Friday, April 29, 2016

The Future of Traveling

Teleportation is everyone’s dream superpower. Instantly moving from one place to another would infinitely increase production and efficiency. But is it scientifically possible? Many scientist, including Professor Michio Kaku and Charles Bennett, think that teleportation is in fact possible, and happens at a quantum level. Quantum teleportation exists and is called quantum entanglement. This process connects atoms, similar to umbilical chords, and allows atoms to transmit information between each other even if they are far away. However, the information does not actually travel. The chunk of information just arrives at the destination without physically passing between them. This might not sound like much, but all objects are just sets of data--elemental abundances, atomic energy states, etc.-that one may use to reconstruct them. So by transferring these data from place to place and using them to reconstruct objects, we are in effect "teleporting" these objects.This teleportation is different from the Star Trek-style teleportation where atoms are converted to energy and then beamed to faraway locations. This style of teleportation is more like making a copy of the object in another place.

Another way of moving over large distances without actually travelling that distance utlizes wormholes, also referred to as Einstein Rosen bridge. Wormholes are tunnels connecting one point in spacetime to another. They can make locations that are actually billions of light years away much, much closer. They create holes in the fabric of spacetime and bend it so the two ends are next to each other. Wormholes sound very efficient and useful, but we may never attain the engineering ability to capture, enlarge, and stabilize wormholes. If wormholes exist, they exist on very small scales, in the quantum foam, where they constantly pop in and out of existence. Because these wormholes are so small, they are impossible to detect with current technology. But let's say we could detect them and capture them. Then we would need to apply a source of negative energy to open them up and make them big enough for human-scale objects to fit. But we currently know of no sources of negative energy. The physics behind wormholes, though it may be hard to admit, is simply not there.

Lastly, a small comment about hyperspace/hyperdrive. Getting a spaceship to travel a couple thousand times faster than the speed of light is very implausible. Teleportation, which on the other hand is much more plausible, is the method that I feel is most likely to be the one we use to travel large distances in short amounts of time in the future.

Sources:

Posted by at

Thursday, April 28, 2016

Home in the Void

The idea of space colonization has been explored in many ways over the past several years. Many individuals in the industry and scientific community have become fixated on the idea of Mars domes or underground caverns where humans would eke out an existence until it could be terraformed. Between where we are now and terraforming Mars, there is a very important step- maybe even an alternative- that we should consider. Free space settlements are those that are not terrestrially bound. This type of settlement would exist in the vacuum of space, which in itself presents a host of positives and negatives.

On the one hand, the fact that we are not terrestrially bound means that we do not have to worry about the hazards of the planet (or moon’s) surface. Cosmic background temperature stays relatively constant at -454 degrees Fahrenheit. The main problem we have with temperatures and building structures is not one extreme or another, but rather drastic temperature changes. The surface of Mars, for instance, varies immensely from -195 to 70 degrees depending on time of day, and this can cause stresses to equipment. Another advantage to living in free space is the relative lack of weather. Although there are bouts of cosmic radiation that surge through space, the surface of Mars is plagued by massive dust storms and other potentially dangerous weather. Living in free space would not limit us by location. We would have the added advantage of avoiding entry of another atmosphere, as well as the possibility of using centrifugal force to create artificial gravity. This would allow us to circumvent some of the problems with living in low-gravity environments, such as fertility and bone-density issues.

On the other hand, living below ground on a planet may be a way to avoid severe weather and temperature changes. Living on a planet may allow us to source more material locally, instead of sending everything up into space from Earth, which would save money. Conceding that living on a planet is not a bad idea, however, does not mean we should not build free space settlements. A space settlement could actually be a stepping stone for Mars missions, as it would be much cheaper to assemble and launch a rocket from space instead of from Earth.

What type of structures could we expect to be living in? Early on, colonists might live in small quarters, like the international space station. As we gain the ability to scale, either by making transportation to space much cheaper than it is now, or by using resources in space, we could build some really luxurious abodes. Bernal spheres, O’Neill cylinders and Stanford tori all rely on the same principle: spinning to create artificial gravity. The interior walls would, in theory be able to support human life, with conditions not too different from here on earth. These mega structures would be on scales of five to twenty miles, which is infeasible today, but in the future, it may be a better alternative than living in a Martian cave.

Sources:
- Krishna Rao
Posted by at

The Birth of Cells

Life has existed on Earth for more than 4 billion years, yet the precise origin of the first cells remains a mystery. Our understanding of what Earth was like when this occurred has allowed us to develop a few theories regarding the birth of cells. Firstly, most of the surface of the planet was covered in water. Moreover, the atmosphere did not have molecular oxygen or an ozone layer. As such, the surface of the Earth was exposed to considerably more UV radiation from the sun. Given these conditions on the planet, our best guess of where simple single-cellular life may have first flourished is somewhere in oceanic depths near hydrothermal vents, or beneath the surface of the Earth. There are specific requirements that had to be fulfilled for cells to have arisen—structures that permitted molecules to come together to form a cell. In particular, hereditary material such as DNA and RNA, and a structure for compartmentalization such as a cell wall or membrane, were needed. The formation of these structures is the result of prebiotic chemical and physical processes.The RNA world hypothesis is a widely accepted theory that suggests that self-replicating ribonucleic acid molecules are the precursors to prokaryotic cells. Over time, RNA developed enzymes allowing it create polymers of amino acids, eventually leading to the more stable DNA. In the first cells, however, it is believed that a more primitive version of RNA acted as the hereditary material.

Fatty acids in water, given a level above a threshold concentration, spontaneously form a bilayer, a physically stable, low-energy configuration. This bilayer takes on a spherical shape. As such, this create a structure that envelopes water within its walls, a sort of vesicle. Again, this occurs as a direct result of the tendency of matter to organize itself into its most stable state. Supplying the vesicle with more fatty acids (in the form of organic compounds and the energy needed for the formation of said fatty acids) allows it to grow and divide. When the size of the bilayer increases by a fixed amount, its volume increases more than its surface area. And if the contents within the vesicle are not changed, the bilayer will naturally cave around its equator, resulting in a dumbbell-shaped vesicle, a first step towards cell division. Furthermore, hereditary material can become embedded in phospholipid bilayers, and with energy from hydrothermal vents, it is possible that this union of the two structures led to the first cell. Lastly, RNA within the cell, capable of replicating, would also split into both parts of the vesicle when a the bilayer begins to divide. This results in a cell with a membrane, hereditary material, and the ability to reproduce. The bilayer composed of fatty acids and the hereditary material are some of the most important structures needed for simple single-cellular life to have developed.

Sources:

Lane, Nick. The Vital Question: Energy, Evolution, and the Origins of Complex Life. New York: W.W. Norton, 2015. Print.
- Ricardo Roche
Posted by at

The Possibilities of Time Travel

Time travel is a phenomenon that has been fascinating the human race for centuries. Since the development of Einstein’s theory of relativity, physicians have especially shown a special interest in this field. Einstein’s special theory of relativity suggests that time passes at different rates to different observers. This development resulted from the discovery that traveling at the speed of light would make time appear slower than to an individual with a lower speed. This breakthrough provided unprecedented insight into the nature of space and time and its interactions with gravity. As a result, scientists found that matter is actually able to distort space such that the rate of time is adjusted. They expected this distortion, now referred to as a “wormhole”, to be shaped like a tunnel with two entrances so that inside, time is stopped.

Since the first mention of wormholes, the scientific community has been investigating whether they actually exist and the implications they may hold. Since wormholes act as passages through space-time, they may potentially create shortcuts for journeys across the universe. Scientist Robert Oppenheimer theorized that a star collapse might give way to a wormhole by leaving a black hole that would warp space into a wormhole. However, these Schwarzschild black holes are found to retain charge and spin, which would require one to travel at a speed greater than that of light. Instead, simpler types of black holes would be more ideal to act as passageways and time machines as they allow for speeds slower than the speed of light.

With more research on the feasibility of time travel, physicists have also looked into the implications of time travel for human life. The most well known conflict they face is the grandfather paradox: can time travelers actually change history? This had led the way to a variety of “what-if” scenarios such as killing a family member or meeting oneself, which also caused wide scale discussion on their potential consequences. A large problem that arises is causality, which refers to when an event occurs only after a driving force. This principle may be violated through time travel into the past if one were to interfere with history.

The discussion on time travel and human interference has given way to multiple models of the events that would unfold after changing the past. One model of time travel by researcher Seth Lloyd suggests that paradoxical events would actually be censored by making unlikely events to happen more frequently. For example, in the grandfather’s death instance, a bullet that was used to kill a time traveler’s grandfather would be more likely to be defective so that he couldn’t be killed. Another model by David Deutsch allows inconsistencies between a time travel’s memories and their actual experiences so that he would remember killing his grandfather without having done it.

Unfortunately, we cannot know the true nature of time travel until humans are able to pass through spacetime differently. As a result, physicists have been further looking into the feasibility of time travel via wormholes. There is no clear answer currently to whether humans are capable of travelling through, developing, or stabilizing a wormhole. However, with the rapid developments of science and technology, we will hopefully gain a much greater understanding of space and time travel that may pay off thousands of years from now.

Sources:

“Time Travel: Tunnels Through Time” by Barry Parker (1992)
“Time travel gets more plausible, yet weirder too” by Laura Sanders (2016)
- Shreya Punya
Posted by at

Friday, April 22, 2016

Positive Considerations for the Colonization of Mars

Besides being a potential candidate for terraformation, Mars is seen as a beacon of hope for the future of humanity by proponents of colonization. They are in turn challenged by dissidents who bring up ethical and practical issues of taking on such an operation. These issues included our right as a species to endanger another by corrupting their natural environment, and the impracticality and costs of terraformation. The atmosphere, water content, gases, etc., of Mars render the process of maintaining an Earth-like environment difficult and costly in the long run.

Proponents of colonization uphold many reasons for the settlement of Mars. But in particular, the strongest motive is the preservation of the human race. Since WWII, the scale of nuclear weapons have greatly increased, and technology has advanced immensely. Although we have been able to maintain some stability on Earth, it seems that while we move further ahead into the future, these developments will only create more social or economic issues. Proponents of colonization believe that an international effort to settle Mars will bring humanity together in a collective effort to survive, or an “alternative to destructive wars that could decimate high tech civilization on Earth and humanity’s chance to reach the stars”(Paine). The additional fact that material from nuclear warheads around the globe can be used as fuel for future Martian civilizations for a long time, is another incentive for colonization. An international collective effort to use these weapons for this purpose would simultaneously bring us together for the common purpose of futhering humanity in colonizing a new world, as well as lessening the possibility of using these weapons for their original purpose. Basically, the goal of colonizing mars is both unifying and possibly beneficial in some perspectives. Settlement of Mars would also imply other benefits for humanity such as economic development and growth through expansion of our economy throughout the solar system and resources to be discovered, as well as a clean slate for humanity to restart itself.

In addition, Mars shows some promise in maintaining a good economic balance, in terms of what it can provide for Mars-Earth trade. For example, steel- an important industrial material, can be retrieved from mars in iron form in many quantities. Compared to steel production on Earth, that on Mars is significantly easier, since the conditions are so that the energy intensive reduction process is not necessary(Landis). In return, Mars’ arid soil would need to be fertilized through Earth’s resources, further enhancing the trade system in the process of colonization. Despite the numerous questions and ethical issues raised by dissidents of the colonization/ terraformation of Mars, it seems that fostering a civilization on this planet is in fact an achievable and potentially very beneficial project. Mars possesses most of the raw materials required to uphold a civilization and build what is required to sustain it. The only issue besides that would be of the moral implications, if it is discovered that microbes/life on Mars is confirmed to exist.

Sources:

- Haeun Bang
Posted by at

The Implications of Living in a Simulation

If we are in fact part of a simulation then we have an answer to our existence and several possible solutions to alien existence. We know where we came from: our existence is due to a civilization that reached a point where they could create a simulation of the Universe, and did so. Thus our existence is as part of a program rather than within a Universe that arose by natural means. In this regard we don’t really exist on our own: entities that exist outside of our Universe control our destiny. On a side note, being in a simulation would also explain the Big Bang: the program began with the Big Bang, or at some point later with observational evidence of the Big Bang coded into it. Being in a simulation answers many questions that we have about the Universe, but also has many implications for the way we live in the future. If we discover that our world is a simulation there are several elements of everyday life that will change.

First, our living in a simulation means that we do not exist in the traditional sense. Living in a traditional sense implies you exist, everyone else exists, and the Universe exists as well. In example, if the Universe is a hologram then we would perceive ourselves to be living normally, while in fact the world is not what we perceive it to be. Many people may have existential crisis, since being told you are in a simulation can be quite a shock. However, the simulation world will still follow the rules of the Universe we. This means that the laws that govern our society are not changed. If we discover we are in a simulation, gravity will not cease to exist. Just because we found out we are in a simulation does not mean that the laws of nature have changed.

