it's too difficult to freeze and unthaw humans after thousands of years. it's too difficult to maintain a civiliization on a spaceship. but it's feesible to liter the galaxy with embryos, who will use quantum communication with earth, and use artificial intelligent robots to raise the embryos that have human connections through communication. if quantum communication doesn't pan out, at least use robots to raise kids. it's more likely artificial intelligence will work out, than cryo or spaceshipcivilitions will work out.
seeding the galaxy with embryos is better than trying to cryogenic or space community travel
Posts
Total:
35
-->
@n8nrgim
Perfection arises from difficulties.
Though human necessity is the necessity of humans and not necessarily the necessity of material and intelligent evolution.
Quantum manipulation...Who knows.
Maybe something somewhere else, has already got this sussed..
-->
@n8nrgim
Shouldn't this be in the Science and Nature forum? Or, are you saying this is God's plan?
-->
@n8nrgim
Where is the connection to religion in creating this thread.
Did the ancients know about, such things?
just got too use to posting in religion forum, should have posted science
Well, I assume AI will be able to explore on its own.
It will not need humans.
In fact, once AI masters self-repair and develops ability to produce more AI, it will be more advanced than humans in every important way.
-->
@n8nrgim
quantum communication is soft science fiction (like wormholes and transporter beams), no reason to expect such a thing is possible; those who talk about it seriously have no understanding of quantum mechanics.
Long term hibernation is plausible given enough mastery of biology but is certainly not around the corner.
Self-replicating probes are plausible and feasible, and the fact that the universe isn't swamped with self-replicating probes from alien civilizations means something.
Long term hibernation is plausible given enough mastery of biology but is certainly not around the corner.
A worm has been revived after 46,000 years in the Siberian permafrost.
Scientists successfully revive animal frozen 30 years ago
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I know quantum computing is right around the corner based on 60 minutes and the experts. I just assumed quantum communication could be too, cause it's at least possible in theory, but I might be wrong to make the assumption for practical purposes. Freezing complex organisms to me I wouldn't just assume is possible. Like last poster showed, tardigrades can be frozen for a long time but they can survive almost anywhere
-->
@n8nrgim
Some of the experts were my professors and nobody has ever been able to explain to me what (physically) a quantum bit is much less how to propagate states.I know quantum computing is right around the corner based on 60 minutes and the experts.
If the betting odds were 50:1 in favor of quantum computing ever being a thing I wouldn't bet a dollar.
I just assumed quantum communication could be too, cause it's at least possible in theory
Both 'ideas' are so imprecisely communicated that I couldn't even tell you how similar they are, but there is no theory for quantum communication.
It is "Wave collapse seems to transmit information instantly, therefore I can transmit information instantly", that's it. The whole shebang. There is no math, no theory, no engineering.
In reality (as seen in labs and predicted by the actual theory, i.e. the various equations that solve the Schrödinger equation) wave collapse is (for all we know) eternally and intrinsically impossible to manipulate. There are no particles with indeterminate state, you can't trap particles. What we call particles is an 'illusion' created by quantization of continuous traveling and standing fields (force fields in many contexts).
They choose to think of wave collapse as "transmitting information". This is why choosing words and being careful about definitions is so important. It's easy to confuse yourself.
Freezing complex organisms to me I wouldn't just assume is possible.
It's an entirely different domain of difficulty. Biology is a machine, of enormous complexity, but a machine none the less. Everything happens for a reason. Once we understand those reasons we can change them. It may be possible that the number of changes required for a human to live for a thousand years are so numerous that the end result is (biochemically) more different from an original human than a human is from a worm, but we know there will not be any impassible walls (such as moving faster than the speed of light in view of a third party).
The difference between a tree and a human comes down to protein and mRNA expression. Again, not saying it would be easy. It could take a thousand years of continuous research; but it can't be impossible.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
you are better at being able to articulate the ideas than me, but what do you think of this sixty minutes clip?
if i remember right, they said they can currently do computation with quantum mechanics, it's just not currently faster than traditional computers, and it's error prone. they have a proto type at the cleveland clinic.
they also said they expect to have them functional within the next five or so years.... tho that it, granted, just their claim.
i do realize quantum computing is different than communication, but i just wonder if you are as aware to the current science.
i still would think it's possible in theory to use the quantum state, even if it just means using morse code based on the manipulation of on and off. if morse code can be done, higher level communication should be possible. if i'm making sense, i'm not sure.
-->
@n8nrgim
Have you watched that TV show about that scenario, Raised by Wolves, I believe its called?
-->
@oromagi
that looks like a great series. too bad our streaming system is so convoluted that we can't easily watch these things. i have netflix, and roku, maybe prime is cheap for month to month streaming.
-->
@n8nrgim
well, that's what its about, robots raising human children on far off planets. I recommend it.
-->
@n8nrgim
you are better at being able to articulate the ideas than me, but what do you think of this sixty minutes clip?
Starts off with "IBM will announce", not a good omen. IBM hasn't delivered on their futurism for thirty years. Only the government and ancient companies tied to ancient IT systems actually buy anything from them anymore.
if i remember right, they said they can currently do computation with quantum mechanics, it's just not currently faster than traditional computers, and it's error prone. they have a proto type at the cleveland clinic.
Yes I've heard these claims too, but I'm also bombarded by ads where they're trying to sell something that violates conservation of energy. It's entirely possible that they are keeping the details secret to keep their advantage but the fact remains that nobody can explain what the hell they're actually doing.
There is plenty of grey area for people to delude themselves into thinking they've made something revolutionary when they haven't. I can find you stories about warp fields at NASA for example. You can find articles about microscopic wormholes being opened, or tiny blackholes, or chinese labs with dark matter.
You look into it, nothing burger. Most of the time it's one guy with a pHD using imprecise language with a 'science communicator' who is fishing for it, asking a silly question and out of politeness the scientist doesn't shut him down. Then the 'communicator' goes to a journalist and things go downhill from there.
Contrast this with the gravitational wave measurement which is an astounding piece of engineering and a confirmation of previously purely theoretical physics. To the layman that makes it the same as these other things, but to people like myself who have the foundation to understand it's very easy to tell the difference. You just google the experimental apparatus and if you find schematics and descriptions (and they are coherent) there is a good chance you're looking at genuine science.
Talk is cheap. Math and experimental data don't guarantee authenticity but the lack of them is more than a little suspicious.
Anyways, back to the video:
1:16 "Computes with the atomic forces that created the universe"
An excellent example of flowery discovery channel language that means nothing. Most of the acceleration of the air we breathe of is due to electric and magnetic forces. Is that one of those "atomic forces that created the universe"? In that case every electronic device including every 'conventional' transistor computer "computers with the atomic forces that created the universe"
1:20 "Dario Gill is something of a quantum crusader"
'Crusader' is an appropriate choice of words.
3:05 "quantum abandons transistors and encodes information on electrons that behave like this coin" And what is that supposed to actually mean? An array of bits means something because we define our instruction sets and compiled code to interpret it to mean something. A state that means everything is a state that means nothing, and I'm just making a point about information theory here. There is no freaking way this translate in any rational way to the quantum state of an interaction with an electron.
3:32 A WILD MICHIO KAKU APPEARS
This man drives me nuts. There are compilations on him that (to the scientifically aware) are like Alex Jones. Blathering on about wormholes and how the only 'problem' with them is they might be bumpy. This joker tried to stop a rocket launch because of an RTG. Understanding nuclear decay neutron absorption depths is very basic, not pHD level in the slightest.
3:45 "Let's look at how a classical computer navigates a maze"
Cue the prefabricated animation that is in no way representative of any software on transistors or whatever the hec they showed at the beginning.
"Scans all possible routes simultaneously", if anyone reading this is a software engineer, they might be thinking "you mean like multi-threaded algorithms?" SHUTUP! Only the deep magic of 'quantum' can have parallelism.
5:10 "this is one Q-bit, here is another"
Well, pictures; that's new. An electron trap apparently. Then what?
9:24 "She told us that healthcare would be transformed if quantum computers could model the behavior of proteins"
That is true.
-->
@n8nrgim
i still would think it's possible in theory to use the quantum state, even if it just means using morse code based on the manipulation of on and off. if morse code can be done, higher level communication should be possible. if i'm making sense, i'm not sure.
You're making sense insofar as being able to manipulate anything even as simple as on/off and have that reflected at another point in space instantaneously would be the whole sum of the sci-fi claim.
Telegram wires started with on/off and all digital communication is "on/off" rapidly and with many channels.
The problem is that there is no such option implied by quantum mechanics. An EM wave can radiate from a star and hit two distant planets simultaneously. If the photon appears on one planet, then it won't appear at the other, and there is no way to predict absolutely which planet the interaction will occur at.
That's not a toggle switch.
After an interaction (which was itself a wave collapse) two resulting traveling waves can (in the right circumstances) be said to have been entangled. That is a property (most often used as example is electron spin) can be measured and whatever one is the other is the opposite.
There is no way to know which is which before measuring one.
If somehow you could capture post-entanglement electrons and spirit them to opposite ends of the universe what can you do? You can measure the state of the one you took with you. Does something instantly happen to the other? No.
Is there some way to detect that a measurement has occurred on the other? No.
That is not a toggle switch. In fact entanglement is different from wave collapse and hidden variables have not been disproved for entanglement.
-->
@n8nrgim
Here is a much better video about how quantum computing is supposed to crack public/private encryption schemes like RSA. Veratasium sometimes digs himself a conceptual bear trap (what 'carries' energy electric charge of electric field) and jumps into it BTW, so this isn't an endorsement of the channel just saying there are much more detailed claims and his description of RSA encryption is accurate:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The whole point of entanglement is that what happens to one particle, also happens to the other, no matter how far away, at the same time. So isn't your description inaccurate?
I don't know if entanglement can be manipulated beyond a single peice of info, movement, tho, and it seems that that would be the issue
-->
@n8nrgim
The whole point of entanglement is that what happens to one particle, also happens to the other, no matter how far away, at the same time. So isn't your description inaccurate?
No, that's not what entanglement means. My description is accurate, what you have heard is a corruption of the facts/theory. One misunderstanding can create many myths as we're seeing in this discussion.
I don't know if entanglement can be manipulated beyond a single peice of info, movement, tho, and it seems that that would be the issue
Measurement isn't manipulation, that's the conceptual error.
If you imagine the state of the entangled system as a box you must open to find a -1 or a +1, and you know that a million light years away if you see a -1, the other measurement must be a +1 how do you transmit information with that?
Sure if you could talk separately you could tell them something about their system, and a lot of people find that 'spooky'; but if you could communicate you wouldn't need 'quantum communication'.
To put it in software terms, if the spin of an entangled electron (well a system which would collapse to an electron when interacted with) is a single bit of information; then it's a read-only bit populated by a probability distribution.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If the charge of the particle changes, wouldn't the charge on the other end also change? Can't that phenomenon be manipulated? If it even works that way
It looks like u r into software, r u a developer? How r u so conversant on quanta phenomenon? Is it job or hobby related?
-->
@n8nrgim
If the charge of the particle changes
It doesn't. Spin is about an intrinsic magnetic behavior not charge (unless you're calling it a magnetic charge?), but that's not important because nothing 'changes' except what we know about both the local and distant state.
Let me try to explain this step by step. You entangle two electrons. You put them in two boxes and take the boxes far away from each other. First thing to remember is that when I say "electron" I don't mean a tiny ball. It's a standing EM wave with possibly some gravity waves in amongst it (you will fry your brain if you try to think about QM and standard model at the same time).
So this standing wave thing is trapped by other electric fields, an electron trap (which I mentioned before) is simply a region of space surrounded by negative electric fields which 'repulse the electron' = 'reflect the EM wave' = ' reflect the quantum wave' to keep it inside that space.
It's oscillating, they're always oscillating and when we talk about 'particles with mass' we mean a single quantum of a standing wave (a standing wave is a wave that oscillates in the same region of space. FYI when we talk about 'particles without mass' we mean traveling waves, these always move at the speed of light.
The only thing you can know about this trapped oscillating waveform (with exactly the energy to manifest as an electron) is that it has charge. The instant it interacts in a way so as to transfer any energy or affect anything else in the universe the wave collapses to a single point.
At that instant it makes sense to talk about the 'particle' electron. So you measure something about it. The typical example is (magnetic) spin. This requires a wave collapse because all measurements require collapse.
When you collapse the wave in your box, you know something about what would happen if the wave in the other box is collapsed, but you didn't cause the other one to collapse and you don't have any control over what is measured when the other one collapses. You also break entanglement. It's better if you think about the post-collapse wave as a "new particle" as it can (and will) have entirely different quantum properties totally unrelated to the 'the partner'.
In quantum mechanics you get to choose what kind of spookey you're most comfortable with, but conversations like this show that it does matter what you pick. If you pick the wrong concept you make wrong predictions.
I have always found that the spookiness of non-local variables and instantaneous collapse of fields potentially billions of light years in dimensions is the interpretation that causes the fewest bad predictions. When we're talking about entanglement we're talking about two different quantum systems that do not interact/collapse as one.
It looks like u r into software, r u a developer?
Yes
How r u so conversant on quanta phenomenon? Is it job or hobby related?
Leftover from university. Anyone who can teach themselves QM as a hobby is too smart to be trying to explain it on a small population debate site. As far as I know there are only two ways to have QM part of your job description: post-graduate research or being a professional bullshitter.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
thanks for the quantum mechanics 101 lesson. i thought i already knew the basics, but apparently not
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
so if one of the entagangled electrons changes charge or postiion, that doesn't cause the other one to change? so they can be entangled at great distances, but we basically wont necessarily know for how long they're actually entangled, because what happens to one doesn't automatically happen to the other?
if i'm understanding you right.
if a corresponding change happened to the other even if just instantaneous and no further... itd at least be possible to use multiple entangled particles to send information to the other side. but it looks like you are saying we can't know when entanglemnt is broken on the opposite side of when one side changing.
-->
@n8nrgim
so if one of the entagangled electrons changes charge or postiion, that doesn't cause the other one to change?
Correct. Entanglement refers to correlated properties, not any ability to influence one from the other. It's 'entangled' because the determination of one measurement guarantees the result of the other, which ironically isn't at all strange for everyday intuition; it's only strange in quantum mechanics where everything else is a probability distribution. It's weird that we can know something about the other entangled particle before it is measured.
so they can be entangled at great distances, but we basically wont necessarily know for how long they're actually entangled,
Uhm, so preserving entanglement is itself an enormous engineering challenge. It requires keeping any energy (via force field) away from what ever you're talking about and that's why (if you watched the videos) they're super-cooling their electron traps in those so called computers.
Is it fundamentally impossible to know if it's still entangled? No, insofar as you can theoretically detect interactions and if you do you then know it's no longer entangled.
BUT it is impossible to know if the other particle is still entangled, or where it is, or whether it was measured.
because what happens to one doesn't automatically happen to the other?if i'm understanding you right.
Right. And here is where the theory is important. Nothing can happen without a collapse and thus breaking entanglement.
If you imagine it as a balloon then you're Edward sissorhands. Any interaction with the standing wave (other than to keep it trapped in a potential well) will cause wave collapse (popping the balloon).
So if you're imagining you could poke it with something and the distant one jiggles that can't happen. I mean there is no reason to expect it would happen even if you could do it without popping the balloon, but you will pop the balloon (and they can't tell you popped your balloon)
All entanglement means in this context is that the two balloons have red and blue confetti in them, and if one is red the other will be blue.
if a corresponding change happened to the other even if just instantaneous and no further... itd at least be possible to use multiple entangled particles to send information to the other side.
Right, any kind of instantaneous change you could affect could be harnessed for communication. If you had to 'burn' an entangled pair for every bit of information that would use a lot of pairs before it became useful. Good thought for a sci-fi short. Not the heart of the confusion here.
but it looks like you are saying we can't know when entanglemnt is broken on the opposite side of when one side changing.
I'm saying that no remote change occurs what so ever. That's the 'real problem'. There is nothing you can do to your particle that they can see happening and vice versa.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It's weird that we can know something.
Theory is either theory or not.
So if it is not theoretical, then it is not weird.
What about coincidence?
Why should similar particles not behave similarly.
Or does the Universe contain only two electrons.
-->
@zedvictor4
What about coincidence?Why should similar particles not behave similarly.
Are you asking how they discovered entanglement?
Yea I'm sure they would have suspected it was coincidence the first couple times, and then after 500 times and rechecking the experimental apparatus to make sure you're not introducing a bias, but after experiment #5000 with different steups you have to admit correlation.
AI child rearing robot.
A artificial intelligence robot is minding a kid.
A grizzly bear walks up on the AI robot and the kid.
Nowwwwwwwww.
A AI robot knows what to do if a grizzly bear comes up to it.
The quantum computer has seen this occurrence a billion times over.
Even He says. PLAY DEAD.
You do not run away from it right ? No.
Buttttt,
MAYBE . A AI Bot should hey?
Thus , protecting the kid.
Well.
Its debatable.
But Its funny thinking what A bot thats "around" humans should do.
Testing.
Testing.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So how does one actually observe the phenomenon?
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Logically the AI bot,
Would conclude,
Hungry Bear,
Tasty morsel.
It never surprises me these days that your posts always contain subliminal references to "Butts" and abbreviated "Anal Intercourse Bottoms".
And don't even mention Grizzly Bears and child minding.
Good day Bruce.