Instances of zero?
Ralph E. Frost
actually instances of zero? Would not a zero value denote a
non-existent, irrelevant component or parameter?
--
Best regards,
Ralph E. Frost
Gerard Westendorp
space where the modulus of the wavefunction is zero. But there could be
points where the real or imaginary part is zero.
I don't think this makes zero irrelevant. If zero is irrelevant, then
shouldn't other numbers be too?
Toby Bartels
>In the physical thing itself which physics aims to model, ARE there
>actually instances of zero? Would not a zero value denote a
>non-existent, irrelevant component or parameter?
To the extent that there are instances of one, there are instances of zero.
This goes to the principle I formulated one day in high school:
"Zero is not nothing. Zero is a number, and that's something.
Rather, zero is the cardinal number of the set containing nothing.".
Zero, like one, is a number, so you might well argue
that neither zero nor one appears in the real world.
But I believe you may have a situation like this in mind:
At a particular point in spacetime, there is a particle.
This particle has, at that instant, an energy and momentum.
These depend on the observer,
but they combine to form the mass which is observer independent.
Expressed in, say, Planck units, this mass is a number.
In a sense, the number isn't part of the world like the particle is;
but, in another sense, the number is a feature of the world,
since it describes a particle that really exists.
Now, this number may be one, such as for a particle of mass about 10^{-5} g.
(Or is it 10^{-5} kg? Something like that.)
Then the number one is part of the real world.
But the number may also be zero! such as for a photon.
Then the number zero is also part of the real world.
The point is that a photon has a mass.
The mass may be zero, but it is still a mass,
and the photon, of course, still exists.
-- Toby
to...@ugcs.caltech.edu
Charles W. Shults III
>
> In the physical thing itself which physics aims to model, ARE there
> actually instances of zero? Would not a zero value denote a
> non-existent, irrelevant component or parameter?
>
> Best regards,
> Ralph E. Frost
Not at all. Although the differential gravitational
field in a perfectly uniform hollow sphere is zero,
there is still a gravitational potential present. This
is not to say that there is no gravity, but just that
from one point to the next, the difference is zero.
Or how about the neutron? Although it has internal
charges due to its quark constituents, it exhibits a
zero charge at any significant distance. This is
similar to DeBye shielding distance in solids. Zero
isn't necessarily nothing...
Cheers!
Chip Shults
Gerard Westendorp
points where the amplitude is zero, but only in specific points, where
the wave function crosses zero.
I don't think this makes zero irrelevant. If zero is irrelevant, then
shouldn't other numbers be too?
Ralph E. Frost wrote:
Gerard Westendorp
t...@rosencrantz.stcloudstate.edu wrote:
> In article <381F6664...@xs4all.nl>,
> Gerard Westendorp <wes...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >In the wave interpretation of quantum mechanics, there is no point in
> >space where the modulus of the wavefunction is zero.
>
> This is not true. The wavefunction of a particle can certainly
> have zeroes.
>
OK, I made a mistake.
Here is another thought on zero:
Suppose you start with an empty universe, and write is as a
superposition of 2 non-empty states:
0 = | x > + | -x >
This may seem a pointless statement, but what if | x > were a hugely
complicated state, describing an entire unverse, with observers in it?
Would not those observers see this state as being real?
In other words, the universe creates itself from nothingness by having
observes in it. Speculate: The sum of all possible universes is zero.
Gerard
Ralph E. Frost
> OK, I made a mistake.
>
> Here is another thought on zero:
> Suppose you start with an empty universe, and write is as a
> superposition of 2 non-empty states:
>
> 0 = | x > + | -x >
>
> This may seem a pointless statement, but what if | x > were a hugely
> complicated state, describing an entire unverse, with observers in it?
> Would not those observers see this state as being real?
> In other words, the universe creates itself from nothingness by having
> observes in it. Speculate: The sum of all possible universes is zero.
Maybe, but can you first explain what the major difficulty is with
"suppose you start with universe"?
I don't see what the secondary empty/full distinction is. It's still
the given.
Before you cascade off into some more esoteric tangent, can you clarify
the motivation of your route? I keep seeing the examples you and
others give as being focused on "artifact_1 plus artifact_2 are in
balance (add up to zero)".
Is that the group's final answer? Universe is deemed to either add up
to zero or be assumed an empty container object to start?
What is the basis of chasing that objective function?
--
Best regards,
Ralph E. Frost
http://www.dcwi.com/~refrost/index.htm
Ralph E. Frost
>
> In the wave interpretation of quantum mechanics, there is no point in
> points where the amplitude is zero, but only in specific points, where
> the wave function crosses zero.
>
> I don't think this makes zero irrelevant. If zero is irrelevant, then
> shouldn't other numbers be too?
I was not saying zero as a computed result of a difference calculation
was or is irrelevant. When things that are in balance in nature are
abstracted into equation form, usually the expression reads: value1
minus value2 equals zero.
The distinction I am making is, when physics folks say "value1 is zero",
that statement means that that component has no relevance, no bearing,
no existence in the physical system.
It seems to me your corrected statment above confirms the point I am
making.
In the math expressions, zero makes a lot of sense. But out there is
the physical region, what, specifically, are the instances of zero that
folks actually encounter?
It's probably a minor point. I just figured I'd get a different response
- a LONG listing of all the valid instances of zero-valued components -
which would counter-balance or correctly offset what seems like such a
wayward thought.
>
> Ralph E. Frost wrote:
>
> > In the physical thing itself which physics aims to model, ARE there
> > actually instances of zero? Would not a zero value denote a
> > non-existent, irrelevant component or parameter?
--
Ralph E. Frost
>
> Ralph E. Frost <ref...@dcwi.com> wrote:
>
> >In the physical thing itself which physics aims to model, ARE there
> >actually instances of zero? Would not a zero value denote a
> >non-existent, irrelevant component or parameter?
>
In math, I agree. In physics, no, the statement you present here is not
correct. In the physical system we begin with the given. That's one,
not zero. Then folks subdivide the singularity and then notice that
various components partition or balance in certain manners which we
recognize as zero.
Zero is a handy placeholder or representation indicating the point(s)
where two or more components are balanced. Yet, if one says there is
zero [gravitational] field strength, for instance, [gravitational] field
is not present. It's non-existent, irrelevant.
So, as best I can figure, zero is not present in the physical system.
> This goes to the principle I formulated one day in high school:
> "Zero is not nothing. Zero is a number, and that's something.
> Rather, zero is the cardinal number of the set containing nothing.".
>
> Zero, like one, is a number, so you might well argue
> that neither zero nor one appears in the real world.
You might argue that one doesn't exist in the physical thing itself,
but you notice I don't.
> But I believe you may have a situation like this in mind:
..
The thing I have in mind is outlined above. If I have not stated it
clearly, let me know and I will try to say it more clearly.
>
> The point is that a photon has a mass.
> The mass may be zero, but it is still a mass,
> and the photon, of course, still exists.
By this, in some round about way, are you trying to say you agree? Or
are you trying to point out that physics folks have simply zeroed their
balances using a photon as a primary standard?
Toby Bartels
>Toby Bartels <to...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>To the extent that there are instances of one, there are instances of zero.
>In math, I agree. In physics, no, the statement you present here is not
>correct. In the physical system we begin with the given. That's one,
>not zero. Then folks subdivide the singularity and then notice that
>various components partition or balance in certain manners which we
>recognize as zero.
I don't understand that paragraph at all.
>Zero is a handy placeholder or representation indicating the point(s)
>where two or more components are balanced. Yet, if one says there is
>zero [gravitational] field strength, for instance, [gravitational] field
>is not present. It's non-existent, irrelevant.
Not at all.
It's silly to say a gravitational field exists everywhere,
except at this one point where it suddenly disappears.
Much better to say it happens to be 0 at that point.
>>The point is that a photon has a mass.
>>The mass may be zero, but it is still a mass,
>>and the photon, of course, still exists.
>By this, in some round about way, are you trying to say you agree? Or
>are you trying to point out that physics folks have simply zeroed their
>balances using a photon as a primary standard?
I'm saying the photon does have a mass, even though the mass is zero.
Therefore, zero exists, as the mass of a photon exists.
Setting the mass of a photon to zero is not an arbitrary choice of scale;
it is forced on us by the most natural definition of mass,
as the magnitude of the energy/momentum vector.
-- Toby
to...@ugcs.caltech.edu
ax...@my-deja.com
> actually instances of zero? Would not a zero value denote a
> non-existent, irrelevant component or parameter?
>
There is a more interesting question in physics,
whether Infinity truly exists. I don't think so, and it
seem a ridiculous notion, in our finite world. Even though
Infinity exists AND causes troubles in formulas and singularities,
I think it only shows that the theory is incomplete, and that
there are overlayed effects in super-high densities/super-small
distances that aren't yet described by theory.
But I'm no expert either.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ralph E. Frost
> In article <381C4DFA...@dcwi.com>,
> "Ralph E. Frost" <ref...@dcwi.com> wrote:
>> In the physical thing itself which physics aims to model, ARE there
>> actually instances of zero? Would not a zero value denote a
>> non-existent, irrelevant component or parameter?
