|
|
#1 |
|
Yes
|
First of all I want to say I am in no way claiming this theory to be an original concoction of my own, but the rather I wish to further explain and simplify what Zeno said about 2500 years ago,
Another mind stimulating thread for FFRers, Mathematically matter can be infinitely small. This idea is quite simple. It is my theory that matter is infinitely divided. Furthermore, if matter cannot be divided infinitesimally then it cannot, and does not, exist. I will explain this by using a line segment as an example. Say we have a line segment and we divide the line segment in half. We then get two line segments that are half as long as the whole. Then we divide one of the halves again. Then we divide one of the quarters again. We can keep on dividing infinitely never reaching zero. The reason we can keep on dividing is because a line segment is made out of an infinite amount of divisible line segments. Now apply the same principle to matter. In the same sense that a line segment has to be made out of an infinite amount of line segments, matter has to be made out of an infinite amount of matter. Logically matter cannot be made out of nothing. For example, Quarks and leptons are the smallest particles that we know of. To this day they are known as the fundamental particles of matter. The most accepted theory, within quantum physics, that explains what quarks are made out of is the super string theory. Regardless if the theory is right or wrong one must still ask, what are the strings made out of? Quarks will most likely be proven to be made out of even smaller units of matter. Then the even smaller particles will eventually be proven to consist of even smaller particles, continuing infinitely. Matter has to be made out of something. Matter cannot be made out of nothing. Accordingly, I come to the conclusion that matter is infinitely small. Specforces
__________________
Check Out My Music |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Summer!!
|
How can matter be infinitly small, or else you couldnt get to the end.
I know you bassicly said that, but i agree, I think there has to be an end, A VERY VERY VERY X10000000 small something that is so small, its the smallest small ever, and maybe thats what everything is made up of. I dont think matter is infinitly small, i think you can find an end.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 | |
|
auauauau
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
FFR Player
|
yes matter is infinitley small or in other words a real world example of an irrational number.
and does anyone know anything about atoms(quarks) tunneling
__________________
Cornstalk Remanants |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Banned
|
yes matter is infinitely small, everytime you divide something it just gets smaller and smaller and it never just disappears. say for instance, dividing a number like 4. divided in half its 2, then 1, then 1/2, so on and so on. it gets into fractions then you simply multiply the denominator over and over again, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32 so on so on. simply put, whatever matter you are dividing will never go away. just get smaller and smaller.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
FFR Player
|
exactly like radioactive half-life
__________________
Cornstalk Remanants |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 161
|
3.1415.................
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
FFR Simfile Author
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 612
|
strings are made of energy
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Seen your member
|
you can't just present one side of the paradox. If matter was infinitely small then it would never create anything large - like even a molule. if you have a million things that are infinitely small and you put them together, they still make something that is infinitely small, by definition of infinity. There is therefore, no answer, exactly like the paradox of the existance of "nothing".
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 161
|
Good point, never thought of it like that.
But, you forgot about the distance between molecules etc. All molecules are not touching, atoms are not touching, they're spread apart. That space in between the smaller parts contributes to the form. Nothing is solid, even though it appears that way to us. So, if as things get infinitely smaller, the space in between the quarks, atoms, etc. is relative to the size of the next largest part, it is possible. (I dont know if that made sense, but i think you know what im gettin at.) Makes me think of reverse osmosis experiments in science class. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 21
|
Spec is not right. You can keep dividing things forever, but only theoretically. In reality there is a limit. If i fire a bullet at Spec's forehead, it will have to travel half the distance before it can get to your head, then half the distance of whats left, and half of that and half of that and so on, so theoretically it will NEVER reach your head. It will have to half of the remaining distance, which can't possibly take 0 seconds to cover.
-Mike100 |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 21
|
Wait...what side am I arguing for? Well in real life the bullet will hit you. Theoretically it won't. I was just explaining his theory of infinate smallness using a different example, which doesn't work in real life. The bullet WILL hit you, so there IS a limit to how small things can get.
-Mike100 |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Yes
|
The world we live in is probabilistic, not linear. It can be modeled as linear at the level we typically observe it due to the central limit theorem. As you look at it closer and closer, it begins to reveal its true nature. You reach a point where space, time, and matter decohere, and it no longer even makes sense to think about proceding to a lower level.
The universe is under no obligation to conform to any particular mathemetical models. It is up to us to find models that fit, not the other way around. Specforces
__________________
Check Out My Music |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,069
|
The modern buddha.
__________________
-Jamie |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 15
|
In mathmatics, it's true that the limit of something as it aproaches zero is equal to zero. Also, in theory, you can devide a line to an infinitely small amount, but it is all only in theory. No matter how small you can make something by halving it, you can restore it to it's previous value by doubling it the same number of times. Every system has it's tiniest piece. Your monitor has pixels, compounds have atoms, which have quarks, and it could definitely have more pieces to be broken down to. But it still has to have something left to make your original object again. Quarks have a very small mass, but it is still defineable and thus, several quarks can make a proton. A proton has mass, thus several protons can make a...
The ideas of limits in math is all theory, but in practice, no matter how much you devide something, it must still be able to be put together to make your original again. Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
is against custom titles
|
Remember, mass is equivalent to energy; they can be used interchangeably in equations. If you'd like to start dividing energy as if it were a line segment, go ahead. Also, all particles are also waves, so that might throw a kink in things, too
Regarding the quarks and strings... when you get down to the level of subatomic particles, protons, neutrons, and electrons are using photons and mesons to be created, form their respective antiparticles, annihilate, and give off energy, all on the order of around 10E-15 seconds, so things are blinking in and out of existence quite often, so trying to divide anything besides quarks and still having matter in the sense that we know it is quite difficult. Contrary to what I (and it seems others) first believed, strings are not a further division of quarks. Strings are only a representation of particles as if they traveled in a wave-type forms. The best established string theory also describes our universe in fourteen dimensions, so it has its problems, too. Anyway, my point is that quantum physics is way too complicated to give any sense to anything. |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 19
|
I believe that scientists have found the smallest unit of measure possible. I THINK (im not 100% sure on this) that they did it with some sort of higher level calculus. Where they take the derivitive of a derivitive and so on and so forth of a certain function until they reached a constant (the derivitive of a constant doesn't exist), and so there cant be anything smaller than that. Think of it as the screen resolution of the universe. I think it was somewhere around 2.0 * 10^-47 nanometers. They named it(i am sure on this) the Planck length, named after the Physisist Max Planck.
But my point is that no matter can be smaller than this unit of measure, because anything smaller would have NO effect on the rest of the universe, no matter what. So anything smaller might as well not exist. |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Seen your member
|
umm...right. What function was this that was so important and came down that constant? you do realise like some functions can never be differentiated down to a constant? like y = x^-1. Wait until you're half way through grade 11 calculus before making assumptions like that. IF you want the smallest unit of mesurement possible, that would be 0.000...1 th
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 19
|
Yeah some functions cant be brought down to a constant, like the definition of e. But the one they used can. Like i said, i wasnt sure they might have taken the limit of something im not sure, I am not a physisist, i just know for sure what they named it and that they found it. Im not gonna pretend to know EXACTLY how they found it.
Oh and 0.000000000.....1 doesnt work because it equals 0 for the same reason .99999999999999999.... = 1. You really havent measured anything at all. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|