Sometimes , we use term of "zero time" in a formulation but are we sure it is really "0" ? maybe it is 0,000......1 and is there a "zero" time(can we stop the time?), or sometimes, we say v=0 are we sure?
On the other hand
1/0 = infinity. Well then, what's "infinity"? How does it work in all the other equations?
infinity - infinity = 0?
1 + infinity = infinity?
If we use closest number to zero-monad (basic thing that constitutes the universe-everything-)Gottfreid Leibniz, in his essay “Monadology,” suggested that the fundamental unit of all things is the monad. He intended the monad to have some of the attributes of the atom, but with important differences. The monads Leibniz proposed are indivisible, indissoluble, and have no extension or shape, yet from them all things were made. He called them “the true atoms of nature.” At the same time, each monad mirrored the universe. If we use monad instead of zero, every equations work
I think Science says "Every Thing had originated from a basic thing"
Well, in my opinion this question is partly a mathematical question and partly a phylosophical question. In physics the notion t=0 defines an initial condition in a problem (often a condition to ensure that the problem is mathematically well posed), not the initial time zero. Better is the notation t0 as initial time. Using the Newton laws the time can have eithetr a forward or a backward direction and the point of inversion is somehow the "zero" time.
Some points:
Zero can be both a value of a variable and both something that assesses the "absence" of something. And "zero" and "infinity" are correlated each other.
However, in the physics where the mathematic acts by means of the differential equations to describe a problem, we usually have a fundamental assumption "the continuum hypothesis". It is assumed that a variable in a point is actually the value of the average over a portion of space very small but finite, not zero.
Finally, in the computers we have a finite register and the number zero is both an integer value when the variable is declared and a real number at a certain precision. In such case, for example in double precision, you can get what you wrote, 0.000 ...1 is the zero approximated by the round-off.
There are many other examples that scientist from the mathematics and physics can explain better.
Mesut,
What is the electrical charge of a photon?
What is spin of a pi meson?
What is the gravitational force inside a hollow sphere? (tricky - the sphere has to be 'perfect')
What is the time taken for light to go anywhere, in its frame of reference?
(and many many more)
Mesut,
One can measure the spin of a pion.
There is nothing hypothetical about that.
It depends on data type, when something can be measured only in real numbers (for example speed of car, temperature, pH, ...), then conversion to integer numbers results in loss of precision.
Time appears to be infinitely divisible. This conclusion is based on the best available technology in ultrafast physics, and current theory. Therefore, saying the duration of a physical process is zero, is an approximation for saying it is very short but finite.
There is some suggestion that time could become discreet at the Planck scale - the energy scale where space is speculated to also become discreet. But this is all highly speculative and far away from any experimental tests at present.
Can any other quantities be truly zero? We should consider the concept of the quantum zero-point-energy (ZPE). If the energy of a vacuum is larger than zero, then any material particle will only add to the fluctuation.
This is an excellent question in the philosophy of mathematics. If one believes that numbers are abstract objects and that abstract objects really exist (either via Platonism, absolute creationism, or conceptualism), then one would hold that zero really exists. However, if one believes that numbers are simply useful, logically consistent fictions that enable us to perform various operations, then one would hold that zero does not really exist. As a conceptualist myself, I believe in zero's existence.
To answer if there is a real zero, it could be useful to examine this from a metaphysical perspective. To posit that a real zero exists means that we are positing that zero comes forth from something (from the etymological sense of existence). Yet, in its common usage, zero stands in for an absence. Here there is somewhat of a dilemma, for to say zero is real gives it thing-ness while in common usage zero has a sense of nothing-ness.
There is a similar issue with a point, a zero dimensional object. All representations of a point, most commonly denoted by a ".", have, however minute, width and breadth, meaning that it is a representation and not truly a point. There is an element of apophatic discourse in the metaphysics of zero.
While not directly answering your intended question, it could be suggested that zero has being without existence.
Ancient people didn't use it! Technically, there is nothing that can be called an absolute and exact zero and it is similar to infinity. Something very small and something very large. However, we simply define it to be zero based on context. For example, the mass of an electron compared with the mass of a car, we say it is so small and assume it to be zero. But is it?
Dear Mesut,
Coming back to your discussion with James.
Spin is just a quantum number and its absolute, and the answer to your question lies in understanding the error analysis part using significant digits.
Madhu
Mesut,
If you follow Cantor's reasoning, there are many different types of infinity. Some are much bigger than others.
Your suggestion of an infinitesimally small limit as a stand-in for zero, from a practical perspective, is not too challenging.
But why not take the same approach to every cardinal number? Redefine '1' as that digit which is arbitrarily close to '1' but which is nevertheless is not '1'.
I don't see the point. What's wrong with the concept of zero?
1/infinity = 0 and 1000,000,000/infinity = 0
So what is zero? I think Mesut Tez's question is more complex than some think!
Madhu - Is zero also a concept? if yes to either, you should be able to define concepts.
There are two types of zero, zero relative and absolute zero, while the relative zero is found in the temperature thermometer as well as in the psychological and educational measures, but absolute zero is used with the natural sciences
0 and 1 are critical in computer operations. This is not the question that Mesut Tez is asking.
Dear Scholar
Zero in Sanskrit means SOONYA.
The world is an illusion = MAAYA
Maaya means nothing
Nothing is zero
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science says Every Thing had originated from Nothing
So, zero is the root of all
The integer zero can be defined by a natural integer k only in algebric sense without using the concept of infinity
x= k+(-k)
now are we able to clearly say what x is?
Dear Mesut - I do understand the question and amazed that many respondents seem to talk about the need and the many uses we have for a zero. When I borrow $1,000 from a bank and pay it back, then I will owe the bank zero. There is an INFINITE number of other examples of why we need and how to use ZERO. This is NOT the question! Please read the question carefully. Amir
Let me quote a paragraph from an answer * I previously gave on RG in response to another question:
Zero. There is an old joke about the difference between analytic and continental philosophy. Some philosophers in the continental tradition talk about “nothing” as if it referred to a thing. For example, they might proceed from the statement “we are separated by nothing” to raise the question “what is this nothing that separates us?”. A philosopher in the analytic tradition, on the other hand, would more sensibly conclude that “we are separated by nothing” merely says “we are not separated”. Zero kind of works like that too. If I say that there are zero elephants in the room, I can reasonably prove that just by looking and seeing that there are no elephants; an absent elephant is not a special kind of elephant. Zero as a placeholder in a numerical system is also like that. If I have a zero in the 10s column, it indicates that there are no multiples of 10 less than 10; it doesn’t mean that an absent 10 is a special kind of 10.
_________________
* From: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_any_scientific_proof_that_God_exists/1
Yes, Mesut, I can be mistaken in claiming that there are zero elephants in the room; I might be hallucinating when I look or somesuch. But likewise I can make mistakes about numerals or the numbers I take the numerals (inkmarks or whatever) to represent. That doesn't affect the conceptual point. If I claim, mistakenly or not, that there are zero elephants in the room I am simply claiming, mistakenly or not, that elephants are absent, not that there is a special kind of elephant, namely an absent elephant, present in the room. Likewise, zero as a notational device doesn't have to be regarded as standing for a special kind of number.
Mesut Tez :What is infinity?
- 0 = 0 -1/0=1/0 - Inf= inf. A contradiction.
So, really what is infinity.
We prove mathematically: i =√(-1) = - inf.
see
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301922300_New_Philosophical_View_Merging_Infinity_Imaginary_number_and_Zero_and_a_new_Arithmetic_Solving_Indeterminants
The beginning of all mathematical thinking is recognising correspondences between sets of discrete things. A shepherd can keep an account of his flock by carving a set of marks on a stick or a stone, one for each sheep. Even if he has no number words (“one”, “two”, “three” etc) and can't count he can know if any are missing. He will thereby discover the positive integers \, \\, \\\ etc. What could he carve to denote the state of his flock if someone has stolen them all? We can imagine him sadly inventing a symbol: “0”. The mathematical concept of “zero” has arisen!
