2 boxes...
ac427cpe
03-29-2002, 02:38 PM
Suppose you had two boxes, that, when an object was placed in one (Box A) it was instantaneously transported into Box B. now, there are no side effects in transporting, and everything always goes perfectly. But, what would happen if you put Box B into Box A?:confused:
tazdev
03-29-2002, 03:39 PM
considering that both boxes were probably the same size, then it would be physically impossible to put box B into box A.:frog:
Jay!
03-29-2002, 03:56 PM
I think I would want to know more about the boxes before answering. I assume the boxes must have an opening, but is it a whole side missing, or just a slot the size of a coin?
Is the object sent atom by atom, or all at once? Also, what is the threshold for the transport? Is the object sent as it crosses a certain plane? If so, what happens if you put an object halfway in? Is the other half already present in the other box?
Is the object sent atom by atom, or all at once? Also, what is the threshold for the transport? Is the object sent as it crosses a certain plane? If so, what happens if you put an object halfway in? Is the other half already present in the other box?
Sanchi
03-29-2002, 08:07 PM
http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/avatar.php?userid=4992&dateline=1017396798
yeaaaahhh baby...!!!
:D :D
sorry just whoring through
yeaaaahhh baby...!!!
:D :D
sorry just whoring through
SickLude
03-30-2002, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by SE-R WolfPac
http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/avatar.php?userid=4992&dateline=1017396798
lol...what??
I think nothing would happen. Just nothing. Especially since the whole reaon why Box B exists is because it recieves what Box A has. So, if Box B is not there to do its purpose, then I would assume nothing would happen.
http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/avatar.php?userid=4992&dateline=1017396798
lol...what??
I think nothing would happen. Just nothing. Especially since the whole reaon why Box B exists is because it recieves what Box A has. So, if Box B is not there to do its purpose, then I would assume nothing would happen.
Oz
03-30-2002, 04:23 AM
I'm loving some of the liberal enterpretation of the word 'box' here :smoker2:
BUt honestly, I think nothing would happen. Just from the situation you described, the box would just remain there. THe system relies on two variables and as soon as you make them one vaiabvle the whole thing crashes and nothing happens.
BUt honestly, I think nothing would happen. Just from the situation you described, the box would just remain there. THe system relies on two variables and as soon as you make them one vaiabvle the whole thing crashes and nothing happens.
taranaki
03-31-2002, 06:56 PM
since the box'b' that you are attempting to send would be identical in every respect to the box'b' that is intended to receive it[as they are,of course, the same box],it would be impossible to ascertain whether any transfer of matter had taken place.
but presumably if such a device could be made,there would be safety interlocks to prevent matter being transferred under abnormal conditions anyway - if the receiving box were to malfunction,what would happen to any items dispatched?
but presumably if such a device could be made,there would be safety interlocks to prevent matter being transferred under abnormal conditions anyway - if the receiving box were to malfunction,what would happen to any items dispatched?
tazdev
03-31-2002, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by taranaki
since the box'b' that you are attempting to send would be identical in every respect to the box'b' that is intended to receive it[as they are,of course, the same box],it would be impossible to ascertain whether any transfer of matter had taken place.
but presumably if such a device could be made,there would be safety interlocks to prevent matter being transferred under abnormal conditions anyway - if the receiving box were to malfunction,what would happen to any items dispatched?
they would end up in BOX C (the lost property box):p
since the box'b' that you are attempting to send would be identical in every respect to the box'b' that is intended to receive it[as they are,of course, the same box],it would be impossible to ascertain whether any transfer of matter had taken place.
but presumably if such a device could be made,there would be safety interlocks to prevent matter being transferred under abnormal conditions anyway - if the receiving box were to malfunction,what would happen to any items dispatched?
they would end up in BOX C (the lost property box):p
JD@af
04-01-2002, 02:05 AM
Originally posted by ac427cpe
Suppose you had two boxes, that, when an object was placed in one (Box A) it was instantaneously transported into Box B. now, there are no side effects in transporting, and everything always goes perfectly. But, what would happen if you put Box B into Box A?:confused: This is one crazy hypothetical. Hard to say. Could result in a matter/antimatter collision and the end of all existence as we know it. Or you could get a result like what happened in "Being John Malkovich."
Suppose you had two boxes, that, when an object was placed in one (Box A) it was instantaneously transported into Box B. now, there are no side effects in transporting, and everything always goes perfectly. But, what would happen if you put Box B into Box A?:confused: This is one crazy hypothetical. Hard to say. Could result in a matter/antimatter collision and the end of all existence as we know it. Or you could get a result like what happened in "Being John Malkovich."
