Particle at 0 at Time 0: Where After 1 Sec?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the motion of a particle starting at position 0 at time 0 and its subsequent positions over time, particularly focusing on its location after 1 second. Participants explore the implications of a proposed mathematical model and its physical interpretations, touching on concepts related to Zeno's paradox and the nature of time and space.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the particle's position can be described by the equation x(n) = 1 - 0.5^n, suggesting it approaches but never reaches position 1 as n increases.
  • Others argue that the variable n lacks physical meaning and is merely a parameter used to illustrate the concept of infinite tasks in finite time.
  • A participant suggests that the particle's motion can be modeled linearly as d = s*t, where s = 1, leading to the conclusion that the particle would be at position 1 after 1 second.
  • Some participants express confusion over the definition of n and its role in the equations, with one stating that the equations do not clarify the particle's position at exactly 1 second.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of quantized time and space, with references to Planck units as a potential resolution to paradoxes arising from infinite tasks in finite time.
  • One participant mentions that the mathematical principle of infinite points between two points is evident, but questions how this translates to physical reality.
  • Another participant introduces the concept of "supertasks," referencing external sources to explore the philosophical implications of performing infinite tasks in finite time.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on the physical interpretation of the model or the implications of the proposed equations. Disagreement exists regarding the role of the variable n and the nature of the particle's motion.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of clarity on the physical meaning of the variable n, the unresolved nature of the particle's position at exactly 1 second, and the dependence on assumptions about the continuity of time and space.

xavier_r
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
Consider, a particle at position 0 at time = 0
Lets say it moves to 0.5 after 0.5 seconds
It moves to [tex]0.75[/tex] after [tex]0.75[/tex] seconds
and in general...
It moves to [tex]1 - 0.5^n[/tex] after [tex]1 - 0.5^n[/tex] seconds

So where will the particle be after 1 second?

EDIT:

n goes like 0,1,2,3...
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
What is the variable n? This seems very very unphysical.
 
It looks to me like you defined the problem to say that distance increases linearly at a rate of 1 unit per second.

d=s*t
s=1
d=t

Or am I missing something? I don't see where a variable "n" would fit in.
 
No, he means n = t.

He's saying

x(t) = 1 - .5^t

so:
x(0) = 0
x(1) = .5
x(2) = .75
x(3) = .875
etc.

You get infinitely close to 1 but never reach it.

But what's your question?
 
Last edited:
You haven't defined where the particle will be at when time = 1, since [itex]1 - 0.5^n[/itex] is less than 1 for all positive integers n = 0,1,2,3,...
 
A better expression for distance moved each turn would be [tex]0.5\frac{1}{2}^{n-1}[/tex] which is easily recognised to be a geometric series which sums to 1.
 
Well it seems u guys are pretty confused,
I'm sorry for that... I'll explain more clearly what's in my mind

See,
Here the function for time t(n) = [tex]1-0.5^n[/tex]
And the function for distance is x(n) = [tex]1-0.5^n[/tex]
n is nothing but a parameter...

So after t(n) seconds the particle is at position x(n)...
And as n approaches infinity the particle does approach one
And at n = infinity, the particle will be (or perhaps it won't) at position 1 after1 second...

Here we are not concerned with n itself... But rather how is it possible, that the particle performs infinite amount of tasks in a given finite time, ie., 1 second... ?
 
Last edited:
If time and space were quantized in discrete units called Planck time and length, then no paradox would arise.
 
Planck time and space... very fascinating concepts indeed... thanks for sharing that...
Then what is the fatest event in the universe, such that no other event could occur any faster...? Is it a photon moving through a distance equal to the Planck length ?

EDIT: Maybe this universe is digital... ;)
 
  • #11
peter0302 said:
No, he means n = t.

He's saying

x(t) = 1 - .5^t

so:
x(0) = 0
x(1) = .5
x(2) = .75
x(3) = .875
etc.

You get infinitely close to 1 but never reach it.

But what's your question?
He doesn't define n=t, in fact he defines a distance function without a t in it (in two separate posts). He says "it moves to 0.5 after 0.5 seconds It moves to .75 after .75 seconds"

That's
x(t)=t
x(.5)=.5
x(.75)=.75
Well it seems u guys are pretty confused,
I'm sorry for that... I'll explain more clearly what's in my mind

See,
Here the function for time t(n) = 1-.5^n
And the function for distance is x(n) = 1-.5^n
n is nothing but a parameter...
That's two hyperbolic functions x(n) and t(n), but a function x(t) would again be linear:

for n=1, t(n)=.5, x(n)=.5
for n=2, t(n)=.75, x(n)=.75
etc.
Here we are not concerned with n itself... But rather how is it possible, that the particle performs infinite amount of tasks in a given finite time, ie., 1 second... ?
What you are doing is just proving a simple principle of math: there are an infinite number of points between any two points. Mathematically, you can always make an interval smaller. You are examining your linear system in smaller and smaller intervals.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
hi

So, first let's say that our physical equivalent of the equations you've made is simple:
[tex]x(t) = t[/tex]
To make it more adequate, let's denote that t varies from [0,1].
Variable n doesn't have any physical meaning - it's a parameter, as one said. So, as i read through the topic, it was just a tool to show that vast infinity huh? Maybe clever but it has similar function to descriptions of Zeno paradox. As russ_waters said, in fundamental physics we believe that space and time isnt' quantified.

Where will be the particle after first second? We don't know, your eq. don't say that.
 
  • #13
russ_watters said:
What you are doing is just proving a simple principle of math: there are an infinite number of points between any two points. Mathematically, you can always make an interval smaller. You are examining your linear system in smaller and smaller intervals.

Yea, I agree! Mathematically, it is very easily evident!
But in physics, how can infinite number of tasks be done in a finite amount of time?
 
  • #14
dy-e said:
Where will be the particle after first second? We don't know, your eq. don't say that.

I think Defennder is right

"If time and space were quantized in discrete units called Planck time and length, then no paradox would arise."
 
  • #15
xavier_r said:
But in physics, how can infinite number of tasks be done in a finite amount of time?
By making sure that as the number of tasks becomes infinite, the time per task becomes infinitely small.
 
  • #17
But in physics, how can infinite number of tasks be done in a finite amount of time?

This is called a http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-supertasks/" .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18
Crosson said:
This is called a http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-supertasks/" .

Thanks crosson...!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
xavier_r said:
Consider, a particle at position 0 at time = 0
Lets say it moves to 0.5 after 0.5 seconds
It moves to [tex]0.75[/tex] after [tex]0.75[/tex] seconds
and in general...
It moves to [tex]1 - 0.5^n[/tex] after [tex]1 - 0.5^n[/tex] seconds

So where will the particle be after 1 second?

EDIT:

n goes like 0,1,2,3...
Looks straightforward to me. You are saying that the particle has speed of 1 distance unit per second. After 1 second, it will be at 1. The "n" is a red herring.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K