Could we harvest energy from a star?

Feb 04, 2014 by Fraser Cain, Universe Today
Dyson Sphere. Credit: Eburacum45

Our civilization will need more power in the future. Count on it. The ways we use power today: for lighting, transportation, food distribution and even entertainment would have sounded hilarious and far fetched to our ancestors.

As our technology improves, our demand for power will increase. I have no idea what we'll use it for, but I guarantee we'll want it. Perhaps we'll clean up the oceans, reverse global warming, turn iron into gold, or any number of activities that take massive amounts of . Fossil fuels won't deliver, and they come with some undesirable side effects. Nuclear fuels will only provide so much power until they run out.

We need the ultimate in energy resources. We'll want to harness the entire power of our star. The Soviet astronomer Nikolai Kardashev predicted that a future civilization might eventually harness the power of an entire planet. He called this a Type I civilization. A Type II would harness the entire energy output of a star. And a Type III civilization would utilize the power of their entire galaxy. So let's consider a Type II civilization.

What would it actually take to harness 100% of the energy from a star? We'd need to construct a Dyson Sphere or Cloud and collect all the that emanates from it. But could we do better? Could we extract material directly from a star?

You bet, it's the future!

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.

This is an idea known as "stellar lifting". Stealing hydrogen fuel from the Sun and using it for our futuristic energy needs. In fact, the Sun's already doing it… poorly. Stars generate powerful magnetic fields. They twist and turn across the surface of the star, and eject hydrogen into space. But it's just a trickle of material. To truly harness the power of the Sun, we need to get at that store of hydrogen, and speed up the extraction process.

There are a few techniques that might work. You can use lasers to heat up portions of the surface, and increase the volume of the solar wind. You could use powerful magnetic fields to carry plasma away from the Sun's poles into space.Which ever way it happens, once we've got all that hydrogen. How do we use it to get energy? We could combine it with oxygen and release energy via combustion, or we could use it in our space reactors and generate from fusion.

But the most efficient way is to feed it to a black hole and extract its angular momentum. A highly advanced civilization could siphon material directly from a star and send it onto the ergosphere of a rapidly spinning pet black hole.

Plasma on the surface of the Sun. Credit: Hinode

Here's Dr. Mark Morris, a Professor of Astronomy at UCLA. He'll explain:

"There is this region, called the ergosphere between the event horizon and another boundary, outside. The ergosphere is a very interesting region outside the event horizon in which a variety of interesting effects can occur. For example, if we had a black hole at our disposal, we could extract energy from spinning by throwing things into the ergosphere and grabbing whatever comes out at even higher speeds."

This is known as the Penrose process, first identified by Roger Penrose in 1969. It's theoretically possible to retrieve 29% of the energy in a rotating black hole. Unfortunately, you also slow it down. Eventually the black hole stops spinning, and you can't get any more energy out of it. But then it might also be possible to extract energy from Hawking radiation; the slow evaporation of black holes over eons. Of course, it's tricky business.

Artist’s impression of a Star feeding a black hole. Credit: ESO/L. Calçada

Dr. Morris continues, "There's no inherent limitation except for the various problems working in the vicinity of a massive black hole. One can't be anywhere near a black hole that's actively accreting matter because the high flux of energetic particles and gamma rays. So it's a hostile environment near most realistic black holes, so let me just say that it won't be any time soon as far as our civilization is concerned. But maybe Type III civilizations so far beyond us that it exceeds our imagination won't have any problem."

A Type 3 would be so advanced, with such a demand for energy, they could be extracting the material from all the stars in the galaxy and feeding it directly to black holes to harvest energy. Feeding black holes to other black holes to spin them back up again.

It's an incomprehensible feat of galactic engineering. And yet, it's one potential outcome of our voracious demand for energy.

Explore further: Black hole that doesn't emit x-rays discovered near massive star

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Black hole jets

Jan 16, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- Black holes are irresistible sinks for matter and energy. They are so dense that not even light can escape from their gravitational clutches. Massive black holes (equal to millions or even ...

RX J1532.9+3021: Extreme power of black hole revealed

Jan 23, 2014

(Phys.org) —Astronomers have used NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and a suite of other telescopes to reveal one of the most powerful black holes known. The black hole has created enormous structures in ...

Dead star and distant black holes dazzle in X-rays

Jan 09, 2014

(Phys.org) —Two new views from NASA's Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array, or NuSTAR, showcase the telescope's talent for spying objects near and far. One image shows the energized remains of a dead star, ...

Taking the pulse of a supermassive black hole

Dec 05, 2013

(Phys.org) —Rare heartbeat-like pulsations detected from a supermassive black hole may grant scientists better insight into these exotic objects, according to two University of Alabama astronomers who co-authored ...

Recommended for you

Bacteria manipulate salt to build shelters to hibernate

5 hours ago

For the first time, Spanish researchers have detected an unknown interaction between microorganisms and salt. When Escherichia coli cells are introduced into a droplet of salt water and is left to dry, b ...

How do we terraform Venus?

5 hours ago

It might be possible to terraform Venus some day, when our technology gets good enough. The challenges for Venus are totally different than for Mars. How will we need to fix Venus?

Biomarkers of the deep

7 hours ago

Tucked away in the southwest corner of Spain is a unique geological site that has fascinated astrobiologists for decades. The Iberian Pyrite Belt (IPB) in Spain's Río Tinto area is the largest known deposit ...

User comments : 40

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

julianpenrod
1.4 / 5 (14) Feb 04, 2014
What's blithely, and "unscientifically" ignored is that these new technologies may require less energy than even today's. Those who want to deny God's presence will insist that God, for example, will provide those civilizations that are deserving resources to use, that a civilization outgrowing its resources may be a sign it is foul and malignant. As part of His message, God can provide high performance low energy technologies, but, just as they lie and say Punxsutawney Phil is not a reliable indicator, to try to make society dependent on "science", the New World Order will do everything to keep people from realizing these low energy alternatives. They will acknowledge only high energy ones and they will lie and say that high energy technologies are doing things they aren't, like "converting energy to matter". The vast real universe of low energy possibilities they will not even admit.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2014
Despite Kardashev's assertion about Type I, Type II and Type III civilizations, a number of points should be made. Among the most significant, if there were such civilizations, they would be obvious by their operations. Detritus or "tailings" possibly from their energy gathering, depleted sources, even on going harvesting. The question of alien life would be settled. And what of a possible Type IV civilization, one that taps the entire universe for energy? Perhaps the answer again lies with God. If a society is so corrupt it concocts "science" to lie and convince people only high energy technology is feasible, and the society are corrupt enough to buy the lie, perhaps God allows them to use up all their resources before they can tap more powerful ones. That may be why there is so little success seeing life elsewhere in the universe.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (8) Feb 04, 2014
As our technology improves, our demand for power will increase.

This is already being shown as false. In the most technologically developed countries energy usage per person is already dropping.
Yes: we want to do more things - but humans can only do one thing at a time. So the number of things we do per day is limited. Coupled with the tech we use getting more and more efficient and you get a plateau and then a drop in energy usage.

So unless we have some pressing need for planet-annihilating beams or somesuch we don't need to harness the power of stars. The need for a lot of energy only comes when we try to move between stars - and there harnessing a stars power is not an option.
Nestle
1 / 5 (6) Feb 04, 2014
A Type 3 civilization would be so advanced, with such a demand for energy, they could be extracting the material from all the stars in the galaxy
These old fashioned sci-fi ideas don't take into account the recent findings in the field of cold fusion and negentropic devices. We are actually living on the pile of energy, because the fusion of lighter elements into heavier ones could still bring more energy than the fission, i.e. lotta energy without building of Dyson spheres around stars.
no fate
5 / 5 (6) Feb 04, 2014
"Among the most significant, if there were such civilizations, they would be obvious by their operations."

Obvious to whom? If a civilization was advanced enough to harvest energy in this fashion we would have to assume they are equally advanced in all other facets, we wouldn't even know what we were looking at. Then there is the issue of how many stars there are to search for said "operations". If there are alien civilizations, we will know they are there when they show up here.
shavera
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 04, 2014
These old fashioned sci-fi ideas don't take into account the recent findings in the field of cold fusion and negentropic devices.


These old fashioned sci-fi ideas don't take into account the recent sci-fi ideas.

FTFY
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Feb 05, 2014
As part of His message, God can provide high performance low energy technologies

Those who want to deny God's presence

@julianpenrod
personal conjecture based upon religious belief
this has no place in science
science is about facts and proof
things that can be measured and proven, not some speculative entity who's proof cannot be verified nor proven
keep your religion to yourself and talk science
especially given that your religion is just one of many and there is no guarantee that your specific dogma is THE reigning philosophy
religion is completely subjective to the interpretations of the individual and therefore cannot be considered science
If a society is so corrupt it concocts "science" to lie and convince people...

science is the use of the scientific method to study the universe
your view is misplaced

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Feb 05, 2014
The question of alien life would be settled

@julianpenrod
you are assuming that the alien life would be spewing energy wantonly in all directions and visibly rearranging the universe? What?
Dont forget about the huge distances/times involved
even the light form our nearest neighbor is years old by the time it reaches us, therefore we are seeing its past, not as it is right now
then again, there is the thought that perhaps there ARE plenty of signs out there, and we are not intelligent enough to interpret them?
But one thing for sure
Perhaps the answer again lies with God

reliance upon religion has always proven to be the death of science, and therefore technology and advanced civilizations
See the muslim cleric who made algebra/math the work of the devil
see current attempts by xtians to undermine real science with creationist views
organized religion is only good for controlling people

if you want to keep your faith... fine
just dont let it interfere with science
GSwift7
4.7 / 5 (6) Feb 05, 2014
This is already being shown as false


I agree. The energy we need to accomplish specific tasks is steadily decreasing.

Additionally, why harvest the power of a star when there's plenty of energy in every atom around us? Our current versions of fission and fusion might turn out to be extremely crude. Perhaps it is possible to extract energy from atoms in ways we haven't thought of yet. If that's the case, then there would be no need build massive solar energy collectors, or even for us to live near a star. Stars tend to be dangerous things, with limited life spans, after all. We would be better off if we didn't depend on them at all.

Our notion that a type 2 or 3 civilation would even worry about energy is probably just an example of our own egocentricity. Sufficiently advanced technology should be virtually 100% efficient and virtually perpetually self-powered.
GSwift7
5 / 5 (4) Feb 05, 2014
you are assuming that the alien life would be spewing energy wantonly in all directions and visibly rearranging the universe? What?
Dont forget about the huge distances/times involved


He is also neglecting to fully understand what such advanced technology would look like. As my previous post suggested, ultra-advanced technology will be like magic to us. No type 2 or 3 civilazation would allow a machine to operate below 99.99999% efficiency. At that level of efficiency, you wouldn't see any trace of emissions. Even a communication device would not waste anything, so we aren't going to hear a stray radio broadcast from one of them, unless it was directed at us, and if it is directed at us we WILL hear it (they would make sure it would be impossible to miss).

A nearly perfectly efficient energy source will not have any detectable emissions of heat, x-rays, magnetism, etc. Heck, an advanced civilation might not even need lights in their cities if they adapt to see in the dark.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Feb 05, 2014
Our notion that a type 2 or 3 civilation would even worry about energy is probably just an example of our own egocentricity.

It also shows a lack of imagination. We're already close to genetically engineering ourselves (or even going bionic). So jump just a few thousand (or hundred) years ahead: Enter a body that is able to survive most any kind of environment (or even the full vacuum of space).

What, at that point, would be the point of sticking to planets or even close to stars?
GSwift7
5 / 5 (3) Feb 05, 2014
Enter a body that is able to survive most any kind of environment


yeah, you've got to re-think the whole idea of a body in the first place. For most purposes (and those aren't really good ones) a body is just a burden. Bodies need air, water, food, rest, etc. I would totally ditch mine if I could. (lol, I guess some people, like our religious troll, would tell me that I can ditch my body any time, like with a gun).

Once you start thinking about cumulative effects of advanced technology, if you can forget your preconceptions, it's not surprising that we haven't encountered any of them (that we know of). It's likely that they wouldn't look like an advanced civilation, as we think of it. We are looking for a version of our own civilation, only on a bigger scale, but in reality the footprint of a civilation might actually decrease over time (I think it probably will) and it might change to the extent that we wouldn't recognize it as civilation.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Feb 05, 2014
It's also a matter of scope. Think about what kind of dangers a human as opposed to a virtually immortal being (save for accidents) accepts: Live in a house that, on average, will collapse within 1000 years and might kill you? No problem to accept for a human that lives 100 years. For a being that could live millions/billions of years? Totally unacceptable.

Stars/planetary systems are, on a very long timescale, unstable. So I'd guess that advanced beings wouldn't hang around them but move off into deep space (and have any dealings -if they are even interested in any- conducted 'via remote').

