265
Irrational
(mander.xyz)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2024
265 points (89.8% liked)
Science Memes
11068 readers
2751 users here now
Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
- Infographics welcome, get schooled.
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
Research Committee
Other Mander Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
- !abiogenesis@mander.xyz
- !animal-behavior@mander.xyz
- !anthropology@mander.xyz
- !arachnology@mander.xyz
- !balconygardening@slrpnk.net
- !biodiversity@mander.xyz
- !biology@mander.xyz
- !biophysics@mander.xyz
- !botany@mander.xyz
- !ecology@mander.xyz
- !entomology@mander.xyz
- !fermentation@mander.xyz
- !herpetology@mander.xyz
- !houseplants@mander.xyz
- !medicine@mander.xyz
- !microscopy@mander.xyz
- !mycology@mander.xyz
- !nudibranchs@mander.xyz
- !nutrition@mander.xyz
- !palaeoecology@mander.xyz
- !palaeontology@mander.xyz
- !photosynthesis@mander.xyz
- !plantid@mander.xyz
- !plants@mander.xyz
- !reptiles and amphibians@mander.xyz
Physical Sciences
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !chemistry@mander.xyz
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !geography@mander.xyz
- !geospatial@mander.xyz
- !nuclear@mander.xyz
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !quantum-computing@mander.xyz
- !spectroscopy@mander.xyz
Humanities and Social Sciences
Practical and Applied Sciences
- !exercise-and sports-science@mander.xyz
- !gardening@mander.xyz
- !self sufficiency@mander.xyz
- !soilscience@slrpnk.net
- !terrariums@mander.xyz
- !timelapse@mander.xyz
Memes
Miscellaneous
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The definition of irrational numbers is that they are the real numbers that are not rationel. So we need to look at the definition of real numbers. A real number is a number that can be used to measure a continuous one dimensional quantity.
Quantum physics says that reality is not continuous. Particles make "discrete" jumps instead of moving continuously. So irrational numbers can't exist.
That is not a definition of the real numbers, quantum physics says no such thing, and even if it did the conclusion is wrong
Let's have a look.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_number
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
The conclusion is wrong, i agree. That's the joke of the meme.
(Keep down voting if it matters to you. I'm only trying to explain a joke. The top post is in agreement with my statement.)
Quantum mechanics still have endless ratios which aren't discrete. Especially ratios between stuff like wavelengths, particle states, and more
I'm fully aware of the definitions. I didn't say the definition of irrationals was wrong. I said the definition of the reals is wrong. The statement about quantum mechanics is so vague as to be meaningless.
Come on then, enlighten the average Joe.
Google it? Axiomatic definition, dedekind cuts, cauchy sequences are the 3 typical ones and are provably equivalent.
A real number is the set of both rational and irrational numbers. Nothing about continuous anything.
It is exactly that though.
Irrationel and rational numbers are both real.
Quantum physics is limited to the quantum, hence the name.
Being continuous is not actually a requirement of being real.
They don’t make “discrete jumps” as in teleportation. They exist stable in discrete energy levels, but that doesn’t imply things don’t move continuously.
ORLY?
Please take your evening off to explain to the common man how electrons are distributed without restoring to quantisation.
That’s not what I said?
They’re “stable” energy states. That’s all.
If you want my credentials, the second book is deriving the hydrogen atom.
And that they might still move continuously. Which is impossible to prove (see Planck length).
Edit: Corrected my statement based on the reply
That’s not what Planck length is. It’s the minimum resolvable accuracy not measurement. Meaning we can’t prove something was somewhere specific beyond the Planck length. Not that it’s the building size of the universe.
https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length#:~:text=It%20is%20about%201.616255,Planck%20length%20per%20Planck%20time.
That is actually good to know, it answers a lot of questions I've had about the universe.