Break?

Blog activity is low, and I think it may be a good idea to take a break until next semester. Opinions?

Testing Technology: Hyperspeed Transportation

I think just about everyone has at one point in time wished they could get somewhere faster. How fast will we be able to go places? What is the best form of extremely fast transportation? In this topic we can look at multiple options.

Let's start smaller first. How fast could we get cars to go? The first challenge would be obtaining as much energy as possible in a car without building an extremely large engine. This is tough, so I think we need to rely on multiple resources.

We need to use a combination of fossil fuels, solar power, wind power, hydroelectric, and other forms of fuel. If we could have a neverending supply of renewable energy going into the car's battery/engine, we could use a lot more energy for a longer amount of time.

With this in mind, we could get a car to go 300 mph if we wanted to. Then there's dealing with friction. As we increase the speed, we have to make sure a car doesn't overheat and that the g forces do not rip a person's face off. That wouldn't be good.

For the overheating, I think we need to have the hydroelectric power also act as a cooling agent. The water would help cool the engine. Also that wind powering the car could cool it. Just throwing out some ideas for keeping the engine cool.

To control the g forces, we pressurize the air in the car, sort of like they do in a plane. With really fast "hyperspeed" cars, we need to build them more like airplanes, but as smaller personal ground jets. Cars would be more like a jet than a car.

Another option for really fast transportation would be to have a very extensive network of super fast trains. It would be sort of like the road system we have today. A few mainlines of super speed trains branch out into smaller branches with even smaller branches of trains. These trains could get away with having much larger engines and would probably be allowed to pick up much more speed than cars, but the trains are a form of public transportation, and are required to make stops at certain areas, while the cars are not.

What about teleportation? If we built teleportation pads at thousands of locations all over the globe, then it would be the ultimate fast way to get somewhere. The problem with that idea would be that the energy that the people were turned into while teleporting could collide, causing a major problem. I think that form of transportation, although the fastest, is unsafe in many ways.

What if we gave everyone a jetpack (provided they earn their jetpack license)? Traffic would be a lot easier to avoid. However, it is not necessarily very fast transportation, and the amount of fuel necessary to power a useful jetpack is quite large. That is a problem, and we can't put a lot of fuel into it without making it far too heavy to be propelled in the air.

Those are just a few options. What do you think will become the fastest form of transportation?

Testing Technology: Mind Control!

This is the last post before the start of school. There are a few options available at the start of school. Those will be discussed at a later time. Let's move on to the topic, shall we?

This probably is not the best time, but I am going to start a new series on the blog called Testing Technology, in which we will explore what possibilities we can uncover using the technology we already have and the laws of Physics and Quantum Mechanics which we have discovered thus far on the blog. The discussions in this series of posts will be like the Star Trek Transporter post. Can we do it? How?

This time the topic is mind control. Can we gain control of the minds of other living things? How? Let's find out.

Obviously the human brain is very complicated and nobody really knows exactly how it works. We need to start with what we already know how to do. Supposedly the brain functions via electricity and chemicals. What has electricity and chemicals? Computers!

We can command robots to do things we want them to by putting together certain electric wires or certain chemicals. We can already control non living things. Computers seem to be the key to the mind.

We know that the human brain can be connected to computers because that's how bionic arms work. Your brain still sends the same electrical impulses to the arm, and that computer reads your electrical impulses to perform the commands your brain has sent! But controlling computers is one thing. Controlling the brain itself is something else altogether.

However, we can't be too far away. However, controlling the brain is a monumental task. The organ is extremely complex. We need more information in order to specifically figure out how to control it. However, I think it can be done.

Here is the simplest version of mind control that I can think of.

Step 1: Overload brain. This will cause the brain to shut down.
Step 2: Remove brain. Be sure not to damage any other parts of the body unless you intend on replacing them.
Step 3: Insert computer. This computer would sort of replicate a brain by being able to send out electrical impulses and chemicals. If we can receive impulses with the bionic arm, we can simply take those impulses that we received at first, and have the computer send those impulses. Now you can send the impulses to other parts of the system.
Step 4: Reboot the system: Have the computer start sending out impulses to get the body moving again. You now have control.

Congratulations! You have control! Or do you?

