The Year 2038 Problem

[Thomas G. Marshall]

(e-mail address removed) (Dan Pop) wrote in message


Whatever happened you can be sure that, eventually, Charlton Heston
would arrive, see evidence of the previous civilisation and say "my
god it's true....", ... maybe ...

There are a great many things that are likely to doom us as our
understanding of physics increases. I'd have to say that three of which
that are likely (eventually) are going to be:

1. The age old nuclear winter scenario
2. Particle coliders accidentally creating a mini-black hole
3. Nanobot assemblers turning us all into the "gray goo".

#2 and #3 have many issues in the way before they actually /could/ be a
problem. But they're worth looking at.

 

[Gerry Quinn]

gswork <[email protected]> coughed up the following:

There are a great many things that are likely to doom us as our
understanding of physics increases. I'd have to say that three of which
that are likely (eventually) are going to be:

1. The age old nuclear winter scenario
2. Particle coliders accidentally creating a mini-black hole
3. Nanobot assemblers turning us all into the "gray goo".

#2 and #3 have many issues in the way before they actually /could/ be a
problem. But they're worth looking at.

I would say that 1 is irrelevant as even if nuclear winter is a real
phenomenon, it wouldn't come near to killing us off.

3 is very doubtful - after all we already have green goo a.k.a. mould
and bacteria of all kinds, and grey goo isn't going to have magic powers
that it doesn't.

On the other hands, an exotic high-energy event loading to a negative
strangelet, mini-black hole, vacuum phase change (or something nasty we
haven't thought of) is not inconceivable IMO.

However I would say the biggest threats such as supervirulent infections
come from the biological sciences.

And of course there are lots of big rocks flying around out there.

- Gerry Quinn

 

[Thomas G. Marshall]

I would say that 1 is irrelevant as even if nuclear winter is a real
phenomenon, it wouldn't come near to killing us off.

Using the current set of weapons? Maybe. But the states with them are
growing all the time.

3 is very doubtful - after all we already have green goo a.k.a. mould
and bacteria of all kinds, and grey goo isn't going to have magic
powers that it doesn't.

That's not what gray goo is. Gray goo is the /result/ of assemblers
having grabbed (disassembled) all obvious forms of matter into something
non-descript, not just more of themselves. If the assemblers make more
of themselves exponentially, the earth could turn into an amorphous glob
of the stuff. Of course there are a few things in the way:

1. fat finger issue
2. sticky finger issue
3. nano assemblers, if they know to not disolve themselves,
would only be able to affect a /surface/ of sorts and close
that in. So it would still gray goo us, just slower than
exponential grown might indicate.

On the other hands, an exotic high-energy event loading to a negative
strangelet, mini-black hole, vacuum phase change (or something nasty
we haven't thought of) is not inconceivable IMO.

As a reader of scientific american wrote in, a mini black hole could
theoretically gobble up the earth in a matter of minutes.

I've often wondered:

Is it possible that there are no black holes formed in nature? That any
that we postulate about (sort of "observe") are the results of
civilizations that have discovered how to accidentally create one?

 

[Programmer Dude]

There are a great many things that are likely to doom us as our
understanding of physics increases. I'd have to say that three
of which that are likely (eventually) are going to be:

1. The age old nuclear winter scenario
2. Particle coliders accidentally creating a mini-black hole

Where'd you hear that one? (-:

AIUI, it's probably not possible to build one big enough... on earth.
I once read that a linear collider capable of achieving the energy
levels to unify the forces would be bigger than the solar system!

3. Nanobot assemblers turning us all into the "gray goo".

[grin] I know where that one came from. Many of the folks working
in the field seem to find it silly. There are leverage and energy
considerations that may make "nanobots" impossible (as builders of
big things). Surface tension is formidable at that scale!

Consider this: virii mutate at an extravagant rate, yet none has
ever evolved that even comes close to the "gray goo" scenario. It
might just not be physically possible.

MY doomsday suspicion is we'll be done in by disease--intentional
or accidental. At the current density and travel rates of the
human race, it'd be all too easy.

