Luminal

Alright, when 2 photons from the same source of light are traveling in the same direction (at the speed of light of course), the photons relative to each other are not moving. Or, if there is a small angle between the waves, the photons would be moving toward or away from each other at a very small speed. Does SR only concern itself with objects with mass? If so, the photons still carry energy and information. Mass is a form of energy.

I understand your situation, because I am in it as well. My family used to hound me every time I visited them from college. Amusingly, I happened to be well prepared for their onslaught. You see, they sent me to a Christian school for 6 years, whereas my family only attended church once a week. I knew far more of the 'religious texts' than they did themselves, which allowed to quote it at the first sound of an oncoming sermon. Since this is a science forum, I won't mention the exact verses, yet one of my favorite rebuttals was the chapter that commands overweight individuals to take their own life if in the presence of a leader. Seeing as my parents are not exactly thin (amongst other verses they were not following), their condemnations gradually grew infrequent. In fact, I think our conversations have led them to more of a theistic evolution approach rather than strict young earth creationism. Now as for your own parents, I do not know how they would react to you using their own "scriptures" to cause introspection of their own stances rather than lash out at you, but it's worth a try. Especially if they are literalists.

Would actually doing work on my own in this field increase my chances? For example, would writing unique and novel programs help me along the path toward entering one of my desired schools? The reason I ask, is that I am primarily a "self-learner". Nearly everything I would learn in classes I could learn sufficiently well on my own. In fact, in my current classes, I usually read other books about other subjects during the lectures. I'm a poor listener, a great reader. Earning a degree would mostly be for the purposes of proving myself to the academic community and forming connections with others in the field of course.

After I've come back from my break, I've increased my GPA from 2.8 to 3.5 in just the summer semester (took 14 semester hours in 2 months). I'm afraid a 3.5 from a below average school still doesn't cut it to get into a leading research university. What you would say the next step after studying hard is? Well I did poorly for about 2 semesters while I was a full-time caretaker for a family member. My GPA dropped a good bit, but now is up to a 3.5 again. Your friend, on the other hand, did very well in college from the start. I feel as if I have no way to prove myself to my target university. Even with the highest grades from now until graduation, I would have a 3.85 at the best. Regarding my standardized test scores, university websites even state "Don't bother taking the SAT after you've entered college, we look at those scores as an indication of a specific time period in your academic career." I'm aiming for a PhD in computer science. I am very interested in the programs at Carnegie Mellon, yet I don't think they would give my application a second thought after seeing the high school and college I attended along with my mediocre grades. And by the sounds of it, graduate programs are an order of magnitude harder to gain acceptance into compared to undergraduate programs. Even if I obtained the highest GPA possible from this point onward, I'd only have a 3.85. Why is the system so unforgiving, especially when almost all the circumstances of my education were not in my control? Would a school I'm applying to even care if there was a medical emergency that caused my grades to drop? For some reason, I doubt it. I just feel that the person I was 3 years ago is long dead, but the schools I'm applying to do not see a difference. By the way, I greatly appreciate the replies.

... How does one get into a outstanding university if they were brainwashed the first 18 years of their life? And let's not even mention that they were a natural "late-bloomer". I would appreciate it immensely if you could read most of this post and offer your advice. I feel like I have no options left unto me. You see, I was sent to a Fundamentalist Christian private high school with roughly 45 students (one that taught me Creationism as an undisputed fact I might add) and I believe the experience seriously impeded my academic and intellectual growth. I attended this school for 6 years before entering college (this "high school" began in the 7th grade). My biology class was roughly 70-80% explaining the flaws in evolution and proof that biblical events occurred through geological "evidence" such as the Grand Canyon demonstrating was a global flood. And yes, my parents are Fundamentalists too, so I received no help from the home environment either. The teachers of this school (all 4-5 of them) either had no degrees at all (not even BAs or BSs) and the 2 that did had a History degree and the other had some sort of "Biblical Studies" degree. All of my science courses were taught by the same individual: the one with the "Biblical Studies" degree. Not to mention, they simply did not even offer Chemistry to students. Although I would have classified myself as being creative and analytical at that stage in my life, my academic environment was pitifully narrow. I never felt any spark of interest in the sciences, as you well might imagine given my exposure to them. I still managed to pull out a 1300 (of 1600) on my SAT. I then attended a run-of-the-mill public university. While the SAT requirements might have been 700 (total) to attend, it was still a a monumental step up from my previous educational experience. I became deeply enthusiastic (if still a bit ignorant) of numerous scientific fields, while stripping layer after layer of blindfolds off my eyes. Suddenly, during my second semester of college, a major medical crisis of a family member rose up that I had no control over, and my grades suffered dramatically. Eventually, I took a break from school for a few semesters to help her out. During this time, I have become ever more immersed in all of the emerging fields of science that had been hidden from me by a poor education. I decided to take the SAT again, and received almost a perfect score in every section (and actually a perfect score in critical reading). Now, I'm at a crossroads. I yearn to transfer to an outstanding university, but my college grades suffered due to the medical crisis I mentioned, and obviously during high school I had no interest or knowledge in regards to science. Most universities ignore SAT/ACT scores you took after high school, so those scores mean little to nothing. Is there any way I could ever find myself enrolled in a major research university or institute? I feel entirely capable of succeeding in MIT or Carnegie Mellon scale environment if I was only to be given the chance to show the person I am now, not the person I was when an archaic belief system ruled what I was allowed to learn. If you read all the way up to this point, you have my sincere gratitude. I desperately need options or ideas.

I entirely agree. If I let my mind wander when thinking about all the problems that G.A.s could help solve and how far they will push technology during the 21st century, I get shivers. I think its sad that Genetic algorithms/Genetic programming receives such little "air time" in the public's eye when compared to other notable technologies in the works, such as stem cells, cloning, top-to-bottom AI approaches and so forth.

I'd appreciate it if anyone could provide an explanation or a link about this topic. Is there a (theorized) limit to how small an elementary particle could be or if there is a minimum amount of energy that can exist in an object?

No, I'm not saying that. Think of it this way. Humans are a product a biological evolutiuon. Thus, any creation of a human is indirect biological evolution. So, if at some point in this century (I personally believe this will happen within a decade at the current rate, but you may have a differing opinion) humans program a sufficiently complex G.A. that has enough complexity to exist as a physical entity and maintain its existence and become more complex over time... then ultimately, it is a descendant of biological evolution. The lines between biotic and abiotic are going to get very blurred as our programs continue to shrink, add complexity, and maybe even one day self-replicate. You might disagree, but unless we pass laws prohibiting naturally evolving machines, they are indeed the next stage of evolution. Why? 1) Because the time between their generations is arbitrarily short (as fast as the computer itself). 2) Because mutations can be induced constantly, and are not just "copying accidents". 3) Because current life's genetic material, although extremely small, complex and versatile, is at a standstill in its underlying mechanics. Non-biological evolution will continue to get smaller and faster for centuries, until literally physical laws prohibit further progression (however many orders of magnitude beyond DNA this is, who knows). Every new technology can and will be implemented (such as quantum computing).

I do not think it is "very different" from natural evolution; it is natural evolution. In my opinion, it is the natural next stage of evolution on this planet. It is a smooth, logrithmic trend. From billions of years of bacteria, to several hundred million years of fish and reptiles, to only a few tens of millions of years of mammals ruling the earth after the extinction event. Within several tens of thousands of years, humans developed language, agriculture, cities, nations, governments, and so on. In the last 500 years, we've of course had the Renaissance, Agricultural Revolution, Industrial Revolution, and a huge population explosion. Next, I believe increasingly complex and independent GAs will continue the trend at an advancing rate. For evolution to continue increasing speed, it needs to be capable of changing its "hardware" so to speak. Biological generations take decades; G.A. generations take (very small) fractions of a second.

Alright, if this is not a scientific topic, and is a philosophical one as you say, would that not imply that it was outside the bounds of science to describe, such as the supernatural? I do not believe this is supernatural, or even philosophy. When something it too hard to explain with science, we shouldn't brush it aside as philosophy. For most of human history, our origins was a purely philosophical/supernatural topic. It did not remain that way. I believe that consciousness most certainly can be described in natural processes alone. Yet, those paradoxical scenarios remain. Is consciousness based solely on information (including memories, personality), solely on the matter, or does it require neither or both? One would be inclined to conclude that consciousness cannot and does not exist, yet I sit here with my own 'point-of-view' of the world. If a copy existed of me elsewhere in the Universe, not only do I not have his point-of-view, I'm not even aware of his existence.

To this day, I do not know if this is a science or philosophy oriented subject. Most topics can at least be put in terms of science, even if science doesn't have the means to explain it in fine detail, such as the arts. We could put a piece of literature in terms of the neurochemicals it brings out in humans while reading, but we would be hard pressed to explain the nuances of a plot in terms of neural architecture. However, we do know that arrangements of neurons and chemicals are indeed the cause of such phenomena. This subject is probably familiar to you by some name or another: "personal identity" or "personal continuity". I've tried numerous times to squeeze the concept of who I am into a framework of the physical world. I'm unable to do it. Every time I think I've clued myself into a fraction of the answer, some possible scenario erases it. First, let's get a "known" out of the way. Our bodies are constantly cycling out matter. Oxygen, phosphate, nitrogen, carbon, and so on. Within a year, your body will cycle nearly all matter out of it. I could cite this, but it's quite common knowledge if you've taken any entry level biology courses. Now, let's inspect several of these scenarios that I mentioned: 1) The Gradual Transition of Matter Scenario - This one isn't hypothetica;, it is occurring as we speak. How much does matter... matter? Well, apparently it matters a great deal. Let's say that as I gradually cycled out matter, I stored it instead of letting it freely enter the environment (every breath, every drop of sweat, every hair, every dust particle, and so on). Then, when the technology came around, I reconverted the matter back into an identical copy of myself down to every pattern. But wait! How can I call it a "copy"? It is me, and made of the exact same matter I was made of at a previous point. Who and where is my real self? 2) Gradual Transition of my Information Scenario - Instead of worrying about matter, let's think of our information (pattern) for a moment. Let's say that the neurons in my brain were altered relative position and genetic composition, one at a time, to reflect the neurons in your brain, over the course of a week or so. After a minute, you would have 0.1% of my information, and vice versa. After an hour, 1%. After nearly a day, about 10%. After 3-4 days, 50%. Is my self lost instantly when the first neuron is repositioned? It is replaced once I cross 50%? Or is a unique individual created at every step in the process? 3) Gradual Shift of Both Matter and Information - Same as the previous two, except both are occurring. Actual pieces of our brains are gradually swapped. Does it even matter? 4) Time - This one is simple. Every particle in my body locks into its current position, and begins moving again at a later point in time. If one billion years passed, would that time pass instantly to my consciousness? Now, mix this with the first scenario. During the billion years I am locked, what if my matter is swapped out by an observer? Would my consciousness be taken with the matter, and I would "awake" if the matter was used to reconstruct me elsewhere? What my matter was used to recreate another person? Where in the hell did my consciousness go in all of this insanity? After I ponder these questions, I'm always left with the statement "There's no way in hell that my identity can even exist, yet here I am, and if a copy of myself walked up and claimed it was me, I would certainly have a different point-of-view (namely my own) from the copy." I apologize for the ramble, but I struggle with this all the time. I want to know whether or not I've died multiple times during my life whilst my matter changed completely.

Well, let's just say "reinforcing specific varying forms of survival" whereas natural selection can only reinforce survival as a whole. For example, natural selection produced highly successful and very different species, such as humans, ants, mosquitoes, krill, and certain types of weeds. These species survive for different reasons, but natural selection wasn't aiming at intelligence for humans, or complex colonies for ants, or parasitism for mosquitoes, and so forth. In the last 100,000 years, humans could have possibly evolved in an entirely different direction from larger brains and intelligence. If we survived the transition, humans would still be around but much, much different. When I say "we can reinforce many goals," we can specifically reinforce a certain type of survival, whereas evolution doesn't mind what type, as long as it survives.

Several months ago I began reading up on genetic algorithms, and the impact they are going to potentially have on technology is earth-shattering. I was at a workshop a few weeks back and saw a demonstration of a genetic algorithm in real-time on screen. It was simply several arms working in coordination to find the best angles and shortest path to hold onto a moving ball. Several times while the presenter was talking (he hadn't touched the computer for minutes), the program suddenly started moving again and found a better position, then became inactive again. The applications in every field of science (and even art, music, and literature) are quite literally limitless. Human beings are the product of a genetic algorithm running for several billion years. However, our genetic algorithm took years to decades to move from one generation to a next, and had no specific reinforcer of a new mutation other than survival. However, with artificial genetic algorithms, each generation takes place in the frame of milliseconds or less. On top of that, we can reinforce many, many goals in a mutation, not only survival. And most importantly, we can create genetic algorithms controlling the parameters of the genetic algorithms themselves. This would be as if the whole of the DNA of all species on Earth could be tweaked to have a triple helix instead of a double helix to store vastly more information. Why don't we hear more about this field?

I'll tell you exactly and simply why (past) Time Travel is impossible. It breaks the laws of thermodynamics utterly. To introduce matter into the past is to increase the amount of energy in the universe at that point. So, if time travel was possible, Energy companies could perpetually send their coal or fuel back 10 seconds. Then, in the present, they would have twice their supply. They would repeatedly do this, doubling their total supply every time. It's absurd to even consider.

I believed that the idea of qunatum computing (at a more mature stage, of course), is that there wasn't necessarily a limit at all. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I remember an MIT professor explaining that a Quantum Computer of several thousand entangled particles would process more information than a classical computer the size of the known Universe.

I think the common consensus amongst those that believe in psychokinesis (from a scientific perspective, not those that believe purely in the supernatural) is that the human brain and/or entire nervous system evolved a way to utilize "less studied" forms of energy or particles, such as dark energy, dark matter, neutrinos, exotic matter and other undiscovered and hypothetical matter and energy. I suppose it certainly is possible from the evolutionary standpoint. It certainly would be massive advantage; the brain is replete with emergent properties, what would be one more? Yet, however much it would be fascinating to be true, I believe it would have become quite apparently obvious if such properties of the human mind existed in this day and age. With over 6 billion individuals all competing to elevate themselves ever-so-slightly over others, and with so much information exchange across the world, how would this not be extremely obvious if it was true?

I read the Wikipedia article about Metric Expansion (of the Universe) and had a few questions: 1) Has space ever been observed (in a lab or in deep space) to actually be reduced? Or is space only capable of expanding? 2) Is this space 'expanding' or is it being outright created? 3) Do scientists have a good idea of what causes this or do they simply observe it in space and shrug their shoulders, hoping to find out at some later point? Lastly, this isn't so much a question as an opinion, but it would seem that if the Metric Expansion explanation is correct, this has major consequences for science and even the future of technology. For starters, energy wouldn't need to obey the first law of thermodynamics. Space could expand/reduce within a gravitational field, but objects within the field would not actually use kinetic energy to change position relative to the source of the gravitational body. It's position would now be different, and potential energy would either be created or destroyed. For example, let's say that the space between the ground and a bird 100 feet in the air expanded by 10%. The bird would now be 110 feet above the ground. It's potential energy is obviously different.

Well, not wrong per se, yet not the most effective or swiftest form of progressing science either. (Skip to the bottom for the short version) I have a "focus fire" concept on how to approach expanding fields of science and technology. Essentially, universities, government agencies, and corporations (involved in the appropriate field, of course) could come together, and focus all of their funding and efforts on a small number of projects. These projects would be selected in advance based on how much they will advance that area of science, likely through a vote of those pulling the strings. For example, computer research groups (IBM, Bell Labs; universities such as Carnegie Mellon, MIT; the Air Force, and so on) would select a project to focus all of their attention and resources on. This would be a project that they believe would push forward computer science more so than anything else in the works. Let's say these groups chose quantum computing. Thousands (millions possibly, if this was an international effort) of engineers, programmers, and researchers would be recruited. Collectively, many billions of dollars would be invested in a time frame of a year or two. Brainstorming of ideas and discussions would be encouraged at all levels. Every breakthrough would be passed onto all of the other agencies immediately. Then, the collective breakthroughs made in this time period would be applied to all other aspects of computing. Let's say that progress was increased at a five-fold rate in quantum computing breakthroughs, while other areas of computer engineering lagged behind quite a bit. The advances of quantum computing would be applied to the other areas that lagged (normal miniaturization of microchips). Ideally, this would compensate (perhaps even exceed) the normal progression in those area had their been no focus on quantum computing advances Of course, quantum computing itself would be a decade ahead. Afterwards, these groups would select another area of computer science and focus on it vigorously for several years, such as brain-computer interfacing (or anything). In other words, when you are facing an enemy in an strategy game, you do not attack all foes simultaneously by spreading your damage; rather, you focus everything on one at a time, which weakens the entire fighting unit of the opposing force. Likewise, in science, breakthroughs in one area almost always benefit every other area tremendously. Of course, I realize that the current system works fine, and probably will not change anytime soon. Doesn't stop me from pondering a more effective system. The short version: There are five subfields in a particular field of science: A,B, C, D, and E. Instead of 10 years of progress in each, what if we devoted all resources to 2 intense years of A research, then 2 years of B research, and so on. After 10 years, you'd still have approximately the (at least) same level of technological achievement in each field, except that you could leverage new technologies off highly advanced research in A only after 2 years.

I'm not sure about who gave me this, but I've never seen it solved. Maybe you guys have, so here it goes: Connect a line from each of the three squares to each of the three circles (nine lines in all) without crossing or going "under" or "above" a line. I believe the original brain teaser was phrased "Three houses need a gas line, water line, and electricity line, and all must be on the same plane underground." You'd be best not to try and solve it; I did, and I can't find any solution. If there is one, you either know it or you don't. But go ahead and try if you think you can.

