Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Not so much a thought experiment as a single neuron misfire.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

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

user:
pass:
register,


                   

Total Conversion By Random Displacement

Relocate matter randomly to convert it to energy
 
(0)
  [vote for,
against]

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.

nineteenthly, Feb 08 2014

[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…
ytk, Feb 08 2014
  

       I'm looking forward to reading the idea.
FlyingToaster, Feb 08 2014
  

       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.
wjt, Feb 08 2014
  

       Hold on a second.   

       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.
MaxwellBuchanan, Feb 08 2014
  

       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.
nineteenthly, Feb 08 2014
  

       // 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.
8th of 7, Feb 08 2014
  

       //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.
MaxwellBuchanan, Feb 08 2014
  

       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.
nineteenthly, Feb 08 2014
  

       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?
MaxwellBuchanan, Feb 08 2014
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle