|
0 members (),
619
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 104
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 104 |
Because infinity does not involve either time or measurable space, there can be no change in infinity. Everything just “is”.
Our universe appears to have come into being at the BB, and time and space came into existence at the same spacetime event.
So I guess, back to the original question, the answer would be 'no'. The universe is not a mathematical construct. However... Our 'known universe' could be. Whether big bang, or space ghosts, everything after 'known universe' creation seems to have a mathematical representation. This, of course, could be because we are a fabrication of the known universe's creation, and we created mathematics based on observations of said known universe. Everything is what we say it is, until something else proves otherwise. I am pleased to read the discussions on this matter. It's good to know there are people still thinking outside the box, or universe, as it were. As far as t=0, I disagree. Even Star Trek TNG covered the possibility of negative time when basing it on present observation. Was a mind f--- of an episode, but it sure gets one thinking. Time itself exists only because of observation. Once observation was defined, time was defined. This does not mean the universe, or known universe, follows the same concept. It only means we use it as a basis for comparison, and a way to relate the happenings around us. I wish there was a t=0 though. Would sure make time travel easier.
Laziness breeds innovation
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
Would sure make time travel easier. I think it would make no difference to future directed time travel, and past directed time travel works only if "you" are the only one who can do it. 
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 104
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 104 |
Would sure make time travel easier. I think it would make no difference to future directed time travel, and past directed time travel works only if "you" are the only one who can do it. My mind can travel backward, but my body sure can't...
Laziness breeds innovation
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
And you understand me correctly Bill S and it is becoming important to science and QM If I asked you to show me an infinite line in mathematics you draw a line with arrows both ends if you draw a line with an arrow one end it would be marked wrong. The problem started getting confused in English language when we started using infinite with expectation value range of the use. So no one has an expectation that distance for example can go negative (a negative sign is just a reference) so if I say infinite distance a one sided infinite is perfectly fine and neither parties would be confused. We would also say that infinite distance can never be real it's just a notional idea because you can't actually fix the two points. What Rede and Bill are doing is making time expectation basis one sided without realizing that is what they are doing and not wanting to discuss what that one sided expectation is built on. Where I am trying to get them to look at is T-symmetry ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-symmetry)
Time reversal in quantum mechanics
Two-dimensional representations of parity are given by a pair of quantum states that go into each other under parity. However, this representation can always be reduced to linear combinations of states, each of which is either even or odd under parity. One says that all irreducible representations of parity are one-dimensional. Kramers' theorem states that time reversal need not have this property because it is represented by an anti-unitary operator.
This section contains a discussion of the three most important properties of time reversal in quantum mechanics; chiefly,
1.that it must be represented as an anti-unitary operator,
2.that it protects non-degenerate quantum states from having an electric dipole moment,
3.that it has two-dimensional representations with the property T2 = -1.
The strangeness of this result is clear if one compares it with parity. If parity transforms a pair of quantum states into each other, then the sum and difference of these two basis states are states of good parity. Time reversal does not behave like this. It seems to violate the theorem that all abelian groups be represented by one dimensional irreducible representations. The reason it does this is that it is represented by an anti-unitary operator. It thus opens the way to spinors in quantum mechanics.
So yes what started out as a philosophical discussion I am going to invert on them because they are missing some understanding that science is aware of.
Last edited by Orac; 07/22/13 11:16 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840 |
[quote=redewenur]
Despite the red text, you and science are, once again, not in agreement. As I've told you, the so-called half-infinite ray is in fact infinite. Has it occurred to you that there's no such thing as half of infinity, regardless of the nomenclature of convenience used by geometricians?
Complete garbage you can write a mathematical proof it ... it is dead simple it was done in the 18th century.
Here let me do it in layman terms for you.
Your and Bill's infinity is zero to positive infinity ... so I give you one number -1 is that in your range .... answer NO.
You don't seem to see the meaning of Cantor's theorem, Orac. Cantor showed that there are different orders of infinity, i.e. that some infinite sets are larger than others. However, any infinite set, by definition, contains an infinity of elements belonging to that set. The fact that it doesn't include elements that are not in that set does not mean that the set is less than infinite.
Therefore your infinity in not infinity of all numbers because I can give you a number outside the set.
Who said it was? No wonder you're confused.
Cantor showed in 1891 that by that statement alone you don't have an infinite set
No, that's not what he showed. Check the wiki page again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor's_theorem
Your infinity is the positive infinity, a half infinity or even the infinity of positive real numbers BUT IT IS NOT INFINITY OF ALL NUMBERS ... blabber all you like it simply isn't any child can see it isn't and you can prove it.
So you do see that the set of positive integers is an infinite set? good. Nobody has said that it's a set of all numbers, and it does indeed have lesser cardinality. But please cut out the "blabber", and other offensive remarks.
To claim so is beyond stupid and science, mathematics and I are in complete agreement no matter what your ridiculous claim.
There you go again, Orac. Are you incapable of coping with a thread without remarks such as "beyond stupid"?
If you have a start point you can't have an absolute infinity of anything geometric, mathematics or in physics because something exists outside the set UNLESS you truncate it.
No one is suggesting your "absolute infinity". We are discussing infinities of differing cardinality.
The only way you can make your stupid infinity conform to an absolute infinity is by truncating the set by another rule .... in your case by discarding or ruling out negative numbers.
"Stupid" again, Orac? You are insisting on an absolute infinity. I wonder why. Any infinite set will do, including the set of positive integers.
Infinite time must by definition run from minus infinity to positive infinity seconds if you put a start in then there exists a time which must be before the start and time is therefore not infinite because a time exists outside the set. If you want to have that definition you have a positive infinite time but that is really interesting.
To show you how interesting it gets lets use you definition of infinity (0 ... positive infinity) the interesting question it poses and I want you to think on is what physics would cause that ... you just established an arrow of time with absolutely no basis for doing it ... your basis as best we can make out is you don't like negative numbers.
Why are you discussing time? I wasn't. As stated, the positive integers are an example of an infinite set. But if you want to talk about the infinite set that includes all negative integers, that's fine. Or perhaps you'd like to talk about the infinite set of real numbers.
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
Walk backup the thread the thing we were discussing was a paradox of two words INFINTE TIME What I am explicitly saying is that has two words ... extract the meanings INFINITE = a set containing all possible values TIME = the thing the set is made of What Bill did was then say you could go from t=0 to infinity as infinite time. My objection is simple you made a MASSIVE assumption at that point. In other words Bill has converted INFINITE TIME into INFINITE POSITIVE TIME. The argument is not about the word infinite it is about what basis Bill has for making that assumption is valid you can't for example do that with a line. So forget the right hand positive infinity which you seem to be getting all hung up about he just truncated time at the start point with no reasonable justification by looks other than he doesn't like it. The problem here is that logic in classic physics is sort of nonsense and meaningless, Bill even sort of says that. So he justifies he can do it because of a word puzzle he can play in classic physics HOWEVER If we bring the standard model including it's QM underpin in now you can't just do that there is a massive problem in trying to do that and it is completely testable because you end up with a spinor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-symmetryLook at [Time reversal of the known dynamical laws]
Particle physics codified the basic laws of dynamics into the standard model. This is formulated as a quantum field theory that has CPT symmetry, i.e., the laws are invariant under simultaneous operation of time reversal, parity and charge conjugation. However, time reversal itself is seen not to be a symmetry (this is usually called CP violation). There are two possible origins of this asymmetry, one through the mixing of different flavours of quarks in their weak decays, the second through a direct CP violation in strong interactions. The first is seen in experiments, the second is strongly constrained by the non-observation of the EDM of a neutron.
It is important to stress that this time reversal violation is unrelated to the second law of thermodynamics, because due to the conservation of the CPT symmetry, the effect of time reversal is to rename particles as antiparticles and vice versa. Thus the second law of thermodynamics is thought to originate in the initial conditions in the universe.
So at a science level INFINITE TIME versus INFINITE POSITIVE TIME lead to different results and it is testable the fact those two things are different is profound and important.
Last edited by Orac; 07/23/13 01:53 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Megastar
|
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858 |
What Bill did was then say you could go from t=0 to infinity as infinite time. I have never said that time had a start. I clearly said that, for the purpose I was discussing, time was infinite. I then said that at some point in that infinite time a big bang happened. And as time went on the big bang faded back into the quantum nothingness. I also said I don't necessarily believe that is the way it is. Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
I then said that at some point in that infinite time a big bang happened. And as time went on the big bang faded back into the quantum nothingness.
And as I said science can show that is wrong at science, that statement is no different to the stance I take if a religious person says the universe is only 6000 years old. Post 2008 we can show the universe and time are both finite they have to be to start as demanded by the standard model, CDM cosmology and QM. Those theories and models lead directly back and we can define the initial conditions of the universe Go back and read T-symmetry article again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-symmetryAll science approaches now end up in the same position
This view, if it remains viable in the light of future cosmological observation, would connect this problem to one of the big open questions beyond the reach of today's physics — the question of initial conditions of the universe.
So science has a defined accepted position as prescribed by all it's main current theories and models that the universe is finite in size and time and with a start conditions and an unknown end condition. We can even set a time with error on the start 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ... see the error range that is a scientific statement not an approximation or a guess. The question of the initial conditions of the universe is outside science and is akin to asking a religious person does GOD have a GOD. Now you can chose not to accept the standard model and current theories and believe time and the universe are infinite, you can even play word games with infinite, but can you all please stop saying science says any of that because it doesn't. I have no doubt there may be scientists that don't accept that view as many religious people won't but in science we settle these things by the rule of "put up or shut up". If you don't like that as a scientist then off you go and overturn the standard model and all the current theories like CDM.
Last edited by Orac; 07/23/13 04:55 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840 |
Orac: "So science has a defined accepted position as prescribed by all it's main current theories and models that the universe is finite in size"
- 'Science' takes no such 'accepted' position, as anyone with a little time to spare will discover that for themselves from the web publications of real scientists. 'Science' simply does not know.
Orac:- "Those theories and models lead directly back and we can define the initial conditions of the universe".
- No 'we' can't. 'We' can get close to it, but GR cannot be applied to the Planck era, and a working theory of quantum gravity would probably be required to go further.
Orac:- Now you can chose not to accept the standard model and current theories and believe time and the universe are infinite, you can even play word games with infinite, but can you all please stop saying science says any of that because it doesn't."
- Since it's clear that you are not a scientist, you are in no position to advise people re what they should and should not say.
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
Believe what you want Rede ... that's your choice ... you want to construct an argument or leave it at that? I am more than happy to be called not a scientist call me a janitor if it makes you feel happy .... so you are the scientist I am the janitor construct your argument. For anyone interested in the more technical aspects the moment QM became bound into the creation of the universe via the standard model you have an initial state of the universe and that initial state has bounds and characteristics that you can't whimsically decide. One of the better online sources of the issues at a laymans level. I do warn it's background is quantum gravity but that is not important to explaining the issues http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/quantum_cosmo_path_integralsThe key point to the problem is you have to have an exact and described quantum state if QM is present at the birth of the universe and there are definitely only a few ways to do that the link gives you 3 (i) A universe without a past boundary (ii) Quantum tunneling (iii) Hardset physical symmetry So from a science point of view your challenge is to work out what initial quantum states of the universe can you think of and are they compatible with the current universe. The other alternative is to crush QM out of existence at the birth of the universe, this was the old method that was favoured by science in the era that GR dominated the landscape and the discovery of the Higgs ended. I am not here to tell you what is right or wrong but provoke discussion. Make your choice how you want to start the universe and layout your argument and lets see if it holds up to scrutiny.
Last edited by Orac; 07/23/13 08:09 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
For those who want a short version of why time can't be infinite in a QM universe http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/path_integralsThat formulation does special things to time
The replacement might seem artificial and implausible. In a way, it corresponds to transforming the time coordinate into just another space coordinate. Fact is, it makes the Feynman recipe give the right answers. There's even an exact proof, found by two mathematical physicists, Konrad Osterwalder from Switzerland and the German Robert Schrader: They proved a theorem showing that the properties of a quantum theory formulated in the space-time of special relativity can indeed be reconstructed exactly by using the Feynman recipe on an imaginary-time version of that same space-time.
So now your question is could any of that be done on an infinite volume of space and an infinite time. The answer is obvious .... NO because the path integrals become unbounded in the sample given above in the link the particle is now going from infinite point A to infinite point B via infinite points in between and the description is meaningless. So under path integrals Infinite time = Infinite space and it is a standard question asked routinely by people studying and thinking about QM http://physics.stackexchange.com/questio...mensional-spaceNote this echo's back to the particle-in-a-box you start out with in QM ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_in_a_box) You have to define a box or no calculations are possible. In other words QM is explicit you have to define a finite space or a finite time (and defining one defines the other) as stipulated by path integral mathematics. So unless you are arguing to crush QM out of existence at the beginning of the universe or you are arguing that path integral function is wrong then our universe must be finite in size and time. The CMBR creates the real problem because it was there at the beginning of the universe we have to be able to create a path integral on it and that has implications .... for some it may also explain why the CMBR becomes the "universe observer". You can go much deeper than this but I think that is sufficient to show you the problem. Rede since you are the scientist try Lubos explaining it http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2013/07/edward-witten-and-ivarepsilon.html ... he gives you multiple prescriptions to the problem and they all end the same way. I should say that those who don't like science but understand it usually try to explain it away like the philosopher Mortimer J. Adler did http://rogercostello.wordpress.com/2007/07/23/is-time-finite-or-infinite-time-before-the-big-bang/
Our present techniques of observation and measurement, and the technical facilities they employ, do not permit us to penetrate the past beyond the time, some fifteen to twenty billion years ago, when the big bang occurred.
What is being said here is not that past time is limited (finite rather than infinite), but only that our knowledge of past time is limited — limited to a time beyond which our observations and measurements cannot go. Time may extend back infinitely beyond that initial explosion of matter, out of which the present shape of the cosmos has developed, but unless some radical alteration in our techniques and instruments of observation and measurements occurs, we will never be able to penetrate the veil that hides the infinite past from us.
