h a l f b a k e r yAlmost as great as sliced bread.
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,
|
|
|
Imagine a void of absolute nothing, this can be 3 dimensional or higher depending on how your personal universe is based.No quantum foam. The void separates two 'normal' spacetime volumes.
On either side of the void is a magical wall that destroys all substance (mass or matter). No something makes
it into the void.
How do you get information between spacetimes?
[link]
|
| |
I don't need to imagine this. I've been to Swindon. |
|
| |
The horror ... the horror ... |
|
| |
// How do you get information between spacetimes? // |
|
| |
//I've been to S*****n.// Why? |
|
| |
He lost the bet ... the trip was the forfeit. |
|
| |
Quantum entanglement? Undead dragonstone to
take out the magical wall? |
|
| |
//How do you get information between spacetimes?// |
|
| |
You wait for an halfbaker to miss proofing their work, |
|
| |
//magical wall that destroys all substance (mass or matter)// |
|
| |
My point exactly. A laser's output wouldn't make it through. |
|
| |
But photons are neither mass nor matter.
The other option is gravity (waves or just absence/presence). |
|
| |
The proper black hole doesn't have presence or even absence. Absence infers some was there to be absent. Proper 0 means it can't generate something because there is nothing there. |
|
| |
0 = +1 + -1 this is the balance zero and indicates that there is something there that will give rise to units but can't be seen. |
|
| |
This is the problem with "philosophy" and "physics" being such similar-looking words. |
|
| |
If you made it of zero size in all dimensions it might work. |
|
| |
No no, the "black hole" doesn't have the presence or absence; I meant the presence or absence of mass 'outside' the "black hole" detectable on the 'other side' as an attraction (or not). Still nothing 'in' the "black hole". |
|
| |
[neutrinos_shadow] No link, no communication, no gravity felt on otherside. |
|
| |
[pocmloc] Nice bend of what zero means. So there's infinite zero sized things spread throughout the universe. That's dark. |
|
| |
Mathematics is a language. Any language can express anything at
all, real or otherwise. Maths has the advantage that it is testable. Where, how and what zero means is such a case. Hopefully, there are intelligent people to decipher what the numbers represent when the testability becomes too extreme. |
|
| |
In my logical, if space is a 'proper' zero then light travel and quantum foam is a magic trick and some other dimension is supporting the appearance of these quantum affects. |
|
| |
Think how big the universe would be if our 3D experience is just a surface on a larger higher dimensional bubble. |
|
| |
If nothing at all can cross the gap, then you have answered your own question ("you can't") and the experiment is as void as your, uh, void. |
|
| |
hmm... can there be a no-thing without some thing to measure it by, or with? |
|
| |
t'some deep stuff right there tell y'hwut |
|
| |
Plato's "Sophist"
Berkeley's "Three Dialogues"
Hegel's "Science of Logic"
{something else germane that [nineteenthly] might suggest} |
|
| |
As [MB] indicated, this is philosophy, not physics. |
|
| |
The meaning of zero in different equations, I would have thought, would be mathematics, the workhorse of physics. How good is the maths if the meaning of a number is ambiguous? |
|
| |
A realistic philosophy should, in theory, intersect with both physics and mathematics and indicate to real world experiments. |
|
| |
Actually, for much of history, one of the roles of philosophy has
been to generate, and then spin off, other fields of study.
However, the last time I can think of this happening was when
Eric Bern picked up Wittgenstein's idea of language games and
put it to practical use. That was in the fifties. The first time was
when Thales of Miletus demonstrated that meteorology was
useful as well as interesting. Part of the legacy of the sixties
seems to have been to make philosophy sterile, when previously
it had not been. |
|
| |
I look forward to a revival of practical, non-sterile philosophy once
the baby-boomers finally leave the stage. |
|
| |