Density

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rousejohnny</i>
<br />If quantum scales were infinate there could be no empty space and no possibility of differential densities.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In MM, every scale looks fundamentally the same as our scale. What we perceive as "empty space" is actually filled densely with matter of smaller scales. That is because, in MM, existence is synonymous with "occupied by substance".

Yet on still smaller scales, even things occupied densely at our scale may appear to be empty space. So we have a full range of density variations at every scale, no matter how small. It is only in the limit over an infinite range of scales that every possible spot is occupied. At any one scale, there is always much more empty space than occupied space. -|Tom|-

If these quantum scales are infinately digressive, woundn't that imply that infinite amounts of matter fill these "empty spaces", this is what you are saying, but why or how can this not be perceived at our scale as solid matter when the amount of matter there is infinite. Furthermore, the bodies in which we occupy have a limited upward scale obviously, are we to assume that our bodies too are infinate on a quantum scale?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rousejohnny</i>
<br />If these quantum scales are infinately digressive, woundn't that imply that infinite amounts of matter fill these "empty spaces", this is what you are saying, but why or how can this not be perceived at our scale as solid matter when the amount of matter there is infinite.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It's Zeno's Paradox again. How can we cross the street when we must cross an infinite number of points to do so? But the sum of an infinite series can be a finite quantity. And so it is with density, which is mass <i>per unit volume</i>. Your argument considered mass only, but not the volume part. As we go to ever smaller scales, that "unit volume" becomes ever bigger compared to the units of substance existing on that scale. So while every point is eventually occupied, the matter content within a unit volume (= density) remains finite. And the sum of an infinite number of ever denser forms within an ever broader relative volume is likewise finite.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Furthermore, the bodies in which we occupy have a limited upward scale obviously, are we to assume that our bodies too are infinite on a quantum scale?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Infinitely divisible? Certainly. But I'm not sure that was what you were asking. -|Tom|-

If it is shown that the quantum scales although they are infinately divisible the mass isn't what would this mean for the MM? Zeno's Parodox does ask how can we cross the road and we can and do, how can the divisibility of mass be limited, just the same, it can and does. If this were to eventually be proven true (probable cant) would this necessarily be the end of the Meta Model. Does the Meta Model require infinity in both directions? My guess would be that it does not, but it would need adaptation, but I do not think it would eliminate the Macro arguments or would it?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rousejohnny</i>
<br />If it is shown that the quantum scales although they are infinately divisible the mass isn't what would this mean for the MM?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You are making some distinction between mass and scale that I am unfamiliar with. So I don't understand the question. In MM, infinite divisibility of scale means infinite divisibility of matter. (What else could it mean?)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Does the Meta Model require infinity in both directions? My guess would be that it does not, but it would need adaptation, but I do not think it would eliminate the Macro arguments or would it?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In legitimate models, "adaptations" are never allowed. MM deductively leads to the conclusion that scale is infinite in both directions. How could that ever be disproved? Infinity is a logical concept, not an observable thing subject to testing.

But if it could be disproved, that would mean an error in the physical principles and/or reasoning in MM. And as I said in <i>Dark Matter, ...</i>, any violation of a physical principle would mean that our reality is a programmable "holodeck illusion", and not the real thing. -|Tom|-

What I was thinking on the divisibility of Scale v mass is we know that we can always have the "half step" in mathmatics, but if there is no quantum activity that is distinguishable at a lower scale other than a homogenious part of a higher scale would this not make the assumptions of MM just sheer reason that we have always known. We can always measure smaller portions. For instance, we have fundemental particles on a scale then atoms, then molecules ....on up in scale. What happens if we reach a quantum scale through digression that can reveal no independent particle activity? If we find a smallest particle and a bottom scale that for any practicle purpose could not be further divided into a smaller one?. What would this mean for the MM?