Go Back   Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums > General Discussion > Critical Thinking
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-3-2004, 02:52 PM   #21
Nightstar
FFR Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 28
Default

hrmm lets see....according to string theory, strings cannot be broken down forever. you can break them down for a long time, but eventually quantum effects stop you from cutting them further.
a quote from Scientific American- "In addition to traveling as a unit or vibrationg along its length, a subatomic string can wind up like a spring. Suppose that space has a cylindrical shape. If the circumference is larger than the minimum allowed string length, each increase in the travel speed requires a small increment in energy, whereas each extra winding requires a large one. But if the circumfereance is smaller than the minimum length, an extra winding is less costly than an extra bit of velocity. The net energy-which is all that really matters-is the same for both small and large circumferances. In effect, the string does not shrink.This property prevents matter from reaching an infinite density." and an infinitly small size. Essencially what they are saying, is that a small string is lighter than a large one, but if you try to squeeze the small one smaller than it can get, it gets heavy again.

what you have to understand about strings, is that they are more like the energy defining the quark, or electron, than a particle of matter themselves. the resonate in 8 dimensions, and that energy is displayed as the trapped particles in our 3 dimensions
Nightstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-3-2004, 04:51 PM   #22
talisman
Resident Penguin
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
talisman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Age: 34
Posts: 4,598
Send a message via AIM to talisman
Default

In order to find out whether quarks are made of any smaller parts, one would have to smash some together. To find whether those parts are made of smaller parts, one would have to smash them together. Eventually, a point is reached at which the energy required to smash the particles together is greater than what is available in the universe. This would be the fundamental unit of matter, since nothing more fundamental could ever be observed, and thus ever exist.

One can divide all one wants in one's head, but if it hasn't been observed in real life, then it can't exist.
talisman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-3-2004, 11:17 PM   #23
peregrine
FFR Player
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 122
Send a message via AIM to peregrine
Default

After looking into the matter (pardon the pun) it seems that Zeno's paradox can be used to prove that there IS a quantum to matter/distance.

Going with what you said originally, Specforces: assume there is no quantum to matter/distance; you take a line: make halves, 4ths, 8ths, 16ths etc. ad infinitum... you'd end up with infinite infinitely small line segments making a distance.

When you try to traverse that distance with a velocity, you have a problem... no matter how small things may be, an infinite number of them would still be an infinite distance. No velocity could traverse an infinite distance in a finite amount of time.

Additionally, if you have two line segments of different lengths and apply that dividing method to them, you end up with the exact same thing for both of them: a line made of an infinite number of infinitely small line segments.

These two logical arguments would seem to disprove both motion and distance. They would be impossible. BTW, this was the main tenant of Zeno's teacher's philosophy: motion, distance, and changes in the physical world are illusions... but we're working off the assumption that they DO exist. Seeing as (or assuming that) motion and distance are real occurances, it refutes these two arguments and subsequently refutes the assumption that matter/distance are infititely divisible.

Hence, if matter and distance are NOT infinitely divisible, they must have a definite quantum level from a logical standpoint.

Now whether or not the universe wants to follow logical reasoning.... I don't know ; ) it is a strange place after all.... but that's the logical proof that definite quantums exist.
peregrine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2004, 11:50 PM   #24
DemonThing
FFR Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 5
Default

Now, I think that there would be no way to determine if matter is infinitely small or not. Anything smaller than the Planck length (about 1.6 x 10^-35 metres) is indistinguishable. Although someone might predict with physical theories whether such is the case or not, there would not and could not be any experimental evidence to prove or disprove this hypothesis.

I choose to believe that matter is not infinitely small, and exists in definite amounts.

Also, regarding GuidoHunter's comment, if you were suggesting that energy is infinitely divisible, such is not the case, and it exists in definite quanta, states quantum theory.
DemonThing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2004, 11:04 PM   #25
brutisgrr
FFR Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 12
Default

You guys just said we don't exist. That's all there is to it. Don't plumb them depths or you might kill us all.
brutisgrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-6-2004, 08:26 PM   #26
Baby-Girl
FFR Player
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Detroit
Posts: 11
Send a message via AIM to Baby-Girl Send a message via MSN to Baby-Girl Send a message via Yahoo to Baby-Girl
Default

um spec u my dawg, so can u run that by me again? thi time s l o w e r ? lol
Baby-Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-9-2004, 10:07 AM   #27
grim001
FFR Player
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1
Default

Matter is made out of energy. They are one and the same, in different forms.

Matter is made out of discrete packets of energy, therefore it is not infinitely divisible. If you kept dividing you would come back to energy eventually. Energy is infinitely divisible. Thinking about it this way, there is no paradox.

In response to peregrine, just because two quantities are both divisible into an infinite number of parts does not mean they are equal. 27 and 32 are both divisible into an infinite number of smaller decimals, but that doesn't mean they are equal. Furthermore, travelling over a finite distance that is divisible into infinitely small units is not mathematically illogical because of a little concept called "limits" that is also covered in calculus. Calc was invented to deal with exactly that type of paradox.
grim001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution