[agyejy]

1) Non-locality

2) Wave-particle duality

4) There's no reason the universe should have started from a point of zero entropy.

Your common sense feelings about how the universe should behave based on daily subjective observations are not a part of science. The fact that you feel these things contradict how you believe the universe should work does not actually make them contradictions within science.

3) Infinity as a result of combining the equations of Relativity and QM to describe singularities

This isn't a contradiction because it results from the attempt to apply theories outside their domain of application. Quantum Mechanics was never supposed to handle gravity and Relativity was never supposed to describe very small things. It is unsurprising that neither theory when extended that far past their valid domain of application give incorrect answers. Well that and the appearance of an infinity while calculating an observable property isn't a contradiction it is just a unphysical answer.

[guest39538]

, he argued against the idea that mass is a measurement of inertia,

To be honest the ambiguity of some definitions tend to lead them to meaning the same thing.   Mass is a measurement of inertia and also rest mass is a measurement equal to Newtons, although three different words with three different definitions they all actually relate to the same thing.
In my younger years when I did a bit of vehicle mechanics we use to class inertia has liking to a ''sharp'' applied force to undo rusty nuts.

The nuts mass remained the same but the rust gave the nut more resistance to change so we would have to apply torque or an impact driver to create inertia a type of ''shock'' force  to apply the change we demanded of undoing the nut. 

So to me inertia is like when something is ''glued'' to the floor rather than just loosely ''standing'' .

[Craig W. Thomson]

the appearance of an infinity while calculating an observable property isn't a contradiction it is just a unphysical answer.

False. Infinity is a nonsense answer. Scientists never measure things at infinity. Even the speed of light is finite. This is a contradiction, plain and simple. Plus, you've added another contradiction. Singularities don't have "observable properties." Singularities are unobservable, but they are most definitely physical entities.

[Craig W. Thomson]

Your common sense feelings about how the universe should behave based on daily subjective observations are not a part of science.

On the contrary, your common sense feelings about how I should behave based on your subjective interpretations of physics are not a part of science.

[Ethos_]

False. Infinity is a nonsense answer.

I agree, when infinities pop up in physical calculations, those results are telling us that we're missing some important detail within the mathematical construct.

[jeffreyH]

My dad's bigger than your dad!

[guest39538]

False. Infinity is a nonsense answer.

I agree, when infinities pop up in physical calculations, those results are telling us that we're missing some important detail within the mathematical construct.

Not quite, it is telling you that the measurement is beyond the radius of light ,

[jeffreyH]

Infinity is an undefined answer as no non-abstract equation can result in or contain it.

[guest39538]

Infinity is an undefined answer as no non-abstract equation can result in or contain it.

But surely we can present N in place of infinity?

[agyejy]

False. Infinity is a nonsense answer. Scientists never measure things at infinity. Even the speed of light is finite. This is a contradiction, plain and simple. Plus, you've added another contradiction. Singularities don't have "observable properties." Singularities are unobservable, but they are most definitely physical entities.

I never said infinities were not non-sensical. I said they were not contradictions. Going to a dictionary:

contradiction
[kon-truh-dik-shuh n]

noun
1.
the act of contradicting; gainsaying or opposition.
2.
assertion of the contrary or opposite; denial.
3.
a statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous.
4.
direct opposition between things compared; inconsistency.
5.
a contradictory act, fact, etc.

Once again calculating an answer of infinity just tells you that something is wrong. It is not inherently a contradiction. There could be a contradiction somewhere in your reasoning but that contradiction only exists because you failed to properly follow the scientific method or you simply suck at math. Also, scientists are fairly sure literal singularities probably don't exist. Just things that come pretty close. That and everything that exists has some observable properties. Most notably black holes emit Hawking radiation, can have accretion discs, gravitationally attract things, have spin, potentially have charge, etc. All of which was observable properties.

[Craig W. Thomson]

False. Infinity is a nonsense answer. Scientists never measure things at infinity. Even the speed of light is finite. This is a contradiction, plain and simple. Plus, you've added another contradiction. Singularities don't have "observable properties." Singularities are unobservable, but they are most definitely physical entities.

I never said infinities were not non-sensical. I said they were not contradictions. Going to a dictionary:

contradiction
[kon-truh-dik-shuh n]

noun
1.
the act of contradicting; gainsaying or opposition.
2.
assertion of the contrary or opposite; denial.
3.
a statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous.
4.
direct opposition between things compared; inconsistency.
5.
a contradictory act, fact, etc.

Once again calculating an answer of infinity just tells you that something is wrong. It is not inherently a contradiction. There could be a contradiction somewhere in your reasoning but that contradiction only exists because you failed to properly follow the scientific method or you simply suck at math. Also, scientists are fairly sure literal singularities probably don't exist. Just things that come pretty close. That and everything that exists has some observable properties. Most notably black holes emit Hawking radiation, can have accretion discs, gravitationally attract things, have spin, potentially have charge, etc. All of which was observable properties.

