Big Mystery/Question

Anthony · 04-23-2003, 06:39 PM

can you cut something down (doesn't matter what it is, as long as it's a solid piece of matter) so much, constantly slicing it in half, to the point where it disappears/ceases to exist. is there a time where you reach a point where you can say "with this final slice this poiece of matter will cease to exist"? always wondered that. my answer is no, you can cut something down infinitely and that it won't disappear.

Franklinnoble · 04-23-2003, 06:42 PM

Mathmatically speaking, you're right. You can infinitely divide any number in half.

From a physics standpoint, it's really unknown, as there's no sure definition of what exactly is the smallest amount of matter in the universe.

panerd · 04-23-2003, 07:20 PM

I thought the smallest piece of matter was an atom? Wasn't that the definition I learned in 9th grade chemistry?

albionmoonlight · 04-23-2003, 07:25 PM

It all depends on how you define "something."

Sugar is a molecule. If you cut it in half until you have to break apart the sugar molecule, then you no longer have sugar--you have atoms that make sugar.

Atoms can be cut into protons, electrons, and neutrons, which can be cut into smaller particles.

I agree with you, HA. There may be a point where our concepts of "cutting" no longer apply, but I don't think you lose anything. Matter/energy--as far as we can tell--is always conserved. It does not appear and disappear from the universe.

RonnieDobbs · 04-23-2003, 07:29 PM

Atoms are made of electrons, protons, and neutrons. Protons and neutrons are made up of quarks and gluons. There is no evidence that quarks and gluons are made up of constituent parts. So, therefore, no, in this "thought experiement" you'd hit a wall at the quarks.

QuikSand · 04-23-2003, 08:09 PM

I think conceptually, at some point if you keep cutting something, you get to the point below which you may keep cutting... but what you are cutting ceases to still retain the identity or characteristics of what you started with.

Somewhat like alb says above - you can take a giant particle of something like sugar. Keep cutting it down to smaller and smaller pieces of sugar, fine. Eventually, you get to the point where you are divising the sugar molecule itself, and therefore you are still dividing, but you now are dividing the sugar into its component atoms of Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Carbon. Keep going, and you can keep dividin into subatomic levels... but what you're dividing is no longer "sugar" - it will have no properties of the original substance.

Butter · 04-24-2003, 07:49 AM

*head explodes*

Anrhydeddu · 04-24-2003, 10:49 AM

This is the same puzzle as approaching a finish line (i.e., you never can get there if you keep segmenting into half the distance). However, it all becomes a point of reference in reality. If you are working at the sub-atomic level, then perhaps you can keep cutting but at some point, you reach a level that is impossible to determine the results of the halving. At a more macro level, you will reach the finish line because at the scale we view it, we do reach it. At that same macro level, cutting something with a blade, you will reach the level in which the blade can no longer be able to slice something in half. At that point, it becomes more a thought experiment as oppose to something realistic or practical.

JPhillips · 04-24-2003, 10:55 AM

I have a brother working on his PhD in theoretical physics. I'll email him the question and see what he says.

Fritz · 04-24-2003, 10:57 AM

If you reach a finite point then infinity is in trouble!

Anrhydeddu · 04-24-2003, 11:08 AM

All depends upon your point of reference, Fritz.

Fritz · 04-24-2003, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
All depends upon your point of reference, Fritz.

how so?

Daimyo · 04-24-2003, 11:22 AM

This reminds me of one of my favorite mathematical quirks:

-Graph the function f(x) = 1/x, from x=1 to infinity
-Rotate that graph around the x-axis to form a 3-dimensional object.

The resulting 3-dimensional object has finite volume, but infinite surface area. Meaning, if the object existed in real life, you could fill it with it with a certain amount of paint (because the volume is finite), but you could never fully paint the inside of it (because the surface area is infinte).

(at least that's what i learned sitting in on one advanced theoretical calculas class at UChicago when I was visiting the school as a high school senior.. I don't think I can verify it myself)

Anrhydeddu · 04-24-2003, 11:48 AM

Fritz, I suppose it is because we don't live in infinity space or at the sub-atomic level. In our finite minds and therefore, viewpoint, we can view and measure finite distances and time. Or something like that.

