Steering the Happy Path to Humanity’s Future by Brent Pfister

Brent Pfister

Essay Abstract

Humanity should steer the future with the goals of technological progress, comfortable living, protecting the biosphere, and long-term survival of intelligent life. How far humanity can go depends on laws of physics, how well and soon we can understand those laws and engineer solutions. The feasibility of breakthroughs in energy and interstellar travel determine what is possible. Advances in computing and genetic engineering shape the future along with many other technologies.

Author Bio

Brent Pfister is a software engineer and longtime fan of physics and science fiction living in the United States.

Download Essay PDF File

James Dunn

I had a similar thought several years ago and wrote a TIP proposal to NIST.gov

http://vixra.org/pdf/1205.0021v1.pdf

The concept is to broadly support the creation of physics resources and opportunities on a national scale.

In support of your Alternate Futures:

Weather Control System, Global Energy System, and low-cost space transportation

http://global-energy-system.pbworks.com

Brent Pfister

James, thank you for your comments. Your paper gave similar reasons for needing new physics but focused on different topics. I will read some of your referenced papers to understand your ideas for emergent space time. One note, instantaneous processors and infinite memory systems will never be possible--see quant-ph/9908043.

You proposed that NIST catalog quantum entanglement properties and gravitational wave observations. I am not a physicist and do not understand how national and international organizations and universities coordinate efforts and share results. Maybe the Particle Data Group could take responsibility for this?

I wrote "I cannot find a centralized list of facts that might help guide the search for new physics." At first I thought it would be good to catalog all theories for new physics, starting with Rizzo The idea was to insure no ideas are overlooked or forgotten and have to be rediscovered.

But a simpler goal is just to list the requirements for a theory describing new physics. What do physicists that study supersymmetry, string theory, loop quantum gravity, and other theories agree on? If this is described in a physics paper or wikipedia page, I would like to hear about it.

The requirements I have heard about are:

The theory needs to approximately match predictions/experimental results of the Standard Model and General Relativity.

Should satisfy the A-Theorem

Using computational complexity, if theory predictions encounter NP problems, it means that even if a theory is correct, it may not be provable so a different approach needs to be found.

Godels theorem is a concern but does not seem to indicate what action to take.

What are the conservation laws? I was surprised to read energy is not conserved in an expanding universe with increasing dark energy.

It would be good if the theory solved some of these problems.

It would be good if it made new, testable predictions.

Again, thanks James.

Georgina Woodward

Hi Brent,

I wanted to let you know I have read your essay. You cover a lot of ground.I particularly like new techniques needed. The amplituhedron is a really interesting development I have not come across before. Thanks for the hyperlink. I think the many hyperlinks throughout are helpful. Also I like 6.5 Other Ideas. Q. How many people does it take to find a Higgs boson? A. billions. You make it sound so easy to get involved in science in various ways.

Quote:"Recommend discussing religion in a physics blog or presentation like in a modern scientific paper, rarely and respectfully." that is ambiguous. I think you mean: do not recommend discussing religion in a physics blog or presentation like in a modern scientific paper.

You wrote "Earth is currently paradise."A lot of people would disagree with you.

I hope you get more readers as there are a lot of good ideas in there worth sharing.

Brent Pfister

Georgina, thank you for your comments.

The idea that it took billions of people to find the Higgs boson came from reading about how many people it takes to make a car. It takes the designers, the builders, the suppliers, the suppliers of suppliers, and all the people who buy the car. It is important that the general public feels involved in science even in areas where very few people understand it. Physicists will need the general public's support to build a new experiment costing many billions of dollars, with delays and huge cost overruns, in an era of many budget problems. Also the Higgs boson could not have been found in the 1960s when it was first proposed because civilization was not advanced enough. This is a great window of opportunity in history to make a breakthrough.

The essay contest asks "how humanity should attempt to steer its own course in light of the radically different modes of thought". I am suggesting be respectful when bringing up religion in a physics discussion, because offending people is unhelpful for gaining consensus. I live in a part of the USA where at the planetarium, the announcer calmly says "please be aware this presentation makes references to extended periods of time". She does not follow this with a statement about religion. That would offend some people who are willing to come and learn. It would also be a logical fallacy to assume a belief of some denominations applies to all religions. This is not about what I believe but about avoiding mixing issues that complicate gaining consensus.