I would use only the concept of limit
lim 1/x = Inf
x->0
lim 1/x = 0
x->+Inf
Dear RG colleagues very interesting question and highly stimulated discussion.................... following
Mesut Tez
in mathematics we actually have the concept of limit, so that lim x->0 1/x =inf
The second is not exactly correct, you have to consider (1/x) *x
This question is essentially a philosophical question that has been debated for thousands of years.
The basic proposition of Parmenides is which he expresses as 'There is a Being' (Esti gar einai). The explanation of this proposition is as follows: There is only Being and only this can be thought: Non-existent does not exist and cannot be thought. In his Introduction to Metaphysics, Heidegger tried to deal with the problem of the meaning of Being with the idea of going to an origin.
He explained how the relationship between thinking was lost. Heidegger states that it is necessary to take a 'leap' in order to ask the question and he gives an example of this with his works, and uses the following expressions:
“That is why it opens the ground for all authentic questions, and we realize that it is the root of all questions.”
Zero and nothing! mathematically zero does not mean nothing from my point of view. But nothing means nothing. So there are two concepts, zero and nothing.
Zero is infinity...(1 + (-1)) + (2 + (-2)) + (3 + (-3)) +... = 0 + 0 + 0 + ... = 0
But this equation can also be written as, (shift all the negative integers by one place)
(1 + 0) + (2 + (-1)) + (3 + (-2)) + (4 + (-3)) + ... = 1+ 1 + 1 + ...
Since, both the equations are same 0=1+1+1+...=∞0=1+1+1+...=∞
0 (zero) is a number, and the numerical digit used to represent that number in numerals. ... It fulfills a central role in mathematics as the additive identity of the integers, real numbers, and many other algebraic structures. As a digit, 0 is used as a placeholder in place value systems. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/0
Real numbers can be positive or negative, and include the number zero. They are called real numbers because they are not imaginary, which is a different system of numbers. https://www.livescience.com/42619-real-numbers.html
Zero is the base for which all the other numbers are referenced. So it should be there otherwise we will be forced to change many things.
Mesut Tez
Again, why are you still writing 1/0=Undefined??
Thinking about real numbers, are you able to define 1/10^-q=10^q for increasing q values?
you know that any calculator has a finite register?
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-infinity-sign-not-on-a-calculator
From Wikipedia
Calculus
Gottfried Leibniz, one of the co-inventors of infinitesimal calculus, speculated widely about infinite numbers and their use in mathematics. To Leibniz, both infinitesimals and infinite quantities were ideal entities, not of the same nature as appreciable quantities, but enjoying the same properties in accordance with the Law of Continuity.[32][3]
Computing
The IEEE floating-point standard (IEEE 754) specifies a positive and a negative infinity value (and also indefinite values). These are defined as the result of arithmetic overflow, division by zero, and other exceptional operations.[56]
In mathematics, expressions like 1/0 are undefined. But the limit of the expression 1/x as x tends to zero is infinity. Similarly, expressions like 0/0 are undefined and this is called intermediate....I wonder if something is not defined, then it will end up in a horse egg problem.
“Why do we use "0"(zero) in physics , math formulations? Is there a real "0" in real universe?”
- to answer on this question it is necessary before to define correctly – what are “0” (zero) and “real universe”.
From at least posting on the visible page it looks as that the posters, besides, in certain sense only, though, Mesut Tez, use some incorrect definitions of both items above.
So firstly what is “0” in mathematics – “0” in mathematics isn’t a number, that is one of actualizations of unique set in mathematics “Null/empty set”, which means “there is no something”, and is applicable for all sets in mathematics, concretely till now in this thread as “there is no real numbers”.
Just therefore concrete null set is introduced in arithmetics, etc., by special rule, and so its application is always specially limited comparing with the numbers – in this case all operations with zero as a number are valid besides division on zero, “1/0” is undefined,
- in spite of 1/α, where α is infinitesimal, can be concretely defined, and corresponding concrete limits values exist, say, in famous lim [x→1](x2-1)/(x-1), which is equal to 2, besides the point x=1.
The other notion [and real phenomenon], i.e. “real universe”, and all other really fundamental phenomena/notions as well, are simply fundamentally transcendent in mainstream philosophy and sciences, and so really isn’t applicable in some cases, as that is this case.
What are all fundamental phenomena/notions, including “universe”, i.e. really a system of “Matter” and “Consciousnesses”, can be, and are, scientifically defined only in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” concept https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904,
- where it is rigorously proven that there exist nothing else than some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set.
Which - the Set - exists absolutely objectively, because of it fundamentally – logically - cannot be non-existent and so exists eternally, having no Beginning and no End, at that the utmost common definition of the phenomenon/notion “Information ” is
“Information is something that is constructed in accordance with the set/system of absolutely fundamental Rules, Possibilities, Quantities, etc. – the set/system “Logos” in the conception”
Some examples of the “Logos” elements are “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Logical Rules”, etc.
So, since any information absolutely fundamentally cannot be non-existent, and the Set is absolutely objectively always exists, that
“…Nothing comes from nothing (Greek: οὐδὲν ἐξ οὐδενός; Latin: ex nihilo nihil fit) is a philosophical dictum argued by Parmenides…”
- really is fundamentally incorrect, “nothing” fundamentally cannot exist, whereas that
“…Now, we say infinity comes from nothing...”
- is correct, with the correction, though: “absolute infinite” comes from “nothing”, which isn’t a “mathematical nothing”, i.e. “0”, but the infinite cyclic statement “there is nothing besides the information that there is nothing, besides the…” [“Zero statement” in the concept],
- which, in principle, could be true if the Set would have “no elements” – what is impossible from the Information property that “information is a data”, and so in this case the Set absolutely obligatorily would have one element – the informational pattern above,
- however even in this case of one element the Zero statement really would contain the whole Set in all the Set’s the absolutely infinite time existence, since it really means that there exist no this, this, this, etc. – up to absolute infinity – the Set’s element, i.e. though as the negation, however this negation would contain, though in maximally compressed form, absolutely true, and absolutely exact, information about what every the Set’s element is.
Thus in the concept the division “1/0” is defined: “1/0=absolute infinity”, albeit that – and, say the Set, which is “the set of all sets”, now aren’t defined in mathematics;
- whereas in “our universe” there are fundamentally no specific zeros, infinities, singularities, etc.
More see the link above.
Cheers
The concept of zero has been a fundamental component of mathematics and physics for centuries, serving as a neutral value and reference point for various calculations and measurements. However, the theory proposed here suggests that the concept of a "monad" can be used as an alternative to zero in certain contexts.
A monad, in this context, refers to a single, indivisible entity that exists independently of other entities. The concept of a monad has been used in various philosophical and scientific contexts, including in the works of Leibniz and in certain interpretations of quantum mechanics.
The theory proposes that in certain mathematical and physical contexts, the concept of a monad can be used as an alternative to zero. Rather than representing a neutral value or reference point, a monad can represent a fundamental building block of the system being studied. For example, in certain models of quantum mechanics, the concept of a monad can be used to represent a fundamental particle or unit of energy.
The use of a monad instead of zero has several potential advantages. For example, it allows for a more holistic and unified view of the system being studied, as all entities are seen as indivisible and interconnected. Additionally, the use of a monad can help to avoid certain mathematical and physical paradoxes that can arise when dealing with zero, such as division by zero.
In conclusion, the theory proposed here suggests that the concept of a monad can be used as an alternative to zero in certain mathematical and physical contexts. The use of a monad can provide a more holistic and unified view of the system being studied, and can help to avoid certain mathematical and physical paradoxes. Further research in this area may help to elucidate the potential advantages and limitations of using a monad instead of zero in different contexts.
Dear
Zero represents a CIRCLE/SPHERE All Planets and Stars are spherical. Why, in my view the SPACE is SPHERICAL.
And also, zero represents NOTHING. Everything that is PHYSICAL UNIVERSE is made up of MATTER which came from NOTHING called SPACE filled with RADIATIONS of ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM. I have discovered yet another UNKNOWN RADIATION through my experiment attached here.
- Badges
- Science topic