Re: Dark energy-powered devices

[Mason Green]

> That would indeed be like a giant atom, so we would have to have a quantum 
> theory of gravity to know if that would work, and we don't have such a 
> theory. Quantum theory tells us those orbiting changes could not be in just 
> any old orbit but can only be in discrete quantized orbits, and the energy 
> radiated away would not be continuous but would come out in chunks . 
> Maxwell's equations are only approximately correct.  

That’s true, but I’m not sure how significant quantum effects (or quantum 
gravity effects) would be on such a large scale.


> I don't think that would work, if it did then if you hung a spring vertically 
> from a hook in a gravitational field and gave it a small oscillation the 
> spring's oscillation would get larger and larger until it tore itself apart.  
> But that's not what we observe.

Well, in a gravitational field like Earth’s the force pulling down on the 
spring is constant (it’s the weight of the spring itself and whatever is 
attached to it, which doesn’t vary significantly with height over the distances 
we observe). With a constant rather than an oscillating force, you won’t get 
amplification of oscillations. Dark energy curves space in a different manner 
than the presence of an ordinary mass like a planet, so the situations aren’t 
exactly analogous.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

[John Clark]

On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 5:23 PM Mason Green  wrote:

*>So far I’ve thought of two possible classes of device that could do this.
> The first is the “giant atom”, consisting of two spheres of equal but
> opposite charge orbiting each other at an extremely long distance (long
> enough that dark energy becomes significant). At such a distance, dark
> energy would cause the objects’ orbits to spiral further and further apart.
> On the other hand, because the objects are charged, they radiate away
> energy as they orbit, and this radiation provides a braking force that
> would cause the objects to spiral closer together. If the two effects are
> perfectly balanced, the orbits would be stable and the system would keep
> radiating away energy forever—energy extracted from the acceleration in the
> universe’s expansion.*


That would indeed be like a giant atom, so we would have to have a quantum
theory of gravity to know if that would work, and we don't have such a
theory. Quantum theory tells us those orbiting changes could not be in just
any old orbit but can only be in discrete quantized orbits, and the
energy radiated away would not be continuous but would come out in chunks .
Maxwell's equations are only approximately correct.


> *> The second device consists of an extremely long spring. Due to dark
> energy, the spring experiences a fictitious force pulling it apart. This
> force is stronger when the spring is fully extended, due to the longer
> distance between the ends. Thus an oscillating spring would experience an
> oscillating force, and have energy continually added to it, increasing the
> amplitude of its oscillations.*
>

I don't think that would work, if it did then if you hung a spring
vertically from a hook in a gravitational field and gave it a small
oscillation the spring's oscillation would get larger and larger until it
tore itself apart.  But that's not what we observe.

John K Clark





>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

[Mason Green]

I saw a discussion on Physics Forums about an idea similar to yours (involving 
spools of string steadily unrolling due to dark energy. One poster asked what 
would happen once the string ran out, the other person said you could just 
create more length of string with the energy you generated.

There is the issue of what happens when the string becomes too long; the force 
from dark energy would make it snap, even if it were made from carbon 
nanotubes. 

I think what makes my ideas different is that they involve oscillatory motion 
(cycles) rather than linear. I hadn’t seen any ideas like that before.

Another dark energy-related problem I’ve been thinking of a lot is how dark 
energy would affect large (cosmological-sized) black holes. Would the black 
hole become more massive over time (like reverse Hawking radiation) due to dark 
energy pulling it apart? Of course the usual equations relating mass to 
Schwarzschild radius and temperature, etc. would no longer hold.

-Mason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

[John Clark]

On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 5:23 PM Mason Green  wrote:

*> It appears as though it would indeed be possible to build a device
> powered by dark energy. Such a device could keep running forever (as long
> as the universe keeps expanding forever and vacuum decay doesn’t occur) and
> be able to survive (or prevent) the heat death of the universe. Even proton
> decay would not present a problem; new protons could always be created from
> the energy generated.*


I agree.


> * > As far as I know, neither of these devices has been proposed before in
> the literature; I might have been the first person to come up with them.*
>


Well... on August 4 2012 I sent this to Fabric Of Reality List:

"Could we still extract an infinite amount of energy from the real universe
and thus perform an infinite number of calculations? Perhaps.

Suppose you had 2 spools of string connected together by an axle and you
extended the 2 strings to cosmological distances 180 degrees apart from
each other. As long as the Dark Energy force between the atoms in the
string that were trying to force them apart was not stronger than the
attractive electromagnetic force holding the atoms of the string together
the string would not expand as the universe expanded, so there would be a
tension on the strings, so there would be torque on the spool, so the axle
would rotate. The axle could be connected to an electric generator and it
seems to me you'd get useful work out of it. Of course you'd have to
constantly add more mass-energy in the form of more string to keep it
operating, but the amount of mass per unit length of string would remain
constant, however because the universe is accelerating the amount of energy
per unit length of string you'd get out of it would not remain constant but
would increase asymptotically to infinity. If the theories about the Big
Rip turn out to be true and the acceleration of the universe is itself
accelerating then it should be even easier to extract infinite energy out
of the universe; it would just be a simple matter of cosmological
engineering. What could go wrong?

If you have infinite energy then you can perform an infinite number of
calculations, so you could have an infinite number of thoughts, so you
would have no last thought (the definition of death), so subjectively you
would live forever. Of course the objective universe might have a different
opinion on the matter and insist that everything including you had come to
an end, but that hardly matters, subjectivity is far more important than
objectivity; at least I think so."

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Dark energy-powered devices

[Mason Green]

It appears as though it would indeed be possible to build a device powered by 
dark energy. Such a device could keep running forever (as long as the universe 
keeps expanding forever and vacuum decay doesn’t occur) and be able to survive 
(or prevent) the heat death of the universe. Even proton decay would not 
present a problem; new protons could always be created from the energy 
generated.

So far I’ve thought of two possible classes of device that could do this. The 
first is the “giant atom”, consisting of two spheres of equal but opposite 
charge orbiting each other at an extremely long distance (long enough that dark 
energy becomes significant). At such a distance, dark energy would cause the 
objects’ orbits to spiral further and further apart. On the other hand, because 
the objects are charged, they radiate away energy as they orbit, and this 
radiation provides a braking force that would cause the objects to spiral 
closer together. If the two effects are perfectly balanced, the orbits would be 
stable and the system would keep radiating away energy forever—energy extracted 
from the acceleration in the universe’s expansion.

The second device consists of an extremely long spring. Due to dark energy, the 
spring experiences a fictitious force pulling it apart. This force is stronger 
when the spring is fully extended, due to the longer distance between the ends. 
Thus an oscillating spring would experience an oscillating force, and have 
energy continually added to it, increasing the amplitude of its oscillations. 
To keep the string from breaking, a mechanism for extracting energy from the 
spring would have to be added, and if energy is extracted at the same rate it 
is added the system would be stable.

As far as I know, neither of these devices has been proposed before in the 
literature; I might have been the first person to come up with them.

Perhaps we should look for signs of these devices being constructed, in the 
event highly advanced alien civilizations might be constructing them. Any 
civilization that constructs such a device would probably qualify as Type IV. 
With infinite energy it’d be possible to do an endless variety of things: run a 
universal dovetailer, or resurrect the dead (simply by resurrecting every 
person who COULD have ever existed, a set that obviously includes every person 
who DID actually exist), etc.

-Mason Green

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Energy efficiency of different programming languages

[Philip Thrift]

On Tuesday, April 2, 2019 at 12:03:06 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/2/2019 2:35 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
> "Analogical rendering" is a perfectly good programming paradigm.
>
> *Engineers Develop Analog Computing Compiler *
>
> https://www.engineering.com/DesignerEdge/DesignerEdgeArticles/ArticleID/13340/Engineers-Develop-Analog-Computing-Compiler-for-Biological-Simulations-More.aspx
>
> "The high-level language of the compiler makes use of differential 
> equations, which are frequently used to describe biological systems."
>
> "Researchers from MIT have presented a new compiler designed for analog 
> computers. The compiler, called Arco, takes sets of differential equations 
> as its input and translates them into circuits in programmable analog 
> devices."
>
>
> Sounds like old news.  Fifty years ago the Navy built real-time 
> simulations in which air-launched missiles were tested.  They were run on 
> analog computers programed by wiring on big plug boards.  Thirty years ago 
> these were replaced by analog computers which were programmed by digital 
> computers.  
>
> Brent
>



We are bioanalog computers.

*Stanford creates biological transistors, the final step towards computers 
inside living cells*
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/152074-stanford-creates-biological-transistors-the-final-step-towards-computers-inside-living-cells

*DNA Circuits for Analog Computing*
https://users.cs.duke.edu/~reif/courses/molcomplectures/DNAanalog/DNAanalog(Tianqi)/DNAanalog(Tianqi).pdf
https://users.cs.duke.edu/~reif/courses/molcomplectures/DNAanalog/DNAanalog(Tianqi)/DNAanalog(Tianqi).pdf
 


One day people will be outputs of compilers.

- pt

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Energy efficiency of different programming languages

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 4/2/2019 2:35 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:

"Analogical rendering" is a perfectly good programming paradigm.

*Engineers Develop Analog Computing Compiler *
https://www.engineering.com/DesignerEdge/DesignerEdgeArticles/ArticleID/13340/Engineers-Develop-Analog-Computing-Compiler-for-Biological-Simulations-More.aspx

"The high-level language of the compiler makes use of differential 
equations, which are frequently used to describe biological systems."


"Researchers from MIT have presented a new compiler designed for 
analog computers. The compiler, called Arco, takes sets of 
differential equations as its input and translates them into circuits 
in programmable analog devices."




Sounds like old news.  Fifty years ago the Navy built real-time 
simulations in which air-launched missiles were tested.  They were run 
on analog computers programed by wiring on big plug boards. Thirty years 
ago these were replaced by analog computers which were programmed by 
digital computers.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Energy efficiency of different programming languages

[Philip Thrift]

On Tuesday, April 2, 2019 at 3:19:36 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 1 Apr 2019, at 20:08, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, April 1, 2019 at 11:46:25 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 31 Mar 2019, at 19:50, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, March 31, 2019 at 11:58:46 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 30 Mar 2019, at 07:15, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://thenewstack.io/which-programming-languages-use-the-least-electricity/
>>>
>>> Which language one uses makes a physical difference.
>>>
>>>
>>> That is correct, interesting for the application, but not directly 
>>> relevant for the “ontological problem” and the mind-body problem.
>>>
>>> Physics is not able to make any prediction without assuming something 
>>> (what exactly) capable of selecting our computation in arithmetic. 
>>> Theologically, it still invoke an ontology, which cannot be done when doing 
>>> science.
>>>
>>> The fact that efficient computation “survives”, and non efficient do 
>>> not, requires magic if the environnement does not map the finitely many 
>>> accessible histories at (or below) our substitution level.
>>>
>>> A quantum computation does not require any energy, note. And both 
>>> observation, and mechanism seems to force the physical reality into a 
>>> combinatory algebra without Kestrel (Kxy = x, which eliminates the 
>>> information in y), nor Starling S (Sxyz = xz(yz)) nor any duplicator (no 
>>> Mocking Bird like M, Mx = xx). Information cannot be physically created, 
>>> nor eliminated, nor duplicated. 
>>>
>>> We can still have Turing universality without eliminators. Yet we lost 
>>> Turing universality when we have no eliminators and no duplicators, but we 
>>> can regain it with adding “measurement” modal operator (internally defined, 
>>> or not). That is the combinatory BCI algebra, with a core physics where 
>>> energy is a constant, and computations use no energy, yet relative 
>>> subcomputation are allowed to make relative measurement, leading to 
>>> apparent (indexical) breaking of the core laws, and apparent elimination of 
>>> “memories”. There are Turing universal group and group have natural mesure 
>>> theory associated with them, but again, such group must be justified 
>>> mathematically (and theologically to get the private (first person) parts 
>>> not eliminated). 
>>>
>>> Thinking of group, I have said that physics is a symphony played by the 
>>> number 0, 1, e, PI, gamma, and with the number 24 has chief orchestra. To 
>>> be honest, my motivation comes more from physics and number theory than 
>>> from Metamathematics (mathematical logic, machine theology), and it makes 
>>> me nervous that the number theorist stumble on the right physics before the 
>>> theologian (leading to an arithmeticalism still capable of eliminating the 
>>> first person for awhile). Here is a nice video where John Baez explains 
>>> well why he likes 24 too, and its main role in String Theory (the Riemann 
>>> regularisation). I think about this when mentioning group theory, as 24 is 
>>> related to the Monster Group and Moonshine (where deep relation occurs 
>>> between fundamental physics and number theory).
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzjbRhYjELo
>>>
>>> To be sure, my favorite reason to love 24 is more the one related to 
>>> Hardy Rademacher and Ramanujan exact formula for the number of partition of 
>>> a number. That plays also some role in fundamental chemistry and 
>>> classification of “orbitals” (or quantum stationary waves).
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Every programming language has physical semantics 
>>
>>
>> But a term like physics has not yet understandable semantics. Carnap and 
>> Popper made some try in that direction, but it leads to many difficulties. 
>> It is part of the beauty of mechanism that it provides a semantic of the 
>> physical proposition, without invoking any ontological commitment (beyond 
>> the terms needed to have the notion of universal machine (in the 
>> Turing-Post-Church-Kleene sense).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- which depends on its material computing substrate
>>
>>
>> That seems very weird to me. If something is a programming language, it 
>> can be implemented in a physical realm, but it is also implemented in the 
>> arithmetical realm, and anything emulated in that programming language 
>> cannot see any difference if the original emulator is the physical one or 
>> the arithmetical one. That is logically impossible, even without assuming 
>> mechanism.
>>
>> If you want a dependence from the substrate, you need a non 
>> computaionalist theory of mind, and you need to singularise matter with 
>> actual infinities, a bit like lowing down the substitution level up to some 
>> real numbers and oracles with some infinite precision.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- in addition to (substrate-independent) denotational and operational 
>> semantics . That includes quantum programming languages, like QASM [ 
>> 

Re: Energy efficiency of different programming languages

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 1 Apr 2019, at 20:08, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, April 1, 2019 at 11:46:25 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 31 Mar 2019, at 19:50, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sunday, March 31, 2019 at 11:58:46 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 30 Mar 2019, at 07:15, Philip Thrift > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> https://thenewstack.io/which-programming-languages-use-the-least-electricity/
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Which language one uses makes a physical difference.
>> 
>> That is correct, interesting for the application, but not directly relevant 
>> for the “ontological problem” and the mind-body problem.
>> 
>> Physics is not able to make any prediction without assuming something (what 
>> exactly) capable of selecting our computation in arithmetic. Theologically, 
>> it still invoke an ontology, which cannot be done when doing science.
>> 
>> The fact that efficient computation “survives”, and non efficient do not, 
>> requires magic if the environnement does not map the finitely many 
>> accessible histories at (or below) our substitution level.
>> 
>> A quantum computation does not require any energy, note. And both 
>> observation, and mechanism seems to force the physical reality into a 
>> combinatory algebra without Kestrel (Kxy = x, which eliminates the 
>> information in y), nor Starling S (Sxyz = xz(yz)) nor any duplicator (no 
>> Mocking Bird like M, Mx = xx). Information cannot be physically created, nor 
>> eliminated, nor duplicated. 
>> 
>> We can still have Turing universality without eliminators. Yet we lost 
>> Turing universality when we have no eliminators and no duplicators, but we 
>> can regain it with adding “measurement” modal operator (internally defined, 
>> or not). That is the combinatory BCI algebra, with a core physics where 
>> energy is a constant, and computations use no energy, yet relative 
>> subcomputation are allowed to make relative measurement, leading to apparent 
>> (indexical) breaking of the core laws, and apparent elimination of 
>> “memories”. There are Turing universal group and group have natural mesure 
>> theory associated with them, but again, such group must be justified 
>> mathematically (and theologically to get the private (first person) parts 
>> not eliminated). 
>> 
>> Thinking of group, I have said that physics is a symphony played by the 
>> number 0, 1, e, PI, gamma, and with the number 24 has chief orchestra. To be 
>> honest, my motivation comes more from physics and number theory than from 
>> Metamathematics (mathematical logic, machine theology), and it makes me 
>> nervous that the number theorist stumble on the right physics before the 
>> theologian (leading to an arithmeticalism still capable of eliminating the 
>> first person for awhile). Here is a nice video where John Baez explains well 
>> why he likes 24 too, and its main role in String Theory (the Riemann 
>> regularisation). I think about this when mentioning group theory, as 24 is 
>> related to the Monster Group and Moonshine (where deep relation occurs 
>> between fundamental physics and number theory).
>> 
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzjbRhYjELo 
>> 
>> 
>> To be sure, my favorite reason to love 24 is more the one related to Hardy 
>> Rademacher and Ramanujan exact formula for the number of partition of a 
>> number. That plays also some role in fundamental chemistry and 
>> classification of “orbitals” (or quantum stationary waves).
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Every programming language has physical semantics
> 
> But a term like physics has not yet understandable semantics. Carnap and 
> Popper made some try in that direction, but it leads to many difficulties. It 
> is part of the beauty of mechanism that it provides a semantic of the 
> physical proposition, without invoking any ontological commitment (beyond the 
> terms needed to have the notion of universal machine (in the 
> Turing-Post-Church-Kleene sense).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> -- which depends on its material computing substrate
> 
> That seems very weird to me. If something is a programming language, it can 
> be implemented in a physical realm, but it is also implemented in the 
> arithmetical realm, and anything emulated in that programming language cannot 
> see any difference if the original emulator is the physical one or the 
> arithmetical one. That is logically impossible, even without assuming 
> mechanism.
> 
> If you want a dependence from the substrate, you need a non computaionalist 
> theory of mind, and you need to singularise matter with actual infinities, a 
> bit like lowing down the substitution level up to some real numbers and 
> oracles with some infinite precision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> -- in addition to (substrate-independent) denotational and operational 
>> semantics . That includes quantum programming languages, like QASM [ 
>>