the bent line. Easiest way would be to consider the starting point 0 and the ending point 1, and anything in between 0.x. An even simpler version of my concept would be: If you have a theoretical space, in any number of dimensions (2D, 3D, etc), in which there is a "lowest size limit" which can be expressed as a fixed value, and that size limit applies as both the radius of a point and the radius / thickness of a line in which you can position that point, there should theoretically be patterns in which you can curl up that line to take every bit of space possible. Which in turn, would allow any number of points to be positioned inside that line, as a value between its start and its end point, letting it be placed anywhere in the X dimensions that line is twisted around.

Ok. I wasn't sure if it's known whether space itself (the area in which matter can manifest) has a form or not. Since for example, black holes act as if they break that space. Otherwise, I'm uncertain if the rest of my idea could still make sense. I imagine quarks are still multi-dimensional, and the behavior we see in matter could be the result of simple movement but in a complex pattern / direction. Like I said however, this was just a thought that went through my mind... although the concept sounds interesting and between the lines, this feels like it makes some sense. Another relevant idea might be concept that the universe is actually the projection of a 2D hologram... which was said by several scientists. Although I understand that even less, so there's little I can say on it.

Don't think I can word anything better than that, although I hoped I expressed what I think understandably at least. And I don't think that would be the case with the spiral. Since when I said "if space has a minimum size limit" I didn't mean one that scales down with the spiral. It means the line does have a width in all possible dimensions, which is always this minimum limit. I don't know if in reality quarks have a radius of some sort as well, but I personally believe even the fundamental building blocks of matter stop somewhere.

I was thinking of Einstein's spacetime concept. Particularily the part where, if an object travels near the speed of light, its velocity through space slows down its passage through time. I always understood this as particles having a limited potential, which they cannot gain or lose (without the particle changing its structure) but rather "buy or sell" between dimensions. However, one interesting problem arises: We see space as being three dimensional, and tend to envision it in three axes; Up - down, left - right, back - forth. So how is it that space doesn't show this behavior across fixed axes? A particle going at the speed of light should only be able to travel in 6 exact directions. For example, if it's using its entire potential upward, it could not spare any to move left or right and back or forth. Yet light can shine in any direction. This got me pondering a new possible design for the fabric of space. I wondered if maybe, the location of a three dimensional point could be represented in only one dimension, contrary to the classic concept that you define said point using X Y Z coordinates. I noticed something I haven't considered before: You can. The geometrical concept is certainly one others have thought of, and there might even be a term that I'm not aware of... but thinking of it from a physics perspective is new at least to me. This is the idea: If you have an extremely long line, which you are free to bend in a given number of directions, you can create loopable patterns which can be compressed or continued to infinity, and which would eventually take up every single fraction of space in those directions (given there was a size limit). The best description that comes to mind is "fractals made out of one line". A point can then be represented as a single value; Its location on that line. If the twisted line covers every spot of space, this one value can be used to represent the point's position in any number of dimensions. A practical example: Imagine that you have a circle. In this circle, you can place a point anywhere, by defining its X and Y position. But what if you wanted to place the point using only one value? One way is filling the circle with a virtual spiral, which starts at its center and ends once it touches the edge of the circle. The spiral has enough repeats so that it covers the smallest unit to which you could possibly position your point, and has reached the state where it cannot get more dense without crashing into itself. You then specify the point's location between 0 and 1... where 0 is the center of the circle where the spiral starts, and 1 is where the spiral touches the edge of the circle and ends. You can place any number of points on this pattern, in all possible locations you could with individual X and Y coordinates. Some might argue that no matter how dense you make the spiral, there's always space left in between, so it could never cover every fraction of space. But think about this: No matter how many decimals you'd add to the X and Y coordinates, you could always go even lower. Consider that you're initially able to define a point's position using numbers with one decimal... for example 0.3. Then you want to go lower and allow two decimals, so you change a coordinate to 0.61. Then you want even lower, and do 0.078... and so on to infinity. Same with a pattern like our spiral: If you want it to cover more space, you give it even more loops and make it more dense. Both of the two approaches can theoretically go on forever, unless space itself has an unit which is the smallest anything can get. If space does have such a size limit, something remarkable can be considered; When the line becomes so dense that there's no space left inside, there's a point where it will merge with itself. This creates a location where a represented point has two or more values at once. If the point continues to manifest its velocity / inertia past this moment, it can end up taking one path out of many. Imagine the shape of the number eight, or the symbol of infinity... which has two circles and one junction point between them. Consider that our "8" is a line twisted in a pattern. It starts in the center, so that is position 0. The highest part (top most location) is 0.25. Then we begin to descend back toward the middle, which is 0.5. We next start moving toward the bottom, where the lowest part (bottom most location) is 0.75. Then we climb to the center once more and that's 1. Now 0.25 and 0.75 are unique locations, so a point can only be at one or the other. But 0 and 0.5 and 1 are the same place! When a point is at one, it's at all of them... so where will it go next? In the case of the 8, at least 3 individual loops can be created between the two oo's if not more. How does this relate to physics? No precise idea on that. But it could mean that all of spacetime might be one enormous line... twisted in an huge number of fractal patterns. This line is the fabric of space, and each quark is a signal that travels through it. However, particles couldn't probably travel so fast through space and time from one end of the universe to the other. Which is where the junction points come in: They would allow quarks to take paths and move through complex loops in the line, making it possible to have three dimensional objects in various universes throughout the multiverse. And what about black holes? They could be attributed to mass forcing the line to intersect itself, creating a new loop that sends timespace flying all over itself. Then there's quantum entanglement... and maybe time lines? Thanks to everyone who had the time and energy to read this long post. Please let me know what you think, and what other knowledge there is as to how this concept could apply to physics. I wasn't sure if to put this in the Speculations thread... but since it's not something I claim to be an actual discovery nor certain fact, I thought here would be best.