 

[Stephen Sprunk]

Where'd you hear that one? (-:

AIUI, it's probably not possible to build one big enough... on earth.
I once read that a linear collider capable of achieving the energy
levels to unify the forces would be bigger than the solar system!

I don't know the feasibility, but if we figure out how to isolate
non-trivial amounts antimatter produced in a collider, the resulting
annihilation would release enough energy to make nucelar winter look like a
good scenario.

3. Nanobot assemblers turning us all into the "gray goo".

[grin] I know where that one came from. Many of the folks working
in the field seem to find it silly. There are leverage and energy
considerations that may make "nanobots" impossible (as builders of
big things). Surface tension is formidable at that scale!

If you have enough of them, anything would be possible, no?

Consider this: virii mutate at an extravagant rate, yet none has
ever evolved that even comes close to the "gray goo" scenario. It
might just not be physically possible.

Ever read what a hantavirus does to internal organs? Your skin and bones
stay intact because they're mostly dead, but the rest of you dissolves into
a uniform red goo in a matter of days. Very scary stuff.

MY doomsday suspicion is we'll be done in by disease--intentional
or accidental. At the current density and travel rates of the
human race, it'd be all too easy.

It's a minor miracle it hasn't happened already; the only thing stopping it
is the diseases capable of wiping out the entire human race either aren't
airborne (yet) or have too short an incubation period (and burn out local
populations before they can be transmitted far). Evolution will eventually
overcome those limitations.

S

 

[Keith Thompson]

I don't know the feasibility, but if we figure out how to isolate
non-trivial amounts antimatter produced in a collider, the resulting
annihilation would release enough energy to make nucelar winter look like a
good scenario.

The energy released by annihilating a quantity of antimatter cannot
exceed the energy required to produce it in the first place. We've
never put enough energy into colliders to produce enough antimatter to
create a significant explosion. In addition, the energy efficiency of
antimatter production is extremely small.

Antimatter is a great method of compact energy storage, but if your
goal is to blow things up, there are far more effective ways to do so
with current technology.

 

[Keith Thompson]

"Thomas G. Marshall"

Gerry Quinn <[email protected]> coughed up the following: [...]

I would say that 1 is irrelevant as even if nuclear winter is a real
phenomenon, it wouldn't come near to killing us off.

Using the current set of weapons? Maybe. But the states with them are
growing all the time.

But the newer nuclear states (India, Pakistan, and whatever other
states have nuclear bombs but haven't publicly acknowledged tested
them) are almost certainly not producing bombs in the large numbers
you'd need to produce a significant nuclear winter.

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

Antimatter is a great method of compact energy storage, but if
your goal is to blow things up, there are far more effective ways
to do so with current technology.

We have recently patented the equivalent of a Dewar flask, but it
holds positrons rather than liquid nitrogen. By valving the
contents (via a positronic valve) we can get controlled
combination with stray electrons, and coincident opposing 511 kEV
gammas. This opposition minimizes vibration, much like a
horizontally opposed twin. Suitable collection devices, obvious
to anyone skilled in the art, convert these gammas into direct
current at 33.5 volts. A 2 inch diameter flask, 1 foot long, can
store roughly 1000 horsepower hours. Leakage is about 1 percent
per day, so until we make improvements here you will have to
refuel at least every few months.

 

[Programmer Dude]

As a reader of scientific american wrote in, a mini black hole
could theoretically gobble up the earth in a matter of minutes.

There is a problem with this. A mini-black hole has a certain
size, and matter can only go through a hole that size at a
certain rate. Also, infalling matter generates serious radiation
and the pressure of that radiation tends to push infalling matter
away.

IOW, don't believe everything you read! (-:

I've often wondered:

Is it possible that there are no black holes formed in nature?
That any that we postulate about (sort of "observe") are the
results of civilizations that have discovered how to accidentally
create one?

Such could happen, but that doesn't mean natural ones don't also
exist. However, I've long fancied the idea that some of the
more spectacular and energetic events we see "out there".....

Well, suppose, for e.g., that it's possible to tap into what's
called "zero point" energy, which some theories hold to be very,
very great. But suppose you need to tap into it just *exactly*
right, "or else!" (-:

(Remember, some very knowledgeable scientists were very afraid
the first A-bomb tests would ignite the atmosphere....good thing
they were wrong!)

 

[Thomas G. Marshall]

There are a great many things that are likely to doom us as our
understanding of physics increases. I'd have to say that three
of which that are likely (eventually) are going to be:

1. The age old nuclear winter scenario
2. Particle coliders accidentally creating a mini-black hole

Where'd you hear that one? (-:

AIUI, it's probably not possible to build one big enough... on earth.
I once read that a linear collider capable of achieving the energy
levels to unify the forces would be bigger than the solar system!

3. Nanobot assemblers turning us all into the "gray goo".

[grin] I know where that one came from. Many of the folks working
in the field seem to find it silly. There are leverage and energy
considerations that may make "nanobots" impossible (as builders of
big things). Surface tension is formidable at that scale!

Yeah, but the surface tension is actually exploited by the little critters,
particularly for locomotion. But even so, that's a relatively small
obstacle in comparison:

The two biggest considerations that are holding the nano heads at bay are
the following:

1. Fat Fingers: The physical aperatus that would actually need to grab
small numbers of atoms would itself be made of a larger number of atoms.
Self-replicating machines are an interesting related field here, but it does
not solve the fundamentals of needing to grab something small and do
something with it. It's obviously not that simple, but I'm watering it
down.

2. Sticky Fingers: The fingers themselves being made of atoms would
continually want to bond with surrounding atoms. That is, it might be able
to pick something up, but never separate it from itself. Or, the lever arm,
being so small, would collect atoms around its joints solidifying it. Etc.

That is, a nanobot assembler would need to operate in cooperation with these
two properties, not against them. That's likely to be a very
counterintuitive operation, that's for sure! For example, looking at the
way that cells and viruses deal with those two issues is very interesting:
A dna strand doesn't just rip in half. A cell boundary isn't just glued to
a virus.

Unfortunately, I just don't understand the arguments enough to say much more
than this.

Consider this: virii mutate at an extravagant rate, yet none has
ever evolved that even comes close to the "gray goo" scenario. It
might just not be physically possible.

Well, it'd have to be pretty rugged to deal with large deposits of
non-organic compounds like, oh, a rock of Iron and Silicon. But your point
should be read in a larger sense: Perhaps if it was possible for such things
to occur, it would have happened already in nature. I'm not sure I buy it:
There are many things that haven't occured in nature by itself.

MY doomsday suspicion is we'll be done in by disease--intentional
or accidental. At the current density and travel rates of the
human race, it'd be all too easy.

It sure seems scary to me.

 

[Programmer Dude]

Yeah, but the surface tension is actually exploited by the little
critters, particularly for locomotion.

Sorry, I was being sloppy. What I was referring to is:

2. Sticky Fingers: The fingers themselves being made of atoms would
continually want to bond with surrounding atoms.

That. Just couldn't think of the terminology.

There is also:

1. Fat Fingers: The physical aperatus that would actually need to grab
small numbers of atoms would itself be made of a larger number of atoms.

Not atoms. Really, really large molecules, perhaps, but I doubt we'll
ever have machines down at the atomic level (in part for the Fat Fingers
aspect, but QM starts playing a role at that level, too).

There are also energy considerations.

There are "engineering problems" and "impossible problems". Examples,
we always knew you could break the sound barrier--the tip of a whip does
it. Solving that was just an engineering problem. The speed of light,
as far as we understand the universe, is an "impossible problem".

Solving it will require re-writing our understanding of reality.

Nanobots.... seem close to the boundary to me. They may be just an
engineering problem... or there may be aspects that make it impossible.

If we DO solve it, the code programs, for example, will probably have to
be molecule size (like DNA), and mechanics may be more biology than
machine. Which makes it like a virus or bacterium.

Which brings us back to, if it's *possible* for a small machine to
self-replicate to the extinction of all else... why hasn't it already
happened? Luck?

Well, it'd have to be pretty rugged to deal with large deposits of
non-organic compounds like, oh, a rock of Iron and Silicon.

Organic critters exist that eat these things.

But your point should be read in a larger sense: Perhaps if it was
possible for such things to occur, it would have happened already in
nature.

Exactly what I'm saying.

I'm not sure I buy it: There are many things that haven't occured in
nature by itself.

Such as?

 

[Corey Murtagh]

Programmer Dude wrote:

Which brings us back to, if it's *possible* for a small machine to
self-replicate to the extinction of all else... why hasn't it already
happened? Luck?

Presumably this kind of phenomenon would be restricted in scope to a
planetary scale. Interplanetary - or even interstellar - contamination
may be possible, but I'd also assume that certain limits would exist.
For example, if you dropped a mass of these self-replicating machines
into the heart of a star, would they survive the experience and begin
converting the star's matter into new replicants? Probably not, would
be my guess.

So having established some scope limits on the infestation, can we be
absolutely certain that the situation hasn't arisen somewhere in the
universe? We can barely detect the existance massive planets around
nearby stars as it is, so if something like that had happened even
nearby in our stellar neighbourhood, how would we know? :>

Remember: "The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's
stranger than we /can/ imagine."

 

[jpd]

If we DO solve it, the code programs, for example, will probably have to
be molecule size (like DNA), and mechanics may be more biology than
machine. Which makes it like a virus or bacterium.

On a sufficiently low level, there is hardly a difference between metal
and carbon machines. As soon as the metal ones learn to overcome the
reproduction problem, that is.

Which brings us back to, if it's *possible* for a small machine to
self-replicate to the extinction of all else... why hasn't it already
happened? Luck?

It has? Granted, the machines are built from carbon and water and
what have you, but still, in the end it's little machines. The to the
extinction of all else part, well.. we assume there was nothing before
the current system came around, but can we be sure? If there was
something before, it sure isn't now.

The novelty would be in it being built from something else than carbon,
but it would have to be sufficiently abundant. Maybe if the athmosphere
was full of some silicon-based gas we'd all be silicon based lifeforms.
Alas, silicon is abundant but not, apparently, in a form where it is
easily absorbed and used as a building compound.

I always wondered what was so magic about 293 degrees Kelvin.
For us it is, but that doesn't mean the lucky number isn't different
in another environment.

 

[Thomas G. Marshall]

Sorry, I was being sloppy. What I was referring to is:


That. Just couldn't think of the terminology.

There is also:


Not atoms. Really, really large molecules, perhaps, but I doubt we'll
ever have machines down at the atomic level (in part for the Fat
Fingers aspect, but QM starts playing a role at that level, too).

There are also energy considerations.

There are "engineering problems" and "impossible problems". Examples,
we always knew you could break the sound barrier--the tip of a whip
does it. Solving that was just an engineering problem. The speed of
light, as far as we understand the universe, is an "impossible
problem".

You countered your own statement as you wrote it. Did you notice?

"...as far as we understand the universe..."

Even when we thought that faster than sound travel was impossible, it was
because of our understanding. You must always account for what we might
better understand later.

Though I admit: These certainly seem now to be impossible problems or near
enough so to make it a verrrrry long time before we figure it out.

 

[q]

Thomas G. Marshall writes:



Sorry, I was being sloppy. What I was referring to is:



That. Just couldn't think of the terminology.

There is also:



Not atoms. Really, really large molecules, perhaps, but I doubt we'll
ever have machines down at the atomic level (in part for the Fat Fingers
aspect, but QM starts playing a role at that level, too).

There are also energy considerations.

There are "engineering problems" and "impossible problems". Examples,
we always knew you could break the sound barrier--the tip of a whip does
it. Solving that was just an engineering problem. The speed of light,
as far as we understand the universe, is an "impossible problem".

