Phones tomorrow

[CraigD]

Why do we limit our imagination to EM waves only.

EM radiation – the fundamental particle the photon – is very versatile, good for everything from radio, sunlight & starlight to electron shells in atoms to most of the commonplace qualities of matter.

That is contrary to the scientific spirit. Science progresses only when scientists imagine what was not imagined.

True, the spirit of science loves new ideas, but also, it loves explaining many different phenomena with the fewest underlying mechanism. The unification of light with magnetism is one of the great triumphs of this 2nd qualities of the scientific spirit.

 

EM waves are due to transitions of subatomic particles: electrons, protons or neutrons. Now we know that partciles much smaller then these particles, the fundamental particles, also. How about waves produced by transitions of say quarks.

Protons and neutrons are not fundamental particles – they are composed of quarks, 2 U and 1 D for the proton, 2 D and 1 U for the neutron. The interaction between quarks and electrons (electrons are a fundamental particle) involves photons. Quarks interact with each other via gluons. Transmitted EM radiation – light, radio, etc – is produced by electrons.

 

I recommend familiarizing yourself with such popular references as the wikipedia article “The Standard Model”, to the point where you know the basic information on the colorful poster it links to by heart. Although not much more data than the usual description of sub-atomic particles most people learn in school, it’s not as widely or well taught, so most non-specialists, even people with advanced Science educations outside of particle Physics, need to learn about the Standard Model through self-education.

…World beyond eM waves or computers are waiting to be discovered.

While I think hallenrm is incorrect in speculating the existence of light-like phenomena outside of the EM spectrum, there is certainly a huge area of incompleteness in the Standard Model of Particle Physics: gravity. Professional and amateur physicists have puzzled and toiled after the elusive “graviton” for several generations, without a satisfying breakthrough. Though it entails long study and hard work, the promise of big discoveries to be made is as attractive now as it has ever been.

[hallenrm]

True, the spirit of science loves new ideas, but also, it loves explaining many different phenomena with the fewest underlying mechanism. The unification of light with magnetism is one of the great triumphs of this 2nd qualities of the scientific spirit.

 

But that does not mean that some newer concepts cannot be discovered that can explain many of these phenomena with still fewer underlying mechanism. The true spirit of science means that people who love to call themselves scientists do not give up the search for newer phenomena and concepts. I am sorry, but Craig sounds like a tired scientist.:hihi:

[Tormod]

The true spirit of science means that people who love to call themselves scientists do not give up the search for newer phenomena and concepts. I am sorry, but Craig sounds like a tired scientist.:hihi:

 

Pointing out what we know is not the same as saying new ideas are not welcome.

[CraigD]

True, the spirit of science loves new ideas, but also, it loves explaining many different phenomena with the fewest underlying mechanism. The unification of light with magnetism is one of the great triumphs of this 2nd qualities of the scientific spirit.

But that does not mean that some newer concepts cannot be discovered that can explain many of these phenomena with still fewer underlying mechanism.

I agree. The search for Physics models that produce results consistent with observations with fewer and more fundamental mechanism than models like the Standard Model is among the most exciting one in Science today. It’s produced a wild free-for-all of ideas like string theory, brane theory, holographic theory, and my personal favorite, quantum graph theory (not yet a well-established theory), which endeavors to describe all of reality with perhaps the simplest possible mathematical object, a graph (a list of pairs of nodes, where these nodes have no attributes other than their membership in the list).

 

On the opposite side of Science from efforts to reduce complicated observations to simple theory, is the search for observations outside of the explanations offered by current theory. Hardly any well-established theory does not have a large body of anomalous observation casting doubt on its correctness. Perhaps the most controversial area on this front is Cosmology, as the many conflicting cosmological theories discussed here at Hypography illustrate.

 

Shifting focus from these general notes on the nature of Science back to this thread’s theme, which I think hallernrm states well in post #4

Doesn't telepathy offers some hints [how to provide additional communication bandwidth]. All most all of us experience some form of telepathy sometime or the other. How does it happen? Can it be transformed into a communication technology?

:hihi: The assertion that telepathy is an accepted scientific fact experienced by almost all of us is not supported by experimental evidence. In fact, experiments show exactly the opposite. Decades of research attempting to show that mind-to-mind communication between human beings exists has produced a null result. Although small, tantalizing effects appear to exist in such work as Rhine’s and Sheldrake’s, so far none of these effects has persisted when the experiments are repeated in better controlled conditions.

 

I’m not suggesting that the search for evidence of telepathy should be abandoned, just that the assertion that such research has produced ample positive results is false, despite widespread belief by the general public that it is true. Unfortunately, a significant commercial enterprise depends on this misconception, and spends money dwarfing the public education spending of legitimate scientific organizations to perpetuate it. Aspiring scientists need to be careful to examine claims of experimental evidence of telepathy carefully, and not be fooled by fakery.

 

It’s well documented that some animals (eg: some sharks and rays) have a crude sort of telepathy that allows them to detect the nervous systems of hidden prey, so telepathy of a sort is proven possible. However, this particular mechanism is well understood, and electromagnetic in nature. No new fundamental particle is necessary to explain it.

I am sorry, but Craig sounds like a tired scientist.:)

Sometimes I feel like a tired scientist ;) – likely because my day job and my hobbies conspire to deprive me of sleep – but I can assure you I find Science as invigorating now as I did when I was six years old. I have, over the years, become a lot less credulous.

[hallenrm]

The assertion that telepathy is an accepted scientific fact experienced by almost all of us is not supported by experimental evidence. I’m not suggesting that the search for evidence of telepathy should be abandoned, just that the assertion that such research has produced ample positive results is false, despite widespread belief by the general public that it is true. Unfortunately, a significant commercial enterprise depends on this misconception, and spends money dwarfing the public education spending of legitimate scientific organizations to perpetuate it. Aspiring scientists need to be careful to examine claims of experimental evidence of telepathy carefully, and not be fooled by fakery.

 

It’s well documented that some animals (eg: some sharks and rays) have a crude sort of telepathy that allows them to detect the nervous systems of hidden prey, so telepathy of a sort is proven possible. However, this particular mechanism is well understood, and electromagnetic in nature. No new fundamental particle is necessary to explain it.Sometimes I feel like a tired scientist :eek2: – likely because my day job and my hobbies conspire to deprive me of sleep – but I can assure you I find Science as invigorating now as I did when I was six years old. I have, over the years, become a lot less credulous.

 

I agree whole heartedly and thank Craig for some useful inputs. I only hope that in the centuries to come, scientists would invent newer and better methods to undetake experiments to discover the truth.

[InfiniteNow]

I keep thinking of the theme music for this show on the Discovery Science channel...

 

 

:( :cup: :eek: "Bee yonndd too morroww" :cup: :cup: :hihi: