Originally posted by Kepler Ssshhhh! Mathematicians often get their underwear in a turmoil over that word. That's why we have to trudge through all the epsilon-delta rubbish in mathematical analysis.
Oh...sorry! I'm not a mathematician, so I wasn't aware that the proper use of the term wasn't so clear cut afterall! 😕
Originally posted by tim88 how small is the smallest thing before it's nothing.
That is the question can anyone answer it.
is there a answer to this? it's been driving me crazy lately
No exact answer for your left brain to disect, but you can get a fair idea about the size of the smallest particles via quantum theory. After macro physics break down, you should realize that the underlying quantum flux of existence will never be an exact science, like the measuring of much larger objects were in the past as even the rulers edges gets the tiniest bit longer and shorter at the scale where questions like the one in the op cease to be relevant.
Originally posted by twhitehead Quarks are no less mysterious. If anything, the quantum mechanics of electrons and photons is very exact, whereas that of quarks is less so, mostly because the maths is easier for electrons and photons.
I can get that and it was the best answer i could come up with on my own But then what if i got that photon and cut it in half where did it all go lol
Originally posted by karoly aczel No exact answer for your left brain to disect, but you can get a fair idea about the size of the smallest particles via quantum theory. After macro physics break down, you should realize that the underlying quantum flux of existence will never be an exact science, like the measuring of much larger objects were in the past as even the rulers edges gets t ...[text shortened]... bit longer and shorter at the scale where questions like the one in the op cease to be relevant.
Originally posted by tim88 how can something so easy be so hard
Again questions like that become less relevant as we realize that even 'hard' and 'easy' are opposites, which apparently don't exist or are reconciled somehow in this quantum soup or whatever they're calling it now.
I reckon answers like this are going to be similar to the answers we come up with how the Earth and humans came into existence,etc.
The answers will be tricky rather than being easy or hard.
Needless to say I appreciate the gist of this post as it is spoken like a person who has given this matter some thought.
thnx for the thread.
Originally posted by karoly aczel Again questions like that become less relevant as we realize that even 'hard' and 'easy' are opposites, which apparently don't exist or are reconciled somehow in this quantum soup or whatever they're calling it now.
I reckon answers like this are going to be similar to the answers we come up with how the Earth and humans came into existence,etc.
...[text shortened]... it is spoken like a person who has given this matter some thought.
thnx for the thread.
The Earth and humans were spoken into existence. That was one of the easy ones. But how small the smallest thing is before it's nothing may depend on the definition given to nothing and our ability to measure it. That seems to be a difficult one, at least for this old fart.
Originally posted by RJHinds The Earth and humans were spoken into existence. That was one of the easy ones. But how small the smallest thing is before it's nothing may depend on the definition given to nothing and our ability to measure it. That seems to be a difficult one, at least for this old fart.
What experiments did you try when you tried to measure nothing?
I'm afraid you're all wrong, and quarks (proven in 1965, by no less than the likes of Murray Gell-Mann) have been proven to be made of super-strings, which are made of glueballs, of whom the spins are accurately measured as predicted.... The maths might be theoretical, as we don't have the current technology to measure them - but so was the maths of quarks in a similar light, until we could measure them.....
Originally posted by mikelom I'm afraid you're all wrong, and quarks (proven in 1965, by no less than the likes of Murray Gell-Mann) have been proven to be made of super-strings, which are made of glueballs, of whom the spins are accurately measured as predicted.... The maths might be theoretical, as we don't have the current technology to measure them - but so was the maths of quarks i ...[text shortened]... r light, until we could measure them.....
21 Apr '13 23:39
how small is the smallest thing before it's nothing
Back to Top