The real line is misleading?

  • I
  • Thread starter FallenApple
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Line
In summary, real analysis shows that the real line is complete and perfectly continuous, with all gaps between the rationals filled. However, this is based on certain axioms that may not be sound according to quantum theory. While the Planck length has been popularly misconceived as the smallest unit of space, it is actually a misinterpretation and mathematics itself is not dependent on the physical realities of time and space. The relationship between mathematics and physics can be seen in the example of a bouncing ball, where the mathematical model may approach a smallest unit of space but in reality, it is immeasurable and smaller than the Planck length.
  • #1
FallenApple
566
61
Real analysis shows that the real line is complete. All the gaps between the rationals are filled. It is perfectly continuous. Of course, all of this is based off of certain axioms that make it work mathematically.

Are those axioms now sound? According to quantum, the plank length is the smallest unit of space allowable in existence. So if the idea of continuity is flawed in reality, then the current state of much of mathematics is also on shaky grounds.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
FallenApple said:
According to quantum, the plank length is the smallest unit of space allowable in existence.
With kindness I challenge you to find a credible source that says/demonstrates that the Planck length is the smallest unit of space allowable in existence.

There is no experimental evidence of any smallest unit of space.
 
  • Like
Likes jtbell, vanhees71 and PeroK
  • #3
FallenApple said:
Real analysis shows that the real line is complete. All the gaps between the rationals are filled. It is perfectly continuous. Of course, all of this is based off of certain axioms that make it work mathematically.

Are those axioms now sound? According to quantum, the plank length is the smallest unit of space allowable in existence. So if the idea of continuity is flawed in reality, then the current state of much of mathematics is also on shaky grounds.

This is about the 4th post in the last week where it's claimed that the Planck length is the "smallest unit of length". This is a misinterpretation. See.

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/hand-wavy-discussion-planck-length/

Moreover, mathematics is in no way dependent on the physical realities of time and space! How you can apply mathematics may be dependent on that, but not mathematics itself.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #4
PeroK said:
This is about the 4th post in the last week where it's claimed that the Planck length is the "smallest unit of length". This is a misinterpretation. See.

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/hand-wavy-discussion-planck-length/

Moreover, mathematics is in no way dependent on the physical realities of time and space! How you can apply mathematics may be dependent on that, but not mathematics itself.

ah touche.

I know that math is independent of physical reality. But at the same time, we are using that math to prove things about the real world. I was watching a lecture where the quantization of momentum was derived using the periodic property of the momentum wave function, which is a form of euler's formula. These are continuous trig functions. Then I thought that the plank length might also derived in a similar manner: using continuous sines and cosines. It would be problematic if continuous functions based off of continuous space is used to prove space is quantized; that would be a contradiction.

But after reading the link, I see that space isn't really quantized.
 
  • #5
DennisN said:
With kindness I challenge you to find a credible source that says/demonstrates that the Planck length is the smallest unit of space allowable in existence.

There is no experimental evidence of any smallest unit of space.

Understood. I'm new to quantum. I believe my misconception came of popular science books and my knowledge of the descrete energies and momentums and thought plank length may be similar.
 
  • #6
FallenApple said:
Understood. I'm new to quantum. I believe my misconception came of popular science books and my knowledge of the descrete energies and momentums and thought plank length may be similar.
Excellent :wink:. You are definitely not alone in thinking what you thought - it is quite easy to make that thought leap from Planck length to thinking of it as a smallest unit of space. Yet, I should add that there could be a smallest unit of space - but to test this is very, very hard, with our technological capabilities of today.
 
  • #7
FallenApple said:
ah touche.

I know that math is independent of physical reality. But at the same time, we are using that math to prove things about the real world. I was watching a lecture where the quantization of momentum was derived using the periodic property of the momentum wave function, which is a form of euler's formula. These are continuous trig functions. Then I thought that the plank length might also derived in a similar manner: using continuous sines and cosines. It would be problematic if continuous functions based off of continuous space is used to prove space is quantized; that would be a contradiction.

But after reading the link, I see that space isn't really quantized.

There is a good, elementary example of the relationship between mathematics and physics in terms of a bouncing ball (there's a homework post about this at the moment). You can model a bouncing ball as an infinite geometric series of increasingly smaller bounces and, if you sum the infinite series you get a finite time at which the ball stops. In reality, of course, you do not have an infinite series of bounces and there comes a point where the mathematical bounces are so small that they are immeasurable, indistinguishable from the internal kinetic behaviour of the ball and, of course, smaller than the Planck length.

The mathematics stands up even though, in reality, you can never take the sum of an infinite series and there can only be in reality a finite number of bounces.
 
  • Like
Likes FallenApple

1. What is the real line?

The real line, also known as the number line, is a straight line that represents all real numbers in a continuous manner. It includes both positive and negative numbers, as well as zero, and extends infinitely in both directions.

2. Why is the real line misleading?

The real line can be misleading because it can give the impression that there is a fixed distance between numbers, when in reality, there are infinite numbers between any two numbers on the real line. This can lead to misconceptions about the density and distribution of numbers on the real line.

3. How is the real line used in mathematics?

The real line is used in various fields of mathematics, including calculus, geometry, and statistics. It provides a visual representation of real numbers and is often used to graph functions, solve equations, and measure distances between points in geometric figures.

4. Can the real line be extended beyond infinity?

No, the real line cannot be extended beyond infinity. Infinity is not a number, but rather a concept that represents something that is without limits. Therefore, the real line can only extend infinitely in both directions, it cannot be extended beyond infinity.

5. How does the real line differ from the complex line?

The real line represents all real numbers, while the complex line represents all complex numbers. Complex numbers include both real and imaginary numbers, which have different properties and can be represented by a two-dimensional plane. The real line, on the other hand, is a one-dimensional line that only represents real numbers.

Similar threads

Replies
44
Views
3K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
3
Views
804
  • General Math
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
18
Views
1K
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
80
Views
4K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
30
Views
3K
Back
Top