This is a physics forum, not an English class. Unfortunately, your argument at this point consists in nothing more than lexical nitpicking. Despite your protests, there's not a heck of a lot of difference between saying that getting infinity as a solution "is a contradiction," or that it "means something is wrong."

Also, you said everything that exists "has some observable properties." So, I guess infinities don't exist; you cannot observe infinity, as you clearly don't have sufficient time to verify that their properties are consistent everywhere. Is that "a contradiction," or is it an example of you "sucking at math" ??

[jeffreyH]

Where, exactly, has anyone used mathematics in this thread?

[Craig W. Thomson]

Where, exactly, has anyone used mathematics in this thread?

Maybe I'm not using math, but I am talking about it. From Wikipedia:

Physics[edit]

"In physics, approximations of real numbers are used for continuous measurements and natural numbers are used for discrete measurements (i.e. counting). It is therefore assumed by physicists that no measurable quantity could have an infinite value. For instance, by taking an infinite value in an extended real number system, or by requiring the counting of an infinite number of events. It is, for example, presumed impossible for any type of body to have infinite mass or infinite energy. Concepts of infinite things such as an infinite plane wave exist, but there are no experimental means to generate them."

I was definitely talking about a mathematical contradiction when I used as an example what happens when one combines the equations of QM with those of Relativity to describe singularities and ends up with infinity as the solution. Please don't ask me to demonstrate that. I'm not bad at math, but I have insufficient experience to perform operations like those. I'm taking scientists word for it on that one.

[jeffreyH]

Well to state that someone "sucks at math" presupposes that the author of the statement has the necessary qualifications to make the determination.

[Craig W. Thomson]

Well to state that someone "sucks at math" presupposes that the author of the statement has the necessary qualifications to make the determination.

Gotcha. I paraphrase quotes from Peter Fong, Leonard Susskind and Brian Greene, agyejy replies by quoting Noah Webster. You nailed it.

[agyejy]

This is a physics forum, not an English class. Unfortunately, your argument at this point consists in nothing more than lexical nitpicking. Despite your protests, there's not a heck of a lot of difference between saying that getting infinity as a solution "is a contradiction," or that it "means something is wrong."

There is a massive difference between those two things. Also in this very thread you've made arguments that were based on nothing but the meaning of words like equivalent and matter. If you can do it why can't I?

Also, you said everything that exists "has some observable properties." So, I guess infinities don't exist; you cannot observe infinity, as you clearly don't have sufficient time to verify that their properties are consistent everywhere. Is that "a contradiction," or is it an example of you "sucking at math" ??

For starters I already said that scientists are pretty sure literal infinities don't exist. Although if they did exist it is ok as long as the infinite valued part is somewhere you can never observe. The other finite valued parts can still be observable. Also, you can never verify the properties of anything everywhere because that would take much too long. The Universe is very big.

I was definitely talking about a mathematical contradiction when I used as an example what happens when one combines the equations of QM with those of Relativity to describe singularities and ends up with infinity as the solution. Please don't ask me to demonstrate that. I'm not bad at math, but I have insufficient experience to perform operations like those. I'm taking scientists word for it on that one.

Once again that is not a contradiction mathematical or otherwise.

Where, exactly, has anyone used mathematics in this thread?

I actually did some quick calculations showing that electron-electron scattering in a metal is negligible and that electrons in metals scatter off things like impurities and phonons much much more often.

[jeffreyH]

Well to state that someone "sucks at math" presupposes that the author of the statement has the necessary qualifications to make the determination.

Gotcha. I paraphrase quotes from Peter Fong, Leonard Susskind and Brian Greene, agyejy replies by quoting Noah Webster. You nailed it.

And that relates to mathematical ability how?

[Craig W. Thomson]

And that relates to mathematical ability how?

Those are my math tutors. I started reading Peter Fong's book on QM a couple of years ago, and it had way too many complex equations for me to understand. I have a college degree, but never took Calculus. So, I worked my way through a Precalculus book recently, and now I have a used copy of Calculus Early Transcendentals from the US Military Acadamy. I watch Brian Greene and Leonard Susskind videos on YouTube as a supplement because I want to understand this subject better.

Do you have anything to contribute? Because agyejy sure doesn't; I use the Oxford Dictionary, not Webster's, LOL

Here's a mathematical concept for you. If you extrapolate, by the time I have as many posts as you, I'll have more than 50 thank yous, whereas you only have 11.

[agyejy]

Do you have anything to contribute? Because agyejy sure doesn't; I use the Oxford Dictionary, not Webster's, LOL

I ask you again to please refrain from the insults.

Here's a mathematical concept for you. If you extrapolate, by the time I have as many posts as you, I'll have more than 50 thank yous, whereas you only have 11.

You really don't want to go there.

[Ethos_]

Do you have anything to contribute? Because agyejy sure doesn't; I use the Oxford Dictionary, not Webster's, LOL

I ask you again to please refrain from the insults.

Here's a mathematical concept for you. If you extrapolate, by the time I have as many posts as you, I'll have more than 50 thank yous, whereas you only have 11.

You really don't want to go there.

Yes agyejy, counting thank yous is another subject isn't it?