Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 39 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 15 of 17 1 2 13 14 15 16 17
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: F
There cannot be an infinitely small particle; there can be an infinitesimally small particle


That is how I see it; I just think it's unfortunate that infinite and infinitesimal are used as though they were synonymous. Etymologically, they may be, but infinitesimal does convey a different shade of meaning.


There never was nothing.
.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

This is where we seem to part company. I strongly suspect that there can never have been a time when there was absolutely nothing or there would still be nothing now.


And science would absolutely agree with you to an extent BUT we add it does not have to be space it could be energy or something that can become space and this is especially true of QM.


Originally Posted By: Bill S.

If this is the case, something must be physically infinite. This leads to the question: What does it mean to be physically infinite?


And again I have a problem with what you have written here.

As I have agreed above from outside our universe I agree it is most definitely finite ... 100% agree with you.

However once you come inside the universe you are bound by those rules and the universe for anything real in the universe is infinite for we can't go outside.

I think what you are trying to talk about is the thing outside which our universe is theoretically in call it a multiverse or come up with a name and it is that which may ultimately make our universe finite.

We conceed that ourselves and we predict possible fates for the universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe)

See our context paradox we give you ... well tell you the universe is infinite but we also tell you it's going to end and it causes us no problem at science because infinity is nothing more than a context idea.

I am thinking what you may really be asking can anything be "absolute infinity" like a zero reference frame.

The problem is it is not a question science can answer or even have a view on it because we would have to be absolutely certain we were at the top of the chain.

You could have a universe in a universe in a universe etc. How would I know when I got to the top?

So if your asking is there such thing as "absolute infinity" I really have no view on it, its much more a philosophical argument.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: finiter
There cannot be an infinitely small particle; there can be an infinitesimally small particle. Though literally both will be the same, in science, infinitesimal is used to represent very small (I think). IMO (based on my theory), a particle should have mass and volume, however small it may be.


And now I am going to get you to do some work for a change and flip this on it's head, lets see how you go.

See I am going to tell you that there is no such thing as a "particle" you are imagining it what you see is force the force simply has a width.

Now I want you to prove to me a particle exists and its not just a force show me all your evidence that particles are not a figment of your imagination.

See you are the finite one it's all about reality and what you can see and touch show me evidence of one of these particles please.

Do you see the problem coming at you .. yes even as a scientist I couldn't prove that because of that duality thing and QM.

So your whole theory and finite world is built on a lie or at best a guess there is no particles and you think QM doesn't make sense your irrational belief makes absolutely no sense ... your crazy you think the world is real and built of partciles yet you cant even show me one :-).

Last edited by Orac; 10/29/11 01:45 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: O
the universe is infinite for we can't go outside.the universe is infinite for we can't go outside.


I can't get out of it, so it must be infinite! Is this yet another definition for infinite?

I would ask you what proof you have that we can't get out of the Universe, but you would probably say I was playing word games.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: O
I think what you are trying to talk about is the thing outside which our universe is theoretically in call it a multiverse or come up with a name and it is that which may ultimately make our universe finite.


I'm not sure I follow this, try again, perhaps, then I'll have a go at a response.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: O
well tell you the universe is infinite but we also tell you it's going to end and it causes us no problem at science because infinity is nothing more than a context idea.


If you use infinity as a "context idea" then you can do, more or less, what you like with it, but the more diverse meanings you give it, the less real meaning the word has.

As I see it, there are two main ways in which language is used:
Artistic; in which you use words in novel and imaginative ways.
Scientific: in which you strive for clarity and precision.

It seems that the scientific community are content to use infinity in distinctly "artistic" ways.


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Originally Posted By: O
the universe is infinite for we can't go outside.the universe is infinite for we can't go outside.


I can't get out of it, so it must be infinite! Is this yet another definition for infinite?

I would ask you what proof you have that we can't get out of the Universe, but you would probably say I was playing word games.


We put things out of the universe quite routinely in QM you do realize that once we do they can't have an effect in it or react to it. The state is called entanglement and thats why the effect works instantaneously over immense distance ... you know Einsteins spooky action at distance.

So I can already tell you with absolute certainty that the universe is absolutely finite if you can get out of it and it's proven by science.

It's the confinement to the universes 3D space + 1 dimension of time that makes the universe infinite thats the context for inifinite we use. You break the confinement like entanglement and the infinite disolves.

There is no word game in that its straight forward science

If you are stricted to the 3D+1 spacetime it is infinite
If you are out of it (like entanglement) it is finite

Context changes how the universe looks to you.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Originally Posted By: O
I think what you are trying to talk about is the thing outside which our universe is theoretically in call it a multiverse or come up with a name and it is that which may ultimately make our universe finite.


I'm not sure I follow this, try again, perhaps, then I'll have a go at a response.


When you talk about the universe being infinite do you literally mean the 3D+1 timespace we live in OR everything stuff that may be outside our universe so all other universes etc and whatever our universe is expanding into.

See universe itself has context for me if you say universe I equate it to our universe many mean the whole of everything out there whatever that may look like.

When you say the universe can not be infinite which universe context do you mean?

Last edited by Orac; 10/30/11 02:25 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

As I see it, there are two main ways in which language is used:
Artistic; in which you use words in novel and imaginative ways.
Scientific: in which you strive for clarity and precision.

It seems that the scientific community are content to use infinity in distinctly "artistic" ways.


It sort of is like that.

As I said consider PI it's a little less abstract it has a very precise meaning but you can't derive a precise finite number from it you can only truncate it to a precision you require.

PI and infinity share the same house in science they are a concepts and imprecise in the true global sense if you are trying to extract detail from them.

As you said
Scientific: in which you strive for clarity and precision

See both PI and Infinity defy that statement because they do they can only have arbitrary precision chosen by us.

It appears to me you want to turn Infinity into something hard and real (I called it "absolute infinity") and we don't view infinity like that.

Hell you can't even view PI as something hard and real because I have no way to give you and exact number for it.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
finiter Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

This is where we seem to part company. I strongly suspect that there can never have been a time when there was absolutely nothing, or there would still be nothing now. If this is the case, something must be physically infinite. This leads to the question: What does it mean to be physically infinite?

The question that you pose is very significant. We have to distinguish between mathematical and physical infinities. The natural numbers constitute an infinite set; it is a mathematical infinity. But the number of apples can never be infinite; it is physical. If the number of apples is extremely large and when there is no theoretical limit, we may define it as 'physical infinity' (in my opinion), which of course is a finite set without any 'theoretical limit', but with an 'arbitrary' limit. I don't know whether a distinction between mathematical and physical infinities ever existed in philosophical and scientific dialogues. I will look up in the Wikipedia.

'Whether the universe is infinite or not' is not the only problem connected with infinity. There are infinities within the theories. For example, in the concept of gravity, the GR leads to an an infinite curvature of space-time. Newtonian gravity also becomes infinite when the mass of the body becomes grater than a certain limit (not infinite). Such absurd infinities arise because they have not considered the question of physical infinity (IMO based on my theory).

Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
finiter Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Orac

See I am going to tell you that there is no such thing as a "particle" you are imagining it what you see is force the force simply has a width.

Now I want you to prove to me a particle exists and its not just a force show me all your evidence that particles are not a figment of your imagination.

See you are the finite one it's all about reality and what you can see and touch show me evidence of one of these particles please.

Do you see the problem coming at you .. yes even as a scientist I couldn't prove that because of that duality thing and QM.

So your whole theory and finite world is built on a lie or at best a guess there is no particles and you think QM doesn't make sense your irrational belief makes absolutely no sense ... your crazy you think the world is real and built of partciles yet you cant even show me one :-).

The QM says there is an 'instant-duality at the level of particles'. What my theory says is that particles are simply particles, and they shows some wave nature because of their wavy motion. Thus in effect, the subtle difference is in the concept of instant-duality only. So any observation that can be regarded as a proof for QM can be regarded and explained in an alternate way as a proof for the existence of particles.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: finiter
The QM says there is an 'instant-duality at the level of particles'. What my theory says is that particles are simply particles, and they shows some wave nature because of their wavy motion. Thus in effect, the subtle difference is in the concept of instant-duality only. So any observation that can be regarded as a proof for QM can be regarded and explained in an alternate way as a proof for the existence of particles.


No you are trying to squeeze through the cracks again in many versions of QM and string theory there are no particles only waves or forces.

So show me some proof that there is such thing as a particle, scientific references or observations please.

You can't simply say what this or that science believes I want to see your observations and reasonings.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Don't have time to read/digest all the new stuff in this thread, but I must comment on this.

Originally Posted By: O
When you talk about the universe being infinite do you literally mean the 3D+1 timespace we live in OR everything stuff that may be outside our universe so all other universes etc and whatever our universe is expanding into.


This is one reason why I use the terms "Universe" = the 3D+1 timespace we live in, and "cosmos" = the Universe + everything else.

I don't think I have talked of the Universe as being infinite, if I did, I certainly didn't mean to.


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Nope you hadn't but had to check because I could see possibly some confusion if we had terms mixed up.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
What is PI? I tried looking it up and found 184 definitions.
Could it be Pi?

Last edited by Bill S.; 10/30/11 03:58 PM.

There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
LOL yes it's Pi, I have habbit of the double capital because of my native language sorry, "pi" is a pronounciation to us and so we use capitals to distinguish so people don't get confused if it's used in a sentence.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: O
We put things out of the universe quite routinely in QM you do realize that once we do they can't have an effect in it or react to it. The state is called entanglement and thats why the effect works instantaneously over immense distance ... you know Einsteins spooky action at distance.


Just to be sure I understand you; are you saying that entanglement is something that takes place outside the finite Universe?
If that is the case, how does that square with my thought that QM might give us a window on the infinite?


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Just to be sure I understand you; are you saying that entanglement is something that takes place outside the finite Universe?
If that is the case, how does that square with my thought that QM might give us a window on the infinite?


Whether it is actually outside the physical idea of 3D+1 timespace is hard to say, the fact it is in two places at once puts it definitely outside the normal laws as we know them to us of 3D+1.

The process of whatever is happening has to be outside the finite universe because the interactions are faster than light and time retrospective if need be, what is preserved is causality.

It's probably worth reviewing the history of this for you (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640)

Edit: QM calls 3D+1 timespace reality because it is what is real to you.

It won't give us a window to your sort of infinity because how do I know QM is not contained in something itself. All it really does is shift the boundary .. I hope that makes sense to you ... this is hard work for me in english.

I guess to GR/SR people lets say like Bill G the problem they confronted was where did the energy come from for Big Bang. For QM big bang the question is where did the Quantum information come from in some way we are just shift chair positions on the titanic as they say :-)

Last edited by Orac; 10/31/11 04:08 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
finiter Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Orac

No you are trying to squeeze through the cracks again in many versions of QM and string theory there are no particles only waves or forces.
So show me some proof that there is such thing as a particle, scientific references or observations please.
You can't simply say what this or that science believes I want to see your observations and reasonings.

'A theory has no proof' that is what Stephen Hawking says. The QM has indeed no proof. However, when certain observations can be explained on the basis of QM, we call it a good theory. This is what I meant when I said that the same observations can be regarded as proof of my theory.

It is the loop holes or the cracks in the theory that render it imperfect. The progress in physics can be regarded as a continuous effort to plug the loop holes in Newtons theory, which can be regarded as the basic standard model. I don't claim that I am a physicist; I am only a layman interested in physics, but I follow the same strategy as the physicists and try to plug the loop holes.

So, when I say that electron and positron are actually particles and form a pair, and the pairs integrate into neutrons, I have to provide a logical structure of neutron. Neutron contains 919 pairs packed closely around a vacant centre. Why is it 919 and not any other number? It is the value of 'Pi' that decides this. The smallest whole number fraction for the value of 'Pi' is 22/7. This means that a circle of radius 7 particles can accommodate 22 particles in the circumference, thus forming a nearly perfect circle. Applying this to a sphere, it can be shown that the minimum number of double particles (electron-positron pairs) required to form a nearly perfect sphere is 919. And, the mass of 919 pairs is nearly equal to that of a neutron. This is one of the mathematical proofs that supports my theory.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: finiter
'A theory has no proof' that is what Stephen Hawking says. The QM has indeed no proof.


First I am not interested in QM proof (it actually does have proof btw), the question I posed to you has nothing to do with QM .. I asked you a specific question show me your proof a thing called a particle exists .. stay on task. Show me a particle exists please.

Originally Posted By: finiter

So, when I say that electron and positron are actually particles and form a pair, and the pairs integrate into neutrons, I have to provide a logical structure of neutron.



Provide me observations of these thing called electrons, protons and nuetrons are finite solid particles please.

Originally Posted By: finiter

You go of into a whole pile of stuff about numbers of electrons, protons etc ... really not in the argument


Stay on task you job is to show me that electrons, protons and nuetrons are these little finite ball particles you imagine them to be ... and I do mean imagine in every sense.

I will get you started standard "double slit electron experiment" we do it with every student (http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/DoubleSlit/DoubleSlit.html) as it's an easy experiment. Explain away please how does your theory cover this.

Edit: Took me a while to find a good link to it ... here finiter this make help for you to explain it to me (http://www-als.lbl.gov/index.php/holding...ysics-meet.html) Thats a whole bunch of your you protons, electrons and nuetrons doing the dance together.

Last edited by Orac; 10/31/11 05:42 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Page 15 of 17 1 2 13 14 15 16 17

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokW
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5