Is Division by Zero Possible in Physics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FeDeX_LaTeX
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physics Zero
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Division by zero is fundamentally undefined in mathematics and presents various implications in physics. It can indicate algebraic errors, incorrect assumptions, or theoretical flaws. For instance, calculating gravitational acceleration at the Earth's center leads to a division by zero due to the flawed assumption of point mass concentration. Additionally, singularities in Einstein's General Relativity exemplify theoretical errors, while the use of inappropriate coordinate systems, such as Schwarzschild coordinates, can also lead to misleading results. L'Hôpital's rule is a mathematical tool that can help resolve situations involving division by zero.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic algebra and mathematical operations
  • Familiarity with gravitational force equations, specifically Gm/r²
  • Knowledge of Einstein's General Relativity and its implications
  • Concept of coordinate systems in physics, particularly Schwarzschild coordinates
NEXT STEPS
  • Study L'Hôpital's rule and its applications in calculus
  • Explore the implications of singularities in General Relativity
  • Research the concept of coordinate transformations in physics
  • Investigate the limitations of mathematical models in physical theories
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, mathematicians, and students studying theoretical physics or mathematical modeling, particularly those interested in the implications of division by zero in physical theories.

FeDeX_LaTeX
Science Advisor
Messages
436
Reaction score
13
In mathematics, this operation is undefined. But what about in physics? Are there any special rules associated with division by zero?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Division by zero represents one of several things in physics (not indended as an exhaustive list), in order of increasing problematicness:

1) You did your algebra wrong.
2) Your assumptions are wrong.
3) Your theory is wrong.

Examples of 1 abound. An example of #2 would be something like "What is the gravitational acceleration at the center of the Earth? Well, Gravitational force is Gm/r^2, and so at the center r=0 and it diverges". Obviously the incorrect assumption is that we can treat all the mass of the Earth as concentrated at a point while inside its structure.

An example of #3 might be singularities which appear in Einstein's General Relativity. Many people believe these singularities are artifacts which merely appear due to the lack of a quantum theory of gravity, rather than physical objects. I suppose, in a way, this is a special case of #2 where the assumption is fundamental to your theory. But the essential difference is #2 is a modeling error, whereas #3 is a theoretical error.
 
Sometimes math analogies used to describe physics can have weaknesses in the way they are implemented. For example, if a direction on a 2d surface is described as a slope, such as y/x, then a line in the y direction has a slope of y/0. If the direction was described as a counter clockwise angle from the x-axis (polar coordinate convention), then the problem doesn't exist.
 
Like your answer, Nabeshin.
 
Jeff Reid's response just reminded me of another thing that divide by zero could signify in a physical theory, which ranks more problematic than algebra but less than assumptions:

1.5) Bad choice of coordinates.

For example, schwarzschild coordinates are singular at the event horizon of a black hole, even though there is nothing particularly singular about this location. Of course, there are many other trivial examples you could make up with just applying some singular transformation to normal Cartesian coordinates, but I like this one :)
 
As far as physics and mathematics are concerned, there is not function for dividing by 0.
 
Following up with my previous example, to convert slope into an angle, the limit of tan-1(1/x) as x->0 is π/2.
 
Deviation by zero is impossible.
 

Similar threads

Replies
32
Views
6K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K