Book 3 - Page 206

Hand-held game

Book 3 - Page 206
Comic - Book 3 - Page 206
Recent posts... (See full thread)
That would be pretty terrifying, especially since people have been talking about Charlie possibly having nukes already, but I'm doubtful of that being the case. I think it's more likely that, as others have speculated, it's the bunker in the MK and it shows Claud and Ivan with the Wonky Wrench.
FinnAgainZero wrote:
totalnerduk wrote:


Quantum tunnelling, on the other hand, refers to particles (usually electrons) crossing a barrier or gap which they would not normally be expected to, thanks to their probabilistic nature. It does not refer to the creation of a singularity, nor its collapse and expansion into a region of spacetime and a quantity of matter to occupy it.


Not necessarily. Tunneling can also bring quanta into existence from literal nothingness.


That paper is a) only referring to the beginning of the universe, and not to any kind of events that would happen now. And b) is literally pure speculation. No evidence of any kinds supports it.

Which is fine for the paper, theoretical science is always going to probe ahead of what we can test, but the way you stated it made it sound like this an accepted event that happens all the time.

Just so we're clear, we have observed exactly 0 instances of quantum tunneling "creating something out of nothing". This paper does not claim otherwise.
mgutin wrote:

That paper is a) only referring to the beginning of the universe, and not to any kind of events that would happen now. And b) is literally pure speculation. No evidence of any kinds supports it.


A) Quantum tunneling is quantum tunneling, regardless of the circumstances. Vilenkin was simply discussing an interesting consequence of the phenomenon. And since QT most certainly still happens, so it is the exact kind of event that would happen now, simply in a different context.
B) Math is deductive logic, is truth preserving, and is some of the strongest evidence that can exist. Vilenkin's math is valid. And that means that his position is, at the very least, valid, if not sound. Nor is theoretical physics "pure speculation" - there's a veritable interstellar gulf between mere speculation and rigorous mathematical analysis of the cosmos.

mgutin wrote:

Which is fine for the paper, theoretical science is always going to probe ahead of what we can test, but the way you stated it made it sound like this an accepted event that happens all the time.


I simply provided peer reviewed proof for the fact that tunneling can occur in the complete absence of any initial conditions, or any boundary conditions.

mgutin wrote:

Just so we're clear, we have observed exactly 0 instances of quantum tunneling "creating something out of nothing".


Well, of course we haven't, since any sort of metastable 'nothingness' is physically impossible.

And, of course, the reason that metastable nothingness is impossible is due to uncertainty, which leads to tunneling and the creation of the quantum foam. Someone can't validly argue that... yeah... we have evidence that nothingness must, by necessity, become somethingness... but since nothingness is instantaneously and inexorably converted into somethingness, it doesn't count as nothingness being converted into somethingness.
Posting to a fading thread on the day of a new comic because this is the first free moment I've had at home all week.

This may already have been ninja'd (I'm a couple pages behind), but I am disturbed by the signamancy of that bunker. There is a sunken area with a red border around it, and red usually means danger of some kind. Then there is what we interpret with Stupidworld signamancy as an industrial low bay electric light-- but is it?

What if that's more than a light-- what if it's a device to remotely extend the function of a portal? Specifically Charlescomm's portal, to allow objects in the bunker to be readily transported to and from the Comm Tower portal vault?

Probably so much epileptic conifera, but if Charlie was involved in construction of that vault-- as seems likely-- then I find it hard to believe he would leave access to it dependent on a single barbarian caster not directly controlled by Duty to Charlie. And we've no idea of just how extensively he may have carnied the Charlescomm portal.

[Edited for typos]
Count_to_10 wrote:
You see, a microscopic region of space could fluctuate into an energy density capable of sustaining inflation. Inside the horizon of that patch, the space would inflate into a whole new macroscopic universe, while on the outside, it would look like a tiny virtual black hole that only exists for a moment.


Virtual black holes are yet to be observed, which is one of the reasons we're not sure whether or not protons can actually undergo decay.

Although it is a fun thought that they could exist, and each one could be a whole other universe inside with a whole other scale of time. Perhaps with an analogue of Earth, and analogues of humans, who will eventually be able to observe virtual black holes in the quantum foam of their universe, which themselves contain a whole other universe...

But, as you pointed out, this would still lead to the eventual heat death of that universe, without impacting ours.

mgutin wrote:
FinnAgainZero wrote:
totalnerduk wrote:


Quantum tunnelling, on the other hand, refers to particles (usually electrons) crossing a barrier or gap which they would not normally be expected to, thanks to their probabilistic nature. It does not refer to the creation of a singularity, nor its collapse and expansion into a region of spacetime and a quantity of matter to occupy it.


Not necessarily. Tunneling can also bring quanta into existence from literal nothingness.


That paper is a) only referring to the beginning of the universe, and not to any kind of events that would happen now. And b) is literally pure speculation. No evidence of any kinds supports it.

Just so we're clear, we have observed exactly 0 instances of quantum tunneling "creating something out of nothing". This paper does not claim otherwise.


Can I say that I've been Ninja'd, if I waited hours to get back on line and look for a response to my post?

Besides not having observed this phenomena, the scientific community have generally accepted the Singularity and resultant Big Bang models as being valid, since we don't currently have evidence to overturn them (and we do have evidence in support of them).


FinnAgainZero wrote:
Quantum tunneling is quantum tunneling, regardless of the circumstances.


Nope. Quantum Tunnelling usually refers to the phenomenon I described. The paper doesn't describe a "consequence" of this phenomenon. It describes an extrapolation of that phenomenon taken to an extreme. It's a mathematical curiosity more than it is anything else.

FinnAgainZero wrote:
I simply provided peer reviewed proof for the fact that tunneling can occur in the complete absence of any initial conditions, or any boundary conditions.


No. You didn't. You provided a peer-reviewed suggestion that it could occur, complete with a peer-reviewed theoretical framework, which requires in order to be taken as fact or proof, the current accepted model of the Big Bang and the singularity from which it was produced, to be discarded. You provided a peer-reviewed idea without evidence. It's not even a proof in the mathematical sense, since it requires these unproven assumptions for the equations to be valid.

Meanwhile, the accepted model does not require assumptions. We know it is valid within the context of other valid information (ie; evidence in support of it exists and has been observed, which is what led to the theory in the first place, whereas the paper you've linked to is an idea dreamt up as a potential theoretical counter to the accepted model).


FinnAgainZero wrote:
And, of course, the reason that metastable nothingness is impossible is due to uncertainty, which leads to tunneling and the creation of the quantum foam. Someone can't validly argue that... yeah... we have evidence that nothingness must, by necessity, become somethingness... but since nothingness is instantaneously and inexorably converted into somethingness, it doesn't count as nothingness being converted into somethingness.


Well, that was a complete load of fluff. Stable nothingness within spacetime is impossible due to things like the nature of spacetime, virtual particles (not to be confused with those virtual black holes mentioned earlier), pair production, and the conservation of mass/energy within spacetime.

Uncertainty, in Quantum Mechanical terms, refers to the idea that the more you know about one aspect of a particle, the less you can know about another, linked, aspect. It has no bearing on quantum vacuum, since a vacuum is the absence of particles. The classical example is that of the position and the momentum of a particle. The more accurately you determine one of these aspects, the more uncertain your data will be with regard to the other. That is, if you attempt to measure both for the same point in time. This does not "lead to tunnelling".

In terms of an electron moving from one atom to another, the energy requirement is often visualised as a hill. If the electron is lacking the energy to crest the brow of this hill and yet crosses it anyway, the electron is explained as having travelled through a "tunnel", part way up.

Tunnelling arises from the probable location of the particle in question becoming temporarily more narrowly defined as it goes from one state to another (the two states may be locations or energy levels), where the total energy required to proceed to the transitioned state is greater than the energy of the particle. When the probable location of the particle reaches a set of limits wherein it must have already achieved this second state in order to be within this range, it is able to bypass the remainder of the energetic requirement and will be for a moment definable at the location within these limits. Following this, its probable location is definable within the limits associated with the second state, which are much wider than the "tunnel".

