Dividing/Multiplying Matter to Infinity

[wmc1982]

I'm sure I'm not the only one to ever think about this, and it might of already been proven to be true (or false).

But lets just say that space is infinite, for the sake of the argument. With math, numbers can be multiplied over and over, infinitaly. And, they can also infinitally divided.

So I am suggesting that all matter, can be infinitly split into two separate parts to infinity. Math seems to prove this to be true. But I'm no scientist so I don't know if that can apply to matter for sure.

How can a piece of matter, ever get too small to be split again? Couldn't a quark be split in two, then those parts split again, and so forth?

Seems to me that matter can be infinitally split to infinity. Which is not only hard to comprehend in the mind, but could also tell us something more about the world we live in.

Any thoughts?

 

[KerrMetric]

)

So I am suggesting that all matter, can be infinitly split into two separate parts to infinity. Math seems to prove this to be true.

What do mathematical infinities (and there are different ones) have to do with matter????

There is no connection to be had here.

 

[arunma]

What do mathematical infinities (and there are different ones) have to do with matter????

There is no connection to be had here.

If I'm reading him correctly, I think he's asking another permutation of that classical question: into how many equal parts can you cut a rope of finite length? Under the assumption that the rope is a continuous distribution of matter, you could cut it into as many pieces as desired. I think he may be viewing quarks as continuous distributions of matter, rather than discretized particles.

To my knowledge, quarks are currently thought to be indivisible particles (but then, I don't know much about nuclear and particle physics). If that is the case, then no, one cannot split matter into smaller and smaller parts ad infinitum.

 

[wmc1982]

If I'm reading him correctly, I think he's asking another permutation of that classical question: into how many equal parts can you cut a rope of finite length? Under the assumption that the rope is a continuous distribution of matter, you could cut it into as many pieces as desired. I think he may be viewing quarks as continuous distributions of matter, rather than discretized particles.

To my knowledge, quarks are currently thought to be indivisible particles (but then, I don't know much about nuclear and particle physics). If that is the case, then no, one cannot split matter into smaller and smaller parts ad infinitum.

yea, thats what I was thinking.

 

[KerrMetric]

yea, thats what I was thinking.

Well then the answer seems to be no. Quarks and leptons seem to be indivisible particles. There are serval theoretical physics reasons as to why this is thought to be the case.

 

[arunma]

Well then the answer seems to be no. Quarks and leptons seem to be indivisible particles. There are serval theoretical physics reasons as to why this is thought to be the case.

Just out of curiosity, what are those reasons?

 

[billwald]

>Math seems to prove this to be true.

That's the problem with deductive logic. Something can be logically correct but not reflect reality.

For example, hyperdimensional physics. One can write a^2=b^2+c^2+d^2 but it is not evidence of a universe with 4 physical dimensions.

 

[KerrMetric]

Just out of curiosity, what are those reasons?

One of the primary reasons is from basic quantum mechanics using the Uncertainty Principle.

Leptons and quarks are known to be pointlike down to less than about 10^-16 of a cm from experiment. That means any constituent particle would have a uncertainty in its momentum of a few hundred GeV. That is thousands of times the rest mass of the u quark or hundreds of thousands of times the electron rest mass. This is a big problem. How could quarks or electrons be made of constituent particles that have much greater mass-energies than quark or electron itself?

 

[arunma]

One of the primary reasons is from basic quantum mechanics using the Uncertainty Principle.

Leptons and quarks are known to be pointlike down to less than about 10^-16 of a cm from experiment. That means any constituent particle would have a uncertainty in its momentum of a few hundred GeV. That is thousands of times the rest mass of the u quark or hundreds of thousands of times the electron rest mass. This is a big problem. How could quarks or electrons be made of constituent particles that have much greater mass-energies than quark or electron itself?

Ah, I understand. Thanks.

 

[WingsOfTheNeophyte]

Couldn't a quark be split in two, then those parts split again, and so forth?

Is it even possible to have a quark by itself?

I thought at our current scientific process it has not yet happened that we isolated a quark

 

[RedAndy]

Is it even possible to have a quark by itself?

I thought at our current scientific process it has not yet happened that we isolated a quark

This is what Stephen Hawking has to say on the matter in A Brief History of Time:

The strong nuclear force has a curious property called confinement: it always binds particles together into combinations that have no colour. One cannot have a single quark on its own because it would have a colour (red, green or blue). Instead, a red quark has to be joined to a green and a blue quark by a "string" of gluons (red + green + blue = white.) Such a triplet constitutes a proton or a neutron.

Things may have moved on since Hawking's book, but given that the strong nuclear force would theoretically require billions of electron-volts to overcome, I doubt we have isolated a quark as of yet. I'm no particle physics expert, but I believe that if we could overcome the strong nuclear force (if we could produce the kind of energy required), then we could theoretically isolate a quark.

Of course, I could be completely wrong.

 

[arunma]

This is what Stephen Hawking has to say on the matter in A Brief History of Time:


Things may have moved on since Hawking's book, but given that the strong nuclear force would theoretically require billions of electron-volts to overcome, I doubt we have isolated a quark as of yet. I'm no particle physics expert, but I believe that if we could overcome the strong nuclear force (if we could produce the kind of energy required), then we could theoretically isolate a quark.

Of course, I could be completely wrong.

As far as I know, there is another factor to consider besides the strong force. If a quark were to be isolated, it would immediately look for other quarks to pair with, and become a nucleon again. I'm not sure whether this result was predicted theoretically, or has actually been observed. But I'm fairly certain that it is not possible to isolate a quark.

 

[RedAndy]

As far as I know, there is another factor to consider besides the strong force. If a quark were to be isolated, it would immediately look for other quarks to pair with, and become a nucleon again. I'm not sure whether this result was predicted theoretically, or has actually been observed. But I'm fairly certain that it is not possible to isolate a quark.

I bow to your superior knowledge of physics and stand corrected.

 

[arunma]

I bow to your superior knowledge of physics and stand corrected.

Well actually, there's a chance you might be right. I vaguely remember a student presentation that someone gave in my senior seminar last year, in which he described some theoretical stellar object called a "quark star," which was apparently comprised entirely of a single type of quark. In fact I recall being confused about this, since I'd learned that quarks can't be isolated.

Too bad I was half-asleep that day...