Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #706028 > unrolled thread

How can anything be infinitely small?

Started byalal65536@gmail.com
First post2018-10-03 13:53 -0700
Last post2018-10-05 16:48 -0400
Articles 20 on this page of 39 — 12 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  How can anything be infinitely small? alal65536@gmail.com - 2018-10-03 13:53 -0700
    Re: How can anything be infinitely small? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 10:31 -0700
      Re: How can anything be infinitely small? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-04 12:50 -0500
        Re: How can anything be infinitely small? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-10-04 14:13 -0700
          Re: How can anything be infinitely small? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-04 14:52 -0700
            Re: How can anything be infinitely small? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-10-04 16:24 -0700
              Re: How can anything be infinitely small? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-04 20:53 -0500
                Re: How can anything be infinitely small? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-04 21:35 -0700
              Re: How can anything be infinitely small? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-04 21:42 -0700
        Re: How can anything be infinitely small? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 18:44 -0700
          Re: How can anything be infinitely small? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-05 21:32 -0700
            Re: How can anything be infinitely small? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-05 22:50 -0700
              Re: How can anything be infinitely small? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-05 23:14 -0700
      Re: How can anything be infinitely small? poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 20:37 -0700
      Re: How can anything be infinitely small? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 12:43 -0700
    Re: How can anything be infinitely small? Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-10-05 12:14 +1000
      Re: How can anything be infinitely small? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 09:05 -0700
        Re: How can anything be infinitely small? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 17:00 -0400
          Re: How can anything be infinitely small? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 07:37 -0700
            Re: How can anything be infinitely small? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 11:57 -0400
    Re:How can anything be infinitely small? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-10-05 08:39 +0200
      Re:How can anything be infinitely small? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 07:01 -0700
        Re:How can anything be infinitely small? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-10-05 16:39 +0200
          Re:How can anything be infinitely small? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 07:52 -0700
            Re:How can anything be infinitely small? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-10-05 17:02 +0200
              Re: How can anything be infinitely small? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 11:22 -0400
                Re: How can anything be infinitely small? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-10-05 18:41 +0200
                  Re: How can anything be infinitely small? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 17:11 -0400
          Re: How can anything be infinitely small? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 11:16 -0400
            Re: How can anything be infinitely small? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 09:12 -0700
            Re: How can anything be infinitely small? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-10-05 18:43 +0200
              Re: How can anything be infinitely small? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 17:14 -0400
          Re: How can anything be infinitely small? poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-10-05 23:20 -0700
            Re: How can anything be infinitely small? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 13:05 -0700
              Re: How can anything be infinitely small? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-10 20:13 -0700
                Re: How can anything be infinitely small? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-10 20:14 -0700
                  Re: How can anything be infinitely small? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 23:53 -0400
    Re: How can anything be infinitely small? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 08:59 -0700
      Re: How can anything be infinitely small? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 16:48 -0400

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#706028 — How can anything be infinitely small?

Fromalal65536@gmail.com
Date2018-10-03 13:53 -0700
SubjectHow can anything be infinitely small?
Message-ID<8a23d180-ed34-4274-ab04-7beb8cc57197@googlegroups.com>
I was watching a quality documentary on the Big Bang.  Somebody mentioned that the universe was infinitely small.  Can anything be smaller than Planck length?  I also don’t like the use of the word, infinity, used to describe something real.  While there may be infinities or infinitesimals in theory, I do not think anything real can be as such in practise.

Abhinav Lal 
Writer & Investor 

“Imagination is more important than knowledge”
- Albert Einstein

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#706137

Frommitchrae3323@gmail.com
Date2018-10-04 10:31 -0700
Message-ID<431c798f-ada9-480e-8f51-435eda3ccfda@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#706028
On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 1:53:31 PM UTC-7, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> I was watching a quality documentary on the Big Bang.  Somebody mentioned that the universe was infinitely small.  Can anything be smaller than Planck length?  I also don’t like the use of the word, infinity, used to describe something real.  While there may be infinities or infinitesimals in theory, I do not think anything real can be as such in practise.
> 
> Abhinav Lal 
> Writer & Investor 
> 
> “Imagination is more important than knowledge”
> - Albert Einstein

It makes continuity... sizes of infinity of the
infinitely small.
Particles are quantized at the infinitely small...
Spatial temporal points are as well.

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#706139

FromSergio <invalid@invalid.com>
Date2018-10-04 12:50 -0500
Message-ID<pp5jso$85r$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#706137
On 10/4/2018 12:31 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 1:53:31 PM UTC-7, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I was watching a quality documentary on the Big Bang.  Somebody mentioned that the universe was infinitely small.  Can anything be smaller than Planck length?  I also don’t like the use of the word, infinity, used to describe something real.  While there may be infinities or infinitesimals in theory, I do not think anything real can be as such in practise.
>>
>> Abhinav Lal 
>> Writer & Investor 
>>
>> “Imagination is more important than knowledge”
>> - Albert Einstein
> 
> It makes continuity... sizes of infinity of the
> infinitely small.
> Particles are quantized at the infinitely small...
> Spatial temporal points are as well.
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch
> 


infinitely small means it is smaller than whatever you can come up with,
it is smaller than that.

Unless it is nothing, at least that is something.

If you had a ton of infinitely small particles, how could you weigh it ?

how would you know where they are ?  there are no tags on them.


   if you could not find it, would it matter ? or is that what is expected ?

SO, you are talking about a bunch of nothing.

best not to watch documentaries on science as most are produced by
non-scientists and know nothing about science or math.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#706153

FromDouble-A <double-a3@hush.com>
Date2018-10-04 14:13 -0700
Message-ID<966e02a8-43c3-4e55-bdb0-ba34deded72b@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#706139
On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 10:50:21 AM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
> On 10/4/2018 12:31 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 1:53:31 PM UTC-7, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> I was watching a quality documentary on the Big Bang.  Somebody mentioned that the universe was infinitely small.  Can anything be smaller than Planck length?  I also don’t like the use of the word, infinity, used to describe something real.  While there may be infinities or infinitesimals in theory, I do not think anything real can be as such in practise.
> >>
> >> Abhinav Lal 
> >> Writer & Investor 
> >>
> >> “Imagination is more important than knowledge”
> >> - Albert Einstein
> > 
> > It makes continuity... sizes of infinity of the
> > infinitely small.
> > Particles are quantized at the infinitely small...
> > Spatial temporal points are as well.
> > 
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> > 
> 
> 
> infinitely small means it is smaller than whatever you can come up with,
> it is smaller than that.
> 
> Unless it is nothing, at least that is something.
> 
> If you had a ton of infinitely small particles, how could you weigh it ?
> 
> how would you know where they are ?  there are no tags on them.
> 
> 
>    if you could not find it, would it matter ? or is that what is expected ?
> 
> SO, you are talking about a bunch of nothing.
> 
> best not to watch documentaries on science as most are produced by
> non-scientists and know nothing about science or math.


But the sure do know how to make things sound dramatic!

Double-A

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#706155

From"Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid>
Date2018-10-04 14:52 -0700
Message-ID<pp622h$14n$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#706153
On 10/4/2018 2:13 PM, Double-A wrote:
> On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 10:50:21 AM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
>> On 10/4/2018 12:31 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 1:53:31 PM UTC-7, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> I was watching a quality documentary on the Big Bang.  Somebody mentioned that the universe was infinitely small.  Can anything be smaller than Planck length?  I also don’t like the use of the word, infinity, used to describe something real.  While there may be infinities or infinitesimals in theory, I do not think anything real can be as such in practise.
>>>>
>>>> Abhinav Lal
>>>> Writer & Investor
>>>>
>>>> “Imagination is more important than knowledge”
>>>> - Albert Einstein
>>>
>>> It makes continuity... sizes of infinity of the
>>> infinitely small.
>>> Particles are quantized at the infinitely small...
>>> Spatial temporal points are as well.
>>>
>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>>
>>
>>
>> infinitely small means it is smaller than whatever you can come up with,
>> it is smaller than that.
>>
>> Unless it is nothing, at least that is something.
>>
>> If you had a ton of infinitely small particles, how could you weigh it ?
>>
>> how would you know where they are ?  there are no tags on them.
>>
>>
>>     if you could not find it, would it matter ? or is that what is expected ?
>>
>> SO, you are talking about a bunch of nothing.
>>
>> best not to watch documentaries on science as most are produced by
>> non-scientists and know nothing about science or math.
> 
> 
> But the sure do know how to make things sound dramatic!

