the "impossibilities" of science.

[fulano]

Actually, if there were "forward time travel", it would depend on the perspective of a person moving at some fraction the speed of light-or vulgarly speaking: FAST.

Hypotetically speaking: Suppose a super-chimp climbs on a ship, and then travelled to, say, Alpha Centauri(which is 4.37 lightyears away) and back at a speed of, say, 0.5c(half the speed of light), for us, it would take him 17.47 years, but for the chimp, Time would dilate, things would appear as if just a few moments went by(considering he is moving at half the speed of light, and that if you moved at the speed of light, stuff would appear to be instantaneous to you), ergo, to him, He went forward in time.

There, the super-chimp just traveled forward in time.

EDIT: Traveling backwards, that's just weird. And dare I say, not possible, to my knowledge.

 

[defcon 1]

A machine that can prove anything with 100% certainty (vs 99.99999%)

A machine that will calculate all of Pi

A machine that can measure the EXACT whereabouts of any particle

Allergy medication that actually works

 

[fulano]

A machine that can prove anything with 100% certainty (vs 99.99999%)

A machine that will calculate all of Pi

A machine that can measure the EXACT whereabouts of any particle

Allergy medication that actually works

Ehm, the first argument I don't get. A machine that can prove something a 100%. Anything?

Aecond, you can't calculate all of Pi because Pi is an irrational number, ergo, an infinite string of digits asymptotically reaching an end point but never quite getting there. Pi doesn't converge anywhere. So ye, a machine will NEVER calculate all of Pi, but in theory, it could keep calculating digits ad-infinitum.

Third, what do you mean by a machine that can measure the EXACT whereabouts of any particle? what do you mean by whereabouts? mass, angular momenta, spin? I don't get it. Though, I guess, and if I'm following you correctly, I can say Werner Heisenberg(a physicist that lieked quantum stuff) stipulated a certain inequality that states that you can't know the momentum of a particle AND the position of that same particle at the same time. Measuring one at one point makes uncertain the other, and so far nobody's proven him wrong; so if that's what you mean, then yes. You can't measure the EXACT whereabouts of any particle. You can get close, though.

As for the allergy medication, that depends on what working means for you. So far, there's work being done in those areas.

 

[Limos]

Impossibilities?

Well lightsabers first of all. Not that they can't make them, just that they wouldn't work like in the movies, and they would be stupid anyway.

Something I expect we won't make are lasers. when you think about it lasers aren't really that great. I seriously think that riddling the opposing army with 3000 metallic projectiles per second is going to be much more effective than any laser.


Something I expect we will be seeing in the future, nanobots and extensive genetic tampering. You just know once we get our sticky fingers into the genepool we aren't going to hold back. I expect very strange genetic adaptations. I also expect cybertechnology to be popular. Especially implanted technology and bloodstream nanites. (Personally I think those would be cool to have.)


Basically I think the one thing humanity can't do with technology is keep us human. I expect a future filled with Splicers and Borg. Resistance is Futile.



EDIT: One more thing. Technology will be unable to find a way to fix the universe after we inevitably destroy it. You just know someone down the line is going to try to build a bomb that destroys everything everywhere including space and time. And of course something will go horribly wrong and the whole universe is caput. You know it's gonna happen eventually.

 

[sma_warrior]

Teleportation - physical impossibility

Teleportation is already being worked on with ATOMS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3811785.stm

 

[fulano]

That's not "teleportation" as the way we undertand it(PORTAL, star trek). That deals with quantum entanglements and tranference of quantum states, not matter or energy. That's a gross over simplification, to my understanding.

 

[Birras]

When will people realise that nothing is absolute? The only certainty is the passage of time, no matter how a man lives thier life, time carries on.(Shiny e-cookie for the person who can guess where that line came from.)

 

[SilentHunter7]

Considering we still have yet to fully explain gravity, something that scientists have been trying to explain since Newton, I'd say there's still a lot out there to be discovered.

 

[defcon 1]

Ehm, the first argument I don't get. A machine that can prove something a 100%. Anything?

It's impossible to completely prove anything. A machine or just a way. Doesn't matter.

Aecond, you can't calculate all of Pi because Pi is an irrational number, ergo, an infinite string of digits asymptotically reaching an end point but never quite getting there. Pi doesn't converge anywhere. So ye, a machine will NEVER calculate all of Pi, but in theory, it could keep calculating digits ad-infinitum.

Ok, I should say sometime before eternity.

As for the allergy medication, that depends on what working means for you. So far, there's work being done in those areas.

That was a joke. By working I mean I can step outside, or get within 10 feet of pets and dust and not blow out half my body mass in snot.

 

[Nordstrom]

To understand the human mind at a complete level, you would need several hundred years of continual research by a team of neuroscientists, psychologists and sociologists who all have Ph.D-level education. no-one would be willing to fund this, nor would that many people all be able to work as a team for an extended period of time.

There are hundreds of neuroscientists studying the human brain. You're saying that it will take several hundred years. That's pretty short. Even if it takes ten times that long, it's still a lot shorter than never.

Given exponential growth in computing power and brain scanning resolution, it's only a matter of time before the brain is fully mapped. The big question is: how long will the exponential growth in computing power continue? Will it continue long enough to map and model the brain?

A machine that can prove anything with 100% certainty (vs 99.99999%)

A machine that will calculate all of Pi

A machine that can measure the EXACT whereabouts of any particle

Clever.

Getting nitpicky:

Given a set of appropriate mathematical propositions, a machine can obtain a 100% proof. It's easy to imagine a proof that can be computed in a way that does not involve rounding errors.

 

[The Franco]

Divide by Zero. None of this limit B.S., or some silly frenchman's rule, I'm talking straight up 1/0.

Note: While not specifically science, math is the language scientists use to describe their surroundings, so it counts in my mind.

 

[Anomynous 167]

Faster than light travel IS possible... But it is impossible to see the difference (as checking how fast something at going faster than light would be the equivalent of timing a person in a 100 metre sprint with a stopwatch with your eyes closed)

Time travel is also possible as right now we are going 1 minute into the future every 60 seconds.

Something I expect we won't make are lasers. when you think about it lasers aren't really that great. I seriously think that riddling the opposing army with 3000 metallic projectiles per second is going to be much more effective than any laser.

Lasers would have other uses in the military fool, they could act as flares or a cheap way to blind the enemy (As I recall there is a greanade in Counter Strike with that efect). After all a broken monitor is not useless as it would make a perfect door stop or paper weight.

 

[SM0SS]

In reply to aussiesniper's list of items pertaining to emulating the human nervous system, your denying that is impossible to reproduce a system that is easily created every day by biological systems, it's just a matter of getting systems that can do that. Not only that but the human brain is no where near as efficient as is possible. Finally, the vast majority of networking companies would want to get a system like that, simply because it would be capable of operating an entire network of computers to do massive calculations. Sorry for the rant.

 

[fulano]

Ehm, the first argument I don't get. A machine that can prove something a 100%. Anything?

It's impossible to completely prove anything. A machine or just a way. Doesn't matter.

Aecond, you can't calculate all of Pi because Pi is an irrational number, ergo, an infinite string of digits asymptotically reaching an end point but never quite getting there. Pi doesn't converge anywhere. So ye, a machine will NEVER calculate all of Pi, but in theory, it could keep calculating digits ad-infinitum.

Ok, I should say sometime before eternity.

As for the allergy medication, that depends on what working means for you. So far, there's work being done in those areas.

That was a joke. By working I mean I can step outside, or get within 10 feet of pets and dust and not blow out half my body mass in snot.

The thing about proving "anything" a hundred percent makes no sense, actually. If you have two fermions(particles), you can be 100%(and I mean it) sure that they can't occupy the same quantum state at the same time. EVER. It's been proven in physics.

There are certainties in nature, so far, like if you go beyond the event horizon of a black hole, it's been proven 100%, that you are toast, lost, whatever, we can't know what happened to you afterwards. There's no signal from you that comes back. Not even light comes back. That phylosophical way of seeing things can't get you far, I think.

As for Pi, there are some things that just can't be done, given certain properties that they have. Irrational numbers can't EVER be comletely calculated. That's one of their properties, and not an impossibility in science.

 

[Nordstrom]

Ehm, the first argument I don't get. A machine that can prove something a 100%. Anything?

It's impossible to completely prove anything.

So it's impossible to prove that it?s impossible to completely prove anything, I think god had that same problem with a rock. What I?m trying to say is if its impossible to completely prove anything then it would be impossible to prove that "its impossible to completely prove anything."

Given a set of axioms, proofs can be derived. These proofs are 100% accurate. For example: sin^2 + cos^2 = 1. Given how sin and cos are defined, the proof can be shown to be true.

In coming to conclusions about measurements in the world, proof isn't the appropriate terminology. There's always measurement error, even if it's small. We can be very sure of something (to 99.99999% if it's easy enough to measure) but 100% certainty implies 100% confidence in the measurement techniques. There are always errors, even if they are small.

 

[fulano]

I'm guessing he meant it, as in nature, I guess.

And I stand firm. So far, there are certainties in nature. Who knows, in the future, when the universe stretches far-far-from where it is now, and starts cooling and stuff.

 

[Nordstrom]

There are certainties in nature, so far, like if you go beyond the event horizon of a black hole, it's been proven 100%, that you are toast, lost, whatever, we can't know what happened to you afterwards. There's no signal from you that comes back. Not even light comes back. That phylosophical way of seeing things can't get you far, I think.

In theory, black holes do emit stuff. It's called Hawking radiation. In practice, we don't have a way to measure it yet.

 

[Nordstrom]

Ehm, the first argument I don't get. A machine that can prove something a 100%. Anything?

It's impossible to completely prove anything.

So it's impossible to prove that it?s impossible to completely prove anything, I think god had that same problem with a rock. What I?m trying to say is if its impossible to completely prove anything then it would be impossible to prove that "its impossible to completely prove anything."

Given a set of axioms, proofs can be derived. These proofs are 100% accurate. For example: sin^2 + cos^2 = 1. Given how sin and cos are defined, the proof can be shown to be true.

In coming to conclusions about measurements in the world, proof isn't the appropriate terminology. There's always measurement error, even if it's small. We can be very sure of something (to 99.99999% if it's easy enough to measure) but 100% certainty implies 100% confidence in the measurement techniques. There are always errors, even if they are small.

This means there?s error in what you have just written, making it not a 100% certain. Which means it may be wrong and the opposite may be right, however improbable.

Yes, given that my statements are a type of measurement (my best understanding of the issue), I could be wrong. I'm pretty certain I'm right (99%), but you might want to look it up for yourself.

 

[fulano]

Dude, you are getting into semantics...what he said was plain enough.

 

[Rabid Toilet]

The thing about proving "anything" a hundred percent makes no sense, actually. If you have two fermions(particles), you can be 100%(and I mean it) sure that they can't occupy the same quantum state at the same time. EVER. It's been proven in physics.

There are certainties in nature, so far, like if you go beyond the event horizon of a black hole, it's been proven 100%, that you are toast, lost, whatever, we can't know what happened to you afterwards. There's no signal from you that comes back. Not even light comes back. That phylosophical way of seeing things can't get you far, I think.

As for Pi, there are some things that just can't be done, given certain properties that they have. Irrational numbers can't EVER be comletely calculated. That's one of their properties, and not an impossibility in science.

WARNING: Big physics nerd rant ahoy!

-----------------------------

Okay, this whole explanation just annoys me. Especially the "It's been proven in physics." part.

Physics has never, in the history of the subject, proven anything to be absolutely true. Physics is just incredibly complicated guess work, with the so-called "Laws of Physics" simply being observations scientists have made that, so far, have not had enough evidence against them to be considered false. Every "Law" of the universe, including Newton's laws and E=mc^2, can be changed, or completely thrown out, if we find new information to disprove them.

Your "two particles can't occupy the same quantum state" thing holds water in every situation that has been observed, and all of the equations that have been made in these situations make us pretty damn sure that it's not possible. However, this is not 100% proof. However unlikely the chances, there is still a possibility that, in conditions we are not aware of and cannot currently test, it is possible for those two particles to be in the same place at once.

On to the black hole's event horizon. There is nothing that we are aware of that can escape the gravity well of a collapsed neutron star. If something weren't affected by gravity, though, it could move freely in and out of the event horizon with no adverse effects. While we are almost positive that no such thing exists, there is still the slim possibility that it does, but we are not able to detect it. That also doesn't take into account something moving faster than the speed of light. If something was discovered, be it matter, energy, or something else entirely, that could break the universal speed limit, it might have no problem escaping the event horizon of a black hole.

No matter how small the chance, it will always exist, making it impossible to completely prove something.

The Pi thing, though, is totally right. It's not a limitation of technology, irrational numbers can't be calculated exactly because they never end. Ever.