This is not really mind control, this is mind replacement. You have total control of the body of that person, but really what have we accomplished? We might as well have built a robot!

So this version is not practical and we did not really acquire control of the brain. However, we did prove many things by doing this. We can figure out how to send out impulses from the computer. We have in a sense built a brain. Now that we know how the brain works, we can figure out how to control it without removing the brain.

We need to find the decision engine of the brain. The portion that gives the person freedom of choice. We think that portion of the brain is the frontal lobe. This section is responsible for planning, organizing, problem solving, selective attention, personality and a variety of "higher cognitive functions" including behavior and emotions. According to http://www.waiting.com/brainanatomy.html "A Guide to Brain Anatomy". This map is also from the site.


The cerebellum is the part that is in charge of movement. Walking, talking, eating, etc. This could also be important in mind control.

The brain allows for different types of mind control. We could control the decisions of the brain which would be the key to the body. Or we could just control the movement portion, controlling all of the movements of the body while the person is stuck thinking about what is going on. A much more torturous method if I do say so myself!

How can we do this? How do we take over the brain without killing the living person inside of it? After the mind control, we may want to undo the interaction. Therefore we need to keep the old brain intact. With our technology I think we can manage this.

We would need to send in some sort of small remote controlled robot to go into the brain and send impulses to control the body. The only problem is that the old brain would be struggling for control. Maybe we could have the robot insert some sort of anesthesia into the frontal lobe. However, we would have to make sure the anesthesia doesn't spread everywhere or else nothing in the body would work. I'm not exactly sure how we could do that.

What do you think? Is mind control possible? How can we do it? Comment with your ideas and opinions.

Please note that I am not in favor of introducing mind control to the average human. I just want to know if it is possible.

Does the universe need life to "exist"?

I will be on vacation for a week starting Thursday. Therefore I am going to leave you with this topic.

Does the universe need life to "exist"?

If there was no universe, then there would be no life. The universe sets the stage for life to live. That's quite clear. Life does not occur in nothing. There must be something for life to live in, and that happens to be our universe.

But does the universe need us? Does the universe need life to actually exist?

Don't answer this question too quickly. Right now you are probably thinking, "No, why would the universe need us? We will probably cause more damage to it than help!"

But really, why does the universe exist? You may say, "It just does" but really, why would the universe need to exist? What difference does it make if the universe is around or not?

Think again. Why does it exist?

To support life.

That is probably the only thing that the universe accomplishes by existing, is supporting life like us. That is its only purpose. It only exists for us. The universe as far as we know does nothing else with any direction.

The big bang. Massive explosion of "stuff" into the vast nothingness that surrounds it. The forming of nonliving material. It cools, and things align into systems. Galaxies full of solar systems that are full of planets. Planets that contain material required to support life. It all exists for life! Why else would it even happen?

We go back to the original question: Does the universe need life to "exist"? I say it does! Without life, there is no purpose of the universe! It would accomplish nothing in it's being, so it wouldn't "exist". Think of it this way:

What does it mean to exist? To exist means to have animation or life. If the universe does not "live", then it doesn't exist. It's not really... there.

It's a tough thought, isn't it? That something really doesn't exist if there is no life to witness it. Think of it a different way.

On a distant planet named Distant Planet (how imaginative I am today) a rock tumbles down a cliff. This rock causes a massive chain reaction which causes many major cliffs on the planet to crumble to dust. There is no life on Distant Planet. After millions of years Distant Planet is finally swallowed up by Distant Star, never to be seen again. Did anything happen?

Technically, stuff happened, but since no life saw it, there was absolutely no significance to the event. Did Distant Planet ever exist at all? Not really. The fact is that there probably was a Distant Planet out there somewhere in the universe, but it never existed because there was no life to witness it.

I am quite positive that the story above did not help anyone. I am sure it only further confused your train of thought. You were once sure that the universe didn't need us, but now you are hopefully starting to think that maybe it does.

Here's a better example. Does Santa Claus exist?
You might say he doesn't. Can you prove it? Not really, but you might say that we haven't seen or heard him, so he doesn't exist. You have basically just proven my point by saying that, then. Santa Claus doesn't exist because we did not witness it.
Does the Tooth Fairy exist? Never saw it, so it doesn't exist. Proves my point.
Does another universe exist? Not to us it doesn't. Now you might say "It's possible for there to be another universe! Don't rule that option out!". Guess what? It is also possible for there to be a Santa Claus and a tooth fairy. Don't rule it out.

