High School Is everything binary on macroscopic level

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on whether everything at the macroscopic level is binary, contrasting with the multiple states observed at the quantum level. While the original poster suggests that concepts like light-dark and life-death imply a binary nature, responses clarify that macroscopic phenomena, such as temperature, exhibit a spectrum rather than a strict binary. The inability to identify clear opposites for materials like iron or wood further undermines the binary argument. Ultimately, the consensus is that macroscopic physics does not adhere to a binary framework. The thread concludes by emphasizing the complexity of macroscopic states beyond simple binary classifications.
empleat
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Hello,
is everything binary on macroscopic level ?
I know on quantum level there are multiple states, instead of binary.
I can't find any studies, it seems like everything is binary on macro level, light-dark, death-life...
So what would be opposite of iron, or wood, for example ? I can't think of anything.
Is there a proof that everything is binary on macroscopis level, or proof that would refute that isn't thanks.
What i mean by macroscopic, i don't know exactly where macroscopis level starts for 100%, but i think larger than moleculer is considered macroscopic.
Thanks for answer.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
empleat said:
is everything binary on macroscopic level ?

The answer is no.

Just because we have words like hot/cold, that doesn't mean physics is binary. Confine your thoughts to the temperature example to keep it simple. Can't you imagine many more than two temperatures?
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
empleat said:
it seems like everything is binary on macro level, light-dark, death-life...
So what would be opposite of iron, or wood, for example ? I can't think of anything.
Since you can't think of anything for those examples, then you cannot really say that everything seems like binary, can you? And you can't think of anything for a good reason, because there isn't any.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
The two responses above pretty much say it all, so this thread is closed.
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier and bhobba
I do not have a good working knowledge of physics yet. I tried to piece this together but after researching this, I couldn’t figure out the correct laws of physics to combine to develop a formula to answer this question. Ex. 1 - A moving object impacts a static object at a constant velocity. Ex. 2 - A moving object impacts a static object at the same velocity but is accelerating at the moment of impact. Assuming the mass of the objects is the same and the velocity at the moment of impact...

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
6K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K