>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
General discussions >
Garbage threads
> Quantum Mechanics V Relativity
Bookmark topic
Quote:
the cat when the box is shut, you can't just assume it's in there because it was there when the box was open
well where the hell wld it go?
there is no sceintific explanation that states otherwise..
obviously u can never assume in science, but is it truly an assumption? it's like saying when I put my pants up, since I cant see my schlong, it cld be not there...
if I'm not making sense it's cuz it's late, and I've been playing a shitload of super mario world..
--
Posted: 2003-03-16 09:23:00
Edit :
Quote
About the matrix theory.
I've seen (on the net) an explanation why is it impossible. I will go even further and extend it.
You will agree with me that even as far as computers go, a single processing time is required for a single process.
Such a process would be a single lepton - a quark, a muon, a single nucleon - a meson, the photons as well. Every single one of them would require a process to determine their energy state, their location, their velocity, and blah, blah, blah. Quarks combine in groups of three to create nucleons - protons, neutrons, electrons, etc - and you need additional processing power to count their parameters as well. The nuclei join to create atoms - there are so many parameters (not determined by the latter ones) that it would require thousandfold of processing power to process even the simplest of atoms. Then come particles, and your processing power requirements would be billion times greater than you required for previouse processes - but you'd STILL have to support those. And there are 10 to the nth power of particles in the universe. And there's antimatter - there are speculations that there is a same amount of matter as antimatter in the universe - so that's twice the computing power required. Heck - there are neutrinos - and there a HELL-OF-A-LOT of them in space.
So to build a computer that simulates space, given today's scientific advancements (nanometer transistors) - and that at least one transistor (supporting a very simple process) PER one quantum of time (and today's clock speeds are very slow compared to quanti) is required PER one process (and processes are extremely complex):
NO, the matrix is no possible. You would require a computer, built solely of processing cores - no connections, no power supply, no nothing - the size of billions of trillions to the nth power larger than the universe itself. AND no supporting crew. And its mass would be great - what about gravity? It could collapse on its own and become a black hole...
And - there is no perpetual motion - every energy investment gives a smaller yield. A human body supporting computers? It would be a lot more efficient for robots to burn proteins, fat, and carbon hydroxides than to feed them to us to get power.
A good storyline - but heavily flawed.
And as for the sleep - what if you die? Does that person become perpetually alive? What if I don't go to sleep for a few days, and that person is considered dead and buried? What if I die in my dreams? Why are situations in dreams so much like in my real world? Why are there 'prophetic' dreams - don't tell me you didn't get a deja vu after you've seen something in your dream. Does the other person have prophetic dreams when I dream of the past? Why does that 'alter ego' appear in my dreams even after he dies? What if you kill someone you know in your dreams - does that person's life changes even a bit? AND - most important - do you EVER get the same sleep as any other person? Too many questions, too many paradoxes.
[ This Message was edited by: toughluck on 2003-03-17 11:33 ]
--
Posted: 2003-03-17 12:25:00
Edit :
Quote
for ur analisys of the matrix, let me tell u one thing.. they r in the yr 3000 something... so like, computers will be a hell lot faster by then and will be able to get a greater work load.. and we already hv the technology to simulate space and what not.. and that can be handled by the every day computer...
imagine what a Supercomputer can handle... now if u really think 3Ghz is the peak performance of our current time.. u r very wrong.. we r at about 20Ghz.. just slowly being released for maxmum profit...
--
Posted: 2003-03-17 15:06:00
Edit :
Quote
@toughluck,
Hehe, did you really come to the conclusion about the Matrix on your own? - If so, I am very impressed.
I know the story is farfetched, but the idea is fascinating to me.
And about the dream stuff, I wasn't being serious. That was just a late-night, unfinished, philosophical thought.
--
Posted: 2003-03-17 20:23:00
Edit :
Quote
I'm not..
I think it's ignorant...
no man/machine made object can collapse on it's own forming a black hole...
or maybe it's too late and that;s y I am reading it wrong
--
Posted: 2003-03-17 22:05:00
Edit :
Quote
hello......
