Boundries Neglected?

[IDMclean]

So I've considered it for a while now, and still don't have a clear answer, and only a vague question. Here's where you, the reader come in. I need you to develop some questions, and possible answers for this problem.

 

What defines a quantum, atomic, gravitational, or electromagnetic boundary? what defines where the atom ends and the molecule begins. If I go to the edge of the universe what will I find, supposing that the edge of the universe is the edge of gravity, and therefore space. What decides these boundaries?

 

Quantum physics has some interesting takes on boundaries, where as the common sense definition of a boundary is hard and immutable, quantum boundaries are fuzzy creatures, loosely defined... but by what ultimately?

 

Is it possible that in a n-charge body interaction that all particles will interact with every other? I mean, in a three dimensional universe it doesn't make sense to say that a +1 +(- 1) charge pair is zero. they exert a spherical influence, right? So would that not mean that in reality they have potential zones? Would that not indicate a soft boundary, or quantum even?

 

I am not the most knowledgeable person, but then again no single person is. Still it bothers me. So I ask you, for your view, to borrow with full intention of returning, so that maybe we can all get a new perspective.

 

Let the games begin.

[InfiniteNow]

What defines... these boundries?

The observer.

[IDMclean]

Alright, that's a good answer I suppose, but like most things it raises more questions than it answers. By what mechanism does the obsever define the boundry? I won't even ask what an observer is.

 

Also if the observer defines the boundry, and I am an observer, then why can't I walk through walls at whim? Or visit the edge of the universe in an instant?

 

Boundries are the only thing that I can think of which keep use where we are. Without boundries things would simply float apart after awhile.

[sanctus]

Why should they things float apart without boundaries? The forces are still there and the boundaries are just fixed by the observer: a particle of dust exerces a force on me (it's massive), but the force is so small that in usual experiences (ie. not free-falling dust particules with...) that the force of this dust particle is bounded toa very small sphere around the particle...

[IDMclean]

Ok, so your saying that force defines the boundary? or the observer?

 

What I mean, is in a universe, where you can't simply walk to the edge of a country and go "hmmm... what a pretty line they've drawn on the ground to deliminate our country from theirs!", what makes the difference between me and say the ground?

 

When I jump, I do not simply sink into the ground. Why? What is stopping me, how and why? If I walk to the edge of the universe, what would I see there? What would tell me, in a real world way, that I had reached the edge?

 

Assuming equivalence, that would give me an Idea what deliminates the atom from the molecule, or the sub-atomic component from the atom. Likewise, if I know the boundary, or what makes up the boundary of the atom, then I can with reason theorize what makes up the universal boundary.

 

I like your answer, Sanctus, it appeases me more so than simply "the observer", no offense intended, it's just a very open answer, InfinityNow, not very well defined boundaries. :embarass:

 

I would also elect force as the "mediator" of physical boundaries... any other suggestions?

[watcher]

I would also elect force as the "mediator" of physical boundries... any other suggestions?

 

the force and the rules that govern it. if i may add.

 

 

.

[sanctus]

Ok, so your saying that force defines the boundry? or the observer?

Both, it depends on how you observe the thing governed by forces.

 

When I jump, I do not simply sink into the ground. Why? What is stopping me, how and why?

The EM-force mainly, because you try to tear apart what is hold together by the force bindings atoms or molecules to each other. This shows actually how weak the gravitational force is, you jump from 2m to the ground and are stopped "on the spot", so gravity cannot compete with the forces holding the ground together...

If I walk to the edge of the universe, what would I see their? What would tell me, in a real world way, that I had reached the edge?

Your age would it tell to you as you would have to infinitely old (at least from the earth reference frame). Noone really knows what is afterthe edge of the universe as it is quite hard to define what absence of space-time is... And anyway it is impossible to get there as if you get there you are not there as you are always in space-time wherever you (so far at least, to get out of space-time and be sucked in elsewhere would be real fun and maybe possible in future??). To see that you can't get to the edge of the universe is quite easy, you would have to get where the first photons of the bigbang got and that is quite far...

Assuming equivilence, that would give me an Idea what deliminates the atom from the molecule, or the sub-atomic component from the atom. Likewise, if I know the boundry, or what makes up the boundry of the atom, then I can with reason theorize what makes up the universal boundry.

 

 

I would also elect force as the "mediator" of physical boundries... any other suggestions?

 

It doesn't work, as depending on the experiment the same force can have different boundaries.

[ronthepon]

I had read somewhere that it's not correct to say that a particular thing has a boundary. It's better to say that the thing does not exist beyond a particular limit.

 

I dunno... just thought I'd blab it out here.

[Turtle]

I am not the most knowledgable person...

So I ask you, for your view, to borrow with full intention of returning, so that maybe we can all get a new perspective.

 

Let the games begin.

You don't say.:D

Properties of boundaries fall into a large range of studies including fractal geometry and topology. Just recently it was announced the Poincaré Conjecture is now proved by Grigory Perelman, and this has considerable implications for what the "boundary" of the Universe "looks" like.

As far as I can find, there are no re-produceable articles on this, so here is a link to a story for as long as it lasts: http://www.comcast.net/news/science/index.jsp?cat=SCIENCE&fn=/2006/08/22/460817.html

:eek2:

[hallenrm]

I would say boundaries are meaningless :D. Any object in fact pervades the universe because its atoms/molecules can evaporate and diffuse out. So if the definition of the object is in its constituents there is really no boundary. Similar is the case with forces and fields, who can ever say that beyond this point there is no field! A force field pervades the space around it, it can only get infinitesimally weak at certain point, Not cease to be.

 

I think I have answered about the boundaries of the Universe too. :eek2:

[IDMclean]

Now here's a boundary:

The holographic principle

[Don Blazys]

Quoting The Holographic Principle:

A universal relation between geometry and information is thus uncovered.

It has yet to be explained.

 

I agree with that.

 

Don.