On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 9:33 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> There is no reason to think physics needs all the real numbers and >> considerable evidence to think it does not. To my mind the strongest >> evidence is that a physical Turing Machine is incapable of even >> approximating most real numbers, I happened to have posted a proof of this >> yesterday on the "Observation versus assumption" thread. >> >>> > *> Physics doesn't need all the real numbers, just some of them, say any > continuous range of any variable; like the mass of the electron.* > The electron doesn't have a continuous range of mass. And mass is the force on a object divided by its acceleration, but acceleration is the change in speed per unit of time and speed is the change in positional distance per unit of time, so if neither time or space is continuous then mass can't be either. > *Einstein's field equations use PI, and so do Maxwell's equations. * Physics theories may need PI but physics itself probably doesn't. PI has been calculated to 31 trillion digits and even that is only an approximation, but only 8 or 9 digits are needed to explain every physical observation ever made, and the same thing is true for e. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv17pPMg4t_oDe2SwL5wkukPL%2BxfCq9WYXq_i-L1%3DCCobA%40mail.gmail.com.
