Is matter infinitely divisible?
442716
I would say NO... at certain point, particles are made of energy, and energy can't be splitted as matter does...
348700
infinite number that wiull never stop growing
195989
Just by inspection, if n=3 the expression is divisible by 7. A more thorough examination shows, though, that n = 3m works for all integers m>0, i.e. n=3,6,9,12,15,18,21,... will all be divisible by 7.\n\nUPDATE: n can not be any real number because the term "divisible" in this context has a precise mathematical meaning, i.e. when you divide by 7 you will get a natural number as the result. The use of the variable n usually suggests too that n belongs to the set of naturals.
415793
possibly its infinite\nbut its an argument you will find quite interesting to discuss with REAL people. im no astronomer but a thirteen year old student.i can tell you that there is the M-theory which states of parallel universes.the string theory says that there is a 12th dimension which is outside the boundary of this universe. Now we ask what is beyond that? its hard to answer. But we should never let our Heads be larger than our Hats!
4524
It is physically impossible for two pieces of matter to occupy the same space at the same time, and this is in fact stated by the laws of physics, think about it, it's just impossible.  It doesn't matter if they  have different frequencies, it's matter, their atoms can touch or something, but never be at the same place as each other at the same time.
178670
If the universe is infinite, it doesn't mean that everywhere is the center, it means that it has no center. Or, if you mean relative to the existing matter...well, that isn't infinite, and has a defined center.
48126
Well, there is no really simple answer. The most common is "Euler's proof," but even that is a bit cloudy. The fact remains that nearly every infinite series, even if it can be proven convergent, has an incalculable sum. That's not to say a computer can't do it, but then again, the longer the computer cranks, the more accurate the answer is. It's really not a solution when a computer calculates an answer--more like a limit that approaches the correct answer.\n\nHowever, there is hope! I have compiled some sources I found online to help you. Here's a brief description of the links:\n\n1. A discussion from Wolfram's Dr. Math about the general incalculability of infinite series, which specifically cites your problem as a counterexample (i.e. one that can be calculated).\n\n2. A forum posting about different approaches to this problem.\n\n3. A wicked cool collection of 14 proofs for your problem in PDF form. Download it! Print it! Use it to line your parrot cage when you're done!
924189
Maybe.  But the question is hypothetical -- infinity is a mathematical concept, and does not exist in the real world.
615823
The Universe is thought to be 'finite but bounded'. That is, it does not come to an end anywhere but somehow loops around again far, far away. Another example of a finite but bounded shape is the surface of a bubble, a sphere. It has definite area and size but there are no edges to its surface, no place to call a "beginning" or "end" that is not arbitrary.
777706
You make the assumption that there are a finite number of primes.\nIf this is so, then it is possible to write them all out in a list.\nYou then multiply them all together, and add one to the product.\nThe result is not divisible by any of your existing prime numbers. So it is either the case that:\nIt is not divisible by any number, i.e. it is prime.\nIt is divisible by two or more prime numbers, which cannot be on your list.\nEither way, you have missed out at least one prime number. Therefore, not matter what your list of prime numbers, you have always missed out some, which means that there is an infinite number of primes.
50645
if we speak of numbers and not of limits, the answer is no without exceptions: 0 is defined in group theory as the null element, so it is BY DEFINITION the element which multiplied by any other gives itself: always 0.\nInstead, what we usually assume as always true, but is not true in some finite algebraic models, is that if A*B=0 then either A=0 or B=0. This is not always true in all algebraic models (for exemple in modular algebra).
1027618
It is quite possible for the universe to be both finite and without a boundary. No wall, but still it doesn't go on forever. Here's a way of visualizing it. Imagine that nomatter which direction you choose, you will eventually get back to your starting point if you go far enough in a 'straight' line. Impossible? Free your mind. It happens in two dimensions on the surface of a sphere. While it currently looks like the universe really is infinite, such three dimensional spheres were models used for finite universes until the data showed they are probably wrong.
196036
If you divide 2 to the second equation, you will notice that it is identical to the first one, so they are dependent to each other, and there are infinitely many solutions to this problem.\n\n^_^
472392
"Matter can be neither created or destroyed" is an old saw from pre-Einstein physics.  Matter is continually being transformed into energy in every star in the sky in accordance with E = mc^2, so in that sense, there is certainly less matter in the universe now than when I started typing.  However, (I think) the equation is reversible, so the energy can be transformed back into matter, so maybe the answer is there has always been a constant amount of matter/energy in the universe.
334107
From what we understand right now, it seems to be infinite. However, a year or two ago, there were some scientists that claimed evidence that it is actually a large icosahedron that repeats. Their evidnece has not withstood more tests, though.
146728
no, it is divisible by 1, 3, 23, 29, and itself (with the numbers being reduced as far as possible)
157677
This question cannnot be answered due to a simple fact that there are infinite amounts of numbers, therefore is no limit to a higher or a lower number.