Physicist suggests nanotech to deal with heat death of universe
String theorist Michio Kaku suggests molecular nanotechnology as one way to deal with the heat death of the universe: "There is nothing in the rules of science to prevent the regeneration of an advanced civilisation from the molecular level. For a dying civilisation trapped in a freezing universe, this may be the last hope." The size of his proposed devices seems to vary, however. Read more for the full quote. Send a nanobot to recreate civilisation
If the wormholes created in the previous steps are too small, too unstable, or the radiation effects too intense, then perhaps we could send only atom-sized particles through a wormhole. In this case, this civilisation may embark upon the ultimate solution: passing an atomic-sized "seed" through the wormhole capable of regenerating the civilisation on the other side. This process is commonly found in nature. The seed of an oak tree, for example, is compact, rugged and designed to survive a long journey and live off the land. It also contains all the genetic information needed to regenerate the tree.
An advanced civilisation might want to send enough information through the wormhole to create a "nanobot," a self-replicating atomic-sized machine, built with nanotechnology. It would be able to travel at near the speed of light because it would be only the size of a molecule. It would land on a barren moon, and then use the raw materials to create a chemical factory which could create millions of copies of itself. A horde of these robots would then travel to other moons in other solar systems and create new chemical factories. This whole process would be repeated over and over again, making millions upon millions of copies of the original robot. Starting from a single robot, there will be a sphere of trillions of such robot probes expanding at near the speed of light, colonising the entire galaxy.
(This was the basis of the movie 2001, probably the most scientifically accurate fictional depiction of an encounter with an extraterrestrial lifeform. Instead of meeting aliens in a flying saucer or the USS Enterprise, the most realistic possibility is that we will make contact with a robot probe left on a moon from a passing Type III civilisation. This was outlined by scientists in the opening minutes of the film, but Stanley Kubrick cut the interviews from the final edit.)
Next, these robot probes would create huge biotechnology laboratories. The DNA sequences of the probes' creators would have been carefully recorded, and the robots would have been designed to inject this information into incubators, which would then clone the entire species. An advanced civilisation may also code the personalities and memories of its inhabitants and inject this into the clones, enabling the entire race to be reincarnated. Although seemingly fantastic, this scenario is consistent with the known laws of physics and biology, and is within the capabilities of a Type III civilisation. There is nothing in the rules of science to prevent the regeneration of an advanced civilisation from the molecular level. For a dying civilisation trapped in a freezing universe, this may be the last hope.
January 29th, 2005 at 7:15 PM
And once again, we come back to power.
These proposed nanomachines are not going to be able to do their desired task unless they have an unlimited energy source. That can't be obtained via chemical synthesis, and it can't be obtained from solar energy, especially if the nanomachines are far from a central star; no, the only solution to power the nanomachines is for them to be powered by the quantum vacuum of space, itself…in other words, Zero-Point Energy.
Of course, if we had access to ZPE, we wouldn't need to escape to a parallel universe to avoid 'the big chill' considering ZPE has been calculated to possess 110 times the energy of that of our sun. ZPE is the solution to both Molecular Manufacturing, and the future of our boring part of the universe.
I hereby propose that The Forsight Institute become more aware of ZPE and make it, officially, apart of its curricullum. Because without Zero-Point Energy in the equation, 'Drexlerian' nanotech will always remain a pipe dream due to the power requirements that an Assember will need.
Hydrogen, Nuclear Fusion/Fission, Solar Energy, and Fossil Fuels are unrealistic in this scenario – and once again, the only solution is to have a power source that can be tapped anywhere in the universe in unlimted supply…and that can only be done with Zero-Point Energy.
January 29th, 2005 at 8:07 PM
Re:And once again, we come back to power.
Tell me, why is nuclear fission/fusion an unrealistic source of energy in this scenario? It has powerful energy, and obtainable around the universe
January 29th, 2005 at 9:53 PM
Re:And once again, we come back to power.
There are several problems with Nuclear Fusion/Fission.
-You only get the same amount of power that you put in.
-It's radioactive.
-Requires a reactor.
-A battery powered by fission or fusion will eventually deplete due to radioactive decay, making it a limited power source.
