Timeline for Are there any natural forms of communication as robust as speech/vocalization?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 9, 2017 at 20:54 | comment | added | DrMcCleod | @automaton: that depends upon the medium. In the rarified upper atmosphere of a gas giant for example, EM might be more effective than speech. We already have two excellent examples of EM producing animals on Earth: Fireflies and Electric Eels. Lots of creatures can detect the modulated (!) emissions from Fireflies, and I bet that it would be entirely possible for a biological system to detect the broadband pulses of an Electric Eel with a bit of evolutionary pressure. | |
| Dec 8, 2017 at 21:50 | comment | added | automaton | Although I really like the idea. Here's fodder for someone pretty schooled in EM to develop this into an answer, which I would love to do if I had time: Formation of EM waveguides in cellular structures - arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1210/1210.2140.pdf and the ability for certain fish to produce and sense electric waves - quora.com/… | |
| Dec 8, 2017 at 21:46 | comment | added | automaton | @rek I said "not inconceivable," which definitely isn't asserting that it can be done. As RonJohn says, it's really difficult for biological organisms to generate useful EM waves in the frequencies we're talking about. I'm a software engineer that previously worked with radar, so I know more than the average bear about EM. And if you do it, you get something extremely similar to speech. Waves of varying frequency, intensity, patterns, and duration. Difference being that sound is a compression wave through a medium, radio is electromagnetic. Honestly, speech is pretty hard to beat. | |
| Dec 8, 2017 at 20:05 | comment | added | rek | @RonJohn On the contrary. A few people have asserted it can be done, so I'm waiting for them to commit to it as a proper answer, not merely an assertion. | |
| Dec 8, 2017 at 19:48 | comment | added | RonJohn | @REK do you want us to explain why it's really difficult for biologicals to generate useful EM waves? | |
| Dec 8, 2017 at 18:43 | comment | added | rek | @RonJohn This is my question, not automaton's. I'm waiting for someone, anyone, to post a detailed answer expanding on the EM-based claims made in comments. | |
| Dec 8, 2017 at 16:21 | comment | added | RonJohn | @DrMcCleod that would be a good source of electricity. qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/communications/… The two problems I see are (1) the wire -- which is solvable --, and (2) the necessity to continuously create bioelectricity (the eel requires 20 minutes to recharge it's electric organ). | |
| Dec 8, 2017 at 16:08 | comment | added | RonJohn | @automaton then don't add the #science-based tag on your question. | |
| Dec 8, 2017 at 15:55 | comment | added | DrMcCleod | @RonJohn An electric eel? | |
| Dec 8, 2017 at 14:18 | comment | added | automaton | Ultimately, writers are writers. They aren't Ph.D. Radar engineers, and even so, an exact scientific description of how a Wi-Fi organ works would probably get in the way of the larger story. I think it's a matter of storytelling to make it sound plausible without inventing an organic EM transmitter. Well-placed vagueness can be your friend. | |
| Dec 8, 2017 at 14:16 | comment | added | automaton | @RonJohn Again, think back to life on earth- we see visible light, an EM wave. There are plenty of creatures that produce visible light as well - fireflies, certain beetles, a massive variety of glowworms. Not to mention that every person and animal on the planet generate infrared radiation constantly. I do grant that lower frequencies (like 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi or microwaves) are much more difficult to generate organically, as artificial EM applications use magnetic metals. But all that to say, it's not inconceivable. | |
| Dec 8, 2017 at 0:44 | history | edited | Olga | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 6 characters in body
|
| Dec 8, 2017 at 0:36 | comment | added | RonJohn | Receiving EM waves is trivial (as @BgrWorker mentioned), but what would generate them? | |
| Dec 7, 2017 at 10:46 | comment | added | GlorfSf | could you not humiliate me I feel very dumb right now | |
| Dec 7, 2017 at 10:43 | comment | added | BgrWorker | You might be surprised to discover that most animals have built-in detectors for EM waves. They're called "eyes". Just remember, while building your aliens, that wavelength scales with detector length, so to have an "eye" that receives radio waves you would need to have much bigger detectors. | |
| Dec 7, 2017 at 9:06 | history | answered | GlorfSf | CC BY-SA 3.0 |