[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 632 KB, 1080x2312, Screenshot_20230330_142518_com.google.android.youtube.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15312645 No.15312645 [Reply] [Original]

Aren't dyson spheres an incredibly stupid concept? Wouldn't advanced civilizations use entirely different ways to get energy?
It's like someone in 1800 saying we'll use the steam from volcanos to power trains.
Or is it all muh environment cope?

>> No.15312668
File: 1.65 MB, 489x301, 1398343176069.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15312668

>>15312645
The fastest way from A to B would be to ram the sun with a needle and suck out the juices, collect the energy in a vacuum, crash said vacuum into an energy well, then assimilate it with a main vehicle or keep it floating stagnantly for later use.

>> No.15312670

>>15312645
There’s something wrong with michiu kaku

If he wasn’t Japanese, nobody would listen to his manga

>> No.15312683

>>15312645
>Aren't dyson spheres an incredibly stupid concept?
No evidence for the existence of one has ever been observed. People who believe in dyson spheres do so despite the lack of any evidence, simply because they think the idea makes sense. This is the antithesis of scientific thinking. It doesn't matter how great an idea sounds to you if there is no empirical evidence for it. People who think in this way are thinking platonically, not scientifically.

Same goes for people who believe in aliens btw. No evidence for aliens has been observed, so it is unscientific to believe they exist. All arguments of the form
>but there are billions of billions of stars so surely there must....
are platonic thinking, not scientific thinking. There is NO EVIDENCE for them, so it isn't scientific to believe they exist.

>> No.15312686

>>15312668
You've been watching too much shart trek.

>> No.15312690

>>15312645
>It's like someone in 1800 saying we'll use the steam from volcanos to power trains.
Yes. Pipes flowing steam through the tracks, super dangerous, extremely wasteful...a "dyson train".

>> No.15312710

>muh soience fiction fantasy live
>>>/lit/21842650

>> No.15312763

>>15312645
Seeing as we have the beginnings of nuclear fusion working, a Dyson sphere seems kind of redundant now. By the time we get to a point where we can build a Dyson sphere nuclear fusion will potentially be really advanced and a much easier option

>> No.15312774

>>15312683
I don't think anyone is claiming there would be actual Dyson spheres in the universe right now. It's all theoretical, and the theory is usually about us building one. There's the civilization types where it comes up but that's just a way to categorize things and while there might be type three civilizations out there I don't think anyone expects there to be, it's just discussed as a theory of civilization categories

>> No.15312788

>>15312774
>>I don't think anyone is claiming there would be actual Dyson spheres in the universe right now.
Precisely that was claimed. People looked, and continue to look. None have been found. Dyson spheres are not a scientific belief.

> the civilization types
More psuedoscientific musings, for which there is no empirical evidence. There is NO empirical evidence for any civilization other than humans existing now or ever before. Not a shred of evidence.

>just a way to categorize things
Where "things" = scifi BS for which there is no evidence of existence.

>theoretical [...] theory [...] theory
This word isn't an excuse for you to weave bullshit scifi stories and call it science. Scientific theories are meant to be backed up with empirical evidence, which is sorely lacking for all of this bullshit.

>> No.15312792

>>15312683
>There is NO EVIDENCE for aliens, so it isn't scientific to believe they exist.
Scientists know there's no evidence they exist. But it's reasonable to assume there could be aliens somewhere in the universe. We know life exists, because we are evidence of it. We know the planetary requirements for life to exist, the same chemicals and distance from the sun etc that our planet has. We know there's other planets that exist. We know their chemical compositions and their age and distance from the sun etc. So everything is there, it's a falsifiable problem, so it's reasonable to at least look for life because it might exist.

>> No.15312803

>>15312763
>we have the beginnings of nuclear fusion working
No we don't. Fusion is an absolutely retarded scam, which is why the spokespeople will never give you an honest answer. Everyone inside knows this but they want to keep their jobs.

>> No.15312810

>>15312788
>Precisely that was claimed. People looked, and continue to look
Can you show me an undertaking that was specifically to look for Dyson spheres? Astronomers look at chemical compositions of distant objects, that's their job. If something out there is a big metallic sphere they're going to see it regardless. But I've never heard of astronomers only looking for Dyson spheres and nothing else. I don't know what the rest of your post is about, you sound pretty upset and probably shouldn't be on the science board if you think it's stupid

>> No.15312813

>>15312803
I don't know where you're getting this information from but there was a fusion breakthrough last year where they have an example of it working. It's fairly inefficient but it's working
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60312633

>> No.15312816

>>15312810
>Can you show me an undertaking that was specifically to look for Dyson spheres?
Surprisingly, yes.
>SETI has adopted these assumptions in their search, looking for such "infrared heavy" spectra from solar analogs. As of 2005 Fermilab has an ongoing survey for such spectra by analyzing data from the Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS).[28][29] Identifying one of the many infrared sources as a Dyson sphere would require improved techniques for discriminating between a Dyson sphere and natural sources.[30] Fermilab discovered 17 potential "ambiguous" candidates, of which four have been named "amusing but still questionable".[28] Other searches also resulted in several candidates, which are, however, unconfirmed.[31][32][33]

>> No.15312830

>>15312816
Did you read what that says? Did you read what I said in my previous post? Your Wikipedia quote there says they were looking for all kinds of things and a couple of things were unidentified
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere#Search_for_megastructures
It even says
>Identifying one of the many infrared sources as a Dyson sphere would require improved techniques
So they can't specifically look for them even if they wanted to

>> No.15312842

>>15312813
If I remember correctly, they were able to produce about $0.25 worth of electricity, which took them several megawatts to obtain (the news articles leave out that it takes about 300 megajoules to power up the lasers in the first place)
>In the latest experiment, researchers pumped in 2.05 megajoules of laser energy and got about 3.15MJ out – a roughly 50% gain and a sign that fusion reactions in the pellet were driving further fusion reactions.
>While the pellet released more energy than the lasers put in, the calculation does not include the 300 or so megajoules needed to power up the lasers in the first place.
>Another issue is how to get the energy out as heat.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/13/us-scientists-confirm-major-breakthrough-in-nuclear-fusion

>> No.15312852

>>15312792
NO empirical evidence, just a bunch of words about why it SHOULD be. This isn't scientific thinking.

>> No.15312857

>>15312852
Why are you afraid of the fact that aliens most likely exist?

>> No.15312867

>>15312842
For some reason, retards think that achieving Q>1 is some sort of tipping point after which commercialized fusion energy becomes easier. But this simply isn't the case, there is no reason for it to be true. You need much more than Q>1 to become commercially viable and it doesn't at any point become easier to get more energy than before. You have to fight tooth and nail for every single inch.

>>15312857
>"most likely"
>claimed about something for which there is zero empirical evidence
>supporting argument is an ad hominen "you're afraid"
Pseudoscientific reasoning.

>> No.15312871

>>15312857
It's impossible to say whether aliens are likely or unlikely to exist. We only have one positive data point. You can't extrapolate from that. It's entirely possible that earth is the only planet in the universe with life.

>> No.15312873

>>15312645
>Aren't dyson spheres an incredibly stupid concept?
Maybe, maybe not.
>Wouldn't advanced civilizations use entirely different ways to get energy?
Possibly, or Dyson Swarms could be viable since otherwise all that energy would be going to waste.
>It's like someone in 1800 saying we'll use the steam from volcanos to power trains.
Umm, we still use steam turbines to retrieve power from nuclear power plants and turn it into energy.
Only thing that has changed is the heat source.
Please think more before you post.
>Or is it all muh environment cope?
wat??

>> No.15312881

>>15312645
>It's like someone in 1800 saying we'll use the steam from volcanos to power trains.
This could easily be done if you managed to convince Iceland that it needs trains in the first place.

It doesn't work most other places because volcanoes with suitable energy output are uncommon.

