Go Back   Physics Help Forum > Physics Forums > Philosophy of Physics

Philosophy of Physics Philosophy of Physics Forum - Philosophical questions about our universe

Like Tree12Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 7th 2019, 06:26 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: cosmos
Posts: 195
Talking inward - number - outward

If you stand on the number "2", outward you will get 3,4,5,,,100,,,1000,,,10000,,,10000000000000000000. ...while inward you can get only "1". More unfortunely, if you stand the number "1", inward you will get only zero.
neila9876 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th 2019, 06:29 AM   #12
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 73
Originally Posted by neila9876 View Post
If you stand on the number "2", outward you will get 3,4,5,,,100,,,1000,,,10000,,,10000000000000000000. ...while inward you can get only "1". More unfortunely, if you stand the number "1", inward you will get only zero.

What if what we believe to be 2 turns out to be 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 add as many 0's as you like.

Simply for arguments sake.
fligmin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th 2019, 06:41 AM   #13
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 18
Originally Posted by neila9876 View Post
If you stand on the number "2", outward you will get 3,4,5,,,100,,,1000,,,10000,,,10000000000000000000. ...while inward you can get only "1". More unfortunely, if you stand the number "1", inward you will get only zero.
I suppose that numerically you would “inwardly” move to 0, -1, -2, etc.
Georgeo57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th 2019, 07:11 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: cosmos
Posts: 195
Talking

@fligmin:
It seems that not simply for arguement sake...electron, atom, molecule, planet, galaxy...yes, not so much 0's are needed...
@Georgeo:
Take it as absolute values, please.
Maybe this guy neila9876 have talked too much in this thread because it's interesting...
For fun sake...haha
neila9876 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th 2019, 08:27 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Woody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: England
Posts: 842
Part of the question in the original post was:
"why should there be a limit on the smallest possible distance?"

The plank length seems to provide a limiting length scale, below which we can not (even theoretically) discern anything.
But just because it can't be detected, does not (necessarily) mean it is not there.

However, on the other hand, having a smallest length imposed does avoid the conceptually uncomfortable issue of infinitely recursive infinities...
__________________
~\o/~
Woody is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th 2019, 10:13 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Somerset, England
Posts: 1,029
Originally Posted by Georgeo57 View Post
I don't think so, but maybe this depends on how you're using the term. For example, moving inward from an atom, we find electrons, protons and a nucleus, but it doesn't seem to make sense to describe them as fractals of the atom.

All I'm suggesting, and I'm of course not the only or first to do so, is that reason dictates that space is both infinitely large and infinitely small, and, more specifically, that there seems reasonably to be an infinite number of infinitely diminishing sub-universes.
But that does not make sense, nor does it satisfy your basic proposition.

Reason suggests that from each point of our universe, there would need to be smaller and smaller things, (which, perhaps, may not be "particles") and, at least in theory, this diminishment would proceed infinitely.
Fractals, however do more or less correspond to this proposition.

Moving inwards from an atom does not.
studiot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th 2019, 03:03 PM   #17
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 18
Originally Posted by Woody View Post
Part of the question in the original post was:
"why should there be a limit on the smallest possible distance?"

The plank length seems to provide a limiting length scale, below which we can not (even theoretically) discern anything.
But just because it can't be detected, does not (necessarily) mean it is not there.

However, on the other hand, having a smallest length imposed does avoid the conceptually uncomfortable issue of infinitely recursive infinities...
Having accepted Planck’s constant, I didn’t challenge why there should be a limit to the scale of physical events, or a smallest detectable distance, as you suggest.

It’s not really a matter of infinitely recursive infinities, since there's no loop. The point is that there doesn’t seem to be a reason why things shouldn’t perhaps get smaller and smaller onto infinity just like there doesn't seem to be a reason why the universe perhaps gets larger and larger onto infinity.

Conceptually uncomfortable? Totally, but no more so than the prospect that things just stop getting smaller at some point, or that the universe just stops getting larger at some point.
Georgeo57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th 2019, 03:09 PM   #18
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 18
Originally Posted by neila9876 View Post
@fligmin:
Take it as absolute values, please.
The idea of things getting smaller and smaller onto infinity is not just mathematical; it's also physical. Setting aside absolute values, (I'm not sure how they help here) in math we can subtract three from two and get one. We can't, however, subtract three apples from two and get a negative apple.
Georgeo57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th 2019, 03:17 PM   #19
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 18
Originally Posted by neila9876 View Post
Dear Georgeo:
What's "outward" and "inward" in cosmos?
Take black hole for example: the mass is big while the size is small. People mentioned that very very much. Even some material said that black hole is a sigularity...but I don't believe that...only cosmos can contract to a sigularity: mass to maximum while size to minimum...but it's another guy ****9876 who can tell you more....
Here we're dealing with size, without a need to bring in mass. Inward is simply moving smaller from any point, while outward is moving larger from any point.

Yeah, the idea of a singularity is as challenging as the inward and outward infinities.
Georgeo57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th 2019, 03:24 PM   #20
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 18
Originally Posted by studiot View Post
But that does not make sense, nor does it satisfy your basic proposition.



Fractals, however do more or less correspond to this proposition.

Moving inwards from an atom does not.
How does moving inwards from an atom not satisfy my proposition? We're exploring progressive smallness, and moving inwards seems indispensable to doing this.

It might help if you posted your definition of fractal, and directly related it to the proposition.
Georgeo57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Physics Help Forum > Physics Forums > Philosophy of Physics

Tags
diminishing, infinite, infinitely, number, subuniverses, universe



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Physics Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
particle (infinite 1-D well) mss90 Nuclear and Particle Physics 9 Nov 16th 2014 10:53 AM
Infinite Conductor within Infinite Conductor - Current Density between BloodBaneZXY Electricity and Magnetism 2 May 3rd 2010 01:12 AM
Electric Field between two infinitely long parallel planes dspaulding09 Electricity and Magnetism 0 Mar 1st 2010 03:56 PM
Infinite potential well jonbrutal Atomic and Solid State Physics 1 Feb 12th 2010 10:43 AM
Shifted infinite well synclastica_86 Quantum Physics 1 Oct 1st 2009 09:00 AM


Facebook Twitter Google+ RSS Feed