Elendur
Gamer and mathematician
Not really an answer to your question but I like the Fibonacci sequence:
1 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 8 , 13 , 21 , 34 , 55 , 89 ...
It's often appearing in the nature
Vihart - YouTube
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Not really an answer to your question but I like the Fibonacci sequence:Okay, here's a question...
I kind of believe that God has a love or an affinity to certain numbers such as 3, 7, and 144,000.
Are any of these numbers found in physics or equations that unify complex theories about our existence?
There are 12 patriarchs and in the end there will be 12,000 that are pure and undefiled to represent each of them for a total of 144,000. The third day and the seventh day are basicly the same. That is the 1000 year reign of Christ.I kind of believe that God has a love or an affinity to certain numbers such as 3, 7, and 144,000.
Do we believe that we put men on the moon? Um, why on Earth would anybody fail to believe that? Of course we put men on the moon.My question for today is, do you believe... R.E.M. Man On The Moon Lyrics - YouTube ...
Well, sort of. Many physical processes closely mimic the Fibonacci sequence (which adds the previous two elements). But they generally don't mimic it exactly, which is why I'm not entirely sure this one counts.Not really an answer to your question but I like the Fibonacci sequence:
1 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 8 , 13 , 21 , 34 , 55 , 89 ...
It's often appearing in the nature
Vihart - YouTube
Of course it doesn't mimic it exactly, I don't think any object can mimic a concept exactly.Well, sort of. Many physical processes closely mimic the Fibonacci sequence (which adds the previous two elements). But they generally don't mimic it exactly, which is why I'm not entirely sure this one counts.
Right. But in fundamental physics, you do find many exact numbers. The ones I mentioned, for instance:Of course it doesn't mimic it exactly, I don't think any object can mimic a concept exactly.
You know Platons ideal world.
Edit: I just like that it's appearing so often.
That sounds rightRight. But in fundamental physics, you do find many exact numbers. The ones I mentioned, for instance:
1/2: The spin of electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks, neutrinos, and a few other particles.
1: The spin of photons, gluons, W and Z bosons, the symmetry group of electromagnetism.
2: The spin of gravitons, the symmetry group of the weak force.
3: The symmetry group of the strong force, the number of quark/lepton families.
4: The number of space-time dimensions easily observed.
I suppose if you really wanted to go nuts, you could get any integer you wanted up to 200 or so by examining the periodic table.
Depends upon what you mean, but at the very least it is not a useful property. The Sun is not made out of an infinite variety of things, so listing one or a collection of things the Sun is not made out of is pretty much worthless.The sun is not made of tinsel. Is "not made of tinsel" an objective physical property?
Well, e is extremely common. Pi, of course, will always appear whenever we are taking the ratio of the circumference to diameter of a circle. In many situations, it may not be entirely obvious that that is what we are doing, so pi can pop up in many unexpected places. I don't think the square root of two, specifically, is important, but you will get many integer and half-integer powers of numbers like 2 or 2pi.That sounds rightbut about irrational numbers, pi and the root of 2 etc, are those represented as well?
I know they appear in ideal figures but I don't know if they appear in their exact form.
Sin, tan, cos and radians use those all the time so if they would appear exactly pi and the root of 2 should appear as well.
Unless 1/7 counts...Thank you.
So there isn't any formula that comes to the front of your mind that has a seven in it?
Maybe God loves primes. Who doesn't?Okay, here's a question...
I kind of believe that God has a love or an affinity to certain numbers such as 3, 7, and 144,000.
Can you have non-integer numbers of spacetime dimensions?Right. But in fundamental physics, you do find many exact numbers. The ones I mentioned, for instance:
[...]
4: The number of space-time dimensions easily observed.
Thank youWell, e is extremely common. Pi, of course, will always appear whenever we are taking the ratio of the circumference to diameter of a circle. In many situations, it may not be entirely obvious that that is what we are doing, so pi can pop up in many unexpected places. I don't think the square root of two, specifically, is important, but you will get many integer and half-integer powers of numbers like 2 or 2pi.
Personally I specialised in quantum and nuclear mechanics. Oh, cross-sectional surface areas, how I love thee...Are you a general physicist or do you specialize like a quantum physicist?
Depends on how you're defining the term. I'd say no - it's a property, it's about the physical make-up of the Sun, it's objective (and not some liberal subjective/relative nonsense), but it's not an objective physical property itself.The sun is not made of tinsel. Is "not made of tinsel" an objective physical property?
Good, I don't have to imagine fractal spacetime then!I don't think so. You can have objects that have non-integer dimensions (fractals). But I don't think you can do this with space-time dimensions.
Maybe there really is a fundamental particle far below quarks and gluons, which has a really real shape - but it's a 3D Koch snowflake, which (somehow) gives rise to the quantum effects we see at the nano scale, and in turn the classical effects at the macro scale. So who knows, maybe it really is squiggly edges all the way down...Good, I don't have to imagine fractal spacetime then!
Speaking of fractals, can a real-world object be a true fractal? Since physical objects have finite sizes, I would think that a fractal is always just an approximation.
Though, that's the same reasoning that says we can't have a perfect circle, so I'm not sure it's as profound as it seemed at first glance
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?