Zero Point Energy, on the other hand, has no such limits.
-ZPE gives out more energy than what is put in.
-It's non-toxic, and isn't radioactive, thereby making it safe to touch and control in public.
-Does not require a reactor to harness the energy, since the energy already exists waiting to be tapped into.
-It's an infinite power source. As long as space and time exists, ZPE will continue to exist.
-It can be tapped into at any point in the universe.
ZPE is ideal for nanomachines, especially, because they will only have to act as receivers/coverters for this energy, instead of having to have onboard energy tanks of their own.
January 30th, 2005 at 7:22 AM
Prove the uncertainty principle first
I am not going to believe in Zero Point energy until someone proves the Heisenberg uncertainty principle from which it originated.
January 30th, 2005 at 11:34 AM
Multiverse and wormholes…
Kaku is pulling just about every trick that theoretical pysicicsts have ever thought of out of the their book to discuss this.
Blech!
I am reminded of a quote from one of the older SETI conferences — it was along the lines of "If you give a physicist long enough they can explain anything." I'd prefer to trust the engineers who actually have to build some of the things he envisions. Just because some theory allows it doesn't mean it can be done. The properties of matter and energy in our universe may simply not allow one to approach the limits allowed by theoretical physics.
Spending time on such things is also a waste of a good mind. The need for the situation he discusses (the heat death of the universe) is at least 1014+ years from now. There is plenty of light weight elements and fusion power sources (stars or reactors of various types) that can be relied upon until then.
But then I suppose this is what one should expect from a string theorist.
Side note to those discussing ZPE. ZPE doesn't do you any good no matter how much of it you have if the protons decay (read The Five Ages of the Universe by Adams and Laughlin).
January 30th, 2005 at 11:55 PM
Re:Multiverse and wormholes…
Do you think it's possible that ZPE has decay, considering it is the same energy (ie. dark energy/dark matter) that keeps this universe from collapsing in the first place? When the universe finally dies, we'll all run out of power…but then again, we won't need it because we'd all be dead as well as everything else that exists.
January 31st, 2005 at 10:02 AM
Re:Multiverse and wormholes…
According to Adams and Laughlin, "The Black Hole Era" starts at "Age of the Universe" (AotU) > 1040 years. During that era (which lasts 1060 years) the black holes slowly consume all matter. It is followed by the "The Dark Era" (AotU > 10100 years). Since that era would have no concentrations of gravity (since the black holes have all presumably evaporated) I doubt the Universe could collapse. Now given whether you could imprint "memories" or other information on the material that goes into and comes out of black holes so it is contained in the electrons, positrons and radiation that is left in "The Dark Era" is an interesting question (given Hawking's recent opinion change on the topic). So you might not be able to "think" but you could still "exist". In that case and advanced civilization tunneling into the remnants of our Universe might be able reconstruct us from the memories. Of course that assumes a multiverse and that tunneling is feasible (which I rather doubt).
January 31st, 2005 at 11:54 AM
Re:Multiverse and wormholes…
Do you know if there is an ebook version of this book for download? Paying for books is ridiculous.
January 31st, 2005 at 12:47 PM
Spores, anyone?
There seems to be quite a bit of information suggesting that spores can surive under very adverse circumstances. Assuming they could find a suitable planet to start thriving on and given enough time to evolve wouldn't there be a high chance of intelligent life emerging from them? It seems like this makes a lot more sense than engineering something from scratch.
February 1st, 2005 at 11:25 AM
Re:Prove the uncertainty principle first
There seem to be two points of confusion here. First, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP) is a direct consequence of fundamental assumptions of quantum mechanics, specifically that the space of quantum states is a complete inner product space, that is, a Hilbert space, and that observables correspond to selfadjoint operators. Then the (generalized) HUP can be derived for any two observables as an immediate consequence of the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality. The HUP takes its usual form when the observables satisfy canonical commutation relations. The position-momentum HUP was first proposed by W. Heisenberg (Z. Phys. 43, 172 (1927)), and first proved by E.H. Kennard (Z. Phys. 44, 326 (1927)). The generalized version was first proposed and proved by H.P. Robertson (Phys. Rev. 34, 163 (1929)). Many people, including Robertson, have proposed and proved other uncertainty relations, e.g. H.P. Robertson (Phys. Rev. 35, 667 (1930); Phys. Rev. 46, 794 (1934)). Uncertainty-type relations continue to attract research: for example, Mike Hall and Marcel Reginatto have proposed an "exact" uncertainty relation (M.J.W. Hall, Phys. Rev. 64, 052103 (2001); M.J.W. Hall and M. Reginatto, J. Phys. A 35, 3289 (2002)).
The second point is that zero-point energy (ZPE) doesn't originate from the HUP; rather, it's a consequence of the curvature forced on the wavefunction as it matches boundary conditions. For example, the energy of the ground state of a particle in an infinitely deep one-dimensional square well – usually the first problem treated in a quantum mechanics course – is just ((pi)^2 (hbar)^2)/(2mL) where m is the mass of the particle and L the length of the well. The wavefunction can't be zero everwhere and still be a normalizable wavefunction, but it must vanish at the boundaries (0 and L), hence it must curve. If you wrap the well around so that 0 and L now coincide, i.e. you impose periodic boundary conditions and the particle is now travelling on a ring, then the wavefunction need not vanish anywhere and the ground state can have zero curvature, hence zero ZPE.
You can't extract net energy from the ZPE. If the Hamiltonian describing the energy of the system is independent of time (that is, time-translation invariant, or in a relativistic theory, Poincare-invariant), then energy conservation is guaranteed – it's an immediate consequence of Noether's theorem. If you break time-translation invariance, for example by moving boundaries around, then the energy of the system being considered is no longer constant in time – but you still can't extract more energy than you put in. To prove this you need to keep track of the work done by the external force moving the boundaries (or doing whatever it's doing). Then you'll find that the net energy change in the total system is zero.
February 1st, 2005 at 1:52 PM
To rephrase: prove that it isn't zero.
> Then the (generalized) HUP can be derived for any two observables
> as an immediate consequence of the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality.
I looked that up in the Wikipedia, and it appears to depend on the operator commutator being non-zero. Quantum mechanics postulates that the order of measurements necessarily perturbs the system and AB will be different from BA. While this is, of course, true for real measurements, I have not yet seen any proof that it is also the nature of reality, as the Copenhagen interpretation states. Until someone offers me one, I shall assume the ideal measurement commutator is zero and so is the resulting uncertainty product. I find it extremely disturbing that people are willing to believe that there are things they will never be able to know, no matter how they try, and truly astounding that they would do so without any proof. Such thinking (or should I say, the lack of it), can only lead civilization into a dark age, worshiping invisible spirits and dismissing any knowledge as unachievable to the "feeble human mind".
February 1st, 2005 at 4:52 PM
Re:To rephrase: prove that it isn't zero.
Don't know where you are…but we're still in the dark ages. The majority of the pitiful people on this planet still believe in madmade concepts such as god and all that other rubbish; the only difference is that we have technology now compared to the midieval times when we didn't. The transition of the acceptance of both science and technology does not mean that the dark ages have left us…in order for that to happen, all the other concepts from the old world must fade away as well (i.e. god/religion).
The concept of ZPE has yet to be fully accepted by the scientific community…and for good reason. The payoffs are simply enormous..and some are simply afraid to speak up in fear of being ridiculed because of what happened during that cold fusion fiasco.
But, I assure you, ZPE is exactly as I've described…you get more than what you put in, and the energy is unlimited. Accept it for what it is; not for what it isn't. You're not going to find the answers you are seeking in some silly textbook.
February 2nd, 2005 at 12:02 AM
Nanotechnology is the key to tapping ZPE
Article
[quote] Nw that we have the ability to work with nanotechnology, we have the tools to extract energy from the zero point field [/quote]
This is NOT a pipe dream, people! This needs to be taken VERY seriously.
February 2nd, 2005 at 5:46 AM
Re:Multiverse and wormholes…
There is no ebook version to my knowledge.
If you don't want to pay for books there are always libraries.
Alternatively you might want to check the LANL archive for the author's names. They may have published papers about the topic but they are likely to be much more technical than the book.
