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

Quantum of Light and my Parrot.
=.
The fact number - 1.
In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment
showed that the speed of quantum of light is constant
in all directions regardless of the motion of the source.
(c = 299,792,458 m/sec = 1)
#
The fact number - 2.
Paper: “ On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies.”
Einstein’s second postulate says that
the speed of quantum of light in the vacuum
is absolute constant c=1.
============..
#
Gentlemen
I have only two questions:
First -
Didn’t my parrot fly to you?
Second -
Why does everyone say that all movements are relative
if the speed of quantum of light isn’t relative but
it is an absolute constant in absolute Vacuum ?
P.S.
You can easily find out my parrot. It studied only
two sentences: ‘ there is no absolute movement ’,
‘ there is no absolute reference system ‘
#
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
==== .
P.S.
‘ All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me
no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it,
but he is mistaken. ‘
/ Einstein /

===,

That's a deep question, Socratus. Let me throw one more ingredient into the mix. How do we know that the speed of light is an absolute constant in absolute Vacuum? The best we can say is that we measure it as such, but our measurements are relative.

Bill,
We assume that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum because if we use that in our calculations we get right answers. If it isn't then you need to find something where using the speed of light as a constant doesn't work. So far there is no evidence that it isn't constant.

Science is rather pragmatic. When it finds something that works every time it is tried, in every situation in which it is tried, then they assume it is true. If somebody finds a situation in which the speed of light isn't constant, and shows that it really isn't, then they will modify the assumption. Of course there will have to be some very strong evidence before it will be modified, just because it works so well.

Bill Gill

Quantum of Light and my Parrot.
=.
The fact number -1.
1729.The astronomical aberration effect of light showed
the finite constant speed of quantum of light.
#
The fact number - 2.
In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment
showed that the speed of quantum of light is constant
in all directions regardless of the motion of the source.
(c = 299,792,458 m/sec = 1)
#
The fact number - 3.
1905. Paper: “ On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies.”
Einstein’s second postulate says that
the speed of quantum of light in the vacuum
is absolute constant c=1.
============..
#
Gentlemen
I have only two questions:
First -
Didn’t my parrot fly to you?
Second -
Why does everyone say that all movements are relative
if the speed of quantum of light isn’t relative but
it is an absolute constant in absolute Vacuum ?
P.S.
You can easily find out my parrot. It studied only
two sentences: ‘ there is no absolute movement ’,
‘ there is no absolute reference system ‘
#
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
==== .
P.S.
‘ All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me
no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it,
but he is mistaken. ‘
/ Einstein /
===============..

Comment by Kris:
Indeed... it is in total contradiction to say that there is no
absolute frame of reference, and then to say that the speed
of light is constant... in which you can use for you calculations
and experiments...
. . . i.e. the speed of light IS an absolute frame of reference.

However... they can fix their contradiction by making another statement –
- there is no such thing as an absolute vacuum.
With that statement, they make the speed of light relative, yet,
hold the theoretical absolute frame of reference of c.
What's worse is, all "more accurate" measurements of the speed
of light change the measure of a meter rather than the theorized
speed of light in a vacuum.

The important thing to understand is that this is all completely
arbitrary and even is admittedly so ( yet, not in these words )
in the standard model. But, it is close enough for practical use.
/ Kris /
=========…

Indeed... it is in total contradiction to say that there is no
absolute frame of reference, and then to say that the speed
of light is constant..
/ Kris /
How is it possible to say that there is absolute speed of light
and there is no absolute frame of reference ?
Huh?
In the Alice's Wonderland everything is possible.
Socratus
======…

Can you give a practical example of how you would use the constant speed of light as an absolute F of R?

In 1905 Einstein suggested this as a second postulate.

What a load of absolute rubbish ... Einstein proposed no such thing.

Kenneth Schaffner proposed that interpretation and as far as I know no mainstream scientist believes it.

The british journal of science outlines the argument you can get the context just from the extract
(http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/3/259.extract)

Oh wait Galileo or Lorentz invented relativity anyhow didn't they or pick any other famous scientist.

Socratus, I was hoping you would enlighten me rather than just make a categorical statement. I have never been able to accept that even Schaffner's interpretation of Einstein's second postulate could establish an absolute F of R.

Does an absolute F of R exist?
Hmm?
1.
The detected material mass of the matter in the Universe
is so small (the average density of all substance in the
Universe is approximately p=10^-30 g/sm^3 ) and it cannot
‘close’ the Universe into sphere and therefore our Universe
as whole must be ‘open’, endless
2.
The cosmological constant / the critical density of Uuniverse
is very small and cannot ‘close’ the Universe into sphere
3.
Now (!) the physicists think that the Universe as whole
is: T=2,7K . ( Nobel Prize in Physics 1978 for discovery
of cosmic microwave background radiation)
and in the future ( in the Future ) it will be T=0K.
4.
The Universe as whole is Empty.
But the Emptiness isn’t emptiness because it is filled with
dark matter and dark energy.
5.
What is a vacuum ?
The empty space between stars ( Galaxies )
Is this space really empty?
. . . . .
Although we are used to thinking of empty space as containing
nothing at all, and therefore having zero energy, the quantum
rules say that there is some uncertainty about this. Perhaps each
tiny bit of the vacuum actually contains rather a lot of energy.
If the vacuum contained enough energy, it could convert this
into particles, in line with E-Mc^2.
/ Book: Stephen Hawking. Pages 147-148.
6.
Does an absolute F of R exist?
Hmm?
If ‘ yes’ , what to do with this Infinite Empty Absolute ?
?
==.

Perhaps it would be valuable to clarify if you were questioning the relativity of movement or the absolute nature of the speed of light in a vacuum.

Without that clarity you can take your reasoning round in circles and “wrong-foot” anyone who joins the discussion, which may be fun, but is unlikely to bear fruit.

Aether, Vacuum, Nothingness, Emptiness
The law number one:
Physics cannot live without Emptiness
The law number two:
The Emptiness isn’t emptiness
The law number three:
The fool won’t understand,
The ignorant won’t recognize
=.

Absolute Infinite is Aether, Vacuum, Nothingness, Emptiness
/ socratus /
"microm2...@hotmail.com" wrote:
Infinity cannot be reached by counting or calculating.
It stands alone as the highest concept in math; the unlimited quantity
==.
Correct.
"Remember gentlemen, we have not proven
the aether does not exist, we have only proven we do not
need it (for mathematical purposes)"..
/ Einstein's University of Leyden lecture of May 5, 1920. /
==.

Occam's Razor ... if we don't need it then from science point it doesn't exist.

I mean there is this 5th force right and it opposes gravity and there is this 6th force that directly supports gravity by the same ammount.

Oh and there there is the 7th and 8th pair

Oh and the 9th and 10th ...

How many do you want?

Does an Absolute Infinite Frame of Reference exist?
Hmm?
1.
The detected material mass of the matter in the Universe
( the cosmological constant / the critical density of Uuniverse)
is so small (the average density of all substance in the
Universe is approximately p=10^-30 g/sm^3 ) that it cannot
‘close’ the Universe into sphere and therefore our Universe
as whole must be ‘open’, endless
2.
The Universe as whole is Empty.
But the Emptiness isn’t emptiness because it is filled with
dark matter and dark energy : ‘ 90% or more of the matter
in the Universe is unseen / dark.’
3.
Now (!) the physicists think that the Universe as whole
the Absolute Frame of Reference of the Universe is: T=2,7K .
( Nobel Prize in Physics 1978 for discovery
of cosmic microwave background radiation). (!)
It means the Universe as whole has negative parameter,
it is negative temperature, it is Kingdom of Coldness.
Only Minkowski spacetime continuum has negative parameter.
Therefore I say the Minkowski spacetime continuum is model of Vacuum.
The parameter T=2,7K is not constant. It is temporal.
In the future ( in the Future- ? ?) it will come to T=0K.
4.
What is a vacuum ?
The empty space between stars ( Galaxies )
Is this space really empty?
. . . . .
Although we are used to thinking of empty space as containing
nothing at all, and therefore having zero energy, the quantum
rules say that there is some uncertainty about this. Perhaps each
tiny bit of the vacuum actually contains rather a lot of energy.
If the vacuum contained enough energy, it could convert this
into particles, in line with E-Mc^2.
/ Book: Stephen Hawking. Pages 147-148.
5.
According to QED Electron in interaction with vacuum has
infinity parameters ( energy, mass …etc )
Physicists do not understand what to do with infinite sizes,
and therefore they have invented "a method of renormalization",
The method of renormalization is a method
" to sweep the dust under the carpet." / Feynman./
6.
The concept of infinite/ eternal means nothing
to a scientists. They do not understand how they could
draw any real, concrete conclusions from this characteristic.
A notions of "more", "less", "equally, "similar" could not
be conformed to a word infinity or eternity.
The Infinity / Eternity is something, that has no borders,
has no discontinuity; it could not be compared to anything.
Considering so, scientists came to conclusion that the
infinity /eternity defies to a physical and mathematical definition
and cannot be considered in real processes.
Therefore they have proclaimed the strict requirement
(on a level of censor of the law):
« If we want that the theory would be correct,
the infinity/eternity should be eliminated ».
Thus they direct all their mathematical abilities,
all intellectual energy to the elimination of infinity.
But effect of infinity comes again and again and then
physicists say: that’ Infinity is the cause of the crisis in Physics.’
Another example of physicist’s thinking:
’ If there’s nothing wrong with me then,
maybe there’s something wrong with the Universe.’
/ One PhD physicist ./
#
Does an Absolute Infinite Frame of Reference exist?
I say: this unthinkable Absolute Infinite Frame of Reference
has two physical parameters.
First: T= 0K,
Second: E= 0 (the lowest state of cosmic background energy).
===.
Hmm?
What to do with this Infinite Absolute Emptiness ?
#
" Remember gentlemen, we have not proven
the aether does not exist, we have only proven we do not
need it (for mathematical purposes)"..
/ Einstein's famous University of Leyden lecture of May 5, 1920./
!!??
So ! What to do with this Infinite Absolute Emptiness ?
==========.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
========================..
P.S.
Infinite, unbounded, endless, never-ending ,unending,
perpetual, interminable, eternal, dateless, spaceless,
borderless . . .
- What do you read, Prince ?
- Words, words, words.
#
It is no matter how you call it.
The matter is:
How can Infinity be concrete?
===========.

I think you do Socratus an injustice here, Orac. I suspect he is one of those bright people whose thought processes differ from those of the majority.

The major problem, I find, is getting an answer from him that seems to bear any relation to the question asked. Possibly the answer is in there, somewhere, but finding it is the challenge!

I think that physicists and mathematicians have largely come to terms with the "no borders", it is the "no discontinuity" bit that causes trouble. If you follow that to its logical conclusion it leads to just one place, and, in my experience, the scientifically inclined would rather not go there.

The reason that scientists don't like discontinuities is that there is no way to manipulate them. Throughout the history of science there have been mathematical ways to model the theories that have been developed. But there is no way to model a discontinuity. Since all natural laws to this point have been able to be modeled scientists naturally feel that all natural laws should be able to be modeled. So when a theory gives an infinite result they are very suspicious of it. And of course if a correct model does produce an infinite result it could have a catastrophic impact on the universe. Since we haven't seen any such catastrophic impacts then it is assumed that the theory just doesn't work in the area in which the infinity appears. So then they go to work trying to find a new theory that will work.

Bill Gill

I think you over-estimate his intelligence.

It is just a compilation of dis-coherrent facts scrambled together.

There is no logic to it you are making logic where there is non ... have you seen the monty python dead parrot clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218) here is the script please read (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~ebarnes/python/dead-parrot.htm)

Thats all this rubbish is and hence I suspect the title even.

One of his other posting threads was basically along the cheese cake shop line I take it he is a python fan.

Sorry Bill the reason for the discontinuities is because he is pulling unrelated garbage together.

I have a uni friend who can do this all day ... he is trolling!

And probably laughing thinking how clever he is that you don't get the joke.

