Seeing Michio Kaku today. Any questions you'd like me to ask?

[MacLaddy]

I would say that this is a bad thing. It makes crackpots feel validated.

I don't think crackpots need validation. If they did, they wouldn't be crackpots.

 

[DR13]

I don't think crackpots need validation. If they did, they wouldn't be crackpots.

Touche. But still, I would rather have Kaku talk about things that are possible in the shorter term (10-50 years).

 

[MacLaddy]

Touche. But still, I would rather have Kaku talk about things that are possible in the shorter term (10-50 years).

I agree. It would be nice if he toned it down a bit, but I wonder how much of that is him, and how much is network influenced.

Considering his books, I suppose its mostly his input.

 

[SeventhSigma]

You mean like teleportation, inter-gallactic travel, and time travel? These technologies do not exist in any way, shape, or form (except teleportation, but that is just of photons so I don't count it yet).

Also, what did you end up asking?

Teleportation is actually on its way.

But intergalactic travel/time travel is something that almost every agrees upon as being an insanely difficult feat and it's not like we see him gunning for that stuff any time soon.

Kaku frequently cites Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law ("Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic") and so on some level he does know that talking about future technology is likely to sound crazy to most people. But then you jump forward a handful of years and find that the naysayers are almost always wrong. Growth has a massive presence in the tech industry (hence the high P/E ratios).

Even my own girlfriend, who accompanied me last night, was a bit freaked out by some of the technology Kaku discussed, but it's still important to keep in mind that the technology already exists. Much of what he discussed last night *was* technology of the 10-50 years-ahead variety (invisibility, nanotech, wearable computing, augmented reality, smart windows/glass/paper, Moore's Law, quantum computing, brainwave technology, etc).

 

[Leptos]

Seriously PF, unless you suffer from severe autism or asperger syndrome, I see no reason why you should react to what Kaku is doing in this manner. Simply put, Kaku is doing a great job of popularizing physics(and mathematics) and those that he inspires to pursue these subjects at the technical level will not be harmed by anything he has said. To even get the opportunity to have a time slot for these shows requires that he generate content interesting enough for viewers tuning into return the next show. Please, don't be so thick headed. Those of you that are intelligent, as opposed to simply snobby, will understand why popularizers of science present material in the way that they do. I personally became interested in science through Kaku's books and although I knew the material would be very different at the technical level, it was a starting point, and I'm not sure if this is common, but Kaku was a great influence on me becoming a math student.

 

[MacLaddy]

Seriously PF, unless you suffer from severe autism or asperger syndrome, I see no reason why you should react to what Kaku is doing in this manner.

Do you believe that the members of PF are part of a larger collective consciousness, or perhaps that of a hive mind- like the Borg? Maybe your science fiction has gone a bit too far.

If you have criticism, please direct it appropriately.

 

[Misericorde]

Is it theoretically possible (say via 'magic') to create something like a wormhole to traverse, which allows travel at something significantly below 'c'?

 

[JaredJames]

Is it theoretically possible (say via 'magic') to create something like a wormhole to traverse, which allows travel at something significantly below 'c'?

I can pull a unicorn out of my backside if you want to allow magic.

There are theoretical ways to create wormholes, but they involve exotic matter.

Wormholes don't violate relativity.

This is a discussion for elsewhere, not here. There are plenty of threads on the subject.

 

[Misericorde]

I can pull a unicorn out of my backside if you want to allow magic.

There are theoretical ways to create wormholes, but they involve exotic matter.

Wormholes don't violate relativity.

This is a discussion for elsewhere, not here. There are plenty of threads on the subject.

I'm asking this regarding a work of fiction, so unicorns as a valid mechanism works for me. As for asking Dr. Kaku, given his history of speculation and erudition, he seems ideal to ask this kind of question.

 

[JaredJames]

I'm asking this regarding a work of fiction, so unicorns as a valid mechanism works for me. As for asking Dr. Kaku, given his history of speculation and erudition, he seems ideal to ask this kind of question.

Fiction let's you do what you like.

You don't need to ask him that, there is plenty of material out there on the subject that doesn't involve the use of magic.

 

[glueball8]

Yes, when exposed to this stuff, you get pushed in the general direction of science, but specifically in the direction of real science. The result is some people might find their way to real science after this push while others will find their way to crackpottery.

Yes, I agree that it might push people in the direction real science, but that is only after they did studying away from Prof. Kaku. And it might also lead people crack pottery, but I feel that when Prof. Kaku talks its almost like the movie "What the beep do we know", even though it might lead towards people studying real science but it mostly will lead to crackpottery. Now if someone was listen to someone like Richard Feynman, they will get interested in science but there's hardly any chance of them going into crackpottery.

From what I have seen Neil deGrasse Tyson is completely different from Prof. Kaku, Neil deGrasse Tyson's thoughts were scientifically stated.

Teleportation is actually on its way.

What do you mean by that? You mean having me here and the next second in China is on its way?

 

[Misericorde]

Fiction let's you do what you like.

You don't need to ask him that, there is plenty of material out there on the subject that doesn't involve the use of magic.

Do you know the answer to my question then? Beyond that, I like to cut my fiction closer to what is possible than simply using buzzwords. There is 'fairy magic', 'Star Trek' magic, and then the more subtle magic of such authors as Larry Niven. I'd prefer that unicorns not be the mechanism by which this kind of travel is achieved in my writing, and I'd be interested if it's possible using a wormhole, or if you'd need something less, because a wormhole is by definition something which can be a time machine if it's '2-way'.

 

[JaredJames]

Do you know the answer to my question then?

I've told you, there are theories on it. GOOGLE WORMHOLES! It's really not that difficult.

The results will explain to you the basis of wormholes so you can use it. Again, there are plenty of threads here on the subject.

No, we don't have a way of making them because we lack the materials required to do so.

The moment you mention use of wormholes in a story you are in the realms of fiction.

 

[Misericorde]

I've told you, there are theories on it. GOOGLE WORMHOLES! It's really not that difficult.

The results will explain to you the basis of wormholes so you can use it. Again, there are plenty of threads here on the subject.

No, we don't have a way of making them because we lack the materials required to do so.

The moment you mention use of wormholes in a story you are in the realms of fiction.

It's the sheer variety and madness that arises from that kind of search that drew me here in the in the first place. I'm done justifying my question, although if you have some scholarly articles to link I'll be happy to read them. Your view is noted, but my question remains and that says a lot about your ability to answer it perhaps. It's possible that answers like yours are the reasons I'm not asking you, and why I would like the opinion of a man who does tend to speculate in the realm of wormholes and such.

 

[DR13]

It's the sheer variety and madness that arises from that kind of search that drew me here in the in the first place. I'm done justifying my question, although if you have some scholarly articles to link I'll be happy to read them. Your view is noted, but my question remains and that says a lot about your ability to answer it perhaps. It's possible that answers like yours are the reasons I'm not asking you, and why I would like the opinion of a man who does tend to speculate in the realm of wormholes and such.

I'd recemmend starting a new thread. That way people who know how to answer your question can see the title and answer it.

 

[JaredJames]

It's the sheer variety and madness that arises from that kind of search that drew me here in the in the first place.

To GD?

I'm done justifying my question, although if you have some scholarly articles to link I'll be happy to read them.

Justifying it? Who asked you to do that?

What you are looking for can be found in the relevant PF section. Not in GD.

Your view is noted, but my question remains and that says a lot about your ability to answer it perhaps. It's possible that answers like yours are the reasons I'm not asking you, and why I would like the opinion of a man who does tend to speculate in the realm of wormholes and such.

You're in GD. You are asking people like me. You hijacked the thread to do so.

You want better answers, go to the right place, Astrophysics, Cosmology etc.

Everything about wormholes is speculative. So any answer you get is going to be so. You are the one speculating about it by asking they're possible.

 

[Misericorde]

This is about asking someone who will in turn be able to ask Michio Kaku, right? How would starting another thread lead to this individual possibly asking that specific person this question? As for being drawn to "gd", believe me when I say I couldn't be more repelled; a quick perusal shows this to be the slum of the site.

 

[Evo]

a quick perusal shows this to be the slum of the site.

Ooooh, guys, he called GD a slum.

 

[glueball8]

Lets tie him up and whack him with fishes.

 

[Evo]

Lets tie him up and whack him with fishes.

Spiny fishes!

 

[fuzzyfelt]

I think he wanted to ask Michio Kaku the question about magic and wormholes because he was a day late to ask Michio Kaku the question about magic and wormholes :)

 

[Misericorde]

I think he wanted to ask Michio Kaku the question about magic and wormholes because he was a day late to ask Michio Kaku the question about magic and wormholes :)

Nah, because I'm interested in something that doesn't allow for time travel against the thermodynamic arrow, but cute notion. It is true that I didn't realize I was a day late though, which probably could have been the first thing cat-boy mentioned.

As for a slum, other than quotes, this is what I've seen and read some of the politics. It's a startling contrast with the rest of the site, and if you don't think so, maybe you ate too many spiny fishes and the TTX is kicking in? :)

Nothing personal you know; every city needs a slum, and it's not a commentary on the entire city. In fact, to recognize a slum you need to appreciate the contrast with the city. Beyond that, you guys realize that, once again I state this, I'm talking about fiction? I'm going out on a limb and guessing that most of you like science fiction, so I'd have guessed the distinction between a question of what IS, vs. a book scenario would have been clear.

It seems strange that this would be seen as an odd question for a scientist who spends at least as much time in front of a green-screen talking about what most here would consider magic and fancy, but hey, slum-dwellers are idiosyncratic by nature.

 

[Evo]

Alright, enough with the slum thing.

This is the lounge and the rules here are not as strict. It is where members come to have fun and have less serious discussions. It is for people to get to know each other on a more personal level.

 

[rhody]

Alright, enough with the slum thing.

This is the lounge and the rules here are not as strict. It is where members come to have fun and have less serious discussions. It is for people to get to know each other on a more personal level.

Wow, excitement, all I can say is DUCK ! I don't thrive on stress. I am outta here...

This is turning into a PF Dogpile, have fun guys... Evo, QuarkCharmer, Jimmy, lisab, fuzzy, russ, lacy, andre, play nice, I can't remember a pile like this in a long time.

Rhody... :grumpy: hits the un-subcribe button, whew, now I feel better...

 

[AlephZero]

Without people like him, although in my case it was more Ian Stewart with Flatterland, I would probably not have much of a serious interest in math/physics as a career.

That's a bad analogy IMO. I've never read anything by Ian Stewart that was matheatical speculation. Mostly, he writes about mathematical history.

Sure, he sometimes mixes science fiction with solid mainstream science (as in the collaborations with Terry Pratchett), but anybody with a reasonable amount of intelligence should be able to tell which is which, and there are nice helpful graphics at the top of each chapter, in case anybody gets confused.

And in any case, you need to have a very good and very wide general education to pick up all the jokes and references to the real world in Pratchett's fantasy books. I keep finding new ones years after the first time I read them.

 

[gendou2]

Can you explain to me exactly when Kaku is demonstrating hyperbole/misrepresentation? I've never heard him say anything that's exaggerated or incorrect with respect to science. There's plenty that's extrapolated, but I think that's a different story.

I would direct you to any of his books.
If you've read them, you know what I mean.
To prove my point, I've flipped to a random page of his latest book, "Physics of the Future".
The paragraph my finger lands on starts off:

We might be able to reverse engineer the brain within ten years ...

No joke.
Hyperbole: He goes on to say this will never happen for economic reasons. He is using hyperbole to catch the readers attention with a tantalizing possibility, only to back down from this strong claim later in the text. If this isn't hyperbole, I don't know what is.
Incorrect: The brain was not engineered to begin with, so it cannot be reverse engineered.

Do the same thing, flip to a random page, and put your finger on the first sentence of a random chapter.
Whatever you read there will very likely contain an incorrect and hyperbolic statement.
This is his literary bread and butter!

 

[SeventhSigma]

I would disagree that that is hyperbole.

I mean, consider stuff like the Blue Brain Project: http://www.boingboing.net/2011/05/11/blue-brain-project-b.html

It doesn't seem unreasonable to think that the nature of neuron processing can be unraveled more intimately within the decade, but I do agree that there are economic obstacles. So I wouldn't disregard Kaku as using hyperbole -- but rather being frank about the fact that the technology/methodologies exist but there may be problems. I'd consider hyperbole to be something like "We will invent superluminal travel in the next 100 years" or something similar.

 

[Misericorde]

I would disagree that that is hyperbole.

I mean, consider stuff like the Blue Brain Project: http://www.boingboing.net/2011/05/11/blue-brain-project-b.html

It doesn't seem unreasonable to think that the nature of neuron processing can be unraveled more intimately within the decade, but I do agree that there are economic obstacles. So I wouldn't disregard Kaku as using hyperbole -- but rather being frank about the fact that the technology/methodologies exist but there may be problems. I'd consider hyperbole to be something like "We will invent superluminal travel in the next 100 years" or something similar.

Neurologists are still trying to reverse engineer the actions of individual neurons, never mind the entire brain. The notion that it could be replicated in 10 years is either laughable or truly insane. Frankly, it's right up there with saying that we'll be traveling FTL in a few decades... if we could just debunk Einstein.

 

[SeventhSigma]

Neurologists are still trying to reverse engineer the actions of individual neurons, never mind the entire brain. The notion that it could be replicated in 10 years is either laughable or truly insane. Frankly, it's right up there with saying that we'll be traveling FTL in a few decades... if we could just debunk Einstein.

Eh, I really, really disagree with that. We know a lot more about the brain than we do FTL travel, and the progress is already being made at pretty rampant speeds. Maybe 10 years is too aggressive of an estimation, sure -- that's entirely debatable. But even if it winds up being "way off" to the tune of 50 years, I'd say that's a pretty wild step forward.

 

[physics girl phd]

Lets tie him up and whack him with fishes.

Let's tie him up and whack him with some rotten fishes we've got wasting away in the ditches of our slum. Nothing like a head flying off a fish during a whacking... :yuck:

 

[Misericorde]

Eh, I really, really disagree with that. We know a lot more about the brain than we do FTL travel, and the progress is already being made at pretty rampant speeds. Maybe 10 years is too aggressive of an estimation, sure -- that's entirely debatable. But even if it winds up being "way off" to the tune of 50 years, I'd say that's a pretty wild step forward.

We know that both are so far off that speculation like his is absurd, that's what we know.

 

[phinds]

We know that both are so far off that speculation like his is absurd, that's what we know.

You should probably stop and think about all the things that people have "known" over human history. In practice, I agree w/ your assesment, but I think stating it as a fact is a real stretch.

 

[Misericorde]

You should probably stop and think about all the things that people have "known" over human history. In practice, I agree w/ your assesment, but I think stating it as a fact is a real stretch.

I'm not stating a fact, just refuting absurd claims made by "futurists". I don't claim to know much, but reverse engineering the BRAIN in 10 years is probably one of the more absurd claims I've heard since 'Indigo Children'. So, I won't claim what I say is fact, but it's closer than 10 years by (I THINK) orders of magnitude. Better?

 

[Darken-Sol]

I'm not stating a fact, just refuting absurd claims made by "futurists". I don't claim to know much, but reverse engineering the BRAIN in 10 years is probably one of the more absurd claims I've heard since 'Indigo Children'. So, I won't claim what I say is fact, but it's closer than 10 years by (I THINK) orders of magnitude. Better?

it is a question of ambition really. if 1 or 2 percent of the population contributed we could give achieve much. complacency kills progress. standards kill intuition. we kill everything alive. sorry had to add that last bit.