There's no limit to the varying ideas about why the Fermi Paradox occurs, so I think it would be interesting to hear others' ideas. My top 3 list (from most likely descending toward less likely): 1) Chemical Evolution, plain and simple. It is so unlikely, even over billions of years, trillions of gallons of water, and millions of suitable planets, that life is extremely rare. Chemical evolution has always been the weakest point in the theory of evolution in my eyes. The odds of any self-replicating molecule coming into existence are inconceivably low. For life of Earth, somehow an information-storing molecule (RNA most likely) had to come into existence through an infinitesimal spurt of fortune, and then have a way to synthesize itself into longer and/or different chains via an early protein of some sort. 2) Speed of light unbreakable, even by billion-year-old technological civilizations who have thought of every method possible to attempt to bypass it (and failed). With the sheer size of the Universe, and with no way to go faster than light, they stopped expanding when they realized how long it would take. 3) Civilization reaches satisfaction/bliss/utopia/fulfillment, and the pressing need for expansion and/or exploration is sated permanently. For humans, this might be a virtual reality in 100 years or so where we can quite literally live in any time or place, even in fictional worlds, and be anyone or anything we could possibly desire. At this point, why risk your life exploring space, when you can live any experience with the same realism (or more) than the dreary physical world?

You assume that the Law of Conservation came before the other events described in this thread. Even our physical laws had to have a point of origin. At some point at some place (there is no way to be more specific, or I would be acting like I knew what I most certainly could not possibly know), energy may well have been born spontaneously. In a "Pre-Big Bang" reality beyond modern science's capability to study, and perhaps beyond human comprehension altogether, there must have been a mechanism for the birth of energy (and space and time for that matter). One idea in regards to this concept is that when space and/or time "were created" (I use the word created very, very loosely) then physical laws, forces, and energy came with the package. And 'whatever' gave rise to these apparently existed outside of causality itself. If this is the case, then the Pre-Big Bang circumstances are omnipresent, having neither a beginning nor an end, and one would open the door to the line of reasoning that our Universe may not necessarily be unique.

You state there is a limit, yet you do not provide one. And of course one must supply the energy to increase the speed of an object. Who said otherwise? The only energy constraint is the physical strength of the body moving at those speeds. However, moving in a vacuum (i.e. space) in a straight line (as opposed to spinning) removes those problems. Do not forget that time dilation preserves the energy-storing object. Increase the object's speed to .99c in a given sector of space, and in a few years if the energy needs to be extracted, slow down the object to .98c and put the energy into another form for ready use, such as chemical or EM energy. Very little time would have passed for the kintetic object. This is based off very simple properties of Generaly Relativity. I'm more than open to criticism if my understanding of GR is mistaken.

Not an actual "infinite" amount of energy, as say a spacial dimension is infinite, but the potential to store infinitely increasing amount of energy. There is no "ceiling". The energy required to spin a ball at 99.9[insert 10 more digits here, because I suck I scientific notation]% would rival that of an entire galaxy. Add another 10-15 digits, and it soon rivals that of the entire Universe. Now, the real question, is there a cut-off point for when it says "screw it" and just becomes pure energy? Remember, this isn't a matter of e=mc², only. When I spin a ball, it has the energy stored within its nucleus as well as the tiny amount contained in its kinetic spinning. Hopefully, I made a little more sense this time.

Now, I've read many times that as you approach closer and closer to c, that you must increase the energy infinitely to increase your speed a relatively trivial amount. Have people fully realized the implications of that statement? At 99.99999% c, increasing 1 mph would require an inconceivable amount of energy. That indicates that an infinite amount of energy could be stored within an object spinning or traveling in a straight line and approaching the speed of light. Does GR actually mean that infinite energy can be stored within a finite object?

You may think that I am vehemently disputing every syllable of your posts. Trust me, I'm not. When I said "by humans" I was quite aware that was the first time I had said it; I wasn't justifying anything I had said in my previous posts. When I mentioned "I think therefore I am" I'm fully aware you never said that; I was using it to simply state a new point. I'm not even sure what we disagree on here, exactly. You have already stated that any search for truth must begin with those two statements (sanity and existence) taken on faith, which I agree, and was the original intent of the thread. I would possibly add something to those two statement: that I am not in a state of deception or ignorance. I can 1) Exist, and 2) Be sane yet still be unaware of objective nature of the the Universe, whether intentionally by a rational being deceiving me or unintentionally by my own ignorance. But that's more or less stating the obvious. I do not think there is any major point of contention between our views.