Oh and on the original infinity thread he tried to loop it around on itself which was an old borland joke when you looked up infinity on there index.

BTW he also posts on a number of physics forums .. this is the usual response

[Moderator: Suspended 10 days for posting no useful information or asking any valid questions.]

Perhaps he will tell you exactly 10 day holidays he has gotten for his wonderful scientific discussions?

Now lets deal with the stupidity in this thread.

There is no and can never be a zero frame under big bang theory it's stupid to even talk about it. Put your hands out and frame a piece of space under BB theory that piece of space was there at the big bang as was every other piece of space around you. It is all moving at a substantual fraction of the speed of light. Our belief but certainly we have no proof is the matter stuff stays fixed in size whilst the space gap expands we could all be stretching a bit how would we know.

The explicit point is no point on the space manifold is not moving so to talk about a zero frame is ridiculous.

As they say imagine a ballon slightly inflated glue small coins all over the ballon now blow it up more. The coins all move away from each other as the ballon gets bigger this is the typical representation of a simple space manifold. Now find a spot on the ballon surface which is our space that isnt moving for your zero frame there isn't one the only zero frames are outside space itself.

Now lets talk about infinite space. The space manifold itself definitely has a finite size at it's simplest make it a sphere or square page. The point here is you will never get to see that size or be able to confirm it.

If you want to make it a ball we believe it to be something like 100 billion light years across (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe). That is it has a finite size if you were outside space.

The current expansion rate estimate of the universe is 73.8 ± 2.4 (km/s)/Mpc or for every million parsecs of distance from the observer, the rate of expansion increases by about 74 kilometers per second is the other way around.

The speed of light is around 300,000 kilometers per second any two points separated by around 4,200 megaparsecs (130,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilometers) will be therefore moving away from each other faster than the speed of light. Hence the question comes down to a simple one do we know if the universe is greater than 130,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilometers) across.
Answer yes we do hubble recently seen a galaxy 13 to 15.5 Billion light years away at 1 light year = 9.4605284 × 10E12 kilometres thats or 1 light year = 0.30659458 Parsecs whichever way you like that distance is alot more than 4,200 megaparsecs and those two points are moving apart faster than the speed of light.

Thats the infinity part of space because we say we can't travel faster than the speed of light even if space is a simple ball you can never get back to your start point because the expansion of the surface area of the ball is greater than your speed around the circumference.

I opened a thread on discussion of space manifold shapes and how one might test shapes before.

So in this context is not a number or an abstract concept that Soratus wants to dribble on about its a absolute reality based on a very simple expansion of a ball or manifold. If the universe is a simple ball and the speed of light is fixed you can never do a circumnavigation because the expansion is faster than your speed it's like trying to run on a jogging machine thats going faster than you can run.

See things can be finite and yet infinite because it's a concept and very simple.

To then even discuss an infinity frame in that context is beyond retarded it's as stupid as a zero frame actually no I would say more stupid.

The question is:
How can our located World appear from the Infinite Universe?
============…

I saw the original - great!

I have to say this came to mind when I saw the tittle of this thread.

How's this for a guess?

The cosmos is infinite. Our apparently finite Universe is just our interpretation of what we are able to see with our restricted vision/understanding.

Hey, Bill, since you're accommodating the idea of an infinite universe, you could move on to Brian Greene's speculations about nine flavours of multiple universe in his recently published book 'The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos'. If you follow the links below, be sure to listen to the audio.

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/24/132932268/a-physicist-explains-why-parallel-universes-may-exist
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/04/134265287/brian-greene-on-em-the-hidden-reality-em

And since you asked a sensible question for a change I will answer.

The universe is most definitely finite if you use the standard model version it is only infinite because the expansion is faster than the fastest speed you can travel.

It really is that simple it's the expansion that makes it infinite not the universe itself.

You can play all the word games you like around the term infinity but unless you can travel faster than the speed of the expansion the universe really is infinite.

That leads into several problems not the least of which is the rubbish Socratus is dribbling about.

