Can Movement Occur in a Universe with Unquantized Distance?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kjones000
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Meter
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around a hypothetical scenario involving an ancient Greek philosopher and hero, exploring the implications of movement in a universe where distance is not quantized. The philosopher's flawed reasoning suggests that the hero cannot reach the finish line of a 100-meter dash due to the infinite division of distance. This raises questions about the nature of movement and the possibility of a universe with non-quantized distances, challenging the meaning of measurements like 100 meters. Participants debate whether such a universe could have self-consistent rules and support life. The conversation also touches on the mathematical exercise of determining how many times the hero would need to halve the distance to reach a Planck length from the finish line, with one participant calculating the answer using logarithmic functions. The discussion highlights the complexity of defining physical concepts in a theoretical framework where traditional measurements may lose their significance.
kjones000
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
An ancient greek philosopher, an ancient greek hero, and Shrodenger's cat walk into a bar. Ok, forget the cat. The philosopher gets so drunk that he decides to prove to the hero that he can't reach the finish line of a 100 meter dash because he would have to go half the remaining distance an infinite number of times.

Now, we all know that the philosopher's reasoning was purposefully flawed, but DO WE KNOW FOR CERTAIN that movement is possible in a universe where distance is not quantized? After all, we haven't got such a universe to experiment on. Do we know for certain that a complex universe where distance and time are NOT quantized could even have self consistent rules? If the answer is yes, do we know that such a universe could support life?

As a side note: an exercise left for the reader's calculator, how many times would the hero have to go half the distance before he got a Planck length from the finish line? Bonus points for the person who has to press the fewest buttons to find the answer.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If the universe is not quantized, then 100 meters has no meaning.
 
Huh?

wuliheron said:
If the universe is not quantized, then 100 meters has no meaning.

Huh? Why? Did I use the wrong word? Should I have said "quantumized". The spell checker says that is not a word. How could the universe not being chopped up in Planck length sized units preclude "100 Meters" from having meaning? Its true that you couldn't assign it an integer number based on the underlying granularity of space, but who ever said that a length can't be based on something else?
 
kjones000 said:
Huh? Why? Did I use the wrong word? Should I have said "quantumized". The spell checker says that is not a word. How could the universe not being chopped up in Planck length sized units preclude "100 Meters" from having meaning? Its true that you couldn't assign it an integer number based on the underlying granularity of space, but who ever said that a length can't be based on something else?

Words only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in a given context.

In this case, quantized refers to the observation that nature comes in bits and pieces, specific quantities. However, we also observe that these quantities act like waves, which are not quantized. If another universe existed where nothing was quantized, then literally 100 meters would have no meaning.
 
kjones000 said:
... an exercise left for the reader's calculator, how many times would the hero have to go half the distance before he got a Planck length from the finish line?

My calculator expressed appreciation and no small surprise at having a problem left for it, and it says that N = 123 ought to work.

it gets this number with almost no buttons pressed because it is

\frac{37}{log_{10}2}
 
I suspected you might wonder why the reader's calculator thinks that is the answer, so I inquired and got this response.

the idea is to find N

\frac{100}{2^N}<1.616\times 10^{-35}

\frac{100}{1.616\times 10^{-35}}<2^N

\log_2 2^N = N
and for any number X
\log_2 X = \frac{log_{10}X}{log_{10}2}

Taking log base two of both sides
\frac{37 - \log_{10}1.616}{\log_{10}2}<N

and \inline{ \log_{10}1.616}} is negligible so one looks for

\frac{37}{\log_{10}2}<N

which takes few strokes
 
Damn Marcus you are everywhere-- I will have to read this when its not one in the morning

i have to get up soon
night
 
Back
Top