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 2 of 3 1 2 3
Bill S. #42261 01/25/12 03:00 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
I'm going to have a go at those links and try to get myself back to entropy; promise!


There never was nothing.
.
Bill S. #42262 01/25/12 04:35 PM
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
If an infinite number has already passed, can there really be another infinite number waiting to pass? What we are actually doing is treating infinity as though it were a very large number.

The answer is yes, there can.
We're not treating infinity as a very large number. We're saying that time may stretch endlessly into the past. At least, I am. Aren't you? You seem to doubt that the universe can be eternal, on the grounds that we are experiencing the passage of further time now.




"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Bill S. #42263 01/25/12 07:02 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
You seem to doubt that the universe can be eternal, on the grounds that we are experiencing the passage of further time now.


On the contrary, I am saying that the cosmos (universe) must be eternal, and what we perceive as the passage of time is a psychological device that allows us to make sense of the limited perspective we have on reality.


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #42264 01/25/12 07:19 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
We're saying that time may stretch endlessly into the past. At least, I am. Aren't you?


I almost said “yes”, then I gave it some thought, and in fact I have to say “no”.

The time that we experience, we are assured, was created at the Big Bang and is a characteristic of our Universe. Obviously, this does not necessarily preclude the possibility that time existed before the BB, but, as far as I am aware, there is no evidence that time has always existed.

Do we have any reason, other than that it is difficult to understand, to believe that eternity is not an unchanging “now”?


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #42267 01/25/12 10:56 PM
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
As is so often the case, it seems we are stumbling over semantics.

"While in the popular mind, eternity (or foreverness) often simply means existence for a limitless amount of time, many have used it to refer to a timeless existence altogether outside time. By contrast, infinite temporal existence is then called sempiternity. Something eternal exists outside time; by contrast, something sempiternal exists throughout an infinite time. Sempiternity is also known as everlastingness." Wikipedia

- I raised that point yonks ago in one of your threads, from which I acquired the mistaken impression that you were using the pupular definition of eternity, i.e. sempiternity.

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
The time that we experience, we are assured, was created at the Big Bang and is a characteristic of our Universe.

Assured by whom, Bill? All I can find from eminent cosmologists and particle physicists in recent years, is a lack of such assurance. S. Hawking's contention that time must have been created at the Big Bang is now known to have been based on false premises.

Still, so long as the ideas remain speculative, we can hold whatever provisional beliefs we feel at home with. and kick them around till the cows come home.

btw, if we are done discussing cosmic entropy, and are resuming philosophical speculations on infinity, we ought to continue that in an NQS thread, don't you think?


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Bill S. #42268 01/26/12 12:09 AM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
I rather hope we have not finished discussing entropy. You may have noticed that I am easily side-tracked where infinity is concerned, smile but entropy is what I’m struggling with.

Quote:
Assured by whom, Bill?


OK, I admit my comment was a bit outmoded, but I did at least add that this did not necessarily preclude the possibility that time existed before the BB. There’s something to be said for a bit of butt covering.

In order to avoid (repeated) semantic pitfalls, I should say that I consider “sempiternity” is to eternity as mathematical infinity is to infinity. Useful as each term may be in its own context, they should not be used as though they were synonymous.


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #42269 01/26/12 12:18 AM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Back to entropy!

Quote:
Where statistical mechanics claims that the entropy of a stable equilibrium system represents the ultimate disorder of the system, the unified quantum theory claims that it represents perfect order of the system.


I have probably not understood this, but it seems to be saying that SM regards entropy as “ultimate disorder”, while QM sees it as “perfect order”.

Could be I need putting right on that before trying to go any further.


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #42562 02/12/12 09:13 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
I'm not sure this is on topic for this thread, but I'm posting it here rather than start a new one for something so closely related.

The following quote is from Wiki.

“Dirac hypothesized that what we think of as the "vacuum" is actually the state in which all the negative-energy states are filled, and none of the positive-energy states. Therefore, if we want to introduce a single electron we would have to put it in a positive-energy state, as all the negative-energy states are occupied.”

Does this imply that the vacuum cannot be infinite?


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #42568 02/13/12 01:55 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
From a QM perspective information can not be created nor destroyed so a vacuum is most certainly finite, I am not sure what Dirac thought we have moved along way since his era.

Take an infinite number conceptually we understand it the biggest number that can exist and it has no real value. However when we take infinity into a practical world say even on a computer or calculator it has to take a finite form based on the decimal places that can be represented on the device.

I keep explaining to you infinity is an illussion like a rainbow based solely on perception. A rainbow is real you can see it but it is also an illussion ... observations are not necessarily reliable something Einstein hated.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Bill S. #42570 02/13/12 02:25 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570

Orac, I empathise with your frustration in dealing with someone who must seem unable to grasp a relatively straightforward concept. I accept that the rainbow is almost as illusory as the crock of gold at its base. I accept that for all practical purposes infinity is an illusion. I also accept that those who find infinity encroaching on their work have to devise a way to make it practical. I realise that without the “shut up and calculate brigade” in QM our technological progress would stagnate, and that the same sort of concept has to be applied to infinity.

However, having said all that, I suspect that QM could tell us more about reality than we need to know to build computers and the like. I also suspect that there must be more to infinity than illusion. If there were not, we would not be here to have this discussion.


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #42571 02/13/12 04:45 PM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
You answered your own question to a degree ... on one hand you accept that a rainbow is an illussion yet for some reason you feel certain that infinity is not.

Can I ask why?

Take human experience.

