Post by: Bill S on 05/11/2017 16:35:58
Acknowledging that any necessary modification or explanation can come later; could I ask to start with yes/no answers to a couple of questions? I’ll set a good example by giving my own answers, and, of course, being prepared to defend them later.
1. In our perceived 4+1 dimensional Universe, is it possible to formulate a “working” concept of infinity/eternity beyond a mathematical infinity? Yes.
2. Given that there is something, can there ever have been (absolutely) nothing? No.
Post by: Bill S on 05/11/2017 16:43:06
I mean no more than a concept which can be used in a rational way, without recourse to philosophy or theology.
Post by: jeffreyH on 05/11/2017 17:12:07
2. Don't know.
Post by: Bill S on 05/11/2017 17:52:30
Post by: alancalverd on 05/11/2017 18:17:57
AFAIK the most distant observable object is about 13.5 Gly away, roughly the Schwarzchild radius of all the mass inside that sphere, but I can't think of any reason why there shouldn't be stuff outside the event horizon, nor why there should be a limit to the amount or radius of stuff we can't observe. Now the gravitational sucking of this infinite exauniverse neatly describes the expansion of the observable one, and if bits from the edge of the observable universe disappear over the horizon, there's no reason why they shouldn't coalesce in the exaverse to form new galaxies etc.
At the other end of the scale we can leap from practical infinitesimals to quantum finities depending on whether we are trying to describe the motion of ambient air over a wing or the speed of a single molecule in a "vacuum" chamber.
Post by: Bill S on 05/11/2017 20:30:22
That's the sort of post I was hoping would come a bit later. It neatly side-steps answers to the questions, which are, I think, essential to any promise of progress, especially Q2.
Post by: alancalverd on 06/11/2017 10:39:54
"Mere" - Old English (that's me) - a stagnant bog. Ipsi dixit.
Post by: Bill S on 06/11/2017 14:26:45
Seriously, I'm just looking for opinions, at this stage. I may not always agree with you, but I value your opinion, especially as I know you will defend it.
There are others whose opinions I value, and I hope they will contribute soon.
Post by: jeffreyH on 06/11/2017 19:15:00
I have no idea what a working concept of infinity would be. Define working.
Post by: Bill S on 06/11/2017 19:48:08
Quote
We won't ever know if there was ever nothing. We can assume that there wasn't ever nothing but that is by choice.
Has anyone demonstrated a mechanism by which something can emerge from nothing?
Quote
I have no idea what a working concept of infinity would be. Define working.
It may not be a definition, as such, but I did say what I meant, at this stage.
Quote
I mean no more than a concept which can be used in a rational way, without recourse to philosophy or theology.
Post by: jeffreyH on 06/11/2017 23:36:32
Post by: mrsmith2211 on 07/11/2017 02:26:04
So what is infinity plus 1, or nothingness -1?
Post by: jeffreyH on 07/11/2017 06:13:08
Infinity and nothingness inhabit the same space. We can theoretically define both but conceive of neither.
So what is infinity plus 1, or nothingness -1?
If we represent nothingness by zero then minus one is actually something. Since you have moved away from nothing. If we define everything in terms of energy then there may be nothing in the universe.
Post by: Bill S on 07/11/2017 15:12:29
Quote from: Jeffrey
Is this where nothing exists? In quantum jumps?
To resurrect the famous McEnroe quote: "You cannot be serious!"
In order to have quantum jumps, you have to have something jumping.
Post by: Bill S on 07/11/2017 15:25:12
Quote from: Jeffrey
If we represent nothingness by zero then minus one is actually something. Since you have moved away from nothing.
This is an example of how mathematics can sometimes be unhelpful if not used with care. Mathematically, zero may be defined as nothing, but in order to make that definition, or even to conceive of zero, a mind has to exist; and that is something. Must there not be a difference between mathematical "nothing" and physical "nothing"?
Quote
If we define everything in terms of energy then there may be nothing in the universe.
Is that because the net energy may be zero?
Doesn't that require that +ve and -ve energy be present in order to achieve the net balance?
Post by: guest4091 on 07/11/2017 16:27:21
2. Given that there is something, can there ever have been (absolutely) nothing? No
No and No.
Post by: guest4091 on 07/11/2017 16:31:59
Infinity is not a number since it has no value. It is a relation about numbers stating there is no limit to a magnitude. A common example is the set of integers. The set has a beginning but is 'open ended/without limit/unbounded', but NOT infinite.
Another instance of the meaningless term is found in the definition of a limit, such as:
the limit of (some sequence of n terms), as n approaches infinity, = u. By definition the sequence can never equal the limit u, because if it did, the statement would be false!
Then there's the question of, how do you ‘approach infinity'? At night, on your tip toes, or maybe while it's sleeping?
It's a contradiction in terms. You can't ‘approach infinity' anymore than you can approach the horizon, or the carrot on the stick.
So much for rigorous or precise definitions.
Since mathematics is a language, it’s subject to the same limitations as any language. The terms are by definition, and those definitions are in terms of other definitions, etc. The ultimate reality is, there are no fundamental independent definitions. They are circular or accepted without proof, i.e. postulates/axioms.
Couple this with the fact that human experience has no provable examples of anything without end. Despite the mind being one of the most complex organisms known, it has a tendency to naively conceptualize and oversimplify to obtain a first approximation or preliminary grasp of an idea.
How many times have we heard, “it’s more complicated than we originally thought”, when experience doesn't agree with prediction.
Post by: jeffreyH on 07/11/2017 17:54:04
Quote from: JeffreyIs this where nothing exists? In quantum jumps?
To resurrect the famous McEnroe quote: "You cannot be serious!"
In order to have quantum jumps, you have to have something jumping.
I saw chalk dust! Damn it!
Post by: Bill S on 07/11/2017 18:52:45
Quote
I saw chalk dust! Damn it!
And chalk dust is something. Mc is with me, I shall not want, or should that be "found wanting"?
Post by: Bill S on 07/11/2017 19:12:36
Quote from: mrsmith
Infinity and nothingness inhabit the same space.
This is an example of how our language makes it difficult to talk about infinity or nothingness without letting in the pedants, who say things like “space is something, and we know of no infinite space”.
Quote
We can theoretically define both but conceive of neither.
Are you going to go for a definition of either?
Post by: Bill S on 07/11/2017 19:36:52
Quote from: Phyti
Infinite is an idea related to measurement.
If that is the case, it must be very loosely related, as infinity is not measurable.
Quote
Infinity is not a number since it has no value
Certainly not a number. I assume you mean mathematical value?
Quote
A common example is the set of integers. The set has a beginning but is 'open ended/without limit/unbounded', but NOT infinite.
Agreed – absolutely. Frustratingly, scientists/mathematicians who may agree with that tend, later, to argue as though they didn’t agree.
Quote
Then there's the question of, how do you ‘approach infinity'? At night, on your tip toes, or maybe while it's sleeping?
It's a contradiction in terms. You can't ‘approach infinity' anymore than you can approach the horizon, or the carrot on the stick.
We seem to be on the same page – a refreshing change.
Quote
How many times have we heard, “it’s more complicated than we originally thought”, when experience doesn't agree with prediction.
Everything is more complicated than I first thought! :D
The rest of your post needs consideration, which, unfortunately I don't have time for at present.
Post by: evan_au on 07/11/2017 20:57:48
Quote from: phyti
A common example is the set of integers. The set has a beginning but is 'open ended/without limit/unbounded', but NOT infinite.
Quote from: Bill S
Frustratingly, scientists/mathematicians who may agree with that tend, later, to argue as though they didn’t agree.Well, I don't agree with it - sorry to frustrate you, Bill!
The set of counting numbers is (countably) infinite.
ie you can count how many of them there are by drawing a 1 to 1 correspondence with the counting numbers (which is particularly easy to do, in this case).
There are an infinite number of numbers in this set.
Quote from: phyti
Another instance of the meaningless term is found in the definition of a limit, such as:Let's take a simple counter-example:
the limit of (some sequence of n terms), as n approaches infinity, = u. By definition the sequence can never equal the limit u, because if it did, the statement would be false!
Take the Fibonnacci numbers: Fn = 1,1,2,3,5,8,13....
Where you can generate the next number by adding the previous two numbers.
You can see that these are heading towards infinity, as each next one (after 2) is at least twice as large as the second-previous one.
However, as Kepler discovered, if you take the ratio of two successive Fibonnacci numbers, this ratio approaches a finite number (by the time you get to a large number of them):
The Limit of Fn+1/Fn → 1.61803....(the Golden Ratio, φ), as n→∞
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_number#Limit_of_consecutive_quotients
Post by: jeffreyH on 07/11/2017 21:34:38
Post by: Bill S on 07/11/2017 23:29:15
Quote from: Evan_au
Well, I don't agree with it - sorry to frustrate you, Bill!
That doesn't frustrate me at all. I may not agree with some of the opinions of others, but I respect their right to hold them. The frustrating thing is when people say they agree, then act as though they did not.
Quote
The set of counting numbers is (countably) infinite.
Of course it is. Cantor demonstrated that; but this is a mathematical infinity. Even cantor, having asserted that there was no "overarching" infinity, identified "absolute infinity" that could never be reached, and was not mathematically tractable.
Quote
The set of counting numbers is (countably) infinite.
ie you can count how many of them there are by drawing a 1 to 1 correspondence with the counting numbers
Only if you know how many counting numbers there are.
Quote
You can see that these are heading towards infinity, as each next one (after 2) is at least twice as large as the second-previous one.
So, how much nearer to infinity is, for example, 13 than 8? Are they not both infinitely far away?
Post by: puppypower on 08/11/2017 12:02:12
(https://i.pinimg.com/236x/ec/e3/5a/ece35aea9df66076d0a24912a4aff9da--fabric-art.jpg)
This situation allows one to follow a space thread without the inertial constraints of time. This creates the condition, that has been historically called omnipresence. Or one can follow a time thread without the inertial constraints of distance. This allows one to see the universe, simultaneously. This has been historically called omniscience. All I am doing i extrapolating the math concept.
This unique state of affairs is an artifact of traveling at the speed of light, where the inertial universe appears contracted to a point-instant. As a point-instant there is a perception of simultaneity, in space and time due to the point-instant overlap of everything. The separated threads is a way to magnify this without leaving the C reference.
Time threads and space threads, unwoven from the fabric of space-time, is where infinity can appear, since the C ground state represents a state of infinite entropy. All combinations are possible, at the same time and place.
The threads of time and space, since they are connected to infinite options within space and time, also have a connection to inertial references. For example, forces create accelerations, with acceleration d/t/t. If you do a dimensional analysis and look at the units of acceleration, it is the same as space-time; d-t, plus some extra time threads; t. The extra time threads are woven into the fabric of space-time, to create pucker; bend of space-space. The extra time threads, since they allow one to move in time, without the constraints of space, allows the mass of the inertial universe, to act as an integrated universe.
Below is a representation of too many time threads to create a very busy local universe. We would need to add some distance threads to organize this better using inertial constraints.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.laurelleaffarm.com%2Fitem-photos%2Fvintage-crinkle-pucker-texture-lightweight-poly-silk-fabric-green-blue-yellow-floral-Laurel-Leaf-Farm-item-no-nt22043-1.jpg&hash=596fd58b279f285494af8830b5c2403b)
Post by: Bill S on 08/11/2017 15:01:18
Quote from: Puppypower
Say we start with the concept of space-time. At the speed of light reference, the fabric of space-time, to use a metaphor, unravels into separated threads of space and separated threads of time.
I think I need to take this one "bite" at a time.
"At the speed of light reference" What does this actually mean?
"...the fabric of space-time, to use a metaphor, unravels into separated threads of space and separated threads of time.
What form does this unravelling take? How could we observe it? What is a thread of space?
Quote
This situation allows one to follow a space thread without the inertial constraints of time.
Following involves change. How can you have change without time?
Post by: jeffreyH on 08/11/2017 18:02:59
Post by: Bill S on 08/11/2017 20:34:13
The lack of depth of my scientific knowledge makes me reluctant to write something off as being "all my eye and Betty Martin" without some research (which I don't have much time for), or confirmation from someone with more knowledge.
Post by: jeffreyH on 08/11/2017 20:56:52
Thanks, Jeffrey.
The lack of depth of my scientific knowledge makes me reluctant to write something off as being "all my eye and Betty Martin" without some research (which I don't have much time for), or confirmation from someone with more knowledge.
You are here to learn and debate which is far more than some are willing to do.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/11/2017 21:24:42
1. Yes
2. No
A working concept of Infinity/eternity, not a mathematical infinity, in regard to the universe, encompasses all there is, all matter, energy, everything, in one boundless, eternal, contiguous space, that has always existed, and features a set of invariant natural laws, some known and some as yet unknown, that not only orchestrate all events, but that also restrain the possibilities of what is and what can be.
Edit: As per the question from Bill S in regard to my answer to #2, see reply #33
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71765.msg527444#msg527444 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71765.msg527444#msg527444)
My first version of the post was hastily typed and I simply responded yes to both questions without rereading the OP. Ten minutes later, before any responses, I noticed I had not answered question two according to my beliefs, but had made an error by typing "yes". I edited the first response to answer the second question as "no". Sorry for the confusion.
Post by: Bill S on 08/11/2017 21:39:27
Quote from: Bogie_smiles
Is it too late to get in?
No way!
Quote
A working concept of Infinity/eternity, not a mathematical infinity, in regard to the universe, encompasses all there is, all matter, energy, everything, in one boundless, eternal, contiguous space, that has always existed, and features a set of invariant natural laws, some known and some as yet unknown, that not only orchestrate all events, but that also restrain the possibilities of what is and what can be.
Wow! That should stir up some +ve and -ve responses – I hope.
Duty calls, here, but I’ll be back.
Post by: Bill S on 08/11/2017 21:45:19
Quote from: Jeffrey
You are here to learn and debate which is far more than some are willing to do.
When the subject is "infinity", I suspect there are some who think I'm here to try their patience.
Could be - not saying. :)
Post by: Bill S on 09/11/2017 11:24:12
You answered “Yes” to Q2; ie there can have been a time when there was (absolutely) nothing. Yet, you said of the universe that it “has always existed”
How do you equate the two?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 09/11/2017 11:34:03
Bogei_smiles, we need to clarify one point.My first version of the post was hastily typed and I simply responded yes to both questions without rereading the OP. Ten minutes later, before any responses, I noticed I had not answered question two according to my beliefs, but had made an error by typing "yes". I edited the first response to answer the second question as "no". Sorry for the confusion.
You answered “Yes” to Q2; ie there can have been a time when there was (absolutely) nothing. Yet, you said of the universe that it “has always existed”
How do you equate the two?
Post by: Bill S on 09/11/2017 11:56:39
Post by: Bill S on 09/11/2017 12:07:12
Quote from: Bogie_smiles
….. one boundless, eternal, contiguous space, that has always existed….
Is change possible within this “space”, or is it timeless, like Barbour’s “Platonia”?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 09/11/2017 12:31:02
Post by: jeffreyH on 09/11/2017 12:34:04
Post by: Bill S on 09/11/2017 14:13:15
Quote from: Bogie_smiles
In my view, change is constant
As soon as you introduce change to infinity, you must run into all the inconsistencies that come with the infinite sequence.
Quote from: Jeffrey
Does this include a photon escaping the event horizon of a black hole?
Only if that is physically possible.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 09/11/2017 14:37:50
I refer to change as the simple observable goings-on around us.Quote from: Bogie_smilesIn my view, change is constant
As soon as you introduce change to infinity, you must run into all the inconsistencies that come with the infinite sequence.
Post by: guest4091 on 09/11/2017 16:27:00
Quote
If we represent nothingness by zero then minus one is actually something.
Minus one represents a vector in the complex plane.
#14
Quote
Must there not be a difference between mathematical "nothing" and physical "nothing"?Think of the symbol '0' as the empty container, i.e. containing nothing, and serving as a place holder for any number system. A minus integer now has no meaning, since there are no elements to remove. This assumes the symbol '-' denotes the operation of subtraction, whereas in #12 it denotes direction, a 2nd attribute of a vector. Integers do not have direction.
#20
Quote
If that is the case, it must be very loosely related, as infinity is not measurable
It began with counting, with the natural/whole numbers, for purposes of expressing multiplicity, family, livestock, commerce, etc., which is the simplest form of measurement. After someone demonstrated there couldn't be a largest integer, 'thinkers' speculated on determining a size for an 'infinite' set, as is done with finite sets. This is typical deduction, conceptualizing new things in terms of things currently understood *, a direct violation of the anonymous proverb, 'a brick is not made of smaller bricks'. If they continued adding more elements to the set, eventually (when?) it would become infinite. This introduces time as a factor. If a calculation algorithym requires an interval of time for each step, then ‘without limit’ translates to ‘always incomplete’,or impossible.
Consider Dedekinds’ method of forming an irrational number. If you pause at step n, you always have more cuts to make than the n you have done.. You are not making any progress to a final answer.
*A plumber could explain electric circuits in terms of fluid dynamics, but that doesn't mean electricity is water.
#21
Quote
The set of counting numbers is (countably) infinite.
ie you can count how many of them there are by drawing a 1 to 1 correspondence with the counting numbers (which is particularly easy to do, in this case).
There are an infinite number of numbers in this set.
To count is to quantify, typically for the purpose of finding a value that represents the size or extent of something.
Finite and measurable are synonyms for quantifiable. So we have another contradiction in terms. From the definition of 'infinite', infinite number equates to immeasurable number. Is it really a '1 to 1' correspondence?
My conclusion is, the mind lacks the ability to conceptualize the idea of something with a beginning and no end.
Assignment for today:
How do you measure a stick with only one end?
Post by: jeffreyH on 09/11/2017 17:41:17
Post by: evan_au on 09/11/2017 19:25:03
Quote from: phyti
From the definition of 'infinite', infinite number equates to immeasurable number. Is it really a '1 to 1' correspondence?Ok, I'll bite.... ;)
My conclusion is, the mind lacks the ability to conceptualize the idea of something with a beginning and no end.
Assignment for today:
How do you measure a stick with only one end?
Lets take the integers (positive and negative whole numbers): 0, ±1, ±2, ±3, ±4..... etc
This could be considered a "ruler with two ends".
How do you put this in 1-1 correspondence with the non-negative integers: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4....etc? (which you could consider to be a "ruler with one end")
There are many ways to do it, but a simple one is:
- 0 (in non-negative integers) corresponds to 0 (in integers)
- even number n (in non-negative integers) corresponds to n/2 (in integers), eg 54 corresponds with 27
- odd number n+1 (in non-negative integers) corresponds to -n/2 (in integers), eg 55 corresponds with -27
By using a pronumeral "n", or the abbreviation "etc", I can make an infinite number of true statements in a single statement, and so I can prove 1-1 correspondence for an infinite number of cases - without consuming all the electrons in the universe (and still failing).
Post by: Bill S on 09/11/2017 21:35:23
Quote from: Bogie_smiles
In my view, change is constant, and the product of the forces that govern the interaction between matter and energy in said space.
OK with that; but you still have divisions of infinity. If you remove one such division, what are you left with? Infinity -1?
Post by: Bill S on 09/11/2017 22:08:30
Quote from: Jeffrey
The stick is not infinite in length since it terminates at one end. The is no such thing as half of infinity so there is a dilemma here. This is always the problems with human conceptions of infinity.
It will be fascinating to see what responses you get to this. I have been saying this in various guises for several years, in this and other forums. Someone always comes up with a mathematical “answer” that doesn’t really address the issue.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 09/11/2017 22:10:24
I didn’t include “divisions” of infinity in my definition. I think that if you have an infinite universe, there are no divisions of it, that I know of. Give me an example.
OK with that; but you still have divisions of infinity. If you remove one such division, what are you left with? Infinity -1?
Post by: Bill S on 09/11/2017 22:15:07
Quote from: Evan_au
I can make an infinite number of true statements......
Let's make a bid for clarity: Is infinity a number? What is "an infinite number of" anything?
Post by: Bill S on 09/11/2017 22:35:03
Quote
I think that if you have an infinite Universe, there are no divisions of it, that I know of.
Agreed. However, if you admit change, then you have the universe before, and after, each change; thus you have divisions. I would argue that in infinity there can be no change.
If the cosmos is infinite, there can be no change within the cosmos. You may ask how I equate that with the idea that the Universe is "part" of the cosmos, and the Universe, manifestly, changes. Hopefully we'll get there. but res unum post alium
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 09/11/2017 23:21:25
Agreed. However, if you admit change, then you have the universe before, and after, each change; thus you have divisions. I would argue that in infinity there can be no change.My definition of infinity, in regard to the universe, does have language that can avoid such an inconvenient interpretation. It is in the last phrase, when talking about the invariant natural laws … “that also restrain the possibilities of what is and what can be.” According to my interpretation, your interpretation that, "there can be no change" within the cosmos, could be a violation of the set of invariant natural laws.
If the cosmos is infinite, there can be no change within the cosmos. You may ask how I equate that with the idea that the Universe is "part" of the cosmos, and the Universe, manifestly, changes. Hopefully we'll get there. but res unum post alium
For example, since it is in accord with the natural laws that when there is the presence of matter and energy, there is going to be continual change, then it is natural that there would be change within the “one boundless, eternal, contiguous space”.
Post by: Bill S on 10/11/2017 00:09:44
Quote from: Bogie_smiles
According to my interpretation, your interpretation that, "there can be no change" within the cosmos, could be a violation of the set of invariant natural laws.
It could also be a violation of some unknown divine edict, but unless we know what that invariant natural law, or divine edict might be, how can we base a scientific argument on either?
Quote
For example, since it is in accord with the natural laws that when there is the presence of matter and energy, there is going to be continual change, then it is natural that there would be change within the “one boundless, eternal, contiguous space”.
Let’s consider a single change in “the one boundless, eternal, contiguous space”. This space has always existed in a specific state. Then comes change; after which its state is different.
Is this not like Jeffrey’s stick; it “is not infinite in length since it terminates at one end”?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 10/11/2017 12:27:22
It could also be a violation of some unknown divine edict, but unless we know what that invariant natural law, or divine edict might be, how can we base a scientific argument on either?A divine edict is not science because the supernatural is not recognized by the scientific method. Anything that seems Supernatural, has natural causes that we don’t yet understand.
Quote
Let’s consider a single change in “the one boundless, eternal, contiguous space”. This space has always existed in a specific state. Then comes change; after which its state is different.Where does the idea that the contiguous space has always existed “in a specific state”, come from? It has always existed and has always encompassed all there is, all matter, energy, everything, in one boundless, eternal, contiguous space, and the straight forward interpretation is that such a universe would be in more than one state, and would probably encompass all of the possible states permitted by the invariant natural laws.
Quote
Is this not like Jeffrey’s stick; it “is not infinite in length since it terminates at one end”?Infinite and eternal, no beginning, no end, (and nothing Supernatural), is my interpretation of the stated definition of a working concept of Infinity/eternity.
There must be better definitions out there; someone will post one if they want to improve on mine.
Edit: Let me know if this line of discussion goes beyond the intended scope of this sub-forum.
Post by: Bill S on 10/11/2017 18:33:52
I might look for some "reprise" points as an easy option, and to try to stop them from slipping into oblivion.
Post by: Bill S on 10/11/2017 19:14:14
Quote from: Jeffrey
We won't ever know if there was ever nothing. We can assume that there wasn't ever nothing but that is by choice.
Has anyone demonstrated a mechanism by which something can emerge from nothing?
I know books have been written about it, but doesn't the "nothing" always turn out to be "something"?
Post by: evan_au on 11/11/2017 00:00:12
Quote from: Evan_au
I can make an infinite number of true statements......I do not claim that I can make an infinite number of statements that are particularly novel or profound.
- But it is useful in mathematics, where you can concisely make statements that are true for all numbers.
- eg a+a = 2*a is true for all real numbers.
Let's make a bid for clarity: Is infinity a number? What is "an infinite number of" anything?I would say that "infinity is not a specific number; it is larger than any specific number.".
As Cantor showed, there are different kinds of infinity:
- There are an infinite number of integers. But you can count them. This is called ℵ0
- Some kinds of infinity (eg the number of "real" numbers) is so much larger than the number of integers that you cannot count them. This is called ℵ1
- There are even larger infinities.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number
I would also say that we don't have any examples of an infinite number of real, physical things. So the physical world does not map directly onto mathematics.
Post by: yor_on on 12/11/2017 14:17:41
If we had, wouldn't that change it into something finite?
Post by: jeffreyH on 12/11/2017 15:10:59
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 12/11/2017 15:21:30
For the infinite series of positive integers can we start counting from the highest and count downwards?There is no highest, it is an infinite series to the high side.
Quote
Would we ever reach zero?If you could find a starting point to count backwards from, you could reach zero, but the premise of staring from the highest number in an infinite series is flawed.
Quote
Could we find a highest number to start from? If so isn't that a finite series?That is a no and a yes, :) .
Post by: jeffreyH on 12/11/2017 16:00:56
For the infinite series of positive integers can we start counting from the highest and count downwards?There is no highest, it is an infinite series to the high side.QuoteWould we ever reach zero?If you could find a starting point to count backwards from, you could reach zero, but the premise of staring from the highest number in an infinite series is flawed.QuoteCould we find a highest number to start from? If so isn't that a finite series?That is a no and a yes, :) .
Exactly! So how is an infinite series countable if you can't count from the highest to lowest?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 12/11/2017 16:07:25
Its not.There is no highest, it is an infinite series to the high side.
For the infinite series of positive integers can we start counting from the highest and count downwards?QuoteWould we ever reach zero?If you could find a starting point to count backwards from, you could reach zero, but the premise of staring from the highest number in an infinite series is flawed.QuoteCould we find a highest number to start from? If so isn't that a finite series?That is a no and a yes, :) .
Exactly! So how is an infinite series countable if you can't count from the highest to lowest?
Edit to my working concept of infinity/eternity: That definition could be expanded to include an infinite mathematical series, as well … A mathematically infinite series is simply an ever increasing or ever decreasing series, or both. In the case of both, counting forward or backward from any selected starting point will never result in reaching the beginning or the end of the series.
Even if you count by tens, lol.
Post by: evan_au on 12/11/2017 20:06:54
Quote from: JeffreyH
For the infinite series of positive integers can we start counting from the highest and count downwards?Yes; the difference in the mathematical equation is as follows:
= 2 (Oops! :-[ 2 is the answer if you start from n=0, not n=1 )
= 2You basically reverse the upper & lower limits.
But the answer remains the same (2).
Quote
Would we ever reach zero?Only by doing an infinite number of operations at once.
Mathematics has a number of ways of doing this, including the ∑ operator.
Quote
Could we find a highest number to start from? If so isn't that a finite series?Yes (by approximation) and Yes.
For example, the standard mathematical infinite series for arctan converges fairly slowly, especially around π/4 radians.
But most people don't want their calculations done to infinite precision - most people are happy with 8-18 digits, most of the time (unless they are actually trying to break the record for generating the most digits for π).
There are various mathematical transformations that allow you to approximate an infinite series to a specific number of decimal places, using a finite series instead of an infinite series. That gives you a predictable execution time for your mathematical library, so your self-driving car doesn't suddenly become unresponsive when the road swings around to bearing π/4.
See, for example: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Trigonometry/For_Enthusiasts/Chebyshev_Polynomials
But approximation is more in the realm of applied mathematics, rather than pure mathematics.
The real world is so complicated (and not so well understood) that sometimes approximations are all we have.
Post by: guest4091 on 13/11/2017 16:27:34
Quote
The stick is not infinite in length since it terminates at one end.
The set of integers has a beginning and no end, and is considered 'infinite'.
I think you are confusing 'infinite' with 'eternal', without beginning and end, with respect to time.
Quote
This is always the problems with human conceptions of infinity.
I agree. The mind only experiences finite things, whether natural or manmade. Some only appear to be permanent due to a long decay/transformation process.
The stick;
Keeping it simple, align the zero of the ruler to the end of the stick. How do you perform the 2nd alignment of the stick with the ruler, if you can't find the other end? If you say it's a distance x units from the 1st end, you are wrong (since there is no largest integer x). I.e., if it has no 2nd end, it has no measurement. This exposes the faulty extrapolation of applying mathematical operations for finite objects to non-finite objects.
Cantor associated the idea of 'infinity' with God, and believed his thoughts concerning it were revelations from above. Given his chronic periods of depression, his concern with his standing in the mathematical community, and his assumed position as self appointed spokesman, his conclusions are not surprising.
This is just a continuation in human history of someone wanting to play god, but doesn't know how.
Post by: Bill S on 13/11/2017 18:42:36
Quote from: Bogie_smiles
A divine edict is not science because the supernatural is not recognized by the scientific method. Anything that seems Supernatural, has natural causes that we don’t yet understand.
I’m not suggesting that we should try to introduce the supernatural to scientific thought. I was simply wondering about the extent to which a possible violation of a hypothetical set of invariant natural laws might be scientific, rather than philosophical.
Post by: jeffreyH on 13/11/2017 18:47:49
Post by: Bill S on 13/11/2017 18:54:25
Quote
Where does the idea that the contiguous space has always existed “in a specific state”, come from? It has always existed and has always encompassed all there is, all matter, energy, everything, in one boundless, eternal, contiguous space, and the straight forward interpretation is that such a universe would be in more than one state, and would probably encompass all of the possible states permitted by the invariant natural laws.
Possibly a bad choice of wording on my part. I was trying to look at infinity before and after a single change.
The states before and after that specific incident may have been states of continual change; but each would differ from the other as a result of the change we were considering. Does that make sense?
Post by: Bill S on 13/11/2017 19:09:16
Quote from: Evan_au
I would say that "infinity is not a specific number; it is larger than any specific number."
I’m reluctant to suggest you might be prevaricating, here, Evan; but the question was:
“Is infinity a number”. Does answering it by saying that is is not a specific number mean that you think it is a number of some sort? If so, what sort?
When you say: “it is larger than any specific number"; in what way is it larger? Are you saying it is not a number, but has some numerical value?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/11/2017 19:32:15
Ok, I was just stating the obvious.Quote from: Bogie_smilesA divine edict is not science because the supernatural is not recognized by the scientific method. Anything that seems Supernatural, has natural causes that we don’t yet understand.
I’m not suggesting that we should try to introduce the supernatural to scientific thought. I was simply wondering about the extent to which a possible violation of a hypothetical set of invariant natural laws might be scientific, rather than philosophical.
If a set of speculative and/or hypothetical invariant natural laws could be defined to make up a model, the premise would be that there can be no violation to that set. If any specific law identified as part of that model is violated, it falsifies the model.
My response is that the definition of a working concept of an infinite/eternal universe can be dissected by looking at individual natural laws, as I interpret you are suggesting, and showing that they can be violated.
For example, if the Universe could be shown to be finite spatially or temporally, it would violate the stated nature of the infinite/eternal universe in the definition, and would falsify the definition. The philosophy of the situation comes into play when the definition is not falsifiable, because there is no experiment to test it.
Post by: Bill S on 13/11/2017 20:05:07
Quote from: Jeffrey
I am not exactly confusing infinity with eternity since one could be considered spatial and the other temporal. We can't find an end to time since even vacuum fluctuations indicate changing states. So saying it's the big bang might be wrong.
“We can't find an end to time ”
This could be another of the difficulties that arise from the use of finite terminology in an attempt to discuss the infinite; but, just to clarify; are you saying that eternity is infinite time?
Post by: evan_au on 13/11/2017 21:16:16
Quote from: Bill S
you might be prevaricating, here, EvanWell, potentially, sometimes...
Quote from: Bill S
When you say: “it is larger than any specific number"; in what way is it larger?For any specific, finite integer n, there exists a number n+1 which is larger than n.
Therefore n is less than infinity.
Mathematicians would write this as something like: ∀ n ∃ n+1: n+1 > n ∴ n < ∞
Where "∀" means "for all", and is another one of those mathematical tricks that allow you to make an infinite number of statements in a very small space.
Quote
Are you saying it is not a number, but has some numerical value?It cannot have a specific numerical value (as proven above).
(Perhaps prevaricating again): It is not a specific number, but is more of a trend. This trend is context-specific.
Mathematicians will say things like
e-x = 0This means that the Limit (or trend) of e-x is towards zero as x gets very large.
One of the reasons mathematicians avoid using ∞ as a number is that you can get yourself in trouble when you try to apply normal arithmetic/algebraic rules. For example, you could write: ∞ + ∞ = ∞
But when you reverse it and try to do ∞ - ∞, is the answer 0, or ∞? Or somewhere in-between?
Similarly, when you try and write ∞/∞, is the answer 0, 1, or ∞?
At times like these, you need to ask for more information.
In the example I gave earlier of Fibonnacci numbers,
Fn = ∞You know this because for any finite integer y that you give me, there exists a finite value n whose Fibonnacci number Fn is greater than y.
∀ y ∃ n: Fn > y
Now, when you take the ratio of two successive Fibonnacci numbers:
Fn+1/FnIt might look like ∞/∞, but that is only because you have thrown away most of the information.
In fact, when you consider all the information,
Fn+1/Fn = Φ ≈ 1.618033988749895...Quote
“Is infinity a number”. Does answering it by saying that is is not a specific number mean that you think it is a number of some sort? If so, what sort?I will probably get in trouble with real mathematicians here*, but provided you don't throw away all the information, you can sometimes come to some sort of answer. For example, if:
∞1 = the number of positive integers = (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ....)
where "..." is another of those mathematical tricks for doing an infinite number of things on a single line
∞2 = the number of positive even integers = (2, 4, 6, 8, ....)
You can show that ∞1 = ∞2, as described above
But what about ∞1 - ∞2? Is it 0, ∞, or somewhere in-between?
If you remove the set of positive even integers from the set of positive integers, you end with the set of the positive odd integers (which is an infinite set).
I venture to suggest that in this case, provided you don't throw away all the available information, it looks like you are doing ∞ - ∞ = ∞, but in reality you are subtracting infinite sets and counting the results, rather than subtracting infinite numbers and getting an answer.
However, different cases will produce different answers, because each individual case is different, when you consider all the information.
*I am only an imaginary mathematician (I only studied 3 years of maths at university level). ;)
Quote from: Bogie_Smiles
If a set of speculative and/or hypothetical invariant natural laws could be defined to make up a model, the premise would be that there can be no violation to that set. If any specific law identified as part of that model is violated, it falsifies the model.We have talked in this thread about Cantor's mind-bending mathematical results.
Kurt Gödel also had some mind-bending results. My simple interpretation is that in any sufficiently complex (mathematical) system, there will be true statements that you can't prove within that system, and/or there will be contradictions that you have to live with.
Mathematics does not map directly into the real world, but I think that your hypothetical natural invariant laws about the physical world may suffer the same fate.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems
Post by: Bill S on 13/11/2017 22:46:54
What I am saying is that, as I see it, mathematical infinities and physical infinity are different things. There has been some fascinating stuff in this thread, but, as yet, nothing to convince me otherwise.
Post by: guest4091 on 14/11/2017 18:24:17
The statement " there are as many even integers as integers",
is typically demonstrated using a 'one to one' correspondence as shown.
N: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ...
E: 2 4 6 8 10 12 ...
This is contradicted by:
1. Random sampling of integers results in an average of 50% even E, 50% odd D.
Statistics can be verified in the real world, and is useful in applications of probability.
2. In the above example, removing E from N leaves D, removing E form E leaves nothing, so where is the logic? An odd feature of this example is the appearance of the same integers in both sets.
The 'bijection' for example 1 defines y=2x, as a mapping from N to E. I see the results as not about the size of sets, but about the definition used for mapping.
Representing the first 'one to one/ correspondence above in a rectangular form, partitioned into subsets:
1 2 4 8...
3 6 12 24...
5 10 20 40...
...
The odd integers, all listed in column 1, are paired with the column of even integers to the right.
The remaining even integers in each column are paired with the column to the right.
The pairing is independent of direction. If a is paired with b, then b is paired with a.
The odd are paired 1 to 1 with an even.
The first subset of even (col 2) is paired with odd (col 1) and even (col 3).
The remaining even are paired with two columns.
Not all pairings are 1 to 1, and each integer appears only once.
A different correspondence can be formed with a subset of N as:
N: 2 4 6 8 10 12 ...
E: 2 4 6 8 10 12 ...
From this example, N is greater than E, since D in N has no corresponding members.
We can also map S the set of squares to N the set of naturals, without exhausting the set N.
N: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ...
S: 1 4 9 ...
N contains S, but S does not contain N.
N>S
A true example of a 1-1 correspondence, "there are as many even integers as odd integers "
D: 1 3 5 7 9 11 ...
E: 2 4 6 8 10 12 ...
A subset of N can always be paired/mapped to itself and remain less than N.
Maybe the first statement of the correspondence is a poor choice of words, similar to ‘approaching infinity’.
Post by: alancalverd on 14/11/2017 22:20:11
There is no contradiction in a countable or "denumerable" infinity. All it means is that you can in principle assign an ordinal number to every member of the set, but that doesn't mean you can predict the nth member
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/11/2017 03:20:38
It's an interesting video by Vsauce showing different types of infinity.
Post by: guest4091 on 15/11/2017 18:19:42
not measurable: without any limits that can be measured or realized
latin; not finite
It is an attribute modifying a noun, denoting a relationship to its surroundings, having no boundary.
infinity: noun
the property of (an unidentified) something being infinite.
Assume a substance s is infinite. Here is a volume of space with no s. If this space is filled with s, then the total volume of s is increased. This is a contradiction since by definition s is unlimited.
There cannot be an infinite amount of any substance.
Post by: guest4091 on 15/11/2017 18:27:44
A stick can indeed be infinite. Having one end is not a problem: however long your stick may be, I can conceive of a longer one, without limit.How can you extend something without a limit?
(infinite: unmeasureable).
A dictionary is the best reference.
Post by: guest4091 on 15/11/2017 18:29:24
If we count the squares, there are 10.
The one to one correspondence states there are as many squares as integers.
N: 1 2 3 4... 9 10
S: 1 4 9 16...81 100
What is it that results in that statement?
Yes, there are 10 integers in each row, but the integers are symbols representing sets.
There are 10 symbols in each row, so counting from '1' in the ordered set N, we arrive at the symbol that represents the set with the correct number of elements in the set S.
The 1-1 counts symbols, not sets.
The set of 10 squares S, ranges from 1 to 100, a density of 1/10, meaning there are 90 integers in N from 1 to 100 that are not squares.
Cantors interpretation is not acceptable.
Post by: alancalverd on 15/11/2017 19:05:38
A stick can indeed be infinite. Having one end is not a problem: however long your stick may be, I can conceive of a longer one, without limit.How can you extend something without a limit?
(infinite: unmeasureable).
A dictionary is the best reference.
You don't have to extend the stick, but just consider the possibility of adding a bit at either end, to whatever stick the other guy is holding. Now you have a concept of a seminfinite body.
A dictionary is a poor reference for such a technical term as infinity.
Consider first the number of possible integers 1... N ... N+1 etc.However large you choose N, I can propose N+1 as a larger integer, so the number of possible integers is infinite, even by a dictionary definition.
But between any two integers there is an infinite number of rational numbers such as 2, 3/2, 4/3,.....(N + 1)/N....., 1 So the number of rationals is a greater infinity than the number of integers.
And between any pair of rational numbers there is an infinity of irrationals, so there is yet a greater infinity........
One question worth asking is whether the number of irrationals is a denumerable infinity. Now we are talking maths, not dictionaries. Fun, isn't it?
Post by: evan_au on 15/11/2017 20:32:09
Quote from: phyti
1. Random sampling of integers results in an average of 50% even E, 50% odd D.How often have you run into an infinite number of real objects in the real world?
Statistics can be verified in the real world, and is useful in applications of probability.
Conventional Probability is of limited use when dealing with infinities.
50% of ∞ = ∞
1% of ∞ = ∞
Unless you get down to infinitesimal probabilities, which are numbers which are as small as ∞ is large; then you can come up with finite answers that start to follow conventional relationships like < and >. But you have to be careful not to throw away too much information, or you end up with statements like 0 x ∞, which you can't resolve.
Integration adds up an infinite quantity of infinitesimals to come up with a finite answer - at least, in the examples they give you in high school. Not all functions are so forgiving.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitesimal
Quote from: alancalverd
But between any two integers there is an infinite number of rational numbers such as 1/2, 3/2, 4/3,.....(N + 1)/N....., 1 So the number of rationals is a greater infinity than the number of integers.Cantor showed a way of mapping the fractions onto the integers - this is shown nicely in the first couple of minutes of the video. So there is the same number of rationals as there are integers = .ℵ0
Mind-bending stuff!
Cantor showed that the number of real numbers (which includes irrationals) = ℵ1 is greater than the number of integers = ℵ0. So the real numbers is not countable, since there are more of them than there are counting numbers.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/11/2017 00:00:36
As an aside: We can use the χ2 "goodness of fit" parameter to determine whether we have a truly random sample of an experimental result. If we obtain an exact fit to the hypothesis at each measurement, it is more likely than not that the equipment is faulty and biased. Simplest case is where the expectation value is zero (a null experiment) and successive readings are exactly zero. The probability is that the equipment is not working at all. Not a joke: you can fly "perfectly straight and level" and spiral into the sea because the gyroscopic instruments are not switched on!
Post by: Bill S on 16/11/2017 18:17:37
Don't let it die in the meantime. :) Looks as though there is some interesting content.
Post by: guest4091 on 17/11/2017 17:20:43
not measurable: without any limits that can be measured or realized
latin; not finite
It is an attribute modifying a noun, denoting a relationship to its surroundings, having no boundary.
infinity: noun
(an unidentified) something being infinite.
Assume a substance s is infinite. Here is a volume of space with no s. If this space is filled with s, then the total volume of s is increased. This is a contradiction since by definition s is unlimited.
There cannot be an infinite amount of any substance.
The universe shows us just the opposite. Matter is discrete finite units at all levels, from astronomical to atomic. The closest candidate to qualify as infinite would be space.
Even that isn't necessary since physics at the local level is independent of remote mass (relativity).
That’s my basis for no usable/meaningful application of a physical ‘infinity’.
Post by: Bill S on 17/11/2017 19:34:45
I’d like to go back to the content of #52.
Quote from: Jeffrey
We won't ever know if there was ever nothing. We can assume that there wasn't ever nothing but that is by choice.
Has anyone demonstrated a mechanism by which something can emerge from nothing?
Although the quote is Jeffrey’s, I would appreciate an example from anyone.
Post by: Bill S on 17/11/2017 20:12:23
Quote from: Phyti
Assume a substance s is infinite. Here is a volume of space with no s. If this space is filled with s, then the total volume of s is increased. This is a contradiction since by definition s is unlimited.
I would anticipate a response from a mathematician along the lines:
Not necessarily, because the infinite amount of s might simply spread into the space where there was previously no s, with no increase in the amount of s. Of course, this is similar to “Hilbert’s Hotel” that works only because we can never reach infinity, in our physical world.
Quote
There cannot be an infinite amount of any substance.
That is, unless you accept the (dreaded) infinite sequence; or subscribe to the idea of an infinite, changeless cosmos.
Quote
The universe shows us just the opposite. Matter is discrete finite units at all levels, from astronomical to atomic. The closest candidate to qualify as infinite would be space.
I understand that experts are still arguing as to whether space is continuous or quantised. In any case, the only space of which we have any direct experience is our 3+1 D spacetime (Yes I did say 4+1 earlier but it was a typo.).
Unless/until we can establish a way in which something can come from nothing, it seems reasonable to suspect there might be more than that “out there”.
Post by: evan_au on 17/11/2017 21:41:37
Quote from: Bill S
Has anyone demonstrated a mechanism by which something can emerge from nothing?Brian Cox said that it is possible that there was nothing before the Big Bang.
I think he referred to quantum fluctuations as a possible source for something to appear from nothing.
Of course, that assumes that there is some potential energy somewhere that would produce the something, and allow it to continue to exist.
Quote
I'm just home from a short stay in Hosp.Was that the inspiration for this thread on the infinite and eternity? ;)
I'm glad to see you back online!
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/11/2017 22:40:19
Brian Cox said that it is possible that there was nothing before the Big Bang.It isn’t unusual to see well known science personalities talk about “before the Big Bang”. If Cox speculated about a quantum fluctuation “before” the Big Bang, I think someone should say, “Welcome to the world of infinite regress”, i.e., what caused the quantum fluctuation?
I think he referred to quantum fluctuations as a possible source for something to appear from nothing.
Of course, that assumes that there is some potential energy somewhere that would produce the something, and allow it to continue to exist.
Is the Supernatural excluded from the scientific method? Would a quantum fluctuation with no cause qualify as the Supernatural?
Quote
I'm just home from a short stay in Hosp.
Hope all is well. Thanks for picking back up on the activity
Post by: Bill S on 17/11/2017 22:51:51
Quote from: Evan
Brian Cox said that it is possible that there was nothing before the Big Bang.
I think he referred to quantum fluctuations as a possible source for something to appear from nothing.
For an erstwhile one-hit-wonder Pop "Star", Brian Cox makes an interesting science presenter. His enthusiasm comes over as real, and I like (most) of his programs that I've seen. I've even bought some of his DVD to re-watch. However his comments about nothing and quantum fluctuations make no more sense now than when Stephen Hawking said the same thing.
Quote
Of course, that assumes that there is some potential energy somewhere that would produce the something, and allow it to continue to exist.
It's that very somethingy nothing again. It keeps appearing, but no one seems to explain it.
Quote
Was that the inspiration for this thread on the infinite and eternity? ;)
I'm glad to see you back online!
No, but the idea appeals. :)
Thanks for the sentiment.
Post by: Bill S on 17/11/2017 23:02:17
Quote from: Bogie_smiles
Is the Supernatural excluded from the scientific method? Would a quantum fluctuation with no cause qualify as the Supernatural?
IMO, "preternatural", perhaps; "supernatural", no. (Interesting to see what Alan says about that).
Quote
Hope all is well. Thanks for picking back up on the activity
Thanks. Good to be back.
Post by: evan_au on 18/11/2017 02:00:22
But related problems can occur at finite levels, such as the "sinc" function: sinc(x) = sine(x)/x.
What happens to sinc(x) as x → 0? It looks like sinc(0) = 0/0.
- Is the answer 0, because the numerator is 0?
- Is the answer ∞, because the denominator is 0?
- Or is it somewhere in-between?
Again it comes back to using all the information you have available.
L'Hopital's rule says differentiate the numerator and denominator, and see what you get.
sin(x)/x for x=0 = cos(0)/1 = 1/1 = 1
This has real commercial application in telecommunications, because sinc(0) comes up frequently.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinc_function
Post by: Bill S on 18/11/2017 14:25:19
Post by: Bill S on 18/11/2017 14:27:10
Q1 Yes and Don’t Know where even, with no one giving a direct No. Although one poster gave a yes and no in the same post; #15.
Q2 No and Don’t Know where even, with no one giving a direct Yes.
Before trying to review explanations and reasons, I should check if there is anyone who felt that he/she gave a direct “No” to Q!, or “Yes to Q2, that I’ve missed?
Post by: guest4091 on 18/11/2017 18:06:41
Although one poster gave a yes and no in the same post; #15.Look again, my reply was no and no.
I broke off the math debate, since it is another issue wandering away from the op.
I would ask, show me something that is in physical reality unbounded/immeasurable.
Post by: Bill S on 18/11/2017 18:48:19
Clear now, though; it shall forever be recorded as "No and No".
So, #88 should read: Q1 "Don’t Know was slightly the favourite, with "No" and "Yes" coming joint second..
Post by: Bill S on 19/11/2017 00:52:12
Quote from: phyti
I would ask, show me something that is in physical reality unbounded/immeasurable
I certainly can't do that, but I suspect it is possible to construct a line of reasoning that .establishes that something "unbounded/immeasurable" must be a reality. I think you agree with that. Would I be right?
Post by: Bill S on 19/11/2017 14:18:05
Quote from: Jeffrey
Position and momentum are continuous functions. A displacement in coordinates is not thought to be quantised. Yet Zeno's paradox suggests that this may not be true at the Planck scale.
I'd be interested to know how you draw that conclusion from Zeno's paradox.
Vilenkin (“Many Worlds in One”) says: “The key observation was that the number of distinct configurations of matter that can possibly be realized in any O-region [his term which doesn’t need explanation here] – or for that matter in any finite system – is finite. One might think that arbitrarily small changes could be made to the system, thus creating an infinite number of possibilities. But such is not the case.
If I move my chair by 1 centimerer, I change the state of our 0-region. I could instead move it by 0.9, or 0.99, 0.999, etc., centimetre – an infinite sequence of possible displacements, which more and more closely approach the limit of 1 centimeter. The problem, however, is that displacements too close to one another cannot even in principle be distinguished, because of the quantum-mechanical uncertainty.”
If your observation is right, he and Zeno seem to be on the same page.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 19/11/2017 19:28:20
It is true that particles are thought to be quantized, but in terms of the mechanics of how particles move, wouldn’t quanta continually be added and removed during motion?
I ask that because not only are particles considered quantized, but they also display wave-particle duality. Adding and removing quanta would then seem to have to be a wave process. Does a wave front move in continuous motion or is it incremental? If it is continuous, how do the invariant laws of nature enforce limits on how much wave motion equals a quantum?
How can we get answers to these kinds of questions without agreeing on the nature of particles themselves? Do you have that pinned down yet?
Post by: Bill S on 20/11/2017 15:50:33
Quote from: Bogie_smiles
I too want to keep it going, so forgive me if I am hindering progress or stepping in.
You’re certainly not hindering things, and “stepping in” is, surely, what discussion threads are all about.
Quote
It is true that particles are thought to be quantized, but in terms of the mechanics of how particles move, wouldn’t quanta continually be added and removed during motion?
How would the addition of quanta influence the minimum distance Vilenkin could move his chair? I can see that it might influence the total distance, but not the minimum.
The wave/particle thing becomes difficult because we tend to think in terms of wave or particle; or wave and particle. Perhaps we should be thinking in terms of neither wave nor particle, but something different. Only our limited perception/knowledge/understanding/information obliges us to attach familiar labels like particle and wave.
Quote
How can we get answers to these kinds of questions without agreeing on the nature of particles themselves? Do you have that pinned down yet?
No way! I have nothing pinned down. (On second thoughts: I don't have "nothing" pinned down, either. :) )
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 20/11/2017 16:41:36
If a particle has a particular number of quanta, and if motion is quantized in waves that carry a quantum of energy, motion might consist of quanta (waves) emitted and quanta (waves) absorbed in difference directions, quanta being added or absorbed in the direction of motion, and quanta being left behind or emitted, as the location of the particle gets redefined with each addition/subtraction.
How would the addition of quanta influence the minimum distance Vilenkin could move his chair? I can see that it might influence the total distance, but not the minimum.
Quote
The wave/particle thing becomes difficult because we tend to think in terms of wave or particle; or wave and particle. Perhaps we should be thinking in terms of neither wave nor particle, but something different. Only our limited perception/knowledge/understanding/information obliges us to attach familiar labels like particle and wave.Particles contain energy, and the energy can be substantial, so there is some logic in the idea that the amount of energy contained in a particle influences the wave energy density within the particle. The more quanta you fit into the particle space, the denser the particle. How do you get more quanta within the particle space, you accelerate the particle. Nature does this all the time, and scientists have gotten pretty good at it too.
Quote
No way! I have nothing pinned down. (On second thoughts: I don't have "nothing" pinned down, either. :) )If you believe there never was nothing, I think you have it pinned down; it is good logic, so there is no need to over analyze it. Just be alert to developments that might falsify your belief (your are on safe ground, lol). Then, as you confirm by answering “yes” to question #1 in the OP that you think there can be a working definition, did you post your working definition yet?
Post by: Bill S on 20/11/2017 17:24:12
What would a quantum of nothing be like? :)
Quote from: Bogie_smiles
If you believe there never was nothing, I think you have it pinned down; it is good logic, so there is no need to over analyze it
The problem is not my over analysis; it's more the fact that it seemed to make perfect sense to me, before I started looking for the opinions of others. Once I had done that, and found that there were many who disagreed with me, I had to know why they thought as they did. Sometimes it is not easy to persuade even the most eloquent that they might need to back up their views.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 20/11/2017 18:15:09
Bogie_smiles, you talk as though quanta as though they had an independent existence; is that my misinterpretation?Gravitational waves carry energy. LIGO has confirmed Einstein’s prediction. Massive high energy events emit gravitational waves that carry a lot of energy across vast distances, but even an apple falling to the ground will emit gravitational waves. Logic supports the idea that space is filled with wave energy, coming and going in all directions, at the speed of light, form the gravitational wave emissions from nearby and distant particles and objects.
A quantum would be an amount of energy that is quantized in the exchange of energy between the particle and the gravitational wave energy coming and going at all points in space. When the particle emits a gravitational wave, it is logical to expect it to emit energy in quantum increments, if particles are quantized. That implies that the number of quantum increments is stable while the particle is at rest. If so, the logic is that the amount of energy that it absorbs will then equal the amount of energy it emits; a continual exchange of energy in quantum increments.
Quote
What would a quantum of nothing be like? :)I’m tempted to try humor, but will resist, lol.
Quote
That is fine. I try to weigh the observational and test evidence presented, and in the lack of that, I consider the logic based on my own reasoning, make up my mind about it, and move on to asking about what causes it.
The problem is not my over analysis; it's more the fact that it seemed to make perfect sense to me, before I started looking for the opinions of others. Once I had done that, and found that there were many who disagreed with me, I had to know why they thought as they did. Sometimes it is not easy to persuade even the most eloquent that they might need to back up their views.
Post by: Bill S on 20/11/2017 19:59:19
Would that be right?
Post by: Bill S on 20/11/2017 20:14:48
Quote from: Bogie_smiles
Then, as you confirm by answering “yes” to question #1 in the OP that you think there can be a working definition, did you post your working definition yet?
Not yet; I tend to think of it as a work in progress, but I'll get there, and then will post it.
Post by: Bill S on 20/11/2017 20:46:25
There seems to be a fairly general feeling that there can never have been nothing, with some even saying so. However, there are some doubts, but efforts to discover any example of something coming from nothing have drawn a blank.
The nearest we have come so far is: “Brian Cox said that it is possible that there was nothing before the Big Bang.” (#82). Seemingly he does not say how this could be possible.
Or; (#83) “If Cox speculated about a quantum fluctuation “before” the Big Bang, I think someone should say, “Welcome to the world of infinite regress”, i.e., what caused the quantum fluctuation?” Of course, “infinite regress” is another form of the infinite sequence, with all its problems.
IMO, “nothing” and an infinite “something” are incompatible, so the question of whether or not there is an infinity that transcends maths is linked to the question of “nothing”; but let’s take one part at a time.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 20/11/2017 20:56:09
If the first part of your post answers the question about the possible independence of a quantum; I would interpret it as saying that matter/energy must be present for quanta to have any meaning. A quantum has in common with (eg) an inch the fact that each is a measure of something.
Would that be right?
A good place to start is to say that the space in our observable universe has always contained wave energy. One theory that supports that is Big Bang Theory; an instant after the implied Big Bang event, theory has it that a hot, dense, ball of energy emerged in a huge wave and expanded/inflated in volume. That would have been an extremely high energy plasma wave as the source of wave energy as it expanded and cooled.
Stable particles got their mass from exotic massive bosons (perhaps the Higgs boson or mechanism), that formed from the decay of the hot plasma, which is the logical source of the stable particles that exist today.
Expansion caused cooling, and the density of the expanding ball decreased, until those very massive bosons formed, and they continued to cool, separate form each other as expansion continued, and they also decayed due to their instability in the declining energy density environment, until stable particles formed.
The wave energy of the hot dense ball of energy was never destroyed, it became contained in the decay products and eventually in the stable particles, and in the space between them as the first atoms formed. Gravity in that young universe was the natural consequence of both particles and space being composed of wave energy, and so that process of absorption and emission of gravitational wave energy between particles and space began right from the start.
LIGO, and logic say it continues to function today, and is responsible for maintaining the presence of particles and objects, as well as the huge amount of energy that resides in and traverses space at the speed of light.
The amount of energy in the quantum would likely have evolved as the expansion, cooling, and particle decay occurred, until it is what it is today; a tiny quantum increment of which particles are composed.
This scenario closely follows theory, I think, but if it is bad science, I trust I will hear about it. Also, I know you are working on the issue of nothingness, and infinities, so I apologize if I am getting off track.
Post by: Bill S on 20/11/2017 23:47:22
Forgive me if I'm being extra dim, but I don't see an answer to the question: do you regard a quantum as something which has an independent existence, or is it just a measure of something?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 21/11/2017 00:30:16
That's all good stuff as I see it.No. (Edit)The quantum: At this point call this a thought experiment where the term “quantum”, as it pertains to the processes involving particles, mass, and energy that I am discussing is a way to equate wave energy in the sense that wave-particle duality might include wave energy in quantum increments, and quantum action would be a process of wave convergences related to particle interactions (not to be confused with the Quantum of Action, aka the Planck Constant; a photon is said to be one quantum of action that can have a range of energy, but the same photon particle will have numerous quanta of the sort that are found in the process of quantum action to account for the different energies that the photon can carry)(/edit)
Forgive me if I'm being extra dim, but I don't see an answer to the question: do you regard a quantum as something which has an independent existence, …
Quote
or is it just a measure of something?Hmm, this is all controversial (http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-photon-and-vs-quantum/), but let me put it this way. A particular photon, say in the microwave energy range, might have a precise number of quanta in its given energy density environment, like in the CMB. If you know how many quanta there are in that low energy photon, then you have a measure of the energy of the photon in quanta. If you know the amount of energy in a quantum, relative to some appropriate standard unit of measure (a tiny fraction of a Newton maybe), then you have a measure that can be used to compare the energies of various particles.
However, if the universe continues to expand for another billion years, the energy density environment will decline. The same photon will occupy more space and have less density, so if the number of quanta remains the same, then the value of the energy in its quanta will be lower because of the lower energy density, I think. But this has to be off topic, and I’m not an authority on anything.
Post by: guest4091 on 21/11/2017 20:19:14
I certainly can't do that, but I suspect it is possible to construct a line of reasoning that .establishes that something "unbounded/immeasurable" must be a reality. I think you agree with that. Would I be right?No.
There are discreteness of matter, ‘fundamental’ particles, composite objects, from extremely small to extremely large, and quantization of energy. None of these suggest ‘infinity’, and all are measurable.
What is questionble are fields, quantum, em, gravitational, as to composition. discrete or continuous. These also are measurable.
‘Infinity’ remains a mental abstract concept with no physical counterpart.
Post by: evan_au on 21/11/2017 20:44:59
Quote from: Bogie Smiles
A particular photon, say in the microwave energy range, might have a precise number of quantaWe would normally say that a single photon has a precise number of quanta: 1.
The quantum of energy measured for that photon is dependent on the relative motion of source and observer.
Post by: jeffreyH on 21/11/2017 21:08:31
Post by: Bill S on 21/11/2017 21:31:06
Quote from: Evan
We would normally say that a single photon has a precise number of quanta: 1.
That would be my understanding.
Quote from: Jeffrey
Each wave represents one of these quanta.
I'm OK with the rest of your post, but this seems to suggest that a photon may = more than one quantum.
Post by: Colin2B on 21/11/2017 23:14:39
The problem is with how you are interpreting ‘wave’.Quote from: JeffreyEach wave represents one of these quanta.I'm OK with the rest of your post, but this seems to suggest that a photon may = more than one quantum.
Most textbooks show the electromagnetic wave as a series of peaks/troughs in the E and B fields, it almost looks like the sort of wave you see on the sea, but it isn’t. It is a time/distance graph of the variation of the E/B fields ie a single wave (or pulse maybe) travelling forward. It’s like flicking a rope and watching the wave travel along it. So the photon is that pulse of energy propagating through space, there is only one wave/pulse for each photon and the energy each one carries is 1 quantum.
I’ll leave Jeff and Evan to talk about the frequency of the photon :)
Post by: Bill S on 21/11/2017 23:48:51
Quote
The problem is with how you are interpreting ‘wave’.
I've been looking again at EM waves, and I think I see what you mean, and where my confusion crept in.
Post by: Bill S on 22/11/2017 15:53:37
Relevant in this thread, but not quite yet.
Post by: Bill S on 22/11/2017 20:03:18
Quote from: Bill
I suspect it is possible to construct a line of reasoning that .establishes that something "unbounded/immeasurable" must be a reality. I think you agree with that. Would I be right?
Quote from: Phyti
‘Infinity’ remains a mental abstract concept with no physical counterpart.
To me, this says that you think there may have been nothing. If so, where did the something come from, and how?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 23/11/2017 14:49:29
True. I got into some controversial usage of the term ”quantum” (http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-photon-and-vs-quantum/) (not to be confused with the “quantum of action” or "Planck constant” ) when I was talking about thoughts on wave particle duality; in the sense that it might include wave energy in quantum increments. It might have been better if that part of the discussion had been posted to “New Theories”.Quote from: Bogie SmilesA particular photon, say in the microwave energy range, might have a precise number of quantaWe would normally say that a single photon has a precise number of quanta: 1.
The quantum of energy measured for that photon is dependent on the relative motion of source and observer.
Post by: Bill S on 23/11/2017 16:48:57
My next task will be to try to integrate the relevant bits into my own, pre-existing, notes.
Therein lies a range of questions:
1. The whole thing could come to about 8,000 words. Given that the number of people reading a post is inversely proportional to its length; would anyone read it? Is it worth posting?
2. Where to post? I thought new theories, but Bohm, Barbour and probably others were there way ahead of me. So, not new, and probably not a theory in the strict sense. So, where?
3. How would I post it? “Bite-sized” chunks might seem best, but I think the whole will be such that splitting it up would lead to repetition and increased thread drift.
Anyway, it still needs some work, so in the meantime; suggestions welcome. Be brutal!
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 23/11/2017 17:06:55
It matters more that you do it, and get it on the record for your own benefit, than if anyone reads it, though there are some troopers who will wade through it if they are interested.
It is just me, and you asked, but go to the "New Theories" sub-forum if there is material that you feel is quite alternative, unproven, untestable, etc. However, I find moderation to be lenient in this sub-forum, and if you acknowledge that it may not be generally accepted, but it is a result of an acceptable discussion that is open about the nature of the content, instead of saying you have some exceptional proof or insight, it could pass muster right here.
If it is 8000 words, I would organize it into smaller bits, like you suggest.
Post by: Bill S on 23/11/2017 22:06:02
I'm hoping for a comment from a Mod, even if its "go away!"
Post by: jeffreyH on 24/11/2017 22:04:39
I’ve been pulling together some more of the content of this thread, there’s some really interesting stuff here.
My next task will be to try to integrate the relevant bits into my own, pre-existing, notes.
Therein lies a range of questions:
1. The whole thing could come to about 8,000 words. Given that the number of people reading a post is inversely proportional to its length; would anyone read it? Is it worth posting?
2. Where to post? I thought new theories, but Bohm, Barbour and probably others were there way ahead of me. So, not new, and probably not a theory in the strict sense. So, where?
3. How would I post it? “Bite-sized” chunks might seem best, but I think the whole will be such that splitting it up would lead to repetition and increased thread drift.
Anyway, it still needs some work, so in the meantime; suggestions welcome. Be brutal!
Save it as a pdf file and attach it.
Post by: Bill S on 25/11/2017 10:43:02
Quote
Save it as a pdf file and attach it.
Thanks, Jeffrey. I'll get my son to show me how to do that when he recovers from the flu. He's improving. :)
Post by: Bill S on 01/12/2017 18:10:31
Post by: Justin129246 on 03/12/2017 02:10:15
Post by: Bill S on 03/12/2017 11:18:11
You are right, there are countable and uncountable infinities in mathematics. My (non-mathematical) understanding of that is that this works well because we can put things/concepts into one-to-one relationships; or be unable to do so; in finite perception; then we imagine we can extrapolate that to infinity, which, of course, we cannot. Even Cantor could not do that.
Post by: Bill S on 17/12/2017 13:22:31
Post by: puppypower on 17/12/2017 20:59:02
Where do we stand on: “can there ever have been nothing”?
There seems to be a fairly general feeling that there can never have been nothing, with some even saying so. However, there are some doubts, but efforts to discover any example of something coming from nothing have drawn a blank.
The nearest we have come so far is: “Brian Cox said that it is possible that there was nothing before the Big Bang.” (#82). Seemingly he does not say how this could be possible.
Or; (#83) “If Cox speculated about a quantum fluctuation “before” the Big Bang, I think someone should say, “Welcome to the world of infinite regress”, i.e., what caused the quantum fluctuation?” Of course, “infinite regress” is another form of the infinite sequence, with all its problems.
IMO, “nothing” and an infinite “something” are incompatible, so the question of whether or not there is an infinity that transcends maths is linked to the question of “nothing”; but let’s take one part at a time.
One way to create something from nothing is an artifact of waves. Say we had a wave tank, with wave generators on either side of the tank, each 180 degree out of phase with the other. Although energy is being pumped into the tank from both sides, the cancelling of the two waves creates stillness in the center of the tank. The energy is hidden due to wave addition. If we hid the wave generators and allowed the tank to reach steady state, and then had an audience look at the tan they will assume, no energy, since it is hidden.
We can makes this energy reappear, like magic, if we placed a partition in the stillness. Say we place a broad in the middle. One wave would rise on one side of the partition, and another wave will appear to sink on the other side. The audience would marvel since it appears like we have opened a worm hole.
In the case of the BB, the needed partition was the induction of particle matter. If we started with just waves without particles we can hide all the energy. Particles are different from waves, in the sense that particles cannot occupy the same space. Particles always need to add, whereas waves can add or subtract.
The question becomes how can you partition the stillness, to release the energy for the primordial particles? One such partition is the speed of light, which is distinct from slower inertial references; mass particles exist <C but cannot cross over into C. This can be done by introducing time and space to the universe; departure from the original C ground state of the hidden potential energy.
According to Special Relativity it would take infinite energy for a mass particle to cross over from inertial to C. If we go the other way, there is a lot of potential energy to release.
Post by: Bill S on 18/12/2017 13:19:43
Quote from: Puppypower
One way to create something from nothing is an artifact of waves. Say we had a wave tank, with wave generators on either side of the tank.....
I hesitate to believe you are really saying that waves, tanks generators etc are "nothing"; and even that "we" are nothing.
Something from nothing must require an initial "nothing".
Post by: Bill S on 18/12/2017 13:31:59
Quote from: Puppypower
According to Special Relativity it would take infinite energy for a mass particle to cross over from inertial to C. If we go the other way, there is a lot of potential energy to release.
This seems to say that a massive particle cannot accelerate from subluminal speed to c (agreed), but if a massive particle travelling at c were to decelerate to subluminal speed, it would release a lot of energy. (?)
Are you referring to tachyons?