From: Robin Hanson (rhanson@gmu.edu)
Date: Sat Sep 18 1999 - 13:22:40 MDT
Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> > You are suggesting that an optimum is m1 = 0 and m2 = M, putting all
> > the metal at one star so as to get every last photon and reradiate at near
> > 3K, while completely leaving the other star alone. This requires that
> > P''(m) > 0 on average, with *increasing*, not diminishing, returns.
>
> No. I'm suggesting that there are always decreasing *local* optima.
> If there were *no* costs to transfering material (or information) from
> 1 to 2, then doing that would make sense. But if the costs of the
> material/information transfer *exceed* the cost of local manufacture
> then it makes sense to reject remote information/material (if you
> have to pay for it).
But mass transport costs make the puzzle worse! Let n1 and n2 be
the initial metal amounts at the two stars. The problem then is: max
P(m1) + P(m2) such that m1 + m2 = n1 + n2
m1,m2 - T*abs(m1-n1) and m1 >=0, m2 >=0
(Note that abs(m1-n1) = abs(m2-n2).) Assume without loss of generality
that n1 > n2. If P(m) has diminishing returns (P''(m) < 0), then when
transport costs are very high, m1 = n1 and m2 = n2, so nothing moves.
And when transport costs are zero, m1 = m2 = (n1 + n2)/2. And for
intermediate transport costs n2 is in the range [n2,(n1+n2)/2].
So we should see at least P(n2) power intercepted from star 2.
So in this model the only way to explain all those stars we see is
to say they all have very little metal near them, so little that even
when it is all used to intercept starlight, less than 1% of the light
is intercepted. This isn't true of our system, and I doubt it is true
of a great many.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:12 MST