No you do not go faster than light.
What you need is a worm hole.
Say you want to travel from one side of the balloon to a point on the
other side. You don't travel along the surface of the balloon,
you travel along the diameter of the balloon (through the interior of
the balloon)!!
You could also warp space. Remember space warps in the presence
of gravitational fields.

 

[Programmer Dude]

Presumably this kind of phenomenon would be restricted in scope to a
planetary scale.

[grin] I read an SF story once about these trees with a core like an
SRB. When they matured, they blasted off into space to drift until
they made planetfall elsewhere....

For example, if you dropped a mass of these self-replicating machines
into the heart of a star, would they survive the experience and begin
converting the star's matter into new replicants? Probably not,...

But if they DID, they'd be tres formidable, eh? (-:

So having established some scope limits on the infestation, can we be
absolutely certain that the situation hasn't arisen somewhere in the
universe?

Yes, I think so. :-|

But all seriousness aside, with millions of years of evolution, plus
certain aspects of the physics suggesting it's very difficult...[shrug]

Who knows!

 

[Programmer Dude]

You countered your own statement as you wrote it. Did you notice?

"...as far as we understand the universe..."

Not countered, qualified. Our understanding at this point is good enough
that our model (QM) accounts for huge amounts of behavior. In the case
of breaking C, we'd have to rewrite our understanding. Compare that to
how Einstein merely *extended* Newton.

Even when we thought that faster than sound travel was impossible, it was
because of our understanding. You must always account for what we might
better understand later.

Absolutely, and hence the original qualification. When we look back on
our worldview when we though mach speeds were impossible, we realize we
were very ignorant of the physics. In this case we seem to understand
them, and some very precise tests provide expected results.

Simply, the situation isn't quite the same now as then.

 

[Corey Murtagh]

Corey Murtagh writes:

Yes, I think so. :-|

All we can say with any authority is "we haven't observed it yet". That
doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I'd rather admit to the possibility
that I'm ignorant of the facts than to arrogantly assume that since I
can't see it then it doesn't exist :>

But all seriousness aside, with millions of years of evolution, plus
certain aspects of the physics suggesting it's very difficult...[shrug]

Who knows!

If there's even the slightest possibility of it happening, then
somewhere, somewhen, it /will/ happen.

"Space is big. /Really/ big. You have no idea just how mind-bogglingly
big space really is."

 

[Joona I Palaste]

Corey Murtagh <[email protected]> scribbled the following

But all seriousness aside, with millions of years of evolution, plus
certain aspects of the physics suggesting it's very difficult...[shrug]

Who knows!

If there's even the slightest possibility of it happening, then
somewhere, somewhen, it /will/ happen.

"Space is big. /Really/ big. You have no idea just how mind-bogglingly
big space really is."

"You might think it's a long way down the corner to the chemist's, but
that's just peanuts to space."

I like that quote.

--
/-- Joona Palaste ([email protected]) ------------- Finland --------\
\-- http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste --------------------- rules! --------/
"I am not very happy acting pleased whenever prominent scientists overmagnify
intellectual enlightenment."
- Anon

 

[Programmer Dude]

All we can say with any authority is "we haven't observed it yet".

I realize it's a non-standard usage, but you do realize my "straight
face" emoticon means I'm totally kidding (with a straight face, yet)?

Anyway,... I agree. Basically.

That doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I'd rather admit to the possibility
that I'm ignorant of the facts than to arrogantly assume that since I
can't see it then it doesn't exist :>

No arrogance. Here's the thing, we are not completely ignorant of the
facts. Certain physical specifications obtain, and that, plus that it
hasn't happened (even close) on earth, simple **suggests** it may be
very unlikely. (To me, and this was my original point, is simply
suggests it's not worth worrying about when disease or asteroids are
far, far greater dangers.)

If there's even the slightest possibility of it happening, then
somewhere, somewhen, it /will/ happen.

So,.... somewhere I'm dating Michelle Pfeiffer? Lucky me!!

"Space is big. /Really/ big. You have no idea just how mind-bogglingly
big space really is."

"You might think's it a far walk down to the chemist's, but that's just
peanuts compared to space." (That's from memory...wonder how close I
got it.)