Comments on: Ask Ray | Asimov’s ‘The Last Question’

By: Ben Thomas

Ben Thomas — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 13:51:06 +0000

Alastair, are you arguing FOR perpetual motion machines? One needs only to try to build any of these contraptions to prove that they just don’t work. Same goes for this Bhaskara Wheel.

By: WLGJR

WLGJR — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 07:16:52 +0000

In the future we will develop Planck scale propulsion, and after that there cound be vacuum propulsion. Sounds awesome.

By: WLGJR

WLGJR — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 07:14:04 +0000

if we overload a certain region of space, I believe crush will happen in that region, but no cosmic aftermath will result.

I believe that such event of overloading a region has already happened and, because the universe is still macroscopically stable (we are still here), so we can deduce that regional crash affects only the region.

By the way, your description of how to create new universes sounds great. In the future we might create universes this way and colonize them (in Kurzweil’s book he mentioned about colonizing other universes after we “suturate” this universe).

By: WLGJR

WLGJR — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 07:08:20 +0000

From what I know it is the “dark energy” that is expanding the universe, not any external energy. I could be wrong.

BTW, according to loop quantum theory, no true singularity can form, therefore Big Bang came from an extremely dense state (of contracted universe), rather than a singularity, and also there is probably another universe before the singularity (and another before that, either ad infiniti or there is a finite time of the universe-cycles).

Whether our universe will eventually crunch is not yet known.

Perhaps intervention of advanced future superintelligence can prevent the universe from dying by force the universe to stay in roughly the same size for as long as possible (or better, for eternity).

By: Arend

Arend — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 05:40:13 +0000

The universe is still expanding, the second law is inevitable, so someone must be adding energy.

By: Tony

Tony — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 18:10:31 +0000

Just remember: “Creating a Human being is the one thing we humans can do that requires NO technical Training” LOL

By: Whittaker

Whittaker — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 22:08:14 +0000

Just like Deepak Chopra, the master of esoteric mumbo-jumbo (no offense intended to Kurzweil and Chopra, depend on one’s definition of “mumbo-jumbo”).

By: Publius

Publius — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 19:10:21 +0000

“there not being.” Not “teri not being.” Whoever teri is. Sorry for typo.

By: Publius

Publius — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 19:05:25 +0000

I didn’t say the Universe was closed. I said, “which, as far as we know, IS a closed system” and “if it is truly closed.” It not being closed, and teri not being any structure beyond it that is closed, is the only way to escape the 2nd law.

By: Mr.X

Mr.X — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 08:14:34 +0000

@Minority: “And we know that it is closed because. . .”

If you use the word in its usual sense, universe encompasses per definition everything that could possibly affect anything else (that is somehow connected with us).It’s “universal”.It is all there is.

If everything there is is within the boundaries of this definition, and the requirement to be able to speak about a closed system is the absence of outside influence, it follows that we are talking about a closed system.

By: Mr.X

Mr.X — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 08:09:33 +0000

If someone deems himself expert on a thing, he often thinks he understands and knows other things too.

There was a “5 reasons to be optimistic for 2013″ article, which made a nice statement indicating a lack of knowledge about economics (and another one about African kids, who surely ALL have smartphones and are ALL able to use them in the way he suggests).Or the joke about technology creating more jobs than it destroys.Even if that were true, it wouldn’t mean that we’d have less unemployment. There are plenty of people who can’t do anything but “lowely” jobs, and many of those won’t be magically transform to be able to do jobs requiring a fair amount of technical education.

Of course, if you are abstract enough, all problems will solve themselves (which may still be true, but we don’t have to assume that things just happen).Just give them “education”.More abstract: We will do things “better”.All will be fine.

By: Mindless

Mindless — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 06:33:26 +0000

not when there made with nano-bots

By: MinorityMandate

MinorityMandate — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 01:01:31 +0000

And we know that it is closed because. . . .

By: Publius

Publius — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 20:14:20 +0000

“The evolution of intelligence runs counter to the 2nd Law” only locally and temporarily. It requires a continuous input of energy and cannot continue if there is no available energy. It does not violate the 2nd Law because living things and computers are not closed systems–they take in energy and give off heat and so are able to do useful work. Because they cannot be 100% efficient, some of the enrgy is wasted and the entropy of the universe as a whole (which, as far as we know, IS a closed system) increases. Turn a human into a closed system by putting him in a sealed box and he very shortly ceases to function and his entropy increases (he dies and rots). The universe as a whole (if it is truly closed) cannot escape the 2nd Law.

By: Publius

Publius — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 20:11:45 +0000

It isn’t really an argument. If there is no law that specifies what physical constants “must” be (which would be the simplest expllanation if we could find such a law–theory of everyhting), then to my mind a multiverse of 10^500+ universes in each of which the constants are randomly set, and we are in one conducive to life, is a simpler and more convincing explanation than that some supernatural creator set them or that our universe is the only one an “perfect” for us by sheer coincidence.

By: Publius

Publius — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 20:06:24 +0000

The 2nd law is not broken. It would be broken only if the “virtual” particles remained in existence. The existence of virtual particles is due to the uncertainty principle. At the quantum scale you cannot actually say that any particular point in space is empty because you cannot measure position and momentum similtaneously with arbitrary precision. The virtual particles are ‘permitted’ to ‘borrow’ a tiny amount of energy and exist for a very short length of time, and then they must return the energy and disappear again. But, the more energy it borrows, the less time it is allowed to exist. The net effect on the universe is zero.

By: Mindless

Mindless — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 05:51:25 +0000

do yal have a chip that will make us smarter and if so can i have one

By: tim the realist

tim the realist — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 00:23:07 +0000

When 2 virtual particles “pop” into existence the 2nd “law” of thermodynamics is broken. Empty vacuum which is at the lowest possible entropy yields information and energy. Let there be light.

By: Alastair Carnegie

Alastair Carnegie — Sun, 30 Dec 2012 14:51:20 +0000

The Laws of Thermodynamics first proposed by a Medical Doctor, Dr. Herman Helmholtz, assumed that there were no perpetual motion machines, and that this erroneous claim justified an ‘axiomatic’ premis. that “because there were no perpetual motion machines, therefore The Laws of Thermodynamics” and today we have foolishly reversed the argument “Because of the Laws of Thermodynamics, a Perpetual Motion Machine is impossible” The Bhaskara wheel of the 8th century was a quicksilver overbalance wheel, it depended on “Reversed Momentum” (as in a Pelton Wheel) in one direction of rotation, and when the quichsilver (Hg.) Bamboo containers were inversed, the Hg. had to flow past baffles meandering to the end. These baffles were above the Hg. and so allowed unrestricted flow of Mercury the other way. Johann Bessler aka Orffyreus we believe was commissioned by Gottfried Liebniz to adapt Bhaskara’s design, with rolling cylinders, instead of quicksilver. Nulius in verba. suck-it-and-see, please don’t waste breath in a futile argument!

By: troels

troels — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 17:59:01 +0000

It is indeed true that it could be argued. However: You present no argument. Care to elaborate?

By: Publius

Publius — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 16:38:53 +0000

It could be argued that a “level II” multiverse is a simpler, more parsimonious explanation to the (so far) mystery of what set the physical constants in our universe to their observed values. If we eventually discover laws that tell us the constants “had to” have the values they do, that will be the best explanation. But failing that, a multiverse is a simpler explanation than a designer or pure luck.

By: Publius

Publius — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 16:33:23 +0000

What is “perfection”? The universe began in a minimally entropic state.

By: Whittaker

Whittaker — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 08:32:41 +0000

I think it would be either “inertions” or “inertons”. Can’t be “inertiatrons”. Just pointing out.

By: Whittaker

Whittaker — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 01:38:51 +0000

And black holes evaporate. Read Stephen Hawking’s books to learn more.

By: Gabe

Gabe — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 00:01:55 +0000

Have a question for you guys, that non of you can answer, but it is fun to speculate. Since entropy always increases through time, was the Universe perfect when it began?

By: Fredrik Wallinder

Fredrik Wallinder — Fri, 07 Dec 2012 19:35:26 +0000

The multiverse theory is at present unproven and contrary to Occam’s Razor. The 2nd Law has never been proven wrong, so entropy will always increase no matter what. If the dark energy observation holds, the universe will be very lonely as everything depart from us over the horizon. Guess we’re lucky to be around so close to the Big Bang event, energy is still plentiful and will be for billions of years.

By: Publius

Publius — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 16:09:03 +0000

I think Ray was elliptical. He means that the evolution of intelligence runs counter to the 2nd Law locally and temporarily. It requires a continuous input of energy and cannot continue if there is no available energy. It does not violate the 2nd Law because living things and computers are not closed systems–they take in energy and give off heat and so are able to do useful work. Because they cannot be 100% efficient, some of the enrgy is wasted and the entropy of the universe as a whole (which, as far as we know, IS a closed system) increases. Turn a human into a closed system by putting him in a sealed box and he very shortly ceases to function and his entropy increases (he dies and rots). The universe as a whole (if it is truly closed) cannot escape the 2nd Law.

By: Publius

Publius — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:58:48 +0000

No. Black holes have entropy. In fact they are maximally entropic, that is, they contain the maximum amount of entropy possible in a given volume. The entropy of a black hole is Boltzmann’s constant times the area of the event horizon surface, divided by 4 Planck areas (square Planck lengths).

By: Brad

Brad — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 04:48:22 +0000

I first read this story a few years ago after discovering Asimov. It’s wonderful. Also the one when two descendants of humans create new humans. That’s all i have to say about that.

By: Bri

Bri — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 12:26:25 +0000

I didn’t even get a question out of Rons remark. If all the energy follows the second law of thermodynamics, then eventually there would be no energy to power even thoughts. If that’s the case then intelligence will follow the second law.

By: Bri

Bri — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 12:17:34 +0000

If a black hole can have a mass of a billion suns, it means that the mass is still there. It hasn’t totally disappeared. If it were gone the black hole would have no mass.

By: Christian Gehman

Christian Gehman — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 17:12:29 +0000

Perhaps dark matter “decelerates” to become matter in our universe? Perhaps matter from our universe, falling into a black hole, becomes dark matter in the subsequent cascade? In any case, since matter falling into a black hole “disappears” from our universe, doesn’t this violate the second law? Or, are we thinking that somehow black holes are actually “part of our universe”?

By: Christian Gehman

Christian Gehman — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 17:07:27 +0000

Who’s to say a black hole is not an entirely new universe a-borning?

By: MechanicGuy

MechanicGuy — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 07:36:41 +0000

“Even better, physics may reveal how to create energy out of nothing, which isn’t an outlandish idea considering that the universe seems to have come from nothing.” I like that. Something from nothing, pure magic.

By: Lord Penguin

Lord Penguin — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 06:57:31 +0000

Entropy can be any quantity equal to or larger than 0, so the universe can survive for much longer than it would naturally by changing that quantity. By pooling matter together into black holes, one can decrease the entropy of a system (but not remove it), although this decreases the amount of energy available for, say, computations. The time allowed by this makes the life of our universe until now seem like a nanosecond, but it is still finite. Hopefully, the laws of physics will show a better way.

The universe was created with an enormous amount of energy and that energy must have come from somewhere. If, as many theories suggest, that energy was a small part of some massive energy pool that happened to form our universe, we may be able to tap into that to prolong the life of the universe, possibly infinitely, if the energy pool is infinite.

Even better, physics may reveal how to create energy out of nothing, which isn’t an outlandish idea considering that the universe seems to have come from nothing.

By: MechanicGuy

MechanicGuy — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 03:53:56 +0000

How depressing. We need a major breakthrough for that (reversing entropy).

By: xd

xd — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 23:34:35 +0000

Also: if n-dimensional space-time is quantized, what is the maximum limit of energy that can be held in a single quantized point. And if you try to overload that limit by crashing interfering beams of energy containing greater than the limit then what happens? Will the entire universe flip to another metastable state or else will another baby universe bud off containing the “extra” universe? Or maybe we force a reboot of the universal state machine….

By: xd

xd — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 23:31:52 +0000

What you’re talkinig about is a manifold of universes where each “universe” is a single brane in the manifold. Depending on the conditions it may be possible to tunnel from one brane to another.

By: Dan Robinson

Dan Robinson — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:03:35 +0000

I thought of a story a while back, which your’re free to use. People talk about “gravitons”, so how about “inertiatrons” as well? Suppose scientists create a new particle that converts inertiatrons to gravitrons and more of the new particle. Gravity increases and inertia decreases. Affected matter falls toward other matter, without inertia, and “infects” it also, thus consuming the universe, perhaps at more than the speed of light. The “final” result is the big bang, when it starts all over again, and evolves in the same way.

By: sblack

sblack — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 00:55:06 +0000

Turk – I’m sorry! I’ve added as you suggest. Thanks –Sarah (Managing Editor)

By: snake0

snake0 — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 20:49:39 +0000

Ray’s words are worth a million dollars each. Twelve mil was the budget cap for an article, I’m guessing.

By: Turk

Turk — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 08:51:24 +0000

Was very interested in reading this short story … Until I continued reading the rest of this article. Ill probably still find myself a copy, but please add “Spoiler Alerts” to articles like this. Not all of us have read this stuff yet!

By: Vin

Vin — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 07:43:29 +0000

… of indirection.

By: MechanicGuy

MechanicGuy — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 00:46:38 +0000

Thank you, Bill, for starting a very interesting idea.
I think that, beyond our universe, there exists a “totalverse” where all existence ( all other universes that can or cannot be reached) situates within.
One question that should be answered is whether the totalverse is infinite. If the totalverse is finite, there will be one day when the last universe is exhausted and no other universes exists for further escapement.

By: Max Comess

Max Comess — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 22:57:36 +0000

No, there is nothing currently known in the universe which violates the second law of thermodynamics. As regards intelligence specifically or complexity in general, please see Eric Chaisson’s book, “Cosmic Evolution”. The basic premise is that complexity evolves due to energy gradients. More complex systems evolve from less complex ones, e.g. stars form from clouds of gas, planets from accretion discs, organic molecules from inorganic ones, more complex life from less. Yet, all of these processes take advantage of the existing energy gradients to do work, and nowhere is dS/dt < 0. Yes, these are non-equilibrium systems and yes, the entropy can be "redistributed", but globally, it is always increasing.

Ref: https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/reprints/EnergyRateDensity_I_FINAL_2011.pdf

By: Gabriel

Gabriel — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 22:18:46 +0000

It’s been ages since Ray has done one of these — I’m happy to see that, at least on occasion, he still does them.

By: bill yarberry

bill yarberry — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 19:08:48 +0000

If this universe dies a heat death, why not jump to another one on the way up? Of course, there is the small matter of getting to another universe.

By: andrewggibson

andrewggibson — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 19:08:21 +0000

And a twelve word response warrants a post because…?

By: Ed Sharpe

Ed Sharpe — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 16:38:40 +0000

Re: the Wikipedia entry you had here on …
Well that summary of the “FINAL QUESTION” told me a bit too much! sort of spoils the wish to read the book when one knows the punchline…

Oddly enough, I somehow missed this story ot of all the works of his I have read…

By: Bri

Bri — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 12:20:02 +0000

The virtual particles that arise and disappear in the vacuum are independent of heat death. Much has been theorized about how much energy resides in open space. The zero point energy field theoretically has far more energy than is expressed in the universe we know of. Might it pose a solution to the heat death question?( reality is a holodeck)