Luminal

I have scanned the web, read chemistry books, and so forth, and I cannot figure out these Chemistry questions for the life of me, although they are probably very simple to answer for others. Unfortunately, I took Biology in college and never had a chance to ask these to a professor. Also, I think I have a mental block when it comes to anything involving particles. 1) Why can't Boron accept 5 other electrons in covalent bonding, as Carbon accepts 4, thereby making it an even better candidate than Carbon for the basis of complex molecules and living matter? 2) Why do heavier elements have more trouble forming complex bonds? Silicon has almost the exact same valency as Carbon, but when I walk out my back door, I don't see Silicon-based organisms roaming around with the Carbon-based ones. And/or why don't Phosphorus and Sulfur act the same way as Nitrogen and Oxygen? I think I'm basically confused about how the mass changes the reactivity when nothing else changes (such as valency)... because I didn't figure it did. 3) Oh, and most importantly, what causes the Octet Rule? It just seems Chemistry has far too much complexity, an inconveiable amount, for something that springs from the interaction of the exact same 3 particles in every instance: up quark, down quark, electron, or more directly, proton, neutron, and electron. It's not as if different elements used different particles. They are all the same! All of this just makes me wonder if there are dimensions or universes where their Periodic Tables are based upon 4 or 5 common particles, rather than 3. I shudder to think about the poor students in Chemistry class in those realities.

Andromeda won't collide for at least 2 billion years, not 2 million. After all, the galaxy is 2 million light years away. It would have to travel at light speed (or both galaxies at half) directly toward each other. Even then, it doesn't ensure our death. Most of the stars in each galaxy won't make contact with each other, and shouldn't be a problem for us. As for our own Sun, big deal. Goodness, in a billion years, humans should (and I stress this word, because we don't know what possible fools in the future might do to endanger us) be spread well across our own galaxy, and likely throughout the local universe.

Well, the most obvious concept to prevent this is the very one this thread is about: manipulating the laws themselves. If mankind could "turn the dials" on the constants and laws of the Universe, we could weaken gravity, create matter and energy, increase or reduce c, and... well, you understand. Now, I obviously have no clue in hell how they would do this, but neither could a Cro-Magnon man envision modern society, as a rat could not understand a Cro-Magnon man (cave paintings, spears, huts, etc), and as a bacteria could not understand a rat's activities. Excluding controlling the laws of the Universe, I think we will simply continue to increase in "normal" technological prowness, to the point that it seems we are omnipotent (quantum computers that can calculate nigh infinite information, initiating star formation at our will, feeding off black holes for energy, and the vast amount of other inventions future scientists will spawn). In other words, unless something stops us, nothing will stop us.

I fully believe humans are on the path to controlling the fate of the Universe itself. Why do people think that our progress will suddenly stop one day? It won't, unless we are completely wiped out from a plague or some such existential threat. Barring that, we'll continue to spread and increase our mastery over physical reality. There's no reason to think that humans won't be capable of preventing a heat death or big crunch, if that is indeed the natural fate of the Universe. Humans will eventually spread throughout the known Universe, unless another intelligent (or unintelligent, for that matter) life-form stops us or destroys us.

Alright. Put your mindset in the year 10,442 Anno Domini. Humans have discovered and harnessed control of everything we consider possible. They are spread throughout one-third of the known Universe. They look upon our current Science textbooks as we look upon artwork on cave walls of Cro-Magnon habitats. In those days, in which [what we call] humans have mastered every form of energy manipulation, matter manipulation, reached the physical limits of information processing, added new base colors to their brain to represent a larger range of the EM spectrum, and discovered the origins of the reality itself unequivocally (as opposed to just the last 13 billions years in this particular Universe). So, the only thing left? Controlling the very laws of the Universe (or the Multiverse). Changing c to any amount they wish, creating new Fundamental forces, writing a new Periodic Table, ignoring the Laws of Thermodynamics, and so on. Keep in mind, a chimp's brain and human's brain are quite similar, but just a few small cognitive improvements resulted in a massive range of advancements, not least of which are language and technology. So, what could many cognitive improvements lead to?

