Which of your favorite sci-fi tech seems achievable in a reasonable timeframe, say 100 years?
-
This post did not contain any content.
I think we can make an oven with a tiny fire breathing dinosaur in it.
-
Portable communicators. It would be slick to have a USB c tricorder though.
Hold up. I'm pretty sure things that already exist don't count.
-
Portable communicators. It would be slick to have a USB c tricorder though.
...you mean phones?
-
Artificial wombs are something that's often presented as dystopian, but I would imagine would actually be a very good thing. Beyond the obvious help it would be to infertile couples that desired children, they would if commonly adopted eliminate the danger of birth and pregnancy complications, and discomfort associated with the process. Probably not everyone would want to use it, but I'd bet even having the option would mean a lot to a lot of people.
And then all of this gave birth to the terrorists known as the Naturalists
... -
This post did not contain any content.wrote on last edited by [email protected]
Direct brain interfaces for, like, VR. So instead of a screen strapped to your face, your visual cortex is just stimulated so you see the game using your own "hardware." A literal Matrix type environment for your mind.
This is either gonna be cool and fun, or scary and evil. But it will exist.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I would guess that we'll most-likely have AGI in 100 years. That's pretty futuristic and impactful.
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
FTL communication using quantum entangled particles.
Not possible; entanglement collapse can't be used to send information
-
This post did not contain any content.
Fully autonomous humanoid robots. Unfortunately with out-of-control AGI they will probably kill me.
It would have been cool to have a benign C3-PO or R2D2.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Computer circuits based on light instead of electricity.
-
Not possible; entanglement collapse can't be used to send information
The idea is this:
2 particles are quantum entangled. Whatever happens to one instantly happens to the other regardless of distance.
So you establish a state that means "0" and a state that means "1" and you can send binary.
At a minimum, you have quantum Morse code.
-
The idea is this:
2 particles are quantum entangled. Whatever happens to one instantly happens to the other regardless of distance.
So you establish a state that means "0" and a state that means "1" and you can send binary.
At a minimum, you have quantum Morse code.
If you change one of the particles it just breaks the entanglement. If you measure one, then you instantly know the state the other will have when measured, but the result of your measurement - and therefore the other one also - is random. The only way to correlate the two measurements of the two particles is to send the results (at C or slower) to the same place and compare them. Otherwise each just looks like a random result.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Orbital habitats with rotational gravity.
-
The idea is this:
2 particles are quantum entangled. Whatever happens to one instantly happens to the other regardless of distance.
So you establish a state that means "0" and a state that means "1" and you can send binary.
At a minimum, you have quantum Morse code.
I'm familiar with quantum entanglement. It doesn't work because you have no way of affecting which state you'll measure, and thus what state the other particle will be in.
-
I'm familiar with quantum entanglement. It doesn't work because you have no way of affecting which state you'll measure, and thus what state the other particle will be in.
Read the link posted. They already did it. In 2007. At a distance of 144km.
-
If you change one of the particles it just breaks the entanglement. If you measure one, then you instantly know the state the other will have when measured, but the result of your measurement - and therefore the other one also - is random. The only way to correlate the two measurements of the two particles is to send the results (at C or slower) to the same place and compare them. Otherwise each just looks like a random result.
Read the link posted. They already did it. In 2007. At a distance of 144km.
-
I suspect we will see a human brain to digital interface. I don't think it will be "downloading minds" or anything, but I could see someone finding a way to plug a specialized camera or mic in to have a full functioning robotic replacement part.
I'm pretty sure they already have the beginning pieces to this, but its too specialized and expensive to do anything commercial with it yet.
Cochlear implants are a form of this, and are already commercial. I remember having a conversation with a guy at a doof about 10 years ago, standing right near a loud sound system, and it took me 20 minutes to realise he had one. He was completely deaf without it on.. I can only assume the tech is much better these days.
Similar things exist for vision (though maybe not yet commercial?).
-
This will be useful for all the people over at [email protected]
-
If you change one of the particles it just breaks the entanglement. If you measure one, then you instantly know the state the other will have when measured, but the result of your measurement - and therefore the other one also - is random. The only way to correlate the two measurements of the two particles is to send the results (at C or slower) to the same place and compare them. Otherwise each just looks like a random result.
(I know nothing about this)
Could you to the sub-C measurement test enough times to show that it just empirically works, and then use it on that basis? Or are you saying that the sub-C measurement would prove that it doesn't work (and it produces random noise)?
-
Direct brain interfaces for, like, VR. So instead of a screen strapped to your face, your visual cortex is just stimulated so you see the game using your own "hardware." A literal Matrix type environment for your mind.
This is either gonna be cool and fun, or scary and evil. But it will exist.
I don't think we'll be able to upload knowledge any time soon, as we're a long way from properly mapping how the brain handles this.
But visual inputs for VR/AR is much closer, as there is already some functional implants for something similar: having cameras produce neural stimuli has been a thing for a few decades now, and it's now at the stage where some blind people have been able to regain a limited form of vision despite not having functioning eyes. The tech is only going to get better, so at some point it can be used to augment normal vision.
