Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Garbage Universe

  1. Feb 12, 2005 #1
    A thought...

    If there are parallel dimensions and we one day master their interconnected nature (via black holes or other unknown means), might we designate one or several of these parallel dimensions as garbage dimensions? We could ship all our garbage into a sister dimension's Universe, where we would never have to worry about it again.

    Following this logic, there may be 'criminal' sister dimensions, where we send all our criminals (if criminals still exist) to live in a Universe prison we may call the Australia Universe.

    If we were especially cruel, we might send the criminals to the garbage Universe, just to be extra mean. hahaha that makes me laugh. :smile:
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 13, 2005 #2

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    It's very dangerous to send criminals off someplace where they are free to develop. They come back worse. For how do you suppose "we" (assuming we can agree who "we" all are) will be able to keep the technology to "ourselves"?
     
  4. Feb 13, 2005 #3
    rebuttal

    'It's very dangerous to send criminals off someplace where they are free to develop. They come back worse. For how do you suppose "we" (assuming we can agree who "we" all are) will be able to keep the technology to "ourselves"?'



    Simple, you spread them out over great distances in the parallel Universe and then deprive them of all the tools needed to create even the most basic of technology. They would have to naturally develop all their familiar 'home Universe's' technology from scratch. Even assuming they could remember all the physics, maths, sciences and schematics needed for rebuilding their home Universe's technology level in their new criminal Universe, it would still take them millennia to advance to that level. And remember, time marches on and technology progresses in the home Universe while all this is happening, so the home Universe would still be way ahead technologically and thus safe from criminal threats. However, if the criminals are lucky, their diabolical minds will interbreed and over time produce a disproportionate amount of Einsteins in their criminal Universe versus the 'good' home Universe and as a result the criminals would command greater technology at a future point in time, whereupon they'd invade and defeat their former home Universe.

    A proxy for this idea is an interesting thought experiment where you envisage a scenario in which all of mankind's present day technology (buildings, computers, cars, and everything you can think of) is suddenly reabsorbed by the Earth. By reabsorbed I mean that all the world's cars go 'poof' and their constituent materials like iron, wood, plastics, etc. all disappear and replenish the Earth's resource pool. Its as if the 600 kilograms of metal in your car magically returns to the mountain where it was originally quarried from, and this also happens with the car's wood to the forests, and the car's plastics to their native hydrocarbonous crude oil reserves deep in the Earth's crust.
    So if this is repeated for every material good on the Earth to the point where there are 6 billion humans standing in open countrysides, forests, deserts and wetlands, where once stood the cities and towns of civilization as we know it, how long would it take humanity to get back to its present 2005 level of technological infrastructure? More precisely, how long would it take given the condition that our collective 6 billion minds have all the 'knowhow' and educational knowledge stored up and ready to implement in the restoration of our civilization's former technological glory?

    Surely it would take a great deal of time to create the tools and the transport system necessary to turn these newly replenished resources into 2005's technology and physical infrastructure levels. :smile:


    Thoughts?
     
  5. Feb 14, 2005 #4

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Even worse! You send them to a school where only the toughest, smartest, and most ruthless will survive and propagate. It may take longer for them to come back and bite you, but when they do they will have very, very big teeth! :surprised
     
  6. Feb 16, 2005 #5
    Funny comment. I am disappointed in your posts, you are not adding anything new or insightful. As you are very intelligent (I read some of you other posts) I would like you to elaborate your ideas to me. Please give better comments.
     
  7. Feb 17, 2005 #6

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Well, to be honest, I don't take this discussion very seriously; what do do with other universes is not exactly the most pressing concern, and being a completely open question it depends on arbitrary assumptions, like empty universes, which turns me off.

    But I am very serious about penology, the study of prisons. And there is plenty of evidence that putting violent people away in "hard time' causes them to become worse. So take that to the limit and you get my responses to you.

    Perhaps some of my attitude to this issue is from reading Heinlein. He had a sequence starting with the short story "Coventry" where a pacifistic society penned up violent people in a western state which was dedicated to that purpose. The outcome was what I said, the exiles created a dynamic society and conquered their captors. As a character in a later story (Beyond this Horizon) said, the "wolves" ate the "sheep".
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2005
  8. Feb 17, 2005 #7
    Why would we want to do that? If we send all of our garbage away, never to be seen again, we're essentially getting rid of elements that were present when our solar system was formed. We should keep all of the original elements on or around Earth (in orbit). Where do we get our garbage from? They were at one point raw material that were changed into another material. Why send that away?
     
  9. Feb 20, 2005 #8
    You make a good point about the garbage being merely comprised of elements that can be recycled for further use in our Universe... But you did not consider that garbage by definition is waste, and waste can always be converted into useable resources but that this requires a great deal of energy. Really its an economic issue, would we be able to 'afford' to convert all that garbage into useable resources given the energy requirements and conversely time requirements needed to complete the conversion at a reasonable efficiency rate. The answer is no, otherwise we would not consider it 'garbage' in the first place.

    Also, if we exported our garbage into a parallel Universe, some type of energy/matter would have to simultaneoulsy be imported into our Universe by known, or unknown mechanisms otherwise Newton's law of conservation would be violated (if it still applies in the future).

    Anyhow, I admit all these hypothetical arguments are thin air, but still, I thought my idea of a garbage Universe was creative and fresh, so its worth considering (if only for a minute). I find some posts in these forums lack originality and many are just copy and paste plagarisms without references from pseudo-scientists looking for online respect. :smile:
     
  10. Feb 20, 2005 #9
    self adjoint

    Your argument does not hold. Just because localization of criminals produces worse criminals, this does not mean it likewise produces smarter criminals that could over come their technological evolutionary setbacks in a great enough matter to retake over the 'good' Universe of people that sent the criminals to the Australia Universe in the first place. There is no connection at all, period. Its obvious that you are partially a product of your environment, so if you send a criminal into a sea of criminals, the criminal will become even worse. Your argument would only work if the Australia Universe was teeming with very advanced ancilliary civilizations of aliens, who through contact with the criminals, would rub off some of their technological advances onto the criminal civilization. Other than that, you are making no sense (in my opinion). :smile:
     
  11. Feb 20, 2005 #10

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    See evolution and differential selection. It works faster with memes.
     
  12. Feb 21, 2005 #11
    Hi,

    Don;t forget about the interdimensional law enforcement agencies dedicated to the preservation of the structure of the multiverse.

    juju
     
  13. Feb 21, 2005 #12

    learningphysics

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    I'm surprised there has been no mention of the movie "One" starring Jet Li, which involves this idea. There is a criminal dimension, garbage dimension.
     
  14. Feb 22, 2005 #13
    movie 'the one'

    That is very interesting that the movie 'The One' already used my ideas of garbage and criminal Universes. If just goes to show that many supposedly original concepts, are not in and of themselves original, but were rather born into fruition by independently original thinkers with akin ideas. Such is the nature of science and the ideas of human beings. Poor 21st centuriers like myself require million dollar machines to invent and prove new ideas, while earlier inventors merely had to watch apples fall from trees.

    Maybe Jung was right and no one is original, but instead we all draw ideas from our ever-evolving archetypal pool of knowledge. hmmm.... Now I have something to consider on the subway tomorrow.

    Good night. :smile:
     
  15. Feb 23, 2005 #14
    just like the movie alien 3 where the criminals must live on a crappy planet lol. and when will we amount so much garbage that it will take another universe to get rid of it? why not just blast it to another galaxy lol
     
  16. Mar 7, 2005 #15
    What this thread demonstrates most of all is the glaring limitations which a surrounding culture places on its people. At least most of you have the excuse of youth. But a pretty sorry lot of argumentation above here nonetheless. You should all be ashamed...
    ;P

    Some useful arguments were alluded to above at least; so let me get explicit about them -- and hopefully raise the level of discussion here a bit...

    Garbage is a problem of only barbaric, ignorant societies without the ability to organize their resource usage properly. And, by definition, any society which could travel between universes WOULDN'T HAVE ANY GARBAGE.
    ZERO. NONE. NADA.
    As was alluded to above -- all matter and energy would be used in something approaching 100% efficiency. The concept of dumping trash in some Third World universe, on the doubtless existing poor natives there, is simply ludicrous in the extreme. This is a flight of fancy gone off the deep edge.
    At least it demonstrates unrestrained, if rather pedestrian imagination.

    But the worst of all above is the completely doltish assumption that there would be crime and criminals in such an advanced society. Again -- this type of social pathology only exists in ignorant, barbaric societies -- like our own. It is actually an expression of class warfare. There is NO inherent criminality in humans, or any other animals -- there is merely a struggle between groups or individuals over relatively scarce resources in a primitive society -- a society without organized agreements to share these resources equitably. In a society which can travel between universes -- there is by definition NO SCARCITY.

    Capisce??

    As for Heinlein: I read him religiously as a kid; but I realized long ago his fascist tendencies -- and you all should too.
     
  17. Mar 7, 2005 #16
    Wow, Tensor, that’s bitter, high-horsed and about as assumptive as it gets; a thought process that surely doesn’t fit within the ranks of theoretical science. Now, before you get your grrr on with me, I’d start by not adopting abstract Star Trek societal development generalities as fact.

    “Garbage is a problem of only barbaric, ignorant societies without the ability to organize their resource usage properly.”

    Really? So I take it you’ve visited non-barbaric, enlightened societies with the ability to organize their resource usage properly to form such a baseline? Let me guess… you’ve been in touch with the Atlanteans.

    “And, by definition, any society which could travel between universes WOULDN'T HAVE ANY GARBAGE. ZERO. NONE. NADA.”

    Holy Star Trek, Batman! You have zero proof to back that up. By definition an inter-universal traveling society would be just that: a society that can travel between universes. What you’re insinuating is that such a feat would have to be technologically advanced and therefore we would have to have solved garbage problems by then. Right. That damn nagging garbage problem has always held us back from scientific advancement, hasn’t it? In fact, if we’re going to get anywhere in science we’d better find Utopia right quick!

    “The concept of dumping trash in some Third World universe, on the doubtless existing poor natives there, is simply ludicrous in the extreme.”

    Whups, looks like someone missed the point of it being a hypothetical garbage universe.

    “This is a flight of fancy gone off the deep edge.”

    … kinda like the next statement…

    “But the worst of all above is the completely doltish assumption that there would be crime and criminals in such an advanced society.”

    Hahahaha… sorry man, but you slay me. The assumption that we can’t have a technologically advanced mastery of what we now call theoretical physics and have dregs in society is completely unsupported. So, maybe I have it backward: what if figuring out how to travel between universes is really supposed to suddenly cure any society of all its problems… like love, greed, vengeance, jealousy, blind ambition, hate, racism, people who run around calling everyone idiots on physics forums, etc? Sure, that’s it.

    You came close to making some sense about scarcity. The problem again is the assumption that scarcity is the only cause for criminality. Indeed, overpopulation is a great cultivator of crime in our society, but we humans congregate and need each other. One way or another there will be human interaction, there will be human disagreement and there will be human conflict.
     
  18. Mar 7, 2005 #17

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Flaming the others is a classic strategy of a shallow mind.

    Can't see any evidence of that last...

    If dumping was less energy intensive than trying for that last .01% of efficiency, they might very well use dumping. You are confusing "technologically advanced" with "angelic".

    In fact bands of chimps fight other bands and kill their members. What you are preaching here is the most retro and simple minded marxism, the kind they used to package for the working classes, rather that the kind they studied themselves within the "Vanguard Party". It was full of mere statements without any backup, just like your post.


    All too well.

    Heinlein's reputation won't be dimmed by you or by me.
     
  19. Mar 11, 2005 #18
    Although I wouldn't have put it so arrogantly as tensor I have to agree that it would seem likely in our continuallly advancing society that we'd have a better solution to our waste problem than to send it to another existence. If anything we could store it on one of the moons of jupiter or some such thing before we needed an entire universe. Of course this scenario makes a lot of assumptions, but for the sake of argument we can go with it.

    If we can do that, who's to say someone in an alternative universe couldn't return the favor in our universe ?
     
  20. Mar 11, 2005 #19
    Hey, call me arrogant. I'm responding cold (the real problem I guess) to some ultra-hypothetical -- and pretty silly -- stuff. I just had to say something about a long thread of foolishness. It's my nature. And of course people will act aggrieved to be called out publicly by complete strangers at that. Or have a fine opportunity to grandstand self-righteously.

    And ya -- of course I've travelled the Universe and seen it all. I'm Q after all. But seriously -- someone who takes me to task on advanced garbology in the Trans-Dimension just ain't thinking straight. It really means they're defending the projection of personal, historically-specific & wasteful north american suburban consumer culture onto the wide future; and this is completely a-historical -- and completely unscientific. It's like the Southern California Fred Flintstone view of the Stone Age: all "cave men" lived in nuclear families with 2.3 kids and a dog/dino...
    And it says a whole lot more about the thinker than the thunk.
     
  21. Mar 11, 2005 #20
    Here's what I think about *real* waste...

    I know little about nuclear decay pathways; but it's always seemed to me that the long-term storage of nuclear waste is a also a problem of profound -- and irresponsible -- ignorance.
    I've always thought that there must be some way to engineer the consumption of all nuclear waste efficiently with sophisticated nuclear engineering -- or to at least separate out all the non-nuclear components and deal with the radioactive dross separately.

    It's pretty clear to me that the present industry/government
    is just going for the cheap "solution" (i.e. have the public pay for a hi-tek landfill and hope the problem becomes someone else's over time...)

    And of course, cold fusion is probably the magic pill everyone secretly dreams about -- which will make all the above disappear.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Garbage Universe
  1. The Universe (Replies: 1)

  2. Scaling the Universe (Replies: 2)

  3. The grid of the universe (Replies: 28)

  4. Reality of Universe (Replies: 24)

  5. The Mass of the Universe (Replies: 19)

Loading...