Quantum Fields & Time/Space manipulation

How can we apply AI to further our understanding of Quantum fields and material sciences? I am working on understanding the possibility of creating an Alcubierre warp drive leveraging our recent advancements in understanding and manipulating the interesting quantum properties of electrons between graphene sheets, superconductive gold heterological structures, and Dynamic Light Scattering. Lets talk!!


It’s a good topic for futurology, to consider interstellar travel with a warp drive, and even the exciting properties of elements being discovered that may apply there. But I think the opening question leads to a far more pertinent conversation, and it is a two parter.

What is the current location of advancement in AI pertaining to real world applications ? What direction is the funding driving it ?

How are we going to integrate multiple fields of study from a variety of sources that may or may not be operating under similar restrictions or funding ? What will this look like in the future ?

Currently, and in the past, there is a wall between funding sources and acceptance of ideas, or even working inventions, built by academia and commercial enterprise. Implementation of an idea, or acceptance of invention, is likely to follow an established path through previously accepted institutions. This is simultaneously, both completely understandable , and yet counterproductive and wasteful.

Take the examples of Eastman, Wrights and Leeuwenhoek. These were individuals who were pursuing invention that did not have academic backgrounds, or funding of any substance, very little outside support, and indeed even societal forces working actively against them. What they did do, is provide a working model first. Even then, as in the case of the Wright Bros, it was not accepted.

So, as invention and inspiration is funneled through a process that demands polish before implementation, our rate of invention has slowed, while our process has become more lengthy and complicated. Those who have worked for decades on certain advancements all the while adhering to stringent protocols and trudging through the difficult process of obtaining finance, are not exactly open to a phone call from someone working in a Bicycle shop claiming to have a working model capable of human flight.

I have always seen invention as a two part process. One is the rough inspiration and the rudimentary build, many times derived from processes which are viewed as “psychologically unacceptable”, such as Mendeleev getting the periodic table from a dream, or Eastman getting his camera body from a person attempting to capture “spirits”, and the other part is the polish and practical implementation. The actual acceptable product.

The question for the future is going to be, " If we know the academic and financial obligations are slowing the rate of invention, due to the exclusion of most anyone who is not directly integrated in that process, will there be a point of diminishing returns associated with advancement, that corrects the course of the process, thereby integrating “random inspiration ?”

I actually believe Mendeleev was keen to this dilemma, and actually had the future in mind, when he adamantly held his ground, and insisted he “received” the periodic table in a dream.

The process of polish before inspiration clearly is not proven and so I do think already there is a trend to “keep the doors open for woo woo”. The issue is, the door has been closed long enough, that the lines are long, and most are a complete waste of time and energy.

It will be interesting to see how this develops. It is my opinion, that a complete overhaul of early life talent evaluation will be necessary, to maintain the rate of invention. And perhaps, AI is the hope and process by which we will not have to do this for some. Meaning, there are those who may feel an impending loss of control, by not being able to maintain the current process, and while the artists wish to bypass this control with immediate integration , the financial department holds the keys.

Inspiration can not be monetized. It literally means, “to breathe in from the air”. Rigorous process and adherence to strict protocols are its nemesis. In some cases, even the act of domestication is preventative of original idea, in that too many “facts” are held to be known.

I do see a trend, and where I see it going, is a separation of teaching methods and evaluation of intelligence or ability, having to rebel against finance in the immediate. Mathematics to some, is actually stifling and yet it is necessary. So some students must be kept from it to nurture the potential to clarify “intuitions or inspirations”. I’m pretty sure we have a consensus that education models are overdue for a retrofit. For myself, chief among these retrofits are removal of dogma, finance, and evaluation techniques such as the Briggs Meyers or IQ type tests.

Once we value previously disregarded talents and processes in humanity, we will unlock the doors to return to our more natural state and rates of problem solving invention. Until then, I wait to see a working model of “warp drive” that can move a pebble from one room to another.

Thank you so much for this detail. I agree, tech transfer and fundraising are incredibly inefficient and stiffles innovation. My father is solving some of thise issues with his Legacy Funds that promote place based impact investing, leverage tax laws qsb 1202 and 1244 to minimize risk and maximize return, then the science and data drawn from the bell mason diagnostic to get an understanding on what businesses should do next. His first fund recently went live in Puerto Rico, and his second block chain themed fund as well.


Let me know what you think!

Well, I’m certainly not a financial expert, but I like the idea of localizing the funding to promote community. I can also see why places like Ashburn and Silicon Valley want to bring the new talent to them, as support and personal connection are more readily available. I believe “rumors on the street” play a role in any dynamic industry. But, the trend to localize is certainly going to happen, because it has to.

The Bell Mason diagnostic is perhaps more controversial to me. I have to question it. From a wider perspective, how many auto engineers from a Ford plant are going to be involved in hydrogen/electric flying vehicle design ? Where did the farriers go when cars took over the roads ? I cannot doubt the wisdom and articulate process it provides, but I have to wonder how widely applicable it would be in say, 20 years. The ready working model has limited choices, therefore that group will look to expand the options and force changes, kind of like the escape yearnings of an octopus. With speed, everything changes.

I suppose the comparison to the afore mentioned hyper drive to what imagery people have when considering a Singularity, is relevant, as entire systems built around the assumption of limited acceleration may not be compatible to what is needed once things go “poof” instead of “zoom”.

Prediction will always be the driver of investment and science. At some point, this will exceed the speed we are accustomed to. For instance, rather than running around scrounging for talent with a working model, the ability to identify youth with potential for specific talent in the production of specific products will be possible. This will bridge community with higher education reform. The speed of analysis of human potential on the individual level with a great deal of specificity is going to increase exponentially. It is a longer term investment with a higher percentage of success.

It seems talent is mined for existing products from presupposed systems and regulated processes using antiquated methodology. Just from my cursory look at history, if a person graduates from college, they have a higher percentage of stability, and a significantly lower percentage of invention. It is oriented toward service of existing systems, not the creation of new ones. It is wasting talent left and right, and driving thousands of brilliant minds into the basements of oblivion every year. People, People, People, "If you translate that image into investing, a general pointer might be Arthur Rock’s idea that he only cares about “people, people, people.” "

And I say, instead of casting nets, we should grow fertile gardens. Bell is working from the perspective of casting nets, and guiding the catch into the boat safely. Meyers Briggs is working from a list of assumptions and limited options derived (and a distorted form of) from a much better pre-existing system that was far more eloquent and comprehensive.

Where do I put Bell in my analysis ? Stewart Brand, The Whole Earth catalogue, or the Long Now Clock now buried in a mountain by Bezos. The internet itself, constrained by webs of wires and space junk galore. The silicon chip, … , militarism, one size fits all socks, or George Foreman who named all his children George.

Creating something that seems to apply to the most possible people is one approach. But I believe this is only a limited approach, and one which will quickly subside as the dominant approach when speed increases.

Like the spokes of a wheel as speed increases, they appear to slow and move to a whole new rhythm. Or like that sand on the vibrating plate as the frequency changes.

The brut tamed horses. The analytical engineer made industry. The nerds made the internet.

What’s next ? Or better yet, Has anyone come forward with a provable explanation for why we went from horses to satellites in 150 years ?

Thank you again for the thoughtful response and questions to consider. I am doing research on how the Bell Mason diagnostic will adapt or die. I firmly believe everything will eventually evolve around identifying talent, nurturing potential, and developing ideal teams and groups for specific exercises (development, execution, innovation, design etc). I’m trying to figure out the most unbiased way of identifying and nurturing talent in the most efficient way. I have an interesting belief system in which I believe a combination of a person’s Human Design chart (astrology/I-ching/Kabbalah) plus ongoing personality tests (Meyers Briggs) and a thoughtful healthy organized way to spend our energies throughout the day leveraging peak performance indicators as guidelines. Human’s need to be at a certain level to be the most effective for certain tasks. Creativity and innovation will be some of the things that we won’t be able to automate and need to figure out how to promote that behavior. I believe Maslow’s hierarchy is a great place to identify where a human is at and what they can work toward to get to the state of creativity which I believe is when they can be the best healthiest expression of themselves thus the most effective.

I am currently observing my own progress as I am beginning my first company. I would like to leverage technology, outsourcing, and remote teamwork as much as possible to prove a business if developed following certain steps can be done while working a 9-5, raising a 2 y/o, and starting a family. Ideally, I would like to prove a model that all someone has to do is put in the work, take the steps, and follow directions to create a life and business for themselves that allows them to become their greatest self. This then creates an environment for people to create their dreams “easily”. If the barrier of entry is only to follow directions and check off boxes, I believe innovation will thrive!

JC Milam

Cell 210.480.2237
Book a meeting

I wouldn’t lump astrology and Kabbalah into the same pile with the I-Ching. The I-Ching is a scientific model based on the source, whereas astrology is filled with what I call, 'fluff" , and is based on one set of correlations with the source.

My opinion or theory of Meyers Briggs is that it was derived from the 36 decans which Jung surely came into contact with. There’s four types which are removed immediately in the Hindu system, and then the remaining 32 which were considered the stable central community, were chopped in half to serve industry and capitalism as the driver. And that is just one cycle, and the 36 decans by themselves would be incomplete without considering a few other very important cycles.

Maslow is ok, but it really is basic knowledge, and the application gets tricky after safety. One could even argue that providing security and safety to some individuals stifles their creativity and leads to a complete lack of motivation. These types might thrive in insecurity. It is easy to find examples of artists being motivated to create by plugging them into a boring 9-5 routine and just waiting until they pull their hair out and flee down the road with the shirt on their backs. Peter Dinklage comes to mind.

I’m not a huge fan, but the stories of Degas come to mind, taking deposits , disappearing for weeks on a drunken binge, then asking for another deposit to start the work. Pretty common I would say. Looks like it worked for him, though I view him as a production artist like Rembrandt and other portrait dealers. They had timing and technique.

The bottom line is, if a system seeks to promote, encourage and nurture creativity, and employs the proper tools to do so, then there will be a certain amount of chaos and expensive freedom associated with it. A lack of control. You can have house cats, that never go outside, and the only mice they bring you, is whatever is caught in the house. Then the part time outdoor cat, still mostly domesticated, but with enlivened senses informed by all of nature, yet still able to return to the safety of the house, and regularly brings game back to the house. Then the barn cat, who does not seek petting, never brings food to the house, and lives a shorter life. Yet, the barn cat is the most creative and successful in producing offspring and farming their game, and still benefit from shelter and food sources for their prey on behalf of humans.

Loss of creativity is inherent within a structure of society designed to breed house cats. The trend of artists to become obsessed with the concept of zombies, indicative of this. That pretty much started in the 90’s.

Or stop doing the things that stifled it. We just went through an incredible period of innovation and creativity, and slowly squeezed until it was reduced. Society needs to “self realize” and recognize it’s behavior plugged up the creative outlet. Normally for an individual, this requires a radical turn around.

Everyone wants the source code, and nobody wants what comes with it. This is a conundrum.