Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

[Phys-L] Re: Zeno's Paradoxes



I agree the reductio ad absurdum is not satisfying. However, does not
this mean any axioms that violate experience are invalid? My grasp of
Quantum Physics is rather tenuous, but des it not so far predict non
infinitesimility? Strings and Branes are thick?

bc, who will ask Dr. Kaku

Chuck Britton wrote:

My understanding is indeed that a quantization of space/time would
avoid the B-T considerations.

What considerations might this be?

Keeping the infinitesimals leads us to 'physically impossible' results,
but, no problem, we'll just dismiss those results that turn out to be
unreasonable.

This approach seems to be lacking something. In my mind there should a
better way to get consistent agreement between the mathematics (that
we define) and the physical world (which we observe.)



On Apr 2, 2005, at 1:57 AM, Bernard Cleyet wrote:


If space is quantized, then the B-T paradox doesn't apply?

bc

Chuck Britton wrote:


Instantaneous velocity and it's associated infinitesimals may well
make Zeno's problem disappear but it does nothing to ameliorate the
Banach-Tarsky conundrums.


At 3:40 PM -0600 3/30/05, Jack Uretsky wrote:


Zeno's paradox goes away once you have the notion of instantaneous
velocity, which was not available at the time.
Regards,
Jack



_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l