--
Posted: 2003-03-17 22:26:00
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2003-03-17 22:05, fijbert wrote:
no man/machine made object can collapse on it's own forming a black hole...
You obviously didn't get the point..
--
Posted: 2003-03-17 22:38:00
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
And its mass would be great - what about gravity? It could collapse on its own and become a black hole...
the hell is he talkin bout then?
--
Posted: 2003-03-17 22:53:00
Edit :
Quote
The black hole thing was just an exaggeration used to make a point.
Besides, nobody have(or can?) proven the origin of black holes.
Quote:"What is a black hole?
---------------------
Loosely speaking, a black hole is a region of space that has so much mass concentrated in it that there is no way for a nearby object to escape its gravitational pull. Since our best theory of gravity at the moment is Einstein's general theory of relativity, we have to delve into some results of this theory to understand black holes in detail, but let's start of slow, by thinking about gravity under fairly simple circumstances.
Suppose that you are standing on the surface of a planet. You throw a rock straight up into the air. Assuming you don't throw it too hard, it will rise for a while, but eventually the acceleration due to the planet's gravity will make it start to fall down again. If you threw the rock hard enough, though, you could make it escape the planet's gravity entirely. It would keep on rising forever. The speed with which you need to throw the rock in order that it just barely escapes the planet's gravity is called the "escape velocity." As you would expect, the escape velocity depends on the mass of the planet: if the planet is extremely massive, then its gravity is very strong, and the escape velocity is high. A lighter planet would have a smaller escape velocity. The escape velocity also depends on how far you are from the planet's center: the closer you are, the higher the escape velocity. The Earth's escape velocity is 11.2 kilometers per second (about 25,000 m.p.h.), while the Moon's is only 2.4 kilometers per second (about 5300 m.p.h.).
Now imagine an object with such an enormous concentration of mass in such a small radius that its escape velocity was greater than the velocity of light. Then, since nothing can go faster than light, nothing can escape the object's gravitational field. Even a beam of light would be pulled back by gravity and would be unable to escape.
The idea of a mass concentration so dense that even light would be trapped goes all the way back to Laplace in the 18th century. Almost immediately after Einstein developed general relativity, Karl Schwarzschild discovered a mathematical solution to the equations of the theory that described such an object. It was only much later, with the work of such people as Oppenheimer, Volkoff, and Snyder in the 1930's, that people thought seriously about the possibility that such objects might actually exist in the Universe. (Yes, this is the same Oppenheimer who ran the Manhattan Project.) These researchers showed that when a sufficiently massive star runs out of fuel, it is unable to support itself against its own gravitational pull, and it should collapse into a black hole.
In general relativity, gravity is a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Massive objects distort space and time, so that the usual rules of geometry don't apply anymore. Near a black hole, this distortion of space is extremely severe and causes black holes to have some very strange properties. In particular, a black hole has something called an 'event horizon.' This is a spherical surface that marks the boundary of the black hole. You can pass in through the horizon, but you can't get back out. In fact, once you've crossed the horizon, you're doomed to move inexorably closer and closer to the 'singularity' at the center of the black hole.
You can think of the horizon as the place where the escape velocity equals the velocity of light. Outside of the horizon, the escape velocity is less than the speed of light, so if you fire your rockets hard enough, you can give yourself enough energy to get away. But if you find yourself inside the horizon, then no matter how powerful your rockets are, you can't escape.
The horizon has some very strange geometrical properties. To an observer who is sitting still somewhere far away from the black hole, the horizon seems to be a nice, static, unmoving spherical surface. But once you get close to the horizon, you realize that it has a very large velocity. In fact, it is moving sorryd at the speed of light! That explains why it is easy to cross the horizon in the inward direction, but impossible to get back out. Since the horizon is moving out at the speed of light, in order to escape back across it, you would have to travel faster than light. You can't go faster than light, and so you can't escape from the black hole.
