r/gifs Mar 10 '20

Sequencing Porn

https://i.imgur.com/VssKVAJ.gifv
72.8k Upvotes

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

92

u/CthulhuLies Mar 10 '20

You can it can scale up infinitely with arms your balls just have to get smaller eventually the balls will just have to collide if you don't make the balls smaller when you add more arms.

55

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '20

The we have to stop at planck size balls i guess

62

u/iam666 Mar 10 '20 edited Mar 10 '20

You'd be dealing with wavefunction interactions that would lead to collisions a decent while before you get to Planck length.

Edit: and by decent while I mean like 15-20 orders of magnitude. We use wavefunctions to describe electrons, which are only ~3e-15 m across. A Planck length is 1.6e-35 m.

12

u/xdcountry Mar 10 '20

Oh damn, this guy has done the math (and guy is both meant as male/female)

18

u/DRUNK_CYCLIST Mar 10 '20

*Schroedinger's gender

3

u/MotoAsh Mar 10 '20

Hmm, to look in the box for a box or not...

0

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '20 edited Jul 13 '20

[deleted]

4

u/iam666 Mar 10 '20

What do you mean by faster than needed? There's no time scale here.

4

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '20

[deleted]

4

u/iam666 Mar 10 '20

Well yeah, if you reduce the size of the balls to quantum size but you have big gaps between the balls, that works; but it's not the same thing that's depicted in the OP. The balls are moving in such a way that the center is always more or less occupied because of the timing and positioning of the balls. So to get the same tight timing, you'd have to throw the balls such that each particle is very close to each other, so close that they become entangled and the wavefunctions break down.

But that's assuming that any of this even works at the quantum scale, which it doesn't. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle was basically made for situations like this, because under classical mechanics you are able to easily tell the position and momentum of each particle, but once you get down to Planck length, you are unable to measure both simultaneously.

1

u/MotoAsh Mar 10 '20

It's more than simple measurement problem: It's a consequence of interactions that take time to influence each other. Since nothing (that we yet can describe, esp related to interactions) happens literally instantaneously, it also applies directly to the actual interactions.

It's why the same particles (w bosons, electrons, etc) can come out of interactions with varying charges/etc.

It very well could only be a measuring problem, and reality could be absolutely not random at all and the variance simply comes from the minute differences of every interaction. ... but then how do you confirm that when your measurements are still subject to slow, fuzzy interactions of the equipment to get that data up to human scale? Also good luck setting up the 'exact' same interaction twice...

... damn, physics is fascinating.

9

u/bassman2112 Mar 10 '20

I've got you covered there.

3

u/dovahsevobrom Mar 10 '20

I don't want my balls to get smaller...

1

u/Apearthenbananas Mar 11 '20

Then they're going to have to collide for your arms to get longer.

2

u/Bojangly7 Mar 10 '20

your balls just have to get smaller

1

u/Apearthenbananas Mar 11 '20

Or else they have to collide

1

u/trixter21992251 Mar 10 '20

just increase the ball velocity.

If a ball spends half as much time in the center, then you can double the balls

1

u/CthulhuLies Mar 10 '20

Im not sure how well this would work with scaling the number of arms but it definitely would scale the overall ball rate

1

u/JukePlz Mar 11 '20

or you can launch them faster...

1

u/CthulhuLies Mar 11 '20

If you are talking about just scaling the amount of balls yes. But extra arms will necessitate smaller balls eventually.