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.
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
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics