This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Not really sure if this counts:
- Orson, of U.S. Acres fame, is known for his reality-warping imagination. Characters have been known to deduce that he's reading in the first place because, for example, they're at the bottom of the ocean and they knew they weren't there a few seconds ago. Of course, as soon as he stops reading, the scenery changes back.
- If we're going this far, Calvin has a reality-warping imagination too.
Nor this:
- In comics, reality warp situations frequently involve cameos from dead characters. For instance, when Extant was mucking with time, the original Star-Spangled Kid got to meet the inheritor of his name (the current Stargirl). Barry Allen also popped in to check on Wally West more than once. This sometimes creates a into "Funny Aneurysm" Moment when said dead person comes back to life a few years later.
Too nitpicky? Do we already have a trope for these kinds of things? Thoughts?
Nezumi: Argh! I wanted to add My World, My Way to this page, but I was waiting for it to come out to make sure I got the details exactly right. Evil person pre-empting me!
Removed Jumper. They bent space, not really warping reality, just teleportation.
BritlBllt: Removing...
- First off, the observer effect is caused by whatever you're using to observe. Causing waveform collapse by hitting an electron with a photon is no more reality warping than cutting metal with a laser. Second, it's not that electrons are both particles and waves, it's commonly said that they have attributes of both particles and waves, though it would be more accurate to say that the intuitive ideas of particles and waves both have attributes of electrons.
Because, for the love of God, Montressor, no Conversation In The Main Page or Justifying Edits! If the example's so wrong that it needs to be edited or removed, then just do so. But personally, I think it's nitpicking: as The Other Wiki says, "the results of their own burgeoning understanding disoriented Bohr and Heisenberg, and some physicists concluded that human observation of a microscopic event changes the reality of the event," which is exactly what the example's talking about. But I'll at least rephrase the last sentence in the original entry, since it's putting the horse before the cart...
On second thought, I'll just rework the entry. Schrodinger's Cat should really be mentioned, and there's a parapsychology angle that relates to that aspect of quantum physics (I think parapsychology's bunk, but it's an interesting idea).
BritBllt: More natter, though this time much more subdued. Removing...
- Schrodinger's Cat was intended as a thought experiment as to why Quantum Mechanics was ridiculous when applied to macroscopic objects - one way to tell if someone actually understands it is if they know of/proved Ehrenfest's Theorem, which says that Quantum Mechanics statistically averages out to Newtonian Mechanics. This happens to be quite useful in not invalidating basically all engineering knowledge.
It's a well-written point and it's all correct, but it doesn't add much to the existing entry. The thought experiment started off as an attempted mockery, but like the phrase "big bang", it's grown into a mainstream concept in both science classes and pop culture. As for the Ehrenfest Theorem, it's not a necessary reference: people already know, just by practical experience, that quantum effects translate to Newtonian effects in the macroscopic world. This entry's fought a long battle with Conversation In The Main Page about the finer points of quantum mechanics, which is why it's best to keep it simple, vague and focused on how it applies to the Reality Warper trope as it's used in fiction. The average reader's interest will probably go as far as something like "what was Koizumi talking about when he said Haruhi Suzumiya collapses wave forms", and too many details will just obscure the answer, especially since there's so many conflicting interpretations that bringing up any specific one just encourages someone else to critique it by posting another one.
I think that from the common view of Schrodinger's Cat, and all sorts of pseudoscience like ESP, that it's clear that people don't know that quantum effects don't apply to macroscopic objects, so something should be said about quantum being just used as technobabble in fiction - it bears no resemblance in real life.
BritBllt: Anyone who's stood up and walked across a room knows, at least intuitively, that Newtonian physics holds true in everyday life, and the entry makes the point that the Cat paradox is that what looks like quantum uncertainty somehow "becomes" normal reality in everyday life. This sounds more like a Just Bugs Me point about how inaccurately quantum theory's used in fiction, in which case I'd recommend creating a JBM page for Reality Warper. That way, there'll be enough room for people to discuss the issue (and believe me, they will :)).
I might create the page for that reason tonight; besides quantum flanderization, I'm sure there's enough other paradoxes inherent in the reality warper trope that it'd build up steam.
BritBllt: JBM created, with this as the first entry...
- Schrodinger's Cat was intended as a thought experiment as to why Quantum Mechanics was ridiculous when applied to macroscopic objects - one way to tell if someone actually understands it is if they know of/proved Ehrenfest's Theorem, which says that Quantum Mechanics statistically averages out to Newtonian Mechanics. This happens to be quite useful in not invalidating basically all engineering knowledge, but nobody who uses quantum physics to justify reality warping seems to be aware of any of that.
It's all yours to rephrase. ^_^
BritBllt: And removing some more QM natter...
- Technically the cat is in every possible state while it's not being observed not just dead and alive. Schrodinger used two choices because it wasn't supposed to describe actual cats, rather it describes the behavior of light as acting like both a particle and a wave.
I'll add in the phrase "all possible states", but again, this entry is especially prone to building up natter. If there's a main point to rephrase, go ahead (it's a Wiki!), but natter is bad, especially if it's just a more technical rephrasing of a point already made. It's like the Thread Mode that used to be on the Eva page about whether Eva's are technically Humongous Mechas: all it does is scare away the casual people who just wandered onto the page and wanted to know what the show's about.
