The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. Non Life Sciences
  3. Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology
  4. Should physicists have a new word to describe things of an unlimited extent?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Should physicists have a new word to describe things of an unlimited extent?

  • 16 Replies
  • 7585 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Soul Surfer (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 3368
  • Activity:
    11.5%
  • Thanked: 5 times
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Should physicists have a new word to describe things of an unlimited extent?
« on: 10/02/2010 20:25:39 »
Infinity is essentially a mathematical concept and its mathematical use leads to many problems of understanding when it is applied ad hoc to the physical world.  Many awkward questions on these pages are caused by the rigorous application of mathematical concepts of infinity to physical situations.

There is a television programme on infinity in the BBC horizon series starting in a few minutes time that will probably illustrate these quite well.

When I deal with infinities in a physical sense I tend to use the term indefinite rather than infinite because the true situation is usually that something will bridge the gap even though we may not fully understand it at the moment.

What do you think about infinity?
Logged
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
 



Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 18329
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Should physicists have a new word to describe things of an unlimited extent?
« Reply #1 on: 11/02/2010 03:13:14 »
What do you think of larger and lesser infinities.
Now, that's a strange subject :)
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
 

Offline JP

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 3346
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Should physicists have a new word to describe things of an unlimited extent?
« Reply #2 on: 11/02/2010 10:29:06 »
Quote from: Soul Surfer on 10/02/2010 20:25:39
Many awkward questions on these pages are caused by the rigorous application of mathematical concepts of infinity to physical situations.

I know I've seen these before, but I can't recall one at the moment.  Can you give an example?
Logged
 

Offline namaan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 195
  • Activity:
    0%
    • View Profile
Should physicists have a new word to describe things of an unlimited extent?
« Reply #3 on: 11/02/2010 15:35:21 »
Quote from: yor_on on 11/02/2010 03:13:14
What do you think of larger and lesser infinities.
Now, that's a strange subject :)

Haha, yes, different sized infinities has always been a bit of a no-no for me. I mean, sure, there are a lot of things in physics that are neither simple nor intuitive just because they reflect a complex and abstract world...but seriously? This one just goes beyond not being intuitive for me.
Logged
Take it with a grain or two of salt...
 

Offline LeeE

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 3382
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
Should physicists have a new word to describe things of an unlimited extent?
« Reply #4 on: 12/02/2010 01:18:19 »
Quote from: JP on 11/02/2010 10:29:06
Quote from: Soul Surfer on 10/02/2010 20:25:39
Many awkward questions on these pages are caused by the rigorous application of mathematical concepts of infinity to physical situations.

I know I've seen these before, but I can't recall one at the moment.  Can you give an example?

The most common that comes to mind is describing The Universe as 'infinite', when 'open' or 'unbounded' may be better descriptions.
Logged
...And its claws are as big as cups, and for some reason it's got a tremendous fear of stamps! And Mrs Doyle was telling me it's got magnets on its tail, so if you're made out of metal it can attach itself to you! And instead of a mouth it's got four arses!
 



Offline Geezer

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 8314
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Should physicists have a new word to describe things of an unlimited extent?
« Reply #5 on: 12/02/2010 01:27:57 »
Quote from: LeeE on 12/02/2010 01:18:19
Quote from: JP on 11/02/2010 10:29:06
Quote from: Soul Surfer on 10/02/2010 20:25:39
Many awkward questions on these pages are caused by the rigorous application of mathematical concepts of infinity to physical situations.

I know I've seen these before, but I can't recall one at the moment.  Can you give an example?

The most common that comes to mind is describing The Universe as 'infinite', when 'open' or 'unbounded' may be better descriptions.

"Unquantifiable" perhaps? (Doesn't exactly "trip off the tongue")

or "Defies quantification" if there is a way to make a single word out of it.
Logged
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force æther.
 

Offline JP

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 3346
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Should physicists have a new word to describe things of an unlimited extent?
« Reply #6 on: 12/02/2010 02:48:36 »
Ah.  I think using the proper word in each context would be clearest, then.  Of course, the word "unbounded" is less intuitive than infinite, which might be why people tend to substitute infinity for the concept.  There's also the case of infinity appearing in singularities, which has a different physical meaning as well as infinity appearing in a lot of equations as an approximation to "something really big." 
Logged
 

Offline techmind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 934
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 1 times
  • Un-obfuscated
    • View Profile
    • techmind.org
Should physicists have a new word to describe things of an unlimited extent?
« Reply #7 on: 15/02/2010 23:11:08 »
One a related topic, you will have noticed that the word "exponential" is increasingly abused in the media and by politicians, to mean anything that increases faster than linear.

On the smarter programmes (Radio 4) we're now beginning to hear the word "geometrical" in the context of growth or expansion - meaning exactly what exponential used to mean.  [;)]
Logged
"It has been said that the primary function of schools is to impart enough facts to make children stop asking questions. Some, with whom the schools do not succeed, become scientists." - Schmidt-Nielsen "Memoirs of a curious scientist"
 

Offline Farsight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 396
  • Activity:
    0%
    • View Profile
Should physicists have a new word to describe things of an unlimited extent?
« Reply #8 on: 15/02/2010 23:37:26 »
What do I think about infinity? There are no infinities in nature. It's a mathematical concept, that's all.
Logged
 



Offline Geezer

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 8314
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Should physicists have a new word to describe things of an unlimited extent?
« Reply #9 on: 16/02/2010 03:34:30 »
Quote from: techmind on 15/02/2010 23:11:08
One a related topic, you will have noticed that the word "exponential" is increasingly abused in the media and by politicians, to mean anything that increases faster than linear.

On the smarter programmes (Radio 4) we're now beginning to hear the word "geometrical" in the context of growth or expansion - meaning exactly what exponential used to mean.  [;)]

Quite right! We need to train them to use "nonlinear" instead.

I once worked for an outfit that had a rather temperamental CEO (Managing Director). The engineers were careful to point out that the CEO's response to unfavorable events was nonlinear. As in;

"Old wotsizname went freekin' nonlinear on hearing we would not be able to ship the product for at least 18 months."
Logged
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force æther.
 

Offline fontwell

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 39
  • Activity:
    0%
    • View Profile
Should physicists have a new word to describe things of an unlimited extent?
« Reply #10 on: 18/03/2010 17:57:39 »
I not a mathematician but in any maths at high school level I don't like it when people use phrases that make it sound like infinity is just a big number, such as 'to infinity' or the real killer, 'an infinite number'. To my ears that is an oxymoron.

In my head I always replace these words with something like 'going on forever'  or 'without end'. It has always seemed to me that infinity plus one doesn't even make sense because it treats infinity as a number.
Logged
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 16240
  • Activity:
    96.5%
  • Thanked: 372 times
    • View Profile
Should physicists have a new word to describe things of an unlimited extent?
« Reply #11 on: 18/03/2010 21:24:30 »
Quote from: LeeE on 12/02/2010 01:18:19
Quote from: JP on 11/02/2010 10:29:06
Quote from: Soul Surfer on 10/02/2010 20:25:39
Many awkward questions on these pages are caused by the rigorous application of mathematical concepts of infinity to physical situations.

I know I've seen these before, but I can't recall one at the moment.  Can you give an example?

The most common that comes to mind is describing The Universe as 'infinite', when 'open' or 'unbounded' may be better descriptions.
The problem is that something can be finite, but unbounded. The two terms have different meanings.
From our point of view the Earth's surface is unbounded - you can set off in any direction and keep going. You never hit a boundary. But the Earth is also finite.
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 

Offline LeeE

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 3382
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
Should physicists have a new word to describe things of an unlimited extent?
« Reply #12 on: 19/03/2010 00:51:55 »
Quote from: Bored chemist on 18/03/2010 21:24:30
Quote from: LeeE on 12/02/2010 01:18:19
Quote from: JP on 11/02/2010 10:29:06
Quote from: Soul Surfer on 10/02/2010 20:25:39
Many awkward questions on these pages are caused by the rigorous application of mathematical concepts of infinity to physical situations.

