Negative numbers
Discussion
Listening to a radio 4 podcast of infinite monkey cage or similar, I heard someone question whether zero exists in nature. I reckon it must do, but I started wondering about negative numbers. Very useful for calculation but do they really exist in nature?
Is anything in nature really negative or does it all depend on your point of view?
Is anything in nature really negative or does it all depend on your point of view?
It might be possible to temporarily borrow energy (leaving negative energy) as long as you pay it back quickly: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/1910...
I don't think zero existed as a number you ages. The Romans never had it, which makes doing complex sums with Roman numerals a nightmare. The Hindus invented the number zero, it travelled West to the Middle east, and the great Islamic scholars then refined it.
The catholic church banned the use of zero in Europe for 200 years, because it meant that simple people could do maths, and would be able to see they were being fleeced by the church and other revenue collecting agencies.
The catholic church banned the use of zero in Europe for 200 years, because it meant that simple people could do maths, and would be able to see they were being fleeced by the church and other revenue collecting agencies.
AW111 said:
Magnets.
Is repulsion a negative attraction? It acts like it.
Also chemistry, where things can have a positive or negative charge, based on number or distribution of electrons.
The trouble with positive and negative charges is that they were originally arbitrary labels for different charges. They could just have easily been labelled the other way round in which case we would speak of electron having positive charge which would be easier to visualise.Is repulsion a negative attraction? It acts like it.
Also chemistry, where things can have a positive or negative charge, based on number or distribution of electrons.
I like the idea of repulsion being negative attraction, but can't think of any real argument why you equally can't call attraction a negative repulsion even though it seems the wrong way round.
Dr Jekyll said:
AW111 said:
Magnets.
Is repulsion a negative attraction? It acts like it.
Also chemistry, where things can have a positive or negative charge, based on number or distribution of electrons.
The trouble with positive and negative charges is that they were originally arbitrary labels for different charges. They could just have easily been labelled the other way round in which case we would speak of electron having positive charge which would be easier to visualise.Is repulsion a negative attraction? It acts like it.
Also chemistry, where things can have a positive or negative charge, based on number or distribution of electrons.
I like the idea of repulsion being negative attraction, but can't think of any real argument why you equally can't call attraction a negative repulsion even though it seems the wrong way round.
My 2p: I'd say zero exists in nature as equilibrium. e.g. if all forces acting on an object balance eachother out, then acceleration on the object is zero.
For negative numbers, how about endothermic vs. exothermic reactions? One sees a net gain in heat, the other a net loss. Also, again going back to the net forces on an object. If one force is pushing the object in one direction and another force is pushing it in the opposite direction, then one force must be negative relative to the other. e.g. centripetal force vs. gravity.
For negative numbers, how about endothermic vs. exothermic reactions? One sees a net gain in heat, the other a net loss. Also, again going back to the net forces on an object. If one force is pushing the object in one direction and another force is pushing it in the opposite direction, then one force must be negative relative to the other. e.g. centripetal force vs. gravity.
In Max Tegmark’s MUH (Mathematical Universe Hypothesis), reality is constructed of nothing but numbers at a fundamental level. This inspired the Wachowski siblings for elements of The Matrix trilogy.
In this Universe negative numbers, and zero, would exist everywhere.
In a standard model or Quantum Field Theory universe, numbers don’t exist in a physical sense, they are abstractions.
In the philosophy of mathematics, mathematicism, discussed at great length by Pythagorus, Plato, and Aristotle, the arguments focused regularly on the very existence of numbers.
I think on balance negative numbers have as much claim to existence as positive ones. You can’t hold minus three potatoes but then you can’t hold plus three nothings either. The number only describes a quantity of something.
I’m fascinated by the MUH, and the related Simulation theory. But even though I’m an atheist, not a spiritual person and I would love it to be the true nature of our existence (because then it could be completely understood eventually), deep down I don’t feel it is.
Fascinating all the same.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_unive...
In this Universe negative numbers, and zero, would exist everywhere.
In a standard model or Quantum Field Theory universe, numbers don’t exist in a physical sense, they are abstractions.
In the philosophy of mathematics, mathematicism, discussed at great length by Pythagorus, Plato, and Aristotle, the arguments focused regularly on the very existence of numbers.
I think on balance negative numbers have as much claim to existence as positive ones. You can’t hold minus three potatoes but then you can’t hold plus three nothings either. The number only describes a quantity of something.
I’m fascinated by the MUH, and the related Simulation theory. But even though I’m an atheist, not a spiritual person and I would love it to be the true nature of our existence (because then it could be completely understood eventually), deep down I don’t feel it is.
Fascinating all the same.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_unive...
Equus said:
motco said:
Zero does not exist, obviously.
What is the current population of dodos?(1) It ain't zero (that much is apparently obvious).
(b) It ain't a negative number either (as no such thing exists in nature either (not sure if that too is obvious)).
Therefore the dodo population is currently one or more dodos.
Ergo the dodo is NOT extinct. You heard it here first. (Even when it is extinct there is still at least one of them).
Numbers don’t exist in nature either. First, we make a mental abstraction to put things in sets that are identical. In nature nothing is identical. Even two electrons are in different locations.
E.g., we count ‘five trees’ even though the trees may be of different species, we have created a set where their ‘treeness’ is a attribute that makes them identical, for purposes of counting.
E.g., we count ‘five trees’ even though the trees may be of different species, we have created a set where their ‘treeness’ is a attribute that makes them identical, for purposes of counting.
wisbech said:
Numbers don’t exist in nature either. First, we make a mental abstraction to put things in sets that are identical. In nature nothing is identical. Even two electrons are in different locations.
E.g., we count ‘five trees’ even though the trees may be of different species, we have created a set where their ‘treeness’ is a attribute that makes them identical, for purposes of counting.
Read up on periodical Cicadas.E.g., we count ‘five trees’ even though the trees may be of different species, we have created a set where their ‘treeness’ is a attribute that makes them identical, for purposes of counting.
What do different nymph life lengths got to do with numbers? Time and seasons exist.
I could see an argument for saying that in nature ratios exist, ie pi, e, the golden ratio. But these can’t be expressed by numbers exactly anyway (or rather, they are irrational numbers so we give them a sign of their own)
I could see an argument for saying that in nature ratios exist, ie pi, e, the golden ratio. But these can’t be expressed by numbers exactly anyway (or rather, they are irrational numbers so we give them a sign of their own)
wisbech said:
What do different nymph life lengths got to do with numbers? Time and seasons exist.
I could see an argument for saying that in nature ratios exist, ie pi, e, the golden ratio. But these can’t be expressed by numbers exactly anyway (or rather, they are irrational numbers so we give them a sign of their own)
The point is that seven different cicadas species have evolved so that the adults emerge to reproduce either every 13 years or every 17 years. Emerging en masse means they are less likely to be all wiped out by predators, but the interesting thing is that the periods are prime numbers. Either to make it less likely that predators will synchronise their generation lengths with the cicadas, or to prevent hybridisation with differently timed cicadas which would cause adults to no longer emerge in such large groups. So prime numbers are clearly significant in nature. I could see an argument for saying that in nature ratios exist, ie pi, e, the golden ratio. But these can’t be expressed by numbers exactly anyway (or rather, they are irrational numbers so we give them a sign of their own)
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff