io9 
Enter your username and password.
San Francisco, 6:00 AM
Mon Nov 9
12 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors: tips@io9.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz | Email
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders | Email
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner | Email
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis | Email
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan | Email
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier | Email
Ed Grabianowski | Email
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan | Email
Lauren Davis | Email
Chris Hsiang | Email
Lynn Peril | Email
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins | Email
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox | Email
Interns:
Tim Barribeau | Email
Julia Carusillo | Email
Alex Eichler | Email
Cyriaque Lamar | Email
Caitlin Petrakovitz | Email
Mary Ratliff | Email
Josh Snyder | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/05/09
Inert nanoparticles that can be dispersed throughout the environment, with no ill effect.
But paint the selected 'target' with a laser, and they release precisely what you want, only where you want it.
Instant unconciousness, blindness, psychosis, suggestibility, death etc. etc. to whoever you want, whenever you want.
Nice. #nanotech
11/06/09
11/06/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
Almost there.....
[www.youtube.com] #nanotech
11/05/09
11/05/09
Seconded. #nanotech
11/05/09
11/05/09
Sounds like it might have pretty spectacular failure modes. #blackholes
11/04/09
11/04/09
I don't know about you guys, but I'm going to go about eating all the radioactive material I can find lying around. Eventually something will give me absorbing powers. #blackholes
11/04/09
If it's possible, it's being done and being done everywhere.
The evidence of its pollution should be everywhere.
No black hole technology pollution.
No black hole technology.
No black hole technology.
No life elsewhere .
Show's over. Nothing to see. #blackholes
11/04/09
11/04/09
Besides, you contradict yourself. The evidence of its pollution should be everywhere only if there's life elsewhere and they are using this technology. The fact that we aren't detecting it doesn't mean *both* there's no life and there's no black hole technology - it means one or the other (or it means nothing, since we couldn't detect it anyway). #blackholes
11/04/09
If we are not unique (I was not consulted, so I shall not vote), it is statistically inconceivable that we are the first or will be the last, to do anything.
That band of possibility is billions of years wide and what we can 'see' of it goes right back to the beginning (not all of, but some of all).
You're right, there is no 'now' in the universe, anywhere except 'here' but their 'now' doesn't need to be 'close' or 'recent' (essentially the same thing).
They've had plenty of time. #blackholes
11/04/09
That it is both theoretically and practically possible and that its achievement is simply a matter of time, effort and engineering [on a long enough timescale practical difficulties and limits of resources simply cease to be relevant (or worth mentioning)].
If you choose to accept the basic premise, you choose to accept the pollution consequence (it's tied to the theoretical and practical premise).
If it's possible, its been done by others.
If it's been done by others, it produced pollution.
If it produced pollution, that pollution is detectable.
If we choose to look, we will detect it if it's there.
(The fact that we haven't yet, is because we haven't tried yet.)
If we try to detect it and don't, and at the end of that, still accept the basic premise, we must accept the conclusion.
At the moment we are alone by default.
Then we will be truly alone. #blackholes
11/04/09
So what I'm saying is, the light coming in from around us could very likely be showing us an image of a time before a certain species developed said technology. Perhaps millions of years before they did. Perhaps we are the most intelligent species so far in the universe, who knows. #blackholes
11/04/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
Perhaps many civilisations built BH generators - and they all went horribly wrong!
How do you determine the difference between a natural BH and an artificial one?
Could also be that our super-advanced neighbors have figured out, that this will never work, will work badly or have a high propensity for disaster, and have therefore found other means of producing energy and visiting other stars at their leisure. #blackholes
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/06/09
On the other side, there might not be somebody else with intelligence to invent this. And I understand that you think that if there is no one else out there, the inventing of such machines is not worth it, because that would mean the rest of the universe being duller than Earth. But even if there actually are no one else out there, we would still some day need to get away from Earth (if nothing else does before, the Sun exploding will surely leave the Earth inhabitable) and we might need to travel far, travel fast. And in addition, by trying to figure out how to make machines like these function properly, I guess we would learn a lot, even if we don’t succeed.
My point is that we should try anyway, without consideration of there being or not being other species out there. Only if it is dangerous for someone/something (for instance us, our planet or other planets) should we avoid inventions (or attempts on inventions) like these.
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
Kinda like playing Mafia Wars on FB. #blackholes
11/04/09
-
That, and H.R.Giger designs the housing. #blackholes
11/04/09
Those two sections discuss alternative ideas for interstellar travel and why they're not feasible at this point. #blackholes
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
The upshot is that the authors propose a lot of *very* interesting ideas and questions, well worth studying in detail, but don't answer any of them, which is a little disappointing (though not entirely unexpected, because this isn't high-school physics where everything has an easy answer).
Regarding the "using BHs to create more BHs" issue and associated concerns that the 2nd law of thermodynamics might be circumvented, that isn't the case.
The authors propose that the first BH (or SBH, for subatomic BH, as they call it) be created with a focussed spherically-shaped laser in the gamma-ray part of the spectrum. Think of it as a firing squad spread around a circle, shooting at the same time towards the center of the circle. Now think of doing that using lasers rather than bullets and using a tiny sphere rather than a circle. The squeezing of so much energy into such a small volume would create a subatomic BH.
The problem is that this is not very efficient, and that's where using BHs to create BHs comes in. Once a few BHs have been created by the inefficient method, these BHs can be allowed to evaporate (that is, shrink due to Hawking radiation) and their Hawking radiation can be harnessed and focussed into some small volume, creating another BH.
This does NOT violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It merely uses a more efficient producer of energy (a pre-existing BH rather than a laser). However, in isolation (that is, without continually feeding mass to the BHs already in existence) this process cannot continue forever, because *that* would be a violation of the 2nd law.
So, those commenters here on io9 who said that this isn't a violation of the 2nd law and that this is merely a better energy-conversion process are entirely correct. #blackholes