|
|
#21 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 28
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Resident Penguin
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
FFR Player
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 5
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 12
|
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.
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#26 |
|
FFR Player
|
um spec u my dawg, so can u run that by me again? thi time s l o w e r ? lol
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#27 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1
|
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. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|