Can you answer this?(scientific question)

by sleepy 22 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  sleepy

  Here is and interesting question which touches on some points raised in other posts.
  Can things really move?
  If you haven't thought about it before it may seem like a stupid question, but i'll try to explain.
  One of the principles of quantum physics is that things do not get infinatly smaller.There is a granuality to objects so at some point things don't get any smaller.
  The same holds with energy if you take energy out of a system you can not go on forever .Eventually you hit absolute zero were every thing is still.
  In the other direction , the speed of light is an absolute limit.
  So what happens if you make smaller and smaller movements eventually you would stop.But what is the next smallest movement between being stopped and moving?
  If we put some figures on it it may make it easier.
  If to be stoped is 0 and the next possible amonut of movment is 1 you could not move say 1/2 as that is smaller than 1 and if you could keep dividing forever like this you would never reach absolute standstill.
  So like the particals in the universe movment has to be granular as well.Made up of definate jumps though very tiny.
  If this is the case then there is a problem how does one object , if we imagine the smallest to be a quark jump from one place to another is it technicaly the same object or a new one ?
  If this is true it raises so very interesting questions as to the nature of things the stucture of the universe and time itself.
  So when we move are all our parts really moving or are they jumping from one place to another?

  Sorry if I havent explained it very well I've tried my best.
• 

  BATHORY

  Onya sleepy !!

  From reading your post one can tell that you have been consulting textbooks / data / info that is at least 15 years old and out dated mate.

  You say that 1 of the principals of quantum mechanics is that things DO NOT get infinately smaller..., did i miss something...this is the antithesis of quantum theory, let me explain with a concept rather that talk out of my arse..

  if you accept the principal that e=mc2, in other words energy is ANOTHER form of matter ( protons, quarks etc ) could you not substitute an infinitely small number for e in the equation to receive an infinetly small number for m ???

  Sleepy do you agree that ( generally...non drug induced ) we live in 4 dimensions ??? Do you agree that 11 dimensions have been theorised by scientists to date ?? Do you know them ?? Im not getting up ya here i think you have asked an intellegent question worthy of further discussion and to do so im offering only an antagonistic type argument with a view to a progressive elucidatory process.

  Personally my intuition tells me that infinity works both ways.

  BTW absolue zero and the speed of light in a vacuum do appear to be universal constants, but only in the dimension we live in !
• 

  sleepy

  Perhaps I am mistaken but is not quatum theory the idea that energy and things come in packets.They are granular in nature.
  According to what I have read quatuam machanics is used to get round the problem of infinities by breaking thinks up into particles including energy
• 

  sleepy

  Ihave got a few books on quatum mechanics which are up to date maybe I have missunderstood.
  Anyway my dictionary says;"QUANTUM 1.Physics, a minimum amount of a physical quantity(such as energy)which can exist in a given situation."2...A theroy of physics based on the assumption that energy exists in indivisable units."
• 

  Zep

  ...maybe I have missunderstood.

  You wouldn't be the first Sleepy.

  Quantum Physics is a headache!
• 

  ballistic

  An analogy could be the difference between an analogue and digital recording. When you listen to a digital recording, your ear hears a constant stream of sound, however it is granular, made up of distinct increments of 1s and 0s. You cannot play half an increment; it doesnt exist. With the analogue recording, you can play half an increment because it is made up of a long stream of seemingly infinate resolution. This doesnt mean I believe your brand of science, but I hope this answers your question.
• 

  sleepy

  Sorry Balistic thats not quite right.
  Although Digital is a good example of granuality at a higher level so are analoge recordings.
  The variations in a grove of a record are made up ultimatly of atoms.
  The smallest modulation of a record grove is the same size as the smallest atom so it is granular also, just on a smaller level.
  There is no such thing a half the smallest increment as it would not then be the smallest.

  If you think of it this way if say the smallest know particle was like a ball which was still what is the smallest amount it can move and not be stationary?You can not then divide that amount otherwise it is not the smallest movement.So the object must transfer from one point to the other without being ever inbetween.
  Of course in the quatum world things are not like balls but they do occupy points in space when measured and do travel to other points.
  It seems to me that if the object themselves are granular then so is its motion.
• 

  ballistic

  sleepy, I did say "seemingly" infinate, it was just an analogy.
• 

  lauralisa

  Hi Sleepy,

  You need some female physicists to jump in here.

  of course, in the quantum world, things are not like balls

  It is my impression after 44 years of life that all things are like balls, not only in the quantum world but every other kind of world. In fact balls are the center of the universe. I think there is a book about this somewhere out there. Maybe at the special UN library.

  Happy Saturday, and say hi to your bros sneezy, doc, crusty, etc.
  (just having fun WITH you here, Sleepy )

  There is a dialectical relationship between apathy and violence. - Rollo May
• 

  sleepy

  Sorry Bally,

  Didn't mean to be critical.
  An analogy is used to illustriate a point, if it doesn't fit it doesn't work.