/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10648437]

Why don't perfect circles exist in nature?

[Anonymous No.10648446]

>>10648437
>not having a perfectly circular butthole
Looks like The Phenotype doesn’t belong to you

[Anonymous No.10648448]

>he dosent take cylindrical shits

[Anonymous No.10648453]

>>10648437
Who says they don't?

[Anonymous No.10648459]

>>10648437
Corneas m8

[Anonymous No.10648471]

>>10648453
Plato

[Anonymous No.10648478]

>>10648437
>step 1: get a bowl of water
>step 2: get a teaspoon of vegetable oil
>step 3: add vegetable oil to bowl of water
>step 4: oil will approximate to perfect circle on top of water

[Anonymous No.10648486]

>>10648437
There are many different varieties of imperfect circular structure and only one variety of perfect circular structure. Also you have what to look for with a perfect circular structure in advance, whereas with every other kind of imperfect circular structure you're not defining anything in advance. So it's not like the imperfect versions you do encounter are found in a way the perfect version isn't. It's not a fair competition because anything you find other than that one perfect version is something you count as an imperfect finding.
If you make your measurement deep enough into the tiniest level of detail possible then you would be unlikely to find a real world example of any one specific variety of circular structure defined in advance, perfect or imperfect. Perfection is something you focus on because it's an abstraction of the similarities all the different real world circular structures have in common and average towards, but the real issue for why you don't see it is that there's potentially an intractably large amount of detail you could zoom into that would making predicting and finding literally any specific and thoroughly defined structure in nature effectively impossible.

[Anonymous No.10648490]

>>10648478
>approximate
That misses the entire point of the word "perfect." Nobody has denied the existence of approximately formed circular configurations in nature.

[Anonymous No.10648494]

>>10648490
How do you know at least one of them isn't a perfect circle?

[Anonymous No.10648521]

>>10648486
tldr

[Anonymous No.10648526]

>>10648494
quantum physics
and even if you say reality is wholy described continuously under general relativity, only one person could ever see a "perfect circle" at any given time, which means its not perfect

[Anonymous No.10648551]

>>10648437
High school physics, a current carrying wire will cause a circular magnetic field around it, on plane perpendicular to the wire. Remove any interference and the circle will be perfect.
Pic related

[Anonymous No.10648554]

>>10648551
>Remove any interference
OP said "in nature."

[Anonymous No.10648556]

>>10648521
There are many more opportunities to be imperfect and only one to be perfect.

[Anonymous No.10648564]

>>10648437
because it is a definition and mathematical definitions don't exist in nature, only approximations to the definitions exist

still useful tho

[Anonymous No.10648579]

All circles are perfect to some tolerance. Adjust the tolerance as required.

[Anonymous No.10648583]

>>10648437
Have you seen a black hole?

[Anonymous No.10648588]

>>10648437
We dont extract the knowledge of a perfect idea from the real world, we extrapolate it from our imperfect world. The human mind can imagine many things that are impossible.

>we can imagine things with the potential of being infinite like the time of our universe
>we can imagine an utopia

But our understanding of the world is also imperfect so how can we be sure that a physical perfect circle is impossible.

Platon says that the knowledge of perfect ideas comes from the soul that existed before us and will exist after us.

The soul however is not necessary to know perfect ideas, as I said before we extrapolate perfectism from imperfectism.

[Anonymous No.10648621]

>>10648579
good answer

[Anonymous No.10648657]

>>10648437
Quite simple actually the things around us are made of molecules and the angles between bonds vary. You see bonds are lines connected by points so almost every shape you can think of can be made however a circle/sphere have no lines only points so it would be impossible to form a circle with line segments.

TLDR: for the same reason you can make a circle with lines; you can’t make a perfect circle out of molecules.

[Anonymous No.10648660]

>>10648437
OP, just look inside yourself and you will find your answer.

[Anonymous No.10648666]

>>10648657
You can’t make a circle with line segments therefore you can’t make a circle out of molecules in nature.

[Anonymous No.10648746]

>>10648437
God doesn't have a compass, He has to draw them freehand.

[Anonymous No.10648776]

>>10648437

We will never know if perfect forms exist in nature until we have perfect scales

[Anonymous No.10649513]

>>10648437
IT can be approached, but never reached

[Anonymous No.10650570]

>>10648583
Black holes dont exist bc theyre not in the bibel

t.christian

[Anonymous No.10650775]

definition of a circle depends on a concept of a point. point is an abstraction with position but with no size. everything that exists in nature has size. that's why circles can't exist outside math, as any other geometrical object. there are no perfect rectangles either.

[Anonymous No.10650791]

>>10648437
>Schwartchild radius
>neutron star
>heck, even our fucking Sun is a perfect sphere.

[Anonymous No.10650794]

>>10648521
I shoved his statement into SMMRY

>There are many different varieties of imperfect circular structure and only one variety of perfect circular structure.

[Anonymous No.10650833]

>>10648551
But it will only be a representation, rendered as the direction of the charge. Basically the electrons are pixels and while its closer to a perfect circle than a drawing is, it still is infinitely far from a perfect circle.

[Anonymous No.10650919]

>>10650791
>>heck, even our fucking Sun is a perfect sphere.

[Anonymous No.10650927]

>>10650833
that is not true. The field exists without any electron in it, they just produce it. You want a perfect circle or a perfect circle you can SEE?

[Anonymous No.10650930]

>>10650791
>good
>no
>NO

even the black hole isn't perfect if we assume quantum dynamics have any influence on the singularity.

[Anonymous No.10651886]

>>10648471
If Plato was such a bigbrain, how come he's dead?

[Anonymous No.10652370]

>>10650775
there is no perfect anything.
its all so IRRATIONAL!

[Anonymous No.10652411]

>>10648579
retard.

[Anonymous No.10652436]

>>10648437
The universe is discrete, and therefore cannot contain actual circles. Circles are a great abstraction and many things can seem like they are circular, however they cannot actually be circular since circles are defined with irrational numbers. We can create approximate circles, but never an actual circle. To do so would require a universe with infinite precision which clearly does not exist since there exists minimum distances.

[Anonymous No.10652456]

>>10648437
because 2 dimensional objects doesn't exist in nature

[Anonymous No.10652543]

>>10648437
Because God has not discovered pi

[Anonymous No.10652545]

Electrons when measured have proven time to time to be spherical.

[Anonymous No.10652563]

aren't water droplets or any liquid in space perfectly spherical?

[Anonymous No.10654069]

Everything visible aka detectable as in matter is made of straight lines, hence reflecting light! So the truth is, ironically that there is nothing round in nature!

[Anonymous No.10654142]

>>10652436
>the universe is discrete
>there exists minimum distances
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.10654210]

>Why don't circles exist in nature?
circles are everywhere in nature bro

>Why don't perfect [insert thing here] exist in nature?
Nothing in the universe can ever achieve perfection because as soon as something is a position to achieve perfection over anything, it's also in a position to view that there's more it can do to become perfect. It's like trying to reach infinity by counting to the highest number you can think of. Even if you count to the highest number you can think of, you can just add 1.

However, the closer you get to perfection, the more you're able to see how far away from perfection you really are. In this way, perfect circles are the Dunning Kruger effect of geometry. The more you learn of a particular subject, the more you realize there is to learn.

[Anonymous No.10654334]

>>10652545
>electrons are point particles.
>electrons are perfectly spherical.
I heard both of these said multiple times in equally assertive manner and don't know what to believe anymore.

[Anonymous No.10654343]

>>10652563
No. Because the thermal energy and the very shape of H2O prevents it from forming a uniformly smooth surface.
In a nutshell, nothing chemical can possibly considered a candidate for a perfect sphere according to OP's standards.

[Anonymous No.10654366]

>>10654334
Electrons are wave-like disturbances in a field of potential energy. They are neither point-like, nor spherical.

[Anonymous No.10654420]

>>10648437
Because perfection is a concept invented by humans.

[Anonymous No.10654431]

>>10654334
The charge distribution of an electron appears perfectly spherical, with no dipole moment. The point-like electron itself is the generator of this spherical charge distribution.

[Anonymous No.10654435]

>>10654334
https://www.quora.com/How-do-we-know-that-electrons-are-point-like-particles

[Anonymous No.10654439]

>>10654334
Electrons are excitations of a quantum field.

[Anonymous No.10654450]

>>10654334
It's not a point particle, but sometimes you can treat it like it is.

[Anonymous No.10654487]

>>10648564
THIS

[Anonymous No.10654491]

>>10648579

[Anonymous No.10654494]

>>10648437
Circular beam of light?

[Anonymous No.10654501]

>>10654366
>They are neither point-like, nor spherical.
No matter is if you zoom in close enough.

[Anonymous No.10654504]

>>10648437
Perfect circles don’t exist ANYWHERE. They are impossible.

[Anonymous No.10654542]

>>10654504
Rainbows. Also, stuff in nature changes all the time. There's no reason to believe that if for example a water droplet is usually an imperfect circle it won't sometimes also be perfect.

[Anonymous No.10654552]

>>10648437
By the same arguments you use to deny the existence of perfect circles you can also deny the existence of any other geometric objects, such as perfect lines, perfect trapezoids, hexagons, even perfect specific irregular polygons. The real problem is that perfect geometric objects do not exist in nature.

[Anonymous No.10654615]

>>10654542
The rainbow is only circular from your perspective.
But that line of thinking is good. How about the event horizon of a black hole? Specifically the photon sphere around it. That's a perfect sphere, and a 2D cross section of a sphere is a circle.

[Anonymous No.10654658]

>>10654615
As far as I'm aware rainbows are always circular. But yeah, anything that has a circular cross section would fit in the definition, otherwise we leave any feasable way of giving examples.

[Anonymous No.10654671]

>>10651886
t. still in the cave

[Anonymous No.10656131]

>>10654142
wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length