I have been on a reading spree in the last few weeks. Many of you might attest it to the fact that I am without a computer, and for the most part, that is a correct assumption. I have recently finished reading Carl Sagan's Contact, the book that was transformed to the 1997 summer blockbuster movie. Since I saw the movie a number of years ago, I had longed to read the book, on the general premise that books are often more elaborate and detailed than movies are. I was hoping that the book would provide me with better insight to the physics behind the movie. I was particularly interested in how humans could receive a message from space, discover audio and video characteristics to the message, then interpolate digital data from interlaced frames from within the message, and then find a decryption primer that was hidden in a deeper layer of data. It seems that how Sagan describes the process in his book is quite a bit different from the methods described in the movie.
I shouldn't have to mention that the book is considerably different from the movie. The plots are quite different, even though the main themes remain the same. There are additional characters in the book that do not exist in the movie. Conversely, there had been legitimate scientific discoveries and current events that were interlaced with the movie to make it a little more authentic. Sagan of course, could have had no idea of the historical events of the late 1990's that seemingly complimented the events in his book that was first published in 1985.
The producer of the motion picture had done well in trying to combine current events and recent scientific discoveries to provide an authentic nature to the film. If you read Sagan's book, it would come across a little more like science fiction, reliant at times on technology that has not been invented yet, and on other times, on technology that has been invented, but has become obsolete or passé. Unfortunately, this is the common and disappointing nature of science fiction; is that technological advancement can sometimes surpass the ideas of the writer, and the integrity of the story can weaken. It often lessens the shelf life of such a book.
For example, in the book Contact, the staff of the SETI project Argus used a CRAY mainframe supercomputer to decrypt the message from space. When the book was written in 1985, a CRAY mainframe was one of the most advanced computers in the world. By today's standards, a CRAY isn't a terribly powerful computer, as UC Berkley is using millions of household computers to analyze space signals for the existence of intelligent life. The computing power of the SETI@home project is likely on the factor of millions of times more powerful than the CRAY computer depicted in Sagan's novel. I am not criticizing Carl Sagan; he was one of the most brilliant scientific minds of the Twentieth Century. How could he possibly know that there would become a thing as powerful as the internet, which single-handedly revolutionized the way we communicate and share information?
Speaking of the internet, and technologies of telecommunication, it seems that telephone companies are in fear of going bankrupt because programmers have found ways to use high-bandwidth modems to place long-distance phone calls for free. Long-distance phone calls used to be the bread and butter for telecommunications companies, but that no longer is the case. The telecommunications companies have had to migrate to cellular phone technology to provide them with the profits they once enjoyed. I am afraid, with the rapid development and implementation of Wi-Fi (wireless networking) that those days may be numbered as well. I suspect that within a generation, the word "long-distance" will no longer apply. Phone calls will be as cheap to make as it is to send an e-mail, and it would not matter if you send your phone call next door, or to Beijing.
It is the Darwinism of business and technology. Over the course of history, there are countless professions that have been made obsolete due to the advancement of technology. Even a century ago, there were "icemen" who delivered blocks of ice to the neighborhood for household cold storage. These people went out of business by the time the refrigerator hit the mass market. This might be the first time in history, that an industry so large and powerful, has the potential of crumbling under its' own weight.
The world is getting smaller day by day. It just seems that the telephone companies will have to change their marketing strategies if they expect to survive the next twenty years. I expect there will be a great deal of bankruptcies and corporate mergers in the decades to come as these telecommunications giants attempt to keep their books in the black amidst a technology that advances so quickly, it becomes obsolete within a year.
I unfortunately, have a difficult time swallowing the cellular phone pill. I just can't fathom that paying by the minute for your airtime on the phone is in any way economical. It's cheaper to place a phone call at a pay phone. When I had a cellular phone, I received phone bills that surpassed my monthly income. I would hope that sometime soon, that the digital revolution would make cellular technology not just affordable to everyone, but as economical as people's internet connection.
Convergence is inevitable.
Showing posts with label Sagan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sagan. Show all posts
Monday, August 30, 2004
Monday, May 24, 2004
E=MCFro²
I have recently finished reading Stephen Hawking's masterpiece A Brief History of Time for the second or third time. It is a wonderfully written synopsis of modern physics, detailing the origin and fate of the universe, black holes, relativity, and quantum mechanics. Though physics is heavily laden with complex mathematical equations, Hawking was able to craft the book using jargon an average person could understand, as well as diagrams (versus formulae) to convey his arguments.
The last time I read his book, I was a freshman in university. I enjoyed the read, however there were concepts I did not fully understand at the time. When I read it a few weeks back, many of these concepts made better sense. As a university graduate, I read the book from a philosophical perspective, and came to some new conclusions.
It is widely known during the early Twentieth Century, that Physics were alive with debate, with the world's greatest minds attempting to craft a Unified Theory. This theory was meant to combine the theories and observations witnessed in both relativity and quantum mechanics. Relativity usually is observed and applied to the very large, while quantum mechanics is based on the observations of atoms, and atomic particles -- the very small. The major premise of quantum mechanics is called the Uncertainty Principle. That is to say, that it is possible to know the momentum of an atomic particle (an electron, for example), but not know its' position. Conversely, you may be able to know the position of said particle, but will not know its' momentum. This introduces a "randomness" to the theory. That being said, there are scores of scientists out there who find randomness in the universe a little unsettling. Einstein was once quoted "God does not play dice", referring to the uncertainty principle. I once agreed with this statement, feeling that everything in the observable universe could be explained empirically (example: A causes B) At my age, I have started to wonder if this randomness is an integral part of the universe.
For all you who have seen the movie Contact, or read Carl Sagan's novel, you will know the protagonist, Elanor Arroway goes on an incredible journey to another planet, however does bring home any proof of her journey. Arroway, a scientist who believes in proof with empirical data, ends up having an experience she cannot explain, nor was she able to prove the validity of her journey to those who question her scientific integrity. This experience, of course changes her life, once she realizes that not everything in the observable universe can be quantified, explained by a causality principle (i.e. A causes B), or otherwise approximated by a mathematical formula.
Post-modern thought has been the greatest contribution to the physical sciences in the last half-century. I don't have time to discuss post-modern thought in today's posting, as people have written books on the subject. Essentially, what I will say is that post-modern thought is subjective. Data is data, and nothing more. It is the interpretation of the data which allows us, the scientists and philosophers to make assumptions and explanations of the observable Universe.
I have recently come to an understanding that though us human beings are of a curious sort, and that we wish to explain where we came from, or why we are here, what our fate may come to be, it is just simply too complicated. It is beyond our human understanding. Certain phenomena may be observable and explained, but we will never be able to understand the Big Kahuna. Stephen Hawking's most powerful argument in his book was his final statement:
These are profound words. Many theologians and philosophers have argued that it is not possible for a human to understand the mind of God. I would be inclined to say to understand the mind of God is to be one. If this were true, this would put too much power into the hands of us mortals. We have already harnessed to power of the atom; we have learned to manipulate genes, to create new species of plants in animal that are resistant to disease. Animals, and even human embryos are being cloned, largely for the purpose of stem-cell research. Man is already well adept at playing God. Take this a step further, and we can imagine man would then have to power to create, manipulate, and destroy the universe. It would be safest if man was incapable of having such power -- and perhaps He has blatantly kept that ability from us.
The universe if full of awe and wonder. So is the future.
The last time I read his book, I was a freshman in university. I enjoyed the read, however there were concepts I did not fully understand at the time. When I read it a few weeks back, many of these concepts made better sense. As a university graduate, I read the book from a philosophical perspective, and came to some new conclusions.
It is widely known during the early Twentieth Century, that Physics were alive with debate, with the world's greatest minds attempting to craft a Unified Theory. This theory was meant to combine the theories and observations witnessed in both relativity and quantum mechanics. Relativity usually is observed and applied to the very large, while quantum mechanics is based on the observations of atoms, and atomic particles -- the very small. The major premise of quantum mechanics is called the Uncertainty Principle. That is to say, that it is possible to know the momentum of an atomic particle (an electron, for example), but not know its' position. Conversely, you may be able to know the position of said particle, but will not know its' momentum. This introduces a "randomness" to the theory. That being said, there are scores of scientists out there who find randomness in the universe a little unsettling. Einstein was once quoted "God does not play dice", referring to the uncertainty principle. I once agreed with this statement, feeling that everything in the observable universe could be explained empirically (example: A causes B) At my age, I have started to wonder if this randomness is an integral part of the universe.
For all you who have seen the movie Contact, or read Carl Sagan's novel, you will know the protagonist, Elanor Arroway goes on an incredible journey to another planet, however does bring home any proof of her journey. Arroway, a scientist who believes in proof with empirical data, ends up having an experience she cannot explain, nor was she able to prove the validity of her journey to those who question her scientific integrity. This experience, of course changes her life, once she realizes that not everything in the observable universe can be quantified, explained by a causality principle (i.e. A causes B), or otherwise approximated by a mathematical formula.
Post-modern thought has been the greatest contribution to the physical sciences in the last half-century. I don't have time to discuss post-modern thought in today's posting, as people have written books on the subject. Essentially, what I will say is that post-modern thought is subjective. Data is data, and nothing more. It is the interpretation of the data which allows us, the scientists and philosophers to make assumptions and explanations of the observable Universe.
I have recently come to an understanding that though us human beings are of a curious sort, and that we wish to explain where we came from, or why we are here, what our fate may come to be, it is just simply too complicated. It is beyond our human understanding. Certain phenomena may be observable and explained, but we will never be able to understand the Big Kahuna. Stephen Hawking's most powerful argument in his book was his final statement:
"However, if we do discover a complete [unified] theory, it should in time be understandable in the broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we would know the mind of God."
These are profound words. Many theologians and philosophers have argued that it is not possible for a human to understand the mind of God. I would be inclined to say to understand the mind of God is to be one. If this were true, this would put too much power into the hands of us mortals. We have already harnessed to power of the atom; we have learned to manipulate genes, to create new species of plants in animal that are resistant to disease. Animals, and even human embryos are being cloned, largely for the purpose of stem-cell research. Man is already well adept at playing God. Take this a step further, and we can imagine man would then have to power to create, manipulate, and destroy the universe. It would be safest if man was incapable of having such power -- and perhaps He has blatantly kept that ability from us.
The universe if full of awe and wonder. So is the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
