iMAGiNE iNFiNiTY

By mugen shiyo · Nov 7, 2011 · 546 · 4
  1. iMAGiNE...

    If I take a number and cut it in half, I will always get two equal halves. And for each half, should I cut that in half, I will always have two equal halves. And there is no end to this. Thus numbers have no end forward or back.

    Then iMAGiNE space. If you cut a given portion of space, not matter, in half, it represents a numerical quantity of space. Cutting it in half will give you two equal halves. A cubic meter of space will give you two equal cubic half meters. And you can cut the pieces of the pieces for as long as you want, attempting to get to the end. But you will not. Because as fractions are infinite, so is space. Space, which can extend infinitely outward and infinitely inward.

    So when zooming in on a given area, a point to us the size of a pinpoint may be the size of a universe to a particle so, so much smaller than we. And for that severely small particle, it would appear as a universe without end to a particle so much smaller than it.

    I was wondering if how we always take the limit of our knowledge as the law. Such as nothing cannot go past the speed of light. If a thing can go ten miles an hour, why not eleven. If a trillion, why not a trillion and one. Surely there must be particles smaller that quarks and bosons. We simply don't have the means to measure them yet. Our resolution has not reached that level- technically or mentally.

    Infinity is still one of the great undiscovered countries around us. Like in the old days when there was mystery beyond the borders of our known experience. It seems to say something important about who we are and what everything around us is. That we can understand as much as we want, but we will always strive to understand everything because there is no end to everything. Like an onion with an infinite number of layers, we try to find a core truth to the universe, but we keep finding more and more layers.

Comments

Sort Comments:

Sort Comments By

  1. Thanshin
    Nope. There's one detail you're not taking into account.

    If you "zoom in" into your tiny fraction of a cubic meter of space, space may look the same, but physics don't.

    There are constants that stay constant. Some of those constants can represent a distance. Every time you zoom in one of your halves, those constant are doubled, and your universe works in a different way.

    i.e.: Once you go small enough, the universe starts behaving in trully unintuitive ways. You may imagine a space smaller than that, but that's because your imagination has no limit, not because space itself doesn't have one. You may imagine a particle smaller than a quark, but at those sizes the very concept of particle may be incompatible with reality.

    I blame Planck
    Thanshin, Nov 8, 2011
  2. mugen shiyo
    Reality...as reality is or as you know it to be? If we take all that human beings know and lay it over the background of all that there is to know, who knows what the difference would be. Perhaps we know almost everything and perhaps we haven't even scratched the surface yet. So just because a particle smaller than the smallest particle seems impossible, it doesn't mean that it is. But i guess the three choices are impossible, improbable, and/or unprovable.

    Yeah, I've heard about the crazy stuff that happens between macro and micro physics. I'm almost inclined to believe that it is the theories that attempt to explain the two things that are in some way wrong. It reminds me of when I had algebra and when the answer didn't come out the way it was supposed to, I swore the book made a mistake somewhere. Of course, it was me. Science could be the same way. They make assumptions on the nature of physics and when their math doesn't add up, they blame nature.
    mugen shiyo, Nov 9, 2011
  3. Thanshin
    There is no difference for me. I can either believe the results of decades of investigation, or disbelieve them. I'll keep expecting the sun to come out on the correct side of the Earth. Maybe some day it won't, but what would I have achieved by disbelieving it would every single day?


    The problem is that for that smaller particle to exist, the entire basis of several branches of physics should have been finding the correct results based on false theories for a century.

    The entire modern electronic technology lays on the assumption that the Planck constant, for example, is correct. It might be false, but the possibility is infinitesimally small. All our phones, tvs, satellites, computers, etc might have been working for decades by pure change, but it's higly improbable.

    Impossible is false by definition (Physics rests on unprovable axioms).
    Improbable is everything else.
    Unprovable is disregarded as magic (except in the case of string theory, where the search is precisely for a way to prove it)

    No. There is the one little detail you're not taking into account. Those that you see as "arbitrary decisions" about tiny things, are the base over which electronics, computers and everything that defines modern technology depends.

    They weren't sure when they said it the first time. Decades later, physics are pretty damn sure about quite a lot of those assumptions.
    Thanshin, Nov 11, 2011
  4. mugen shiyo
    This is, obviously, an ultra-late post but perhaps you are still around to read it. My assumptions are basically that. Not proof or reference by any means. I understand that there are enduring constants in our science. I don't say they are false, I'm just wondering about they whole thing in general. Something doesn't make sense. Something doesn't add up. It is possible for an arrow to be aimed directly at the center, and .00001 degrees from the center and still hit the bullseye. One is perfect, one is almost perfect, but very small distinction is beyond merit. That is to say, we cna build a civilization on a lie if the lie is not too big. Not saying that any of the constants or research found is a lie, just saying that it is a possibility and may be the reason for various inconsistencies in our understanding of things.

    Basically, my thoughts are opinions. But thanks alot for the reply. It never to read-up on things...which I have in the time since I wrote this.
    mugen shiyo, Sep 15, 2012
To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Accept Learn More...
    Dismiss Notice