The discussion revolves around the concept of inertia as it pertains to a single elementary particle in motion, exploring whether such a particle exhibits inertia in isolation. Participants engage in thought experiments and philosophical considerations regarding the nature of inertia, motion, and reference frames.
Participants do not reach a consensus on the nature of inertia in isolation. Multiple competing views remain regarding the definitions and implications of inertia, motion, and reference frames.
Limitations include the dependence on definitions of motion and inertia, as well as the unresolved implications of discussing a single object in a hypothetical universe. The discussion reflects various interpretations and assumptions about physical concepts.
If you speak a word "universe" then it means existence of all attributes inherent in it.timetraveldude said:Consider this thought experiment. If only one object existed in all the universe and it was moving would it have inertia?
timetraveldude said:Stick to the topic there is nothing mentioned about dividing. Just answer the question.
Does this elementary particle you talk about have size?Dina-Moe Hum said:I think Timetraveldude question is not well set. The only "unique object" possible is an elementar particle. In this case the question has no sense because there could never be inertial effects. To have it, we should demonstrate that it is not adimensional and it can rotate (not the quantistic spin, of course).
All other objects are formed by more than one particle, so there can be inertial effects.
I think I would probably used the following question instead: "Given a universe with just one elementar particle, the total energy of this universe is greater than zero?" and I think the anwer is "no"