Talk:3033: Origami Black Hole

First post! RadiantRainwing (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

…really? sigh 42.book.addict^{Talk to me!} 02:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry RadiantRainwing (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

All six gross attempts to follow these instructions have ended with the attemptor vanishing into themselves before reaching step 175.172.70.47.105 19:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

e162.158.10.131 20:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Should we also add a mention of the /Mythbusters/ doing this? I don't remember the details or I would put it in. MAP (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I started convincing chatgpt to tell me how to fold this origami at https://chatgpt.com/share/67785de4-9a4c-800e-80f5-31d12d999999 before running out of free credits. 172.68.54.157 22:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Nice 404 error --162.158.90.211 04:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Using rice paper you could easily reach 9 steps by pure hand pressure, although reaching fusion point -at or around 80 steps- would definitely require strong fingers indeed. Black holes clearly cannot exist, because they would require folding Chinese paper more than a red-blooded American can do, and this is not an option. 141.101.68.192 (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2025 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

The current explanation that it's impossible to create a black hole by folding paper is only right in practical terms. If you manage to keep folding while keeping the same thickness the density of the paper will be far beyond that of a neutron star.--Pere prlpz (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I would be impressed if you did manage to keep folding, since the goal size can be measured in Planck lengths with only six digits. Would you define it as a 'fold' after the entire thing fits inside an electron? (Tangentially, I'm not sure what theory suggests here - can a black hole exist at a scale which makes quantum tunnelling trivial?) 172.68.210.114 (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2025 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

I don't think we'll be able to answer that until we unify QM and GR. I don't think we currently have a theory that addresses quantum-sized black holes. Barmar (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

This strip loosely follows a routine by Emo Philips in the 1980's where he describes tearing a piece of paper in half repeatedly until it explodes. He didn't give a count though. 172.71.154.140 01:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

So, based on some quick math: If we take the 10^110 meters of paper needed to complete this many folds, then you definitely can easily make a black hole. Generously assuming a 1mm wide strip, this gives us a folded stack of paper 1mm wide, 10^53 meters tall and long. 1 light year is 10^15 meters. So this piece of paper is now 10^38 light years long and wide. I.e. something like 10^27 universes tall and long.

I for one, am totally ready to cut down all the trees needed to make this happen. SDSpivey (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Using the 70g per square meter number used above, you get 7^105 kg total mass. One solar mass is roughly 2^30 kg. Our paper weighs something like 10^54 times as much as the observable universe. This is very likely enough to reverse the expansion of the universe, and cause the entire observable universe to turn into a black hole. Or would it be a new big bang? I wonder what theoretical physics would say about a universe with 10^54 times as much mass / energy.

Also how exact does this comment system work? Is it easier if I just make an account? -Nathan 172.68.22.223 (talk) 08:19, 4 January 2025‎ (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Only one rule I'm aware of - always sign your comments with ~ (tilde sign) repeated four times. If you aren't signed in this will timestamp with your IP address, if signed in it will show your username as follows: Alcatraz ii (talk) 10:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the closest anyone got to the origami was this guy from Finland, who I felt deserves an honourable mention here. Hydraulic Press Channel Hydraulic Press Channel "Closest" nevertheless still means a long way off. ;) PaulEberhardt (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Alternate method: 1) get a large enough piece of paper; 2) wait for its gravitational collapse; 3) you have a black hole! This method is more convenient because the paper "folds" itself. --Itub (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)'

Seems a lot like the instructions for a carbon atom. [1] N-eh (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

No, "fifteen orders of magnitude smaller than" doesn't mean it goes negative. I actually very much dislike phrases like "three times less" (just say that it's a third of what it was... or whatever you really meant, because you might actually mean a quarter or an eighth, for completely different reasons!), but I think that this was clearly "it is smaller by fifteen magnitudes of reduction", not "it is a value that is the original value minus one that is fifteen magnitudes higher than the original value". Anyway, no problem with the attempted edit, but I think the reasoning is misdescribed and/or the declared confusion is unnecessary. 162.158.74.119 00:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the energy output, equivalent to the mass of the paper... do we also have to account for the work done to force the paper down to the required volume, past the barriers to compression? BunsenH (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Not saying this to suggest some kind of plagiarism or anything but I'm amused this is very similar to a joke from Jeremy Shafer's 2001 book Origami to Astonish and Amuse (in which similar instructions were presented for a "Carbon Atom" (p.244 https://archive.org/details/origami-to-astonish-and-amuse-jeremy-shafer/page/244/mode/2up)). --172.68.3.36 20:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)