The whole 'spread and colonize', 'terraform', 'mine out planetary systems', 'use total power output of stars', 'dyson sphere' and whatnot ideas of advanced civilizations/beings seems to me very short sighted (i.e. abtopomorphized to our current state of being).
jsdarkdestruction
1 / 5 (2) Feb 06, 2014
"Those who want to deny God's presence will insist that God, for example, will provide those civilizations that are deserving resources to use, that a civilization outgrowing its resources may be a sign it is foul and malignant."
I highly doubt anyone who denies god existing/presence will provide anyone anything much less that running out of resources is a sign our civilization is foul and malignant in the eyes of "god".
jsdarkdestruction
1 / 5 (2) Feb 06, 2014
corrected previous post that I could no longer edit.
"Those who want to deny God's presence will insist that God, for example, will provide those civilizations that are deserving resources to use, that a civilization outgrowing its resources may be a sign it is foul and malignant."
I highly doubt anyone who denies god existing/presence will insist or think god will provide anyone anything much less that running out of resources is a sign our civilization is foul and malignant in the eyes of "god".
GSwift7
4.7 / 5 (3) Feb 06, 2014
It's also a matter of scope. Think about what kind of dangers a human as opposed to a virtually immortal being (save for accidents) accepts


Good points, but I'm not sure that is a valid assumption, for a couple of reasons.

First, that's assuming their survival instinct (along with other psychological factors) are similar to ours. What if you're talking about something more like a hive, for example? Or what if risk-taking is hard-wired into their instincts.

Second, medical and/or biomechanical technology might make the concept of personal death obsolete. For example, what if you could 'back up' your memory in remote storage, and re-load it into a new 'body' at will (a body that doesn't feel pain and is nearly indestructable?), or even broadcast your memories off-world, or live entirely in a virtual world? The sci-fi trillogy "Altered Carbon" explores some of the implications such tech might have on society and people. It's kinda hard to get your head
FainAvis
2.5 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2014
I deny God's presence. I also deny that any of these schemes to take energy from a star, black hole or galaxy, at the scales proposed, are credible possibilities. Look after this planet, learn its limits, because in the foreseeable future it is all we have.
alfie_null
not rated yet Feb 09, 2014
. . . God can provide high performance low energy technologies . . . they lie and say Punxsutawney Phil is not a reliable indicator . . . the New World Order . . .

Whew! I should say I'm glad you don't seek to promote anything I'm a fan of.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2014
Those who want to deny God's presence will insist that God, for example, will provide those civilizations that are deserving resources to use
Ahaahaaahaaaa uh no julian as soon as a civilization develops AI and this intelligence begins combing through its store of knowledge, it will be impossible to ignore that the gods of their books were all fabrications based on lies.

There will be absolutely no way of avoiding this. No theistic god can survive the future. We see this already - the internet gives us instant access to facts which expose bible lies.

Sorry, your superstitions are doomed.

As to type 3 civilizations, they may be able to subsist on a lot less energy but they will develop a VERY long-term view of existence and will not want to let ANY resources dissipate.

They may want to dismantle their sun and end it's wasteful squandering of energy, storing its contents and using it in the most judicious way possible.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Feb 09, 2014
I deny God's presence. I also deny that any of these schemes to take energy from a star, black hole or galaxy, at the scales proposed, are credible possibilities. Look after this planet, learn its limits, because in the foreseeable future it is all we have.
So you are resigned to the eventual extinction event which will kill us all. I pity you.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Feb 09, 2014
And also julian, it will be increasingly difficult to conceal the direct roles that religious beliefs play in instigating persecution, conflict, pogrom, and war. More info will be collected on these incidents and the culpability of the religious mindset will become clearer and clearer.

Religion will be deemed hazardous to our collective health and will begin to be regarded the way we regard similar such toxic social constructs; fascism, feudalism, stalinism, despotism, etc.

In the future it simply will not be tolerated.
Egleton
5 / 5 (1) Feb 09, 2014
Please stop attacking straw gods.
Lex Talonis
2 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2014
Oh horse shit....

"Our civilization will need more power in the future. Count on it."

A few pandemics, a nuclear war or two, mixed in with a heap of global warming... loads of methane boiling up from the ocean and flash igniting in the atmosphere...

And the spiral back into the greatest extinction even that has ever been recorded.....

Then it's back to butt fucking our buddies in caves, by the light of the silvery moon.

Valentiinro
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2014


Then it's back to butt fucking our buddies in caves, by the light of the silvery moon.



Sounds like a good time?
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Feb 10, 2014
Or what if risk-taking is hard-wired into their instincts.

I would guess that a being that evolved is no longer slave to any hardwired instincts. I'd find it illogical that it would change most everything and just forget about such a central aspect.
about something more like a hive, for example?

The question is always: what's the point? While I can see the point of being a hive (redundancy) there's still a limit beyond which the size of a hive makes no sense.
'back up' your memory in remote storage, and re-load it into a new 'body' at will

A copy is not the original - even if identical on the atomic level (no, I'm not talking souls or somesuch).
If the original is under threat then having a backup somewhere is no good to the original other than as a psychological crutch (that's exactly what the 'soul concept' is trying to do, BTW).
What good is it to a twin that its sibling survives no matter how identical? It's still dead.
GSwift7
5 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2014
to FainAvis:

That's a very provocative way to put it, almost as though you're trying to stir up of-topic arguments. You could have saved a few electrons by not posting that.

to AlfieNull:

Whew! I should say I'm glad you don't seek to promote anything I'm a fan of


Yeah, you can say that again, lol. There's a few people around here that I would be embarassed to have on my side in anything, or even sit next to on a bus.

to Otto:

They may want to dismantle their sun


Ooo, good point. I didn't think about that one. I still say that such beings wouldn't need to worry about stars at all though.

antialias:

A copy is not the original - even if identical on the atomic level


I agree with all your other points. I forgot that 'nature' has little meaning when you can control it. On this one though, you're still assuming an emotional connection to some physical body. What if the body becomes arbitrary?
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Feb 10, 2014
What if the body becomes arbitrary?

The current seat of motivation is always partuclar to a body. It's like with ants: They're pretty interchangeable - but each ant dies individually.

Unless you have a constant connection to all your avatar bodies and can withdraw the personality and memories therein at will you will still run the risk of having individual death.
Think about what it would mean to make a perfect copy of yourself now to store somewhere. Then go off and live the rest of your life until you die. YOU would die. The copy would live on. That may be marginally better than having imperfect copies (children) but it wouldn't be immortality. It would just be serial clones. Each may even think they're the same - but they'd all be different and die individually.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2014
Ooo, good point. I didn't think about that one. I still say that such beings wouldn't need to worry about stars at all though
Machine life will be concerned about finite resources and limited by natural laws like the speed of light. Assuming that they wouldnt find some new and unlimited source of energy and material stocks, they would seek to order their environment to sustain them for as long as possible.

Maybe degenerate matter is the best form for storing it and using it gradually. Maybe they would gather enough material to form a stable neutron star and feed off of it. Perhaps they would find ways of creating structures within that star which would sustain their 'consciousness'.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2014
Post-machine life could exist within a collapsed star if it could create an interior structure of some sort capable of computation. I presume intelligence would continue to want to communicate with others of its kind throughout the galaxy in order to trade info on the status of their environment.

Again, barring any superluminal way of doing this, they may be using gravity waves to communicate, and so we may find them in binary configurations. This might also satisfy some quaint and archaic 'need' for companionship.

They may not actually have to be 'saying' anything by artificial modulation, but merely reflecting and transmitting the aggregate effects that their immediate environment is having on them.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2014
Once we develop the ability to do gravity astronomy we may begin to detect a vast network of very orderly, very pristine, completely dark, and obviously artificial binary or multiple neutron star systems. By that time we may be well into our own ascension to machine form.

The machine stage might be even briefer than the organic. As the machines learn of this more mature and efficient form of existence, they may begin the transition right away.

The collapse to singularity might zip right past the machine stage and end up as the intelligent star system, member of the intra-galactic community.
GSwift7
5 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2014
Maybe degenerate matter is the best form for storing it and using it gradually. Maybe they would gather enough material to form a stable neutron star and feed off of it. Perhaps they would find ways of creating structures within that star which would sustain their 'consciousness'


Why are you stuck on 'big' stuff? Why would anything sufficiently advanced need to be larger than a coin? As for power supply, why would a civilization capable of constructing things without machines need a massive power supply? Wouldn't advanced technology be internally powered? Imagine your cell phone without a battery, such that each diode and transistor has its own internal power, like harvesting energy from the quantum background noise or something.

Rather than getting bigger over time, perhaps they get smaller, with the ability to perform 'acts of magic' without any visible machinery at all. Giant, complex machines and structures just don't make sense. They won't need them.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2014
Why would anything sufficiently advanced need to be larger than a coin? As for power supply, why would a civilization capable of constructing things without machines need a massive power supply?
The amount of matter in a typical solar system is large and exists in wasteful form ie its star which is constantly streaming energy out into space. An entity concerned with maximizing its longevity would want to reconfigure all matter within its reach into a form which would be losing as little of itself over time as possible.

