Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum Quantum of Light and my Parrot.

And you answered the question yourself the only way to actually measure the universe is get outside it or be able to circumnavigate it the same as the round earth versus flat earth problem. Since we can't do any of those yoiu might as well call it infinite.

Which is the same as Dr Silk says in the article linked by Red.

The next interesting part becomes the shape of space the best evidence we have it is somewhat flat but not prefectly. See when I did the expanding universe before I pulled a trick on you I made the analogy of a ballon being expanded and our running track became the thought example.See there is a problem space is 3 dimensional the surface of a ballon and my running track are 2 dimensional. You see the problem if the up/down Z axis in my thought example expanded the insides quickly meet each other.

So lets change the example I have a car tube tyre which is really elastic and I start inflating it. So now anywhere inside the tube is space (IE we have 3 dimensions now). As I inflate do you see what happens the inner walls meet. If I keep inflating eventually they will collapse to a single point and only the outer walls expand. So what it shows you have a choice either you create a space singularity or space can pass thru itself which our car tyre can't. You can proove that any shape other than a flat plane will exhibit that behaviour.

We have no evidence space can pass throught itself and no process to even understand. We have not seen any singularity points so the best guess at the moment is space is most likely flat something like a blow up camp bed.

That however leads to a really fascinating problem that means there is an edge to the universe.

So now you thoughts what happens if you reach the edge and walk through it?

And the final thing to think about if space is a flat blow up bed can it be rotating and what would that lead to?

========.
so it might as well be infinite, even if it isn't.
/ Bill Gill /
In the other words: ‘ I believe because it is absurd.’
s.
===========.

=================.
Since we can't do any of those yoiu might as well call it infinite.
/ Orac /
Since we can't do any of those you might believe (!) and
‘might as well call it infinite’ or finite.
s.
==========.

No socratus it would be stupid to call it finite because you can't do a circum-navigation or a perimeter walk.

We define finite as being able to be measured, if you don't like infinite come up with you own term. It is just word games with you anyhow and we are talking Devil's language anyhow aren't we.

=========.
because you can't do a circum-navigation. . . . .
because we cannot get outside to / in this circum-navigation . .
because ‘ It is just word games ‘ . . . . .
because it is just tautology.
==========.

I don't know of any physical measurement lead to a real infinity,
except maybe supraconductivity.
/ Dr Infinity: /
====.
Oh, there are lots if you look for them.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law>
The state of an amount of gas is determined by its pressure, volume, and
temperature. The modern form of the equation is:
where p is the absolute pressure of the gas; V is the volume; n is the
amount of substance; R is the gas constant; and T is the absolute
temperature. n = pV/(RT)
At absolute zero kelvin, the amount of gas is infinite.
/ Androcles /

===============..

General relativity has a problem with infinites because
inside a black hole the density of matter and the strength
of the gravitational field become infinite.
/ ‘ The trouble with Physics’ Page 5. Lee Smolin./

It's only a problem if you assume GR physics matters beyond the event horizon ... see QM doesn't care about gravity or space unless you want string theory.

But that's not what you wanted to hear is it.

QM and GR can't both be right they have to resolve somewhere which worries you more Socratus QM or GR?

BTW your website doesn't really say what is you religion Orthodox?

If Infinity is some kind of reality: what to do?
1.
Classic physics has infinity as conception of
Newtonian space and Newtonian time.
2.
Quantum theory meets with infinity.
3.
Cosmology occupied with infinity.
. . . etc . . . .
===.
About every part of physics occupied with concept ‘ infinity’.
But . . . Infinity is a irrational concept.
We cannot measure it. (!)
What to do?
#
I can say: God doesn’t exist because we cannot see him/ her /it,
touch him/ her/ it, hear or smell him /her/ it.
Millions will agree with this argument.
But in Physics I cannot say the Infinity doesn’t exist because
we cannot measure it..
Is it true, we cannot measure it, but it appears again and again
in many physical and mathematical problems.
In spit of my or your or physicists wish it appears again and again
because . . . because it is some kind of reality. (!)
What to do?
#
The answer can be only one: If we cannot escape
the concept ‘ Infinity’, if ‘ Infinity’ is some kind of reality,
then we must agree with it existence and find the ‘ hidden’
parameters of ‘ Infinity’ in Physics.
#
It seems, that the best role on this place can take
only two physical parameters: T= 0K and E= 0 = infinite
( the lowest state of cosmic background energy).
#
Maybe somebody will suggest another concrete parameter
or parameters?
========.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
=======================..

Thanks Bill. That just about sums up the way in which the word infinite is used in scientific parlance. I have no problem with that, as long as we are clear that that is how we are using the term. In this sense, infinity is only an expression of our inability to measure something we assume to be there.

Socratus says: "If we cannot escape the concept ‘ Infinity’, if ‘ Infinity’ is some kind of reality, then we must agree with it existence and find the ‘ hidden’ parameters of ‘ Infinity’ in Physics."

Would you agree that your definition of infinite makes Socratus's statement pointless? If infinite means no more than "we can't measure it" then looking for any kind of "real" infinity is a bit like looking for God. Is that how you see it?

Note that Bill Gill didn't say that's what 'infinite' means. He said 'effectively infinite'.

The term 'effectively infinite' has a different meaning and is often used in scientific circles other than cosmology. If you web search it, you'll see what I mean. As Sean Carroll has mentioned, some people tend to confuse 'very, very large' with 'infinite'. Dr. Silk, is not among them...

ESA: Is the Universe finite or infinite?

Joseph Silk: We don't know. The expanding Universe theory says that the Universe could expand forever [that corresponds to a 'flat' Universe]. And that is probably the model of the Universe that we feel closest to now. But it could also be finite, because it could be that the Universe has a very large volume now, but finite, and that that volume will increase, so only in the infinite future will it actually be infinite.

You might say that 'in the infinite future' = 'never', and that the distinction is purely mathematical. I wouldn't know how to dispute that.

Rede, could we be splitting hairs here? What Bill G said was:
"Effectively infinite means it is so large that we can't measure it, so it might as well be infinite, even if it isn't."

If it isn't infinite, then it is finite. If it is finite, but so large that we can't measure it, then I suspect it is "very, very large".

To say that something that large bight as well be infinite, on the one hand; and to note that some people tend to confuse 'very, very large' with 'infinite', on the other, seems confusing in itself. So far, I'm with Dr Silk.

Yes, Bill, I'll settle for that too.

I considered 'effectively infinite' as used here:
http://ibbiology.wetpaint.com/page/Expla...iety+in+gametes
and here:
http://old.iupac.org/goldbook/E01895.pdf
but there's a difference with regard to our topic. I take your point, and I agree.

Astronomers can be irresolute if Universe is finite or infinite.
But micro worlds experiments (for example in QED) show
that infinite parameters exist.
The infinity in micro world and in macro world cannot be
different because infinity isn’t too micro or too macro.
Therefore I say: if we cannot avoid infinity, if it exist
then which concrete physical parameter can explain it essence ?
================.

Link me work that shows this please.

Given QED works on probability amplitudes I call BULLSHIT on that claim.

You either misunderstand or playing word games again.

You still haven't told me what religion either socratus.

Infinity.
"Gentlemen, that is surely true,
it is absolutely paradoxical;
we cannot understand it,
and we don't know what it means.
But we have proved it,
and therefore we know it must be the truth."
/ from an email /
==.

More word games Socratus how surprising.

There is a problem which I am actually perplexed at.

Since we are discussing the devils work doesn't that mean your participation is a discussion with the devil and his work?

Your word games won't save you you realize for the devil is a devious beast.



Be very careful Socratus.

Is infinity rational or irrational ?
Is infinity abstract or real ?
Actual infinity or potential infinity ?
Effectively infinite or passive infinite ?
Bad, unreasonable infinite or reasonable infinite ?
==.
Again and again Infinity appears in many physical
and mathematical problems.
I don’t say about mathematical infinity,
I say about physical infinity.
Does Physical Infinity exist ?
If it exist then:
1) What is connection between the infinity and the concreteness ?
2) What is connection between infinity and quality ?
3) How to explain the inconsistent character between the infinity
and the concreteness ?
===.
#
Part Physics:
Theoretical applications of physical infinity .
==.
This point of view does not mean that infinity cannot
be used in physics
. . . . . .
In quantum field theory infinities arise which need to be
interpreted in such a way as to lead to a physically meaningful
result, a process called renormalization .

However, there are some theoretical circumstances where
the end result is infinity.
One example is the singularity in the description of black holes.
Some solutions of the equations of the general theory of relativity allow
for finite mass distributions of zero size, and thus infinite density.
This is an example of what is called a mathematical singularity,
or a point where a physical theory breaks down.
This does not necessarily mean that physical infinities exist;
it may mean simply that the theory is incapable of describing
the situation properly.
Two other examples occur in inverse-square force laws of the
gravitational force equation of Newtonian gravity and
Coulomb's law of electrostatics.
At r=0 these equations evaluate to infinities.
/ Part Physics:
Theoretical applications of physical infinity .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity /
====.

You mock the devil and tempt your fate ... I think revlgking might tell you

It is written, "You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.'"

As you rightly point out, these are theoretical circumstances. I believe the existance of a black hole singularity is still to be established.

You say a lot in your posts, Socratus, but perhaps you could tell us exactly what the point of your argument here is.