<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.4" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Modernity of Zeno&#8217;s Paradoxes</title>
	<link>https://strangepaths.com/modernity-of-zenos-paradoxes/2007/01/16/en/</link>
	<description>Physics, computation, philosophy of mind</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2026 14:21:33 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: xantox</title>
		<link>https://strangepaths.com/modernity-of-zenos-paradoxes/2007/01/16/en/#comment-1612</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Apr 2007 16:43:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>https://strangepaths.com/modernity-of-zenos-paradoxes/2007/01/16/en/#comment-1612</guid>
					<description>In fact, in quantum mechanics a particle is never at rest. Being at rest would mean to always have a perfectly defined position, but this would then imply according to the uncertainty principle to have a nonzero momentum, so that the particle would not be at rest any more.  Quantum mechanics is weird and it is not possible to reduce it to the intuitive concepts of classical mechanics. Its reason is not agreement with intuition, but agreement with experiment.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In fact, in quantum mechanics a particle is never at rest. Being at rest would mean to always have a perfectly defined position, but this would then imply according to the uncertainty principle to have a nonzero momentum, so that the particle would not be at rest any more.  Quantum mechanics is weird and it is not possible to reduce it to the intuitive concepts of classical mechanics. Its reason is not agreement with intuition, but agreement with experiment.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: windscar</title>
		<link>https://strangepaths.com/modernity-of-zenos-paradoxes/2007/01/16/en/#comment-1609</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Apr 2007 05:17:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>https://strangepaths.com/modernity-of-zenos-paradoxes/2007/01/16/en/#comment-1609</guid>
					<description>But then again, can't every object traveling at a constant speed say that it is at rest?  And then all of their momentums be "perfectly" defined.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But then again, can&#8217;t every object traveling at a constant speed say that it is at rest?  And then all of their momentums be &#8220;perfectly&#8221; defined.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: xantox</title>
		<link>https://strangepaths.com/modernity-of-zenos-paradoxes/2007/01/16/en/#comment-1603</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2007 21:18:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>https://strangepaths.com/modernity-of-zenos-paradoxes/2007/01/16/en/#comment-1603</guid>
					<description>This is true for any velocity, as it is a consequence of the uncertainty principle which states that:

&lt;img src="http://strangepaths.com/wp-content/images/c03b42ee7d54155666e9495ce069048921b03858.gif" /&gt;

So that when the uncertainty in momentum Δp tends to zero, the uncertainty in the position Δx tends to infinity (a particle with a perfectly defined momentum is a plane wave which is everywhere).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is true for any velocity, as it is a consequence of the uncertainty principle which states that:</p>
<p><img src="http://strangepaths.com/wp-content/images/c03b42ee7d54155666e9495ce069048921b03858.gif" /></p>
<p>So that when the uncertainty in momentum Δp tends to zero, the uncertainty in the position Δx tends to infinity (a particle with a perfectly defined momentum is a plane wave which is everywhere).
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: windscar</title>
		<link>https://strangepaths.com/modernity-of-zenos-paradoxes/2007/01/16/en/#comment-1601</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:42:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>https://strangepaths.com/modernity-of-zenos-paradoxes/2007/01/16/en/#comment-1601</guid>
					<description>I beleive this only only true for particles that travel close to the speed of light.  Unless, they are makeing something up new from quantum loop gravity.  But I don't think anything would ever be confirmed about slow moveing particles reacting in this manner.  Mainly because I think it is a property that is given from an object traveling close to the speed of light.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I beleive this only only true for particles that travel close to the speed of light.  Unless, they are makeing something up new from quantum loop gravity.  But I don&#8217;t think anything would ever be confirmed about slow moveing particles reacting in this manner.  Mainly because I think it is a property that is given from an object traveling close to the speed of light.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: xantox</title>
		<link>https://strangepaths.com/modernity-of-zenos-paradoxes/2007/01/16/en/#comment-1599</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2007 22:48:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>https://strangepaths.com/modernity-of-zenos-paradoxes/2007/01/16/en/#comment-1599</guid>
					<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;Then how would an object move if it had to travel along an infinite amount of points?&lt;/blockquote&gt;
This would be indeed physically problematic in a classical continuous model, but this whole picture has changed with quantum mechanics, where the position of a moving particle is undetermined and smeared into a probabilistic cloud. Moreover, if spatial coordinates are equally probabilistically unsharp, a continuous space may be defined which only allows for a finite number of degrees of freedom.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Then how would an object move if it had to travel along an infinite amount of points?</p></blockquote>
<p>This would be indeed physically problematic in a classical continuous model, but this whole picture has changed with quantum mechanics, where the position of a moving particle is undetermined and smeared into a probabilistic cloud. Moreover, if spatial coordinates are equally probabilistically unsharp, a continuous space may be defined which only allows for a finite number of degrees of freedom.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: windscar</title>
		<link>https://strangepaths.com/modernity-of-zenos-paradoxes/2007/01/16/en/#comment-1592</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2007 03:36:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>https://strangepaths.com/modernity-of-zenos-paradoxes/2007/01/16/en/#comment-1592</guid>
					<description>Then how would an object move if it had to travel along an infinite amount of points?  Based on the Zeno Paradox alone would show that it is not and this is how we are able to move.  If space is truely continuos then there should be some kind of answer to this Paradox.  You would basically have to show that an infinite amount of points that got increasingly smaller, would add up to one distinct value.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Then how would an object move if it had to travel along an infinite amount of points?  Based on the Zeno Paradox alone would show that it is not and this is how we are able to move.  If space is truely continuos then there should be some kind of answer to this Paradox.  You would basically have to show that an infinite amount of points that got increasingly smaller, would add up to one distinct value.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: xantox</title>
		<link>https://strangepaths.com/modernity-of-zenos-paradoxes/2007/01/16/en/#comment-1590</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:20:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>https://strangepaths.com/modernity-of-zenos-paradoxes/2007/01/16/en/#comment-1590</guid>
					<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;Space being continuous has everything to do with the existence of a minimum lenght&lt;/blockquote&gt;
This is not a necessary condition in quantum theory, eg in Wheeler-DeWitt cosmology the fundamental Planck length coexists with continuous space and time. This point should be taken with great care: space is no longer assumed classical, and as such can't be realistically modeled with a sort of "chessboard" where particles would jump from Planck Length 1 to Planck Length 2 and so on. Space should be considered quantum &lt;em&gt;before&lt;/em&gt; questioning its continuity or discreteness. First, there is an uncertainty in the position of particles, making their location in the "chessboard" fuzzy and unsharp. Second, quantumness of spacetime should imply that the "chessboard" is itself fuzzy and unsharp. Third, spacetime could not be a fundamental entity, and discrete properties of its underlining structure (not characterized by lengths or times, but still defining a geometry) should not automatically imply that such spacetime is lacking continuous properties. Fourth, some models in topological field theory show both discrete and continuous dual characteristics, so that some deep connections may well exist physically between these apparently opposed notions.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Space being continuous has everything to do with the existence of a minimum lenght</p></blockquote>
<p>This is not a necessary condition in quantum theory, eg in Wheeler-DeWitt cosmology the fundamental Planck length coexists with continuous space and time. This point should be taken with great care: space is no longer assumed classical, and as such can&#8217;t be realistically modeled with a sort of &#8220;chessboard&#8221; where particles would jump from Planck Length 1 to Planck Length 2 and so on. Space should be considered quantum <em>before</em> questioning its continuity or discreteness. First, there is an uncertainty in the position of particles, making their location in the &#8220;chessboard&#8221; fuzzy and unsharp. Second, quantumness of spacetime should imply that the &#8220;chessboard&#8221; is itself fuzzy and unsharp. Third, spacetime could not be a fundamental entity, and discrete properties of its underlining structure (not characterized by lengths or times, but still defining a geometry) should not automatically imply that such spacetime is lacking continuous properties. Fourth, some models in topological field theory show both discrete and continuous dual characteristics, so that some deep connections may well exist physically between these apparently opposed notions.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: windscar</title>
		<link>https://strangepaths.com/modernity-of-zenos-paradoxes/2007/01/16/en/#comment-1581</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2007 08:16:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>https://strangepaths.com/modernity-of-zenos-paradoxes/2007/01/16/en/#comment-1581</guid>
					<description>Space being continuous has everything to do with the existence of a minimum lenght.  That was the main concern that brought up these ideas from Zeno.  Don't quote me on this but I think it was only through the work of Plato that we heard about this paradox, and was used to discredit him.  But there was a big debate about if space was made of atoms or a smallest unit and if it was made of small units then you would not be able to move a smaller amount of lenght.  I beleive this smallest unit is the Planck Lenght, and this is what allows movement without going through in infinite amount of points.  You would just jump every 10^-33cm.  This is because if it takes an infinite amount of energy to measure any smaller amount of distance, then that small of a distance could never be observed, because you could never have an infinite amount of energy in one point.  If this distance is not observed then from our frame of reference it does not exist and you could not move distances smaller than this.  And if something did move that far it would not be observable and would appear to not have moved at all...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Space being continuous has everything to do with the existence of a minimum lenght.  That was the main concern that brought up these ideas from Zeno.  Don&#8217;t quote me on this but I think it was only through the work of Plato that we heard about this paradox, and was used to discredit him.  But there was a big debate about if space was made of atoms or a smallest unit and if it was made of small units then you would not be able to move a smaller amount of lenght.  I beleive this smallest unit is the Planck Lenght, and this is what allows movement without going through in infinite amount of points.  You would just jump every 10^-33cm.  This is because if it takes an infinite amount of energy to measure any smaller amount of distance, then that small of a distance could never be observed, because you could never have an infinite amount of energy in one point.  If this distance is not observed then from our frame of reference it does not exist and you could not move distances smaller than this.  And if something did move that far it would not be observable and would appear to not have moved at all&#8230;
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: xantox</title>
		<link>https://strangepaths.com/modernity-of-zenos-paradoxes/2007/01/16/en/#comment-1580</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2007 01:53:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>https://strangepaths.com/modernity-of-zenos-paradoxes/2007/01/16/en/#comment-1580</guid>
					<description>Hello. It is in fact unknown if space is continuous or not, and this is independent from the existence of a minimum length. In addition, spatial states may be uncertain, allowing discrete geometries to describe continuous fields.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello. It is in fact unknown if space is continuous or not, and this is independent from the existence of a minimum length. In addition, spatial states may be uncertain, allowing discrete geometries to describe continuous fields.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: windscar</title>
		<link>https://strangepaths.com/modernity-of-zenos-paradoxes/2007/01/16/en/#comment-1565</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 03:44:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>https://strangepaths.com/modernity-of-zenos-paradoxes/2007/01/16/en/#comment-1565</guid>
					<description>Zeno's thought experiments were right.  But the assumption that space was continuous was wrong.  But if they had done that we wouldn't have calculus...  You could find the number of positions an object was in by dividing the distance by the Planck Length.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Zeno&#8217;s thought experiments were right.  But the assumption that space was continuous was wrong.  But if they had done that we wouldn&#8217;t have calculus&#8230;  You could find the number of positions an object was in by dividing the distance by the Planck Length.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