Since an electron's location is a probabilistic area in which you have a certain likelihood of encountering it, rather than a fixed point in a three dimensional co-ordinate system, electrons can "tunnel" from one location to another via this effect. But there's no actual hole through anything to anything else.

To acheive this, the particle must, first and foremost, already exist, and second, have some entropically favorable reason to make the transition from one state to another even if it doesn't quite have enough energy to make it all the way.

Neither does tunnelling lead to the creation of quantum foam. Quantum foam is an attempt to visualise the fabric of spacetime at the quantum scale as having eternally-fluctuating values rather than being definite, like bubbles in foam rather than the smooth rubber sheet often alluded to in an attempt to describe gravitational potentials.

This is strictly theoretical, and spacetime has been shown to be "smooth" rather than foamy at values smaller than the radius of a proton. Quantum foam is part of a particular interpretation of quantum gravity, and as such is not dependent on the phenomenon of quantum tunnelling in the way you imply.

____________________________________________________________________________
To anybody bored or annoyed by this, I apologise for taking this article of discussion so wildly off topic.
Anomynous 167 wrote:

So much for "cards exist to retrieve from the graveyard in almost every colour".

I rarely ever come back to threads that aren't current, but vaguely remembered I had left a hanging thread.

For the record, when I said "agreed" I was agreeing that I thought it was a general reference. But also, my statements were not contradictory. All 5 colors in M:tG do have cards to retrieve stuff from the graveyard. But Green and Black have far more, and are more likely to have cards that let you return any card from your graveyard to your hand, whereas Blue is mostly restricted to "return target instant or sorcery card to your hand."

As for how Duel Masters relates to Magic, look at the cover of the first Duel Masters manga.

Spoiler: show
Image








Ok, cards on the table? I read "Duel Masters" as "Duel Monsters" and thought you were talking about Yu-Gi-Oh until I wikied it. But both Duel Masters and Yu-Gi-Oh started as manga that were obviously inspired by Magic: the Gathering. Magic is the grand daddy of trading card games. You can draw comparisons to it from pretty much any other game on the market.
(up to page 6)
Count_to_10 wrote:
I think the first Minecraft video I ever saw was someone speed-drilling down to lava. How does that fit in with bedrock?


There are three sources of lava in the overworld. The first is that any vertical wall has a chance of water or lava coming out of it; think underground springs flowing. These are singleton blocks, rare, and generally, unless they are on the side of a mountain, not going to be big.

The second: There will be "lakes" of lava. Generally about 8 meters square or smaller. Mostly underground, with a bit of air above the lava. Uncommon.

The third, and most prevalent: the "lava lake" down at Y=10. Caves and ravines that are dug in the bottom 10 blocks of the world have their air replaced with lava. This is common. Perhaps 20% of the columns in older versions of minecraft, if you dug straight down, would run into lava down at Y=10. (It has gone down in the current versions -- cave systems tend to be rarer, and usually smaller). People talk of digging / branch mining at Y=11, meaning that the player is breaking the Y=11 and Y=12 block, so that they can walk around, just above the lava layer, and collect the rare stuff down there -- diamonds, redstone, and lapis -- with effectively the highest rate of return for the effort.

Bedrock starts at Y=4, and is solid at Y=0.

This bunker is down in the negative Y's, and that requires a mod. So this carney has installed cubic chunks, and modified the world to permit negative Y's. As for breaking through the bedrock, there are known bugs in the tree code that can do it -- yes, saplings can grow into trees and destroy the indestructible blocks in the process.

Arci wrote:
keybounce wrote:
Effectively, everyone is sharing battlespace this next turn :-)


I'm suddenly imagining a fight where everybody (via massive abuse of carnymancy) is sending their warriors into the Magic Kingdom to fight.

"But sir... who's turn is it?"

"Everyone's. On this day... THERE WILL BE ONLY ONE TURN!"


Meme time people:

"But sir ... which side?"
"The joint side. On this day ... THERE WILL BE ONLY ONE. TURN!"

(Go wild)

Anomynous 167 wrote:
That's how I always envisioned the bunker. If in order to reach the bunker you have to dig through bedrock - and the bedrock is then promptly refilled, then the floors and the walls of the bunker can't be made of bedrock.

Plus, if I recall correctly, the bunker was always described as being under the bedrock and not within it. Not being a mindcraft player I just assumed (wrongly as this page shows) that the bedrock would only be one layer thick. The only way the bunker could be constructed is by having it be hanging below the bedrock..

I never made the "Minecraft" connection here. I figured it was bedrock, with normal rock underneath it -- dig through the normal "too hard to dig through" rock, find regular rock under that, and dig normally there.

Snowbody wrote:
Ozamataz Buckshank wrote:
But... that's not Charlie. That's Willy Wonka.


Who won Willy Wonka's competition? Who stands to inherit the candy factory after Willy passes on? and wouldn't he be likely to adopt many of his mentor's, uh, fashion choices?


Wozers! Have a shmucker. I never thought of Charlie, the winner of Wonka's factory.

So when will we see the Ooompa-Loompas? What will they be chanting in the background?
Skull the Troll wrote:
wih wrote:

Remember that it was Ivan who set up all the Shockamancy for Charlie, he could have just applied the same stuff to the bunker. The presence of the cables doesn't necessitate that Charlie has anything to do with the bunker.


I think youre seriously in denial. If Charlies not involved where did the guns come from? Charlie makes an artifact like the wonky wrench and then doesnt keep tabs on Ivan? For that matter Charlie likes to know as much as he can about everything he can. It seems unlikly he wouldnt keep pretty tight tabs on a free caster who knows so many of his secrets. Plus Charlie seems to think that he can get ahold of these two at will from the statment in the comic.


I haven't made any claims that Charlie doesn't know about the bunker. He surely does. I haven't claimed that I'm certain that Charlie doesn't own the bunker. I'm not. I just think that the probability that it's an Ivan pet project is the prime probable possibility present.
Ad "universe from nothing" paper: onteresting to read - especially in pointing out how unlikely all cosmological models are.

Here's one quote that sums up the main problem of all the visions into the past: "The only verifiable (in principle) prediction of the model is that the universe must be closed." A big problem of this modern visionary-science is that it largely deals with stories, not something that can be meaningfully tested. There's some evidence that lends plausibility to... hypotheses that should be extremely unlikely to happen, according to their inventors themselves. Here comes weird shit like multiverses to explain that.

Also, the "nothing" mentioned there isn't actually nothing. Laws of physics are something, and their origin has to be explained as well. (One wild theory is that gravity - in the GR sense - originated the universe. Okay, where did that come from?) Why the laws - and the universe - that supposedly deterministically lead to electrochemical signals translating to such questions being asked? So many questions and so much effort to avoid admitting that we just don't know - and won't know.
I'm diverging from physical questions here, I know, but it's not disconnected.

totalnerduk wrote:
and second, have some entropically favorable reason to make the transition from one state to another

You're mixing things here. Quantum statistics (where entropy appears) isn't relevant for the quantum tunneling of one particle. There's a probability of the particle being measured beyond the potential barrier, that's it.
You're right before that, though - QT is a well-described and tested theory just for actual particles.

totalnerduk wrote:

The paper doesn't describe a "consequence" of this phenomenon. It describes an extrapolation of that phenomenon taken to an extreme. It's a mathematical curiosity more than it is anything else.

Correct, and admitted in the paper: "This behaviour is analogous to that of a particle bouncing off a potential barrier [...] We know that in quantum mechanics particles can tunnel through potential barriers. This suggests that the birth of the universe might be a quantum tunneling effect." - key word "analogous".

totalnerduk wrote:
Besides not having observed this phenomena, the scientific community have generally accepted the Singularity and resultant Big Bang models as being valid, since we don't currently have evidence to overturn them (and we do have evidence in support of them).

The paper briefly describes what the problem with that model is.
Resurrect two summon able creatures from the graveyard, pay 5 life points.