Quantum Probability and an old problem…
Filed under: Non-Imperative Intel
So randomly tonight at church the old question of “what happens when an unstoppable object meets an immoveable object” came to mind… then suddenly two possible answers came to me, one which kinda sucked and involved simply phasing, but it did lead me to the following possibility:
Since it is more likely that the only way in our universe to have such “immoveable” and “unstoppable” states for an “object” would be within the realm of Quantum Mechanics. then each of the objects would have its own Quantum Probability Field (or is it a wave). These Probability Fields would be such that the probability of them ever meeting would be virtually zero (but not zero as you can never have a quantum probability of zero… apparently) as to have it never occur. However, if it did, for some reason, happen then I think that the objects would simply pass through/by each other in a similar manner to the wave like natures of particles such as electrons and photons.
What do you think… have I just lost the plot, would this be a valid answer, or do you have your own? Feel free to discuss.
(oh and I also came up with an idea for a story/rpg)
EDIT: I have tweaked my site a bit and renamed my gallery to, well, Gallery… this is will because, for those who do not already know, the company I am trying to set up will be called “Illusionary Constructs” and will have its own domain as well, so to avoid confusion I’m doing the rename now.
Also I have sent in a form to the Edinburgh council to see if I can apply for council housing… it may be the only chance I get for a flat in the short term.
December 11th, 2006 at 5:41 pm
How does your response change at the macro, micro and mega scales? Remembering that larger objects may experience all possible results at the same time due to their composite nature.
December 11th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
The macro, micro, and mega scale are merely an expansion of the Quantum scale, it is simply our perception that causes them to be seen as acting differently. (or something like that… haven’t got far enough in the book yet)
December 13th, 2006 at 12:46 am
Something about this old question has always bothered me, and thats the definition of “Immovable” and “Unstoppable”. See, when I picture it in my head, I see this Immovable object quite happily not moving when it meets the Unstoppable force…and then smashing into itty bitty pieces.
Is Immovable the same is indestructable? Would the unstobbable force not simply obliterate the obstinate little object thats just to dumb to get out of the way?
Why does my head hurt?
I like cheese….
December 13th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
To be imovable you have to be indestructable. Imovable is not just at the macro scale but also at the micro scale. No componenet part or fraction can move. To break parts have to move in relation to other parts in a way not designed for.
This would also make it very dificult to have a complex machine classes as imovable.