Auto-bots, transformers

Who wouldn't like to see auto-bots transformers in his life-time? I believe that the time is ripe for attempting some kind of a transformer robot. For those who don't know what I'm talking about (are there any like that here?), the auto-bot transformer is a robot that has (at-least) two structurally-distinct shapes: the first is that of an automotive, e.g. bumblebee, truck, sports-car, etc. while the second is that of a humanoid form.

I believe that the development of sophisticated humanoid walking robots have reached the point where they are autonomous enough and power-fed enough to actually make it possible to add to them another (super-cool) feature. Furthermore, the development of light-weight electric cars has reached the point where, if I'm not mistaken, the battery makeup of robots and such cars are not that different.

Hence, there are only two things missing from actually building such an auto-bot. The first is the transformation mechanism. Again, I believe that the state-of-the-art mechanical engineering can easily design a simple transformation, based on so many models of transformers in the toys market. Placing two wheels on the legs, two wheels on the fore-arms should suffice for the locomotion of the car, while the "folding"/transforming mechanism is a "simple" addition of several more motors.

The second, which is somewhat more challenging, is to place the driver's seat in this configuration. For a truly functional auto-bot, it should not only be autonomous as a humanoid robot and a car, but also to be able to actually drive a human in it. Safety issues are obviously a concern here.

The ultimate goal of this kind of project is the amazing scene from the last Transformer action movie, in which the auto-bot transformed from car to humanoid, during which there was a person inside, while keeping the human intact and safe.

If anyone is up to it, her place in the coolness hall of fame is guaranteed!

Species communication graph

Can different species understand one another? Can one ant specie understand the pheromones of another? Can a lioness understand the sounds of her prey? I believe that the answer to these questions is yes, at least in part. Most of the research on communication of animals has focused on specific species, or on whether humans can understand other species. Little was done in the sense of whether different species can understand, at least in part, communication signals of other species.

I propose a large-scale research into the communication graph of species. In "graph" I mean graph-theory, where nodes of the graph represent species and edges of the graph represent level of understanding. I hypothesize three types of edges:

The first, of genetically closely-related species, i.e. species that have diverged on one aspect but maintained the same signaling patterns. For example, perhaps different types of bees recognize the dance patterns of their generically-neighboring bees.

The second edge type is that of spatially related species, i.e. species that reside in the same habitat. Those can evolutionally benefit from understanding some aspects of communication of other species, e.g. direction to food sources.

The last edge type is that of predator-prey. I hypothesize that most (at least mammalian) predators understand to some extent the defensive communication signals of their prey. This has a clear evolutionary advantage.

The experiments to check these communication edges are obviously not simple. I can think of a naïve experiment where several types of communication signals of one species denote location of food for the second species and see whether the latter can learn or distinguish between them.

I believe this project can teach us a lot about communication in the wild, as well as more fundamental aspects of communication at large.

One research idea per week, ON AVERAGE

Dear Blog-readers.
Welcome back to The Research Fountain.
I apologize for the last several weeks in which I have not posted any new research ideas.
I have moved to a new country (USA), started a new job (postdoc at MIT Media Lab) and generally enjoyed the weather (-20 deg Celsius).
I should have sub-titled my blog as "One research idea per week, on average", so check out the new posts now.

For new-comers to my blog: I'm posting research ideas from my delirious mind. Ideas I cannot pursue myself, not because I do not think they're worthy, but because I cannot pursue them all. Those that I am doing myself, I'm "posting" in scientific publications.
You are more than welcome to followup on these ideas. I waver any claim to them. I would appreciate if you have any comment to be posted on the blog. Also, if you are doing research related to the blog posts, I would appreciate hearing about it.

The posts are not related, so if you are new and bored, you are welcome to check ALL previous posts. Hope you find something to your liking.

Enjoy, and never stop thinking of how to make the world a better place!

DNA Antenna Dust

This project is a combination of three separate advances made in recent years and involve the application of bio-nano-technology with electro-magnetism. The three advances are: DNA origami, DNA coating and nano-dusts. 

The first, DNA origami, is a new exciting field which enables to construct 3D objects with DNA. Nowadays, people can write the DNA code in the computer and get the DNA in a tube as a commercialized product. Furthermore, there were huge advancements in the understanding of DNA folding: DNA, while being a 1D strand, sometimes folds and creates angles due to unique sequences of its underlying G-C-T-A. Taken together, if one knows how a specific DNA folds, and one can write any DNA desired, one can create any shape out of DNA. There are CAD programs that transform any 3D object to its underlying DNA sequence.

The second field is DNA coating. It is older than DNA origami and grants the ability to coat DNA strands with different materials. Notably, it has been done with metals and more specifically with gold. This ability to coat DNA, and the unique ability of the DNA double strands to be constructed into networks of chains, has enabled the development of DNA-based electronic circuits.

The third field is nano-dusts, which grants the ability to create millions of tiny engineered particles that can be spread over a large area and serve a greater purpose. Some applications include using particles that hold sensors, thus creating a large distributed sensor array. A new exciting application is neural dust, which is "spread" over the brain and can transmit the local EM field via acoustic waves.

I suggest to combine these three fields to create the following apparatus. By designing a unique DNA origami that is coated by metals, one can have the complete freedom of engineering nano-antennas that reflect electro-magnetic waves. If millions of these are created and spread over a very large area, one can actually have a huge antenna array made out of nano-antennas. The operation can obviously be optimized by a computer to find the best 3D configuration of the DNA-origami-gold-coated antennas and the best distribution over such large spaces. The benefits of this suggested antenna array lie on its extremely cheap construction, due to advances in DNA synthesis; robustness, since even if you lose a large percent of the nano-antennas, the large array can still function; and configurability, since one can attempt many shapes and distributions until one gets the appropriate antenna array.

Farting roses

Farting, or the more scientific name of flatulence, is a personal, social and aromatic disaster. It has caused numerous embarrassing and awkward moments in the history of mankind. Why can't our farts smell like roses? The answer lies in the chemistry of aromatic compounds. The smell of roses is caused by the compound called Geranyl acetate and is a carbo-hydrate, meaning it is composed of a carbon backbone with hydrogen and oxygen on its side. On the other hand, flatulence is made of carbohydrate compounds that have nitrogen and sulfur in them.

Why can't we simply take a pill with the rosy molecules and thus make our flatulence have good fragrance? The problem with the good aromatic compounds is that they are decomposed in our digestive system since they are similar to food-stuff that holds energy. Thus, they are digested by acids and the entire digestive tract, from the stomach to the colon. The flatulence smell is generated by the bacteria in our digestive systems, as a byproduct of their decomposition of foodstuff that makes it to the large intestine. In other words, rose molecules turn to smelly farts.

However, recent developments in drug delivery systems may cause our lives to smell less awkwardly. The secret is in slow-delivery systems and new encapsulation techniques. Nowadays, there are unique methods that can encapsulate a specific compound, usually a drug, such that the compound is released from its host slowly into the blood stream. Moreover, for a long time encapsulation techniques are known that can protect materials from the acidic environment in the stomach, such that they reach the colon. One anti-flatulence drug is made out of encapsulated grounded-coal, such that the material reaches the colon, by surviving the rough voyage through the stomach, and there it captures the gasses released by the bacteria in the colon.

However, I believe it is not good enough to stop the bad fragrances, but also to enable us to choose how we wish to smell, not only from our tops, via shampoos and conditioners, but from our bottoms as well. I suggest to develop slowly-releasing encapsulation digestive nano-structures that release good aromatic compounds as they reach their final destination. Wouldn't it be nice to hear a fart and say, "mmm… Chanel?"  

Fractal Casimir Surfaces

This post is a little more physics-oriented than previous ones, but I'll try to explain all the major concepts from scratch. The idea, if it works, can revolutionize how we think about what is mass and can have rather crazy applications, such as a cheap transporter of things to outer space. Basically, it suggests how to drastically reduce the inertial mass of objects!

Let's start with basic quantum physics and vacuum fluctuations. As you may well know, quantum physics asserts that all things come in discrete units ("quanta"), even energy. Hence, electromagnetic radiation comes in photons. This "second quantization" (the first one being quantization of matter, so to speak) means that energy is measured in discrete units, such that one can "count the number of photons" and know the energy. More specifically, each frequency of energy, also known as a mode, can "contain" a discrete number of photons, also known as "excitations". So EM-radiation of frequency f with n photons, or n photons each with frequency f have … hf(n+1/2) energy, where h is Planck's constant that converts frequency to energy units. The whole idea in this post is the 1/2 that appears out of nowhere.

There is a deep mathematical background for the origin of the 1/2, but I like the uncertainty principle's view on it. The uncertainty principle asserts that one cannot determine any quantity to complete certainty, without affecting another "conjugate" quantity. In the case of energy, the "conjugate" quantity is time, hence it will take forever to measure zero energy for certain. Thus, because energy is always positive, and we can't measure zero energy, it means there is some energy out there. That "some energy" is the 1/2 and it has a profound meaning. Even complete vacuum has energy in it. It is sometimes called "zero-point energy", or "vacuum fluctuations". Fluctuations, because "virtual" photons are created and annihilated all the time, such that the average energy is hf/2, but it constantly fluctuates.

How much energy does the vacuum contain? This depends, weirdly, by the "thing" that bound the vacuum, such as a box or surface. How so? The energy or modes of the EM-fields are wavelike entities and have a wavelength ~ 1/f, i.e. the higher the frequency the shorter the wavelength. The un-bounded vacuum contains all frequencies, from the very low to the highest one. On the other hand, consider vacuum bound by two metallic surfaces | -- |. What happens if the distance between the surfaces is shorter than the wavelength? It means that that mode of the EM-field, or more specifically, photons with frequency lower than that distance cannot be inside; there's no place for them. Hence, since they cannot be inside, there are also no vacuum fluctuations of that frequency between the surfaces.

Summarizing this weird (and scientifically proven point!) between two metallic surfaces, there is actually less vacuum than outside since some vacuum fluctuations cannot exist between the surfaces, but can exist outside them. Even weirder, is that these fluctuating virtual photons exert pressure on the surfaces. Since there is less vacuum inside, the pressure is smaller than outside and the two surfaces are attracted. The vacuum exerts attracting Casimir forces on the two surfaces.

This Casimir force, due to exclusion of vacuum modes has been measured and actually plays an important role in designing and fabrication of nano particles, where the forces are not negligible.

How is all of this related to reducing the mass of objects? The weirdness continues…

Apparently, inertial mass, the m from F=ma, is derived from friction with the vacuum. Meaning, that when you exert a force on an object with mass m, it acquires less acceleration if it has more friction with the vacuum, i.e. its inertial mass is higher. Conversely, if we could reduce the friction with the vacuum, the same object could acquire larger acceleration with the same amount of force.

But, wait a minute. We just learned how to reduce vacuum itself and hence, obviously, friction with it. So the point is that if we exert a force on an object which moves between two metallic surfaces, because there is less vacuum there, there is less friction and given the same force, it will accelerate more. WHAT? Yep, by changing the vacuum in which an object moves, one can reduce its inertial mass.

By how much? There's the crux. If you recall, the modes that are "expelled" from the vacuum between the two surfaces are those with longer wavelengths, i.e. lower frequencies. And since the energy of these modes are proportional to the frequency, the modes expelled are those with lower energy. These modes exerts the least amount of friction and thus expelling them will have almost no effect on the inertial mass.

What can be done? This is my idea. The two surfaces I described are parallel flat surfaces. Physical solutions to the Casimir force have usually been calculated for such surfaces, or round ones to account for nano-spheres. However, I propose using fractal Casimir surfaces.

Fractals? Can it be even more complicated? Cool things lie in the combination of weirdness and even more weirdness!

Fractals, if you haven't read my previous The Fractal Gene post, are patterns that repeat themselves in every scale, such as branches in a tree, or shore lines. If you zoom in, you get the same pattern, no matter how much you zoom.

I propose that if you create a fractal Casimir surface, you can exclude higher frequency modes, since at every scale there is a shape to the surface that excludes some mode. Thus, if an object moves between these fractal Casimir surfaces, it will have drastically less inertial mass.

What is it good for, accept being so weird that it has to be true? Consider that we can reduce the inertial mass of objects we wish to send to the Space Station. If we build a tunnel with fractal Casimir surfaces, we need to exert much less force in order to send them to space. The possibilities are endless, as they usually are in discovering new forms of physics.

Mini-terraforming against tornados

There are regions in the world, also in the US, that are prone to devastating weather phenomena, such as tornadoes. There are probably numerous physical models attempting to describe this in the attempt to predict their formation. I propose using these models in an attempt to subverting them, not only predicting.

Some regions, even near those that are prone, have smaller probabilities of being harmed. I believe that one of the possible reasons is the landscape, such as hills, mountains and valley. These weather phenomena are highly dependent on air pressure, and change with height of the landscape. Furthermore, who has not heard of the "butterfly effect"? While its origin is in the chaos theory and it is usually misinterpreted, I want to deliberately make a "bad" use of it for this project.

I propose that a "sleight" change in landscape may cause a drastic change in the development, progression and severity of weather phenomenon, such as tornadoes. While I have no proof of this, I believe current models can, or should if they don't, analyze effects of changing altitude on such events. For example, given a known prone area, what would a small hill or a valley do to the formation and progression of a tornado?

Going one step forward, if/when such models exist, one can also try to optimize the process, by finding "what is the smallest change in landscape that could have a beneficial effect on the phenomenon, such as guidance or diminishing of magnitude?" In other words, if I could create a hill somewhere, where should I put it to guide a tornado out of residential or other important areas?

While this question seems bizarre, it has both scientific and operational significance. The science is that one could better understand the phenomenon by analyzing effects of landscape, which is a crucial (in my opinion) parameter on the dynamics. The operational one is somewhat more challenging. I have seen a "garbage mountain" that was several hundred feet high and a mile long. Furthermore, tunnels, highways and railroads completely change the landscape in drastic manners unfathomable a century before. I believe we now have the technology and the means to actually change the landscape of the environment around us. This is what I call "mini-terraforming": while it doesn't change the entire Earth habitat, I believe it can change some of it large factors, such as weather phenomenon.

Taken together, the optimizing landscape change for the mitigation of tornadoes and the ability to actually create or drastically change the landscape, I propose that a test be performed in the following manner:

a.       Take a tornado-prone area.

b.      Analyze the effects of possible landscape changes on the development and dynamics of tornadoes.

c.       Optimize landscape changes, i.e. what is the minimal change required to mitigate the devastation such a tornado does.

d.      Try to create/change the minimal landscape in the optimal position.

e. Wait for next tornado season and hope for the best.