from the world's big
Matrioshka Brain: How advanced civilizations could reshape reality
Future or extraterrestrial civilizations could create megastructures the size of a solar system.
- Advanced civilizations are likely to create megastructures to harness the energy of the stars.
- These megastructures could be nested, creating "Matrioshka Brains" – the Universe's most powerful supercomputers.
- Matrioshka Brains could be used to simulate reality and remake the Universe.
Why create a Matrioshka Brain
To some people, like Elon Musk, the troubling thought is that we don't really know whether we live in a "real" or impressively-rendered digital world. What makes the prospect of us living in a simulation more than a tired billionaire's flight of fancy is the possible existence of Matrioshka brains, theoretical megastructures that could harness the power of stars.
To understand how they would work, we need to look very far into the future.
With the advent of scientific thinking, humans discovered a seemingly reliable method for probing the world around us. We learned much about what the world is made of and how to bend some parts of it to our will. But what we learned and developed technologically is likely negligent compared to what's about to come, especially if we project our current rate of progress. One prediction is that the needs of an advanced society for more energy will at some point lead to the creation of megastructures called Dyson Spheres. These would encircle stars like our Sun to harness their energy.
Freeman Dyson, the physicist who came up with the idea of Dyson Spheres saw their possible existence as something to keep in mind when searching for alien life. His 1960 paper "Search for Artificial Stellar Sources of Infra-Red Radiation" advocates looking for unusual emission signatures of hypothetical structures like Dyson Spheres to spot other spacefaring civilizations.
But as inventor Robert Bradbury wrote, Dyson saw his spheres as quite specifically as a place to live. For example, a "layer of habitats for human beings orbiting the Sun between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter." What Bradbury came up with is an extension of that idea - what if a Dyson sphere was turned into a computer, the most powerful machine in the Universe?
"If extraterrestrial intelligent beings exist and have reached a high level of technical development, one by-product of their energy metabolism is likely to be the large-scale conversion of starlight into far-infrared radiation," wrote Freeman Dyson. "It is proposed that a search for sources of infrared radiation should accompany the recently initiated search for interstellar radio communications.
Artist's concept of a Dyson sphere. Credit: Adam Burn.
Bradbury's year million proposal
What Bradbury envisioned in the anthology
"Year Million: Science at the Far Edge of Knowledge" is that far in the future, we'd have the technology to create a set of nested shells around a star – each shell essentially being a Dyson Sphere. Because this megastructure would resemble a Russian nested Matryoshka doll, where smaller dolls fit inside larger ones, he called the concept a "Matrioshka Brain". This solar-system-sized machine would be the most powerful computer in the Universe, harvesting all the useful energy from a star, while rendering it "essentially invisible at visible wavelengths".
To work as a giant computer, or the "highest capacity thought machine" as Bradbury wrote, a Matrioshka Brain (MB) would draw power from the star and spread it through the shells. One shell (or sphere) would collect all the energy it could draw from the star and then would pass on the excess to another larger processing shell that would surround it. This would repeat until all the energy was exhausted.
The shells would be made of computronium - a hypothetical material which nears the theoretical limit of computational power. The inner shells would run at a temperature close to the star's while the outer shells would be at the temperature of interstellar space.
If they were built in our solar system, the Matrioshka Brain shells would have orbits ranging from inside Mercury's to outside Neptune's, claimed Bradbury.
How and when we could get a Matrioshka Brain
Needless to stay, the scope of the engineering and resources required for such a project would be tremendous and far beyond what humans can currently muster. One technology mentioned by Bradbury that is actually being created now and can lead to the construction of such immense structures are self-replicating factories. The company Made in Space has been making headway in its implementation and design of 3D printing tech in space, with the ultimate goals of putting factories that build themselves into orbit.
How would you, a superpower civilization that ranks high on the
Kardashev scale, use such a computer, which could conceivably have all the power of the Sun at its disposal? Among science fiction aficionados, uses of this hypothetical super-tool, a class B stellar engine, could range from uploading human minds into virtual reality to changing the structure of the universe, as imagined author Charles Stross. The computers could also be used to simulate reality, potentially creating a whole alternate universe. This, of course, leads to the question - how real is our current universe?
What if the whole world around you was just a very good simulation? One that engages all your senses, feeding you information about supposed smells, sights and sounds. But, ultimately, it's a computer program that's running and none of the things you think you are encountering are actually there. And what's the difference if the simulation is so amazingly realistic?
The mere prospect of Matrioshka Brains makes these questions have real potency. For what it's worth, Bradbury predicted that if current trends (circa 2000) were projected, humans would be able to build such a machine brain by 2250. He thought it would require most of the silicon from the planet planet Venus as raw material. Even so, the first MB would have the "thought capacity in excess of a million times the thought capacity of the 6 billion+ people," wrote Bradbury.
For more on Matrioshka Brains, check out Bradbury's paper on how to build one.
Andy Samberg and Cristin Milioti get stuck in an infinite wedding time loop.
- Two wedding guests discover they're trapped in an infinite time loop, waking up in Palm Springs over and over and over.
- As the reality of their situation sets in, Nyles and Sarah decide to enjoy the repetitive awakenings.
- The film is perfectly timed for a world sheltering at home during a pandemic.
Richard Feynman once asked a silly question. Two MIT students just answered it.
Here's a fun experiment to try. Go to your pantry and see if you have a box of spaghetti. If you do, take out a noodle. Grab both ends of it and bend it until it breaks in half. How many pieces did it break into? If you got two large pieces and at least one small piece you're not alone.
But science loves a good challenge<p>The mystery remained unsolved until 2005, when French scientists <a href="http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/~audoly/" target="_blank">Basile Audoly</a> and <a href="http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/~neukirch/" target="_blank">Sebastien Neukirch </a>won an <a href="https://www.improbable.com/ig/" target="_blank">Ig Nobel Prize</a>, an award given to scientists for real work which is of a less serious nature than the discoveries that win Nobel prizes, for finally determining why this happens. <a href="http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/spaghetti/audoly_neukirch_fragmentation.pdf" target="_blank">Their paper describing the effect is wonderfully funny to read</a>, as it takes such a banal issue so seriously. </p><p>They demonstrated that when a rod is bent past a certain point, such as when spaghetti is snapped in half by bending it at the ends, a "snapback effect" is created. This causes energy to reverberate from the initial break to other parts of the rod, often leading to a second break elsewhere.</p><p>While this settled the issue of <em>why </em>spaghetti noodles break into three or more pieces, it didn't establish if they always had to break this way. The question of if the snapback could be regulated remained unsettled.</p>
Physicists, being themselves, immediately wanted to try and break pasta into two pieces using this info<p><a href="https://roheiss.wordpress.com/fun/" target="_blank">Ronald Heisser</a> and <a href="https://math.mit.edu/directory/profile.php?pid=1787" target="_blank">Vishal Patil</a>, two graduate students currently at Cornell and MIT respectively, read about Feynman's night of noodle snapping in class and were inspired to try and find what could be done to make sure the pasta always broke in two.</p><p><a href="http://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-mathematicians-solve-age-old-spaghetti-mystery-0813" target="_blank">By placing the noodles in a special machine</a> built for the task and recording the bending with a high-powered camera, the young scientists were able to observe in extreme detail exactly what each change in their snapping method did to the pasta. After breaking more than 500 noodles, they found the solution.</p>
The apparatus the MIT researchers built specifically for the task of snapping hundreds of spaghetti sticks.
(Courtesy of the researchers)
What possible application could this have?<p>The snapback effect is not limited to uncooked pasta noodles and can be applied to rods of all sorts. The discovery of how to cleanly break them in two could be applied to future engineering projects.</p><p>Likewise, knowing how things fragment and fail is always handy to know when you're trying to build things. Carbon Nanotubes, <a href="https://bigthink.com/ideafeed/carbon-nanotube-space-elevator" target="_self">super strong cylinders often hailed as the building material of the future</a>, are also rods which can be better understood thanks to this odd experiment.</p><p>Sometimes big discoveries can be inspired by silly questions. If it hadn't been for Richard Feynman bending noodles seventy years ago, we wouldn't know what we know now about how energy is dispersed through rods and how to control their fracturing. While not all silly questions will lead to such a significant discovery, they can all help us learn.</p>
What happens if we consider welfare programs as investments?
- A recently published study suggests that some welfare programs more than pay for themselves.
- It is one of the first major reviews of welfare programs to measure so many by a single metric.
- The findings will likely inform future welfare reform and encourage debate on how to grade success.
Welfare as an investment<p>The <a href="https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/hendren/files/welfare_vnber.pdf" target="_blank">study</a>, carried out by Nathaniel Hendren and Ben Sprung-Keyser of Harvard University, reviews 133 welfare programs through a single lens. The authors measured these programs' "Marginal Value of Public Funds" (MVPF), which is defined as the ratio of the recipients' willingness to pay for a program over its cost.</p><p>A program with an MVPF of one provides precisely as much in net benefits as it costs to deliver those benefits. For an illustration, imagine a program that hands someone a dollar. If getting that dollar doesn't alter their behavior, then the MVPF of that program is one. If it discourages them from working, then the program's cost goes up, as the program causes government tax revenues to fall in addition to costing money upfront. The MVPF goes below one in this case. <br> <br> Lastly, it is possible that getting the dollar causes the recipient to further their education and get a job that pays more taxes in the future, lowering the cost of the program in the long run and raising the MVPF. The value ratio can even hit infinity when a program fully "pays for itself."</p><p> While these are only a few examples, many others exist, and they do work to show you that a high MVPF means that a program "pays for itself," a value of one indicates a program "breaks even," and a value below one shows a program costs more money than the direct cost of the benefits would suggest.</p> After determining the programs' costs using existing literature and the willingness to pay through statistical analysis, 133 programs focusing on social insurance, education and job training, tax and cash transfers, and in-kind transfers were analyzed. The results show that some programs turn a "profit" for the government, mainly when they are focused on children:
This figure shows the MVPF for a variety of polices alongside the typical age of the beneficiaries. Clearly, programs targeted at children have a higher payoff.
Nathaniel Hendren and Ben Sprung-Keyser<p>Programs like child health services and K-12 education spending have infinite MVPF values. The authors argue this is because the programs allow children to live healthier, more productive lives and earn more money, which enables them to pay more taxes later. Programs like the preschool initiatives examined don't manage to do this as well and have a lower "profit" rate despite having decent MVPF ratios.</p><p>On the other hand, things like tuition deductions for older adults don't make back the money they cost. This is likely for several reasons, not the least of which is that there is less time for the benefactor to pay the government back in taxes. Disability insurance was likewise "unprofitable," as those collecting it have a reduced need to work and pay less back in taxes. </p>
What are the implications of all this?<div class="rm-shortcode" data-media_id="ceXv4XLv" data-player_id="FvQKszTI" data-rm-shortcode-id="3b407f5aa043eeb84f2b7ff82f97dc35"> <div id="botr_ceXv4XLv_FvQKszTI_div" class="jwplayer-media" data-jwplayer-video-src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/ceXv4XLv-FvQKszTI.js"> <img src="https://cdn.jwplayer.com/thumbs/ceXv4XLv-1920.jpg" class="jwplayer-media-preview" /> </div> <script src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/ceXv4XLv-FvQKszTI.js"></script> </div> <p>Firstly, it shows that direct investments in children in a variety of areas generate very high MVPFs. Likewise, the above chart shows that a large number of the programs considered pay for themselves, particularly ones that "invest in human capital" by promoting education, health, or similar things. While programs that focus on adults tend to have lower MVPF values, this isn't a hard and fast rule.</p><p>It also shows us that very many programs don't "pay for themselves" or even go below an MVPF of one. However, this study and its authors do not suggest that we abolish programs like disability payments just because they don't turn a profit.</p><p>Different motivations exist behind various programs, and just because something doesn't pay for itself isn't a definitive reason to abolish it. The returns on investment for a welfare program are diverse and often challenging to reckon in terms of money gained or lost. The point of this study was merely to provide a comprehensive review of a wide range of programs from a single perspective, one of dollars and cents. </p><p>The authors suggest that this study can be used as a starting point for further analysis of other programs not necessarily related to welfare. </p><p>It can be difficult to measure the success or failure of a government program with how many metrics you have to choose from and how many different stakeholders there are fighting for their metric to be used. This study provides us a comprehensive look through one possible lens at how some of our largest welfare programs are doing. </p><p>As America debates whether we should expand or contract our welfare state, the findings of this study offer an essential insight into how much we spend and how much we gain from these programs. </p>
Finding a balance between job satisfaction, money, and lifestyle is not easy.
- When most of your life is spent doing one thing, it matters if that thing is unfulfilling or if it makes you unhappy. According to research, most people are not thrilled with their jobs. However, there are ways to find purpose in your work and to reduce the negative impact that the daily grind has on your mental health.
- "The evidence is that about 70 percent of people are not engaged in what they do all day long, and about 18 percent of people are repulsed," London Business School professor Dan Cable says, calling the current state of work unhappiness an epidemic. In this video, he and other big thinkers consider what it means to find meaning in your work, discuss the parts of the brain that fuel creativity, and share strategies for reassessing your relationship to your job.
- Author James Citrin offers a career triangle model that sees work as a balance of three forces: job satisfaction, money, and lifestyle. While it is possible to have all three, Citrin says that they are not always possible at the same time, especially not early on in your career.