Just a thought experiment in a land far, far away. ;^)

Think of an entity A and object B that exist forever.
______________________________
0: A is always observing B.

1: B gets _physically_ smaller, say by 1/2.

2: A zooms in on B until it is just as _visually_ large as it was before.

3: Goto step 1.
______________________________

B can get infinitely small, however as A keeps zooming in, B will 
continually be _visually_ just as big as it was when we started in step 0.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#706162

FromDouble-A <double-a3@hush.com>
Date2018-10-04 16:24 -0700
Message-ID<a1f8373c-5675-4432-bcd1-977403e9e1cc@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#706155
On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 2:52:20 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 10/4/2018 2:13 PM, Double-A wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 10:50:21 AM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
> >> On 10/4/2018 12:31 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 1:53:31 PM UTC-7, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> I was watching a quality documentary on the Big Bang.  Somebody mentioned that the universe was infinitely small.  Can anything be smaller than Planck length?  I also don’t like the use of the word, infinity, used to describe something real.  While there may be infinities or infinitesimals in theory, I do not think anything real can be as such in practise.
> >>>>
> >>>> Abhinav Lal
> >>>> Writer & Investor
> >>>>
> >>>> “Imagination is more important than knowledge”
> >>>> - Albert Einstein
> >>>
> >>> It makes continuity... sizes of infinity of the
> >>> infinitely small.
> >>> Particles are quantized at the infinitely small...
> >>> Spatial temporal points are as well.
> >>>
> >>> Mitchell Raemsch
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> infinitely small means it is smaller than whatever you can come up with,
> >> it is smaller than that.
> >>
> >> Unless it is nothing, at least that is something.
> >>
> >> If you had a ton of infinitely small particles, how could you weigh it ?
> >>
> >> how would you know where they are ?  there are no tags on them.
> >>
> >>
> >>     if you could not find it, would it matter ? or is that what is expected ?
> >>
> >> SO, you are talking about a bunch of nothing.
> >>
> >> best not to watch documentaries on science as most are produced by
> >> non-scientists and know nothing about science or math.
> > 
> > 
> > But the sure do know how to make things sound dramatic!
> 
> Just a thought experiment in a land far, far away. ;^)
> 
> Think of an entity A and object B that exist forever.
> ______________________________
> 0: A is always observing B.
> 
> 1: B gets _physically_ smaller, say by 1/2.
> 
> 2: A zooms in on B until it is just as _visually_ large as it was before.
> 
> 3: Goto step 1.
> ______________________________
> 
> B can get infinitely small, however as A keeps zooming in, B will 
> continually be _visually_ just as big as it was when we started in step 0.


Your point is?

Double-A

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#706175

FromSergio <invalid@invalid.com>
Date2018-10-04 20:53 -0500
Message-ID<pp6g76$1mtt$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#706162
On 10/4/2018 6:24 PM, Double-A wrote:
> On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 2:52:20 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 10/4/2018 2:13 PM, Double-A wrote:
>>> On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 10:50:21 AM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
>>>> On 10/4/2018 12:31 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 1:53:31 PM UTC-7, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> I was watching a quality documentary on the Big Bang.  Somebody mentioned that the universe was infinitely small.  Can anything be smaller than Planck length?  I also don’t like the use of the word, infinity, used to describe something real.  While there may be infinities or infinitesimals in theory, I do not think anything real can be as such in practise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Abhinav Lal
>>>>>> Writer & Investor
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “Imagination is more important than knowledge”
>>>>>> - Albert Einstein
>>>>>
>>>>> It makes continuity... sizes of infinity of the
>>>>> infinitely small.
>>>>> Particles are quantized at the infinitely small...
>>>>> Spatial temporal points are as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> infinitely small means it is smaller than whatever you can come up with,
>>>> it is smaller than that.
>>>>
>>>> Unless it is nothing, at least that is something.
>>>>
>>>> If you had a ton of infinitely small particles, how could you weigh it ?
>>>>
>>>> how would you know where they are ?  there are no tags on them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     if you could not find it, would it matter ? or is that what is expected ?
>>>>
>>>> SO, you are talking about a bunch of nothing.
>>>>
>>>> best not to watch documentaries on science as most are produced by
>>>> non-scientists and know nothing about science or math.
>>>
>>>
>>> But the sure do know how to make things sound dramatic!
>>
>> Just a thought experiment in a land far, far away. ;^)
>>
>> Think of an entity A and object B that exist forever.
>> ______________________________
>> 0: A is always observing B.
>>
>> 1: B gets _physically_ smaller, say by 1/2.
>>
>> 2: A zooms in on B until it is just as _visually_ large as it was before.
>>
>> 3: Goto step 1.
>> ______________________________
>>
>> B can get infinitely small, however as A keeps zooming in, B will 
>> continually be _visually_ just as big as it was when we started in step 0.
> 
> 
> Your point is?
> 
> Double-A
> 