But at some point if you are going to believe the big bang the universe pretty much had to be a very small BB theory tells you that so the universe at that point had to be finite. If it was finite then how does it become infinite.Even under you energy is everything theory Bill S there had to be a definable energy at the start.

To try and have the universe born as some infinite thing is a big ask.

See the modern interpretation gives you a finite start but the fast expansion rate and the fixed speed of light then gives you an infinite universe.

Red brings up the only other way to have an infinite universe which is the string theory way in which space is continually creating new universes as per discussion by Brian Greene who I agree is totally worth reading.

My person dislike of the multiverse is the QM argument I gave you (http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/many_world_interpretation_splitting_wiener_sausage-80042). QM expicitly wants to describe the setting as fock space (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fock_space) which does not ressemble any 3D actual space.

I want to go back to my message
‘Does an Absolute Infinite Frame of Reference exist?’
and understand the situation better and deeper.
===========..
1
‘ 90% or more of the matter in the Universe is unseen / dark’
and the % of the visual matter in the Universe is few.
In other words: we have two (2) parallel Worlds –
Vacuum and Material / Physical.
Question:
What is interaction between these two ( 2) different Worlds?
2.
In the early existence of Universe its temperature was
T=2,7K -- > T=0K. We live on the warm planet Earth.
Question:
How from the Kingdom of Coldness (T=2,7K -- > T=0K )
the beautiful Earth was created?
3.
The Vacuum is not empty space.
Dirac wrote that ‘ virual particles – antiparticles ‘ live there.
The astrophysics write that ‘ dark matter/ energy’ exists there.
Question:
How can the ‘ virual particles – dark antiparticles ‘ become real?
4.
According to QED Electron in interaction with vacuum has
infinite parameters ( energy, mass …etc ).
First : it means that the Vacuum also has infinite parameter
or parameters.
Second: How in the Nature this infinite electron can have
real local physical parameters?
5.
In 1928 Dirac wrote that every elementary particle with
positive energy (+E=Mc^2 ) has its antiparticle with
negative energy (–E=Mc^2).
But in my opinion the first man who wrote about antiparticles
was Sommerfeld. In 1916 he wrote two ( 2 ) formulas for electron.
The formula of electron as: -e=h*ac and the formula of its
antiparticle as: +e=h*ac.
Question:
What is interaction between +e=h*ac and : -e=h*ac ?
What is interaction between +E=Mc^2 and –E=Mc^2 ?
Why sometimes E= Mc^2 can behavior as a ‘rest’ particle
and sometimes can be ‘active’ and can destroy cities like
Hiroshima and Nagasaki ? Why E= Mc^2 is so strange?
My conclusion:
The answers to these questions can be get only through
understanding the Vacuum.
===.
I.S.
=====================…

Orac

Thanks for the clear explanations. I see no way to contradict your reasoning regarding the definition of 'infinite' that you apply to our 'universe'. Yes, if time did not originate at the Big Bang then there would be no grounds to assume that the real universe - i.e. the totality of existence, not just the geometry with which we are familiar - is less than infinite and eternal; and that would infer that an infinity of sub-continuums should have arisen just as ours did.

This has, of course, nothing to do with Everett's 'Many Worlds'.

Correct Red there are only two ways to view an infinite universe depending on your "flavour" of how you view it.

It's nothing like our word games of stupid little troll above.

Look at this rubbish

>>>>
positive energy (+E=Mc^2 ) has its antiparticle with
negative energy (–E=Mc^2).
<<<<<<

It doesn't even make sense mathematically or notionally just because you reverse the charge suddenly the mass and therefore energy reverses and we know it's not correct because a matter-antimatter anilation would there cancel each other out rather than produce energy.

But this is feeding into the troll.

Israel Sadovnik Socratus posts on almost every physics board that exists. He is a religious extremist his only reason for posting is to derail any meaningful discussion because it is the work of the devil in his view.

http://www.wbabin.net/comments/sadovnik.htm
(http://www.socratus.com/)



Try any of the other countless sites he posts on
http://www.psyclops.com/hawking/forum/printmsg.cgi?period=&msg=83312
http://www.natscience.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/relativity/17360/Genesis-and-Evolution
http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/The-Structure-of-Nothing-.-Socratus._2548-100.html
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=23624&st=15
http://www.astronomytoday.com/forum/about1067.html


Same garbage over and over again ... he just cuts and pastes the same text.

