A trivial question about the space of Euclidean

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Shing
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Euclidean Space
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the implications of defining space as Q^3 x Q_t instead of the classical E^3 or R^3 x R_t in Classical Mechanics. The participant questions whether using rational coordinates would introduce logical paradoxes or significantly alter the behavior of particles, particularly in their movement from one coordinate to another. The conversation highlights the continuity of motion in classical physics and the potential challenges posed by a space with "holes" in the rational number system.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Classical Mechanics principles, particularly Newton's laws.
  • Familiarity with Euclidean space and its mathematical representations.
  • Knowledge of rational numbers and their properties in mathematical analysis.
  • Basic grasp of topology and continuity in mathematical contexts.
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore the implications of using rational coordinates in physics, focusing on Q^3 x Q_t.
  • Research the concept of continuity in motion and its mathematical definitions.
  • Study the effects of discontinuities in physical models and their interpretations.
  • Investigate alternative mathematical frameworks in physics, such as non-standard analysis.
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, mathematicians, and students interested in the foundations of Classical Mechanics and the implications of different mathematical representations of space.

Shing
Messages
141
Reaction score
1
Classical Mechanics define our space is [itex]E^3[/itex]
that's also assumed to be [itex]R^3[/itex]x [itex]R_t[/itex]
I just wondering what if [itex]Q^3[/itex]x [itex]Q_t[/itex]?
will it make any significant difference? will it cause any logical paradox?

thanks for reading!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The first thing I wonder about is how a particle in one dimension will get from coordinate a to coordinate b. In my mind, it should always do so in a continuous fashion. But you suppose it would "hop" from one rational to the "next"? You would solve Newton's laws (like F = m x'') in an interval with "holes" (e.g. [itex][a, b] \cap \mathbb{Q}[/itex])?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
6K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K