You normally go through B and C when passing from A to D

  • B
  • Thread starter Vir27
  • Start date
In summary, there is no term for this phenomenon in current usage, and the reason is that it is contingent on an above "very big if."
  • #1
Vir27
30
0
I am wondering if there is a term for a certain phenomenon. I tried to search (here, google, asking folks whose coursework had more physics courses than mine [1 :) ]). But I have trouble coming up with specific terms to search, which is the original question anyway?

I found several topics (about teleportation ;) ) here that discussed it directly...! ...but did not name it :) I have understood from searching, though, that this phenomenon, while common, is not guaranteed by known physical laws. That's just fine; that's not what I'm asking about. So I don't want to entice people unnecessarily to tell me about the circumstances of wormholes, teleportation, or passing through walls if you lean long enough. These things seem like exceptions to the "rule" I am asking about, but I am asking if there is term for the rule, not how to bend it. Thanks :)

The phenomenon is that, generally, you can't get from any point A to any point D without also passing through all points B and C in between.

Isn't there a handy term for referring to this phenomenon? For what it matters, it seems intuitive to me that this phenomenon is fundamental to observed experience, like inertia, the zeroth law of thermodynamics, or causality (though, again to admit, perhaps this phenomenon is not as reliable for physicists after all). Therefore, I wonder didn't somebody ever name it?Thank you for your time.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Do you mean that trajectory is continuous?
In one dimensional space it means that you cannot go from any point ##x_A## to any point ##x_D## without also passing through point ##x_B## if ##x_A>x_B>x_D \vee x_A<x_B<x_D##
 
  • #3
Yes, those look like other ways to put it to me.
 
  • #4
The "intermediate value theorem" provides that guarantee -- providing that the function is continuous.
 
  • #5
Possibly you're thinking I'm asking about points mathematical "space" instead of points in physical space, jbriggs444? (lol, I hesitated to use a math analogy in the first place because it might mislead people in this exact way ;) )

Is there a physics version of the intermediate value theorem?
 
  • #6
Vir27 said:
Possibly you're thinking I'm asking about points mathematical "space" instead of points in physical space, jbriggs444? (lol, I hesitated to use a math analogy in the first place because it might mislead people in this exact way ;) )

Is there a physics version of the intermediate value theorem?
The mathematics version applies if position is a continuous real-valued function of real-valued time. But that is a very big if.
 
  • #7
If you assume that Newtons 2.law is correct, mass is constant (real number) and force is always finite (real number), then position must be continuous function and intermediate value theorem applies to it.
 
  • #8
Finishing(?) the original question
So this seems a decisive answer. The "trajectory is continuous" phenomenon doesn't have a name (in current usage, at least: see below).

Further, I am hearing that this isn't as interesting a find to the informed physicist as to me, the amateur, because the phenomenon itself is 1) contingent on an above "very big if," and 2) not pertinent or reliable from a conceptual view. One does find it a pertinent and reliable phenomenon for doing, you know, motion in practice in the same way that inertia is pertinent and reliable On the way up to the third floor, the elevator always does pass the second, but never the fifth. I never do open a door at work and--surprise--I'm in Mexico City. I personally am not aware of a practical situation in which one would do better not to take it for granted, though I'm open to hear. Still, the relevant information for my question seem to be that if it were a phenomenon worth modern physics' having a term for, then this term would have come to your notices as handy already. That's good enough for me.

Point of Order: Respect Poe's Law :) That paragraph may sound sarcastic, but no sarcasm is intended. It's kind of hard to express judgment on such a counter-intuitive matter without sounding facetious.

I wonder if it might have an archaic term, though. I say this because the factors that make it pertinent and reliable in practice have been there since before folks were making physics terms, obviously. Unless I'm mistaken, the notions which problematize seeing position and time as continuous, real value functions are relatively recent in the physics world? So there was quite a lot of time in which folks might have found this phenomenon handy enough to name.

Supposing that I am concluding correctly from the above about there is no term for this and why, then an answer I got on GameFAQs.com seems to come closest to naming it: "In a way the whole of classical mechanics is this property."

Follow up question
So I'm hearing from olgerm that, if you were to set about explaining how come "trajectory is continuous" in physics terms, you'd say it follows from Newton's Second Law?

"If... mass is constant (real number) and force is always finite (real number), then position must be continuous function and intermediate value theorem applies to it."

Let me see if I understand that by trying to unpack it.

I reckon why we might accept constant, finite mass and force as entailed by the situation I propose.

"mass is constant (real number)"

An object would not have to go through point B on its way to point C if at point B it stopped being an object. Thus, we need that mass be constant.

"force is always finite (real number)"

An object would not have to go through point B on its way to point C if it "were not anywhere" on account of it increasing the rate at which it changed position infinitely? And that can't happen anyway because:

Force = mass * acceleration
The product of two finite quantities is finite, I suppose. (I don't know the name for that rule either ;) .)

Infinite acceleration is precluded by the finite speed of light being proved insuperable. While... infinite mass is impossible because it would also imply infinite energy because E=mc^2 and there is no infinite energy because then clearly energy was not conserved?"then position must be continuous function"

This one was harder. I am trying to understand this by thinking about a position-time graph of a function. If there were a break in the graph, that would mean there was a point for which "you can't get there from here." But there is nowhere an object can't get from here because for any arbitrary y value position on the graph, I can draw a line from any other position to get there at some slope of velocity. So this is why you tell me the function must be continuous, if mass doesn't give out at some position (and in spacetime mass is conserved) to make a discontinuity in the graph and if the impossibility of infinite velocity (in spacetime energy is conserved) precludes asymptotes. Is that right?

Well, if that is right that it a corollary of Newton's Second Law and such, and if it is right that it isn't a pertinent phenomenon for modern physics, it would still be easier to refer to if it had a name! :) "Olgerm's continuity of trajectory" may serve well :)

Caveat
In physics, despite the notions which I put together to explain to myself the relevance of finite mass and acceleration, the "very big if" line indicates that my argument is invalid.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
Wise-As*-Philosophical Answer:
"Reality is contiguous; perception of Reality, not so much.":oldconfused:
 
  • #10
Is perception of reality not part of reality? If it is neither unreal nor contiguous, is reality contiguous? :)
 
  • #11
Could anyone say whether I have understood olgerm, or else speak to #8? Much appreciated.

Being new here, I am not sure if there just isn't much to say about this "continuity of trajectory" thing or what. It seems like it's a question for physics to me.
 
  • #12
Vir27 said:
Could anyone say whether I have understood olgerm, or else speak to #8? Much appreciated.

Being new here, I am not sure if there just isn't much to say about this "continuity of trajectory" thing or what. It seems like it's a question for physics to me.
Classical physics assumes that objects have three dimensional positions that vary as continuous and differentiable functions of time. The laws of classical physics are expressible as differential equations. If you do not make those assumptions, differential equations do not work. Experiment at the normal human scale shows that objects closely follow the laws of classical physics. So we accept the assumptions of continuity and go about our business.

At the scale of the very quick and the very small, the world may not fit these assumptions. It is not possible to measure an object's position continuously and exactly. This is the world of quantum mechanics. Our best models at this scale still use a continuum, but they do not require that particles always have an exact position.

It is not known whether the universe is really discrete or continuous. Experiment does not (and, perhaps can not) say one way or the other.
 
  • #13
Vir27 said:
"mass is constant (real number)"

An object would not have to go through point B on its way to point C if at point B it stopped being an object. Thus, we need that mass be constant.
I did not mean that, but it is also true, that if mass of an object suddenly become 0, then it basically disappeared. In classical physics masses of objects do not change at all that way.
Vir27 said:
"force is always finite (real number)"

An object would not have to go through point B on its way to point C if it "were not anywhere" on account of it increasing the rate at which it changed position infinitely? And that can't happen anyway because:

Force = mass * acceleration

The product of two finite quantities is finite
You are wording it wrongly, but basic idea is correct.
Vir27 said:
Infinite acceleration is precluded by the finite speed of light being proved insuperable. While... infinite mass is impossible because it would also imply infinite energy because E=mc^2 and there is no infinite energy because then clearly energy was not conserved?
No.

##\begin{cases}
\vec x(T_1)=x(T_0)+\int_{T_0}^{T_1}(dt_1 \cdot(v(T_0)+\int_{T_0}^{t_1}(dt_2 \cdot \vec a(t_2)))) \\
\vec a(T_1)=\frac{\vec F(T_1)}{m}
\end{cases} \Rightarrow \vec x(T_1)=x(T_0)+\int_{T_0}^{T_1}(dt_1 \cdot(v(T_0)+\int_{T_0}^{t_1}(dt_2 \cdot \frac{\vec F(t_2)}{m})))##
From these equation follows, that if F and m are finite real numbers, then x must be continuous function.

Vir27 said:
I am trying to understand this by thinking about a position-time graph of a function.
If ##\frac{F}{m}## is second derivative of that function (curvature of graph). If second derivative is everywhere finite, then function itself must be also contnuous.
 