I know I've seen these before, but I can't recall one at the moment.  Can you give an example?

The most common that comes to mind is describing The Universe as 'infinite', when 'open' or 'unbounded' may be better descriptions.
The problem is that something can be finite, but unbounded. The two terms have different meanings.
From our point of view the Earth's surface is unbounded - you can set off in any direction and keep going. You never hit a boundary. But the Earth is also finite.


Yes, this it true, if you try to separate space from time.  In space-time though, the surface of the Earth would be both unbounded and infinite (as time hasn't stopped yet) and your space-time coordinates require all four values to be identical to be able to come back to exactly the same place (in space-time).
Logged
...And its claws are as big as cups, and for some reason it's got a tremendous fear of stamps! And Mrs Doyle was telling me it's got magnets on its tail, so if you're made out of metal it can attach itself to you! And instead of a mouth it's got four arses!
 



Offline Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 16240
  • Activity:
    96.5%
  • Thanked: 372 times
    • View Profile
Should physicists have a new word to describe things of an unlimited extent?
« Reply #13 on: 19/03/2010 06:53:40 »
True, but the words still have different meanings so you can't use one in place of the other.
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 

Offline LeeE

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 3382
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
Should physicists have a new word to describe things of an unlimited extent?
« Reply #14 on: 19/03/2010 21:50:37 »
Ah, but the point about space-time is that either is meaningless without the other [;)]
Logged
...And its claws are as big as cups, and for some reason it's got a tremendous fear of stamps! And Mrs Doyle was telling me it's got magnets on its tail, so if you're made out of metal it can attach itself to you! And instead of a mouth it's got four arses!
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 18329
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Should physicists have a new word to describe things of an unlimited extent?
« Reply #15 on: 24/03/2010 22:38:59 »
I think Geezer is on to something there.
"Defies quantification"

How about Defqua?
Or does that sound to military?

"Well Sir, we spotted this defqua trying to take over our limited resources, so we attacked with our larger Defqua. But, alas, it refused to surrender insisting that is was just as much a defqua as the one taking over."
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
 

Offline Geezer

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 8314
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Should physicists have a new word to describe things of an unlimited extent?
« Reply #16 on: 25/03/2010 05:33:05 »
Quote from: yor_on on 24/03/2010 22:38:59
I think Geezer is on to something there.
"Defies quantification"

How about Defqua?
Or does that sound to military?

"Well Sir, we spotted this defqua trying to take over our limited resources, so we attacked with our larger Defqua. But, alas, it refused to surrender insisting that is was just as much a defqua as the one taking over."

The military would likely abbreviate it to "DQ". Wait a minute - I think that's already taken! It's disqualified. (or even DairyQueen)
Logged
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force æther.
 



  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 

Similar topics (5)

How does bleach bleach things?

Started by thedocBoard Chemistry

Replies: 1
Views: 3601
Last post 23/10/2012 16:30:09
by thedoc
How does "silica gel" keep things dry?

Started by chrisBoard Chemistry

Replies: 7
Views: 15064
Last post 22/12/2006 11:20:37
by daveshorts
Why does cling film cling to things?

Started by chrisBoard Chemistry

Replies: 1
Views: 4542
Last post 19/11/2010 11:06:48
by imatfaal
How to carry user-defined fig./eq. labels in a MS word file to another computer

Started by engrByDayPianstByNightBoard Geek Speak

Replies: 6
Views: 6416
Last post 10/01/2009 19:11:40
by engrByDayPianstByNight
Does increased letter spacing alter perception of word shape?

Started by thedocBoard General Science

Replies: 2
Views: 2438
Last post 29/07/2012 11:44:40
by evan_au
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.269 seconds with 81 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.