 

[SeventhSigma]

Let me go through the section of Kaku's book where he talks about reverse engineering the brain. I'll summarize it by points and you tell me if it sounds crazy:

From pages 87-95 of Physics of the Impossible:

Future of AI: Reverse Engineering the Brain:

1. By midcentury, we should be able to complete the next milestone in the history of AI: reverse engineering the human brain.

2. Optogenics is a first, modest step. The next step is to actually model the entire brain, using the latest in technology. There are at least two ways to solve this colossal problem, which will take many decades of hard work. The first is by using supercomputers to simulate the behavior of billions of neurons, each one connected to thousands of other neurons. The other way is to actually locate every neuron in the brain.

3. The key to the first approach, simulating the brain, is simple: raw computer power. The bigger the computer, the better. Brute force, and inelegant theories, may be the key to cracking this gigantic problem. And the computer that might accomplish this herculean task is called Blue Gene, one of the most powerful computers on earth, built by IBM [...] which is capable of 500 trillion operations per second.

4. What I was interested in was the fact that Blue Gene was simulating the thinking process of a mouse brain, which has about 2 million neurons (compared to the 100 billion neurons that we have). Simulating the thinking process of a mouse brain is harder than you think, because each neuron is connected to many other neurons, making a dense web of neurons. But while I was walking among rack after rack of consoles making up Blue Gene, I could not help but be amazed that this astounding computer power could simulating only the brain of a mouse, and then only for a few seconds. This does not mean that Blue Gene can simulate the behavior of a mouse. At present, scientists can barely simulate the behavior of a cockroach. Rather, this means that Blue Gene can simulate the firing of neurons found in a mouse, not its behavior.

5. Henry Markram [...] began in 2005 when he was able to obtain a small version of Blue Gene, with only 16,000 processors, but within a year he was successful in modeling the rat's neocortical column, part of the neocortex, which contains 10,000 neurons and 100 million connections. That was a landmark study because it meant that it was biologically possible to completely analyze the structure of an important component of the brain, neuron for neuron.

6. In 2009, Markram said optimistically, "It is not impossible to build a human brain and we can do it in ten years. If we build it correctly, it should speak and have an intelligence and behave very much as a human does." He cautions, however, that it would take a supercomputer 20,000 times more powerful than present supercomputers, with a memory storage 500 times the entire size of the current Internet, to achieve this.

7. So what is the roadblock preventing this colossal goal? To him, it's simple: money. [...] "It's not a question of years, it's one of dollars... it's a matter of if society wants this. If they want it in ten years, they'll have it in ten years. If they want it in a thousand years, they can wait."

8. A rival group [...] called Dawn [...] is truly a sight, with 147,456 processors with 150,000 gigabytes of memory. It is roughly 100,000 times more powerful than the computer sitting on your desk. [...] In 2006, it was able to simulate 40 percent of a mouse's brain. In 2007, it could simulate 100 percent of a rat's brain (which contains 55 million neurons, much more than the mouse brain). And in 2009, the group broke yet another world record. It succeeded in simulating 1 percent of the human cerebral cortex, or roughly the cerebral cortex of a cat, containing 1.6 billion neurons with 9 trillion connections. However, the simulation was slow, about 1/600th the speed of the human brain. If it simulated only a billion neurons, it went much faster, about 1/83rd the speed of the human brain.

9. We might be able to reverse engineer the brain within ten years, but only if we had a massive Manhattan Project-style crash program and dumped billions of dollars into it. However, this is not likely to happen any time soon, given the current economic climate. Crash programs like the Human Genome Project, which cost nearly $3 billion, were supported by the US government because of their obvious health and scientific benefits. However, the benefits of reverse engineering the brain are less urgent, and hence will take much longer. More realistically, we will approach this goal in smaller steps, and it may take decades to fully accomplish this historic feat.

10. It will take many decades, even after the human brain is finally reverse engineered, to understand how all the parts work and fit together.