Jonsy123

Well, once you no longer age, you can always maintain the illusion that who knows, and you might never die. As long as you'll live, it will work, so you could live your life as if you have infinite time in front of you. Once you'll be dead, the illusion will collapse, but you won't be here to notice it. We can't live in such an illusion today, because we see the signs of death (aging) every day in the mirror, getting stronger and stronger... Some of you might be saying that you'll never be able to buy into an illusion. Let me give you a possible example of a very powerful illusion we all share today: Continuum of consciousness: We all believe that the person we are today, is the exact same person we were a year ago, meaning, we not only physically look similar to the person we were a year ago, and not only share his memories, but, most importantly, we also share the same consciousness as him. Saying all that, you can do a simple thought experiment, to see why we don't necessarily experience continuum of consciousness during our lives, but rather shift consciousness, periodically : Let's assume that in the distant future, when nanotechnology will be extremely mature, we will have the ability to create molecular replica of any object we wish. Let's assume you will live in that distant future, and decide to create a molecular replica of yourself (or only of you brain, since we are primarily interested with it, when discussing consciousness). So, after you create this replica, let's say that at the first few seconds, you are really similar to that replica at the molecular level (after a short while, you'll start to diverge). The molecular replica might be sure that he is you for a moment, because he has all your memories and appearance. Saying that, I'm sure you will disagree with him. He might be 100% identical, but still, both you and the replica, experience the world through a different consciousness. You don't see the world through his eyes, but through yours, so he can't be you. Now let's think about it for a moment, why aren't you experiencing the world through his eyes ?, why is your consciousness still unique in comparison to his ?, the same type of atoms are ordered at the exact same pattern in your brain and his, but it doesn't cut it (even if the patterns are just 99.99% identical, and not 100%, it doesn't matter for the sake of the argument, and you'll later see why). Logical Conclusion: your consciousness uniqueness is not dictated by the certain atom orderings (patterns) in your brain, rather it must be dictated by the identity of the atoms themeselves, meaning, each atom in the universe can not be at two different places at the same time, and this *guarantees* that every single one of us, will experience unique consciousness. After we established that you and your replica experience different consciousness, and not the same one, because you have different atoms in your brain, let's move to the next step: Our brain cells, like any other cells in our body, are experiencing *dynamic equilibrium*, meaning, even if they retain a similar pattern during our entire life (which is true for brain cells - we are born with almost all the brain cells that we die with), still, since they are at a dynamic equilibrium with their surrounding, the atoms that construct them, will change, that's the meaning of a dynamic equilibrium. Taking that into consideration, in 1 year from now, almost none of the atoms in your brain, that you currently have, will remain, they will all be replaced with different ones, but the pattern will be maintained (dynamic equilibrium). So, in one year from now, you will actually be a molecular replica of the person you were a year ago (and not even such a great replica, definitely less accurate than the real nanotech replica was). You will be constructed from a very similar atoms pattern to the one of last year, but not using the same atoms. Logical conclusion: we don't retain the same consciousness from last year. We keep carrying a unique consciousness, but it's not the same one as last year. Who of us wants to live in a world where we know our consciousness isn't maintained during out lifetime ?, it's like being killed and replaced every year by a replica. What kind of a life is that ?. Saying that, I'm sure that even if this is the case, most people will continue living their life, and buy into the illusion of consciousness continuum. That's our nature.

Maybe so, but many of the peope immediately think of "Zeus" immortality, when they are faced with the question of whether they want to "live forever". And anyway, again, the question should not be phrased even as "do you want to live longer", because just living longer is not enough, nobody want to live longer as an old man, with diseases, discomforts and old-age limitations. What I think most people want, is to not age. Ask your parents if they like aging. Once we'll defeat aging, living longer will be a side effect. To tell the truth, I prefer to not age, and then to get executed at age 80, rather then age, and die sick from a natural cause (Alzheimer, Cancer, etc) at age 80.

IBM is currently doing a project to digitally mimic the activity of the human cortex, using a supercomputer (they are not sure what they will get at the end, but everything is possible, eventhough this project's aim is not to produce a computer A.I). they said they are going to try and model every neuron and synaptic connection there is. If, at the end, in several decades, we will be able to build a computer brain, based on our own, using a far superior hardware, it might be it. How many variables can a human scientist take into acount simultaneously ?, can we be simultaneously aware of every single word, idea and experimental result, expressed at the scientific literature regarding the area we are researching, and the areas relating to it ?. how much time do we need to check our calculations for accuracy ?, can we think 24 hours straight, without a single second of rest ?. btw, here is a link to the IBM story: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7470

This might be off topic, but... If it is possible to logically "conclude" our way out of this mess, base on available observations, but the main problem is brain power, then there might still be a chance, in 2-3 decades, when A.I rise. It may sound futuristic, but if we really are at the boundary of our understanding with this issue, this might be the solution. This might sound absurd, but think just how wider our world is in comparison to the world of the #2 smartest animal on the plant, the Chimpanzee. I saw a documentary where chimpanzees were practicing simple arithmetics (addition, subtraction, the meaning of zero etc.), even though they did it quite nicely, still, what do they know ?. Now think of a computer IQ, which in relation to us, look at us like chimpanzees... shouldn't this be enough to figure out the wave/particle duality ? (and unite the 4 fundamental forces, while at it).

Basically you need to understand that there is no such thing as "immortality". Even after we'll finish dealing with aging, people will still continue to die from accidents. On the very long run, the death probablity will be 100%. The poll should have been phrased differently: "Do you want to age and get sick ?". If you, your family and friends will be given the option to not age anymore, go back (or stay) at any age you want, until the accident will occur, I think most people on the planet would have taken it, even if it means they have to give up children. Imo, there is nothing natural about death. It served its "purpose" well, and got us from a single celled organism, to what we are today. We don't need it anymore. Future generations are not more important than the current generation, or the past generation. Living extremely long life spans is just a matter of time. Even if we do nothing to accelarate it, it will probably happen within 100 years. The thing many people don't know, is that if we do decide to do something about it, we could reach "escape velocity" already within 30 years from now. It just a matter of how much people will want it, and how much will they donate and push to make it happen. As of now, there is only one strategy to combat aging (SENS - Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence). The scientist behind it, believes it might produce a 30 year life extension, within 25 years from now. This might be enough to totally abolish death by aging, because during the 30 extra years you will get, the life elongation technique will improve too, so the second generation of the treatment, will give you another 50 years of life extension, before you "finished" the first 30, and so on. By this, you we will reach an "escape velocity" from aging. The 25 years estimate is based on the following - 10 years in order to make it work for mice (proof of concept), then, 15 years to convert it to humans. In terms of technology tools, it will need accurate gene therapy (meaning the ability to insert/delete specific genes to/from specific places, without any random side effect, like we get today). Second, it relies on the availabilty of engineered stem cells for some of our tissues (not necessarily embryonic) with no immuno-compatibility problems. For me, this is the main selling point of the strategy - there is no need for Sci-Fi NanoBots etc. Ala Ray Kurzweil's ideas. The tools needed are very down to earth imo. This scientist is getting very little help from the Bio-gerontologists society (the scientists who deals with aging), because they do not believe that anything could be done to radically extend life, and so are researching aging in the same way that astronomers study distant galaxies, i.e. only to improve our knowledge, and nothing more. This is why they refuse to participate in a debate regarding this scientist's theory, those of them who did comment, simply said "it is too simple to work", yet could not think of a single scientific reason to explain why. Things might change in this front, because there is a $20,000 USD bounty (given by this scientist and MIT's "Technology Review" journal), for any scientist who will succeed to refute the Sens theory, and offer a scientific explanation why it does not correctly describe how to defeat aging (the refutal will be assessed by a panel of judges). If you want some information about his work, you can check here: http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/sens/

Thanks 5614 (Jonathan).

Sorry for the confusion.

yourdadonapogos, so what is your point ?. According to the explanation I quoted in my last post, Einstein said that E=hf proves light can NOT be just a wave, because E=hf does not work for waves, because for waves, E is proportional only to the amplitude (and frequency is irrelevant).

Taken from the explanation: I don't understand why a *wave* can't hold more energy as the frequency goes higher ?. True, I also can't explain why it should (because it oscillates more frequently ?), but is there a scientific explanation that inhibits a dependence of a wave's energy, at its frequency ?.

If he understands that he might be living in a 2D world, there's still hope for him...

So I don't understand, why couldn't Einstein interpret the photoelectric effect using wave theory, and instead needed to "invent" the particle nature of light ?. Am I missing something here ?.

Isn't there any problem understanding the photoelectric effect this way ?.

According to this, in relation to visible and UV, the radio and microwave amplitudes are pretty insignificant from the sun (as measured on earth): Still doesn't say much about how much it translates in absolute terms.

swansont, do you know what is the amplitude of 830Mhz radiation that come from the sun and hit the land on earth ? (in microwatts per square centimeter).

Right. Still, it is particle-like enough to propagate in the medium-less vacuum in space, and wave-like enough to refract as it enters the atmosphere.

But insane_alien, in order for an anzyme to work efficiently, all the amino side chains at its active site should be at VERY precise distances from each other. Even small changes less than 0.5 angstrom, might have adverse effects on the enzyme's activity (and such a 0.5 angstrom change in distance between two side chains in the active site, might be caused by much smaller conformation changes in other places at the molecule enzyme - what is called an additive effect). So, if the electromagnetic radiation, can bend (not break!) some of the bonds in the enzyme molecule, just a little bit, then the sum of all bends could translate into a malfunctioning enzyme. Of course, once the radiation is removed, the enzyme might flip back to its original conformation. But, think how much time some of us sit near objects that emit low frequency electromagnetic radiation (including cell phones) - might be hours per day. During this time, you have millions of chemical reactions going on in your body, many of which depends on properly working enzymes. Danny, at least for Cell Phones (which operate at 830Mhz - very close to microwave), the regulations permit amplitudes that will not cause any meaningful temp increases inside the tissue. The problem is, this is the only thing that the regulations checks for - temp increase inside the tissue. It does not check for any other effect, other than temp increases, that might interfere with biologocal proceses. For example, take a look here (it is enough to read the abstract): http://w4.eng.tau.ac.il/~jerby/62.pdf Another one (here you only get the abstract): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15869902&query_hl=1 It is important to understand that these articles do not imply that the damage to DNA is done directly by low electromagnetic frequencies, rather that there is probably an indirect mechanism at work, for example, through malfunctioning enzymes.

So, why can't microwave radiation be absorbed by bonded atoms in some molucules inside cells, and damage their activity ?. What about frequencies lower than microwave ?.

Do you think this could be part of the reason why low frequency electromagnetic radiation (like the one emitted by Cell phones, CRT monitors, high voltage electrical cords etc.) might be harmful to some of the biological processes in the body ?. I mean, the fact it CAN penetrate our tissue (unlike visible and infra-red), and reach sensitive places inside our brain, might play a role here. I know that Radio frequency is not energetic enough to break chemical bonds in DNA molecules (which are pretty sturdy), and now I've learned it can't be absorbed by most materials. But, in several recent articles published in several scientific journals, the results where that DNA mutations had occured in cells exposed to a certain amplitude (and up) of such radiation. It was then postulated in some of these journals, that this type of radiation, might have a negative effect on the activity of certain enzymes which are related to DNA multiplication and segragation in cell division, and by retarding these enzymes, DNA mutations might occur. It could be that some of the molecules in our body (like some enzymes), ARE able to absorb low electromagnetic radiation to some sort, and this can affect their function. Before the age of electricity, what things on earth generated electromagnetic frequencies of radio and below ?.

The spectrum of electromagnetic radiation is devided into (in order of elevating frequency): Radio, Micro-wave, Infra-Red, Visible, Ultra-Violet, X rays, Gama rays. Now, if you take a remote control, which operates by emitting Infra-red radiation, and block with your palm the radiation's direction to the TV, then the radiation would not be able to pass through your palm, and reach the TV. Now, in the same way, visible light also can't penetrate much into anything (still doen't carry enough energy). But, if you jump to X rays, and then to gamma rays, the penetration factor jumps to a high level, because their photons carry a lot of energy. Until now everything is fine. The higher the frequency, the higher the penetration. My question is: how is it possible that radio waves, which can carry 10 orders of magnitude less energy than visible light (which can't penetrate almost anything) CAN penetrate through so many objects ?. If you have a remote control that operate by radio waves, you can be at a totally different room than your TV, and yet the radiation will pass through everything in its way (walls, wood, body tissue, etc.) and reach the TV. (It is the same with sound waves, where the penetration of low frequencies is extremely high, everybody knows that "bass" penetrates. But I'm not sure the analogy to low EMF is correct, because in order to create low sound frequencies, the speaker needs to move huge amounts of air, and hence the energy needed is even higher than the energy needed to produce higher sound frequnecies of the same amplitude, but in EMF, the lower the frequency you want to produce, the less energy you need to invest. Or am I wrong ?).

The definition of a wave is: "a disturbance in a medium that carry energy" (certainly work well for waves at the sea, in a rope, and sound waves). Now, in Electromagnetic waves, is the magnetic field suppose to be the medium in which the magnetic wave is oscillating through ?, the same for the electric field, is it the medium in which the electric wave is oscillating through ?. If so, it means that unless the universe is somehow filled with a magnetic and electric medium, then the medium for the electromagnetic wave, is concentrated only near the wave, and moving together with the wave itself - the medium is moving with the disturbance, at its same speed and direction, and by this, allowing it to happen. that's weird (it reminds me of "ice man" in the spiderman cartoon, where he "paves his way in ice", as he moves). Btw, I don't see it any easier to understand how an electromagnetic wave is moving through water or air, than moving through vacuum. Water and air are not the right medium for electromagnetic radiation (but since speed of light through water is slower than through vacuum, I may be wrong, and water can be a medium for electromagnetic waves, or on the other hand, it might not be a right medium, but can cause some interference...). Anyway, I guess that thanks to einstein and his interpertation of the photoelectric effect, we can just say that when in vacuum (or whatever), electromagnetic waves can be seen as photon particles, so there is no need for a propagation medium at all.