Difference between revisions of "Talk:3033: Origami Black Hole"
(Emo Philips) |
|||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
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?) {{unsigned ip|172.68.210.114|23:09, 3 January 2025}} | 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?) {{unsigned ip|172.68.210.114|23:09, 3 January 2025}} | ||
: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. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 23:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | :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. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.140|172.71.154.140]] 01:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 01:22, 4 January 2025
First post! RadiantRainwing (talk) 19:08, 3 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)
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)
