.
Printable View
.
I'm not really sure I do either. So what you're saying is, theoretically you can break something down into infinitesmally small parts, and then rebuild it, with the same density, to have twice the size? I don't understand how that works even in theory. :confused: :confused: But I see your point about the difference between theory and reality. A lot of what works in theory doesn't work in reality, right? Obviously that thing wouldn't work in reality, but can you explain how it works in theory?
Oh, and I thought the neutrino was now pretty well established.
ok, I can see how it could work if you bombarded it with enough energy to increase total mass of the particles. Then maybe an increase in size could have the same density. Is that right? If you just talk about dividing it up it doesn't really make sense (Law of Conservation of mass. Oh no. Am I talking about Scientific laws AGAIN?)
hmm. I'll try and interpret azoic's theory, though I only know what he/she has posted up about it [so I'm admitting now I don't know what I'm talking about], and since they haven't given a name, etc, i have no way of finding out what it's supposed to be about. Here goes:
ok, this is a bit of guesswork and a lot of inference on my part [I'm basing the whole thing on nuclear physics], but when you split an atom into it's constituent parts, the mass of the parts you end up with will be greater than the mass you had originally (since Einstein showed mass and energy were equivalent). If you could keep doing this, maybe you could increase the mass sufficiently to double size without altering density. But this might involve breaking up protons and neutrons, etc into quarks and so on, using the same theory, to increase mass sufficiently. So whilst this may work in theory, it probably wouldn't in reality because you would not be able to increase mass enough. Is that anywhere near? You all talked about it in terms of just dividing something up, which I don't really understand. You would need energy to divvy up the particles, and hence would be increasing their mass anyway. Does anyone know what I'm talking about?
.
I am talking about the Banach-Tarski Paradoxical Decomposition. Sorry that took so long folks, it was a bit of a struggle to put together fragments of memory and misinterpretations. Banach and Tarski based their decomposition on a well established Axiom of Choice. The decomposition states that (here's the first place my memory goes awry) it is possible to take the 3-dimensional closed unit ball, B = {(x,y,z) Î R3 : x2 + y2 + z2 < 1}
and partition it into finitely many pieces, and move those pieces in rigid motions (i.e., rotations and translations, with pieces permitted to move through one another) and reassemble them to form two copies of B. (the Î in that equation is supposed to be an element of symbol, but was lost in translation, also it is less than or equal to one, but as this is math, and not physics, we can define it to be 1 angstrom or 1 AU, etc) The second place my memory goes awry is from reading about Richard Feynman, and his statements, I either don't remember his response, or his reasoning was incorrect as to why an orange can't be disassembled and re-assembled into the size of the sun with no change in density.
Oh, and just to mention one more time, this is math, and not physics, so while the 2 are joined at the hip, each has it's own body of study that may or may not be related either to the other or reality.
Oh, I forgot to mention: I was wrong about neutrinos too, they have been known of for quite sometime (if I said contrarywise, I really messed up; I should know better than THAT), although for a long time they were thought to have been massless and travel at the speed of light. The current line given by physicsts (the ones I work with anyway) is that they have mass, and travel "very close to the speed of light." This is the debatability I was speaking of, for when I was in school, a physics professor said to me that this is the physicist way of saying "it has mass, it travels at the speed of light, and I don't want to try to contradict the laws of physics, or instill doubt that scientists know what were doing."
.
I was merely attempting to illustrate how theories of different sciences can be correct within each science, or even a few sciences, but they don't necessarily translate to all sciences or reality. Basically I was backing up your argument that Maxwells demon (and other thought problems) is worth understanding/thinking about, but it isn't something that will really happen.
.
See, this is why I resent technology. I typed up a whole response then the thingy wouldn't submit so now I have to type it up AGAIN. ok, summary:
-nothing with mass can travel at the speed of light, duh.
-if the theory of physical sciences doesn't match up with reality, the theory is WRONG. maxwell's demon doesn't just not work in reality, it doesn't work in theory either. You just have to figure out where the fault in the theory is. I thought I already did that.... It's food for thought, nothing more.
Yes Faye, it is food for thought, but whether or not it is anything more is for each to decide.
As far as your summary, well, I agree, sort of. Nothing with mass SHOULD be able to travel at the speed of light. I'd feel better about neutrinos if I'd have a reliable source saying that they don't travel at the speed of light. My most recent physics professor explained that within current detection limits, they seem to go the speed of light, but still have mass, and therefore physicists are not too happy talking about them.
Also, no one has been able to disprove the axiom of choice, and therfore Banach-Tarski Paradoxical Decomposition still holds, but it doesn't work in reality. It doesn't mean that theory is faulty, it just means that we have to realize that math is not reality. sorta like saying a map is not the territory. It's pretty much just a limit of reality. It would work if we could cut quarks into arbirary shapes of any size we desire.
.
See, that doesn't really make any sense... I mean, you know, Einstein's whole thang. Given that information, you can really only make the following conclusionsQuote:
Originally posted by Azoic
Nothing with mass SHOULD be able to travel at the speed of light. I'd feel better about neutrinos if I'd have a reliable source saying that they don't travel at the speed of light. My most recent physics professor explained that within current detection limits, they seem to go the speed of light, but still have mass, and therefore physicists are not too happy talking about them.
-Einstein was wrong. I would love for this to be the case, about pretty much anything einstein's done. I mean, can you imagine how funny it would be if it turned out that all those scientists spending decades searching for gravitational waves found out they in actual fact, didn't exist? :) But not likely.
-The Scientists inaccurately measured the velocity- Probable.
-Their whole idea of what neutrinos are is completely screwed up-possible
-your physics prof had no idea what he was talking about-bingo? what course are you studying?
UNLESS of course neutrinos actually have INFINITE mass as opposed to one billionth the mass of a proton, and infinite energy, which they definately do not...... :rolleyes: physicists. *dismissive grunt*
*feeling a little bored* ok, abdo, tell us about the theory.Quote:
Originally posted by AbdoRinbo
(Kurt) Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is a mathematical variation of what is now know as Deconstruction (ahck, I hate that word).
Hey, do you remember that time theory you came up with way back when? Yeah, well, I sorta thought it had a bit of a fallacy in assuming that you COULD do something an infinite number of times, but aside from that, what if you could do the same thing with matter? Then couldn't everything be made up of nothing? Just keep breaking stuff down forever? I mean, first they thought the atom was the smallest particle, then protons, neutrons and electrons, now quarks, etc,etc. How do they really know what the smallest particle is? Maybe the mathematical limit or whatever could prevent the idea, but still......