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 (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 14 of 17 1 2 12 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: Orac
Take a laser point into space turn it on ... turn it off. The laser beam will go on infinitely.


It will go on indefinitely, but do you have any way of knowing if that will be infinite? In fact, you can be sure that it will not. You might argue that it is moving towards infinity, but by the very definition of infinity, however far it goes, it will still have an infinite distance to go.


There never was nothing.
.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
There are many things that are finite but will go in infinite unless you define a condition. Infinite loops are common in programming if your dont correctly terminate the condition the same is true in nature.


This is another example of the regrettably imprecise use of the word infinity.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
But see there you go you provided a context or condition.


Are you implying that if I had said: "Enormous! but it will never be infinite." That would have been incorrect; but because I gave my reason for saying that, my statement became correct?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
Okay I think I get what you are asking is there anything that can be infinite with real world conditions, so real world conditions is the context.


Absolutely not!

A delicious meal calls, so I shall have to return to this, possibly tomorrow.


There never was nothing.
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

Incorrect turn it to a simple physical test.

Make a hole in a bucket allow water to flow out faster than you are filling it ergo you can never fill the bucket ... QED

Your brain memory works like that in this mode ... in the bucket you can have mini containers which remember things you choose (our permanent memory).

Thats the key point we haven't stated you have to remember permanetly said thought ... see context.


BS has already pointed out the difference. The context you refer is 'the process of thought', I think. In that case, theoretically it is infinite. But as a physical entity, you cannot exist for an infinite time; so there is a finite end to your thoughts (physically). Here is, what I think, the difference between a mathematical and physical infinity, a case put forth by BS. The 'thought process' and 'the filling of the bucket having holes' are mathematical concepts, like the number system, and so are infinite.

Originally Posted By: Orac
Give me context and I can give you what I would call a reasonable answer. Sure I can't be absolutely certain but I can give you an answer consistant with observations and really thats all that matters. Anything beyond that is philosophical or religious not scientific.


I agree that it will be possible for you to give reasonable answers for nearly all. But regarding the rest, there is ambiguity. For example, consider the questions: Can the curvature of space-time become infinite? Can the universe remain infinitely hot? Will the process of expansion continue for an infinite period? If the field can create particle pairs from nowhere, will the energy of the universe be infinite? Is the universe itself is infinite in space? These remain unanswered, and there are differences in opinion among the physicists. It is this situation that I referred to as 'ambiguity'. The metaphysical or philosophical part (why and from where all these came)comes only after that; the physical part of it (the part that should be explained by science) is not 'fully explained'.

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

B.S. you don't like my pile of rocks. Ok, let's assume an infinite universe. Then there are an infinite number of atoms in the universe. But I can still take out atoms individually or in clumps, such as the clumps making up the rocks in my rock pile, or in my body.

As to whether something finite can become infinite. I have been avoiding that question. However, I generally feel that a finite set cannot become infinite. However, that still doesn't keep me from working with a finite subset of an infinite set.
Bill Gill

The number of integers is a mathematical concept. It can be infinite. But the number of atoms is a physical concept. So, when you assume that the universe is infinite, the question that you are avoiding (whether there can be an infinite number of finite atoms) comes up again. Theoretically, there cannot be any limit to the number of atoms. However, that does not make it infinite unless you insist that there can be an infinite number of finite things. If the number of atoms is finite, the limit is set arbitrarily (by whom? we can only speculate). In such cases we cannot use the term 'boundless' (as pointed out by you), unless the term is defined so.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
See you are turning it into a word game the same as Bill S and that is not we as scientists say.

I can prove to you the universe is finite in your context of "real situations with absolute knows" IE your word game.

See the universe is expanding it has to expand into something that is a physical law in your "reality" so there is either a multiverse or something bigger than the universe.

So we have universe => universe + something

So the universe can not be infinite because there is something that must be bigger.

At science which is about observation its an absurd claim because we will can not do observation beyond our universe so the point is mute and we say our universe in infinite becaue we could never see the thing in entirity or travel around every point in it because it is expanding close to the speed of light.

It really is the simple.

From a religious or philosophical or do external calculations the universe is most certinly finite but from a travel movement observation point it is most certainly infinite.

Its is simply a science context paradox.

We have a similar problem in Quantum Mechanics because remember we have stuff outside your phsical universe so to us your physical universe is very finite but obviously we get a new boundary where does Quantum Information start and stop.

Here is a QM version of the same thing with the multiverse in play
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality) and the example of it at play (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexpected_hanging_paradox)

EDIT: Oh wow these have an english name just saw that "epistemic paradox" because it turns on our concept of knowledge.

The paradox is born from incomplete coverage of understanding and if you look at historic content of the flat world they had equally the same paradox. Was the earth infinite or finite they couldn't tell and this same arguement raged go look at the works of Galileo who was imprisoned for his views.

You can argue it all day it's a word play based around lack of complete understanding or as finiter would say "you are squeezing through the cracks".

Scientists accept the universe is both finite and infinite depending on context and yes its a paradox but that paradox is born of ignorance.