(If all of this sounds very strange, don't worry. It is strange. The horizon is in a certain sense sitting still, but in another sense it is flying out at the speed of light. It's a bit like Alice in "Through the Looking-Glass": she has to run as fast as she can just to stay in one place.)
Once you're inside of the horizon, spacetime is distorted so much that the coordinates describing radial distance and time switch roles. That is, "r", the coordinate that describes how far away you are from the center, is a timelike coordinate, and "t" is a spacelike one. One consequence of this is that you can't stop yourself from moving to smaller and smaller values of r, just as under ordinary circumstances you can't avoid moving towards the future (that is, towards larger and larger values of t). Eventually, you're bound to hit the singularity at r = 0. You might try to avoid it by firing your rockets, but it's futile: no matter which direction you run, you can't avoid your future. Trying to avoid the center of a black hole once you've crossed the horizon is just like trying to avoid next Thursday.
Incidentally, the name 'black hole' was invented by John Archibald Wheeler, and seems to have stuck because it was much catchier than previous names. Before Wheeler came along, these objects were often referred to as 'frozen stars.'"
--
Posted: 2003-03-18 00:09:00
Edit :
Quote
Of course, as somebody did point out - the black hole was an exagerration.
Anyway - the computer simulating the matrix would have a strong gravitational pull - what about its shielding? What would happen if a meteor struck a 'chip' that would simulate the base of a pillar supporting a mile-high bridge on which some hapless soul stood?
Anyway - even if it were possible to create atom-sized computing chips they could process one binary process only. Even if the period of a single chip tick would equal the quantum of time, the operation would still take AT LEAST three clock cycles - input, processing, and output. If the time was analogue it would be possible for the matrix to just slow down our world to gain processing time, but it is divided (given that quantum theory is correct), and no machine will ever think analogue - they will forever be limited to digital. And as such, the process would require (to be logical to the computer) to be divided in steps (I/P/O).
And as for the connections - imagine a computer the size of the solar system. It takes 8 minutes for a photon to get from Sun to Earth - travelling at lightspeed. Now - you'd need photons (given they would have optronical conduits to streamline data) to travel far greater distances (some occurences), so that would take at least an hour. Now - imagine a scientist conducting electron microscopy. For him changing two samples would take a few minutes. For the matrix - accessing interface, processing and forwarding acquired data, processing, sending outputs, and back to the interface itself would take hours, if not days. What would appear on screen? "Sorry - this function is not yet implemented - your Matirx. Call your local matrix technician at 1-800-SUCKER)".
And scientists unveil new layers of the universe in the matter of months, weeks, even days. If a matrix would control us - what would be the point to implement those layers? Requiring itself to assign even more processing power? What for.
Yes - what for, I ask you? The matrix would very easily understand that it is far easier to gain power from nuclear sources - radiation? Screw radiation, they would probably find a way to use it anyway, and for the time being it would have no detrimental effect - shield with lead, get no carcinogenic effects.
So - why use humans? Why waste extreme amounts of processing time if it were simply possible to use it on MANY other processes? Unless the AI is that sadistic. But with all advances to AI, I still don't believe that there will ever be artificial sentience - the main requirement for feelings. And as for everything - wouldn't the first feeling be love? I mean - offspring sort, to the scientist that created it? The joy to assist him, to learn - plotting against humanity would take too much processing time, and that wouldn't go to waste to develop that - especially in the beggining - the system would simply not understand negative emotions until someone would input them.
And as for those 'dream theories' - I was pondering them some time ago, but those paradoxes I mentioned would simply be more than enough to outright ban that theory. Anyway - another one, off the top of my head (I thought it up during a discussion with my fiancee) - imagine your alter ego having the same life as you. Now - imagine your job to be a desk clerk. Imagine a sleepless night - one of those that you sleep for fifteen minutes, then wake up for twenty, fall asleep for five, wake up for two - imagine that other person suddenly falling asleep at the desk, the moment they would be servicing a client.
