/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10587260
Whatever biotech wet dream you like. Cloning, entirely artificial and constructed creatures, 3D printing organs and tissue as needed, general transhumanism.
As far as thing thats going to be a watershed is deep space resource exploitation.

>>10587260
>technically feasible
>warp drive, instant communication
>technically feasible

:^(

>>10587360

Literally none of the things that you mentioned are technically feasible currently. Our current gene editing tools are unbelievably clumsy and nowhere near good enough to do the kind of things you want to do.

If you've ever worked in a biology lab you would know this.

>>10587383
>technically feasible currently
That's not what the OP asked though.
>technically feasible given our current understanding of physics?
Which I took to mean as "things we know *should* work, but we lack the material, financial, or industrial resources needed to make it happen."
Alcubierre drive is technically feasible, all you need to do is figure out how to make negative energy.

>>10587393
>Alcubierre drive is technically feasible
No, it isn't.
Project Orion is technically feasible.

>>10587393
>all you need to do is figure out how to make negative energy
you aren't wrong about the rest, but it seems to me to be an open question if that is actually feasible as we understand physics currently

>>10587383
you seem to be willfully misunderstanding OP's question and that anon's response - none of those things are even remotely 'physically impossible' or even 'physically implausible'; they in fact appear to be very likely to happen at some point in our future. That may not be in your lifetime, but at no point did anyone say 'these are things that will happen tomorrow'

>>10587260

Metallic hydrogen.

>>10587260

Orbital rings.

>>10587418

They rely on technologies that do not exist. There is no law of physics saying "technologies that do not exist will magically come into existence at some point in the future".

It's nuclear fusion bullshit. The technology will always be 50 years away.

Metamaterial (electromagnetic, acustic).
Computronium.
Neutronium.
Strange Matter.
Smart/Programmable Matter.

>>10587451

There's a brute-force way to do it that has always being feasible. Just build a very large, mile-long, insulated and sturdy bunker full of water wand with turbines on the top. You then dump a fusion bomb and let it go off. That heats the water, produces steam, turns the turbine, makes power. You dump another in when you're done. That's it, and it would work. You dump a multi-megaton nuclear device into a big hardened water-filled sphere a few miles across once every hour and you've got all the power you need to run an entire industrialised continent.

>>10587451
>It's nuclear fusion bullshit
It's worse than that.
Even if we never build nuclear fusion reactors, it's still theoretically possible, while the Alcubierre drive requires not just _technology_ relating to negative energy, it requires that negative energy _can_exist_, and there's no scientific theory that supports such a thing.

>>10587539

New models may allow Alcubierre drive without need for exotic matter.

>>10587260
The most revolutionary thing we can do is continue exploring physics. Questions like yours are important, but they're necessarily only just what we can accomplish right now. Without factoring in what we might be able to do tomorrow, we'll always fall behind. The spirit of exploration is central to pushing the envelope and making bigger and better revolutions.

>>10587453
Metamaterials is an emerging field and China has already started putting in shit ton of money in it because of its applications in cloaking(for making undetectable submarines and aircrafts) and shit. I am about to write a research paper on its applications on acoustic metamaterials for vibration isolation in beams and can confirm that this field will boom as fuck.

>>10587260
I'd say brain transplants are the next big thing medically speaking.

>>10587260
>>warp drive instant communication
not feasible. Molecular nanotechnology like pic related is technically feasible and would be revolutionary if we can figure out how to make it. It changes everything if it works. Antigravity is technically feasible according to gravitoelectromagnetism, which has been experimentally confirmed. In order to get significant effects you need lots of matter or ultradense matter. It won't be that revolutionary because of this. Fuck fusion, direct mass energy conversion is technically feasible. We might even be able to make a microblackhole which we can force feed matter into to generate power via hawking radiation. Making one requires some big fat percentage points of solar output.
>>10587393
we don't know how to make negative energy, so it's not feasible
>>10587453
>>neutronium
sure, but it's probably not stable at anything less than millions of G's
>>10587451
Nuclear fusion works, it's just 8 minutes away.
>>10587541
then that wouldn't be an Alcubierre drive. That is also beyond our current understanding of physics like op specified.

>>10588778

>Molecular nanotechnology

How do you avoid the sticky fingers problem?

>>10588792
that's an engineering problem, not a physics problem. If you design the the reactions your tool tips carry out the right way, sticky fingers can be avoided. Or potentially if we really have to, we do some quantum computing bullshit to control the reactions. Quantum control is actually thing and we have used it to control which chemical reactions occur:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherent_control
With quantum computers we could potentially do closed loop quantum control. Another thing we can do is shoot beams of cold atoms at each other so that when they collide they bond together the way we want them to. A stupid and inefficient way to solve sticky fingers is to just keep hitting stuff until it's in the right shape. If you gamble enough, you can eventually when the jackpot.

>>10587393
There's a sub-light reactionless drive that might work, depending on whether a certain interpretation of inertia applies. It's currently being researched.
>https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/04/mach-effect-propellantless-drive-gets-niac-phase-2-and-progress-to-great-interstellar-propulsion.html
Mach Effect/Woodward Effect
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect

>>10587541
>New models may allow Alcubierre drive without need for exotic matter.
Any form of FTL would require fundamental changes to either relativity or our understanding of causality.
I can't rule either out, but this still means no form of FTL qualifies as " technically feasible given our current understanding of physics".

>>10589414

Not completely true. Spacetime itself is not limited to C as the expansion of the universe or the spacetime curvature in a black hole can attest. That's the attractive of the Alcubierre drive. Still, causality would need to be addressed. At least in black holes, time and space switch roles.

>>10587429
Did they ever confirm if they made metalic hydrogen in the lab? I read an article about it a year or two ago where they thought they had made some by crushing it between diamonds, but I don't recall any confirmation.

>>10587260
Thermonuclear fusion, nanotechnology, neurolink.

>>10589439
If there's fire, it doesn't mean you can cast fireballs. And black holes don't exist.

>>10587260

Room temperature Superconductor.

>>10590505
>And black holes don't exist.

>>10587260
warp drive
immortality
infinite power
metamorphosis

>>10587383
nanite aren't publicly talked about.crispr is.

>>10587429
Just wait for hydrogenic metal