I think that clears things up. Nothing exists to us unless we see it. Or unless we truly believe in it, in the case of Santa Claus. It may "exist" to us, even though it may not exist to others. However, without life, nothing would exist. Enjoy that thought.

Does Technology Help or Hurt Mankind?

Understanding that this question could be considered more philosophical than scientific, it has quite a bit to do with science, and very much applies to our world. Mankind ever since the stone age has been technologically advancing, making more discoveries about life and the universe and creating many more inventions. Does this technology help or hurt the chances of the survival of mankind?

First we have to define technology. Computers come up in our minds when we think technology, but really technology gets a lot simpler. Isn't the wooden club technology? It is an invention of sorts, created by humanity. Therefore, when considering if technology helps or hurts mankind, we do need to consider the primitive as well as the modern.

Let's start at the early age of man. There were the neanderthals and the homosapiens. Neanderthal and homosapien were both considered primitive man, but each had different characteristics. Neanderthals were stronger and had thicker bones, but homo sapiens were smarter and quicker. Both survived until the ice age. At the ice age, the feeding patterns changed. The animals that man ate had to move to survive. Neanderthal did not follow the food and ended up dying out. Homo sapien on the other hand adapted and survived the ice age. Although they weren't the strongest species, they were the smartest, allowing them to survive. Homo sapien then became the only specie of man. This shows that, as Charles Darwin said, "It is not the strongest of species that survive, but the ones most responsive to change".

Early humans used tools like stone axes and knives to get food and resources. They also used fire to cook meat and do other things. This technology I would say was vital to the survival of humanity. Without tools, life for the human would have been quite difficult, and they may have not been able to survive.

Technology begins to become questionable 1700 BC, when man begins to fight man. Spears and chariots are used to attack other people and expand their territory. Man is now man's greatest enemy. Technology is used to gain advantage over other humans and expand their empire. Weaponry becomes very important to humanity. As technology advances, more and more weaponry is invented, but also more and more luxury items. People begin to build homes of great comfort and luxury furniture.

Is there anything wrong with luxury? The technology helps humanity to live in comfort. Some may argue that luxury causes laziness in humanity, while others argue that laziness is a natural human attribute. When the bell rings at school, you are not going to take a long way to get to the door for no reason. Most likely you will be "lazy" and go the shortest way to the door. I think that although laziness in many cases is a problem, it makes sense in other cases.

As technology improves, people have to do less to survive. In that way, technology greatly increases our survival chances. However, technology begins to become extremely questionable in the atomic era. Nuclear bombs are capable of demolishing entire cities. If we aren't careful, we could end up destroying the entire planet! At what point does technology become bad?

Although technology has led to such a monstrous danger, technology can also stop the problem. We can use technology to find a way to stop the nuclear bomb and save the Earth. Therefore, does technology help or hurt mankind? I think it helps our chances of survival as long as scientists always stay on top of the dangers that threaten mankind's survival.

Why ask this question? If technological advances are a threat to our species, then the government should halt technological advances. However, I think that technology will keep itself in check.

There are many different branches of this topic that you can comment on. Should the gov. stop technological advances? Should the gov. regulate certain technologies? Do we need to get rid of technology altogether and return to the stone age to maintain our survival? Comment with ideas and opinions.

Does Dark Matter Exist?

Scientists first came up with the idea of dark matter when studying clusters. Clusters in space which contain galaxies and any other material in between. Clusters are held together by the gravity of all of the matter. In between the matter of the cluster is hot gas. Scientists studied the hot gas to find that it was reacting abnormally. Scientists calculated how much gravity should exist in the cluster, and found that there is more gravity acting on the hot gas than should be. That means that there must other matter where this gravity is coming from. Therefore, dark matter is born. Is that the right explanation, though?

Dark matter is basically the same as matter except it is invisible. It is matter that does not give off radiation. No light comes from it. It is quite possible that the matter is simply not giving off any light. If a small star burns out, it no longer emits radiation. It could be dark matter because we would not be able to detect it is it no longer gave off radiation. Since our universe has been around for a long time, many stars could have died out that weren't large enough to supernova. But it was calculated that in a cluster 5/6 of the matter in the universe is dark matter. What could some of this matter be?

It is a possibility that the matter could be in the center of the black holes in the galaxies. The black holes would hide a ton of matter because no light can escape them. They also have huge gravitational effects.

Material near the dead stars would not be reflecting any light because they have no light to reflect. Therefore they could also be hidden.

There is also a possibility that the dark matter is just a different type of matter. We are most familiar with baryonic matter, which is matter that has protons, neutrons, and electrons. However, there are other types of matter. Some types of matter do not have any of those three subatomic particles! Some matter is just made up of two quarks. The types of matter made out of subatomic particles with only two quarks are called mesons. However, I am not sure that this type of matter is much different than baryons.

Perhaps the gravity isn't coming from matter in our universe. Perhaps an object in another brane is affecting our universe. You know what that means. String theory! If a parallel brane to the brane of our universe has gravity, it could affect our universe. The gravitons (gravity enforcing particles) could move out from the parallel brane into ours, which would change the gravity amount without any apparent cause.

Is there dark matter? I think there is, and it is not as mysterious as we think. Dark matter is just ordinary matter without reflecting any light. Just because we can't detect it doesn't mean that it isn't there! I don't think it is all that mysterious. We won't know for sure though until we find it!

Are Star Trek Transporters Possible?

The Television series Star Trek has inspired many technological advances, including the cell phone and language translators. One advancement we have yet to achieve is the transporter. Can it be possible, though? Let's first figure out how the Star Trek transporter works.

The transporter converts matter, such as a person, into energy. This energy is beamed to a target, where it materializes back into matter. Is this possible? Well, considering that we have determined that mass is directly correlated to energy, it could be physically possible. If E=Mc^2, then it takes a ton of mass just to make a small amount of energy! That could work with the transporter. The object would become a much smaller amount of energy that could be beamed to the desired location. It is mathematically possible. The question is can we make mass become energy?

If we move the mass particles at close enough to or at the speed of light, the particles could become energy. Perhaps to use this transporter, we have to accelerate an object to the speed of light and then shoot the energy to the target destination, where the energy will once again become mass due to slowing down. However, this process seems very shaky for a few reasons.

First of all, how do we know that the energy will realign in the correct position? If it takes all that mass just to make a small amount of energy, then it may not realign at all! It would have to return to the same particles, but the matter would probably be randomly scrambled!

Secondly, are we sure that the energy will once again become mass in the end? At such speeds, it could even become other particles! Is there any guarantee that we can get the energy to once again become mass?

Also, can anything survive such a transportation? Actually, it could work. When you look at any living thing, there are certain bodily functions that allow it to work. If we could figure out everything about the functions of the human body, we could better understand why things die and why they live. I think all of that depends on the brain. If we can figure out how the brain works, we could probably create life and resurrect the dead(not that I approve of such ideas).

The point is that if when the particles were put back together they made the exact same thing as they started out as, it should be a living thing because it would have all of the body parts in order, so why wouldn't it survive? It's an idea that I am sure many of you will criticize, but I think that it could be done. However, there must be a few conditions for it to work.

First of all, the start of the transportation must take place in a vacuum. If while accelerating the mass it slides across other mass of any type, the friction would kill a human or any living thing.

Secondly, the beaming must be precise to the quantum level. If that energy is given any opportunity to split, human is toast. Not that I wouldn't mind that. I think turning humans into toast would be fun. Great, now I'm hungry. Moving on.

Finally, we must know that the energy will once again become mass when it slows down. It won't slow down until it reaches an atmosphere of some sort, and if it does, it must become the same mass it was before.

There is one thing that is also easily forgotten. Just because something is the same mass doesn't mean it is going to be the same matter. Bricks and feathers can both have the same mass depending on the quantity of each material! I find that uncertainty to be quite scary.

In my opinion, it is possible to build a transporter, and with a greater understanding of our universe we may someday find ways to satisfy the conditions stated above. However, I wouldn't step on a transporter if I were you until many, many, many, many tests have been successfully completed with good results.