reverse Posted April 11, 2005 Posted April 11, 2005 If a body moves from A to B then before it reaches B it passes through the mid-point, say B1 of AB. Now to move to B1 it must first reach the mid-point B2 of AB1 . Continue this argument to see that A must move through an infinite number of distances and so cannot move. Zeno of Elea 450 BC ?
swansont Posted April 11, 2005 Posted April 11, 2005 Yes, that is one of Zeno's paradoxes, known as the dichotomy. Discussions of them can be found using Google, which would yield results like Wikipedia. Did you have a question?
ed84c Posted April 11, 2005 Posted April 11, 2005 No, It moves through a mulitple of "Plank Lengths" I forget the exact length, but its either the distance light travels in a plank time, or a plank time is the time it takes light to travel a plank length.
Johnny5 Posted April 11, 2005 Posted April 11, 2005 No' date=' It moves through a mulitple of "Plank Lengths" I forget the exact length, but its either the distance light travels in a plank time, or a plank time is the time it takes light to travel a plank length.[/quote'] Distance travelled is a frame dependent quantity. one Planck length is something around 10^-35 of a meter. But if something jumped that distance in one frame, it would have jumed twice that distance in a frame moving relative to the other frame, at twice the speed.
reverse Posted April 11, 2005 Author Posted April 11, 2005 Yes, that is one of Zeno's paradoxes, known as the dichotomy. Discussions of them can be found using Google, which would yield results like Wikipedia[/url']. Did you have a question? It seemed like a paradox to me as well. I was wondering what the calculus would make of it.
Callipygous Posted April 11, 2005 Posted April 11, 2005 It seemed like a paradox to me as well.I was wondering what the calculus would make of it. anyone at the calculus level would realize that the instant you're moving, you are covering an infinite number of distances every second. infinity/infinity is perfectly capable of being a real number. so things can in fact move (obviously). whenever someone tells you movement is impossible i recommend the stapler method.
□h=-16πT Posted April 11, 2005 Posted April 11, 2005 [math]\sum ^{\infty}_{n=0}\frac{1}{2}\left( \frac{1}{2} \right) ^n=1[/math] 'Tis what the calculus says.
Ophiolite Posted April 11, 2005 Posted April 11, 2005 isnt there already a thread on this?I'm pretty sure I've corrected ed's spelling of Planck before. [ed, if it wasn't you, then 'sorry'. If it was you, 'pay attention'.] It's deja vu all over again.
Dave Posted April 12, 2005 Posted April 12, 2005 'Tis what the calculus says. Well, yes. But Zeno was saying that you can only take a finite number of steps, and that summation involves a limit which is never actually attained
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now