>> No.15312893

>>15312645
Dysons spheres are retarded
There's an inverse correlation between intelligence and being a breedgroid.
As civilizations advance they turn inwards, not expand outwards.
>b-but it only takes on full retard to colonize the galaxy so why don't we see signs of alien life!??
Because if they go full retard breedgroids they lose the intelligence needed to be a interstellar civilization

>> No.15313289

>>15312842
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Should it be more the first time it works? Or are you saying they should stop trying? I don't think it being inefficient is surprising, it's a promising technology that will take time to develop. Like how basic calculators used to take up a whole room and now they're microscopic

>> No.15313293

>>15312867
>>15313289

>> No.15313308

>>15313289
I'm saying that they aren't anywhere close to commercially viable fusion, and there is no reason to believe they will be any time soon. Several decades at least.

>> No.15313328

>>15312803
I was like that in my research. First in fuel cells and then in thermoelectrics. It took a few years in each for reality to set in that neither of these technologies would ever have more than niche applications. But, there are plenty of research jobs and proposals being funded based on "one day this will be everywhere" talk. I got out of both when I realized that they are both pretty close to their limits already.

>> No.15313331
File: 2 KB, 261x193, 1660707555471627.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15313331

>>15313289
>Like how basic calculators used to take up a whole room
Also, this isn't true unless you're counting the early electronic computers as the first "calculators", which would be wrong because those computers were actually substantially more powerful than simple four function calculators. The first electronic calculators, built with relay logic, were the size of a household appliance. And of course they were preceded by mechanical calculators, some of which were small enough to put in your pocket.

Furthermore, more generally, the miniaturization of transistors has created unrealistic expectations for the pace of technological development generally. Most engineering problems do not advance at anything even remotely similar to this pace. Compare the airplanes flying 50 years ago to those flying today; planes today have better computers of course, but the airframes themselves are more or less the same as they were back then. Now compare the airplanes from 50 years ago to the airplanes from 50 years before that.. that is a HUGE difference, but that pace of development didn't last. Plane technology plateaued by the mid 20th century, at the same time that transistors were being shrunken at a very rapid pace. The magic woo of transistor miniaturization didn't rub off on all other fields of engineering, so you shouldn't cite it to justify anticipating such rapid development of other industries.

Whenever you think you see an exponential curve in a real life trend, in technology, economics, or anything else, what you almost certainly are actually seeing is an S-curve that hasn't reached the inflection point yet.

>> No.15313334

>>15313289
I was adding context to the comment I was responding to.
I think we should continue to research fusion power, as well as creating more nuclear power plants of different sizes in order to experiment with that too.
But of course, politicians and the government routinely fuck with nuclear power.

>> No.15313338

>>15312857
>aliens most likely exist
Let's say you find a planet very much like Earth in almost every way. What are the odds that life will form on it and produce at least one technological species?

>> No.15313347

>>15313308
Yeah and I initially said fusion would probably be better than a Dyson sphere which is probably thousands of years away if at all

>> No.15313357

>>15313347
Fusion is certainly more feasible than a Dyson sphere, that much is certain. But the real question is why you'd fuck around with fusion when you could use fission instead, which is much easier. I guess the answer is "because your civilization is fucking retarded"

>> No.15313364

>>15313357
All that trouble to boil some water.

>> No.15313372

>>15313331
Those massive computers were literally called calculators
>The Harvard Mark I, or IBM Automatic Sequence Controlled Calculator (ASCC), was a general-purpose electromechanical computer used in the war effort during the last part of World War II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Mark_I
I was talking about fusion anyway, I don't need a history lesson about computers

>> No.15313376

>>15313357
I don't know, I'm not working on fusion or fisson power. All I was saying is they made a breakthrough on fusion power recently and if it gets to decent efficiency it will probably be better than a Dyson sphere

>> No.15313387

>>15313372
>a general-purpose electromechanical computer
Is a hell of a lot more powerful than a common four function calculator.
>I was talking about fusion anyway,
This was really the meat of my point, not the nitpick about calculators. Fusion is not transistors. The miniaturization of transistors has very little to do with the expected pace of fusion development. Citing the pace of transistor development to justify anticipation of similar development rates in other engineering fields is fallacious.