Can space move relative to other space (or matter)? Since spacetime is influenced by the presence of matter, one might wonder if it could be influenced in other ways that either haven't been observed or have been and we're misinterpreting what we are seeing or... require highly advanced intelligence to cause. Could the inherent properties of space be manipulated, such as absolute zero, vacuums, causation, the existence of time in conjunction with it, the removal of one or more spacial dimensions from reality (or the creation of others, for that matter). What do we really know about space itself, rather than just what occupies it (the rest of science)?

Well, I believe that with the growing number of programmers, game designers, web designers, CE/CS majors,and generally technologically-oriented populations in the world, that whatever increase in the potential of computer power, the programs that use every bit of that power are months (at most, years) behind. So, I believe that when the power to emulate the human brain is at the fingertips of almost every programmer in the world, it won't be long at all before some individual, gamers, business, or research group is right behind to take advantage and actually do it. And of course as I've said, not even close to the entire human brain needs to be emulated to initiate a run-away effect of technological progression.

I agree mostly. With Moore's Law, though, the exponential curve has actually increased slightly rather than slowing down. There's nothing to indicate that the shrinking of transistors will stop until they've hit the molecular scale. That limit, by itself, is easily enough to create strong A.I., but it certainly isn't the limits of computation. 3-D computing, Quantum computing, and other technologies scientists have yet even to ponder. Now, about being unable to predict the right kinds of progress. I do certainly agree with this, and on the other hand, I think that predicting "greater-than-human intelligence" is broad enough term to cover whatever technologies might be generated in the future. BCIs, Genetics, Strong A.I., global networks that "awake"... who knows? But I think we can be sure that with that information and computing advances of the last 20 years projected forward, will be seeing some amazing technologies. Consider the difference between true genius and "gifted" intelligence. It only takes a few dozen of I.Q. points to separate a bagboy from producing General Relativity or Superstring Theory. Now, if only such a relatively minute degree of higher intelligence can cause such a massive advance in all of science, can you imagine what a few orders of magnitudes would cause?

I'm sure this has been a subject debated to death in the past, and that I'm adding nothing new to the conversation, however there is one little point I'd like to get across. This is a point about which I feel very strongly. Most of you have probably heard of Ray Kurweil and his arguments about accelerating returns in technology, specifically computer science. Supposedly, this will eventually lead to "singularity" of technological progression in the 21st Century. The exponetial graph eventually goes "straight up". Even the most wildly optimistic transhumanists often assume that the majority of (economically feasible) computers in the world need to be operating at the necessary rates in which to achieve the "singualrity" which launches greter-than-human intelligence. With this assumption, we figure a time-frame in the 2040's for "straight up" section of the exponential trend of technology. I disgaree. For those unaware, it's been estimated the human brain operates between 100 trillion "cps" (computations per second) and 10 quadrillion cps. Also, it's been predicted that based on current progression in Moore's Law that we'll meet even the highest of those estimates in supercomputers in under 6 years, and reach them in a $1000 computer in under 15 years. Yet, I want to make several points clear. 1) The majority of computers don't need to be running at greater-than-human speeds to be able to program the initiation of "Seed A.I." All it takes in a single computer with the correct programming. 2) Nowhere near the whole human brain needs to be mapped in order to tap into the intelligence required to generate new technology. Primarily, we need to simulate human pattern recognition and creativity. Human phenomena of intelligence we don't need to generate: A) Emotions B) Personality C) Sensory perceptions (although, being able to process audio and visual information) D) Regulation of internal bodily functions, including heatbeat, breathing, and so on. E) Physical and/or intellectual skills. All we need is a program that can functionally simulate pattern recognition of utilities that will advance technology (or its own coding). Since computers are vastly more efficient in storing and instantly recalling vast amounts of information, they will be able to create new technology constantly. As you can probably surmise on your own, just one such computer with such a program would initiate a run-away effect that would not end until the physical limits of computations and complexity of matter had been reached. This would be beyond dozens of orders of magnitudes surpassing biological intelligence. Remember, less than 3 orders of magnitude serparate mice and humans. Could you imagine what a being with 10^55 computations per second would be capable of achieving?