Im speculating that degenerate matter of some sort would be a way of doing this. Preon stars have been proposed as the explanation for dark matter. An entity which was its own power source would most likely be the most efficient state.

Youre right, an entity capable of reordering its entire system need not end up being very big at all, perhaps a small kernel in the center of its star. But it would need a minimum ability for computation.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2014
Intelligent stars is not my idea. Ive come across it before.

"This theory is based of the fact that we (scientists) have actually created 1 bit, sub micron quantum computers in the lab consisting of a ball of plasma with a rotating magnetic field. (Like a star).

"It seems to me that if a person created a quantum computer based on this principle that is many trillions of times more massive, intelligence and awareness would be a very real side effect."

-The idea of reordering planetary matter is also not new (see ringworld). But stars are wasteful. Intelligence should be able to engineer something more efficient at preserving matter for it to consume over a maximum period of time.

And a stellar network of sentient dark stars which grows with each new collapse might be all that a type 3 civilization would need to achieve. Such a network which transformed all of its matter thusly may be possible but might take longer to form than the projected age of the universe.
GSwift7
5 / 5 (1) Feb 13, 2014
That's just as 'possible' as any other suggestion, and I'm not saying it isn't, but that has to be ballanced against the question of why we haven't already seen evidence of extraterrestrial intelligent life.

If we aren't unique, then there must be a reason we can't see signs of advanced civilazations out there. If there are advanced civilazations all over the place, as I suspect there are, and they tend to start building mega-structures and manipulating stars, then shouldn't we see signs of it? I think the absence of visible signs of advanced civilazations indicates that they become less detectable by some means.

You are suggesting that they would need immense power, but I think that's backwards. I think the ability to do more with less increases over time, to the point where it eventually becomes possible to do almost anything with almost nothing. I think that makes a lot more sense, but opionions are what they are.
IamVal
not rated yet Feb 15, 2014

Second, medical and/or biomechanical technology might make the concept of personal death obsolete. For example, what if you could 'back up' your memory in remote storage, and re-load it into a new 'body' at will


but not only that... this is an inevitability in my mind, but eventually, with our ability to 'print' new beings(read up/download a whole brain, dynamically 'backup' our brains) then what's stopping us from combining all of human experience on the fly. we're really only limited by size and that becomes unlimited as a matter of course.
if we had practically unlimited space (making more storage space than we use over any period of time), and transferral speeds of not considerably more than we're currently capable of, then the notion of individuality could be more or less phased out. If all people shared and contributed to the 'cloud' of human experience.. we'd all be the same person, but our individual locations and interactions
IamVal
not rated yet Feb 15, 2014
would cause impossible to predict individual paths, allowing for unique personal experiences and a net gain for the society.
it's not ridiculous anymore.. imagine what won't be ridiculous anymore tomorrow.
lengould100
not rated yet Feb 18, 2014
A good explanation for dark matter is that 80% of all stars in the galaxy are already surrounded with Dyson spheres.

I don;t understand the article's discussion of "extracting hydrogen from a star". Why would anyone want to do that? to our knowledge, the most efficient way to use hydrogen is in a fusion reactor, and a star is a very effficient and convenient example of such.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Feb 18, 2014
A good explanation for dark matter is that 80% of all stars in the galaxy are already surrounded with Dyson spheres

@lengould100
probably not

if: A Dyson sphere is a hypothetical megastructure that would be a system of orbiting solar-power satellites (or even solid as is oft mentioned in sci-fi) meant to completely encompass a star and capture most or all of its energy output

then: you would not see a great deal of output from any star

therefore we would not see many stars in our galaxy if 80% were surrounded by Dyson Sphere's

I also think, IMHO, that a Dyson sphere that would be capable of absorbing most (or even half) of the stars energy would have enough mass to show effects on the star itself, much like the effects we see now when searching for planets, etc around other stars
yyz
5 / 5 (1) Feb 18, 2014
"A good explanation for dark matter is that 80% of all stars in the galaxy are already surrounded with Dyson spheres"

A 2008 study looking for Dyson spheres (using data from the IRAS infrared satellite) pretty much rules that scenario out: http://arxiv.org/abs/0811.2376
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 18, 2014
A 2008 study looking for Dyson spheres (using data from the IRAS infrared satellite) pretty much rules that scenario out: http://arxiv.org/abs/0811.2376

@yyz
thanks for that link and that study!
VERY INTERESTING
I learned a few things... and I appreciate that.