but they suggested that it would be more appropriate to post it here
I don't think this question is something that would be considered as philosophical or a thought experience though it definitely has those properties to it.
So here's my question:
Say I have two papers. let's call it A and B and stack them consecutively
Now, Is it possible to see beyond the A paper to the B paper?
Rules:
>You can use any equipment you want. Or made your own imaginary tools as long it does not violate the laws of nature and science.
>You are not allowed to disturb the paper in any way, it had to remain fixed and static
>You and the A paper have to be in face to face position.
>I don't think this question is something that would be considered as philosophical or a thought experience
dang it, I mean experiment
Juan Butler
tldr
Jordan Morales
slide a scanner between the pages, project it onto a screen or some shit.
Aiden Myers
That's not seeing "beyond" the paper.
Colton Morales
Pour grease onto A See through it Ez
Oliver Myers
i've forgotten pretty much everything i used to know about the properties of various forms of EM radiation and imaging technologies, but it doesn't sound too complicated >use an imaging tool that can distinguish between ink and paper ndt.net/article/art2008/papers/097Padoan.pdf >now you've got an image that basically consists of the ink patterns of from the top paper, superimposed on the patterns of the bottom paper >train a machine learning algorithm on a large corpus of such images, so that it can reliably tease apart these patterns to recover the two initial pages >??? >profit!!!!
Mason Ross
truly the "soviet ingenuity" solution
Grayson Richardson
Hahahaha
okay, let me rephrase it:
How close do you need to see, until you see passed through it?
What I asked on Veeky Forums is even if you see something into its smallest possible particle, it seems that there's always more to see into it, infinite perhaps?
But if that doesn't make any sense, and it does have a finite value, then by the time you passed its limit, now you are seeing the next thing right? (hence in my question, you are now seeing the paper B)
Is there any flaw in my logic? please enlight me
Eli Sanders
I see stack B. What more do you want? Also, yes I do. Seeing beyond A is quantified as "seeing B", so yes I do see beyond A.
Zachary Collins
Here's my rephrased question
Gabriel Perry
So basically you want a scope that can look between the atoms of an object to see an object on the other side.
Elijah Collins
That's definitely an answer. See, even you can intuitively grasp it right?
But my question was: is it even possible to have such thing?
So I asked those nerds on Veeky Forums and man they're mad
Oliver Carter
i have a feeling that you're assuming certain things which don't make sense to me about what it means to "see", so let me put it this way: if you could "see" at a "resolution" high enough to look through the atoms on the first page, then wouldn't your "sight" simply pass through the atoms of the second page as well? if you drill a hole through a sheet of drywall, the drill bit (assuming it's long enough) isn't going to magically stop at the next sheet of drywall, since it's made of the same material. if the bit is long enough, you'll just keep drilling through all the drywall sheets that are there
Julian Phillips
perhaps they're mad because you offered a very poorly posed question, and you don't seem to have the education to understand why it's a poorly posed question
James Hall
>is it even possible to have such thing? not now.
also this
Mason Martin
>what are x-rays though the second "paper" must be made of impenetrable material then, otherwise it would go through it as said
Caleb Brown
As paper is not defined, paper A is clear and paper B isn't
Carson Taylor
Rip a whole in reality and look into a dimension where paper B is in front of paper A
Logan Foster
>You can use any equipment you want. Or made your own imaginary tools as long it does not violate the laws of nature and science. OP you made the rules, not us
Christian Morales
You've rephrased Zeno's paradox which already has a solution available at your fingertips. Go ahead give the original question posited a read then you'll find there are a number of solutions that have been given over the two thousand odd years since the he asked it.
Ryder Taylor
Granted, I may not have articulated what it means to "see". but okay let's go with your drywall analogy. I assume that for every drywall, it represents resolution right? like when we looked at a paper then we zoomed it in then we can look at it at the cellular level, then atom, etc.
> if the bit is long enough, you'll just keep drilling through all the drywall sheets that are there
how many drywall are there is also part of my question. It have to be finite, right? or is it infinite?
a good illustration of this is, if you have watched Ant-man when he goes into the limbo, you can see that even the Ant-man's body can be contained in the limbo thus himself and moreover, his cell is still smaller than the limbo. And to extend it more: does his cell in that state have its own limbo?
How is it supposed to be posed? care to help?
Dominic Lewis
Thanks for pointing that out, but I already somewhat familiar with Zeno's paradox
And looked it up online, in this particular question, it falls into the category of Infinite Divisibility
And it has these as the answer:
The Standard Solution says we first should ask Zeno to be clearer about what he is dividing. Is it concrete or abstract? When dividing a concrete, material stick into its components, we reach ultimate constituents of matter such as quarks and electrons that cannot be further divided. These have a size, a zero size (according to quantum electrodynamics), but it is incorrect to conclude that the whole stick has no size if its constituents have zero size. [Due to the forces involved, point particles have finite “cross sections,” and configurations of those particles, such as atoms, do have finite size.]
But the answer is pointing the fact that quarks can't be divided into anything more, but what I am pointing out here is what would be like to "zoom it in" for a lack of better term. That sure can be done right?
I don't know, maybe we're struggling with semantics here
Thanks anyway guys, cheers. y'all sure better than those nerds
John Mitchell
Beyond field of expertise. Philologist, not an experimental physicist or whatever profession it would be could explain to you. Perhaps you are looking for something specific mankind has yet answered.
Noah King
>I assume that for every drywall, it represents resolution nope. the sheet of drywall just represents a sheet of paper. the drill represents a camera/whatever that you have invented that is powerful enough to "see through" the first sheet of paper. my point is that if you have a tool that can see through the matter of the first sheet, what's stopping that same tool from seeing through the matter of the second sheet? >how is it supposed to be posed i mean, the ideal way is to use modern physical terminology and concepts, so that it's clear what you're actually asking. you asked an interesting question, and i tried to answer. then you replied and I realized that you have some preconceived notions of what it means to see, what it means to see through something, etc. i understand you can only pose the question that makes sense to you, and it's the responsibility of other people to help narrow down the actual question in terms of modern physical concepts. so the way you posed it is totally fine. sorry if i sounded like a dick earlier. >ant-man haven't watched that one, can you think of a different analogy?
Brody Carter
>what's stopping that same tool from seeing through the matter of the second sheet?
Alright, this is a good question, kinda throw me for a loop here. I'm guessing it has something to do with light. Maybe there's a certain point where light cannot be reflected?
I can't think of any right now, sorry.
But here's a clip from youtube about that exact scene
>You are not allowed to disturb the paper in any way, it had to remain fixed and static Can I shine a light behind the paper?
Chase Sullivan
sorry, that would charge you 5 dollars
Cooper Robinson
watched the clip >his cell is smaller than the limbo, does his cell have its own limbo? in a way, this is kind of like asking how all the animals on noah's ark could fit together in such a small space. but i think i get your point. it sounds like you're basically asking, what is the smallest feature of the universe that we can observe? no one knows the answer to this (and i'm not a physicist, so i'm not much use i'm afraid), but check this out en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length#Theoretical_significance what do you think of that?
btw, here's another thing from your question that you might want to think about: >not allowed to disturb the paper in any way the moment you do ANYTHING to observe the paper (i.e.expose the paper to any EM radiation, visible or otherwise), you are already disturbing it at the atomic level. so strictly speaking, this condition is impossible
