- 3,057
- 1,134
There is an object that has properties of size value of zero (ex : (0,0,0)) even though the appearance of that object still exist (we able to see it). Does it have NEP 1 ?
-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Object that has properties of size value of zero (ex : (0,0,0)) = NEP 1 ?
- Thread starter Andika_CL_atmadja
- Start date
- 4,202
- 4,932
Sounds like incorporeality
- 9,869
- 10,623
Yeah.
- 18,393
- 14,311
I mean; you can define it as nonexistence if you were to follow in real life logics, since objects with absolute no mass are nonexistent and simply a mathematical and theoretical concept.
Appearance is also a theoretical consideration.
Appearance is also a theoretical consideration.
- 10,503
- 11,578
Singular points still exist. They just smol.
- 3,057
- 1,134
- Thread starter
- #6
Cat275
He/Him- 1,428
- 788
Just like your wiener.
- 9,869
- 10,623
*Our
Cat275
He/Him- 1,428
- 788
I don't think you should come out the closet.
- 9,869
- 10,623
Everything is fair in love and war. Are u Makoto or Cat here?
- 9,869
- 10,623
On my way.
- 18,393
- 14,311
I know they exist; but as you see from OP; it says an absolute 0 mass, what you are referring is they still have mass but to the point where they are unnoticed for us.
- 10,503
- 11,578
NEP is about nonexistence, though.
Them having mass or not is another question.
Them having mass or not is another question.
- 4,202
- 4,932
The example in OP just sounds like incorporeality tbh especially if they can't be interacted with due to their lack of "size".
- 18,393
- 14,311
No object with absolute 0 mass exists in this world was my main point in my response to you. Your instance simply don't fit the description of the object in the OP since it still has mass, and as I said, they are simply so insignificantly small to the point where we can imply they don't have mass (but in reality they do)
Regardless; that appearance can simply be a theoretical construct. In other words; the object does not exist physically (since it is impossible), but does exist in a mathematical sense and can have a theoretical presentation.
Also regarding the second question; it is not "another question," he asked it regarding that.
Last edited:
- 10,503
- 11,578
Photons have 0 (rest) mass and in the classical model of particle physics particles are kinda 0D. Given, that kinda works different from what we imagine for a case such as this.
The point is, though, that an object without mass can absolutely exist. Existence is not inherently tied to having mass.
Maybe. Then again, another 0D object trying to occupy the same point could maybe interact with it. Or certain fields could possibly, too (say, gravity).
Generally, I think being listed as 0D is enough.
- 18,393
- 14,311
Interesting, since in quantum physics I took, they are stated particle-like and wave-like behaviors. They carry something as well. So I think "absolute no mass" does not imply in the instance, or maybe. “Point-like" nature is a theoretical construct used to simplify calculations and models; it doesn't imply that these particles are truly zero-dimensional in the same sense as a mathematical point.
I think it depends on how we look it from; from
- a physical world perspective, no object with absolute no mass exists.
- In classical mechanics, mass is what gives objects inertia, making them resist changes in their state of motion.
- In the realm of particle physics and quantum mechanics, photons exists as massless object, but are not considered objects in the traditional sense (since they carry energy and interact with matter through various forces)
Glad we agreed.
@BestMGQScalerEver The OP never mentioned “they can't be interacted with". As for ability, either 0-dimensional existence or nonexistence nature type 1, but looking from our standards, they require having at least one of types, so it can't be counted as one.
Let's say NEP 1 in the most simplified sense.
- 4,202
- 4,932
What about NEP3?
KingNanaya
He/Him- 2,660
- 3,688
*mine
- 18,393
- 14,311
Does not really work. Since the object don't exist in a traditional sense whether he is being attacked or not.
- 10,503
- 11,578
I of course don't know if your quantum physics call used the standard model of particle physics.
You are right that there are particle-like and wave-like behaviour in any case, but that actually has little impact on the fact tha particles are, indeed, visualized as 0D. That is, of course, only while behaving particle-like. When they behave like waves then not. That they are visualized differently at different points in time like that is kinda strange, of course, and ultimately what gave rise to other models like quantum field theory.
I mean, as said, photons absolutely have no "rest mass". Another example are gravitons which are presumed to be massless. There is of course relativistic mass, but whether calling it actual mass is useful as a concept is debated.
What one can say is that no object without mass or energy exists. Well, except perhaps empty space (however you manage to get it empty), which would still exist.
Sure.
I... have no idea why they would not be considered objects. Given, I don't think "object" is a rigorously defined term in physics So I guess one could have some philosophical debate about that.
I don't think we mean the same. Like, when I say a massless object can exist, then I don't mean as an idea or an abstract object.
I mean it can physically (as in: in a theoretically touchable way, in an actual position in spacetime) exist. Like, physics debate aside, when talking about fiction it's not hard to imagine someone would just write something like that. Would it contradict physics? Maybe, maybe not. But it wouldn't be a logically paradox concept.
- 18,393
- 14,311
We were not talking about fiction (the whole time)
A massless object exists; sure but only in terms of particle physics and quantum mechanics. In a physical world, I don't think it exists. In a classical mechanics terms, a mass is a central concept.
I don't consider “photons” to be objects in a traditional sense. I could explain the reasons in DMs, but I don't think we really differ much in this topic except this single aspect. (I assume, you have different definition for object than me, I guess)
So you see, it depends on how you interpret it. Also, gravitons are hypothetical to be 0 dimensional. I personally don't consider them objectively 0-dimensional. No definitive evidence for that.
A massless object exists; sure but only in terms of particle physics and quantum mechanics. In a physical world, I don't think it exists. In a classical mechanics terms, a mass is a central concept.
I don't consider “photons” to be objects in a traditional sense. I could explain the reasons in DMs, but I don't think we really differ much in this topic except this single aspect. (I assume, you have different definition for object than me, I guess)
So you see, it depends on how you interpret it. Also, gravitons are hypothetical to be 0 dimensional. I personally don't consider them objectively 0-dimensional. No definitive evidence for that.
Similar threads
