Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: litespeed on 21/11/2009 18:29:01
-
I have always had an allergy to infinities existing in our natural world anywhere or at any time. FINALLY! I have found a kindred spirit in no less then The Max Plank Institute For Gravitational Physics. Specifically [emphasis added]:
"In the conventional big bang models based on general relativity, our universe began in a patently absurd physical state: With the big bang singularity, at a time when all the space and matter we see around us today was compressed to a single point of infinitely high density. Such infinities are a sure sign for "pathological" physics; a sure sign that Einstein's equations which, in the big bang models, govern the evolution of the cosmos, lose their meaning directly at the big bang."
http://www.aei.mpg.de/einsteinOnline/en/spotlights/building_blocks/index.html
-
It's similar to an arguement i have previously made.
''How can zero-dimensional particles exist and create a three-dimensionsional world''
You may as well expect us to start believing that particles themselves are just tiny singularities... In fact, i came to this conclusion before reading a paper which challenged that particles can be singularities, and would show the eigenstates of ordinary looking particles.
So can spacetime have a limit? I think it must. And i am not a very big fan of zero-dimensional systems, not because they are perfectly difficult to comprehend, but rather they seem to have very little attractiveness when modelling quantum physics.
-
In talking about singularities I think that you are misunderstanding what the mainstream science community is saying when they use the term. what they mean is that the collapse of a black hole or the expansion of the big bang projected to the limit would lead to a singularity and we do not know at the moment what processes happen under these conditions so we wont say anything about them. I do not believe that most scientists would say that these singularities actually occur it is only that beyond certain limits we do not yet understand the proicesses.
-
Unless one can give an intrinsic and non-arbitrary reason why there can only be four dimensions (or three spatial dimensions), then you need a model that works with an infinite number of dimensions. In such a model everything must have either non-zero size in every dimension, or zero-size in some of them.
The trouble is that if everything must have non-zero size in every dimension then, unless you add another arbitrary a reason to exclude it, you end up with infinities that should be apparent in whatever exists in whichever sub-set of dimensions you look at.
-
Surely a zero size dimension cannot exist and is therefore irrelevant and does not need to be included in the model.
It's a bit like talking about a function for which all its differential coefficients are zero. If this is true the value of this function can never change.
-
Infinities seems to exist. Black holes for example. But we can't explore and measure a black hole. and so I expect it to be with all 'singularities'.
As for if Planck length is the smallest measurement we have?
I don't know, but if arguing that you move something of three plancklengths over a distance consisting of, let's say, five plank lengths I would expect that piece moving at some time cover two and a half plank lengths. The question falls down to if SpaceTime 'flickers' or is a 'flow' as all Planck measurements are directly related (Plank time f ex.)
And so the question becomes if you believe time to be 'events'. If you do then Planck length will be consistent with your idea and so might loop quantum gravity be.
But to make time into 'events' presumes something binding it together, and so creates a 'perpetual mobile' creating a paradox in that you will also have to explain how, or what, it is binding your 'events' into our flow. And then will need to define that underlying structure either as a flow or as 'events' too, and then. . . ad infinitum.
So no, I don't think so.
-
Surely a zero size dimension cannot exist and is therefore irrelevant and does not need to be included in the model.
It's a bit like talking about a function for which all its differential coefficients are zero. If this is true the value of this function can never change.
Exactly.
-
Surely a zero size dimension cannot exist and is therefore irrelevant and does not need to be included in the model.
It's a bit like talking about a function for which all its differential coefficients are zero. If this is true the value of this function can never change.
Where have zero-sized dimensions come from? I never mentioned zero-sized dimensions at all. [???]
-
Fundamental Theory Of Existence.
1. Zero can not exist as denominator.
2. Anything can not be created out of nothingness, only change of form is possible and change is everywhere.
3. Anything can not be destroyed into nothingness, only change of form is possible and change is everywhere.
4. Existence of anything can not be infinite.
5. There is no beginning and an end to the existence of the World.
6. There are finite absolute laws.
7. Velocity of light is relative.
8. There are three dimensions and three dimensions only.
9. Time Travel can not exist.
10. Tan 90 can not exist.
11. God(s) can not exist.
-
I posted something on this link
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=26911.0
that is related to this post...
Please do visit.
-
LeeE; Yes you did, both directly and by implication re-reead carefully and revise your contribution if you wish. I also see no immediate need to leap straight to an infinite number of dimensions in a universe once you go above four.
-
LeeE; Yes you did, both directly and by implication re-reead carefully and revise your contribution if you wish. I also see no immediate need to leap straight to an infinite number of dimensions in a universe once you go above four.
I'm afraid that it is you who need to re-read it. In every instance that I referred to size (whether it was non-zero or not) it was in reference to things being in a dimension (or set of dimensions) and not to the dimensions themselves. The wording is quite clear and explicit.
Any implications you see are therefore your own problem.
-
Here is something to question:
The mind is a dimension of its own. It has no physical size, but encompasses its own realm of freedom... so does the mind exist within spacetime, or is it seperate?
-
The 'mind' is SpaceTime.
Without there is nothing :)
-
As for infinities?
Consider the Planck length. If that is a true measure of 'distance' inside SpaceTime then you will have something a little less infinite than that greatest 'infinity' which then would be a unbroken field of 'distance' a.k.a. a 'flow'. Although it is hard to define any of them as less than infinite :)