/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5070439]

Let's have a thread about the future and possible directions humanity can go in. Of course we are quite small in the universe and many questions still have to be answered like:

Is there life outside of Earth?
How can humans effectively travel through space?
Will our future world differ significantly from human history as we know?

I have my own particular theories but I may not be as knowledgeable as some out there. So anyone who has any thoughts about humans' long term prospects, please respond!

[Anonymous No.5070483]

Also, is there a chance for lifeforms to be beyond carbon based? Can alternate atoms with the same valence like silicon, but similar structures to biology exist? Would a silicon-based lifeform appear like a rockman?

[Anonymous No.5070555]

>Is there life outside of Earth?
It is inconceivable that there would not be.
>How can humans effectively travel through space?
Theoretical ways exist and seem possible but what proves to be practical, meaning it isn't the last thing you do, remains to be seen.
>Will our future world differ significantly from human history as we know?
Of course it will. We'll still be human with human emotions, needs and desires, just living differently in different environments and with different outlooks.
>Also, is there a chance for lifeforms to be beyond carbon based? Can alternate atoms with the same valence like silicon, but similar structures to biology exist? Would a silicon-based lifeform appear like a rockman?
The question becomes much more interesting the more you learn about chemistry and what makes our own biological systems work. It would suffice to say, in my own experience, that ignorant people think there is an obvious chance, educated people think there is no chance and experts, coming full circle, concluding that it is possible. Of course, you could just use the same argument that I used for life existing elsewhere but that's too simplistic as we already have evidence to believe that at least one biology, our own, works. The only data we can use to suggest that any other biology would work is the data we find in pure chemistry while carefully learning lessons from our own biology that might be applied to others.

[Anonymous No.5070562]

>Is there life outside of Earth?
It is inconceivable that there would not be.
>How can humans effectively travel through space?
Theoretical ways exist and seem possible but what proves to be practical, meaning it isn't the last thing you do, remains to be seen.
>Will our future world differ significantly from human history as we know?
Of course it will. We'll still be human with human emotions, needs and desires, just living differently in different environments and with different outlooks.
>Also, is there a chance for lifeforms to be beyond carbon based? Can alternate atoms with the same valence like silicon, but similar structures to biology exist? Would a silicon-based lifeform appear like a rockman?
The question becomes much more interesting the more you learn about chemistry and what makes our own biological systems work. It would suffice to say, in my own experience, that ignorant people think there is an obvious chance, educated people think there is no chance and experts, coming full circle, again conclude that it is possible. Of course, you could just use the same argument that I used for life existing elsewhere but that's too simplistic as we already have evidence to believe that at least one biology, our own, works. The only data we can use to suggest that any other biology would work is the data we find in pure chemistry while carefully learning lessons from our own biology that might be applied to others.

[Anonymous No.5070564]

>>5070555
>>Is there life outside of Earth?
>It is inconceivable that there would not be.
You're not one of those drake equation faggots are you? If every single variable is a fucking guess, your outcome is fucking useless

[Anonymous No.5070594]

>>5070564
>has seen the Deep Field image
>isn't overwhelmingly convinced on sight

[Anonymous No.5070595]

>How can humans effectively travel through space?
By taking on a form that transcends mass.

[Anonymous No.5070599]

>>5070595
>energy has infinite speed

[Anonymous No.5070633]

>>5070562
Thanks for the replies!

>Theoretical ways exist and seem possible but what proves to be practical, meaning it isn't the last thing you do, remains to be seen.
My thoughts in this are very much founded in how speed is relative to time and distance. It is known that objects moving close to the speed of light will experience time at a fraction of a slower moving object. Even distances that take hundreds lightyears could be taken by humans in a manageable lifetime. Do you think that this will affect space travel in any particular way?

>We'll still be human with human emotions, needs and desires, just living differently in different environments and with different outlooks.
Do you think there will be certain basic emotions that resonate with the far future? Do you think similar carbon based lifeforms would have such basic emotions?

>experts, coming full circle, again conclude that it is possible
I am no expert in astronomy but I am in research in a science based field. I would never say either side has conclusive evidence, but it is fun to speculate.

>too simplistic as we already have evidence to believe that at least one biology
It may be simplistic to say only these kinds of biology work, but that doesn't preclude the possibility of silicon based lifeforms does it?

[Anonymous No.5070649]

>>5070439
>Is there life outside of Earth?

Most likely yes.

>How can humans effectively travel through space?

Depends on what you call "effectively". If you mean having the ability to hop from star to star at 10% the speed of light at enormous cost in order to preserve the species the yes we can "effectively" travel though space if the situation calls for it.
Google project Project Daedalus and go from there. We had the ability for over 30 years.

>Will our future world differ significantly from human history as we know?

Our current way of life is unsustainable.

>Also, is there a chance for lifeforms to be beyond carbon based?

The math says yes. There is some evidence pointing to the possibility of Methane-based life on Titan although it is currently inconclusive.

[Anonymous No.5070656]

>>5070599
>energy doesn't have mass

[Anonymous No.5070657]

>>5070649
>Our current way of life is unsustainable.
what
We make more and more out of yes and yes each year
And math doesn't say shit about ET life.

[Anonymous No.5070675]

>>5070657
>We make more and more out of yes and yes each year

If we are ever to leave the planet (which eventually we will be forced to) resources become much more scarce and manufacturing more difficult. Capitalism cannot work in space.

>And math doesn't say shit about ET life.

CH3COOH → CH4 + CO2

[Anonymous No.5070680]

>>5070633
>Do you think that this will affect space travel in any particular way?
If you want to get anywhere within a reasonable amount of time, it will. What you're talking about is Time Dilation. Time Dilation is determined by the Lorentz Factor and this factor can get very large (infinitely so) as you approach the speed of light. So it's useful if you want to, say, get to a star 10 lightyears away in less than a year. Then again, when you start talking about getting anywhere much farther than that, this factor does nothing to reduce the significant time that elapses on Earth while you're traveling there. It's a double-edged sword. Ultimately, if you want to travel anywhere in the Galaxy while not effectively leaving behind everything you know whenever you do it, you need to find a way to get around the Lorentz Factor. No matter how you accomplish this, however, one thing seems to remain constant in all theoretical work - travelling to the stars is energetically expensive and rife with unforeseen consequences.

[Anonymous No.5070683]

>>5070680
continued from

>Do you think there will be certain basic emotions that resonate with the far future? Do you think similar carbon based lifeforms would have such basic emotions?
I think the only fundamental thing we can assume about other intelligent life forms is that if they are a technological species, like our own, we can safely conclude that they are logical in nature. From this conclusion, much can be understood about them. Speculation about their emotions could probably go no further than assuming that they have a basic instinct to survive. What you can conclude from that, I think, is ambiguous, at best.

>It may be simplistic to say only these kinds of biology work, but that doesn't preclude the possibility of silicon based lifeforms does it?
No. I only meant to point out that we already know that at least one kind of biology works, so it is much safer go with the probability argument. Since we have no evidence for any other biology, it isn't nearly as meaningful to make the probability argument (probability of what? we don't know).

[Anonymous No.5070686]

>>5070675
How is that true at all? There as multitudes of resources outside Earth as well as energy sources. Manufacturing and moving around spaceships would be easier and take less energy due to lower gravitational forces. If anything, it seems capitalism was made for the space age.

[Anonymous No.5070697]

>>5070683
>Since we have no evidence for any other biology
I understand that, but from a theoretical perspective would such a lifeform be possible? Could silicon take the form of carbon and arsenic the form of phosphorus in creating parallel lifeforms?

[Anonymous No.5070712]

Assuming that humanity doesn't use up its resources too quickly nor blow itself up, humanity will spread across the solar system and eventually spread to nearby solar systems via mobile mining colonies in the Oort cloud. Eventually Terran life will spread across the galaxy.

Eventually, technology will render baseline human biology obsolete. Humans and their creations will diverge into plethora of physical and mental forms until the transition between pocket calculators, accountants, and gas giant sized AI's is seamless.

[Anonymous No.5070732]

>>5070697
>Could silicon take the form of carbon and arsenic the form of phosphorus in creating parallel lifeforms?

No. Nobody has been able to show that this would work. In all experiments, the stuff just doesn't work, and understandably so. Things change dramatically when you shift down a period and, furthermore, there are many unique properties found in these relationships in our biology that just aren't there when you shift down. Silicon doesn't really behave like Carbon at all...Boron is really a closer analog. Consider the absence of D orbitals in C, N and O; it's a big deal when you go from no d-orbitals in your main components to D-orbitals-everywhere. There was one study done that suggested that a bacteria found in Mono lake had replaced it's P with As, but it has never been confirmed. It's a possibility.

Look in to Boron. It routinely violates it's octet to give nice, non-polar, trigonal planar molecules. Due to it's lower electronegativity, there may be some real potential there with lower period elements.

[Anonymous No.5070741]

>>5070675
Capitalism is just the state of free exchange between any given parties. It would adjust to a different situation and look different.

[Anonymous No.5070743]

>>5070732
>there are many unique properties found in these relationships in our biology that just aren't there when you shift down
Is it possible for carbon to be similar to silicon given very different conditions like temperature, atmospheric content, etc. or is it completely different in its structure that it can never act as carbon?

>Look in to Boron. It routinely violates it's octet to give nice, non-polar, trigonal planar molecules. Due to it's lower electronegativity, there may be some real potential there with lower period elements.
That's really interesting, I never considered boron to be a candidate basis for organic lifeforms. Is there any information in particular that you know about on this topic?

[Anonymous No.5070820]

>>5070743
>Is there any information in particular that you know about on this topic?
No.

>Is it possible for carbon to be similar to silicon given very different conditions like temperature, atmospheric content, etc. or is it completely different in its structure that it can never act as carbon?
I wouldn't say never. You're right, chemistry changes dramatically depending on the environment and this gives rise to more possibilities. Generally speaking, however, there are definitely environments in which it is inconceivable that life could arise like, for example, extreme energetically rich or poor environments. That's just something you'll have to think about whenever you're learning chemistry, as I often did. For the most part, I think you'll see that the chemistry of Silicon is different enough that if it gives rise to a biological system, regardless of environment, it will not be similar to ours.

[Anonymous No.5071712]

>Is there life outside of Earth?
It's highly probable
>How can humans effectively travel through space?
In theory there are ways that do not break the laws of physics, but that we cannot yet use. For example, Alcubierre warp drives, worm holes, Cryostasis and some other even wackier ideas.
>Will our future world differ significantly from human history as we know?
Yes, it is improbable that it won't.