Thread: REALLY IMPORTANT!

This means a lot to me. I know that multiplying a number by zero gives you zero, but what about dividing.

Say we have the number 26 and divided it by 26 = 1
26/2=13
26/4=6.5

etc etc. The number gets smaller when the number being divided by is larger. But what about when it gets smaller?

26/0.5 = 52
26/0.25 = 104

etc etc. The number gets larger when the number being divided by is smaller.
So wouldn't dividing by 0 actually be an infinite number and dividing by infinite be a zero number?

I came across this here http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ6N85lNgHY. Start the clip at 5:50 and listen to what it says about the length of a photon being zero. By default according to what I just said, the length should actually be infinite. Bear in mind that the length contraction is:

x=x0/y

Where x = the length of the photon
Where x0 = the length of the photon in its own reference frame
Where y is the lorentz factor.

The lorentz factor is 0 for light so we have say, 2 nanometers (well aware this is not the true length), then 2/0 should be an infinite number and not a zero as defined by the theory on the youtube link I provided.

If light is zero in length, then why do we not see it? I also find it a coincidence (which just this second I have only just realised) that I read on this forum that light moves in the string dimensions. But we see light so how the heck can light be zero in length, if that was so, it would not exist (in theory).

This means a lot to me. A LOT. Please give some help all good mathmeticians!

PS I'll really like you if you say dividing by zero does not give you a zero number.

Dividing anything by 0 gives the answer 'undefined.' It isn't 0, and it isn't infinite. You can't have a simple answer when asking "how many times does "nothing" fit into something?" It just doesn't work.

Did you watch the youtube video? Then if your right it means that the length of the photon cannot be zero, it can only be 'undefined' and therefore by this accuracte prediction, the assumption that light is zero in length is wrong.

Willmer

Here's the thing, or things.

'Light has no length' is a meaningless statement in itself. A photon, however, is often considered to be a dimensionless point, but that's really a convenience because it's the best way in which to talk about one (else we'd be asking how many photons can dance on the head of a pin and suchlike stuff).

Instead of dividing by zero, most respectable physicists and mathematicians use the work of Newton, Leibniz, Euler and co, to derive a 'limit' for a particular function, as the denominator approaches zero. It's one of the first things you learn in calculus, apparently (I bunked most of my calculus lectures :P ), and it shows how to give a value to a function even when it involves, seemingly, the mathematically forbidden division by zero. And yes, it is forbidden in mathematics to actually divide by zero.

If you literally tried to divide a number by zero, thereby deriving infinity as a result, you would get the following absurdity:

2/0 = 3/0

By cancelling the zero on each side we get 2=3.

Ergo, we cannot divide by zero.

FWIW this is also the reason why we cannot say:

2*0 = 3*0

therefore 2=3, because that would involve dividing 0 by 0 on each side of the equation, but we've already defined division by zero as forbidden in mathematics.

If you're a post-modernist and want to have fun, divide by zero all you want - just don't call it mathematics.

Hope this helps.

It's a good job this idea is for physics then :wink:. Maybe this idea can be modified for relativity, after all Newton devised calculus to help him with his gravitational equations. When we have spacetime we have tensors, and vectors and stress energy and momentum, and of course. geometry; spheres have infinite symmetry to one observor but not another. There could then be some sort of relativistic effect that would allow the division of 0 to give an infinite number, perhaps doing so expands beyond the 4 spacetime dimensions and into the 11 string dimensions, in effect the number we get by dividing by 0 could actually be the string length of a photon. (Wouldn't it be wierd if all photons were just vibrating areas of one infinite long string :P).

Yeah, right. Or rather: huh? What are you talking about exactly?

Originally Posted by Guitarist

Yeah, right. Or rather: huh? What are you talking about exactly?

Me too. Kind of followed you until this final post of yours, Willmer.

And I'm hoping that wink emoticon of yours is meant to show that you appreciate that, whether in physics or in mathematics itself, you cannot divide by zero - any result or outcome you claim to get from it will be invalid.

It's time the laws of maths are changed, we won't ever unify Quantum Physics with GR until we devise a new method, stay behind if you wish (no offense intended) but I'm going on ahead. Einstein was revoultionary for the time and so was Newton. I will be so too. Someone has to.

And you're the guy to do it, right?

La-di-da.

As others have said you cannot divide by zero to get infinity. I doubt your going to get anywhere changing this law of math but maybe you should look into limits, ex. 26/x as x--> 0.

Did you try to plot those datas answers vs. divisor on a graph ?

Dividing by zero is not the next great leap forward in physics. And the rules of math do not need to be changed--there's nothing wrong and everything right with them.

Originally Posted by svwillmer

It's time the laws of maths are changed, we won't ever unify Quantum Physics with GR until we devise a new method, stay behind if you wish (no offense intended) but I'm going on ahead. Einstein was revoultionary for the time and so was Newton. I will be so too. Someone has to.

Fair enough. I'd be interested to see what your axioms for the 'future' maths are, and, if you allow division by zero, whether you have a number line left at all.

If you decide to take that step and deem division by zero possible, any simple arithmetic equation (including addition and subtraction) will all have an infinity of solutions. You might be even better pleased with that until it comes to the check-out till at your local supermarket.

Originally Posted by svwillmer

It's time the laws of maths are changed,

Laws of math? What are they exactly?

we won't ever unify Quantum Physics with GR until we devise a new method,

We being who, exactly? You and your mates in the pub? I seriously doubt that you understand even the first things about QM and GR, so I'm not betting on this pony.

Einstein was revoultionary for the time and so was Newton. I will be so too.

Know what, you won't. Trust me.

Say what ever you please, but please verify your reasons for thinking this instead of throwing insults, I noted when I posted that I did not mean offense so either construct your ideas and arguments constructivley or please leave.

PS (no offense) I have studied GR for a very long time in my life and I know a lot more than I let on. So please do not insult my intelligence. I warn you as action has been taken against other members of this forum who were offensive and they have been reprimanded for doing so, I would very much dislike for that to happen to you as well.

Please present your argument against this idea, instead of assuming my 'mates' and I discuss this in the pub (to which I note I am teetotal and would have no reason to visit such a place with my colleagues). Thank you for your consideration.

Oh and by the way, people shunned Sir Issac and Albert also and what of them for doing so are they now? (No offense intended there either).

Originally Posted by svwillmer

or please leave.

Consider it done.

Originally Posted by svwillmer

Say what ever you please, but please verify your reasons for thinking this instead of throwing insults, I noted when I posted that I did not mean offense so either construct your ideas and arguments constructivley or please leave.

PS (no offense) I have studied GR for a very long time in my life and I know a lot more than I let on. So please do not insult my intelligence. I warn you as action has been taken against other members of this forum who were offensive and they have been reprimanded for doing so, I would very much dislike for that to happen to you as well.

Please present your argument against this idea, instead of assuming my 'mates' and I discuss this in the pub (to which I note I am teetotal and would have no reason to visit such a place with my colleagues). Thank you for your consideration.

Oh and by the way, people shunned Sir Issac and Albert also and what of them for doing so are they now? (No offense intended there either).

I've presented mine - but you haven't addressed them yet.

Isaac Newton wasn't shunned - except by those on the Continent who discovered he was a secretive, vindictive, small-minded, mean-spirited man whose primary interests lay in alchemy and mysticism. He was actually made Master of the Mint.

Einstein wasn't shunned either - despite repeated inability to cope with the regular academic curriculum, he was supported by his family and friends and even his bosses in the PAtent Office. Subsequent to his fantastic five papers of 1905 of course, not only was he not shuneed, he was actively celebrated.

In either case, Newton, who was quite a nasty person, was the one to make cvlaims to gretaness (but he was talking mainly about his work in alchemy). Einstein, who was by all accounts a lovely human being, never shook off his modesty.

So as the motto of one of the USian states goes: Show me.

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio

Isaac Newton wasn't shunned - except by those on the Continent who discovered he was a secretive, vindictive, small-minded, mean-spirited man whose primary interests lay in alchemy and mysticism. He was actually made Master of the Mint.

Einstein wasn't shunned either - despite repeated inability to cope with the regular academic curriculum, he was supported by his family and friends and even his bosses in the PAtent Office. Subsequent to his fantastic five papers of 1905 of course, not only was he not shuneed, he was actively

Of course they were not shunned AFTER their theories were justified and proven, and of course family and friends supported him I did not mean EVERYONE was shunning them, just the ideas they had when they were developing those great theories, come on recall all the other great shuns. Heres one:

"Telephones will never catch on".

And another:

"The world will only probably need 3 computers, and only the richest kings will own them".

These quotes may not be accurate but I'm sure you've heard of them.

If you'd seen some of my theories, you'd see them as very logical and have the calculations that work, its just that damn zero, I really need help in finding a way to make it not a zero number, even if its 0.000000000000000000001 just as long as it's not zero! Do any of you know how I can work around this dividing by zero?

Newton made most of his "great discoveries" before he was 20 years old, after which he was primarily an alchemist. Like sunshine says and I've read, Newton was not a friendly character, and kept himself isolated. The world didn't shun him so much as he shunned the world. It was his own choice really.

But this idea of world shunning is really a kind of motif the brain uses to defend itself from intelectual attack. It is a silly thing really. I think its easier to live happily by dropping all these defensive veils and live as an agreeable social character.

Originally Posted by svwillmer

If you'd seen some of my theories, you'd see them as very logical and have the calculations that work, its just that damn zero, I really need help in finding a way to make it not a zero number, even if its 0.000000000000000000001 just as long as it's not zero! Do any of you know how I can work around this dividing by zero?

Easy: use limits.


(Hope this genuine response isn't too cryptic or irrelevant for you.)

Yes of course! Limits! Chapter 2 of my calculus book. I'm sure I'll learn all about them as soon as I finish up on inverse functions. Only 90 more review questions until I am learning all about limits and derivitives.