February 2nd, 2005 at 7:20 AM
Re:To rephrase: prove that it isn't zero.
> Don't know where you are…but we're still in the dark ages.
No, Kadamose, believe it or not, we are still living in the "good times". There is still research going on, even though it diminishes every year; most people still make a decent living in civilized contries, instead scrounging through garbage; and even space exploration is still going on.
> The majority of the pitiful people on this
> planet still believe in madmade concepts
All concepts are man-made, as no other creature is capable of making them. The ability to reason and to conceptualize is our distinguising characteristic.
> all the other concepts from the old world must fade away as well (i.e. god/religion)
I am curious how you intend to accomplish this.
> The concept of ZPE has yet to be fully accepted by the scientific community
That's putting it mildly.
> some are simply afraid to speak up in fear of being ridiculed
It is only natural to ridicule crackpots.
> But, I assure you, ZPE is exactly as I've described
Very funny, Kadamose; do you have a power generator you can show me? What can you assure me with?
> the energy is unlimited.
And of course, you must have measurements, to back this up. Let's see them! I doubt you managed to extract even a joule.
> Accept it for what it is; not for what it isn't.
I do: I accept it for a crackpot perpetual-motion theory, rather than a real working perpetual-motion theory.
> You're not going to find the answers you are seeking in some silly textbook.
Should I just get the answers from you then? Hah! Here you are asking me to take you (you!) on faith while bashing "pitiful people" for believing in God only two paragraphs before. You are a riot
February 2nd, 2005 at 8:29 AM
Re:Nanotechnology is the key to tapping ZPE
Hard data Kadamose, hard data!
The only data I see in the article cited is 220 erg/cc. In case you are not aware of it there are 10 million ergs per joule and it takes 1 joule per second to provide 1 watt. Go do some googling and then some math and tell me what volume of ZPE would be required to provide the entire power consumption of the U.S. (electricity, oil and gas). I suspect it is *very* large. And that is assuming one gets 100% conversion efficiency which I find *very* doubtful.
As a side note, if I'm doing the conversions properly it takes ~5.6 million fusion reactions such as those taking place in the sun to provide 220 ergs. I assure you that the volume of hydrogen required to do this is significantly less than 1 cc. If I'm doing the calculations correctly, at STP, the volume of hydrogen atoms required to produce 220 ergs is ~10-10 of 1 cc. Of course in the sun the hydrogen is compressed to much greater densities. So volume for volume it looks like Fusion trumps ZPE by a *very* big margin.
And the basis for the article is that one is going to require nanotechnology manufacturing capabilities to be able to harvest the ZPE. If one has nanotechnology manufacturing capabilities you could disassemble the asteroids or even the planet Mercury in a very short period of time and use the material to form solar cells which using 30+ years of previous macroscale engineering experience have efficiencies of 34+%. Using nanotechnology they could most likely be pushed into the 50+% range. They could then harvest the entire power output of the Sun (~1026 W).
When you know what the volume of, mass requirements for, element needs, and power conversion efficiency are for your ZPE harvester — *then* we can discuss it. Until then it seems much more worthwhile to focus on things we *know* can be done because nature (or even humans) have been doing them for years.
People should note that Nanodot is about nanotechnology and not about theoretical physics. We already know nanotechnology is possible because much of nature is based upon it. So if the ZPE discussion continues, as one of the editors, I will probably start deleting the messages.
February 2nd, 2005 at 11:31 AM
Some amusing numbers
Average US household energy usage is about 1kW. 220 ergs/mL is 22 J/m3. At 22 W/m3 the power generator would need to be 45 cubic meters in volume at 100% efficiency. With a more realistic 10% efficiency, 450 cubic meters. Naturally, this does not include any structures you'd need to actually capture and convert the power. In comparison, my house has a volume of ~800 cubic meters, including basement and attic.
From Wikipedia, the total US power consumption is 3.327 TW (2001), and that of the world is 13.5 TW. Using 220 erg/mL/sec and 10% efficiency, the necessary volumes are 1.5e12 and 6.1e12 cubic meters respectively. The volume of Lake Superior is about 12.2e12 cubic meters.
February 2nd, 2005 at 7:09 PM
Re:Prove the uncertainty principle first
You need to look into such things as lasing without inversion, the work of Boyer, and many many others, as well as the Aharanov Bohm experiment (which proves the reality of the quantum potentials. Not merely the fields.) Overunity from the zero point radiation is a standard fact.
February 2nd, 2005 at 7:15 PM
Re:Some amusing numbers
It comes down to this. The zero point radiation in the universe is tremendous, and a mere one cubic centimeter of space contains enough that if it were to be converted into mass, it would be greater than the solar system, somewhere along 10^80-10^120 grams of matter per CC, if it was converted. Even by harvesting a FRACTION of that, we could have _PRACTICALLY_ unlimited supplies of power. MNT and ZPE will most likely go hand in hand. Next topic: What is the best way to BOOTSTRAP NANO REPLICATORS, from where we are now?
February 3rd, 2005 at 12:26 AM
Eternal Universe/Multi-verse
On expressing the matter as the duality of potency and mass, the Universe/Multi-verse is the origin of sustained cycle of regeneration and degeneration of its Heterogeneous-matters by self-regulating self-assembly. Hence the Nanoscience to be objected for the explorations on the relativity between energy and potency, that express the eternity of Universe/Multi-verse.
February 3rd, 2005 at 7:57 AM
Hello? E=mc2
> and a mere one cubic centimeter of space contains
> enough that if it were to be converted into mass,
> it would be greater than the solar system
Haven't you heard of E=mc^2? With 220 ergs/cc you'd be able to create 2.45e-22 kg of matter, or about 147000 protons. Did you forget the sign in the exponent, dear? There is also the question of how fast you can get those 220 ergs out, just how much energy you'd be able to get before it runs out, and whether it can be done at all. And if you say "unlimited" one more time, I'll smack you. There is no experimental evidence for ZPE whatsoever, much less for it being "tremendous".
February 3rd, 2005 at 8:38 AM
Re:Prove the uncertainty principle first
> You need to look into such things as lasing without inversion
LWI has nothing to do with the uncertainty principle. It simply involves priming the lasing cavity with another laser to do something to the atoms there that prevents absorption. Not being a physicist, I wasn't able to figure out what exactly is happening and apparently neither were the authors of the experiments. We'll just have to wait until someone can.
> the work of Boyer
Boyer simply proposed quantum fluctuations, he did not perform any experiments to prove their existence.
> Aharanov Bohm experiment (which proves the reality
> of the quantum potentials. Not merely the fields.)
The experiment involves moving the interference pattern in the electron double slit experiment with a solenoid. I already know electrons are affected by the magnetic field – that's how your computer monitor works. I don't see any "quantum potentials" here, although you are free to treat the math that way if you want.
> Overunity from the zero point radiation is a standard fact.
Then perhaps you should collect the $10000 prize offered for demonstrating it.
February 3rd, 2005 at 3:10 PM
Re:Hello? E=mc2
Over-unity from ZPE is the reason why the universe is exponentially expanding. It is also what causes gravity and inertia. If you don't think that's 'tremendous', then I don't think anything will phase you.
February 3rd, 2005 at 7:07 PM
Re:Eternal Universe/Multi-verse
I'm guessing English isn't your first language. Either that, or you need to increase your meds.
Or both.
February 4th, 2005 at 2:21 AM
Re:Hello? E=mc2
"Boyer, TH (1976),"Equilibrium of random classicalelectromagnetic radiation in the presence of a nonrelativistic nonlinear electric dipole oscillator," Physics Review D 13 (10), pages 2832-45" Couple that with the facts that won T D Lee the Nobel Prize for physics in 1957 which showed that the broken symmetry of the quantum vacuum pours energy into three dimensional dipolar space, and I'd say that is a mere fraction of the vast evidence in support of the usability of the ZPE.
February 4th, 2005 at 10:46 PM
Re:Nanotechnology is the key to tapping ZPE
Once again, paranoic, frantically self dillusional "wisdom" comes from the mind of the "great" Kadamose. Ah yes, the masses, "people", listen to the VERY serious voice of reason!!