- Originally the universe was a flat earth
- In the 1500's we progressed to earth centre of universe and sun and moon circling it.
- Progressively we realized there was more bodies and our universe grew.
- By 1900's and Einstein we had progressed to the known universe as you would refer to it.

QM is simply telling us the universe is even bigger and more complex than that, if by the universe you mean the term to encompass all known things.

Is that the end of the line? ... it might not be we can not know at this point in time there may be something beyond that.

My problem with your conjecture is we can not even clearly define the universe and you worry about is it infinite or not ... to me thats a bit strange.

Last edited by Orac; 02/13/12 04:45 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Bill S. #42574 02/13/12 06:29 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
Originally the universe was a flat earth
- In the 1500's we progressed to earth centre of universe and sun and moon circling it.


Historically, I think you have fallen into the “Dark Ages” trap here. The idea that educated Europeans believed the Earth was flat until Columbus accidentally bumped into America is; like the idea of the Dark Ages; an invention of French and Italian Humanists who seemed to feel that there was not enough about the Church in the Middle Ages that they could criticise, and had to think up some extra bits. However, that’s an aside.

Quote:
QM is simply telling us the universe is even bigger and more complex than that, if by the universe you mean the term to encompass all known things.


You will recall that the way in which I use “Universe”, “universe” and “cosmos” is intended to avoid confusion as to what I might “mean the term to encompass”.

All I am saying is that if the cosmos were not eternal (infinite), there would still be nothing now.

Quote:
My problem with your conjecture is we can not even clearly define the universe and you worry about is it infinite or not ... to me thats a bit strange.


We don’t actually need to define the universe in order to conclude that something must always have existed, and this conclusion necessitates an infinity that does not lend itself to renormalization.

Outside science? Perhaps, but is it further out than strings, multiple universes and a multitude of extra dimensions?


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #42577 02/14/12 12:24 AM
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Just a thought on illusion. Why choose the rainbow, especially? Anything presumed from it's appearance to be something other than it actually is, is an illusion, the rainbow being no more nor less so. The whole of what we perceive to be reality may be regarded as illusion, since we can perceive it only in a limited way by limited means, and are therefore limited to erroneous mental representations. In attempting to understand reality, it seems to me that infinity is comprehensible whereas the back of my hand, ultimately, is not.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
We don’t actually need to define the universe in order to conclude that something must always have existed
I second that motion.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Bill S. #42587 02/14/12 10:33 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Rede
I second that motion.


Thanks Rede; but I notice you avoided mention of the second half of the sentence. smile


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #42588 02/14/12 10:41 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Rede
The whole of what we perceive to be reality may be regarded as illusion............it seems to me that infinity is comprehensible…


Why might infinity be different from the rest of reality?


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #42591 02/15/12 02:30 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
There is an article for you to read Bill S it is fairly technical but should be understandable.

It explains why gravity can't be entropy which cuts right to the basis of your argument.

http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2010/01/erik-verlinde-why-gravity-cant-be.html


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Bill S. #42593 02/15/12 05:41 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Thanks for the link, Orac. You are right, it is fairly technical.

I think I managed to grasp enough of it to follow the general argument. All I have to do now is go back to my OP to see if I can remember what I was trying to figure out at the time, and see how this article impacts on that.


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #42597 02/15/12 06:38 PM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
General rule 1 for objects: "objects" only look "discrete" when we describe them in a superficial manner, without looking into their structure. The discrete social security number or drivers licence is only a good description of a person for those who are not interested about anything else connected with the person.


General rule 2 for objects: No two discrete objects can ever be identical. The closer you look at an object the more fuzzy the object becomes and subtle differences appear even between two seemingly identical objects. Take this down to the ultimate two identical atoms which can not be seperated in any way will spontaneously decay at different times. This implies whatever any discrete object is built out of has imperfections or fluctuations.


Entropy is a description of the relative order of discrete objects. Now look again at rules 1 and 2. How could entropy be anything other than a general description of discrete objects in much the same way as temperature is a measure of the speed of vibration of particles. Knowing the temperature of something does not tell you anything about how the temperature came about and similarly knowing the entropy of something tells you nothing deeper.

Last edited by Orac; 02/15/12 06:39 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Bill S. #42601 02/15/12 09:10 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
One of the problems with this thread is that infinity keeps causing a distraction; I can't think how that happens. smile

Earlier I quoted from a linked article and asked a question which I think I need answered in order to progress.


Quote:
Where statistical mechanics claims that the entropy of a stable equilibrium system represents the ultimate disorder of the system, the unified quantum theory claims that it represents perfect order of the system.



I have probably not understood this, but it seems to be saying that SM regards entropy as “ultimate disorder”, while QM sees it as “perfect order”.

Could be I need putting right on that before trying to go any further.


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #42605 02/16/12 05:19 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Again a frame of reference issue ... I will sort of dumb it down to ridiculous to make the point

QM everything slops around in and out of existance so if you have something doing that it's pretty normal (low QM entropy), if you have something solid and organized then it's pretty non QM'ish (high QM entropy).


Classic physics says something that is solid and ordered is pretty normal (low entropy) something that is randomly jumping around is unordered and not normal (high entropy).

So classic physics say things go from low to high entropy as stated by the classic law of thermodynamics.

QM would sort of say you observed or applied some force to lock the solid object into being solid it really wants to be the floppy random thing and eventually it will do so by decaying if nothing else happens.

So yes they are opposites because classic physics wants things to be solid, discrete and should exist forever, QM says everything is floppy and fuzzy and even locking something into an observed state it will eventually decay back into the fuzzy floppy state.

Rough and ready but it sort of explains the different backgrounds.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

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 UsokĀž»­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