Comments on: Berserkers and Singularities: Why 2nd-Thermo Matters

By: T.N.

T.N. — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:53:53 +0000

SPARKLY PICTURE!

By: Morgan J. Locke

Morgan J. Locke — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:48:15 +0000

Also, while I'm jabbering on about physics and entropy and info theory, I've meant to mention that Cory Doctorow has a great essay out on the Singularity. I want to respond at some point, because I think he is right in one sense but wrong in another--but in the meantime it's a thought provoking essay, and worth a read.

By: Morgan J. Locke

Morgan J. Locke — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:40:44 +0000

Btw, y'all, speaking of astronomy and physics, I believe I've mentioned this before, but I just have to again. If you're not signed up at The Galaxy Zoo, really, go check it out. It is way too cool. You actually get to help astronomers categorize galaxies. It's like playing your favorite videogame, only you're actually doing something to further science.

By: Morgan J. Locke

Morgan J. Locke — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:35:30 +0000

I’ll definitely have to look for it.

I love astronomy and physics. I sometimes wish I had chosen that as my major in college, rather than engineering.

By: Ted

Ted — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:55:33 +0000

Yes, I think it’s a good book. It shows that you can cover quite a bit of the history of astronomy by examining Olbers’ paradox, which made me wonder why the paradox isn’t more widely discussed and taught.

By: Morgan J. Locke

Morgan J. Locke — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:49:17 +0000

Thanks, Ted. I have to confess that I merely scanned the wiki article. Your explanation makes perfect sense. I’ve made a tweak in the text to correct my error.

Do you recommend Darkness at Night?

By: Ted

Ted — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:39:19 +0000

The Wikipedia article that I linked to in my previous comment outlines the current best theory, which is also described in Edward Harrison's Darkness at Night. It's a combination of the fact that the universe is expanding, which redshifts the light into microwave background radiation, and the fact that the universe is not infinitely old, which puts a limit on how much radiation can reach us. It can also be understood as a consequence of the current energy density of the universe; when the universe was extremely small, just after the Big Bang, the sky was all lit up.

By: Morgan J. Locke

Morgan J. Locke — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:04:33 +0000

I have no idea, Rory, but I did find a pie chart summarizing the contents of the universe the other day, which I found very interesting. Unfortunately, now I can’t find the link. If I find it, I’ll return and post it here.

By: Steven Gould

Steven Gould — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:54:27 +0000

Curtains.

By: Rory Harper

Rory Harper — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:45:15 +0000

Interesting! So…. Do we have a theory about why the sky is not all lit up then? That ‘dark matter’ thing?

By: Morgan J. Locke

Morgan J. Locke — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 04:05:20 +0000

I didn’t know that, Ted! My information is clearly out of date on that point. Thanks for the correction.

By: Ted

Ted — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 01:27:16 +0000

did you know that if it weren’t for interstellar dust, our sky would be so full of stars we wouldn’t even be able to see space? That it would be blazingly, blindingly bright, day and night? This isn't relevant to your main point, but it's generally accepted that absorption by interstellar dust cannot explain the night sky; the dust would eventually heat up until it began radiating light itself.

By: Morgan J. Locke

Morgan J. Locke — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 06:01:49 +0000

PS – I agree with you that I just can’t see how we could possibly be alone in the universe. Have you ever read Frank Robinson’s THE DARK BEYOND THE STARS? One of those books you can’t put down, it is also a fascinating treatise on the anxiety over the notion that we really might just be the only ones. A brilliant book — one of his best.

By: Morgan J. Locke

Morgan J. Locke — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 05:56:48 +0000

Interesting connection, Nancy. Inflammation is definitely one of those short-term gain, long-term loss kinds of things.

Rory, re entropy eaters — that would make a great title.

By: Rory Harper

Rory Harper — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 03:14:26 +0000

Hey, Morgan — I’m finding that I’m struggling to comment about this post. It’s deep and good and complex. And it’s a huge chunk for me to try to assimilate. I’m going to be chewing on it for some time, because of the things that it connects.

Perhaps the first thing I take away from it is renewed hope that we’re not alone. I think we’re so limited that we literally can’t conceive of how vast the universe is, and how we’re not in a special corner of it. Nothing makes us unique. Life can arise in countless places, in countless ways. We’re entropy-eaters. And there are no reasons that there can’t be others, countless others waiting for us, if we can just figure out how to get to them.

The Singularity is here, or will be, in a blink. I just want to be around to watch it unfold.

Religious people fear that they won’t make the cut, won’t follow the divine rules well enough to achieve eternity, and unification with the cosmos. I don’t have religion; all I’ve got is hope, and fear that I simply won’t last until it gets here for us all.

This makes me crazy regularly, of course. Only for brief moments am I able to simply accept.