Chris and Brent,
On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 1:42:43 AM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Roger: It seems to me, too, that there are problems with zero dimensions,
> or point particles. I've never understood why physicists don't question
> the idea of a zero-dimensional point particle. Oh well.
>
> Of course they've questioned. That's how they came up with string theory.
>
> Which is an elegant aspect of String Theory, I think. The infinitely
> small zero-dimensional point is an assumption IMO (nothing in reality
> indicates any actual necessary for its existence), and it is an abstraction
> that causes all kinds of problems for physicists.
>
> Even at the abstract level of meta-information: the finer the definition
> of a point (or any measured property in general) the bigger the definition
> must become, in order to hold the extra information required with each
> scale down into finer and finer grain sizes.
>
> Roger: I stand corrected. That is a good point for string theory and, I'm
> guessing, other similar theories, like loop quantum gravity, etc. Thanks
> Brent and Chris. In a related point and building on what Chris is
> saying, it seems like a lot of physicists are still grappling with
> infinities. This seems to me to be sort of related to the idea of zero
> size points. If I understood what Chris was saying, as you get closer and
> closer to infinitely small or infinitely large amounts, you need more
> information to describe that thing. It seems like it might be easier if we
> could have step functions where in our universe, there's only finite sized
> things (can't get to infinitely small or infinitely big. There's a
> smallest size; such as the Planck scale), and you have to take a step up
> or down in POV to see infinitely small or big things. What I'm thinking is
> that if you could consider our universe as an infinite set of Planck size
> chunks, and then view this set from the POV (good acronym from Chris!) of
> an infinite observer outside the set, this observer would not be able to
> see the boundaries/surfaces of these chunks (they'd be infinitesimally
> small from his POV), so it would look like a smooth, continuous space.
> That is, the way you perceive a thing as either being infinitesimally small
> or a finite size or infinitely big depends on your point of view, your
> perspective, of that thing. I wonder if they could use this type of thing
> in working on combining quantum mechanics and relativity? I've put some of
> this infinite set stuff at my website and over at fqxi.org in their essay
> contests, and it actually seemed to get a modest amount of positive
> feedback. But, a lot of ignoring it as well! :-)
>
By the way, I live in Columbus, OH, and OSU just won the national
football championship. Plus, the Big Ten did well in their bowl games this
year! I couldn't help it. I just had to say congrats to OSU and the rest
of the Big Ten! I know this is unrelated.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
