LHC portal

Einstein did NOT prove calculus wrong! He used it all the time. Where did you get that idea?? It has been said in this tread a few times that theorems that involve smaller and smaller fractions cannot be used and are incorrect. And if I recall correctly, derivatives and integrals are limits that ta...

So it the true after all that Einstein proved that calculus is wrong.

May I ask if you are a real physicist or merely a mathematician, and if I can quote you on the claim that you can calculate with smaller lengths, even though you are not able to measure them.

Doesn't this means that geometric series do not converge. Take for example Zeno paradoxes. The traditional solution assumes that the runner takes steps smaller than the smallest possible distance. It is therefore impossible to compute to which value a series converges, since it by definition get in ...

So this is the reason why no competent physicist will use calculus, and why the theorems of calculus are essentially, deep down, wrong. Thanks. I just wanted to know whether you can use mathematics to describe the motion of objects, and you seem to confirm that you cannot.

I don't quite get the answer. Was it meant to be ironic?

I've asked a similar question about the mathematics of QM before, but I still need some clarification from the experts. So bear with me. In calculus it is common to add very small distances as far as I know. Distances will be quickly smaller than a Planck distance. Doesn't this mean that you cannot ...

You can calculate it, the answer just will not be a single (infinite small) point in space. So, the answer will be a distribution, but it is not the case that that the calculus is in itself incorrect? Edit: Maybe one more remark. The problem at such small scales is, that you somewhat lose the conce...

So, you to make sure it is understood correctly. Imprecise measurements of parameters or initial conditions, might lead to imprecision of a prediction. And it might be possible that a model is incomplete, like not taking into account relativistic effects, which may lead to wrong outcomes. And also c...

The argument would be that infinite-series solutions in e.g. calculus, are based on strict, hard 1:1 correspondences of physical locations with physical objects. Wouldn't this be contrary to quantum mechanics?

Thanks for the answer, it brought up many interesting aspects. But an important aspect of of the question is still open, maybe because it is an uncommon question. The question is whether the mathematics is still correct when applied to the sub-quantum level. Regardless of the particle that was descr...

It might seem like an odd and rather naive question, but I still have to ask it. When describing motion of particles at the LHC do researchers still use calculus or related methods? And is it still possible to accurately calculate the momentum and position of a particle. Even at that level, or even ...