TerminalVelocity
06-06-2002, 08:29 AM
Box B would implode to try to stuff itself into itself. I know this because I work for UPS and we know all matters concerning boxes and the like :flipa:
Pikachoo
06-06-2002, 09:09 PM
I think the box would implode upon itself and create a black hole. You see, box B is designed so that the contents of box A are transported into box B correct?? So if Box B is inside Box A then Box B is repeatedly stacked into itself(in the same gemetry), so the walls of box B get more and more dense as more Box B's are transported into it's own walls. Almost instantaneously the walls would become so dense that they would implode onthemselves thereby creating a black hole.....
or nothing would happen..:bloated: :bloated: :bloated:
or nothing would happen..:bloated: :bloated: :bloated:
TerminalVelocity
06-07-2002, 07:00 AM
hey, lets try it and find out!:p
"Pandamonium"
06-10-2002, 05:16 PM
What sort of activation switch would it have?????
Do you throw things into box A so you don't loose your hands by placing things in the box.
Do you get your hands back when you pull them out of the box?????
The Panda loves quantum physics.
Do you throw things into box A so you don't loose your hands by placing things in the box.
Do you get your hands back when you pull them out of the box?????
The Panda loves quantum physics.
darkness
06-12-2002, 07:19 PM
Dude I think you have watched The Fly way too many times.
grimmy
09-21-2002, 05:21 PM
i personaly believe that the object would not apear in box b instantly that there would be an amount of time however infinitley small it may be between the disapearance and reapearance of said object. therefore in order for these boxes to work box a would need to check for a receiving box before the item was transported. so if box b were placed in box a box a would check for box b, it would label it as an acceptable receiver and ship. however once box b entered the nether void en route it would no longer be here now and not be an acceptable recepient, that would then cancel the shipment and leave it stranded in the void.
replicant_008
09-24-2002, 03:31 AM
A loop...
Assuming the events happen on a sequential basis - since the box would be transferred to another location and then effectively that location is within the original location then viewed in our perceptual paradigm of 3 dimensional space with time as a constant - then we would have a continuous loop. At least from our point of view - what this would look like is something I'm not immediately able to envisage - it would depend on the cycle time of the sequentiality.
Anything less than 60 Hz would seem to flicker.
As this is a hypothetical situation, I'm assuming that this 'process' of transfer would NOT involve energy loss so it would go on ad infintum. If some energy was consumed then the event could be interupted with the exhaustion of the energy source.
Okay that's enough thinking for one day.
Assuming the events happen on a sequential basis - since the box would be transferred to another location and then effectively that location is within the original location then viewed in our perceptual paradigm of 3 dimensional space with time as a constant - then we would have a continuous loop. At least from our point of view - what this would look like is something I'm not immediately able to envisage - it would depend on the cycle time of the sequentiality.
Anything less than 60 Hz would seem to flicker.
As this is a hypothetical situation, I'm assuming that this 'process' of transfer would NOT involve energy loss so it would go on ad infintum. If some energy was consumed then the event could be interupted with the exhaustion of the energy source.
Okay that's enough thinking for one day.
Pikachoo
09-24-2002, 11:26 AM
By definition of the problem box B must be smaller than box A, or else box A wouldn't fit inside of box A. so when you try to transport box B into itself... well it just won't fit. End loop return error.:bloated:
THE4TH
03-08-2003, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by Pikachoo
I think the box would implode upon itself and create a black hole. You see, box B is designed so that the contents of box A are transported into box B correct?? So if Box B is inside Box A then Box B is repeatedly stacked into itself(in the same gemetry), so the walls of box B get more and more dense as more Box B's are transported into it's own walls. Almost instantaneously the walls would become so dense that they would implode onthemselves thereby creating a black hole.....
or nothing would happen..:bloated: :bloated: :bloated:
seems close to me..
although i agree it would continue to send itself into itself which would be in box a which would then again send itself to box b which is in box a and then send itself to itself over and over again for eternity.. but i see no density problems..
although i would really like to see a black hole.. lol
I think the box would implode upon itself and create a black hole. You see, box B is designed so that the contents of box A are transported into box B correct?? So if Box B is inside Box A then Box B is repeatedly stacked into itself(in the same gemetry), so the walls of box B get more and more dense as more Box B's are transported into it's own walls. Almost instantaneously the walls would become so dense that they would implode onthemselves thereby creating a black hole.....
or nothing would happen..:bloated: :bloated: :bloated:
seems close to me..
although i agree it would continue to send itself into itself which would be in box a which would then again send itself to box b which is in box a and then send itself to itself over and over again for eternity.. but i see no density problems..
although i would really like to see a black hole.. lol
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2026
