/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11111208

61KiB, 660x960, panzer of the lake.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Sat 02 Nov 02:12:24 2019 No.11111208 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11111216 >>11111250 >>11111692 >>11111757

Is space infinitely divisible or is there some ultimately small volume that is no longer divisible?

Is this a matter of physics or metaphysics? Should I ask /lit/ about it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Nov 2019 02:14:09 No.11111216 Report

Quoted By: >>11111228

>>11111208
>Is space infinitely divisible or is there some ultimately small volume that is no longer divisible?
We don't know
>Is this a matter of physics or metaphysics?
Physics
>Should I ask /lit/ about it?
No

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Nov 2019 02:19:53 No.11111228 Report

Quoted By: >>11111281 >>11111681

>>11111216
>We don't know
Then why do physicists use real numbers? The tacit assumption seems to be they believe space can divided infinitely, because that's what happens if you assume that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the real numbers and the points of a line (Cantor-Dedekind axiom). Is it just a convenient model since we don't know the actual measure of the smallest volume (if it exists)? But couldn't this assumption lead to faulty results and paradoxes if it turns out that space isn't infinitely divisible after all?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Nov 2019 02:28:27 No.11111250 Report

Quoted By:

>>11111208
At the end of the day, we simply use science to describe what's happening to the world around us.

That can take us very far, but at the same time, it's limited to whatever we can imagine or conceive. We can't imagine advanced concepts if we can't ... well, imagine them in the first place.

There are probably an infinite amount of things to be discovered in the universe, but I don't think we'll ever get to the point of discovering it all. In a decade or two, we will probably discover things that we would have never thought about in the

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Nov 2019 02:38:32 No.11111281 Report

Quoted By:

>>11111228
> Is it just a convenient model
It is a convenient model yes. We don't know about the "just" part
> But couldn't this assumption lead to faulty results and paradoxes
Physics has a long tradition of working with known incorrect systems, such as Newtonian physics. It's not a really big deal.
If there were a lot of faulty results people would try to
a) Memorize the when the theory stops working
b) Make new theories to handle those cases.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Nov 2019 06:46:32 No.11111681 Report

Quoted By:

>>11111228
>Is it just a convenient model since we don't know the actual measure of the smallest volume (if it exists)?

Basically.

> But couldn't this assumption lead to faulty results and paradoxes if it turns out that space isn't infinitely divisible after all?

If it does it shows up as experimental results that disagree with theory. You won't miss it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Nov 2019 06:54:55 No.11111692 Report

Quoted By:

>>11111208
>Is space infinitely divisible or is there some ultimately small volume that is no longer divisible?
What is "space"?
>Is this a matter of physics or metaphysics?
Metaphysics.
>Should I ask /lit/ about it?
If they know metaphysics.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Nov 2019 07:03:15 No.11111699 Report

Quoted By: >>11111704

the limitations of size on the scale of physics goes down to planck lengths, at which its so small that it's merely assumed nothing meaningful happens at that scale, and planck length is $1.6 * 10^{-35}m$ , or 0.000000000000000000000000000000000016 of a meter. so truthfully you only need 35 decimal places to most accurately describe the size or position of a physical object relative to a meter. unfortunately this also makes an assumption that at the smallest parts, given planck length is true, the universe is composed of 6 sided elements, or cubes. 100/16 = 6.25

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Nov 2019 07:13:19 No.11111704 Report

Quoted By: >>11111708

>>11111699
The smallest phenomena we have observed are still more than 15 orders of magnitude larger than the Planck scale so don't be so sure nothing interesting happens until then.

For comparison the size of the Milky Way is less than 15 orders of magnitude larger than a human

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Nov 2019 07:22:21 No.11111708 Report

Quoted By:

>>11111704
>size of the Milky Way is less than 15 orders of magnitude

I mixed up a light-second and a light-year so the Milky Way is a bit bigger but you get the point

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Nov 2019 08:33:57 No.11111757 Report

Quoted By:

>>11111208
>>11111111

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches