h a l f b a k e r yOK, we're here. Now what?
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.
|
This idea is missing the bit that explains how it works or is
possible, but it's stuck in my head so it gets dumped here.
Things falling onto black holes and through wormholes can
be thought of as changing the relative positions of
different parts of the item concerned, so for instance if it
falls into a black hole, the height increases and the width
decreases and it's like multiplying Y and dividing X and Z by
probably the same number. Teleportation would be a
transformation involving adding one number to all X
coordinates, one to all Y's and one to all Z's.
Imagine, then, a chamber into which objects can be placed
which would randomly locate all points, perhaps down to
the Planck length in the object to other points, presumably
limited by the speed of light. Since this process would
take place below the scale of quarks, the result is a
swarming sea of "stuff" not packaged into elementary
particles and consequently a way of converting matter to
energy. In fact even if it took place only at the scale of
nucleons, a huge amount of energy would be available as
the matter concerned would no longer be in atomic form
but consist of a kind of plasma. The entropy of the object
would increase and the minimum energy needed to do this
seems to me to be as low as merely rotating the object
180 degrees.
To repeat: I realise the way this is actually done is
completely missing from this explanation. It was just
there in my head when I woke up.
[link]
|
| |
//This idea is missing the bit that explains how it
works or is possible// |
|
| |
Wow, can we do that now? Hang on, I've got a whole
*mess* of ideas to post… |
|
| |
I'm looking forward to reading the idea. |
|
| |
So Planck length Jenga. The problem would be creating a solid action, at that scale, that doesn't get lossed in that 'swarming sea of stuff'. More factual stepping stones from your leap out there back to the current reality are needed. |
|
| |
If the idea is a machine to tear matter into
elementary particles, I don't see how that generates
energy. |
|
| |
You'll get energy out by allowing the particles to
recombine in whatever way is most comfortable for
them, but no more than you had to put in in the
first place. |
|
| |
You astutely observed that this is my brain not on
caffeine. That was my excuse. What I can't
explain
is how that same brain is unable to think of a way
of
doing it now it's drenched in the stuff. Possibly
because it was a brainfart in the first place. Then
again, maybe I'm dismissing it too quickly. I don't
know. |
|
| |
[MB], nuclear power surely works on the principle
of an excess of strong force as the entropy
increases, doesn't it? Less binding energy required
to hold nuclei together which have just broken up
compared to the ones they used to be. Maybe
not, I don't know. |
|
| |
// If the idea is a machine to tear matter into elementary particles, I
don't see how that generates energy. // |
|
| |
Not elementary particles. This is basically just a Direct Mass
Converter and the concept has been around for a long time. |
|
| |
Your species employs mass conversion in your primitive fission and
fusion devices. Stars do it too, but not very efficiently; it's all down to
the exchange of nucleonic binding energy for mass. The sum of
masses of fission fragments from the transuranics is less than the
original mass, as the lighter nucleii require lower binding energies. |
|
| |
However, it is perfectly possible to "unzip" even highly stable nucleii
such as iron (pretty much at the bottom of the binding energy curve)
and convert them into energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation
and a shower of energetic particles, the total mass of which are
substantially less than the mass of the original nucleus. If you turn the
thing right up, you just get electromagnetic radiation, but this has to
be done carefully otherwise it can all get rather loud and expensive. |
|
| |
//Less binding energy required to hold nuclei
together which have just broken up compared to the
ones they used to be. Maybe not, I don't know.// |
|
| |
I think, to quote, that this idea is not even wrong. |
|
| |
I know what you mean. I can't say I'm a huge fan of it
as a practical idea myself. The question, then, is
whether it's interestingly not even wrong or boringly
not even wrong. |
|
| |
I think, if you'll forgive my saying so, that it's not
quite an idea. |
|
| |
Perhaps I misunderhend. From my reading, your
proposal is:
(a) Invent teleportation
(b) Use this to tear matter apart
(c) Let the stuff recombine to make energy. |
|
| |
In energetic terms, this is surely equivalent to:
(a) Invent an electric pump
(b) Use this to lift water
(c) Use the head of water to make electricity. |
|
| |
Or am I failing to miss something? |
|
| |