  • #14
olgerm said:
If second derivative is everywhere finite, then function itself must be also contnuous.
Stronger: If the second derivative is everywhere defined, the first derivative must be everywhere defined and continuous. If the first derivative is everywhere defined, the function must be everywhere defined and continuous.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
Ahhhh, thanks for the detailed replies, fellows! I appreciate your time.

From jbriggs, I see why there is this "very big if" and why the question is slightly askew of proper physics discussion. I remotely of knew those things about there being a tension between classical and quantum mechancis, but I did not properly apply the information to my question. I had been reading here in other threads about the Born probability of passing through walls, about which I know nothing, and I just assumed that the very big if was something I don't know about like that. Thanks for humoring me, then.From olgerm, I am not in context for the more involved expressions there, but that's alright. I am very glad you responded because I worked at it to try to follow what you were saying. Unless you tell me I'm mistaken, I feel it's fine I don't puzzle out the context for the larger expressions you cited. I am glad you included the last bit: now you mention it, I remember the "second derivative test." That was not going to occur to my mind, but acceleration as the second derivative of motion and rearranging for F/m=a makes sense!

Thanks, Physics Forums.
 
  • #16
I couldn't resist the parting comment that your original question brings to my mind, what are called in physics, the equations of continuity; they arose originally in fluid mechanics but the concept shows itself in electrodynamics and energy as well. I lifted a paragraph from a Wikipedia article:

"Continuity equations are a stronger, local form of conservation laws. For example, a weak version of the law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed—i.e., the total amount of energy is fixed. This statement does not immediately rule out the possibility that energy could disappear from a field in Canada while simultaneously appearing in a room in Indonesia. A stronger statement is that energy is locally conserved: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, nor can it "teleport" from one place to another—it can only move by a continuous flow. A continuity equation is the mathematical way to express this kind of statement ..."

Just remember that Wikipedia is not authoritative, but that doesn't mean it cannot be helpful; it just means that you must corroborate what you find there with an authoritative or reliable content source.

Anyway the equations of continuity are a physics concept that buttress the conservation laws with the restriction that, "... you can't get from any point A to any point D without also passing through all points B and C in between." So in answer to your question, "Isn't there a handy term for referring to this phenomenon?", I will pitch the that the answer is yes, the equations of continuity (albeit that is not a term, singular).
 
  • #17
Neat. I am glad I came back to check something, or I'd have missed your addition.

That's a good page. If I had found that page, I'd have been satisfied without asking. Thanks!

Thanks for posting!
 
  • #18
How about tunneling. Doesn't this phenomenon imply that a particle moves from one location to another without ever occupying any points in between?
 
  • #19
I really don't know. Is it skipping points or taking an alternate, presumably shorter set?
 
  • #20
Vir27 said:
I really don't know. Is it skipping points or taking an alternate, presumably shorter set?
It is detected here. It was detected there. Anything else is philosophy, not physics.
 
  • Like
Likes Buzz Bloom
  • #21
Well, there you go, Buzz Bloom :)
 

1. Why is it important to go through B and C when passing from A to D?

Going through B and C when passing from A to D is important because it allows for a more efficient and accurate route. B and C may serve as checkpoints or intermediate steps that help to guide and direct the journey from A to D. Skipping these steps may lead to confusion or deviation from the intended path.

2. What are the potential consequences of skipping B and C when passing from A to D?

The consequences of skipping B and C when passing from A to D can vary depending on the specific situation. In some cases, it may lead to delays, as the direct route from A to D may not be as efficient. It could also result in getting lost or missing important information or tasks that were meant to be completed in B and C.

3. Are there any exceptions to the rule of going through B and C when passing from A to D?

Yes, there may be exceptions to this rule. In certain circumstances, it may be more efficient or necessary to skip B and C when passing from A to D. This could be due to factors such as time constraints or unforeseen obstacles. However, it is important to carefully evaluate the situation before deviating from the recommended path.

4. How do you determine the best route from A to D when there are multiple options?

Determining the best route from A to D when there are multiple options can be done by considering various factors such as time, distance, and potential obstacles. It may also be helpful to consult with others who have experience with the route or use mapping tools to compare different routes. Ultimately, the best route may vary depending on the specific situation and individual preferences.

5. Can going through B and C when passing from A to D be beneficial even if it may not seem necessary?

Yes, going through B and C when passing from A to D can still be beneficial even if it may not seem necessary at first. These intermediate steps may provide valuable information or insight that can improve the overall journey. It may also serve as a precautionary measure to avoid potential issues that may arise later on in the journey.

Similar threads

  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Differential Equations
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
868
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
722
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
948
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
1K
Back
Top