If one has infinite many infinitely small particles of infinitely small mass is the volume and mass large or small? Thnak you for taking your time to read and possibly respond to this post.
Because the particles are infinitely small, they take up no space, even though there are infinitely many of them.
I also have to disagree with Nate and Tim; there are many examples of particles that have no mass at all.
He said in his question that the particles in this particular theoretical example have infinitely small mass. Which suggests some mass, as opposed to no mass ...
I can't claim to rightly understand the volume part of it, but if they have some amount of mass, even if it's the least amount possible, wouldn't they also take up some amount of space, even if it's the least amount possible? The idea of something having mass but no volume seems counterintuitive to me. But I know that science can be exactly that sometimes.
Warder to starry_nite
Chapterfish — Nate's Writing Blog
http://chapterfish.wordpress.com
Chapterfish — Nate's Writing Blog
http://chapterfish.wordpress.com
Psuedo-scientic metaphysical question thingy about infinity. Plus some other random stuff.
- 16/08/2011 12:22:44 AM
791 Views
This kinda hinges on quantum, planck units, and even dark matter
- 16/08/2011 12:58:57 AM
689 Views
I think you're actually asking more than about infinity.
- 16/08/2011 01:04:54 AM
740 Views
Your central premise here is the reason I posit Unity as the First Cause.
- 16/08/2011 12:31:54 PM
657 Views
Re: Psuedo-scientic metaphysical question thingy about infinity. Plus some other random stuff.
- 16/08/2011 05:09:32 AM
688 Views
I don't know about the rest of the questions but I approach sobriety with atleast a liter of tequila *NM*
- 16/08/2011 06:12:53 AM
271 Views
Well, you haven't said anything about the space or density, so it's impossible to comment on volume.
- 16/08/2011 12:09:41 PM
689 Views