# Beyond Electricity?



## Omnis (Jan 28, 2012)

While reading the novelization of "Battlestar Galactica 1980: Galactica Discovers Earth" several years back, I vaguely remember coming across a passage where one of the main characters states that a sophisticated computing device used by the Colonial Fleet "is not powered by electricity."

This brings me to my question: would it be theoretically possible for a civilization to advance technologically beyond the need for electrical power in the same way that our civilization has advanced beyond the need for, say, steam power? Are there any alternative forces we could use in powering our machines? Magnetism? Gravity? Sound waves? Some force not yet discovered? Perhaps some type of ultra-sophisticated mechanics? Thoughts would be appreciated.


----------



## hopewrites (Jan 28, 2012)

the only thought I can come up with is nuclear power. Following the pattern of steam driving electric generators, then reversing the engineering (which is different then reverse engineering) that allows nuclear power plants to run electric generators.
That or telepathic control of electron movement to shape worlds, and give items the needed charge to create power.


----------



## Dave (Jan 28, 2012)

Omnis said:


> ...one of the main characters states that a sophisticated computing device used by the Colonial Fleet "is not powered by electricity."


I would expect that what they meant by that was that it was something organic; something biological. In the same way that Star Trek: Voyager had Bio-neural gel packs http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Bio-neural_gel_pack
Which would not really be true to say because, in a way, nervous systems in animals 'are' powered by electricity.

As for your actual question, I doubt that we could find anything as useful to transport as electricity. Again, Star Trek uses a system of electro-plasma conduits to direct Warp drive plasma throughout the ship from matter-antimatter reactions at the heart of the Warp Core of the starship drive. That has always struck me as a highly dangerous idea. I'd very much doubt it would pass health & safety regulations. In fact, there were regular accidents during the various series including one in Garak's tailor shop. However, such large amounts of energy transported as electricity would probably be equally as dangerous.


----------



## Metryq (Jan 28, 2012)

"Not powered by electricity" is the sort of vague generality a TV writer would use to sound futuristic. I recall an episode of _Buck Rogers_ where Buck was something of an expert on electricity since Mankind used it way back in the 20th century but had forgotten about it by the the 25th. (Cue eye roll.) Electricity, oh yeah, that primitive stuff.

"Electricity" is a fundamental interaction of all matter. One might generate electricity in a variety of different ways, but electricity will never become "obsolete" or forgotten, or whatever.

This does not mean that a futuristic computer must switch and perform operations with electricity the way we do today with electronics. An advanced computer might have light-based switches, or use quantum computing, or anything else a writer might dream up.


----------



## Foxbat (Jan 28, 2012)

I agree with Metryq - electricity and the electromagnetic force are fundamentals and will never be obsolete. Electricity in itself is not what it's about, it's all about the transfer of energy in a method that we can use. 

The irony being that steam is _not_ obsolete - we still use this method for generating electricity (including Nuclear Power). All we do is convert the energy from steam to electricity and pass it down the wires.

It is quite possible that our methods of distribution may change however. Perhaps a tight beam of energy instead of all those pylons and cables.


----------



## Ursa major (Jan 28, 2012)

Never mind "no electricity".


What happened to that golden future in which power would be so cheap to make that we end users wouldn't get charged...?


----------



## Foxbat (Jan 28, 2012)

Ursa major said:


> Never mind "no electricity".
> 
> 
> What happened to that golden future in which power would be so cheap to make that we end users wouldn't get charged...?


 
Oh Dear! 

How things change as our Brave New World crumbles into dust


----------



## Starbeast (Jan 28, 2012)

Omnis said:


> This brings me to my question: would it be theoretically possible for a civilization to advance technologically beyond the need for electrical power in the same way that our civilization has advanced beyond the need for, say, steam power?


 
It would be a miracle if humankind can get beyond nuclear power and oil.

Check out the documentary _Who Killed the Electric Car,_ so you can see for yourself how hard it is to push forward for clean (and hopefully inexpensive) energy.


----------



## Vertigo (Jan 28, 2012)

Biotech. We are reaching the point now where we can create new cells from a biological "programming language" that connects bio modules together to do whatever job you want the cells to do. These modules can literally be bought online today and enthusiastic amateurs are putting together new cells in garage labs. A bunch of goats have been produced (is that the right word) that have genes for producing spider silk in their milk (note this one was a university project rather than a garage lab). The silk is extracted and used to make material of incredible strength to weight ratio (much much better than say Kevlar).

Bearing all that in mind I consider it quite plausible that everything from computers to engineering projects may be done in this way in the future. That begs the question how such thngs would be powered. Would you feed your computer rather than plug it into electricity?


----------



## Interference (Jan 28, 2012)

Our brains have electrical fields, don't they?  The five forces (weak, strong, light, sound and gravity) are electro-magnetic forces.  I wonder if it is possible to get away from them very far.

My first thought, though, was that light (generated I know not how) might be a feasible and acceptable alternative.


----------



## Metryq (Jan 28, 2012)

Interference said:


> *The five forces* (weak, strong, light, sound and gravity) *are electro-magnetic forces.*



Uh, no, they're not, otherwise we wouldn't have physicists feverishly seeking the holy grail—a Grand Unified Theory.

Sound and light are not forces of nature. My cat is, when she wants to be fed.


----------



## Metryq (Jan 28, 2012)

Ursa major said:


> What happened to that golden future in which power would be so cheap to make that we end users wouldn't get charged...?



Okay, you're grounded for a week!

Well, let's see—there's that "zero point" energy that can't be used because it has no "potential." Then there's the free energy from another universe discovered in Heinlein's "Waldo." And the home hydrogen extraction plant from the movie _Chain Reaction_...


----------



## Vertigo (Jan 28, 2012)

The four known forces Stong, Weak, Electormagnetic and Gravity. There are some that have postulated an as yet unknown fifth force.

So in that sense, we will always use electricity (or at least electrical fiels - ie. electromagnetism), we can't really not use it. However I am assuming the original question is about whether we will move onto some other power source. Steam, then electricity, then.... Though I guess that leaves out fossil fuels.


----------



## mosaix (Jan 29, 2012)

Vertigo said:


> The four known forces Stong, Weak, Electormagnetic and Gravity. There are some that have postulated an as yet unknown fifth force.



So, Vertigo tell us more about the _Stong _and_ Electormagnetic _forces.


----------



## Vertigo (Jan 29, 2012)

Ooops - teach me to post in a hurry!


----------



## Foxbat (Jan 29, 2012)

There are some that postulate that the weak nuclear force and electromagnetic force are one and the same, this means there may only be three - Gravity, Strong Nuclear and Electromagnetic. Bio computers would still use electricity (just as our own brain does for transferring info over synapses) so, even if you fed your PC it would, ultimately, still use electricity. 

Zero Point energy harnassing is a complete and utter myth - the wave/particle duality of matter completely negates any opportunity to use this.  Electricity is the one fundamental force we can harnass in a constructive and useful manner. But, in truth, we are still using steam (to generate electricity) so we are not as far advanced as some may think.


----------



## andyw1691 (Feb 5, 2012)

I was under the impression that what we perceive as the force of gravity was due to the effect that matter had on space-time, or to put it another way matter curves space-time. Gravity may not therefore be a force at all 

I think it is likely that future computers will use light for some of their switching and communication. They will also use quantum effects for some of their computational resources.

I'm not sure that there will be a place for organic computers. Anything organic relies on an on-going chemical reaction which is expensive to setup and maintain. Stopping the reaction and restarting it might also be difficult. It is difficult to see what the advantages organic computers would have over non-organic ones.

Andy


----------



## Ursa major (Feb 5, 2012)

Vertigo said:


> ...Electormagnetic...,


...the force that attracts voters to the polls....


----------



## Vertigo (Feb 5, 2012)

You sure it isn't the force that repells voters from the polls?


----------



## andyw1691 (Feb 11, 2012)

Back on topic, the BBC ran an artical on the 8th of Feb about scientists who had managed to reduce the size of a laser light source to 200 millionths of a millimetre high. They produce visible light and work at room tempertures.

The full artical can be found in the Science & environment section of the BBC News website.

Andy


----------



## Budz (Mar 12, 2012)

Ursa major said:


> Never mind "no electricity".
> 
> 
> What happened to that golden future in which power would be so cheap to make that we end users wouldn't get charged...?




make your own solar panels..


----------



## Metryq (Mar 12, 2012)

Budz said:


> make your own solar panels..



Right, and after we've shot all the barred owls in order to preserve the order of evolution, we'll blanket the entire planet with solar panels to power the grow lights for our farms.


----------



## Ursa major (Mar 12, 2012)

Not the whole planet, just the deserts.


----------



## RJM Corbet (Mar 12, 2012)

Omnis said:


> ... Are there any alternative forces we could use ... Some force not yet discovered? ...


 
Yes. The spiral energy of 'vortexia' ...


----------



## Michael01 (Mar 12, 2012)

andyw1691 said:


> I'm not sure that there will be a place for organic computers. Anything organic relies on an on-going chemical reaction which is expensive to setup and maintain. Stopping the reaction and restarting it might also be difficult. It is difficult to see what the advantages organic computers would have over non-organic ones.


 
What if it's actually some sort of living creature? Not sure how feasible this is, for computers, but it's a thought. You would not need to turn it off; you just need to feed it. We could probably breed them so that they don't eat too much, either.

Yeah, right.... 

I was just remembering _West of Eden_ by Harry Harrison. Been so long since I read it that I don't remember all the details. The reptilians (or whatever they were called - think I should read it again) had a purely biological technology. They literally _grew_ their homes and even heated them with living creatures. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure they did _not_ have computers.

Even if it is feasible (and I have my doubts), I suppose "organic" computers would have some advantages then. They'd still be using electricity, of course.


----------



## RJM Corbet (Mar 12, 2012)

Michael01 said:


> What if it's actually some sort of living creature? Not sure how feasible this is, for computers, but it's a thought. You would not need to turn it off; you just need to feed it. We could probably breed them so that they don't eat too much, either.
> 
> Yeah, right....
> 
> ...



The aliens in Stephen Donaldson's 'Gap' used to grow their spacecraft ...


----------



## Ursa major (Mar 12, 2012)

Michael01 said:


> What if it's actually some sort of living creature? Not sure how feasible this is, for computers, but it's a thought. You would not need to turn it off...


This would give a whole new meaning to the Blue Screen of Death.


----------



## Michael01 (Mar 14, 2012)

Ursa major said:


> This would give a whole new meaning to the Blue Screen of Death.


 
Ooh...yes it would. How...horrifying.

RJM: Hey, that's cool. I've been meaning to read _Gap_. Gonna have to pick it up soon. (Um, probably after I find the time to finish _Wheel of Time_ and _Thomas Covenant_, both of which I've been working on for the last couple of years; school gets in the way of my reading for pleasure).


----------



## Vertigo (Mar 14, 2012)

Hamilton's Edenist habitats and spaceships are 'grown' from seeds. The idea of accurately controlled organic growth is very very close now. You can design a new cell now with a language very like a software programming language. So 'growing' things designed for particular high tech purposes is remarkably close to being realised.

The ides of growing an organic computer should not be rejected as being silly either. We have yet to build a computer that has anything like the complexity, storage capacity or indeed speed of the human brain. And before you complain about the imprecision of the human brain; it is only our conscious mind that is imprecise and slow. Scientists estimate that more that 90% of our brain activity is subconscious and that has been shown to be remarkably accurate and capable of phenomenal computations and incredible speed, not to mention absolutely huge storage capacity. Just look at our ability to catch a thrown ball for example. The work required to estimate the ball's trajectory is staggering and we do it almost instantly (well most of us do!).

Now imagine designing something like that that is specialised instead of the very very general purpose computer we carry around in our heads.


----------



## Metryq (Mar 14, 2012)

Vertigo said:


> The work required to estimate the ball's trajectory is staggering and we do it almost instantly (well most of us do!).



To modify a line from _The Matrix_: *"Catch this!"*

I'm not contesting the amazing power of the human brain, but the fusion between mind and matter is blurred. How much of playing catch is mind, and how much physical reflex? What exactly is reflex? Does a case like Phineas Gage demonstrate the mechanics of the brain, the elusiveness of "consciousness," or the subtlety in which they are combined?


----------



## Vertigo (Mar 14, 2012)

Reflex in this sense is just another word for subconscious. Yes we do have some pure reflex muscle twitches (knees and elbows being the classics) but almost all our muscles movements (and the suppression of movements) is controlled by our subconscious.

A recent Horizon documentary on a couple of nights back showed people chasing a toy helicopter programmed to move randomly. Each person was frantically running around the place trying to catch it. They had cameras strapped to their heads. To all appearances there seemed to be no pattern to their movements. However when the camera video was examined each person had subconsciously moved their bodies and heads so that the apparent movement of the helicopter as seen by the camera against reference points in the background was an almost perfect straight line. This was all controlled by the subconscious and was _exactly_ the same in each person even though each person described very different strategies that they were consciously employing to catch the toy.

So called muscle memory had recently been shown to be generated by a 'rewiring' of the relevant part of the conscious brain; known as brain plasticity or neuroplasticity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity).

It would be a mistake, I think, to rule out organic computing.


----------



## Dave (Mar 14, 2012)

I can foresee a day when everything is "grown" biologically. There are 3D printers now but they are a long way from being 'Star Trek' replicators, and I don't see that being a likely path taken. We can already harness replication by DNA and fairly soon will be able to grow replacement organs. Once we work out what the genetic programming codes are, then it wouldn't be huge step to start writing our own code. Just think of the advantages of self-replicating, self-repairing vehicles and machines? Giving them brains would prevent accidents but I'd stop short of giving them intelligence. Of course, one day the coffee machine evolves intelligence by itself, and after that??


----------



## Vertigo (Mar 14, 2012)

Dave said:


> I can foresee a day when everything is "grown" biologically. There are 3D printers now but they are a long way from being 'Star Trek' replicators, and I don't see that being a likely path taken. We can already harness replication by DNA and fairly soon will be able to grow replacement organs. *Once we work out what the genetic programming codes are*, then it wouldn't be huge step to start writing our own code. Just think of the advantages of self-replicating, self-repairing vehicles and machines? Giving them brains would prevent accidents but I'd stop short of giving them intelligence. Of course, one day the coffee machine evolves intelligence by itself, and after that??


 
As I said we are getting very very close to that now. Some would argue we are there already and merely need to refine and improve. 



> Qath is a high-level programming language to design genetic information on large scales: to compile or redesign entire genomes.


from here: http://www.qath.net/


----------



## Michael01 (Mar 14, 2012)

Vertigo said:


> As I said we are getting very very close to that now. Some would argue we are there already and merely need to refine and improve.
> 
> 
> from here: http://www.qath.net/


 
Very interesting. Thanks for sharing the link, Vertigo!


----------



## clovis-man (Mar 14, 2012)

Well, the Krell figured out how to do it "without instrumentalities" and look where it got them. WiFi gone wrong, I guess.


----------



## Kaladan (Mar 15, 2012)

Ursa major said:


> This would give a whole new meaning to the Blue Screen of Death.



And there'd be no tech support, only an amalgamation of vets and IT professionals.

Just think how many more lolcats we'd have.

The future is bright indeed.


----------



## Vertigo (Mar 15, 2012)

Michael01 said:


> Very interesting. Thanks for sharing the link, Vertigo!


 
Yeah, it is very interesting and also a little scary. However that is one Pandora's box we'll never get the lid back on.


----------



## Michael01 (Mar 16, 2012)

Hmm. Yes, that is probably so.


----------



## Vertigo (Mar 16, 2012)

I actually think that if the last century was the century of electronics* this century may well prove to be the century of genetics or maybe more accurately biotech.

* Some people consider the transistor to have been a more significant discovery than the wheel, in terms of its impact on human life. Today every year the world manufactures over 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 transistors. Apparently this is one hundred times more that the sum total of all the grains of rice consumed (by humans) every year!


----------



## Cherguevara (Mar 21, 2012)

The irony being that steam is _not_ obsolete - we still use this  method for generating electricity (including Nuclear Power). All we do  is convert the energy from steam to electricity and pass it down the  wires.


----------



## Vertigo (Mar 21, 2012)

Yes, I've always thought it a little ironic that nuclear power is really just a very hot steam engine 'boiler' fire.


----------



## RJM Corbet (Mar 21, 2012)

Vertigo said:


> Yes, I've always thought it a little ironic that nuclear power is really just a very hot steam engine 'boiler' fire.


 
Yup. Had trouble convincing my dad about that. It's just a heat source to boil water ...


----------



## Vertigo (Mar 21, 2012)

I have trouble explaining to people sometimes that that is why it's so difficult to put nuclear 'engines' into aeroplanes. Not impossible maybe, but certainly difficult.


----------



## Interference (Mar 21, 2012)

So I guess nuclear family saloons are a bit of a way off as well, then 



Which is odd, cos there are a lot of nuclear families ....


----------



## Vertigo (Mar 21, 2012)

Interference said:


> Which is odd, cos there are a lot of nuclear families ....


Is that fusion or fission?


----------



## Interference (Mar 21, 2012)

Not always easy to tell, though I've seen some with fission rods in the back of the car.


----------



## Vertigo (Mar 21, 2012)

Ow, ow, ow, ow!


----------



## Interference (Mar 21, 2012)

Confusion, ain't it?


----------



## Dave (Mar 21, 2012)

And yet magazines of the late 1940's and 1950's were predicting we would have nuclear powered vehicles of every kind. I think it does serve to underline why electricity is going to be with us for some time yet. The ease with which electricity can be converted into other forms of energy cannot be beaten.


----------



## Interference (Mar 21, 2012)

I was happy to note in a recent Top Gear that someone took on James May's (joking?) suggestion to have a turbine to charge the batteries of their electric cars.  The idea seemed superb to me when it was first mooted in one of their tom-fooleries intended, I suspect, to prove the unlikelihood of electric cars becoming a widely accepted reality.

Though the new car still uses a petrol-powered dynamo, it also uses solar panels and it occurred to me that, while the car is moving, surely wind-dynamos behind the radiator grill would also be a way to lengthen the battery's usable range of charge.


----------



## chrispenycate (Mar 21, 2012)

All right, we know what the advantages of electricity are: Easy to transport, non-polluting (if you ignore electromagnetic fields around pylons, which I do), not complicated to generate, wide range (mechanical, thermal, electronic and electrochemical) of ways of using the energy, acceptably high safety margin, easy to meter and charge for.

So, what are the disadvantages that could make someone look for an alternative?
Difficult to store, requires physical connection for the transport (although the only alternatives to this are a bit worrying, like a maser delivering a few gigawatts following a jet airliner) transmission over large distances inevitably lossy, vulnerable to sunspots and lightning strikes, less than convenient in the damp.

Ok, powering the carriages up our orbital tower might not be its most obvious use, nor in the undersea cities round the thermal vents, but its most obvious failing is in transport. Storing it as chemical energy in batteries is really not an adequate solution, If, perchance, superconductors could be made practical (not unthinkable) it could be stored as a magnetic field, or there may be other esoteric solutions, but as things stand now our best hope for a good storage system is an invertible fuel cell; good old chemical energy. (Pumping water uphill, then letting it run back down when the energy's needed, our present most efficient storage system, mechanical energy, is just not elegant.)

Hmm, the underwater city reminds me of something. When we were trying to make the Kraken sea house habitable in 1970, the principal energy source was compressed air –you can run cars on it (Harrods ran delivery vans), the workshops using pneumatic tools illustrate its versatility, stores well… no, I just can't see a compressed air computer catching on. Taking off, perhaps).

A tank full of charmed quarks? Gluon unstickies? Electricity is so convenient for so many jobs.


----------



## Vertigo (Mar 21, 2012)

I have been saying for a long time that the person who can come up with a compact, efficient way of storing electricity stands to become seriously rich. It could in many ways be more revolutionary than the transistor. To be fair batteries are getting incredibly good but as Chris says room temperature superconductivity seems to be what is needed and if we make that break through I would expect to see some pretty radical engineering emerging.

On the battery front I saw a thing on the box showing how, in an emergency, a fully charged electric car can be used to power an (average) house for around 2 days. I think it might have been in Norway, and they had produced a 'siwtchable' charger to allow it to do this.


----------



## Ursa major (Mar 22, 2012)

That house may be kept running for two days, but its range is still very, very poor. 









_(And yes, I know: the range will probably be using wood as a fuel....)_


----------



## RJM Corbet (Mar 23, 2012)

chrispenycate said:


> ... A tank full of charmed quarks? Gluon unstickies? Electricity is so convenient for so many jobs.


 
May I ask you Crispen, and this completely sincere: in the original 'Star Trek' series, what I liked about it was that the earthlings were always able to identify and knock out the alien power source, it didn't matter how impressive the 'adversary' was, or seemed to be.

But, and I don't know the answer: what really is electricity? It's the flow of something, some _electron_ 'particle' (because it has some (minimal) mass, and a very powerful comparative charge) that flows from what we decide to call negative, to positive and by directing the flow we can create heat, turn motors, generate light (by using the heat to generate light, or by passing it through various gasses in vacuo, or impinge upon various flourescent compounds etc) or with some cleverness, to vibrate membranes to reproduce sound, etc.

It is hugely versatile, as you observe.

But what _is_ it really? It can be completely insulated by a micrometre of fresh air. It's a useful thing to know, that by the use of insulators, it can be directed along conductors, etc.

But what_ is_ it? Does anyone out there know?

Is it the primal yin/yang energy? Or is there something more? Some unified energy?


----------



## Vertigo (Mar 23, 2012)

Nothing so exotic RJM. The difference between conductors and insulators is that conductors have their highest energy band unfilled - the conduction band. This mean that electrons can easily get kicked to a slightly higher energy state (by the energy of the battery or whatever) and in the process can 'drift' towards the positive applied potential. Insulators have their highest energy band filled and so it would take a much larger 'kick' to push one up to the next band (from the valence band to the conduction band). So a very high voltage can spark through an insulating air gap. It's not quite that simple of course - there are other factors like holes in a semicondictor - that result in anomalies like diamond and graphite. Same material but the former is an insulator and the latter a conductor.

The energy we get from the electricity essentially comes from the energy given up by the electrons as they drop back from the levels the battery's kick lifted them up to. An important rule of quantum physics is that all materials will endeavour to fall to their lowest possible energy state.


----------



## RJM Corbet (Mar 23, 2012)

Ok, ok. But when you_ will_ your hand to move, it moves.

What's that?


----------



## Vertigo (Mar 23, 2012)

Electrical signals from your brain converted to chemical signals that make your muscles contract.

It's not even done by your conscious brain, but delegated to your subconscious. And that delegation to is in electrical signals.


----------



## RJM Corbet (Mar 24, 2012)

Yes. There's such a thing nowadays as a myoelectric (?) limb. If you've lost a hand, there's an artificial hand that's directly connected to the nerves in your arm, that opens and closes and moves the thumb etc, when you 'think' it to, by electrical nerve impulses from your brain. 

Its powered by rechargeable batteries. It obviously doesn't have all the detailed finger movements of a real hand, but it's made up of intricate stems and gears and wheels, all covered by a flesh coloured glove to look completely real. Quite an amazing thing, really: activated by _thought_.

But still Vertigo, it originates somewhere: the original thought that creates the nerve impulse?


----------



## Ursa major (Mar 24, 2012)

That would be you, one or more of: the reflex you, the subconscious you and the conscious you. (See here.)


----------



## Vertigo (Mar 24, 2012)

As Ursa says and then beyond that it's really down to individual belief. Some believe it's all driven by your soul. I'm afraid I'm a bit more prosaic than that and simply put it down to a very complex system developed by evolution over millions of years to produce an organic entity that is very efficient at survival.


----------



## RJM Corbet (Mar 24, 2012)

Ursa major said:


> That would be you, one or more of: the reflex you, the subconscious you and the conscious you. (See here.)





Vertigo said:


> As Ursa says and then beyond that it's really down to individual belief. Some believe it's all driven by your soul. I'm afraid I'm a bit more prosaic than that and simply put it down to a very complex system developed by evolution over millions of years to produce an organic entity that is very efficient at survival.



My goodness. Complete agreement! How often does this happen, guys?


----------



## Ursa major (Mar 24, 2012)

RJM Corbet said:


> My goodness. Complete agreement! How often does this happen, guys?


Whenever the rest of you see sense, I guess....


----------



## Metryq (Mar 24, 2012)

I guess you just couldn't bear to argue.


----------



## RJM Corbet (Mar 24, 2012)

Don't tell me _you_ agree as well?


----------

