 |
 |
Still, this atomistic view has a fundamental problem. The philosophy of the time (which still continues to our day) held that nature is ideal at its essence. The ideal expression of the nature of space comes from the geometry of Euclid, which includes concepts that are fundamentally clear and obvious to us from our common experiences. Euclidean theories in physics (based on Euclid's geometry) are called classical theories.
For example, space can be completely described through no more than three attributes of direction, and the basic nature of these directions is flat. Also, the minimum length possible along any of these directions is exactly zero. If we reduce one of these directions to zero length, we have a perfectly flat plane. Reducing another of these directions to a length of zero gives us a straight line. If we reduce the length to zero for all three directions simultaneously, we arrive at a perfect point. Thus, a perfect point has a size of zero every way you look at it.
So, what is the problem with that? We understand "points" and "flat," while we simultaneously understand "atom" and "indivisible." But, how do you make a smallest, indivisible object up from a collection, or group, of zero-size points? What is inside it? How can it be smallest and indivisible if you can describe an "inside" to contrast with an "outside?" For that matter, how do you make anything with a real, measurable size (bigger than zero) from "objects" that have a size of exactly zero? Mathematics has a well-defined body of concepts, called calculus, whose task involves exactly this process. But, the actual step from "almost zero" size to "precisely" zero size still leaves some people with room for doubt, especially when it comes to describing the "real" world.
|
|