h a l f b a k e r yWe are investigating the problem and will update you shortly.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says that there is a fundamental limit to the accuracy with which you can know the location and momentum of any object. If you know the location of an object very accurately then your knowledge of its exact momentum will become vaguer, and vice versa. Thus, this is
a device to help you find lost things in your house. The problem essentially is that you know the object is perfectly stationary somewhere in your house and this implies that your knowledge of its location must be unclear.
The house is built on a pad which moves your entire house violently from side to side, providing all the objects therein with random and unpredictable momentum. This rapid rise in the uncertainty with which you know the momentum of the lost object must correspondingly cause an increase in the certainty with which you know its location. If you don't find the object immediately, just turn up the 'violent movement' dial a bit more.
House Agitator
http://www.youtube....watch?v=q7vtWB4owdE
...bunworthy... [+] [Grogster, Aug 15 2012]
[link]
|
| |
I keep reading this as House Aligator... if I stood in the house, would my uncertainty not actually increase as I was subjected to the same effect? |
|
| |
//the location and momentum of any object//
Nice try, hippo. |
|
| |
and I thought this was 8th of 7's nomination for the Big Brother house... |
|
| |
To some extent, this Idea is exactly correct. If you know the sort of sound the desired object makes, when it hits something solid, then finding it should become as simple as listening for it. Of course, you have to be able to ignore the impact-sounds of all the other loose objects in the house.... Perhaps, before activating the House Agitator, make sure everything loose, that you encountered in your original search, is tied down. |
|
| |
Alternatively, a simple way of finding lost objects is
to move the rest of the house approximately one
house-width to the left. The remaining object will
be what you're looking for. |
|
| |
Just toss everything that is not the object you're looking for, and keep what's left. |
|
| |
Create a semi-permeable membrane that lets everything but what you're searching for pass through. |
|
| |
Construct a Peano curve that represents every point in your home with the lost object included. Now, construct a curve of the object. Filter the home curve by the object curve. |
|
| |
Drive your car into your living room. The object that you are searching for will naturally be attracted to the center of the vehicle beneath its wheels. |
|
| |
Or, as long as we're using quantum physics, you can apply
the Many-Worlds theory to always find the object you're
looking for immediately. Simply divide your house into one
cubic inch partitions, and use a quantum process to choose
one of them at random to search. If the object isn't there,
destroy the universe. |
|
| |
(Adapted from a similar sorting algorithm. Be sure that the
object is actually in your house, or the results could be
disastrous.) |
|
| |
As soon as the agitation has stopped you will know
where the object is, with certainty... it will be on
the floor (assuming you returned the house to a
condition where the floor was the lowermost surface
of the house, post-agitation). |
|
| |
haw! That'd further divide the world(s) into types of people: the people that can't resist raiding their doppelganger's premises for stuff, and those that can. |
|
| |
Housenberg's uncertainty principle. |
|
| |
//This rapid rise in the uncertainty with which you know the momentum of the lost object must correspondingly cause an increase in the certainty with which you know its location.//
That's wrong. The uncertainty relation is an upper bound, not an equality. |
|
| |
Come on, [squeaketh] - do you really expect my ideas not to have *any* fundamental logical flaws? |
|
| |
[hippo], I don't mind flaws. I just like knowing what they are. |
|
| |
//I don't mind flaws. I just like knowing what they are.// |
|
| |
Better there than in the soup ... |
|
| |
Fair enough... you'll find the object on the flaw. |
|
| |
..along with yer fundament. |
|
| |
Waiter, there's a flaw in my soup. |
|
| |