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 ...
See, it suggests to me that the particles are, in fact, without mass. If they had any mass at all, then they could have less, and that would prevent the mass from being infinitely small.
Or perhaps he is using another scale entirely? The particles in question might have negative mass with an absolute value of infinity. That could be a fun concept to think about.
Either way, he said that the particles themselves are infinitely small, which means that they will take up no space at all. Unless, again, they actually end up taking up an infinite amount of negative space.
And in that case, I would then answer the volume question by theorizing that, rather than taking up any space itself, each of the infinitely many infinitely small particles of infinitely small mass actually contains our entire universe.
I think that sounds reasonable.
Psuedo-scientic metaphysical question thingy about infinity. Plus some other random stuff.
- 16/08/2011 12:22:44 AM
762 Views
This kinda hinges on quantum, planck units, and even dark matter
- 16/08/2011 12:58:57 AM
664 Views
I think you're actually asking more than about infinity.
- 16/08/2011 01:04:54 AM
715 Views
Your central premise here is the reason I posit Unity as the First Cause.
- 16/08/2011 12:31:54 PM
637 Views
Re: Psuedo-scientic metaphysical question thingy about infinity. Plus some other random stuff.
- 16/08/2011 05:09:32 AM
662 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
260 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
669 Views