Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Will we ever… travel in wormholes?

WILL WE EVER?

Will we ever… travel in wormholes?

(SPL)
(SPL)
Leaping between galaxies through tunnels in space may sound crazy, but physicists have yet to rule it out. So how could this possibly work, asks Marcus Woo.


The universe is huge. Travelling at light speed to the nearest star would take more than four years. Venturing to the other side of the galaxy? More than 100,000 years. So what's an intrepid space traveller to do?
One option is a cosmic shortcut called a wormhole, a tunnel through the fabric of space and time that can connect far-flung corners of the universe. It’s the chosen route of many fictional space travellers, including the characters in the upcoming film Interstellar, directed by Christopher Nolan.
Hopping through a wormhole would be incredibly difficult, say scientists, but they have yet to rule it out. So, what would it take in reality, and what exactly is stopping us now?
To picture a wormhole, imagine that the universe is a two-dimensional sheet. Poke two holes and curve the sheet around them to form two funnels. Stitch the ends of the funnels together, and you get a wormhole-like tube (see below).

Rather than take the long route across space (pink line), a wormhole allows a shortcut through space and time (blue funnel) (Detlev van Ravenswaay/SPL)

Manipulating space in this way means you can jump into one end of a wormhole, travel a short distance, and pop out from the other end in another galaxy. The mouth of a wormhole also acts as a cosmic window, allowing you to gaze at the stars on the opposite end of the universe.
That’s the theory anyway. What does the science say about the feasibility of such travel?
Wormholes naturally emerge from the equations governing the theory of general relativity, Einstein's revolutionary notion that describes gravity as the warping of space and time, which forms the fabric of the universe called spacetime.
Einstein and Nathan Rosen published a paper in 1935 describing these wormholes, eventually dubbed Einstein-Rosen bridges. These curious objects, though, were found to collapse so quickly that not even light could zip through them. For space travel, they were useless.
In the 1980s, astronomer Carl Sagan was working on his novel Contact (the basis for the movie starring Jodie Foster), in which his heroine travels across the Universe. He sought the help of physicist Kip Thorne to see if there was a scientifically sound way for his character to make the journey.
Thorne realised that a wormhole might work best. But to ensure that the wormhole stayed open, he discovered, you would need some strange stuff called exotic matter. (Following Sagan's cinematic legacy, Thorne's ideas also inspired the Interstellar movie.)

The work of physicist Kip Thorne (left) on wormholes has inspired an upcoming Hollywood movie called Interstellar (Wikimedia Commons)

Exotic matter is weird because it has negative energy or negative mass, enabling it to act as a sort of antigravity. If Earth had negative mass and you were to let go of a ball on the planet’s surface, it would accelerateup, not down. And, even more bizarrely, to hit a negative-mass tennis ball, you wouldn't swing your racket toward it, but away. It's this kind of mind-bending behaviour that allows exotic matter to prevent a wormhole from collapsing.
Although negative energy sounds weird, the laws of physics do permit it. In the vacuum of space, some small regions of spacetime can be filled with negative energy, surrounded by regions of positive energy. "Think about them like waves of an ocean," explains physicist Larry Ford of Tufts University, Boston. The troughs of the waves would represent areas with negative energy while the peaks are areas with positive energy.
Enough to prop open a wormhole though? Perhaps not. Physicists like Ford have found rules called quantum energy inequalities that dictate how much negative energy can be consolidated in one place. If you collect a lot of negative energy, it can only exist within a tiny space. And, the supply would only last for a short while. If you want negative energy at bigger and longer scales, you're limited in how much you can hoard.

Propping a wormhole open would require an enormous amount of energy (Dale O'Dell / Alamy)

A wormhole useful for travelling would have to be big enough and last long enough to send someone or something through. The problem is that for such a wormhole, you would need more negative energy than the rules allow. And even if you could break the rules, you would need an enormous amount. As a very rough approximation, you would need the energy the sun produces over 100 million years to make a wormhole about the size of a grapefruit. No one knows how even an advanced civilisation could access that much negative energy.
Still, although the physics says traversable wormholes are improbable, physicists haven't yet proven that they're impossible. "People are quite confident that quantum inequalities prevent macroscopic traversable wormholes," says John Friedman, a physicist at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. "But it's certainly not airtight."

Black holes warp space and time too, but it'd be a one-way trip if you were unlucky enough to get close (NASA)

Some physicists have speculated other ways to construct traversable wormholes, but almost all of them rely on ideas that lack any real evidence. "They're really changing the rules of the game in a fundamental way," Ford says. They employ theories of gravity other than Einstein's general relativity or strange matter that, while not needing negative energy, probably don't exist. Or, they depend on elaborate ways of bending space and time that would be extremely difficult to do in reality. 
Tiny wormholes could also arise from quantum foam – the sloshing fluctuations of spacetime itself when you zoom in on sub-atomic scales roughly a thousand quadrillion times smaller than the nucleus of a hydrogen atom. Since these wormholes would be too minuscule for anything to squeeze through, you would have to inject some negative energy to blow them up. But physicists need a yet-to-be-developed theory of quantum gravity to fully understand what happens at such compact scales, and until they find such a theory, quantum-foam wormholes also seem unlikely.
"Based on what we know now, it's hard to see how you would make a traversable wormhole," Ford says. But that won’t stop physicists continuing to explore whether it could be feasible after all.
For the moment, if you were planning that interstellar journey, it might be a good idea to bring a good book. It could be a long ride.
If you would like to comment on this, or anything else you have seen on Future, head over to our Facebook or Google+ page, or message us onTwitter.

The disruptive power of 3D printing



The disruptive power of 3D printing


Advocates of 3D printing say that small, in-home machines will allow tinkerers and makers to unleash a wave of creative energy, constructing whatever they can imagine, whether replacement shower curtain rings, works of art or even cars.
"The technology has not yet evolved to replace full manufacturing processes, but in its current nascent form it does cut down on prototyping, waste and transportation emissions - opening the door for more sustainable business practices across a range of industries," writes Chat Reynders of Reynders, McVeigh Capital Management for the Guardian's website.
Reason magazine's Greg Beato says the focus on the myriad uses of the technology, from the artistic to the mundane, ignores the larger picture: 3D printing has the potential to be a disruptive, possibly revolutionary invention.
What will happen, he writes, once millions of people are able "to make, copy, swap, barter, buy, and sell all the quotidian stuff with which they furnish their lives"?
It's the end of big-box stores - Bed, Bath & Beyond, for one. But more than that, it could also strike a blow to the heart of government (music to Beato's libertarian ears).
He explains how:
Once the retail and manufacturing carnage starts to scale, the government carnage will soon follow. How can it not, when only old people pay sales tax, fewer citizens obtain their incomes from traditional easy-to-tax jobs, and large corporate taxpayers start folding like daily newspapers? Without big business, big government can't function.
Beato contends that recent history shows that government will fight back. Just ask the online car-for-hire company Uber, which has struggled with taxi unions and local government approval in cities like Dallas and Seattle.
Over the past decade or so, as newer technologies and fewer opportunities for traditional employment have prompted more people to act in entrepreneurially innovative ways, government's response has been the same: Consumers must be protected against strawberry balsamic jam made in home kitchens. Tourists must be protected against immaculately maintained carriage houses that can be rented on a daily basis for below-hotel rates. Travellers must be protected from cheap rides from the airport.
There's a "dark side" to 3D printing, writes Lyndsey Gilpen of TechRepublic, and it's not just because the machines are "energy hogs" and possible sources of pollution.
"3D printers are still potentially hazardous, wasteful machines, and their societal, political, economic, and environmental impacts have not yet been studied extensively," she says.
There's a reason government has stepped in to regulate factories, after all. Unfettered manufacturing could have harmful consequences:
Weapons can be 3D printed. So can safety equipment such as helmets, wheels for bikes, and toys for small children. Of course there is the issue of intellectual property and trademark, but the larger issue involves responsibility.
If a person shoots a gun and harms or kills someone, stabs someone with a 3D printed knife, or breaks their neck while riding on a bike with a 3D printed helmet, who is held accountable? The owner of the printer, the manufacturer of the printer, or the irresponsible person who thought it was a good idea to produce and use an untested product?
3D printing is clearly one of the Next Big Things. Should politicians and CEOs be worried?

Comments

  •  
    0

    1.

     
    It seems clear that the author of this "news" article is NOT suppressing their beliefs and opinions so that they could write without bias, as one would hope a good reporter would strive to do, while writing an article not specifically designated as "opinion". He seems quite scornful about government's role in society in general, and anxious to see it reduces.. perhaps to "bath tub" dimensions.

Tuesday, March 4, 2014

Big Data: Are you ready for blast-off?



Big Data: Are you ready for blast-off?


As Technology of Business begins a month-long series of features on the theme of Big Data, we kick off with a Q&A backgrounder answering some of those basic questions you were too afraid to ask.
What is big data exactly?
Good question. After all, we've always had large amounts of data haven't we, from loyalty card schemes, till receipts, medical records, tax returns and so on?
As Laurie Miles, head of analytics for big data specialist SAS, says: "The term big data has been around for decades, and we've been doing analytics all this time. It's not big, it's just bigger."
But it's the velocity, variety and volume of data that has merited the new term.
So what made it bigger?
Most traditional data was structured, or neatly organised in databases. Then the world went digital and the internet came along. Most of what we do could be translated into strings of ones and noughts capable of being recorded, stored, searched, and analysed.
There was a proliferation of so-called unstructured data generated by all our digital interactions, from email to online shopping, text messages to tweets, Facebook updates to YouTube videos.
And the number of gadgets recording and transmitting data, from smartphones to intelligent fridges, industrial sensors to CCTV cameras, has proliferated globally, leading to an explosion in the volume of data.
These data sets are now so large and complex that we need new tools and approaches to make the most of them.
How much data is there?
Nobody really knows because the volume is growing so fast. Some say that about 90% of all the data in the world today has been created in the past few years.
According to computer giant IBM, 2.5 exabytes - that's 2.5 billion gigabytes (GB) - of data was generated every day in 2012. That's big by anyone's standards. "About 75% of data is unstructured, coming from sources such as text, voice and video," says Mr Miles.
And as mobile phone penetration is forecast to grow from about 61% of the global population in 2013 to nearly 70% by 2017, those figures can only grow. The US government's open data project already offers more than 120,000 publicly available data sets.
Where is it all stored?
The first computers came with memories measured in kilobytes, but the latest smartphones can now store 32GB and many laptops now have one terabyte (1,000GB) hard drives as standard. Storage is not really an issue anymore.
For large businesses "the cost of data storage has plummeted," says Andrew Carr, UK and Ireland chief executive of IT consultancy Bull. Businesses can either keep all their data on-site, in their own remote data centres, or farm it out to "cloud-based" data storage providers.
A number of open source platforms have grown up specifically to handle these vast amounts of data quickly and efficiently, including Hadoop, MongoDB, Cassandra, and NoSQL.
Why is it important?
Data is only as good as the intelligence we can glean from it, and that entails effective data analytics and a whole lot of computing power to cope with the exponential increase in volume.
But a recent Bain & Co report found that of 400 large companies those that had already adopted big data analytics "have gained a significant lead over the rest of the corporate world."
"Big data is not just historic business intelligence," says Mr Carr, "it's the addition of real-time data and the ability to mash together several data sets that makes it so valuable."
Practically, anyone who makes, grows and sells anything can use big data analytics to make their manufacturing and production processes more efficient and their marketing more targeted and cost-effective.
It is throwing up interesting findings in the fields of healthcare, scientific research, agriculture, logistics, urban design, energy, retailing, crime reduction, and business operations - several of which we'll be exploring over the coming weeks.
"It's a big deal for corporations, for society and for each individual," says Ralf Dreischmeier, head of The Boston Consulting Group's information technology practice.
Can we handle all this data?
Big data needs new skills, but the business and academic worlds are playing catch up. "The job of data scientist didn't exist five or 10 years ago," says Duncan Ross, director of data science at Teradata. "But where are they? There's a shortage."
And many businesses are only just waking up to the realisation that data is a valuable asset that they need to protect and exploit. "Banks only use a third of their available data because it often sits in databases that are hard to access," says Mr Dreischmeier.
"We need to find ways to make this data more easily accessible."
Businesses, governments and public bodies also need to keep sensitive data safe from hackers, spies and natural disasters - an increasingly tall order in this mobile, networked world.
Who owns it all?
That's the billion dollar question. A lot depends on the service provider hosting the data, the global jurisdiction it is stored in, and how it was generated. It is a legal minefield.
Does telephone call metadata - the location, time, and duration of calls rather than their conversational content - belong to the caller, the phone network or any government spying agency that happens to be listening in?
When our cars become networked up, will it be the drivers, owners or manufacturers who own the data they generate?
Social media platforms will often say that their users own their own content, but then lay claim to how that content is used, reserving the right to share it with third parties. So when you tweet you effectively give up any control over how that tweet is used in future, even though Twitter terms and conditions say: "What's yours is yours."
Privacy and intellectual property laws have not kept up with the pace of technological change.

More Business stories