I wrote "Earth is currently paradise, but space colonization is necessary for humanity's long term survival." I mean the weather on Earth is currently paradise compared with how it was in the past and will be in the future, and probably compared to any other habitable planet that might be found in the galaxy. This is a reference from an old Planet of the Apes movie. This is an appeal to save the environment and also keep going into space even though it is so harsh.

James Dunn

Arthur,

Regarding: instantaneous processors and infinite memory not being possible

In any proof regarding observable physics momentum, force, energy, power ... are used as variables in demonstrating relationships that prove something. Relativity is based upon the speed of light and related relationship of meters/second, or space/time.

The problem with this is that all the variables we routinely correlate are also based upon meters/sec and related inseparable space/time.

So by limiting the analysis of physics to inseparable space/time then mathematics limits causality to being composed of inseparable space/time relationships and the related energy.

What I am studying is the potential for a new way of relating to physics that allows for separable considerations that moderate space/time relationships.

An example of the feasibility of doing this is quantum entanglement. In relativity, anything not directly related to space, or not related to time, or not related to either space nor time, can produce observations that appear to be instantaneous though still causally connected.

Saying something is not possible, should be prefaced with "using currently mainstream relationships".

My interest is what fundamental characteristics moderate the ratios of physics.

E = 1/2 mv^2

What are the causal foundations for the functional relationships? I'm not as interested right now in the variables themselves.

"IF" space and time can be separately manipulated (non-relativistic causality), then energy-less causal manipulation becomes feasible.

A new physics based upon non-relativistic quantum causality.

These are just my interests, there is only minor experimental support thus far in the form of intuitively explaining duality, fringe patterns, observable quantum entanglement, decoherence, the Big Bang, alternate dimensional spaces...

If I figure out how to separate any observable feature of a space/time relationship, I'll probably keep it to myself until corruption can globally be eliminated. Imagine space/time manipulation tools in the hands of criminals !!

This is why I proposed making the NSA ethical to usefully monitor everything from the Top/Down:

http://eliminate-all-corruption.pbworks.com

And concurrently fighting corruption from the bottom/up through the teaching of common sense in my essay, from which has spawned a 501(c)3 for teaching common sense at:

http://www.ua-kits.com

The problem with technology is that it is most often used in conjunction with destroying eco-systems (uncontrolled population growth, mining, pesticides, herbicides ...). I do not believe anyone has put any significant effort into considering the broad devastation that space/time manipulation "can" represent.

James Dunn

Brent, sorry

Read Arther Brent Phister :.)

Joe Fisher

Dear Mr. Pfister,

Your essay was extremely well written and meticulously organized and I do hope that it does well in the competition. I do have one minor quibble about it that I hope you will not mind me mentioning.

Reality is unique, once. Charts are not unique.

Regards,

JoeFisher

Brent Pfister

Mr. Fisher,

Thank you for your kind comments.

Regarding reality being unique, the Alternative Futures diagram on page 2 of my essay shows different possibilities which depend on many unknown factors. How will people deal with global warming? Are breakthroughs possible in energy and space travel? Can people achieve them in time? When will the next large natural disaster happen? We will experience a single path through the possibilities, a single reality. The diagram is not intended to show Multiverses, of Max Tegmark's level 1 or 3. If those multiverses exist, the people in them would face similar challenges. So would any alien civilizations in our universe. There is no evidence for or against multiverses, but if our universe is infinite, the level 1 multiverse seems likely. Later in the essay I refer to the level 2 multiverse, with different physical constants in each universe.

The essay evaluation criteria contains the words: relevant, interesting, optimistic, realistic. I strove to meet the criteria, but unfortunately my essay turned out to be upsetting in several ways. When I watched the Nova/Frontline show on global warming and energy, I was rolling around on the floor in agony, not thinking about how I would rate the show. After finals, I look forward to reading essays with more optimistic perspectives.

Jayakar Joseph

Dear Brent,

Most of the unsolved problems in physics is due to our perceptions on the fundamental nature of matter and its dynamics with the emergence of time; that restrains the developments in observational science.

As 'Steer' is the control in real-time, further developments in observational science with new technics may imply better environmental regulations to endure Humanity against catastrophes, in that massive use of solar panels and development of new technics on energy storage are the immediate priorities before the observational science reaches capability maturity to explore Nature more profoundly.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

Vladimir Rogozhin

Dear Brent,

Extremely deep analytical essays in the spirit of Cartesian doubt, optimism and deep knowledge of the problems of modern Humanity. Call for earthlings: "We start the path." We must find the will for the future of our children and grandchildren! Hope - our compass earth. Thank you for all links!

I invite you to my forum and my essay FQXi Essay 2012-2013.

I wish you good luck!

All the Best,

Vladimir

Brent Pfister

Thank you Vladimir. Good luck to you too!

Brent

Brent Pfister

Here are some notes on my essay.

One way I learned about FQXi was this great essay: Stardrives and Spinoza by Louis Crane. I wanted to write about it when discussing interstellar travel but was reluctant to include something that would take generations to build. But coupled with new physics discoveries, a black-hole powered stardrive might take much less time to build. Which other essays should I have referenced?

---

A friend commented on my essay that a whole population of 10,000 genetically engineered beings would need to be created for genetic diversity.

He liked my essay but wrote: "I feel like I was steered into a blind alley. Even though it was an interesting adventure, it might not have satisfied the essay's objective." In the abstract, one goal was long-term survival of intelligent life. I researched and wrote the essay mostly in chronological order, knowing in advance that eventually humans will need to leave Earth, the rest of the solar system is horrible for life, and interstellar travel requires new physics. But I did not know how hard it would be locating another Earth, that "habitable planets" are usually not habitable for humans, and there are limits to genetic engineering. Altering human DNA is almost always a bad idea in science fiction, but might be ethical for survival on another planet. We might eventually be able to decode building blocks of human and animal DNA. Even if we could decode alien animal DNA adapted for life on another planet, I think it would be a computationally intractable problem to combine human DNA with alien animal DNA. Even if it were possible, the results might not be as good as natural evolution. And unless a way is found for an intelligent species to not run into the carrying capacity limit of a planet, maybe the alien animals should just be left alone, and the ship should jump to the next planet.

This is an even more environmentally oriented conclusion than I planned. Humans are tied to Earth, and potential technological advances could allow surviving natural disasters but may not give us a second chance on another planet.

Brent Pfister

What would happen if a particle could be accelerated to planck energy? Would it lose all mass and go the speed of light, turn into a black hole, or neither?

My essay says: "I read special relativity is wrong; it does not take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object to the speed of light. Instead when a particle gains Planck energy, it loses all mass and goes the speed of light." I think that was in a Scientific American article about 10 years ago but I cannot find it. Somewhere else I recently read just after the big bang, all particles in the universe had planck energy and were massless.

From Scientific American May 2005 "Quantum Black Holes" Bernard J. Carr & Steven B. Giddings For a particle to be both energetic enough and compact enough to form a black hole, it must have the Planck energy.

stackexchange says an accelerated object would not turn into a black hole because only relativistic mass would increase.

Is the accelerated object related to a Planck particle? It is thought that such a particle would form a black hole, then would vanish in Hawking radiation.

Michio Kaku says space and time become unstable at planck energy. We must wait for a fully quantum mechanical theory of gravity to answer this question.

Michael muteru

hi brent

Nice work,With enhanced computing power humanity should start developing algorithms from nature,hence predict future physical events like weather hence be prepared for future,and avert high casualties.I propose the use of the kardashev cosmic scale for its far reaches.in my essay LIVING IN THE SHADOWS OF THE SUN: REALITIES, PERILS ESCAPADES MAN, PLANET AND KARDASHEV SCALE.MAKING THE GREAT TRANSITION by Michael muteru.or weblink http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2101.kindly vote/review my essay.thanks.Wish you all the best

Brent Pfister

Thanks Michael, wish you all the best too!

Brent

John Merryman

Brent,

Keeping in mind that the earth and all its systems are a complex physical network, it will prove to be much more important to better understand what we have and what we are doing with it, before projecting very far out into space and the future.

For instance, we treat the financial medium as a profit mechanism and so the world's economy has evolved to create notational value, at the expense of any and all actual resources. While this is apparent to many, given Thomas Pikkity's recent book on capital in the 21st century is currently at the top of the best seller lists, the whole issue of the economic structure as a question for steering the future barely rates a mention in this contest.

It used to be that science was the provence of broad minded polymaths, yet today, the criteria is near obsessive focus and rather than using analytic skills to examine social functions, it seems the usual course for STEM professionals is to use their skills to further the destructive tendencies, such as by mathematically concocting ever more elaborately leveraged financial vehicles, or designing ever more effective war making devices on which public debt can be splurged and thus sustaining and growing the bubble of public debt, while extending the reach of this system ever further around the world.

When your generation reaches my age, it is safe to say many of these issues will return home to roost in an unavoidable fashion.

Regards,

John Merryman

Brent Pfister

(This post got lost somehow)

John,

My essay does not focus on economics but mentions The Coming Generational Storm from 2004. It describes the combination of financial problems of deficit spending and rising costs for social security and health care that may cause a crisis after 2030. Other problems not mentioned are rising costs for energy and dealing with global warming.

Thomas Pikkity's "Capital in the 21st century" seems to be mostly about the financial system increasing income inequality which I agree is also a problem. If I were to read an economics book now, I might pick "The Crash Course: The Unsustainable Future Of Our Economy, Energy, And Environment" by Chris Martenson.

I learned a very important lesson by thinking about space and the far future. Humanity is tied to Earth and problems with overpopulation and environment cannot be solved by going into space, but must be solved here.

John Merryman

Brent,

There is always a conflict of the generations. As I describe it, growing up is like grass trying to push through the concrete. Then one day, you wake up and you are the concrete and there is this damn grass trying to push you out of the way.

In my entry I start out with the dichotomy of energy and information and how energy manifests information, while information defines energy. That this dichotomy is reflecting in our physiology, with the central nervous system processing information, while the digestive, respiratory and circulatory systems process energy, etc.

Also that since energy is inherently dynamic, while information is inherently static, energy is constantly creating and dissolving information, thus creating the effect of time. Which gets to generations. Youth is that energy constantly pushing out and testing its boundaries, while age is the form and definition we acquire with experience. Our awareness is that energy of being, while our knowledge is the form it manifests.

Currently much of the form of society is being compelled by the monetary mechanism it uses to lubricate exchange, to the point that that it has gone from facilitating the market, to being the primary product of the economy, to the increasing detriment of the environment. I think your generation will eventually find this amounts to a form of socially cancerous behavior and curing it will be required before many of the other problems can be addressed.

Given the desire to acquire money on the part of virtually everyone, the force behind this wave is far greater than just the efforts of those riding its crest. That is why, to put it in a nutshell, I make the point that we have to start treating money as the contract it is, not the commodity we have grown to think of it as. As a public contract, it is a public utility. We no more own those pieces of paper in our pockets than we own the section of road we happen to be driving on. This is in fact how it really is anyway, but it just benefits those controlling the system to have us think it is private property, then we are much more willing to extract value from other stores of value, such as communal relations and the environment, in order to trade in this system. If we naturally understood it as a form of public property, most people would get much more attuned to sustaining value in the more organic aspects of their lives, than everything from elder and child care, primary education, local public projects, etc, would be more community based, even using local currencies, rather than at the mercy of those global control functions.

Regards,

John

Ajay Bhatla

Brent,

Finally got to your essay. And totally enjoyed the compendium you pulled together.

Very well said: "How far humanity can go depends on laws of physics, how well and soon can we understand those laws and engineer solutions."

I also totally agree with "... steer the future by many individual actions ..."

The only uncertainty I find is in who you mean when you use the word "we". Who is this "we"?

My essay, (here), if I understand yours, has the same basic points as yours. I however, define this 'we' as every person in the world simply because everyone is driven to better their own life, the lives of their families and communities. I look forward to your comments on my essay.

-- Ajay

Brent Pfister

Ajay, thank you for your kind comments. "We" means physicists working to make discoveries, engineers who will make things to take advantage of those discoveries, and everyone who will benefit, which is hopefully all of humanity. I like the way your essay focuses on people in less developed regions using science to improve their lives.

Brent

Luca Valeri

Dear Brent,

Thanks for your essay. I enjoyed the reading very much. Your love for science is very inspiring.

It is unusual, that in a scientific work someone resumes his influences. However for the question how to steer the future it seems imperative to do that and as far I could see you're the only one doing this. This fact alone imposes me to give you a high rating. (I can see you need a few more ratings to be eligible for the finals).

So my background is a hyper rational older brother and the fact that I still don't understand physics after so many years of trying. So in my essay I explore the question of how physics might be even possible and which are its boundary.

Regards,

Luca

Brent Pfister

Luca, thank you very much. Those influences really shaped my thinking about the future and are more powerful than anything I could write.

Thank you,

Brent