Maths Uni Chat

Scroll to see replies

assmaster

Well, I always thought of it this way: if you were were second past midday, you're in the afternoon. This is why the whole minute of 12:00 at midday is counted as pm.
Similarly, at one second past midnight, you are in the morning. So the whole minute of 00:00... etc. However, no way am I arguing with Wikipedia.

This sentence cries out for a penis joke.

And in other news, I'm going back up to Durham tomorrow. Woooo.

It is never measurably exactly midday, or midnight, or any time - the limit to Planck time takes care of that. That's even neglecting the fact that relativistic effects will have their way with all objects, clocks included, making an argument about the absolute nature of pm and am rather futile when the entire assumption that time is absolute is flawed...

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 5101

jj193

V-Zero'd.

Reply 5102

Oh I Really Don't Care

v-zero

I am surprised you considered it worthy of note.

It is hardly a shock that using something as 'connected' and 'dense' as the real line for modelling things in reallity is both going to have a serious amount of philisophical thought and difficult justifications.

One large one would be that all of the basic SI units are considered to be discrete. So why the hell is it we still model things via derivitives etc when ultimately it would be pointless? Simply due to the fact that the accuracy of our interpretation of the reslut suffices for the job at hand.

Reply 5103

v-zero

DeanK22

I did not say that its use was wrong, only that arguing over inherently misleading models is rather fruitless.

Reply 5104

Simplicity

assmaster

I don't know why you wouldn't just say it's 12 when its midday. I never actually use pm or am, as that would be silly in most circumstances seeing as its obvious if its day or night. Wikipedia is always wrong.

v-zero

This is all speculation. Without a theory of everything, I don't see how you can conclude time isn't absolute in very small scales. Assumptions are still assumptions i.e. assumptions of relativity.

On a unrelated note. Does any lecturer give out sweets and stuff? last year the mechanics lecturer gave out £1s for correct anwsers. This year QM lecturer is giving out mars bars, however I don't eat mars bars.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 5105

My Alt

v-zero

Oh, you're so cool.

Reply 5106

Oh I Really Don't Care

v-zero

I did not say that its use was wrong, only that arguing over inherently misleading models is rather fruitless.

Exactly my point.

Reply 5107

jj193

Simplicity

On a unrelated note. Does any lecturer give out sweets and stuff? last year the mechanics lecturer gave out £1s for correct anwsers. This year QM lecturer is giving out mars bars, however I don't eat mars bars.

They are grooming you, never accept sweets from strangers.

Reply 5108

v-zero

Simplicity

This is all speculation. Without a theory of everything, I don't see how you can conclude time isn't absolute in very small scales. Assumptions are still assumptions i.e. assumptions of relativity.

So what you're saying is that light knows how fast you, and everything else is going, and also considers all masses and other energies present, and makes an informed decision as to whether the situation should be treated relativistically or classically? Really?

Just because classical mechanics is a good approximation does not mean that the universe is turning a blind eye.

DeanK22

Exactly my point.

Well, if you wish to iterate...

Reply 5109

Oh I Really Don't Care

v-zero

Well, if you wish to iterate...

It is apparent that using something as rich as the real line is going to be problematic when we try to interpret an occurence in reality from some real numbers simply due to the nature of things in reality, and also because we believe alot of things are not continuos.

Your post merely - also weakly - paraphrased this which I deemed quite comical as many know this and it acted nothing more than a humurous and worthless snippet that also seemed pointless to point out (pun intended) - when inquired upon the hour and minutes of the evening one would hardly retort with such a barage of nonsense as to why it is not precisely 12 pm and thank Planck.

Reply 5110

Simplicity

jj193

They are grooming you, never accept sweets from strangers.

She only gives mars bars to the smart students, I will never know what its like to get given a mars bar by a lecturer.

v-zero

No I'm saying something like this could be true http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our-world-may-be-a-giant-hologram.html?full=true

why assume special relativity is correct below plank length?

On that point, particles do show EPR effect. Its not a big assumption that every particle has some sort of information about every other partcle, espically when everything was once really tiny.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 5111

v-zero

DeanK22

It w hardly nonsense, but fine. I only intended to point out the futility in any such argument. Which is more blue - light blue or dark blue? Write your answer on the back of a postage stamp and sent it off to war.

Reply 5112

v-zero

Simplicity

She only gives mars bars to the smart students, I will never know what its like to get given a mars bar by a lecturer.

Nothing can be empirically said below Planck length, I am of the Feynman view that 'below Planck length' simply doesn't exist. The Universe is discontinuous.
As for action at a distance... if we are to reinvent the ether for the sake of conversing particles, we will first need some evidence of any such behaviour. Currently we only have electron spin, and there's probably something else going on there.