# The minimum REAL step Created 9 years ago2013-05-09 16:10:37 UTC by Striker

Created 9 years ago2013-05-09 16:10:37 UTC by

Posted 9 years ago2013-05-09 16:10:37 UTC Post #313452
We were all taught that when talking about a real number, there is no natural next number that follows after it, because an infinite number of real numbers can still be found in between them.

That is not the case of natural numbers, where the increment or decrement is always 1. This is very useful in programming, as it is the basis of loops.

But mathematics is an imaginary tool created by our minds in the attempt to explain natural phenomenons. Sure, we can pretend that the set of real numbers have an infinite amount of steps between numbers, but is that true in the real world?

Physicists struggled to measure the Universe from its epic dimensions down to ridiculously small scales.
The smallest scale which is thought to exist is the Planck length.

1 Planck length = 1.61619926 Γ 10^(-35) meters

What if the "REAL" step when talking about numbers is the planck length?
StrikerI forgot to check the oil pressure
Posted 9 years ago2013-05-09 18:53:21 UTC Post #313453
You're mixing logical calculations with real life physics.

Of course in real world, everything has a limit. Even heat can go up so high that no more is possible.
Math is logic, math is something that defines things in the most logical way.
Its what helps us understand and what helps us create.

Just as a computer system is absolute to 0 and 1, but in its core its various voltages that are defined by a limit of how much indicates 1 and how much indicates 0.

We take complex and make it simple.
Stojkeunreal
Posted 9 years ago2013-05-10 01:38:12 UTC Post #313455
Edit: I misunderstood.

You're essentially suggesting that something akin to Hammer units exists in the real world, yes?

AFAIK, the reason nothing can be physically less than a planck unit is because a "planck" is the limit of some mathematical function that explains one very important aspect of the physical universe. Mathematically speaking, nothing could physically exist beyond that point because the function simply can't calculate any further.
So we can theoretically say that something is a "half-planck" in length, but the conditions for such an object couldn't exist under our understanding of physics--thus we say such an object couldn't actually exist.

I'm no physicist, and this is probably wrong.

Edit edit: Here's some food for thought, though: modern physics suggest that many things in the physical universe--matter, light, radio waves, dark matter, etc.--is comprised of the same type of energy. The only thing that makes them different is density of energy. Matter is supposedly the most dense form of energy.
Antimatter is one form of a second type of energy that seeks out matter like a magnet. When the two meet, they both dissipate.

More food for thought:
A neutron star is a dead star comprised of only neutrons. The neutrons stick together like a sphere made of marbles, so a neutron star is literally as dense as matter can physically be.

BUT in the deaths of super-massive stars, the force of gravity actually overcomes the dense cluster of neutrons, and the neutron star collapses on itself--like a chair that collapses under the weight of a fat guy. And since there's nothing left to "break the fall" after these neutrons are crushed, the neutron star keeps collapsing until it has zero volume. A black hole.
Posted 9 years ago2013-05-10 03:28:03 UTC Post #313456
RimrookπΊπ¦βπΊπ¦
Posted 9 years ago2013-05-10 05:01:12 UTC Post #313457
How the hell have I never seen that site. That's awesome.
Posted 9 years ago2013-06-24 10:45:28 UTC Post #314018
Black holes are, perhaps, improperly described as giant. Since they're basically just a point in space, it is the sheer gravitational force that these points can exert on outer objects. This force is the out-of-proportions thing that is huge. (think about the relation of size-to-gravitational influence: how extraordinarily large is a star, yet it is weaker than that theoretical point)

Soup Miner, are you suggesting that the black hole point is the most dense thing in the Universe? Or it is something totally different from neutron stars?
Posted 9 years ago2013-06-24 11:00:30 UTC Post #314019
I think about that sometimes. Haven't read a lot on the subject, but I imagine all those particles still exist, yet they are incredibly compressed. It's impossible that they don't exist, since all that mass is still there( otherwise I imagine that transforming all that mass-to-energy like in E=MC^2 would blow up several galaxies). Hah, if you think about it, probably black holes exist to prevent the Universe from blowing up! It's a sort of astronomical garbage-collection.

But something new comes to my mind: what if black holes are actually a massive version of a sub-atomic particle? Since all those particles collapse in a point, maybe they don't coexist, because they "don't have the space". So the big particles are broken in elementary particles, until, at some point, just those basic energy vibrations remain, which unite into a single, dense ball of energy. I read somewhere that if you'd take all of the space from within the atoms, a cruiser would fit in a space less than the tip of a needle. Maybe that's what's happening with black holes :.
StrikerI forgot to check the oil pressure
Posted 9 years ago2013-06-25 03:29:03 UTC Post #314023
The entire universe could be a single particle of something bigger. Or our smallest particles could house something relatively similar.

Given the seemingly arbitrary rules of the universe, it seems entirely and unproveably plausible.
Posted 9 years ago2013-06-25 05:48:59 UTC Post #314024
Light speed is a constant, so if our world were a speck in another world, they would have a very hard time seeing things in real time. In fact they would be breaking the e=mc^2 law just by moving around, surpassing light speed with a huge mass.
Posted 9 years ago2013-06-25 07:18:43 UTC Post #314025
going faster than the speed of light doesn't break e=mc2. It doesn't apply to things already traveling at or faster than the speed of light.

e=mc2 isn't a law either, its a theory.
Posted 9 years ago2013-06-25 07:19:49 UTC Post #314026
Is there anything to suggest the rules and boundaries we've established here in our universe are the same outside of it?
JessieTrans Rights <3
Posted 9 years ago2013-06-25 12:54:06 UTC Post #314027
Don Punch: Please stop spreading that ridiculous concept. The scientific definition of Theory is very different to the word you're thinking of. Wikipedia puts it very well:
Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unsubstantiated or speculative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
PenguinboyHaha, I died again!
Posted 9 years ago2013-06-25 12:54:34 UTC Post #314028
This all makes me think of the Galaxy around the cat's (Orion) neck from Men in Black.
Tetsu0Positive Chaos
Posted 9 years ago2013-06-25 14:43:59 UTC Post #314029
Haha, ok, i'll stop spreading the ridiculous concept of the 'special theory of relativity'
Posted 9 years ago2013-06-26 03:38:35 UTC Post #314032
Not sure what you're talking about Don, feel free to enlighten me but Einstein's math creates a singularity when objects of mass reach the speed of light, having infinite energy/mass.
Posted 9 years ago2013-06-26 05:02:23 UTC Post #314033
You are correct.

For an object to accelerate to the speed of light, it would exponentially have to increase in mass (fuel) to reach that speed, which would increase its needs for more fuel, and so on and so on. That is why with our current understanding of things, to jump to the speed of light is impossible.

However, this does not account for things already traveling at the speed of light. A theory some physicists are exploring is that of tachyonic particles (no, its not just something star trek made up). They are bound to the same rules though, saying they could never go slower than the speed of light, due to energy conservation and having a negative mass.

Keep in mind, this is all theoretical physics, so take it with a grain of salt.
Posted 9 years ago2013-06-26 05:33:56 UTC Post #314034
I meant the concept of dismissing something scientific because "it's only a theory". However I noticed that you were correcting somebody else, so never mind.
PenguinboyHaha, I died again!
Posted 9 years ago2013-06-26 12:40:51 UTC Post #314039
nuthen like backing up an argument with a well placed Wikipedia quote!
Posted 9 years ago2013-06-26 19:19:23 UTC Post #314042
For an object to accelerate to the speed of light, it would exponentially have to increase in mass (fuel) to reach that speed, which would increase its needs for more fuel, and so on and so on. That is why with our current understanding of things, to jump to the speed of light is impossible.

However, this does not account for things already traveling at the speed of light
From this statement I understand objects already being at the speed of light can travel faster than this. Let's take photons. We know that since they are in motion, they have mass, so they are affected by gravity.
Voyager 2 has been accelerated into deep space by a gravity swing. What stops light from doing the same thing?
What happens with a photon inside a black hole?
StrikerI forgot to check the oil pressure
Posted 9 years ago2013-06-27 01:35:14 UTC Post #314044
Photons area believed to not have any rest mass, and as for the second part, I have no idea :rly:
Posted 9 years ago2013-06-27 09:36:14 UTC Post #314049
Photons area believed to not have any rest mass
That has nothing to do with what I said :).
StrikerI forgot to check the oil pressure
Posted 9 years ago2013-06-27 19:44:22 UTC Post #314061
Let's take photons. We know that since they are in motion, they have mass
Perhaps I don't understand the Q then
You must be logged in to post a response.