From a janitor perspective that is absolute garbage because I am not a philosopher and I have absolutely no data or any reason to even make a guess if time extends backwards and well may I ask does GOD have a GOD to a religious person. The answer to both questions is the same ... the question is stupid or at least not answerable.
Last edited by Orac; 07/23/13 12:45 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Megastar
|
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858 |
Orac, you are still putting words in my mouth. I never said that time had a start, but you do. I never said that time was infinite, but you claim I did. In every case I said I don't know. Now you claim that I am saying that QM is wrong. I'm not. I'm saying that QM doesn't answer all the questions. And I'm not going to accept anybody's word on the final answer until there is documented testing of the facts to support that answer. In the meantime I am still interested in speculation about that final answer. I also recognize that some of the speculation seems to make more sense than others.
Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
Orac, you are still putting words in my mouth. I never said that time had a start, but you do. I never said that time was infinite, but you claim I did. In every case I said I don't know. Now you claim that I am saying that QM is wrong. I'm not.
Ok .. I didn't quite get that from what you said ... you seemed to be insisting something which I obviously misunderstood?
I'm saying that QM doesn't answer all the questions.
As I keep telling you QM doesn't answer any questions it is not framed in that way ... it describes inevitable outcomes based on assumed conditions. Why those conditions are relevant it hasn't a clue. I keep trying to understand if again I miss what you mean in the above and you do get it but I lose it in translation because I keep having to say that statement. Just to be clear in QM is framed very much like GOD it is based on assumed priors (and I am not equating the two in any way beyond that). Try asking a religious person why GOD exists it is the same as asking QM to explain anything about the universe.
And I'm not going to accept anybody's word on the final answer until there is documented testing of the facts to support that answer.
The answer you seek can't be answered and never can be not even invoking GOD will solve the problem.
In the meantime I am still interested in speculation about that final answer.
From a science point all we can do is take everything back to the start of our observable universe which is really no different to religion and they call their observable universe GOD. So assuming we are staying within that time region yes speculation is interesting.
I also recognize that some of the speculation seems to make more sense than others.
Yes I realize that but at times you repeat things I feel that we have explained like "QM doesn't answer all the questions" .... we have clearly established QM doesn't answer any questions it doesn't seek to answer any it simply predicts things. The problem is we haven't ever found a prediction QM gets wrong and it's not for lack of trying.
Last edited by Orac; 07/23/13 02:43 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
So I guess, back to the original question, the answer would be 'no'. The universe is not a mathematical construct. That's probably a fair assumption. However, as I see it, that does not necessarily mean that we cannot devise mathematical constructs that might help us to understand the nature of the Universe. Undoubtedly that is what scientists and mathematicians are striving for all the time. If the bandying of a mixture of science, speculation, personal opinion and insults which seem to characterise this thread is anything to go by, "quot homines, tot sententiae" is still alive and well in SAGG; a situation which I applaud. Less fortunately, there seems still to be a tendency to ignore selected "sententiae".
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136 |
abundans cautela non nocet
acta deos numquam mortalia fallunt
ad meliora
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
semper in excretia sumus solim profundum variat Thank you Lord de Ramsey
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
Omnis hoc lingua Latina, vetus memorias adfert; sed,nimium vetus pro hoc stercore cresco.
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 104
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 104 |
So I guess, back to the original question, the answer would be 'no'. The universe is not a mathematical construct. That's probably a fair assumption. However, as I see it, that does not necessarily mean that we cannot devise mathematical constructs that might help us to understand the nature of the Universe. Undoubtedly that is what scientists and mathematicians are striving for all the time. If the bandying of a mixture of science, speculation, personal opinion and insults which seem to characterise this thread is anything to go by, "quot homines, tot sententiae" is still alive and well in SAGG; a situation which I applaud. Less fortunately, there seems still to be a tendency to ignore selected "sententiae". I agree. As I stated before, in too many words; math is based on observation, observation is not based on math. Believing the universe is a mathematical construct makes me think of the intelligent design concept. I don't agree with this idea, but I could see how people would find comfort in the belief. I like thinking our known universe may just be a tiny tranquil island, in an infinite ocean of pure chaos. Imagine the self aware 'meat' sacks in the next island over, thinking they know it all too. Just like vikings and the new world. All we need is a rickety boat, and some determined folks to make the trek. Give us a billion years or so, then maybe. Ahh, fantasies.
Laziness breeds innovation
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
Google translate Bill.S it makes mistakes. Change it to "deus" and it will make sense what Paul meant your showing off that you speak it Google translate of your phase is funny you will get a kick "All this, the Latin language, the old memories it brings;"
Last edited by Orac; 07/26/13 07:03 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
|