I would like to think that Nanomaterials in 25-30 years might provide many of the solutions, not only to help support the tree itself, but give inhabitants of the tree(s) the types of versatile, flexible and quite resilient materials on which their structures could rest. To provide fresh water, large transparent domes could be constructed near the base to trap the heat (GH effect). The majority of the sunlight would be focused on a certain area within the dome upon a highly thermal conducive material (such as copper or aluminium) that would increase in temperature to boiling points. As water came in contact with the metal, it would steam off into shafts, which lead up into the canopy of the tree. I suppose this method could also provide energy, but that would not be the primary function.

Certainly these would be problems to overcome to be considered feasible. Some of the possibilities I've considered would be (manmade) pipelines from the ocean surface to the canopy to provide nutrients for the upper regions; changing the genetics of the wood grown in the trees to have greater support; and adding human supports where necessary for stregnth and stability. The other reason for planting it in the ocean would be to provide human living spaces and cities off the continents, to ease population densities on land. If this becomes possible, I could envision groves on these trees planted together, in which millions might be able to call home. Hybrid cities between technology and nature.

Alright, I'm a bit sketchy on genetics. However, I have this idea... scrutinize it all you want, that's why I'm asking. Let us speculate for a moment that with Genetic Engineering technology 25 years distant, it would be possible to engineer a tree, up to, say, several hundred (or thousand) times it's normal dimensions. Is this remotely reasonable? The reason I ask this particular question, it might just provide amazing solutions to overpopulation. Consider a tree capable of surviving in (or under) saltwater in flooding conditions. A geneticist alters its genes, and triggers it to grow rapidly, without halt for several decades far beyond what it could achieve naturally. If such a tree was planted in Atlantic Ocean, and it continued growing for many years, eventually entire structures (or even cities) could survive on its mammoth branches. Sort of a "natural skyscraper". Thoughts?

So, on the first example, you're saying the "push forward" would travel through the diamond (or object of similar strength) but never faster than light, thus compressing it as it traveled? Concerning the first example again, to be devil's advocate, let's say the object being pushed was compressed as much as a Neutron Star (I.E. the neutrons were as compact as theoretically possible without collapsing into a Black Hole). Obviously, this would be untestable in the foreseeable future, but if such a dense material was moved, the other end of the object would be moved instantly as well, correct?

Well, I've heard and been told many times that superluminal (faster-than-light) communication is impossible. However, I have several thought experiments that I've been considering for a long time, and need others to confirm/deny as to whether they are possible. I'm not saying these would be feasible is sending large amounts of useful information, but would bypass the laws restraining information from going FTL. First, simply use a super-hard or dense material in the shape of a long rod (such as diamond or nanotube structures, so it wouldn't bend or compress itself in the process) and span it over a long enough distance to accurately measure (several hundred feet would be enough I believe). Have two of these placed next to one another. One would be for "Yes" or "On" or "1" (as in a bit) and the other would represent "No" or "Off" or "0". When one of these rods is pushed forward, the other end should instantly be pushed forward as well, thus conveying basic information on the other end to the observer ("yes" or "no" to whatever question was posed). Second, entangled particles. These display random effects, but when an observer sees the state of one particle, he instantly knows the state of the second. In a manner of speaking, isn't this instant transfer of information? Albeit, it may not be useful information in anything other than the experiment itself, but it does describe the second particle faster than light to the scientists. Third, http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/6/1/13 . The first encoded pulse may not be able to break the speed of light, but the coaxial cable does in fact send "something" to the end faster than light. Similar to example #1, if two cables were placed side-by-side, and a signal down the first cable represented a particular answer, and a signal down the second cable represented another, than you've achieved superluminal communication. Correct? That's all for now. If I'm wrong about any of this, please correct me, if for no other reason than to put my mind at ease. Thank you very much for your time.