Force paradox - a test of reasoning

[Quantum Quack]

So are you saying they are more like ___ (three _'s) rather than ...? No distinctness? Because I had assumed we are dealing with three infinitely small points lined up from A-C, with your question pertaining to movement from B-C and how to go one space forward only.

the key word is infinitey.

an infinitely small distance is just as close to zero as an infinitely thin line. you cannot quantify an infinitely small distance in normal terms.

 

[Quantum Quack]

or you could ask the question:
How far do you have to go to cross and infinitely thin line?

 

[Quantum Quack]

If I had to describe a "graviton" from instance I would consider it to be backward or inverse to that which would be intuitive. [ as the diagram shows] and essentially infinitely thin [ or pseudo 2 dimensional]

 

[Prince_James]

Quantum Quack:

Presumably three infinitely small points do not equal "an infinitely small point", but equal "an infinitely small point times three", or "3x".

Moreover, in the animation, are you implying that in passing an infinitely small distance, you can accelerate and decelerate? Because presumably it would only take an infinitely small period of time to cross an infinitely small distance, no?

 

[Prince_James]

Also, to cross an infinitely small line one must cross an infinitely small distance. Just as to cross a ten metre long room, one must cross ten metres.

I'll be back in half an hour, so no more rapid-fire responses until I get back. After that I shall probably have to go, also.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I am off to get some sleep my self, but I wanted to leave you with the reason why this is so important a point.

I feel that this is the fundamental that imparts spin on most particles. In essence it is this pheno that keeps the universe moving in or through time. And I admit it is a devil to explain properly.

 

[Stryder]

And I admit it is a devil to explain properly.

Welcome to the world of theoretical physics, People can take decades trying to come up with the simplest explaination that everyone can understand and doesn't cause misinterpretation. This is proven if you look at some of the PhD papers out there.

The usual way that any Lecturer or Tutor might try to suggest to someone attempting to explain a theory is to imagine that you are attempting to explain what ever it is you are theorising in to a room of 8 year olds. Kids of that age don't want to be bogged down with mind blowing lengthy explainations or extremely overblow words, they want it nice and simple and even to an extent presented in a fun manner.

I'm sure you've heard of the psychology that "..everyone has a Child inside" and at the face of it the one thing that never really grows up is peoples attention spans. Therefore speaking to people as if they were 8 years old can actually appeal to that youthful attention span.

 

[Prince_James]

The red line shows that in the time it takes to go from 5-6, the acceleration exceeds the capacity for one to stop. So in order to reach that point, one has to go an arbitrary distance back (represented by the -5) then counteract that force at the last moment. Following this, one then exceeds the prior force in the opposite direction, then does the same thing at the last moment, and wallah! We've reached an exact point.

 

[Quantum Quack]

hmmm....drawing using a mouse is a real pain hey?.....ha.....

Sorry I just had to say that.....

I think I see what you are saying PJ.

However how does this happen in an infinitely thin line?

and when dealing with infinitely small distances.

actually a question that might help clarify something:

If I have an infinitely thin plane and I place an infinite number of these planes on top of it [ surface to surface ] how thick is the resultant composite plane?
is it still infintely thin or is it now infinitley thick?

or
infintely thin *3 =?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Welcome to the world of theoretical physics, People can take decades trying to come up with the simplest explaination that everyone can understand and doesn't cause misinterpretation. This is proven if you look at some of the PhD papers out there.

The usual way that any Lecturer or Tutor might try to suggest to someone attempting to explain a theory is to imagine that you are attempting to explain what ever it is you are theorising in to a room of 8 year olds. Kids of that age don't want to be bogged down with mind blowing lengthy explainations or extremely overblow words, they want it nice and simple and even to an extent presented in a fun manner.

I'm sure you've heard of the psychology that "..everyone has a Child inside" and at the face of it the one thing that never really grows up is peoples attention spans. Therefore speaking to people as if they were 8 years old can actually appeal to that youthful attention span.

Stryder,
Thanks for your sympathy...hmmmm....and I always try to simplify but I guess somethings just can't be simplified too well..... or maybe and most probably, I haven't worked out how to do so well enough yet....

 

[Prince_James]

Quantum Quack:

Crap! I saw a problem in the above linked picture that I didn't catch. It was very late and I was very tired. Sorry about that. I will correct and repost it.

 

[Prince_James]

The picture should now show a correction.

Sorry about that once again!

Now to reply to you...

But as to whether three infinitely small points were to be connected together, or three infinitely small planes, or whatever the case might be, my answer is that yes, the answer would 3(infinitely small). Or to put it another way, if x = infinitely small, then it would be 3x. I could not give you an actual value for this, as the infinitely small cannot be given as a number.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The picture should now show a correction.

Sorry about that once again!

Now to reply to you...

But as to whether three infinitely small points were to be connected together, or three infinitely small planes, or whatever the case might be, my answer is that yes, the answer would 3(infinitely small). Or to put it another way, if x = infinitely small, then it would be 3x. I could not give you an actual value for this, as the infinitely small cannot be given as a number.

Infinitely thin *3 can only equal infinitely thin....[the main issue when dealing with infinity is that it can not be reduced or expanded. Thus multiplying it even by itself will still give you the same infinity]

infinitey * infinitey = infinitey IMO

 

[Quantum Quack]

I am working on another diagram using magnets and will post shortly.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The following diagram shows a simple experimental apparatus using magnets as a way of demonstrating the "scalloping" effect any small movement would make. By taking careful measurements the point I am making should be demonstrated.
<img src=http://www.ozziesnaps.com/diagram%208.gif>

In fact I should build it just out of curiocity.

I would expect that no matter how careful I was even moving the magnets apart a mere micron will produce a bouncing effect.

 

[Prince_James]

Sorry for the wait. Sciforums crapped out last night.

Quantum Quack:

"Infinitely thin *3 can only equal infinitely thin....[the main issue when dealing with infinity is that it can not be reduced or expanded. Thus multiplying it even by itself will still give you the same infinity]

infinitey * infinitey = infinitey IMO "

Well the thing is this: On the infinitely large,. I agree with you. You cannot enlargen the infinitely large. But when we are here discussing the infinitely small, we are all ready presupposing we have reached the infinitely small, and as it stands that two instances of the infinitely small are being dealt with, and that they are infinitely small and we can no further, that added up they'd equal twice this. Of course we then have to realize the absurdity of ever talking about "reaching the infinitely small", for just like its big brother, it could never be reached if it was infinite, but still must exist.

But the infinitely small is not zero, and only zero + zero could equal itself when it is not the biggest thing.

"I would expect that no matter how careful I was even moving the magnets apart a mere micron will produce a bouncing effect. "

When they try to compensate for the force? Although I also ask how you will make this machine, as presumably the fixed magnet at the bottom will always suspend the magnet (so long as it is capable of overcoming the weight of the upper magnet) at the same distance.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Ahh! I see my double ponted arrow has mislead you. The magnets are in a state of attraction and not repulsion. I shall fix the diagram. the scales and the micron winder suspend the upper magnet.

 

[Prince_James]

Quantum Quack:

I would then hypothesize that if you do see any bouncing, it will only be momentary and a result of the movement, not of "oscillating to the point of stability". Specifically if the contraption is stable, cranking the machine will move the entire magnet upward (presuming that you can exert enough foce to break free of the bottom magnet enough to move it), but even so, small disturbances in the movement will result in a slight bouncing.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Quantum Quack:

I would then hypothesize that if you do see any bouncing, it will only be momentary and a result of the movement, not of "oscillating to the point of stability". Specifically if the contraption is stable, cranking the machine will move the entire magnet upward (presuming that you can exert enough foce to break free of the bottom magnet enough to move it), but even so, small disturbances in the movement will result in a slight bouncing.

And if the cranking of the handle was extremely controlled when moving from one position to the next [ say 1/1000th of an inch ] how what would a graph of the scales reaction show?

I might add that I get the impression that we may be making this whole issue more complicated than it needs to be.
The apparatus is, for example, very simple. Not complex at all. In fact it could very easilly be a study for year 8 students at highschool.

I guess we may be looking for complexity that isn't there...

Firstly the cranking of the winder must provide a force that is greater than the 80 units by an infinitely small amount before the magnet can move upward. However the scales can not measure an infinitely small amount, in fact nothing can measure this amount but logically the amount must be greater than 80 units. This I think we can agree upon.

But of course as soon as the amount is greater it must also reduce immediately other wise accelleration would be present. again we are talking about infinitely small amounts.

It is the "break" point that is at issue. As soon as >80 units is applied the object will move yet as soon as it moves the force must reduce to <80 units.

The magnet can not accellerate as it is always in a field of attraction. So as you wind the magnets apart you should observe a slow and steady reduction shown by the scales. But as soon as you stop winding a bounce will become evident. as the > becomes the < or we end up with <0> a point of equalibrium.

So at this break point with the magnet stationary we have a contradiction of forces occuring all within an infinitely small amount of movement. And becasue everything is reduced to the infinite it can be said that this contradiction happens simultaneously.

You can see that no matter how this is approached there will always be a contradiction is language. The greater force has to be applied before the magnet will move yet in an infintely small amount of distance it must also be reduced, effectively happening simultaneously.

 

[Quantum Quack]

And because when the magnet is stationary the force supplied by the winder must be less than that required to move the magnet thus if we draw a dissecting line through this field we have an inversion of forces on the surfaces of the two sides of that infinitely thin line.

higher attraction-----------------------L|H--------------------Lower attraction

a bit like a monkey grip where by the fingers of each had pull from behind.
<img src=http://www.ozziesnaps.com/diagram%209.gif>