Ben E Lou · 04-24-2003, 12:18 PM

My question is this:

Since when has Hell Atlantic been the person to spark discussions involving theoretical calculus and sub-atomic physics???

Fritz · 04-24-2003, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SkyDog
My question is this:

Since when has Hell Atlantic been the person to spark discussions involving theoretical calculus and sub-atomic physics???

Hell bought a 1960's vintage Dr. Roy Hinkley Halloween costume.

JonInMiddleGA · 04-24-2003, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SkyDog
My question is this:

Since when has Hell Atlantic been the person to spark discussions involving theoretical calculus and sub-atomic physics???

I'm not quite sure, but I think there's probably a Hell (Atlantic) has just frozen over joke in there somewhere.

bbor · 04-24-2003, 12:44 PM

If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound?

Same argument...different example

Anrhydeddu · 04-24-2003, 12:46 PM

You know, bbor, I never understand the controversy behind that. Basic physical laws (as if I really understood them) says that when two masses strike, energy is released in some form or another.

bbor · 04-24-2003, 12:49 PM

I think it's more of a fact that nobody hears it...so how can you prove it actually happened sorta thing.

Lot's of people don't Trust/understand physics...so they are sceptics..IMHO anyways

Daimyo · 04-24-2003, 01:25 PM

Sure if a tree falls it creates vibrations, but the question is, if no receiver exists to convert the vibrations into what we interpret as sound... does the sound exist?

Fritz · 04-24-2003, 01:30 PM

Maple Leafs · 04-24-2003, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SkyDog
Since when has Hell Atlantic been the person to spark discussions involving theoretical calculus and sub-atomic physics???

He's desperately trying to get his RWBL Twins budget sorted out.

astralhaze · 04-24-2003, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Daimyo
Sure if a tree falls it creates vibrations, but the question is, if no receiver exists to convert the vibrations into what we interpret as sound... does the sound exist?

No, it does not. What we call sound is how our brain interprets that wave in to an understandable form. If no human being is there to interperet it, it's just a wave.

Fritz · 04-24-2003, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by astralhaze
No, it does not. What we call sound is how our brain interprets that wave in to an understandable form. If no human being is there to interperet it, it's just a wave.

dumb deaf animals

Anrhydeddu · 04-24-2003, 02:16 PM

Humans are not the only ones that can interpret sounds. Even organisms with no auditory nerves can "sense" sounds in other ways.

astralhaze · 04-24-2003, 02:18 PM

Well, I took no one to mean no humans or animals.

As far as organisms with no auditory nerves, they may sense the wave, but would you call it a sound? The wave is surely there but it is interpreted completely differently.

Anrhydeddu · 04-24-2003, 02:23 PM

I don't know. We can interpret the sound to a memory but our primal reaction to a very loud sound, no matter the source, is the close up and reduce the effect of that energy wave on ourselves. For exampe, if you have your back to a falling tree and assuming it is very loud, your first reaction will be to cover your ears. I suppose that would be the same reaction to such an energy wave for organisms that do not know the source of the sound (it really doesn't matter) but certainly can respond to its effect on them.

astralhaze · 04-24-2003, 02:26 PM

Sure, of course, I think we are misscomunicating a bit

. What I mean is, what we would call a sound is what we hear, not the wave itself. That may sound like semantics but I don't know.

Anrhydeddu · 04-24-2003, 02:29 PM

We can also feel sound without hearing it (I can attest to that personally unfortunately).

astralhaze · 04-24-2003, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
We can also feel sound without hearing it (I can attest to that personally unfortunately).

lol

Right, but it is a sound wave right? Not what we would refer to as a sound, since what we call a sound is what we hear. Like I said, it is a little bit of a semantic argument.

Anrhydeddu · 04-24-2003, 02:39 PM

I think it is semantics to you and me but

Quote:

From the point of view of physics, sound is considered to be the waves of vibratory motion themselves, whether or not they are heard by the human ear.

Butter · 04-24-2003, 02:41 PM

If you have a really long, boring argument, but no one reads it, does it exist?

astralhaze · 04-24-2003, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
If you have a really long, boring argument, but no one reads it, does it exist?

I'm sorry, but I can't hear you

Fritz · 04-24-2003, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
If you have a really long, boring argument, does it exist?

If it is with your wife it exists forever.

Maple Leafs · 04-24-2003, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by astralhaze
As far as organisms with no auditory nerves, they may sense the wave, but would you call it a sound?

I have a friend who is an organism with no auditory nerves. He browses this forum from my computer on weekends, so could you please make sure nothing from this thread ends up as a QOTM? Thanks.

astralhaze · 04-24-2003, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
I have a friend who is an organism with no auditory nerves. He browses this forum from my computer on weekends, so could you please make sure nothing from this thread ends up as a QOTM? Thanks.

Franklinnoble · 04-24-2003, 04:00 PM

For a moment their, I read "organism" as "orgasm" and got really confused.

Anthony · 04-24-2003, 07:50 PM

this still doesn't answer my question.

my question wasn't "can you slice sugar in half until there's no qualities left that makes it sugar?". that's why i used the word "matter", i'm more interested in discovering whether it's theoretically or physically possible to take any piece of solid substance and slice it till there's nothing left to slice. becasue yes, there is a point where you get to the simplest base of what a item and then crossing that line that item is just a collection of molecules and not sugar (to keep the previous example) anymore.

we know of quarks on a sub-atomic level, but once we start splitting quarks is there a whole "sub-sub-atomic" (for lack of a better word) level where we're slicing quarks in half and whatever is left of that? basically - will we reach a point where one final slice will be the end to a piece of matter? i say no, because you can take the number 0.01 and infinitely put zeroes in front of that 1 and it would still be an actual number. maybe i asnwered my own question.

Anthony · 04-24-2003, 07:53 PM

Next Mystery/Question:

Say you live in NYC. if everyone in Pennsylvania were to scream at the top of their lungs at the same time - do you think we here in NYC would hear them? i asked this at a small get-together and they all said no. i say several million people all screaming together will create a noise loud enough to hear.

going further, or adding to this question - if you answer "yes" to the above question - how much south do you think you could go (in terms of states) until NYC couldn't hear the noise anymore?

04-23-2003, 07:29 PM	#5
RonnieDobbs High School JV Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Boston, MA	Atoms are made of electrons, protons, and neutrons. Protons and neutrons are made up of quarks and gluons. There is no evidence that quarks and gluons are made up of constituent parts. So, therefore, no, in this "thought experiement" you'd hit a wall at the quarks. __________________ ----------------------------------------- Lookin' forward to great seasons from my 'Skins, Cubbies, and Red Sox (please humor me) Proud Manager of the BOSTON WYCKYD SCEPTRE Also attempting to Right The Ship with the Clippers

04-24-2003, 07:49 AM	#7
Butter Coordinator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Dayton, OH	head explodes __________________ My listening habits

04-24-2003, 10:55 AM	#9
JPhillips Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Newburgh, NY	I have a brother working on his PhD in theoretical physics. I'll email him the question and see what he says. __________________ To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers

04-24-2003, 10:57 AM	#10
Fritz Lethargic Hooligan Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: hello kitty found my wallet at a big tent revival and returned it with all the cash missing	If you reach a finite point then infinity is in trouble! __________________ donkey, donkey, walk a little faster

04-24-2003, 11:22 AM	#13
Daimyo College Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Berkeley	This reminds me of one of my favorite mathematical quirks: -Graph the function f(x) = 1/x, from x=1 to infinity -Rotate that graph around the x-axis to form a 3-dimensional object. The resulting 3-dimensional object has finite volume, but infinite surface area. Meaning, if the object existed in real life, you could fill it with it with a certain amount of paint (because the volume is finite), but you could never fully paint the inside of it (because the surface area is infinte). (at least that's what i learned sitting in on one advanced theoretical calculas class at UChicago when I was visiting the school as a high school senior.. I don't think I can verify it myself) Last edited by Daimyo : 04-24-2003 at 11:25 AM.

04-23-2003, 06:42 PM	#2
Franklinnoble Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Placerville, CA	Mathmatically speaking, you're right. You can infinitely divide any number in half. From a physics standpoint, it's really unknown, as there's no sure definition of what exactly is the smallest amount of matter in the universe.

04-23-2003, 07:20 PM	#3
panerd Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: St. Louis	I thought the smallest piece of matter was an atom? Wasn't that the definition I learned in 9th grade chemistry?

04-23-2003, 07:25 PM	#4
albionmoonlight Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: North Carolina	It all depends on how you define "something." Sugar is a molecule. If you cut it in half until you have to break apart the sugar molecule, then you no longer have sugar--you have atoms that make sugar. Atoms can be cut into protons, electrons, and neutrons, which can be cut into smaller particles. I agree with you, HA. There may be a point where our concepts of "cutting" no longer apply, but I don't think you lose anything. Matter/energy--as far as we can tell--is always conserved. It does not appear and disappear from the universe.

04-23-2003, 08:09 PM	#6
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	I think conceptually, at some point if you keep cutting something, you get to the point below which you may keep cutting... but what you are cutting ceases to still retain the identity or characteristics of what you started with. Somewhat like alb says above - you can take a giant particle of something like sugar. Keep cutting it down to smaller and smaller pieces of sugar, fine. Eventually, you get to the point where you are divising the sugar molecule itself, and therefore you are still dividing, but you now are dividing the sugar into its component atoms of Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Carbon. Keep going, and you can keep dividin into subatomic levels... but what you're dividing is no longer "sugar" - it will have no properties of the original substance.

04-24-2003, 10:49 AM	#8
Anrhydeddu Resident Curmudgeon Join Date: Oct 2002	This is the same puzzle as approaching a finish line (i.e., you never can get there if you keep segmenting into half the distance). However, it all becomes a point of reference in reality. If you are working at the sub-atomic level, then perhaps you can keep cutting but at some point, you reach a level that is impossible to determine the results of the halving. At a more macro level, you will reach the finish line because at the scale we view it, we do reach it. At that same macro level, cutting something with a blade, you will reach the level in which the blade can no longer be able to slice something in half. At that point, it becomes more a thought experiment as oppose to something realistic or practical.

04-24-2003, 11:08 AM	#11
Anrhydeddu Resident Curmudgeon Join Date: Oct 2002	All depends upon your point of reference, Fritz.

04-24-2003, 11:48 AM	#14
Anrhydeddu Resident Curmudgeon Join Date: Oct 2002	Fritz, I suppose it is because we don't live in infinity space or at the sub-atomic level. In our finite minds and therefore, viewpoint, we can view and measure finite distances and time. Or something like that.

04-24-2003, 12:18 PM	#15
Ben E Lou Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Greensboro, NC	My question is this: Since when has Hell Atlantic been the person to spark discussions involving theoretical calculus and sub-atomic physics??? __________________ The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'!

04-24-2003, 12:44 PM	#18
bbor Pro Starter Join Date: May 2001 Location: toronto	If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound? Same argument...different example __________________ Pumpy Tudors Now that I've cracked and made that admission, I wonder if I'm only a couple of steps away from wanting to tongue-kiss Jaromir Jagr and give Bobby Clarke a blowjob.

04-24-2003, 12:46 PM	#19
Anrhydeddu Resident Curmudgeon Join Date: Oct 2002	You know, bbor, I never understand the controversy behind that. Basic physical laws (as if I really understood them) says that when two masses strike, energy is released in some form or another.

04-24-2003, 12:49 PM	#20
bbor Pro Starter Join Date: May 2001 Location: toronto	I think it's more of a fact that nobody hears it...so how can you prove it actually happened sorta thing. Lot's of people don't Trust/understand physics...so they are sceptics..IMHO anyways __________________ Pumpy Tudors Now that I've cracked and made that admission, I wonder if I'm only a couple of steps away from wanting to tongue-kiss Jaromir Jagr and give Bobby Clarke a blowjob.

04-24-2003, 01:25 PM	#21
Daimyo College Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Berkeley	Sure if a tree falls it creates vibrations, but the question is, if no receiver exists to convert the vibrations into what we interpret as sound... does the sound exist?

04-24-2003, 01:30 PM	#22
Fritz Lethargic Hooligan Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: hello kitty found my wallet at a big tent revival and returned it with all the cash missing	\ __________________ donkey, donkey, walk a little faster

04-24-2003, 02:16 PM	#26
Anrhydeddu Resident Curmudgeon Join Date: Oct 2002	Humans are not the only ones that can interpret sounds. Even organisms with no auditory nerves can "sense" sounds in other ways.

04-24-2003, 02:18 PM	#27
astralhaze College Prospect Join Date: Dec 2002	Well, I took no one to mean no humans or animals. As far as organisms with no auditory nerves, they may sense the wave, but would you call it a sound? The wave is surely there but it is interpreted completely differently. __________________ I can understand Brutus at every meaning, but that parahraphy threw me for a loop.

04-24-2003, 02:23 PM	#28
Anrhydeddu Resident Curmudgeon Join Date: Oct 2002	I don't know. We can interpret the sound to a memory but our primal reaction to a very loud sound, no matter the source, is the close up and reduce the effect of that energy wave on ourselves. For exampe, if you have your back to a falling tree and assuming it is very loud, your first reaction will be to cover your ears. I suppose that would be the same reaction to such an energy wave for organisms that do not know the source of the sound (it really doesn't matter) but certainly can respond to its effect on them.

04-24-2003, 02:26 PM	#29
astralhaze College Prospect Join Date: Dec 2002	Sure, of course, I think we are misscomunicating a bit . What I mean is, what we would call a sound is what we hear, not the wave itself. That may sound like semantics but I don't know. __________________ I can understand Brutus at every meaning, but that parahraphy threw me for a loop.

04-24-2003, 02:29 PM	#30
Anrhydeddu Resident Curmudgeon Join Date: Oct 2002	We can also feel sound without hearing it (I can attest to that personally unfortunately).

04-24-2003, 02:41 PM	#33
Butter Coordinator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Dayton, OH	If you have a really long, boring argument, but no one reads it, does it exist? __________________ My listening habits

04-24-2003, 04:00 PM	#38
Franklinnoble Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Placerville, CA	For a moment their, I read "organism" as "orgasm" and got really confused.

04-24-2003, 07:50 PM	#39
Anthony Banned Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Astoria, NY, USA	this still doesn't answer my question. my question wasn't "can you slice sugar in half until there's no qualities left that makes it sugar?". that's why i used the word "matter", i'm more interested in discovering whether it's theoretically or physically possible to take any piece of solid substance and slice it till there's nothing left to slice. becasue yes, there is a point where you get to the simplest base of what a item and then crossing that line that item is just a collection of molecules and not sugar (to keep the previous example) anymore. we know of quarks on a sub-atomic level, but once we start splitting quarks is there a whole "sub-sub-atomic" (for lack of a better word) level where we're slicing quarks in half and whatever is left of that? basically - will we reach a point where one final slice will be the end to a piece of matter? i say no, because you can take the number 0.01 and infinitely put zeroes in front of that 1 and it would still be an actual number. maybe i asnwered my own question.

04-24-2003, 07:53 PM	#40
Anthony Banned Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Astoria, NY, USA	Next Mystery/Question: Say you live in NYC. if everyone in Pennsylvania were to scream at the top of their lungs at the same time - do you think we here in NYC would hear them? i asked this at a small get-together and they all said no. i say several million people all screaming together will create a noise loud enough to hear. going further, or adding to this question - if you answer "yes" to the above question - how much south do you think you could go (in terms of states) until NYC couldn't hear the noise anymore?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)