Last edited by Orac; 10/28/11 06:02 AM.

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: Orac
Okay I think I get what you are asking is there anything that can be infinite with real world conditions, so real world conditions is the context.


We perceive our Universe as being finite. As far as I am aware there is no concrete scientific evidence to the contrary. The only concepts of infinity we can apply to the Universe, or anything in it, are mathematical infinities, or pseudo infinities which, as you say, can be of value in thought experiments.

I am quite happy to play word games in the less serious threads, but where real knowledge and understanding are involved I believe that clarity of terminology is essential.

Perception is, of course, relative. Either side may see the other as indulging in verbal fencing, and both may have a legitimate claim to being right. I suspect we may never resolve this one, but let's make sure that's not for want of trying.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
I think it’s important that we avoid slipping onto a situation where we are all saying what we think, but not answering questions posed by others. Let’s start with these:

Orac. Are you implying that if I had said: "Enormous! but it will never be infinite." That would have been incorrect; but because I gave my reason for saying that, my statement became correct?

Bill. How do you know when (if) you have an infinite number of apples, or bananas?

Finiter. (one not already asked) What is an infinitely small particle, and how does it differ from nothing?


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.
Orac. Are you implying that if I had said: "Enormous! but it will never be infinite." That would have been incorrect; but because I gave my reason for saying that, my statement became correct?


Yes as it stood your statement would have been incorrect and its the same for the bucket with hole argument.

The setup with the bucket is by definition at science an infinite cycle your decision to impose constraints is what makes it go from infinite to finite. The argument then becomes well there isn't that much water, or you cant have imfinite time etc etc so you are imposing the limits. The original experimental setup was indeed infinite you changed the conditions to make it finite. It's a simple viewpoint change that is nothing earth shattering about the change.

So back to the universe.

From a matter, energy point of view the universe is indeed finite, I don't think you can argue anything but that. From a movement, navigation, observational aspect the universe is infinite because of the speed of light restriction. See point of view or context changes the perception. Depending why you were asking the question I may give you a different answer.

I agree with you infinite is a concept abstraction born from a given context it is never a physical reality and the universe is no different to anything else in that regard.

The real question to me is what is the hang up about the universe being infinite?

Even if the universe was the good old static ball model say like finiters there are contexts in which it will appear infinite. See even in finiters world things are moving, the speed of light is a speed limit, so if you start out from one point to circum-navigate the universe thing will move by the time you get back to the start it will look different and so you will sail on never knowing where the start point is so the universe still appears infinite ... see context.

So I would say the universe is finite.
However in certain contexts like movement and observation it is infinite.

None of that is exactly earth shattering.

So I guess my question is why whether the universe infinite or finite causing such a fuss.

Last edited by Orac; 10/28/11 12:58 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Bill. How do you know when (if) you have an infinite number of apples, or bananas?

I know I have an infinite number of apples or bananas because I built my mental universe that way. This is a thought experiment to demonstrate that your contention that an infinite universe is unchanging doesn't match how the world works. If you want to show that I don't have an infinite number of apples and bananas you have to count them. While you spend an infinite amount of time counting them I will be enjoying eating apples and bananas one at a time. So the apples and bananas universe is not static and unchanging.

Whether our universe is infinite or not doesn't make any difference to how we work with it. If the universe is infinite we are still working with a finite subset. All the rules remain the same.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
I much prefer your answer Bill much shorter :-)

The mystery to me is the same as you why are they getting hung up over infinity what difference does it make.


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
Quote:
The mystery to me is the same as you why are they getting hung up over infinity


Is trying to understand something the same as "getting hung up over" it?

Quote:
...what difference does it make.


What difference does it make whether anything came before the Big Bang?

What difference does it make how old the Universe is?

What difference does it make if neutrinos travel a little faster than photons?

How much of science in general, and cosmology in particular can we dispense with, simply by asserting that it makes no difference?

Then, perhaps, we have to ask: In whose frame of reference does it make no difference?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Bill
So the apples and bananas universe is not static and unchanging.


It is not static and unchanging because you constructed your "mental universe that way".

You side-stepped the question. It was your infinite pile, not mine. Challenging me to prove that it is not infinite is not telling me how you knew it was infinite in the first place. OK, you might say that you know it is infinite because that is the way you constructed it, but by the same token, I could say that beyond the visible horizon our universe is made of squishy bananas (Australian, of course), and justify that by saying that that was how I constructed my mental universe. How close would that come to real science, or even a useful thought experiment?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Quote:
The mystery to me is the same as you why are they getting hung up over infinity


Is trying to understand something the same as "getting hung up over" it?


I think the problem here is that Orac and I don't see why you are having a problem with the concept of infinity. Infinity is very simple. It just means that, even in principle, you can't measure the "stuff" that you are talking about. Using apples for example, if you have an infinite number of apples it means you have: apple apple apple apple...infinity. In practice you can't have an infinite number of apples, but in concept you can. And that is all that infinity means.

To me infinity is a useful concept, but it doesn't really have any significant impact on my understanding of the universe. Now if you are an advanced mathematician you can get all involved in the various sizes of infinities. Because there are several sizes of infinity. Maybe to get a handle on it you might want to look at the Wiki article.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
And again totally agree with Bill.

For Bill S there is another simpler one of these PI.

What does PI mean.

Well at some level its a number but its not really because you can never write that number out as I said it's been calculate to 2.5 trillion places.

So is it a concept .. well yes but as per above we also need it as a number and so to get real world answers using it we have to truncate to the precision we require.

Originally Posted By: Bill S

What difference does it make whether anything came before the Big Bang?


It's self evident something came before the big bang the only real question is the universe oscillatory or did we come from outside this universe which science may possibly never be able to answer. Concept of infinite universe does not change the problem.

Originally Posted By: Bill S

What difference does it make how old the Universe is?


If it's cyclical again it's total age is probably impossible to calculate. Concept of infinity does not change the problem.


Originally Posted By: Bill S

What difference does it make if neutrinos travel a little faster than photons?


Really nothing to do with infinity, the real question with this is where it were true is it a QM effect and GR/SR still intact or do we have our first violation.

Originally Posted By: Bill S

How much of science in general, and cosmology in particular can we dispense with, simply by asserting that it makes no difference?


I have answered each of your questions above if you feel infinity definition would change my answers expalin it to me.

Originally Posted By: Bill S

Then, perhaps, we have to ask: In whose frame of reference does it make no difference?


There is no zero frame (Absolue space frame) so there are only local reference frames and hence the universe being infinite or not makes no difference to an observer. Infact if you start trying to put in an absolute reference frame you go thru the exercise I did with finiter and our spinning bucket and I can proove to you your world and forces become inconsistant.

In QM we have the same thing via Bell's Inequality no two observers see the same thing of Quantum Information. What QM is explicitly telling you is the Zero reference frame is outside of 3D space.

It is the secret to why QM and GR/SR don't clash they both actually say the same thing the Zero frame is not in our 3D space think how profound that is.

Nothing changes whether the universe is infinite or finite it's like PI it still calculates things with a circle no matter how you view it.

Last edited by Orac; 10/29/11 01:54 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: Bill S.

Finiter. (one not already asked) What is an infinitely small particle, and how does it differ from nothing?

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.

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 you are turning it into a word game the same as Bill S and that is not we as scientists say.

I can prove to you the universe is finite in your context of "real situations with absolute knows" IE your word game.

See the universe is expanding it has to expand into something that is a physical law in your "reality" so there is either a multiverse or something bigger than the universe.

So we have universe => universe + something

So the universe can not be infinite because there is something that must be bigger.

At science which is about observation its an absurd claim because we will can not do observation beyond our universe so the point is mute and we say our universe in infinite becaue we could never see the thing in entirity or travel around every point in it because it is expanding close to the speed of light.

It really is the simple.

From a religious or philosophical or do external calculations the universe is most certinly finite but from a travel movement observation point it is most certainly infinite.

Its is simply a science context paradox.

We have a similar problem in Quantum Mechanics because remember we have stuff outside your phsical universe so to us your physical universe is very finite but obviously we get a new boundary where does Quantum Information start and stop.

Here is a QM version of the same thing with the multiverse in play
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality) and the example of it at play (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexpected_hanging_paradox)

EDIT: Oh wow these have an english name just saw that "epistemic paradox" because it turns on our concept of knowledge.

The paradox is born from incomplete coverage of understanding and if you look at historic content of the flat world they had equally the same paradox. Was the earth infinite or finite they couldn't tell and this same arguement raged go look at the works of Galileo who was imprisoned for his views.

You can argue it all day it's a word play based around lack of complete understanding or as finiter would say "you are squeezing through the cracks".

Scientists accept the universe is both finite and infinite depending on context and yes its a paradox but that paradox is born of ignorance.

Definitely not a word play. Let us leave aside whether the universe is actually infinite or finite, and just care about what the present theories say. Depending upon the context (as you have said) and also depending upon 'the physicist and his field of research', there are different views (given the same context). This is what I refer to as ambiguity. And, I agree with you: it is a paradox born out of ignorance.

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Thanks, Orac, for answering the “What difference…” questions. You missed the point of my asking them, though. They were rhetorical questions, the point of which was to ask if science declined to seek answers just because the issue in question seemed to make no difference to our every-day lives. I think the answer would have to be “no”, and IMO the same applies to questions about infinity.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Bill
Infinity is very simple. It just means that, even in principle, you can't measure the "stuff" that you are talking about. ….. In practice you can't have an infinite number of apples, but in concept you can.


Thus far I have absolutely no problem! As long as we are clear that that is the way in which “infinite” is being used, that’s fine. In thinking about infinity, that was the point at which I ran into complications.

Infinity is simple if you are looking at it from a great distance. It is easy to think that we can visualise time stretching to infinity in the past and future, or a void going to infinity in every direction. As long as you treat it as a “concept”, it’s simple.

Quote:
And that is all that infinity means.


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?


There never was nothing.
Page 14 of 17 1 2 12 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 UsokÂþ»­¾W
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