|
What happens if you go to a different universe that leaves this one void of you and then a you from a different universe enters this one 10 years later? What happens to the you in the other universe that you jump into?
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 02:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 17:49 |
|
|
Dameius posted:What happens if you go to a different universe that leaves this one void of you and then a you from a different universe enters this one 10 years later? Presumably a parallel you jumping from that universe you're jumping to takes your place arriving at point B from the frame of reference from an observer from the original universe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 03:31
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Presumably a parallel you jumping from that universe you're jumping to takes your place arriving at point B from the frame of reference from an observer from the original universe. Well obviously. That's just math.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 04:04
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Well obviously. That's just math. It's really really not the important part though, and I think you know this? Would it kill you to humour the actual intent of the question instead of being smarmy? Or just ignoring a conversation you don't like? Presumably your original hostility was based off of your own misunderstanding, which I don't think you acknowledged, so your response here rings hollow to me. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 04:22 on Jun 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 04:18
|
|
|
Can you take this to like the Rick and Morty thread in TVIV or something?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 04:22
|
|
|
Classon Ave. Robot posted:Can you take this to like the Rick and Morty thread in TVIV or something? Why? I'm not discussing Rick and Morty. Also see the thread title: "Discuss Aliens and poo poo ITT", and I'm responding to peoples presumably good faith questions in discussing the thought experiment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 04:24
|
|
|
If I read your intent right, you were wanting to explore how this wasn't going to work because we all know that you can't do FTL. Your posited theory seemed to have some issues with the information (in this case a person) jumping between universes. I haven't exhaustively thought it all out but it seems on first pass that this would only work if there was a single authoritative version of you jumping around. But that would seem to imply to me that there is a master frame of reference (that of the first you jumping around) which we know violates the rules of this universe and if you are supposed to be jumping between identical(-ish) universe then a master frame of reference would violate all of them and the whole thing collapses. Plus all the other ways other people have said. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 04:37
|
|
|
Dameius posted:If I read your intent right, you were wanting to explore how this wasn't going to work because we all know that you can't do FTL. Your posited theory seemed to have some issues with the information (in this case a person) jumping between universes. Kay, not quite. I want to explore if it would resolve the primary issue any flavour of FTL inevitably seems to run into even with semi-plausible theories that might allow it (String Theory); which is Causality. Because that's what some poster, I forget who, but phrasing, "Out of these three things, FTL, Causality, Something (Relativity? I forget), pick 2." Presumably we really want to pick FTL and whatever that third thing was, but this inevitably leaves out Causality which breaks, well, everything apparently. So how do we square the circle and resolve it? So that's the thread context I'm coming from here, someone really reinforced the point that Causality is SUPER IMPORTANT, so how do we keep it but wanting something that's what we want? So, the "information" or method here I don't think is important to the question, and this is the part that people get tripped on like it's some kind of weird unintentional bait, or filter that's preventing the conversation from advancing to the part I'd like it to get to (  ). So "Plus all the other ways other people have said." I don't think anyone actually did engage with the actual crux of the question is the point here, there was a bunch of hostility off the bat because people misunderstood the question until D-Pad clarified it.quote:I haven't exhaustively thought it all out but it seems on first pass that this would only work if there was a single authoritative version of you jumping around. But that would seem to imply to me that there is a master frame of reference (that of the first you jumping around) which we know violates the rules of this universe and if you are supposed to be jumping between identical(-ish) universe then a master frame of reference would violate all of them and the whole thing collapses. Okay, this is better. What currently implies a master frame of reference? When you jump universes and coordinates, another parallel you also jumps universes and coordinates and you swap places. They act relative to each other and any observer in either universes acts according to a relative frame of reference would be my intuitive understanding as to what's "happening", where does the master frame of reference come in?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 05:05
|
|
|
Is that what happens when a sea lion escapes at a physics conference? We don't have to entertain your highdeas, and frankly I find the discussion to be an affront to actual science. But to each his own Morty.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 05:14
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Okay, this is better. What currently implies a master frame of reference? When you jump universes and coordinates, another parallel you also jumps universes and coordinates and you swap places. They act relative to each other and any observer in either universes acts according to a relative frame of reference would be my intuitive understanding as to what's "happening", where does the master frame of reference come in? My not reading close enough? What posits that Universe A (UA) person (A1) exits to Universe B (UB) in a fashion that swaps with (B1) into UA so that they become B2 and A2? Can there be a situation where A1 goes to UN where there exists no N1 to swap with? Is this thought expirment predicated on travel can only be possible between universes where there is duplicate information that can flow between both points only? So UA could never entangle with UN because A1 does not have a corresponding N1 and the like. Or am I still over thinking your hypo in the wrong direction? Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Is that what happens when a sea lion escapes at a physics conference? You would be a terrible person to promote the sciences and actually help broaden interest in them. Engaging in a hypothetical to help someone understand why it is wrong leads to both rewarding curiosity and strengthening the person's underlying understanding of the material. making GBS threads on it from on high gets you Flat Earthers and anti-Vaxxers because curious people had no one else to seek information from but the crazies. Dameius fucked around with this message at 05:23 on Jun 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 05:19
