GeekNights 071015 - Questions Week: Science and Tech

Rym

Tonight on GeekNights, we begin Questions Week with your questions about science and technology. We did this with no preparation or prior research. It was so long that it has been broken up into two parts, the second of which will appear at some point in the future. Enjoy.

rhinocero

Really interesting episode.
With regards to the "bringing a Roman to modern times": yeah, there's some stuff he could understand, but as soon as he saw an airplane, he would be outside the realm of understanding.

Rym

With regards to the "bringing a Roman to modern times": yeah, there's some stuff he could understand, but as soon as he saw an airplane, he would be outside the realm of understanding.
I don't think it would be. 
Roman: What's that?

Me: That's a flying machine we've made.

Roman: Oh.  Wow, a flying machine.  I'll bet you can get places real fast.
I imagine I could explain things like electricity in similar ways.  "It's lightning.  We make it, and it travels along metal pipes the same way water does.  We use it to do things."

rhinocero

With regards to the "bringing a Roman to modern times": yeah, there's some stuff he could understand, but as soon as he saw an airplane, he would be outside the realm of understanding.
I don't think it would be.
Roman:What's that? Me:That's a flying machine we've made. Roman:Oh.  Wow, a flying machine.  I'll bet you can get places real fast.
I imagine I could explain things like electricity in similar ways.  "It's lightning.  We make it, and it travels along metal pipes the same way water does.  We use it to do things."


But is that really understanding?
I mean, I'm sure that in a post-Singularity world you could come up with some explanation for all the phenomenon that occured, but I really doubt that any of those explanations would rise above the level of mythology (which, I think, is all your explanations amount to). Even if the mythology rose to such a level that a person could perform every conceivable task without actually understanding the underlying principles, that doesn't mean he would understand it, or be able to generate anything new.

MitchyD

You dudes make me want Boo Ray so bad.
 
Also, Quote of the Week
 
"Yerrrrp, Compooter the size of a barrrn dats ooook wid me!"

Dr. Timo

Regarding the Large Hadron Collider question, you got it almost right. In actuality scientists are very certain that nothing will ever happen to the fabric of space time at the LHC because the energies at which the machine operates are minuscule compared to cosmic ray collisions in the upper atmosphere. These collisions have been going on for all of earths existence, indeed for as long as there have been cosmic rays colliding with anything.

The chance that the LHC will trigger something, which these cosmic rays haven't in the past 14 billion years is, in science speak, "very small".

sK0pe

The episode was awesome, congratulations.
BU Ray is my fault, sorry, I posted that when I was at my brother's house and  he doesn't believe in Firefox and thus made a spelling error which didn't get picked up.  The answer you gave was great, it was staring at me the whole time, the media fad is coming to an end, I don't know why it didn't occur to me earlier.  I mean I have Steam installed, I download programs to watch off my hard disk or flash drive.  I wanted to here what your thoughts were on codecs but you obviously had to make time for other questions.
I've got a friend who lives in Tokyo half the year and the other half in Australia, he just has to check himself when going from Japan to Australia because of the lack of or lower dissemination / acceptance of consumer technologies.
I'm from the broad field of biological sciences and agree that Physics is the much more pure science.  I didn't even do any biology in final year high school, I just did Physics and Chemistry and out of all my subjects I scored most highly in Physics which I found to be like sitting an easy Calculus exam.  I digress, biology at the end of the day is more about rote larning and less about inherant laws upon which science is propelled.  Biology can also be surprisingly subjective, relative to Physics and Chemistry.  (Some may argue Chemistry is an offshoot of Physics).
I also agree that there is an amazing professionalism that you exude from your podcast, no obvious editing and dialogue is natural, as you described, people should get better with practice, however in most cases, they don't
 

HMTKSteve

With regards to the "bringing a Roman to modern times": yeah, there's some stuff he could understand, but as soon as he saw an airplane, he would be outside the realm of understanding.

I don't think it would be.

Roman:What's that?Me:That's a flying machine we've made.Roman:Oh. Wow, a flying machine. I'll bet you can get places real fast.

I imagine I could explain things like electricity in similar ways. "It's lightning. We make it, and it travels along metal pipes the same way water does. We use it to do things."

But is that really understanding?

I mean, I'm sure that in a post-Singularity world you could come up with some explanation for all the phenomenon that occured, but I really doubt that any of those explanations would rise above the level of mythology (which, I think, is all your explanations amount to). Even if the mythology rose to such a level that a person could perform every conceivable task without actually understanding the underlying principles, that doesn't mean he would understand it, or be able to generate anything new.

How much of the world around you do you currently understand vs. things you just accept without full understanding?

...

I imagine I could explain things like electricity in similar ways. "It's lightning. We make it, and it travels along metal pipes the same way water does. We use it to do things."

*Roman drops to his knees at your feet* "YES! We've mastered your deity's power and use it for trivial tasks as lighting up our houses at night!"

xenomouse

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Large Hadron Collider.



I have to admit, that was not the answer I was expecting. Following up, at what point does the risk/benefit ratio of pushing science further becomes absolutely prohibitive? I think you mentioned something in the episode about cost; for example, we'll eventually just not be able to view anything smaller or store data more compactly, etc.



Where do we draw the line on risk?

HMTKSteve

Where do we draw the line onrisk?

There is no line, it is only imaginary.

Apreche

Where do we draw the line onrisk?

When it outweighs the benefit.

...

Where do we draw the line onrisk?

When it outweighs the benefit.

Or when the risk is huge.

rhinocero

 
With regards to the "bringing a Roman to modern times": yeah, there's some stuff he could understand, but as soon as he saw an airplane, he would be outside the realm of understanding.
I don't think it would be.
Roman:What's that?Me:That's a flying machine we've made.Roman:Oh. Wow, a flying machine. I'll bet you can get places real fast.
I imagine I could explain things like electricity in similar ways. "It's lightning. We make it, and it travels along metal pipes the same way water does. We use it to do things."
But is that really understanding?
I mean, I'm sure that in a post-Singularity world you could come up with some explanation for all the phenomenon that occured, but I really doubt that any of those explanations would rise above the level of mythology (which, I think, is all your explanations amount to). Even if the mythology rose to such a level that a person could perform every conceivable task without actually understanding the underlying principles, that doesn't mean he would understand it, or be able to generate anything new.
How much of the world around you do you currently understand vs. things you just accept without full understanding?

There's a lot I do not understand, but I can gain an understanding of most of them with enough study - especially of easily visible phenomen like planes. 
Still, that's a good point.

TheWhaleShark

OK, I'll weigh in on the hard sciences business.

Physics is definitely the hardest of sciences. Yes, it can be used to explain everything that the "less hard" sciences explain. However, explaining and understanding, say, the human circulatory system, using only physics terminology, would be really really difficult. It's much easier to grasp the concept using the principles of biology, and much easier to manipulate on that level. You can explain it with physics, but it winds up being unwieldy. I mean, try explaining every single aspect of the modern synthesis of evolution using only physics. You can do it, but it's much simpler and more accessible to use biology; making it more accessible makes it easier to study, which in turn will increase the rate of increase of understanding in that field.

Personally, I'd say you should pick the hard science that addresses what you want to study and what you care about.

Symmetry

As Scott intimated, there are actual limits to how power efficient a computer can be, or how much information you can cram into a given volume.

We're not at all close to the power efficiency limit yet. The laws of physics seem to allow for computers that are about a trillion times more powerful than a Core 2 Duo that run at room temperature and dissipate the same amount of heat. As for maximum information densities possible, I have to say I've seen different number derived in different ways and because these all involve quantum physics pretty directly I don't feel I can adequately judge between them. I've seen number ranging from between 10^25 bits/kg to 10^32 bits/kg.


With regards to the notion of a technological singularity, well, just read the Wikipedia page.

Paulathon

I have a physics degree, and I agree with what WhaleShark said. There were a few people in my class who had a superiority complex about physics but I had no time for that shit. It's all science and it's all equally fascinating to me, I just happened to pick that particular field.

HungryJoe

I have a Physics degree too, but by the time I was taking senior level courses, I started to wish had majored in Electrical Engineering or Chemistry instead. The thing with Physics is that, if you actually want to be a working physicist, you need to get at least an M.S. degree. By the time I was finished with my B.S., I didn't want to see another physics problem for as long as I lived; so the idea of getting an M.S. was about as repugnant as getting an MBA. There are lots more real things you can do in the outside world with a B.S. in Chemistry or a B.S.E.E. than with a B.S. in Physics.

There were a few people in my class who had a superiority complex about physics but I had no time for that shit.

I don't have a superiority complex about Physics with respect to other sciences, but it's really hard not to feel just a bit superior to all those people you meet in law school with degrees in History, English, or Political Science. I didn't have to work a fraction as hard to get my B.S. in History than I did to get my B.S. in Physics. I nearly have enough credits for a B.S. in English from just taking courses for fun.