0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Aha, but shouldn't you be comparing an infinite number of bricks with an infinite number of particles, and not the number of possible ways that the particles can be combined?The finite number of particle combinations should really be compared to the finite number of ways that the bricks can be fitted together i.e. top-to-bottom only, and not top-to-top, bottom-to-bottom or side-to-side (except I think you can get bricks that only have 'male' connectors on all sides, but even those have a limited number of possible ways of fixing to any other type of brick)

An interesting question blue_cristal. The simple answer is because they are quantum objects and reperesent specific unique states that can exist in our universe. Not all of the properties are identical because each of the subatomic particles can have properties like energy/momenum and a direction of movement that makes them different from other particles.

Your logic is based on a specious premise. "...the finite number of ways that the bricks can be fitted together" may be true; but whatever you build, you can always add more bricks. So, it is not the number of ways that bricks can be fitted together, but that you can add bricks ad infinitum. That is not true of particles.Given an infinite number of particles, there is still a finite limit to the number of combinations. With an infinite number of lego bricks, you could build a house with 1 window, 2 windows, 3 etc,; all the way to an infinite number of windows.

Quote from: DoctorBeaver on 19/05/2008 20:23:36Your logic is based on a specious premise. "...the finite number of ways that the bricks can be fitted together" may be true; but whatever you build, you can always add more bricks. So, it is not the number of ways that bricks can be fitted together, but that you can add bricks ad infinitum. That is not true of particles.Given an infinite number of particles, there is still a finite limit to the number of combinations. With an infinite number of lego bricks, you could build a house with 1 window, 2 windows, 3 etc,; all the way to an infinite number of windows.Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear:)I did say it wasn't a perfect analogy, but instead of picking up on what's actually wrong with it I think you've rather let some flaws creep into your own logic to produce an arguement that I think actually works in my favour:)As well as there being a finite number of ways in which bricks can be fitted together, you can only fit a finite number of bricks to any one brick so although you may have an infinite number of bricks, you cannot fit every brick to every other brick. Certainly, you can add more bricks to a construction and make that construction larger but that is how the macrostructures referred to by the questioner are made, by combining fundamental particles...How many particles do you think were required to make er.. Jupiter, for example? I'd bet that the number of particles that went into the making of Jupiter is far greater than the number of bricks that have ever been made, yet this didn't stop them from being fitted together to make Jupiter:)I think it's also evident, just from looking at the world and the universe around you, that you can make a much wider range of things out of particles than you can with bricks, which to me implies that particles can be fitted together in many more ways that bricks can.The bottom line, of course, is that the bricks are made out of particles anyway, so anything you say about bricks is doubled for particles >

I think it's also evident, just from looking at the world and the universe around you, that you can make a much wider range of things out of particles than you can with bricks, which to me implies that particles can be fitted together in many more ways that bricks can.

Actually, there's no intrinsic reason why it would be impossible to make a Jupiter, with a Saturn sticking out of it's side. It might be extremely unlikely for it to occur in nature, in the same sense as it's just very unlikely, but not impossible,

Because it would be an artificial structure Mr. Gravity would just have to put up with it

As a natural construct, it's wildly improbable...

Heh:) I agree about not aggravating him too much - he might be a weakling but he's got a long reach and never seems to take a break:)Actually, I think that in practice, Mr gravity would pay an awful lot of attention to a Lego brick Jupiter, perhaps even more than he does already to the gas-based real one.I believe that the average density of Jupiter is somewhat less than water - anyone know the density of plastic bricks?

60 years ago (and possibly still do) radio amateur enthusiasts used to chat to each other via Morse code much like youngsters do today with 'text'.