Now - this spawns a discussion on parallel universi. Let me state it - that bucket has far too many holes to hold water.
1st - what about mass and energy. Would it simply spawn in another universe?
2nd - the sheer number of universi would be too great. Imagine the following:
A=00000000b
B=any number between 00000000b and 11111111b.
How many permutations can you find for that process here? 256. Per one quantum of time. The number of parameters for a single atom is far greater than 256. Now - take that number (let's say - 10000) and multiply it by the number of atoms in the universe.
How many universi would you have after a single quantum of time?
n1=n0*10000*m - where n1 is the number of universi after that quantum, n0 - before, m - the number of atoms in the universe.
I will gladly hear opposite statements.
Don't try to talk about infinite mass of the universe.
Reductio ad absurdum: the mass is infinite. The space is infinite. Mass can be infinite at any single location (not necessarily here and now). Infinite mass has infinite gravity. Infinite gravity causes inifinite acceleration towards the point of its concentration. After one moment, all objects would accelerate to infinite speed and be drawn to that point. It doesn't happen. QED.
And time travel:
Reductio ad absurdum: not about the twins paradox, or the 'kill your ancestor' one.
Although the latter is quite fine - kill your definitive straightly female ancestor (the mother, the mother's mother, the mother's mother's mother, and so on) - you couldn't exist, and as such couldn't be moved back in time to kill her, so she lives, so you live, so you kill her, so you don't exist (heck, this sounds like some heavy metal lyrics
).
But - another paradox to prove time travel impossible:
Imagine a laboratory. The scientists there would put a snail into a tank, and leave precise notes telling their future crew to put the snail FROM THE SAME TANK back in time from the date of 1st January 2007 to the date of 1st January 2005 at 2 o'clock PM. They would complete those notes at 1st January 2005 at 1 o'clock PM (to not say 'they wouldn't know at 2 PM'). The snail received via that transfer would be put into the tank to replace the one to be sent to the future.
The snail (a hermaphrodite) would be a usual snail taken off a lawn.
But - they would make other notes (to be destroyed in January 2006, after the snail breeds its offspring) telling they should make favourable conditions for the snail - but NOT give it a mate - it would spawn offspring regardless - to make it procreate. THEN, they would remove the originall snail, so that only its offspring would remain. After those scientists in 2005 get their snail from the time machine they would replace the other one in the tank, but still make it breed its offspring.
How is that possible? It is the same snail that was taken from the lawn, but it is its own offspring taken from the time machine. Absurd. QED (I believe).
If you don't agree, or don't understand - feel free to reply.
And as for the black holes and the big bang theory. Does it hold water?
The epicenter of the 'bb' was a black hole (in our terms) - holding all matter (not infinite nota bene) in an infinitely small point. It cannot hold water because:
1. given that no special outside condition would be possible in true void (not vaccum), the big bang just happened as a logical step.
2. given that the black hole is essentialy the same as all matter before the big bang, the black holes can spontaneously 'big bang' themselves as well.
3. why don't they?
As for the 'highest speed' - why is light considered to be such?
Imagine a jet flying at supersonic speed towards you. It would be absolutely silent before it passes you, then sound appears. When it moves away, the sound disappears quickly as well. The source still moves at supersonic speed, making the sound unsynchronised with its source. The source moves away at sound speed (never faster) as we can only measure speed (based on sound) up to that level.
So - what does FTL have to do with that? Here you go - objects moving at FTL speed are unperceptable before they appear. The moment they leave, they leave a trace of photons - but they would make it seem like its source is moving at lightspeed (not faster, as we can only measure speed up to lightspeed). And that is considering the FTL moving objects do emit waves - regardless of their frequency range.
Anyway - in Terry Pratchett's words: Those who think that lightspeed is fastest are wrong. Everywhere the light gets it always finds that darkness was there before it. - a loose translation back from Polish to English.
Quite a longish post. Thank you for your attention
.
--
Posted: 2003-03-18 02:27:00
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