> There is a more interesting question in physics,
> whether Infinity truly exists.
Some part of the infinity troubles you suggest as more interesting are
secondary effects of the zero misunderstanding - rooted in the
interpretation physicists adopted from the math convention regarding
dividing by zero. As I understand it, _some_ singularities are
"divide by zero" situations. The standard, knee-jerk reaction is, "if a
term looks like the denominator IS zero, then the term (some part of
physical reality) goes to infinity". Not a good bet.
What actually is observed in all physical experiments, though, is when
stressed, the system or sub-system simply changes state.
Things are just as uncertain or complex, etc., with this small change in
thinking, but at least the description is more rational.
So, yeah. There are at least a couple of situations in the physical
system which deserve NOT to inherit, whole-hog, the pure math
interpretations and conventions.
Can anyone think of one instance of zero in the physical thing itself? I
was going to say some childish expression related to concentration, but
then I realized that concentrations are local samples. Plus, folks
drink equivalent of the Mississippi water eight-times over as it flows
to the Gulf so local samples would differ. Some might measure as zero,
which again means the attribute is not present, not existent.
Curious. Zero is not encountered in the physical system.
--
Best regards,
Ralph E. Frost
http://www.dcwi.com/~refrost/index.htm (HUP2)
[Moderator's note: In fact zero appears throughout physics just
as any other number does. Take your favorite equation and
subtract the right-hand side from both sides. - jb]
Ralph E. Frost
>
> ax...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > In article <381C4DFA...@dcwi.com>,
> > "Ralph E. Frost" <ref...@dcwi.com> wrote:
>
> >> In the physical thing itself which physics aims to model, ARE there
> >> actually instances of zero? Would not a zero value denote a
> Curious. Zero is not encountered in the physical system.
> [Moderator's note: In fact zero appears throughout physics just
> as any other number does. Take your favorite equation and
> subtract the right-hand side from both sides. - jb]
In Popper's World_3, that is exactly correct. But the question has to do
with what zero in the World_3 system correlates to in the physical thing
itself.
Take your favorite equation, written down on a flat surface (paper,
slate or whilteboard), cut the expression in the middle of the equals
sign, place each piece in the pan of a double pan balance. Adjust to
suit.
Physics, I'm thinking, is about finding and then accurately articulating
various balance points in the physical system. If, in one's rush to
scurry along with that venture, one adopts a faulty assumption or
inherits a slightly improper meaning from, say, mathematics, then
utlimately, the scientific method will HAVE to reveal that error and
folks will have to change their thinking.
Does this notion square with your thinking? Things balance.
Ralph E. Frost
>
> Ralph E. Frost <ref...@dcwi.com> wrote:
>
> > In the physical thing itself which physics aims to model, ARE there
> > actually instances of zero? Would not a zero value denote a
> > non-existent, irrelevant component or parameter?
>
> Physical quantities are inevitably measured with finite precission.
> So for experimental physics the real numbers are a luxury,
> the rationals will do.
>
> By choosing the units of measurement sufficiently small
> this can be reduced to the integers only.
>
> Therefore, rationalizing our unit systems sufficiently,
> it must happen occasionally that the outcome of a measurement
> is really (the integer) zero.
>
Sounds like a World_3 adaptation to me, roughly equal to the INT()
function in Microsoft Foxpro. I was still wondering if there is ONE
actual World_1 instance of zero and its physical interpretation.
Are you folks are stumped on this or just unable to answer questions
that exist in your blind SPOT? //:| [Emoticon for covering one's head
with both arms before the stoning begins.]
--
Best regards,
Ralph E. Frost
http://www.dcwi.com/~refrost/index.htm ..Feeling is believing..
J. J. Lodder
> Ralph E. Frost wrote:
> >
> > ax...@my-deja.com wrote:
snip
> > Curious. Zero is not encountered in the physical system.
>
> > [Moderator's note: In fact zero appears throughout physics just
> > as any other number does. Take your favorite equation and
> > subtract the right-hand side from both sides. - jb]
Indeed, one more (perhaps mythical, who cares)
Feynman anecdote to illustrate this trivial point.
Someone once asked: Mr Feynman, do you think it will one day
be possible to condense all of physics into one simple equation?
F.: Sure, the equation is *F* = 0. (magnificent script F of course :-)
Q: But what is *F*?
A: *F* is the Great Feynman Function:
*F* =def (action + reaction)^2 + (F - ma)^2 + (Div B)^2 + ......
Unfortunately there are still some terms missing........
Best,
Jan