Mathematics Is Not A Fact

[Magnus Warhol]

That's.... crazy. I wonder why I haven't heard of this before. Is that a hypothesis or is it a theory?

Yes, it is theory in quantum physics. Thus, a subatomic particle traveling at the speedi of light actually travels 1.6x10(-35) meters every 1.0x10(-41) seconds in discrete jumps. This the fabric of our 4-dimension space-time. You and I could never see these discrete units but that is how space-time works in 4 dimensions.

 

[BlvdBrawler]

Yes, it is theory in quantum physics. Thus, a subatomic particle traveling at the speedi of light actually travels 1.6x10(-35) meters every 1.0x10(-41) seconds in discrete jumps. This the fabric of our 4-dimension space-time. You and I could never see these discrete units but that is how space-time works in 4 dimensions.

I could probably google this but I've got you here so imma pose this. That means there has to be a planck acceleration too right? And that these particles accelerate from a stop... to lightspeed... and back to motionless again, all within that 10e-41 second frame? that's.... fukking wild.

 

[Magnus Warhol]

so is infinite a fact?

infinite is a mathematically "tool" to help explain very complex mathematical equations that in turn is used to explain complex quantum physics and cosmology. it is not real. There is nothing, including the universe itself, that is infinite. However, the universe is limitless, meaning that we do not know how big it truly is.

 

[Yuzo Lightheart]

But if you ever want to discuss quantum mechanics and cosmology, I'm here for you.

^ planck units are based on other current theories about the universe. in other words its based on incomplete information. its the best explanation so far given current theories but the question was about the epistemological nature of math, which still is open ended. the reason it remains open ended is because it closes at the point where everything becomes known ie the end of science, which we're not at yet

 

[Magnus Warhol]

I could probably google this but I've got you here so imma pose this. That means there has to be a planck acceleration too right? And that these particles accelerate from a stop... to lightspeed... and back to motionless again, all within that 10e-41 second frame? that's.... fukking wild.

That is a good question. Give me a few moments to get you the answer...be back soon with the answer....

 

[BlvdBrawler]

^ planck units are based on other current theories about the universe. in other words its based on incomplete information. its the best explanation so far given current theories but the question was about the epistemological nature of math, which still is open ended. the reason it remains open ended is because it closes at the point where everything becomes known ie the end of science, which we're not at yet

Sounds more like a hypothesis than a theory to me.

 

[MMS]

Great thread and nice way of putting it. I've always had conversations with friends saying science and mathematics are just simply tools we humans have used to mold our understanding of the physical realm around us. Nobody knows exactly what an atom looks like...but the models we have developed thus far give us a pretty good understanding of how they work and let us manipulate them. Numbers aren't facts, just tools we use to be able to quantify the universe. Etc, etc. Calculus lets us model physical phenomena like waves and other functions.

slow your roll

Scanning electron microscope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

@BarNone we need more STEM majors :dro:

 

[Type Username Here]

it can explain a version of xeno's paradox but it still hasnt fully resolved the questions of infinity brought up by it

you can of course try to explain here how you think it can i'll be interested in hearing it

What questions exactly?

 

[Magnus Warhol]

^ planck units are based on other current theories about the universe. in other words its based on incomplete information. its the best explanation so far given current theories but the question was about the epistemological nature of math, which still is open ended. the reason it remains open ended is because it closes at the point where everything becomes known ie the end of science, which we're not at yet

Yes, i understand what you are saying. For example, we have a math rule that states that you cannot have 0 in the denominator. If you put 0 there, then our mathematical laws break down. Well, what if we 'create' a new math that allows us to place 0 in the denominator. The ultimate result would create a chain reaction of new rules that harmonize the laws of our new math. But this new math might explain a completely different view of the universe than the one that we are trying to explain now. So, reality is dependent by a set of math rules that we, as humans, implemented. This reality would be completely different with a different set of math laws. Seriously, I need a bong hit!

 

[Magnus Warhol]

I could probably google this but I've got you here so imma pose this. That means there has to be a planck acceleration too right? And that these particles accelerate from a stop... to lightspeed... and back to motionless again, all within that 10e-41 second frame? that's.... fukking wild.

I was checking if Light can accelerate from a slower speed to its maximum speed of 3.0×10(8) m/s. There is no Planck Acceleration. It is always a constant at that speed. Good question Brawler.

 

[BlvdBrawler]

In the strict sense, light does not accelerate. It always travels in a vacuum at 3.0×10(8) m/s. There is no Planck Acceleration. Good question Brawler.

But wouldn't that mean that it moves continuously and not discretely? Maybe light is the exception.

I guess, lets apply this to something larger like me. Does this theory mean that whenever I move, I'm decelerating and accelerating through these planck lengths when I'm walking?



Edit: Or maybe I'm thinking about this wrong? Maybe the planck length is just the smallest length that can be moved at any one time w/o splitting quarks. Doesn't necessarily mean the *movement* has to be discrete. Imma go with that.

Edit again:

 

[Yuzo Lightheart]

What questions exactly?

questions based on whether reality is continuous or discrete (tiles) this ultimately flows into a discussions about physical constants (planck lengths etc), which is rough territory. what i just mean is that its not quite fully resolved yet

 

[MMS]

its like this, the electron clouds around a nucleus were all thought to be moving constantly and continuously but in fact recent studies show their movement is discrete as if they were teleporting

and the recent idea is that they simply DO in fact exist in more than one plane

but thats research on the cutting edge, multiple universe shyt

i dont remember the professor's name but he ran an experiment with ytterbium(sp) where using lasers he was able to teleport "information" from one atom to another without them touching eachother

 

[Stone Cold]

dumbist shyt i have ever read and it is clear you do not understand the basic concepts of math they teach to preschoolers. And no you are not cleaver for including air as a factor which it would be if the jiberish you just wrote was a math problem.

first of all i think you need to take basic english courses before you even think about mathematical concepts

secondly you didn't even argue why what I said was the "dumbist" you ever read. you just posted a bunch of ad hominems that has nothing to do with anything

thirdly you never told me how 1+1=2 is observable in the real world

you obviously aren't able to think for yourself and the only reason you believe 1+1=2 is because someone told you so

no wonder you aren't capable of wrapping your mind around abstract mathematical concepts that have been around since ancient Egypt

 

[MMS]

first of all i think you need to take basic english courses before you even think about mathematical concepts

secondly you didn't even argue why what I said was the "dumbist" you ever read. you just posted a bunch of ad hominems that has nothing to do with anything

thirdly you never told me how 1+1=2 is observable in the real world

depends on how you look at it

if you had 1 L of water and 1 L of ethanol and attempted to mix them, it would not result in a 2 L solution

math and physics are simply a tool to "attempt" to explain and model the world around us but there will always be some things that they cant explain which is limited to our "own" mental limits(IE black holes, positron annihilation)