When and how will communication technology stop?

[sullencab]

Technology has leaped so much in the last decades. I know there's a lot of movies and shows about how technology will be in the future, but how do you think will communication be in the future?

 

[Davdi]

Direct brain interface implants, interfacing with optic and auditory nerves (Olfactory, touch and speech too maybe) we'll al be effectively telepathic.

 

[Dannydet]

I think we will revert back to "talking".

 

[puppykickr]

I think we will revert back to "talking".

We sure will, when the grid collapses, the batteries die, or both!

 

[lunatic59]

Direct brain interface implants, interfacing with optic and auditory nerves (Olfactory, touch and speech too maybe) we'll al be effectively telepathic.

 

[puppykickr]

Sooooo, you guys also know that if true, these theories would make us physically vulnerable to EMPs.

That is, unless someone (Russian, probably) is smart enough to employ old timey tube back up systems?

I am referring to their use in some modern Russian fighter jets, missle guidence, etc. explicitly for this reason.

 

[svim]

Eventually, we will over-engineer our technology so it's smarter and more advanced than ourselves. Given our inbred nature to kill each other (war is part of all cultures), steal resources that belong to others (we have a tendency to think that we deserve everything), and have no respect for the planet we live on it's inevitable that humans will create our own dystopian future. Our population numbers will plummet as we refuse to live sustainable lifestyles, and those who do survive won't be most fit, the smartest, nor the most deserving -- they'll be the ones who know how to 'game the system'. So basically, it's Pixar's movie, "Wall-E." We will be gelatinous blobs who have to be cultivated and sustained. Our robots will be doing the work.

 

[lunatic59]

I prefer Roddenberry's and Asimov's vision of the future over Disney's and Spielberg's.

 

[Hadron]

Direct brain interface implants, interfacing with optic and auditory nerves (Olfactory, touch and speech too maybe) we'll al be effectively telepathic.

And vulnerable to malware, buggy firmware updates and all the rest.

If you want to go darker, there is the line in one of Iain Banks' books where a ship with some macabre interests points out that the sort of interface you describe is also one the most powerful instrument of torture ever created.

 

[mikedt]

Direct brain interface implants, interfacing with optic and auditory nerves (Olfactory, touch and speech too maybe) we'll al be effectively telepathic.

Have you read Snow Crash?

 

[Davdi]

Well Elon Musk is working on something like that right now - https://www.teslarati.com/elon-musk-hiring-neuralink-job-posting/

 

[JosephFraser]

we are not going to be alive a that time

 

[overtureartless]

Direct brain interface implants, interfacing with optic and auditory nerves (Olfactory, touch and speech too maybe) we'll al be effectively telepathic.

Lol, I can't start to imagine this. It doesn't sound like living anymore.

I think we will revert back to "talking".

I like the sound of that. I'm not complaining but at some point, technology may have gone a little too far. I'm sure it will still improve, whatever that means. However, I just hope that we wouldn't forget one of the reasons why there's an advancement in communication. I'm sure the people who started it wanted to keep us close to the people we're supposed to be with. Do I make sense?

 

[Trom]

Technology has leaped so much in the last decades. I know there's a lot of movies and shows about how technology will be in the future, but how do you think will communication be in the future?

Instant communication anywhere in the galaxy via quantum entanglement.

 

[Hadron]

Instant communication anywhere in the galaxy via quantum entanglement.

Speaking as a physicist, that doesn't work. What do you with one part of an entangled pair affects the state of the other, but not in a way that transfers information.

 

[sullencab]

Thanks for all your response. Sounds like everything is instant now. It's very convenient but at some point people are unable to appreciate all the comfort we're having.

 

[Trom]

Speaking as a physicist, that doesn't work. What do you with one part of an entangled pair affects the state of the other, but not in a way that transfers information.

Can spin be altered after an initial observation?

 

[tylis]

For some reason, I personally do not think we have to worry about human future too much, because I suspect we will have rendered our earth uninhabitable in a few more generations. Long live the Roach Nations

 

[Hadron]

Can spin be altered after an initial observation?

Yes, it's possible to flip the spin of a particle. But you can't determine the result of the initial observation - it will be up or down with whatever probability the initial state would give - and once you have made that initial measurement the entanglement is broken, so anything you do to the spin afterwards will have no effect on the distant particle.

That's the problem: the distant observer cannot even know whether you have made a measurement of your particle, nor what direction you measured in. You could agree in advance when you would do this and what axis you would use, but that would only allow you to infer what the other person had seen (if you use the same axis, not even that if not). As far as communication goes that's like trying to send a message by flipping a coin and telling the other person which way it lands: since you can't control it it can't encode a message.

 

[Trom]

Yes, it's possible to flip the spin of a particle. But you can't determine the result of the initial observation - it will be up or down with whatever probability the initial state would give - and once you have made that initial measurement the entanglement is broken, so anything you do to the spin afterwards will have no effect on the distant particle.

That's the problem: the distant observer cannot even know whether you have made a measurement of your particle, nor what direction you measured in. You could agree in advance when you would do this and what axis you would use, but that would only allow you to infer what the other person had seen (if you use the same axis, not even that if not). As far as communication goes that's like trying to send a message by flipping a coin and telling the other person which way it lands: since you can't control it it can't encode a message.

Stuff like this is what annoys me about layperson books, they need to tell the whole story, rather than assume I'm we Todd Ed and can't wrap my head around reality. Perfect example, guy at work tells me some group at Harvard slowed the speed of light down to 38 mph, which is just dumb. But duck+ that, and you'll find story after story about that group slowing down the speed of light to 38 mph.