|
|
|
quote:You would be a terrible person to promote the sciences and actually help broaden interest in them. Engaging in a hypothetical to help someone understand why it is wrong leads to both rewarding curiosity and strengthening the person's underlying understanding of the material. making GBS threads on it from on high gets you Flat Earthers and anti-Vaxxers because curious people had no one else to seek information from but the crazies. Tbf, flat earthers are almost always actually smart people, it's quite shocking and disturbing the trend in which intelligent, creative, and industrious individuals are routinely caught up in utter woo. It's even more amazing because at least the examples I experienced watching Wisecrack constructed elaborate contraptions to test their theories that I certainly couldn't build and it's just a shame that not only should they know better but they're just wasting their lives because of a "God does not play dice" mentality that took control of them. Dameius posted:My not reading close enough? What posits that Universe A (UA) person (A1) exits to Universe B (UB) in a fashion that swaps with (B1) into UA so that they become B2 and A2? Can there be a situation where A1 goes to UN where there exists no N1 to swap with? Is this thought expirment predicated on travel can only be possible between universes where there is duplicate information that can flow between both points only? So UA could never entangle with UN because A1 does not have a corresponding N1 and the like. To be clear, I suggested this because of concerns of the practicality of the system being proposed with I think a concern like, what if someone nopes out of reality but then never comes back? That would be disaster from the perspective of a society at large that wants an economy that exploits FTL. And if the original instance of the person that "Jumped" away ever happens to Jump back to their original universe, then we're right back to where we started right? Causality still gets violated but with extra steps. So I largely think of it as extraneous fluff, that is also pretty simple in concept and doesn't require elaborate steps to explain. You trade universes with an identical doppleganger and never return to your original universe, but to anyone else observing it looks like real FTL. As concise as I can be. So, if I am reading your question right, the way we're thinking it would work here, for the sake of completeness, is that a person from Universe A, jumps to Universe B, simultaneously/instantaneously swapping with their Universe B counterpart, who also had the exact same destination, is the same person, same memories, all the information of the two universes is/happens to be identical, but now at their intended destination but the universes are swapped, but to their respective third party observers, the person (A|B) left their original location (say observers on Earth), and to the people at their destination person (A|B) has suddenly arrived. If person A, now in universe B, jumps again (say back to Earth), they end up now in Universe C, swapping with some person (n+1), who also happens to have led an identical life, doing the same sequence of jumps, jumping to the same location. Person B who is now in Universe A, can faff off and do what they want, they are no longer relevant to person A, and their universe can go poof as far as person A is concerned, because now he only needs to swap with someone who is in their identical arrangement. So for simplicity the assumption is that no, there is never a universe N in which there does not exist a universe N+1 to jump to. Unless like, for maths reasons you happen to point out "Okay this could work, but only if there is an N1 where it doesn't work." Or something. I'm not particularly married to the specifics I just wanna make that clear. I am detailing this to this extent only under the assumption that it's important to your analysis of it. Although I imagine for a scifi story there are multiple ways of spicing such a concept up to have such problems in addition to the previously mentioned existentialism it would beg/beckon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 06:51
|
|
|
If there was a way to actually travel between "parallel" universes, assuming they exist, we'd know about it due to the nature of the whole thing. There's not so it doesn't matter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 09:20
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Presumably a parallel you jumping from that universe you're jumping to takes your place arriving at point B from the frame of reference from an observer from the original universe. But what if by jumping to another universe a Horror catches you inbetween and you never arrive?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 11:28
|
|
|
Libluini posted:But what if by jumping to another universe a Horror catches you inbetween and you never arrive? This. Look, Raenir, I can totally accept that some of us that are jumping on you are going about it in the wrong way. I'm sorry if I ever came across as fundamentally attacking your character or intelligence or anything like that. This was not my intention. I do think the thinking behind the question has its flaws, because it assumes a scientific answer exists to an arbitrary set of circumstances that we actually have no experience with. I once equated a question like this to asking, "If Australia didn't exist and was entirely a hoax, would the moon still exist?" And I don't think that question even has an answer. Assuming the nature of reality is so fluid calls into question how I could even approach answering that question in any valid way. So it's not so much, 'your question is dumb,' it's much more, 'your question as phrased is intrinsically unanswerable.'
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 13:28
|
|
|
I believe the phrase is "not even wrong".
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 13:49
|
|
cowboy
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Why? I'm not discussing Rick and Morty. Also see the thread title: "Discuss Aliens and poo poo ITT" Well it certainly isn't aliens.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 14:04
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHHSSJDJ4oo There's a new Kurzgesagt video about coronal mass ejections and solar storms! It's pretty rad, as usual. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 14:25
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHHSSJDJ4oo I mean Nostradamus already told us the sun would kill us in 3000something. I trust that guy more than these so called "scientists" on "youtube". e: Just to be clear I'm joking here. Good vid. Nurge fucked around with this message at 14:36 on Jun 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 14:30
|
|
|
Let's not get too assholey about people's thought experiments here, but by the same token, let's not let our thought experiments get too distant from actual science either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 14:32
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:The implication here is that you never get back to your original universe. But why not? Here lies the importance of my question.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 15:45
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:But why not? I assume to preserve causality. But it barely matters because of a variety of reasons. Time and space are intrinsicly linked. The idea that you could plop down in some other universe where and when you wanted is pretty ridiculous even if such travel was possible. Their space is not our space. Their time is not our time. It would be like throwing rocks at the the entire potential of quantum states of the universe from the outside and hoping you hit a duck on the thames in 1742 15th of may, at 6:23:15 am. Also you don't even know what you're throwing and can't see your target, and you don't know what a duck looks like. You're also generating and removing energy from the universe which is as huge a no-no in normal physics as violating causality. There are a myriad of reasons to think there's absolutely no way to gently caress with other universes in any way at all. I think it's likely some, or infinitely many, or whatever, exist, but things are set up pretty well in a way that there's absolutely no reason to think there's a way to interact with one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 15:57
|
|
|
Nurge posted:I assume to preserve causality. But it barely matters because of a variety of reasons. Time and space are intrinsicly linked. The idea that you could plop down in some other universe where and when you wanted is pretty ridiculous even if such travel was possible. Hey mister, you spoiled what I was going to try and get RS to gradually piece together on their own.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 16:03
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Hey mister, you spoiled what I was going to try and get RS to gradually piece together on their own. I don't think asking 'why not' over and over again for the exact same point when the answer I already gave was "Because its convenient and simple" was going to give a different result than "Because its convenient and simple".
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 16:49
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I can't make heads or tails of this non-sequitor or how it relates to anything I said. The stumbling block here is that you’re asking if you can violate causality by leaving the causally linked universe. The answer is no. If you could somehow move in a new direction to shift from this universe to another you’ve merely removed yourself. The light at point A no longer has any relevance because point A is in a different causal system. Other light that is distinct from but semi-identical to the light from point A will not have reached point B, but Point A (Universe 1) light was never and has never been causally linked to your position in Point B (Universe 2). If you did that there’d be no violation, and no meaningful way to describe the system as a violation because your first step was to remove yourself from the original universe. Raenir Salazar posted:
If some sort of multiverse of identical bubbles existed you might find a way to hop between them but that is very different than choosing exactly where in Universe 2 you end up each time. Raenir Salazar posted:
Again, there’s no issue of causality because your first step is removing yourself from causal linkage in Universe 1.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 16:57
|
|
|
Captain Monkey posted:Again, there’s no issue of causality because your first step is removing yourself from causal linkage in Universe 1. If we're going down this route, and by that I mean assuming that universe B has exactly the same laws of physics as universe A, then you are removing mass-energy from universe A and depositing it in universe B, which certainly would be a causality violation among all the other things it violates. But we have no physics for 'what if energy emerges from another universe' and no way of dealing with the question sensically.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 17:03
|
|
|
ashpanash posted:If we're going down this route, and by that I mean assuming that universe B has exactly the same laws of physics as universe A, then you are removing mass-energy from universe A and depositing it in universe B, which certainly would be a causality violation among all the other things it violates. But we have no physics for 'what if energy emerges from another universe' and no way of dealing with the question sensically. I don’t disagree, but I’m highlighting why the question isn’t even asking the question raenir thinks it’s asking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 17:27
|
|
|
Ok, I think we got to the answer he was looking for. Let me explain.ashpanash posted:
This is the Crux of his thought experiment. When we discussed doing FTL through methods such as warp bubbles and other such scenarios we were in essence discussing "an arbitrary set if circumstances we have no experience with", but we were still able to give a solid no because we were able to show how it violated causality regardless of the method and how causality cannot be violated. What he was trying to do here was think of another arbitrary set of circumstances we have no experience with and ask if there was a fundamental scientific reason (such as violating causality) it would not work beyond the hocus pocus involved in being able to jump universes (the arbitrary set of circumstances we have no experience with). At the start of this discussion he got jumped on for even asking, but here is the answer: ashpanash posted:If we're going down this route, and by that I mean assuming that universe B has exactly the same laws of physics as universe A, then you are removing mass-energy from universe A and depositing it in universe B, which certainly would be a causality violation among all the other things it violates. But we have no physics for 'what if energy emerges from another universe' and no way of dealing with the question sensically. It's still causality violating, but for different reasons than the first FTL discussion. Hopefully that wraps up the discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 17:49
|
|
|
D-Pad posted:Ok, I think we got to the answer he was looking for. Let me explain. The issue when discussing things we don't understand, they still need to be rooted in what we do know. It's possible to have a discussion about hypothetical questions outside of our comfort zone of understanding. If it was a thought experiment grounded in reality we could engage with it on a scientific basis and have a real discussion. Unfortunately that's not what happened. Moving on to the wonderful video on CMEs and solar flares, I always wonder why we don't have stockpiles of transformers ready to go for mass replacement. It seems like it would go a long way to avoiding long term outages after a major geomagnetic storm.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 18:08
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. Libluini posted:No, not really Yes really because it's a necessary function of our language. If you have the concept of "least powerful" you by default get to have the concept "most powerful". If you have "knows nothing" you need to have "knows everything". Mortal - immortal, etc. Nowhere at all - everywhere at once. Creates nothing - creates everything. How people want to make a religion out of that and ascribe their own other values to the concept is obviously up to a bit of variety, but the concept of an all knowing, all powerful, entity seems to be required.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 18:08
|
|
|
It's incredibly scary we don't have stockpiles of transformers on hand. If we got unlucky with a large enough flare it could knock the national grid out for months and I honestly don't think we could keep our society cohesive enough to make and distribute new transformers in that time frame if the majority of population was without power. It could knock us back to the 1800s for decades even though we technically should be able to recover in a few months. There is a recent UK show called Cobra about just this that's pretty good, although it doesn't get that doom and gloom as the flare doesn't take out the entire grid and they do have replacements ready.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 18:21
|
|
|
Can anyone explain to me why the bottom portion of this structure looks newer than the top half of the structure Both portions are thousands of years old. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 18:24
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:Can anyone explain to me why the bottom portion of this structure looks newer than the top half of the structure Smooth stone vs conglomerate wall? One is artificially smoothed large stones, and the other is rock piled and mortared together. Of course the smooth large rocks look newer. Also, the fact that one is stacked on top of the other would indicate that the one on bottom was placed there first.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 18:27
|
|
|
I don't see the bottom one as being "newer" at all. You know how modern appliances are built just strong enough to meet what they are expected to do, vs old-school appliances that were overbuilt like crazy? Both of these walls stood for all that time, and one of them took a lot less effort to build.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 18:27
|
|
|
D-Pad posted:It's incredibly scary we don't have stockpiles of transformers on hand. If we got unlucky with a large enough flare it could knock the national grid out for months and I honestly don't think we could keep our society cohesive enough to make and distribute new transformers in that time frame if the majority of population was without power. It could knock us back to the 1800s for decades even though we technically should be able to recover in a few months. How difficult would it be to stockpile transformers in case of a solar flare? Iirc, there were flares in the 19th century that hosed up telegraphs and which would have been powerful enough to crash modern electric grids. Hell, about 15 years ago some kind of accident caused most of the east coast to lose power for a week or something, right around the time Johnny Cash died.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 18:37
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:Can anyone explain to me why the bottom portion of this structure looks newer than the top half of the structure Other than what others already said there's also the chance that the lower portions got buried more quickly and weren't exposed to changing moisture and various natural issues like plants for as long as the upper bits. e: I'm assuming here these were excavated I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 18:40
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:How difficult would it be to stockpile transformers in case of a solar flare? Iirc, there were flares in the 19th century that hosed up telegraphs and which would have been powerful enough to crash modern electric grids. Hell, about 15 years ago some kind of accident caused most of the east coast to lose power for a week or something, right around the time Johnny Cash died. Expensive and difficult. Large transformers are generally bespoke manufacturing. They make a few at a time as they are needed. They are expensive and would likey need to be stored in a Faraday cage to prevent damage. It would make sense as a national stockpiles, but you would have to know what transformers you were replacing as I don't think there are generics above the housing transmission step down size. Any larger and I think they are all custom.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 18:42
|
|
|
Theoretically what’s the biggest a planet could be also would it be possible to 2010 jupiter
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 18:54
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 18:56
|
|
|
The Butcher posted:Yes really because it's a necessary function of our language. No it isn't. In fact we know by now the experience of religious epiphany is based on certain regions of our brain malfunctioning, so neither god nor religion is necessary or even a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 19:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 17:49 |
|
|
Why are we talking about some ancient fort and its masonry? Did I miss a post?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 19:00
|
|