his point is very very small.

actually "vision" degrades with smallness, microscope is about 1000x
magnification, electron microscope 1,000,000, then special ways like
mapping charge,  then thermal noise dominates as atoms move around.
a long way from infinity small, in fact an infinity

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#706192

From"Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid>
Date2018-10-04 21:35 -0700
Message-ID<pp6plq$akb$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#706175
On 10/4/2018 6:53 PM, Sergio wrote:
> On 10/4/2018 6:24 PM, Double-A wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 2:52:20 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> On 10/4/2018 2:13 PM, Double-A wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 10:50:21 AM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
>>>>> On 10/4/2018 12:31 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 1:53:31 PM UTC-7, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> I was watching a quality documentary on the Big Bang.  Somebody mentioned that the universe was infinitely small.  Can anything be smaller than Planck length?  I also don’t like the use of the word, infinity, used to describe something real.  While there may be infinities or infinitesimals in theory, I do not think anything real can be as such in practise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Abhinav Lal
>>>>>>> Writer & Investor
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> “Imagination is more important than knowledge”
>>>>>>> - Albert Einstein
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It makes continuity... sizes of infinity of the
>>>>>> infinitely small.
>>>>>> Particles are quantized at the infinitely small...
>>>>>> Spatial temporal points are as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> infinitely small means it is smaller than whatever you can come up with,
>>>>> it is smaller than that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless it is nothing, at least that is something.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you had a ton of infinitely small particles, how could you weigh it ?
>>>>>
>>>>> how would you know where they are ?  there are no tags on them.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>      if you could not find it, would it matter ? or is that what is expected ?
>>>>>
>>>>> SO, you are talking about a bunch of nothing.
>>>>>
>>>>> best not to watch documentaries on science as most are produced by
>>>>> non-scientists and know nothing about science or math.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But the sure do know how to make things sound dramatic!
>>>
>>> Just a thought experiment in a land far, far away. ;^)
>>>
>>> Think of an entity A and object B that exist forever.
>>> ______________________________
>>> 0: A is always observing B.
>>>
>>> 1: B gets _physically_ smaller, say by 1/2.
>>>
>>> 2: A zooms in on B until it is just as _visually_ large as it was before.
>>>
>>> 3: Goto step 1.
>>> ______________________________
>>>
>>> B can get infinitely small, however as A keeps zooming in, B will
>>> continually be _visually_ just as big as it was when we started in step 0.
>>
>>
>> Your point is?
>>
>> Double-A
>>
> 
> his point is very very small.

Actually, it only works in fantasy land. One would need a microscope 
with an infinite zoom.

> 
> actually "vision" degrades with smallness, microscope is about 1000x
> magnification, electron microscope 1,000,000, then special ways like
> mapping charge,  then thermal noise dominates as atoms move around.
> a long way from infinity small, in fact an infinity

"Just a thought experiment in a land far, far away. ;^)"

Was meant to show this is not in reality. Sorry.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#706194

From"Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid>
Date2018-10-04 21:42 -0700
Message-ID<pp6q3l$akb$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#706162
On 10/4/2018 4:24 PM, Double-A wrote:
> On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 2:52:20 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 10/4/2018 2:13 PM, Double-A wrote:
>>> On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 10:50:21 AM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
>>>> On 10/4/2018 12:31 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 1:53:31 PM UTC-7, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> I was watching a quality documentary on the Big Bang.  Somebody mentioned that the universe was infinitely small.  Can anything be smaller than Planck length?  I also don’t like the use of the word, infinity, used to describe something real.  While there may be infinities or infinitesimals in theory, I do not think anything real can be as such in practise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Abhinav Lal
>>>>>> Writer & Investor
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “Imagination is more important than knowledge”
>>>>>> - Albert Einstein
>>>>>
>>>>> It makes continuity... sizes of infinity of the
>>>>> infinitely small.
>>>>> Particles are quantized at the infinitely small...
>>>>> Spatial temporal points are as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> infinitely small means it is smaller than whatever you can come up with,
>>>> it is smaller than that.
>>>>
>>>> Unless it is nothing, at least that is something.
>>>>
>>>> If you had a ton of infinitely small particles, how could you weigh it ?
>>>>
>>>> how would you know where they are ?  there are no tags on them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      if you could not find it, would it matter ? or is that what is expected ?
>>>>
>>>> SO, you are talking about a bunch of nothing.
>>>>
>>>> best not to watch documentaries on science as most are produced by
>>>> non-scientists and know nothing about science or math.
>>>
>>>
>>> But the sure do know how to make things sound dramatic!
>>
>> Just a thought experiment in a land far, far away. ;^)
>>
>> Think of an entity A and object B that exist forever.
>> ______________________________
>> 0: A is always observing B.
>>
>> 1: B gets _physically_ smaller, say by 1/2.
>>
>> 2: A zooms in on B until it is just as _visually_ large as it was before.
>>
>> 3: Goto step 1.
>> ______________________________
>>
>> B can get infinitely small, however as A keeps zooming in, B will
>> continually be _visually_ just as big as it was when we started in step 0.
> 
> 
> Your point is?

Infinite zoom can make the infinitely small visible at every iteration.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#706173

Frommitchrae3323@gmail.com
Date2018-10-04 18:44 -0700
Message-ID<b29dac70-c719-47ef-9165-2c4e3a360452@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#706139
On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 10:50:21 AM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
> On 10/4/2018 12:31 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 1:53:31 PM UTC-7, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> I was watching a quality documentary on the Big Bang.  Somebody mentioned that the universe was infinitely small.  Can anything be smaller than Planck length?  I also don’t like the use of the word, infinity, used to describe something real.  While there may be infinities or infinitesimals in theory, I do not think anything real can be as such in practise.
> >>
> >> Abhinav Lal 
> >> Writer & Investor 
> >>
> >> “Imagination is more important than knowledge”
> >> - Albert Einstein
> > 
> > It makes continuity... sizes of infinity of the
> > infinitely small.
> > Particles are quantized at the infinitely small...
> > Spatial temporal points are as well.
> > 
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> > 
> 
> 
> infinitely small means it is smaller than whatever you can come up with,
> it is smaller than that.
> 
> Unless it is nothing, at least that is something.

It is first quantity... Zero is No quantity's name

> 
> If you had a ton of infinitely small particles, how could you weigh it ?

They would be in a ton of atoms on a scale...

> 
> how would you know where they are ?  there are no tags on them.

The atom is the place for them.
> 
>    if you could not find it, would it matter ? or is that what is expected ?
> 
> SO, you are talking about a bunch of nothing.
> 
> best not to watch documentaries on science as most are produced by
> non-scientists and know nothing about science or math.

Who knows what Roy Masters?

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#706341

From"Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid>
Date2018-10-05 21:32 -0700
Message-ID<pp9ds7$p4l$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#706173
On 10/4/2018 6:44 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 10:50:21 AM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
>> On 10/4/2018 12:31 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 1:53:31 PM UTC-7, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> I was watching a quality documentary on the Big Bang.  Somebody mentioned that the universe was infinitely small.  Can anything be smaller than Planck length?  I also don’t like the use of the word, infinity, used to describe something real.  While there may be infinities or infinitesimals in theory, I do not think anything real can be as such in practise.
>>>>
>>>> Abhinav Lal
>>>> Writer & Investor
>>>>
>>>> “Imagination is more important than knowledge”
>>>> - Albert Einstein
>>>
>>> It makes continuity... sizes of infinity of the
>>> infinitely small.
>>> Particles are quantized at the infinitely small...
>>> Spatial temporal points are as well.
[...]
> Who knows what Roy Masters?

What would you say about somebody named Masters Roy? Humm... Just too 
darn suspicious? ;^)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#706350

Frommitchrae3323@gmail.com
Date2018-10-05 22:50 -0700
Message-ID<540848eb-7296-4b87-8ac0-e308d1893ba8@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#706341
On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 9:32:25 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 10/4/2018 6:44 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 10:50:21 AM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
> >> On 10/4/2018 12:31 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 1:53:31 PM UTC-7, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> I was watching a quality documentary on the Big Bang.  Somebody mentioned that the universe was infinitely small.  Can anything be smaller than Planck length?  I also don’t like the use of the word, infinity, used to describe something real.  While there may be infinities or infinitesimals in theory, I do not think anything real can be as such in practise.
> >>>>
> >>>> Abhinav Lal
> >>>> Writer & Investor
> >>>>
> >>>> “Imagination is more important than knowledge”
> >>>> - Albert Einstein
> >>>
> >>> It makes continuity... sizes of infinity of the
> >>> infinitely small.
> >>> Particles are quantized at the infinitely small...
> >>> Spatial temporal points are as well.
> [...]
> > Who knows what Roy Masters?
> 
> What would you say about somebody named Masters Roy? Humm... Just too 
> darn suspicious? ;^)

Right Roy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#706356

From"Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid>
Date2018-10-05 23:14 -0700
Message-ID<pp9jt1$l43$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#706350
On 10/5/2018 10:50 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 9:32:25 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 10/4/2018 6:44 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 10:50:21 AM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
>>>> On 10/4/2018 12:31 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 1:53:31 PM UTC-7, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> I was watching a quality documentary on the Big Bang.  Somebody mentioned that the universe was infinitely small.  Can anything be smaller than Planck length?  I also don’t like the use of the word, infinity, used to describe something real.  While there may be infinities or infinitesimals in theory, I do not think anything real can be as such in practise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Abhinav Lal
>>>>>> Writer & Investor
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “Imagination is more important than knowledge”
>>>>>> - Albert Einstein
>>>>>
>>>>> It makes continuity... sizes of infinity of the
>>>>> infinitely small.
>>>>> Particles are quantized at the infinitely small...
>>>>> Spatial temporal points are as well.
>> [...]
>>> Who knows what Roy Masters?
>>
>> What would you say about somebody named Masters Roy? Humm... Just too
>> darn suspicious? ;^)
> 
> Right Roy.
> 

I am still trying to figure out exactly why you keep referencing this name?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#706183

Fromporaty149@gmail.com
Date2018-10-04 20:37 -0700
Message-ID<f1f17b42-6ce4-4b0f-b10e-0f5a3dc17d6c@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#706137
On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 8:31:30 PM UTC+3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 1:53:31 PM UTC-7, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I was watching a quality documentary on the Big Bang.  Somebody mentioned that the universe was infinitely small.  Can anything be smaller than Planck length?  I also don’t like the use of the word, infinity, used to describe something real.  While there may be infinities or infinitesimals in theory, I do not think anything real can be as such in practise.
> > 
> > Abhinav Lal 
> > Writer & Investor 
> > 
> > “Imagination is more important than knowledge”
> > - Albert Einstein
> 
> It makes continuity... sizes of infinity of the
> infinitely small.
> Particles are quantized at the infinitely small...
> Spatial temporal points are as well.
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch
================
infinitely small is 

NOTHING !!
so difficult to understand it ??
==
Y.P
=============================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#706284

From"reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com>
Date2018-10-05 12:43 -0700
Message-ID<557a6e7f-c6d0-495f-9871-7c4fb06939d3@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#706137
On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 10:31:30 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 1:53:31 PM UTC-7, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I was watching a quality documentary on the Big Bang.  Somebody mentioned that the universe was infinitely small.  Can anything be smaller than Planck length?  I also don’t like the use of the word, infinity, used to describe something real.  While there may be infinities or infinitesimals in theory, I do not think anything real can be as such in practise.
> > 
> > Abhinav Lal 
> > Writer & Investor 
> > 
> > “Imagination is more important than knowledge”
> > - Albert Einstein
> 
> It makes continuity... sizes of infinity of the
> infinitely small.
> Particles are quantized at the infinitely small...
> Spatial temporal points are as well.
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch

Its a particle last cut in have,The smallest building block of a neutrino,or wave to make it vibrate Bert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#706179

FromSylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid>
Date2018-10-05 12:14 +1000
Message-ID<g1nvo5FgtabU2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#706028
On 4/10/2018 6:53 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
> Can anything be smaller than Planck length?  

Yes. The Planck length is not a minimum length, and was never conceived 
as such. It's just the length below which you definitely need a theory 
of quantum gravity to make sense of things.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#706248

FromEdward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com>
Date2018-10-05 09:05 -0700
Message-ID<a3622155-d7e4-4b78-ba2f-15e2fab50e2a@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#706179
On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 10:14:33 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 4/10/2018 6:53 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
> > Can anything be smaller than Planck length?  
> 
> Yes. The Planck length is not a minimum length, and was never conceived 
> as such. It's just the length below which you definitely need a theory 
> of quantum gravity to make sense of things.
> 
> Sylvia.

I don't know that Quantum gravity will make a difference.
As I understand it, Planck length is the theoretical limit
of our observations. So we we would need more than just a
new theory, we would need entirely new means of measuring.

Or am I off in the deep end of the pool?  8^)
Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#706301

Frombenj <benj.fake@gmail.com>
Date2018-10-05 17:00 -0400
Message-ID<pp8je9$1deb$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#706248
On 10/5/2018 12:05 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 10:14:33 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 4/10/2018 6:53 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Can anything be smaller than Planck length?
>>
>> Yes. The Planck length is not a minimum length, and was never conceived
>> as such. It's just the length below which you definitely need a theory
>> of quantum gravity to make sense of things.
>>
>> Sylvia.
> 
> I don't know that Quantum gravity will make a difference.
> As I understand it, Planck length is the theoretical limit
> of our observations. So we we would need more than just a
> new theory, we would need entirely new means of measuring.
> 
> Or am I off in the deep end of the pool?  8^)
> Ed

Planck length is not some size where length can go no smaller. It is the 
size where all known theories stop working. The fact that Planck length 
uses the gravitational constant as one of it's parameters and gravity is 
not understood shows the problem with the concept.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#706629

FromEdward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com>
Date2018-10-08 07:37 -0700
Message-ID<120bff26-33ba-483a-a82b-88a59fd66c80@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#706301
On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 5:01:02 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
> On 10/5/2018 12:05 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 10:14:33 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 4/10/2018 6:53 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> Can anything be smaller than Planck length?
> >>
> >> Yes. The Planck length is not a minimum length, and was never conceived
> >> as such. It's just the length below which you definitely need a theory
> >> of quantum gravity to make sense of things.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> > 
> > I don't know that Quantum gravity will make a difference.
> > As I understand it, Planck length is the theoretical limit
> > of our observations. So we we would need more than just a
> > new theory, we would need entirely new means of measuring.
> > 
> > Or am I off in the deep end of the pool?  8^)
> > Ed
> 
> Planck length is not some size where length can go no smaller. It is the 
> size where all known theories stop working. The fact that Planck length 
> uses the gravitational constant as one of it's parameters and gravity is 
> not understood shows the problem with the concept.

Congratulations, benj, you added something useful.
Thanks.
  ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#706648

Frombenj <benj.fake@gmail.com>
Date2018-10-08 11:57 -0400
Message-ID<ppfupe$17me$4@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#706629
On 10/8/2018 10:37 AM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 5:01:02 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
>> On 10/5/2018 12:05 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>> On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 10:14:33 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 4/10/2018 6:53 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Can anything be smaller than Planck length?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. The Planck length is not a minimum length, and was never conceived
>>>> as such. It's just the length below which you definitely need a theory
>>>> of quantum gravity to make sense of things.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> I don't know that Quantum gravity will make a difference.
>>> As I understand it, Planck length is the theoretical limit
>>> of our observations. So we we would need more than just a
>>> new theory, we would need entirely new means of measuring.
>>>
>>> Or am I off in the deep end of the pool?  8^)
>>> Ed
>>
>> Planck length is not some size where length can go no smaller. It is the
>> size where all known theories stop working. The fact that Planck length
>> uses the gravitational constant as one of it's parameters and gravity is
>> not understood shows the problem with the concept.
> 
> Congratulations, benj, you added something useful.
> Thanks.
>    ed
> 
You are welcome.
(snide comment ignored)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web