h a l f b a k e r y
What's a nice idea like yours doing in a place like this?

meta:

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

 user: pass:
register,

# Proper black hole

 (-2) [vote for, against]

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?

 — wjt, Sep 13 2017

I don't need to imagine this. I've been to Swindon.
 — MaxwellBuchanan, Sep 13 2017

 The horror ... the horror ...

 // How do you get information between spacetimes? //

UPS ?
 — 8th of 7, Sep 13 2017

//I've been to S*****n.// Why?
 — pocmloc, Sep 13 2017

It was a bet.
 — MaxwellBuchanan, Sep 13 2017

He lost the bet ... the trip was the forfeit.
 — 8th of 7, Sep 13 2017

Quantum entanglement? Undead dragonstone to take out the magical wall?
 — RayfordSteele, Sep 13 2017

 //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)//

then use a laser.
 — FlyingToaster, Sep 13 2017

My point exactly. A laser's output wouldn't make it through.
 — wjt, Sep 13 2017

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.
 — wjt, Sep 14 2017

This is the problem with "philosophy" and "physics" being such similar-looking words.
 — MaxwellBuchanan, Sep 14 2017

There must be a lot of people each September signing up to courses under the belief they'll be studying Phil or Sophie.
 — Ian Tindale, Sep 14 2017

If you made it of zero size in all dimensions it might work.
 — pocmloc, Sep 14 2017

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".

 [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.
 — wjt, Sep 16 2017

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
 — 2 fries shy of a happy meal, Sep 17 2017

 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.
 — pertinax, Sep 18 2017

 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.
 — wjt, Sep 18 2017

 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.
 — pertinax, Sep 18 2017

 [annotate]

back: main index