Possibly the largest implication would be the effect this knowledge would have on religion. Most religions are based around either a single god or a group of gods that created the world or have some on-going impact on our everyday lives. If we discover that the Universe was made by some higher-order beings than there are two ways the religious can respond: either they shift their identification of god to those that made the simulation or they can denounce their religion. There is a third option, ignorance, which some may choose but does not need explanation as to the change involved. There will always be people that will not believe the evidence brought forth if we are found to be part of a simulation.

If religions reimagine their god(s) to be the creator(s) of the simulation, they will have undeniable proof that god exists (assuming we have undeniable proof of being in a simulation, which I know to be difficult to explain). If every religion updates their definition of god then every religion will end up praying to the same creators. Perhaps one religion will emerge from the chaos that would ensue, a hybrid religion that combines what we currently believe with what we have learned from being in a simulation. However if religions cannot adapt their definitions of god then they will struggle while trying to maintain their previous assumptions. Finding proof that we live in a simulation will result in huge changes to society, for better or worse.
- Adin Adler



Posted by at

Directed Panspermia

The panspermia hypothesis states that life is found throughout space, carried from planet to planet by meteors or other objects. There is a multitude of variations on this idea ­ some argue that hardy microorganisms undertake not just interplanetary journeys but interstellar ones as well; others find the idea of alien microbes too far­fetched, and maintain that panspermia takes place with organic molecules only. Some even claim that panspermia is deliberately initiated by intelligent life: a hypothesis specifically referred to as directed panspermia, where the biological spores in question are intentionally dispersed by intelligent civilizations, using natural or artificial means.

Most speculation about directed panspermia falls under two umbrella questions: Could an intelligent species seed an Earthlike planet with life? And could humans do the same with a clear conscience?

If panspermia occurs naturally, as many argue that it does, then panspermia aided by technology should be that much more effective, and thus that much more common. After all, if alien bacteria can make interplanetary journeys on their own, then they can certainly do it with help ­ yet no evidence of directed panspermia has ever been discovered. Opponents of panspermia (or at least those who maintain a belief in extraterrestrial intelligence) claim that by simple contraposition, this lack of proof proves that panspermia “doesn’t work.” However, due to the (apparent) scarcity of technologically advanced societies in our sector of space, an absence of evidence for directed panspermia does not necessarily mean that it is impossible ­ only that no nearby alien civilizations are putting it into practice.

The intentional propagation of microbial life throughout space does indeed seem to be possible. In science fiction directed panspermia is usually the work of a species far more advanced than ours, but the reality is that panspermia could likely be initiated using today’s human technology. Capsules on the order of a few millimeters or centimeters could conceivably carry Earth bacteria to other star systems using an efficient solar sail propulsion system. They might take hundreds of thousands of years to arrive at their destination, and many would perish on the journey, but the process is definitely within reach.

Human­-initiated panspermia is, of course, a highly controversial proposal, with strong feelings on both sides. On one hand, the most popular argument in favor of the colonization of other planets is to have a “backup” in case of disaster on Earth: so as a means of making a planet habitable for human life, directed panspermia might be a simpler and far cheaper alternative to terraformation (albeit a far more gradual one). On the other hand, propagating Earth life elsewhere in the galaxy could annihilate existing biospheres, in the same way that an invasive plant species can drive a native one to extinction. Though we do have the technology to disperse life, we aren’t capable of detecting it from afar, meaning that any panspermia campaign could have this effect. Even in the far future, with hypothetical technology capable of detecting evidence of microbes on planets lightyears away, this could prove an ethical problem. Humans could confirm the absence of life on a planet and send biological capsules its way; but there is no guarantee that life would not evolve during the long interval between the capsule’s launch and its arrival. To sidestep this problem, some have suggested targeting newborn stellar systems, where life would not have time to evolve.

The problem with directed panspermia is that almost all of the factors that would help us through this ethical dilemma are unknown. Nobody knows for certain how life originates, or how often, or where (let alone why) . Though human tendency in similar situations has historically been to “go ahead and do it anyway,” in this case the morally minded can breathe a sigh of relief: the technology exists, but the monetary cost of launching a fleet of biological capsules is still prohibitively high for those who would like to do so.

Sources:

Gilster, Paul, “Seeding the Galaxy” -- http://www.centauri­-dreams.org/?p=11334
Makukov and shCherbak, “Space Ethics to Test Directed Panspermia,” Life Sciences in Space Research, July 2014
The Interstellar Panspermia Society, “Principles of Panbiotic Ethics”-- http://www.panspermia­society.com/ethics.php
- Emma Flickinger

Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)