Reason because he wishes to derail us talking about the devils work.

He even posts on the Dalai Lama's site in comments because he probably views that as the devils work as well check out the comments section.

http://www.openculture.com/2009/06/_the_dalai_lamas_introduction_to_buddhism.html

Orac, I'm sure you are right about Socratus, but I have a sneeking admiration for anyone who can write so much and say nothing. Its an "art form" which I enjoyed using during my college days, studying social science - which I always argued was not really a science, much to the annoyance of my fellow students. I guess if the term "trolling" had been coined in those days, I would have been a troll.

Clever move there Orac. The suggestion that any definition of infinity that does not agree with yours amounts to playing word games could be quite off-putting. 8/10 for deviousness.

Seriously, though; your argument provides an example of why in other threads I have maintained that our usage of the word "infinite" can lead to confused thinking.

The Universe you describe is boundless. In theory it could continue to expand for ever, but as you (I think rightly) point out, if it is finite, it can never become infinite. You can have it both ways only if you use "infinite" to mean two different things.

This is almost exactly the point I tried to make on this forum nearly a year ago. Other posters countered by saying that, even at the point of the BB, the Universe was infinite. I had difficulty getting my head round that then, and I think I am no nearer now. This seems to suggest that, at some level, we are on the same side. Could it be just the use of "intinite" that causes the schism?

The problem Bill S is one of frame of reference its the same as observers differing on passage of time.

If we stick to the standard model not a multiverse

From outside space ... space is definitely finite even now .. unfortunately we can never go outside space its a thought process. From inside space where we have a speed of light speed limit space is infinite.

It's a paradox of frame of reference.

Lets break this down to a simple example:

I am on a running machine which extends via hydrolics infront of me.

I can run at 10Km per hour and the machine expands in front of me at 15km per hour. See the problem I can never get to the end of the running machine its expanding faster than I can run.

Now lets turn it into our universe problem.

Our running machine is now a circular band from where I am standing it will expand 7.5 km/hour and it expand 7.5km/hour behind me.

Now I can run and appear to be moving forward against the expanding machine but I can never get back to where I started because at some point around my lap I will run into the problem what was growing behind me is now what is front of me and the relative motion returns to the original problem I am running at 10Km the expansion rate is 15km/hour. Ergo I can never make it back.

My running track is infinite no matter how long I run I will never return to the start.

Hence you were correct your detractors were wrong something can be both finite and infinite depending on what your frame of reference is. We have just proved it with a relatively simple thought experiment.

Where they were correct even at the point of BB where we agree space actually has a size and assuming the expansion rate is what it is now you still wouldn't have been able to do a lap of it because of expansion. Go back to our running track does it matter how big it starts? Absolutely not even 10m long at start it's combined motion is 15km/h which is faster than our 10km/h.

Infinity in regard to space is almost definitely a point of reference thing. In another thread you were discussing faster than light partciles and assuming we are talking alot faster then the universe is definitely not infinite.

Infinity in classic space theory is born of the fact even if we could go at the speed of light the universe is infinite.

Here is an image for you which says alot (http://postimage.org/image/5xhh7ozes/)

This is alot different under multiverse theory but thats a whole different story.

Thanks Orac, your imagery is great, I have no problem with that.

There is still a problem with the terminology, though. Clearly, what you are describing is boundless, but not necessarily infinite.
My inability to run at more than 10km/h. does not physically influence the nature of the running machine, nor does our inability to exceed the speed of light influence the nature of the Universe, only our perception of it.

Something that is finite can never become infinite, whatever the occupants of that something might do.

It's a perception thing .. if you were on the running machine from a movement along the belt it is most cerainly infinite.

The thing about space is there is no way we know to get outside it. So to every perception it is infinite .. yet if you could get outside it most certainly is not infinite.

Orac, if you had said that space is effectively infinite I would probably have agreed with you. But the concept of infinity involves quantities that are uncountably large. As such the universe is not infinite. There have been some estimates of the size of the universe, but not very good ones. One I ran across said it was about 150 billion light years. So I don't much think the universe is really infinite.

Bill Gill

What is the difference between effectively infinite and boundless?

This figure arose from misreported research about 8 yrs ago. The research paper was titled "Constraining the Topology of the Universe". The researchers (Cornish et al) stated that their data "ruled out the possibility that we live in a universe with topology scale smaller than 24 Gpc". They didn't measure the size of the universe. However the popular press, being what it is, took a diameter of 24 Giga-parsecs, doubled it, converted it to lt yrs, and told everyone that we now know how big the universe is.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astroph/0310233
_____

Interesting reads:

Is the Universe finite or infinite? An interview with Joseph Silk [2001]
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMR53T1VED_index_0_iv.html

Will the Universe expand forever? [2011]
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

Boundless means there is no edge. And that is all it means.

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.

Bill Gill

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.

Can you be sure that physical infinity is not concrete?

Getting a straight answer from Socratus is a bit like winning the lottery. What makes you think you will hit the jackpot with this one?

Theory: i.e. possible answer to at least one of Scoratus's questions.

The cosmos is infinite - it is the sum total of existence, boundless, timeless, un-differentiated and changeless. It is dimensionless and has no parts, because every part would have to be the whole.

Our Universe appears to us to be finite, bounded by three dimensions of space and one of time, because we are constrained to view reality within these parameters.

Regarding the Universe as finite (albeit unbounded) and four dimensional is the only way in which our study/understanding of it can make any sense to us.

OK; I know this is only the thought of a rank amateur, and I know I have posted it (at least in essence) before; but I am yet to be convinced of its absurdity.

The play between infinity and finite .
1.
Can a finite space have infinite parameters ?
====.
I think the answer is ‘no’. Why?
Because to create our finite world
( for example: our planet Earth and the life on it)
the Nature needs limited numbers of constants.
They are the values that cannot be derived from theory
of creation. Any infringement of these physical ( magic)
constants doesn’t permit this creation. ( for example:
the changing of electron’s charge or mass of proton
doesn’t permit creation of atom )
These limited ( magic) numbers of constants that needed
for our creation surprised scientists.
( For example, biologists know about 100 ( hundred - ! ) kinds
of amino acids. But only 20 ( twenty - ! ) kinds of amino acids
are suitable to produce molecules of protein, from which all
different cells created on our planet.)
There are many other examples about limited numbers
of constants that need for creation micro and macro worlds.
What are these concrete limited physical parameters
for Unlimited Infinity ?
====.
2.
Can an Infinite space have finite parameters ?
==.
If Infinite Space has infinite parameters then it is some
kind of abstraction. If Infinite Space is some kind of reality
it must have finite parameters. Can we know them ?
Yes, we can understand them if we find the source of Creation.
3.
How the play between infinity and finite is going ?
Isn’t it strange that Infinite Space can give ( for example)
finite parameters for our Earth’s creation ?
Does it mean that Infinite Space have Consciousness ?
Is Infinite Space something Divine ?
Or maybe this process of creation and evolution was going
by chance ?
Puzzle: ‘ By Consciousness or by Chance ? ‘ or
‘By Consciousness and by Chance ?’
==.
Sadovnik Socratus.
============================.
#
With this letter I finish my participation on this forum.
Thank you to everybody who took part on this link.
Your participation was important to me because it help me
better to understand the situation in physics.
==.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
=====================.

I see you finally realize the dangers of conversations with the devil Socratus.

For he can show you infinity is an illusion and he can show you zero is something. They are both merely mortal and fallible extensions of an illussion of a persons mind.

And this can lead to a crisis in Socratus faith that zero and infinity are a representation of his god. There is no crisis in physics because the devil can see thru word games and he knows what you mean.

We thank you for input and wish you well.

./Wave

I believe not; but I see no reason why, in an infinite cosmos, finite beings might be unable to see beyond finite parameters - it's back to the spider in Flatland!