- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
21 Apr 13
Originally posted by KeplerOh...sorry! I'm not a mathematician, so I wasn't aware that the proper use of the term wasn't so clear cut afterall! 😕
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.
22 Apr 13
Originally posted by stellspalfiethe smallest thing on the site is 0.000000000001
have a look at this, the largest thing to the smallest thing and everything in between -
http://htwins.net/scale/
Now what if i got that and cut it in half, And so on and so on, Where does it end
22 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by tim88No 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.
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
22 Apr 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadI 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
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.
22 Apr 13
Originally posted by karoly aczelhow can something so easy be so hard
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.
22 Apr 13
Originally posted by tim88Again 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.
how can something so easy be so hard
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.
22 Apr 13
Originally posted by karoly aczelThe 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.
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.
22 Apr 13
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat experiments did you try when you tried to measure nothing?
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.
24 Apr 13
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.....
http://pyweb.swan.ac.uk/~pyarmoni/GKP.pdf
-m.
24 Apr 13
Originally posted by mikelomThen we get to ask, what are the strings made of?
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.....
http://pyweb.swan.ac.uk/~pyarmoni/GKP.pdf
-m.