I guess I found a few related programs, although I haven't checked them out yet. Do post here if you know more however... and / or can better describe what they do exactly. http://88proof.com/synthetic_biology/blog/archives/382 http://www.openhelix.com/genocad http://openwetware.org/wiki/Computational_Tools https://sourceforge.net/projects/synbioss/

The idea is very interesting and fantastic! But realistically speaking, it's hard to imagine how it can be properly brought to reality. The two main problems here are "how to do it safely" and "how to do it at all". The helmet must basically tap into the signals the brain works with, and read as well as replace them. A lot of questions arise at this point. The first issue is how to tap into the brain and tinker with individual neural signals. The only direct way is someone going to a doctor and asking them to install a device in their head, which is able to connect directly with verious neurons. I'm not even sure if that's legal... but even if it is or will be, few will probably be okay with putting a metal in their head permanently. A medicinal way like engineered bacteria / viruses or nanobots might offer an alternative here someday. Of course, we could hope for a way to do this wirelessly all the way. But is there any? As discussed in this thread, it's a difficult if not impossible to trigger neurons through electromagnetism alone. Especially with an accuracy allowing the device to read / write individual neural signals. If someone figures out a way to do that, I'll be truly mind blown. Second problem: Even if being able to read / write from / to neurons was solved, how do you convert binary code into neural code? Scientists don't fully understand the brain yet, and what all of its millions of nerves and connections do precisely. Desciphering the actions going on inside the brain enough to translate it on a computer is another very difficult task. In this case we would need to precisely translate the brain's intentions to move a limb, as well as pipe digital images / sounds / smells / touching of quality, in a way that can't be told apart from reality. Thirdly, there is also huge problem of safety. What if an error causes the game to freeze? If the signals which allow you to move your hands are still redirected, the person won't be able to take the helmet off, and could remain stuck there until someone takes it off or a power blackout saves them. If neither of the two happens within a day, there's already a death risk due to dehydration. Also, if the device requires a pemanent chip to be installed in the brain: The person could be hacked like a computer, and a hacker able to take control of what they see / hear and even how they move. One can only imagine how trolls would use that to make people do crazy or dangerous things... even to commit murders or robberies for them. Don't get me wrong, I want to see the technology happen! I'm a computer nerd, especially focused on virtual reality... I'd be crazy not to. Apart from being able to play games as if they're reality (exactly like The Matrix), this could use the internet to create a global telepathy network, where every person could talk to anyone else at any moment inside their heads! Still, can one really hope? What are the chances?

I've slowly started gaining interest in this whole Oculus Rift thing. It's actually been a few years since I wanted to play games or watch stereo pictures / movies on eyephones with stereoscopic rendering support. And although I didn't initially care about head tracking, that will be a very welcome ability as well. It overall sounds like a very promising future for VR technology... or does it? I have one big problem with this whole thing so far: I want to use devices that are the product of a technology, not a technology that is the product of a device. Think of mice for instance: Countless brands produce computer mice... optical ones, bluetooth ones, with various additional buttons, you name it. Computer mice aren't a device that belongs to either Microsoft or any other firm. Most importantly, mice require no additional drivers to provide basic functionality, and you don't need to install each brand's software to use one. They simply work when you plug them in... whether it's on a PC or Laptop, a Windows or a Linux machine, a Genius or a Logitech mouse. On the other hand, video cards require brand specific drivers (like ATI and Nvidia), but applications themselves don't need to code support for each of the two so they can render images. If I'm to take interest in modern eyephones, I want it to be the same thing; A new technology that can be developed and supported by anyone and everyone, rather than being some corporation's toy. Especially with the popularity the Rift is getting, I imagine patent trolling (for both hardware and software) will occur, and things might not go so smoothly. Now I've read about alternatives to the Oculus Rift already being prepared. So in regard to hardware, I assume the problem isn't very bad, and "eyephones with head tracking" can themselves be considered a free technology that's not up for patent claims. But I am somewhat concerned on the software part. Typically, if a common open-source implementation can exist. By common I mean a driver as well as per-application integration that can work with all and any such devices; The Oculus Rift itself, as well as all the different products made by other brands as an alternative... which might use different approaches and technologies. For example, will a game engine be able to write common code for eyephones, which can render stereoscopic image on both the Oculus Right and Google Glass alike? As an open-source game developer, who might be interested to support the technology myself, I'm even more interested in better understanding this. I don't care to ever code support for "someone's hardware", only for actual architectures. I also wouldn't want to be in the position of adding support for the Oculus Rift, then when someone makes an alternative write an integration for that, then when a third brand creates yet another headset code that too, and so on. That would be like manually adding support for Genius, IBM, Microsoft, etc. keyboards to my code, which would be preposterous. So what's known so far on this end, and how do you think things will go? Will the Oculus Rift require both drivers and application integration to support it, will only drivers be needed but the implementation becomes common, or will the Rift use a common architecture entirely which all programs and similar hardware can relate to without individual dependencies?