Skip to main content

Home/ Advanced Concepts Team/ Group items tagged discussion

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Dario Izzo

Panel discussion on GeoEngineering - 0 views

  • Should We Study Geoengineering?
  •  
    Should we organise a workshop PDC like on this? Or a call for ideas?
Ma Ru

Dark Matter or Black Hole Propulsion? - 1 views

  •  
    Anyone out there still doing propulsion stuff? Two more papers just waiting to get busted... http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1429v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1803
  • ...5 more comments...
  •  
    What an awful bunch of complete nonsense!!! But I don't think anybody wants to hear MY opinion on this...
  •  
    wow, is this serious at all...!?
  •  
    Are you joking?? The BH drive propses a BH with a lifetime of about an year, just 10^7 tons, peanuts!! Then you have to produce it, better not on Earth, so you do this in space, with a laser that produces an equivalent of 10^9 tons highly foucussed, even more peanuts!! Reasonable losses in the production process (probably 99,999%) are not yet taken into account. Engineering problems... :-) The DM drive is even better, they want to collect DM and compress it in a propulsion chamber. Very easy to collect and compress a gas of particles that traverse the Earth without any interaction. Perhaps if the walls of the chamber are made of artificial BHs?? Who knows??
  •  
    WRONG!!! we are all just WAITING for your opinion on this ....!!!
  •  
    well, yes my remark was ironic... I'm surprised they did a magazine on these concepts...! But the press is always waiting for sensational. They do not even wait for the work to be peer-reviewed now to make an article on it ! This is one of the bad sides of arxiv in my opinion. It's like a journalist that make an article with a copy-paste in wikipedia ! Anyway, this is of course complete bullsh..., and I would have laughed if I had read this in a sci-fi book... but in a "serious" article i'm crying... For the DM i do not agree with your remark Luzi. It's not dark energy they want to use. The DM is baryonic, it's dark just because it's cold so we don't see it by usual means. If you believe the in the standard model of cosmology, then the DM should be somewhere around the galaxies. But it's of course not uniformly distributed, so a DM engine would work (if at all...) only in the periphery of galaxies. It's already impossible to get there...
  •  
    One reply to Pacome, though the discussion exceeds by far the relevance of the topic already. Baryonic DM is strictly limited by cosomology, if one believes in these models, of course. Anyway, even though most DM is cold, we are constantly bombarded by some DM particles that come together with cosmic radiation, solar wind etc. etc. If DM easily interacted with normal matter, we would have found it long ago. In the paper they consider DM as neutralinos, which are neither baryonic nor strongly or electromagnetically interacting.
  •  
    well then I agree, how the fu.. they want to collect them !!!
johannessimon81

Rat Neurons Grown On A Computer Chip Fly A Simulated Aircraft - 1 views

  •  
    This could become quite relevant in future control systems if the setup can be made simple to keep alive and stable. I was doing some follow-up on a story about people controlling aircraft with their brainwaves (through EEG) when I ran into this really cool story. The idea of growing the neurons in patterns is incidentally very similar to the Physarium slime-mold stuff that Dario and me were curious about a little while ago.
  •  
    I think we already had a discussion on this during a wednesday meeting :P
  •  
    Oh, I thought that was on the little robot that was controlled by rat neurons and bumped into EVERYTHING. The interesting thing here is that they add a surface patterning (with some kind of nutrient) to control the growth of cells. (Maybe that is not new either, though.)
Thijs Versloot

Resource availability towards a self-sufficient Mars Colony - 0 views

  •  
    Regarding our discussion on resource self-sufficiency of a Mars colony. Would it ever be possible (from a resource perspective that is..) A NASA report on availability of resources. A self-sufficiency trade study described in Boston (1996) identifies the mission duration at which the development of local life support resources becomes advantageous. Within 30 days, without recycling, or with the equivalent leakage, it becomes advantageous to derive oxygen from local resources. The time constants for water and food are about 6 months and 3 years, respectively.
  •  
    I guess it depends on the number of astronauts that have to be supporte ... 3 years for food looks like a lot
LeopoldS

Microsoft's Strange Quest for the Topological Qubit | MIT Technology Review - 2 views

  •  
    loads of nice passwords - should we have a closer look at it? anybody volunteering? e.g. Anna and Daniel?
  •  
    Just to add to this possible discussion, two important breakthroughs in Quantum Computing using Silicon were published last week (October 12th). Check it here: http://phys.org/news/2014-10-physicists-silicon-quantum.html
Paul N

Bacteria Living in 'Cloud Cities' May Control Rain and Snow Patterns : DNews - 1 views

  •  
    Some bacteria can influence the weather. Up high in the sky where clouds form, water droplets condense and ice crystal grow around tiny particles. Typically these particles are dust, pollen, or even soot from a wildfire. But recently scientists have begun to realize that some of these little particles are alive - they are bacteria evolved to create ice or water droplets around themselves. old but might be worth a discussion
Thijs Versloot

Relativistic rocket: Dream and reality - 3 views

  •  
    An exhaustive overview of all possible advanced rocket concepts, eg.. "As an example, consider a photon rocket with its launching mass, say, 1000 ton moving with a constant acceleration a =0.1 g=0.98 m/s2. The flux of photons with E γ=0.5 MeV needed to produce this acceleration is ~1027/s, which corresponds to the efflux power of 1014 W and the rate of annihilation events N'a~5×1026 s−1 [47]. This annihilation rate in ambiplasma l -l ann corresponds to the value of current ~108 A and linear density N ~2×1018 m−1 thus any hope for non-relativistic relative velocity of electrons and positrons in ambiplasma is groundless." And also, even if it would work, then one of the major issues is going to be heat dispersal: "For example, if the temperature of radiator is chosen T=1500 K, the emitting area should be not less than 1000 m2 for Pb=1 GW, not less than 1 km2 for Pb=1 TW, and ~100 km2 for Pb=100 TW, assuming ε=0.5 and δ=0.2. Lower temperature would require even larger radiator area to maintain the outer temperature of the engine section stable for a given thermal power of the reactor."
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    We were also discussing a while ago a propulsion system using the relativistic fragments from nuclear fission. That would also produce an extremely high ISP (>100000) with a fairly high thrust. Never really got any traction though.
  •  
    I absolutely do not see the point in a photon rocket. Certainly, the high energy releasing nulcear processes (annihilation, fusion, ...) should rather be used to heat up some fluid to plasma state and accelerate it via magnetic nozzle. This would surely work as door-opener to our solar system...and by the way minimize the heat disposal problem if regenerative cooling is used.
  •  
    The problem is not achieving a high energy density, that we can already do with nuclear fission, the question however is how to confine or harness this power with relatively high efficiency, low waste heat and at not too crazy specific mass. I see magnetic confinement as a possibility, yet still decades away and also an all-or-nothing method as we cannot easily scale this up from a test experiment to a full-scale system. It might be possible to extract power from such a plasma, but definitely well below breakeven so an additional power supply is needed. The fission fragments circumvent these issues by a more brute force approach, thereby wasting a lot of energy for sure but at the end probably providing more ISP and thrust.
  •  
    Sure. However, the annihilation based photon rocket concept unifies almost all relevant drawbacks if we speak about solar system scales, making itself obsolete...it is just an academic testcase.
Dario Izzo

Elon Musk describes AI as 'summoning the devil' - 4 views

  •  
    A good idea for a card in one of our ACT magic decks!!! In his words AI is "our biggest existential threat" - lol
  • ...5 more comments...
  •  
    Discussing with myself :) .... He must have forgotten climate change .... or maybe not?
  •  
    Well, I have to quote one of the 21st century classics on this one: "I'm sorry mr Musk I can't hear you because of all the Latin chanting. In the meanwhile can you hand me another goat to drain? I'm quite behind on my blood pentagram drawing" - Paul N., AD 2014.
  •  
    Mr. Musk declined to comment :P
  •  
    given that they apparently can't decide between two moral options (probably such as humans), should we be more concerned about their stupidity or their intelligence http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.2842
  •  
    I personally don't even trust people to make "moral" choices in conditions of warfare. History is way too full of examples.
  •  
    the "even" in your comment is the key word
  •  
    Edge.org recently had an interesting piece that ties into all of this recent AI fear mongering: http://edge.org/conversation/the-myth-of-ai
Nina Nadine Ridder

Astronomers resort to crowdfunding to save key telescope - 1 views

  •  
    Related to our discussion on crowdfunding from Friday's science coffee. (Another sad example of how Tony Abbott's policy negatively affects the Australian science community... ) A team of astronomers have resorted to raising funds through crowdsourcing to try and save an Australian telescope involved in mapping the Milky Way. The 22-metre diameter Mopra Radio Telescope, based near Coonabarabran in western New South Wales, is slated to be shut down by the end of the year after $110-million was slashed from CSIRO in last year's federal budget.
jcunha

The Economics of Star Wars: How the Empire collapses - 1 views

  •  
    Simulating the economic state of the Galaxy after the resistance has blown up the Death Stars. See the paper here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1511.09054.pdf
  •  
    Love this type of friday afternoon research questions. There is also a now famous scene in the movie Clerks discussing the loss of independent contractors lives as the Death Star was being build.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQdDRrcAOjA
  •  
    That analysis is quite crappy and is easily demolished in the video's comments.
jcunha

The physics of life - 2 views

  •  
    Research in active-matter systems is a growing field in biology. It consists in using theoretical statistical physics in living systems such as molecule colonies to deduce macroscopic properties. The aim and hope is to understand how cells divide, take shape and move on these systems. Being a crossing field between physics and biology "The pot of gold is at the interface but you have to push both fields to their limits." one can read
  •  
    Maybe we should discuss about this active matter one of these days? "These are the hallmarks of systems that physicists call active matter, which have become a major subject of research in the past few years. Examples abound in the natural world - among them the leaderless but coherent flocking of birds and the flowing, structure-forming cytoskeletons of cells. They are increasingly being made in the laboratory: investigators have synthesized active matter using both biological building blocks such as microtubules, and synthetic components including micrometre-scale, light-sensitive plastic 'swimmers' that form structures when someone turns on a lamp. Production of peer-reviewed papers with 'active matter' in the title or abstract has increased from less than 10 per year a decade ago to almost 70 last year, and several international workshops have been held on the topic in the past year."
thomasvas

Moving the Earth: a planetary survival guide | New Scientist - 1 views

  •  
    It is an old one, but it was mentioned in some discussion ... Mainly based on this paper https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0102126
Dario Izzo

Miguel Nicolelis Says the Brain Is Not Computable, Bashes Kurzweil's Singularity | MIT ... - 9 views

  •  
    As I said ten years ago and psychoanalysts 100 years ago. Luis I am so sorry :) Also ... now that the commission funded the project blue brain is a rather big hit Btw Nicolelis is a rather credited neuro-scientist
  • ...14 more comments...
  •  
    nice article; Luzi would agree as well I assume; one aspect not clear to me is the causal relationship it seems to imply between consciousness and randomness ... anybody?
  •  
    This is the same thing Penrose has been saying for ages (and yes, I read the book). IF the human brain proves to be the only conceivable system capable of consciousness/intelligence AND IF we'll forever be limited to the Turing machine type of computation (which is what the "Not Computable" in the article refers to) AND IF the brain indeed is not computable, THEN AI people might need to worry... Because I seriously doubt the first condition will prove to be true, same with the second one, and because I don't really care about the third (brains is not my thing).. I'm not worried.
  •  
    In any case, all AI research is going in the wrong direction: the mainstream is not on how to go beyond Turing machines, rather how to program them well enough ...... and thats not bringing anywhere near the singularity
  •  
    It has not been shown that intelligence is not computable (only some people saying the human brain isn't, which is something different), so I wouldn't go so far as saying the mainstream is going in the wrong direction. But even if that indeed was the case, would it be a problem? If so, well, then someone should quickly go and tell all the people trading in financial markets that they should stop using computers... after all, they're dealing with uncomputable undecidable problems. :) (and research on how to go beyond Turing computation does exist, but how much would you want to devote your research to a non existent machine?)
  •  
    [warning: troll] If you are happy with developing algorithms that serve the financial market ... good for you :) After all they have been proved to be useful for humankind beyond any reasonable doubt.
  •  
    Two comments from me: 1) an apparently credible scientist takes Kurzweil seriously enough to engage with him in polemics... oops 2) what worries me most, I didn't get the retail store pun at the end of article...
  •  
    True, but after Google hired Kurzweil he is de facto being taken seriously ... so I guess Nicolelis reacted to this.
  •  
    Crazy scientist in residence... interesting marketing move, I suppose.
  •  
    Unfortunately, I can't upload my two kids to the cloud to make them sleep, that's why I comment only now :-). But, of course, I MUST add my comment to this discussion. I don't really get what Nicolelis point is, the article is just too short and at a too popular level. But please realize that the question is not just "computable" vs. "non-computable". A system may be computable (we have a collection of rules called "theory" that we can put on a computer and run in a finite time) and still it need not be predictable. Since the lack of predictability pretty obviously applies to the human brain (as it does to any sufficiently complex and nonlinear system) the question whether it is computable or not becomes rather academic. Markram and his fellows may come up with a incredible simulation program of the human brain, this will be rather useless since they cannot solve the initial value problem and even if they could they will be lost in randomness after a short simulation time due to horrible non-linearities... Btw: this is not my idea, it was pointed out by Bohr more than 100 years ago...
  •  
    I guess chaos is what you are referring to. Stuff like the Lorentz attractor. In which case I would say that the point is not to predict one particular brain (in which case you would be right): any initial conditions would be fine as far as any brain gets started :) that is the goal :)
  •  
    Kurzweil talks about downloading your brain to a computer, so he has a specific brain in mind; Markram talks about identifying neural basis of mental diseases, so he has at least pretty specific situations in mind. Chaos is not the only problem, even a perfectly linear brain (which is not a biological brain) is not predictable, since one cannot determine a complete set of initial conditions of a working (viz. living) brain (after having determined about 10% the brain is dead and the data useless). But the situation is even worse: from all we know a brain will only work with a suitable interaction with its environment. So these boundary conditions one has to determine as well. This is already twice impossible. But the situation is worse again: from all we know, the way the brain interacts with its environment at a neural level depends on his history (how this brain learned). So your boundary conditions (that are impossible to determine) depend on your initial conditions (that are impossible to determine). Thus the situation is rather impossible squared than twice impossible. I'm sure Markram will simulate something, but this will rather be the famous Boltzmann brain than a biological one. Boltzman brains work with any initial conditions and any boundary conditions... and are pretty dead!
  •  
    Say one has an accurate model of a brain. It may be the case that the initial and boundary conditions do not matter that much in order for the brain to function an exhibit macro-characteristics useful to make science. Again, if it is not one particular brain you are targeting, but the 'brain' as a general entity this would make sense if one has an accurate model (also to identify the neural basis of mental diseases). But in my opinion, the construction of such a model of the brain is impossible using a reductionist approach (that is taking the naive approach of putting together some artificial neurons and connecting them in a huge net). That is why both Kurzweil and Markram are doomed to fail.
  •  
    I think that in principle some kind of artificial brain should be feasible. But making a brain by just throwing together a myriad of neurons is probably as promising as throwing together some copper pipes and a heap of silica and expecting it to make calculations for you. Like in the biological system, I suspect, an artificial brain would have to grow from a small tiny functional unit by adding neurons and complexity slowly and in a way that in a stable way increases the "usefulness"/fitness. Apparently our brain's usefulness has to do with interpreting inputs of our sensors to the world and steering the body making sure that those sensors, the brain and the rest of the body are still alive 10 seconds from now (thereby changing the world -> sensor inputs -> ...). So the artificial brain might need sensors and a body to affect the "world" creating a much larger feedback loop than the brain itself. One might argue that the complexity of the sensor inputs is the reason why the brain needs to be so complex in the first place. I never quite see from these "artificial brain" proposals in how far they are trying to simulate the whole system and not just the brain. Anyone? Or are they trying to simulate the human brain after it has been removed from the body? That might be somewhat easier I guess...
  •  
    Johannes: "I never quite see from these "artificial brain" proposals in how far they are trying to simulate the whole system and not just the brain." In Artificial Life the whole environment+bodies&brains is simulated. You have also the whole embodied cognition movement that basically advocates for just that: no true intelligence until you model the system in its entirety. And from that you then have people building robotic bodies, and getting their "brains" to learn from scratch how to control them, and through the bodies, the environment. Right now, this is obviously closer to the complexity of insect brains, than human ones. (my take on this is: yes, go ahead and build robots, if the intelligence you want to get in the end is to be displayed in interactions with the real physical world...) It's easy to dismiss Markram's Blue Brain for all their clever marketing pronouncements that they're building a human-level consciousness on a computer, but from what I read of the project, they seem to be developing a platfrom onto which any scientist can plug in their model of a detail of a detail of .... of the human brain, and get it to run together with everyone else's models of other tiny parts of the brain. This is not the same as getting the artificial brain to interact with the real world, but it's a big step in enabling scientists to study their own models on more realistic settings, in which the models' outputs get to effect many other systems, and throuh them feed back into its future inputs. So Blue Brain's biggest contribution might be in making model evaluation in neuroscience less wrong, and that doesn't seem like a bad thing. At some point the reductionist approach needs to start moving in the other direction.
  •  
    @ Dario: absolutely agree, the reductionist approach is the main mistake. My point: if you take the reductionsit approach, then you will face the initial and boundary value problem. If one tries a non-reductionist approach, this problem may be much weaker. But off the record: there exists a non-reductionist theory of the brain, it's called psychology... @ Johannes: also agree, the only way the reductionist approach could eventually be successful is to actually grow the brain. Start with essentially one neuron and grow the whole complexity. But if you want to do this, bring up a kid! A brain without body might be easier? Why do you expect that a brain detached from its complete input/output system actually still works. I'm pretty sure it does not!
  •  
    @Luzi: That was exactly my point :-)
« First ‹ Previous 101 - 114 of 114
Showing 20 items per page