Infinities in science

[Aos Si]

Certainly, a finite ensemble of particles cannot contain an infinite amount of energy, or exhibit an infinite temperature.

However, when considering the universe as a whole, it is not yet possible to decide whether it is finite in terms of mass, energy or number of particles, or bounded in terms of space-time...

Yeah do you think I am going to persuade this guy of that? Another all too human action when just plain wrong about something is to argue no matter how hopeless the argument is until your dignity is in shreads, to infinity and beyond ad nauseum. At some fundamental level he must know how ridiculous he sounds, but his ego is keeping him going and his e reputation in the face of his adoring fans is too much of a heavy weight to shrug off. Hell the mod who banned me actually did so because he warned me and then while I was editing for spelling he assumed I reposted it with edits included on purpose, so that there was no time to even see that I had been warned let alone react to it. Do you think I'll get an apology from him for messing up either. More chance of the moon being made of cheese actually. As Homer said about elephants its like with people, some people are just dicks. Ahhhhhh someone is being correct about science, ban him quick!!!!

Yes and that is what makes us not to sure about the universes infinity, from our perspective it is though so we just say it is all there is as far as is knowable.

I can tell you though I have no doubt that human stupidity is infinite even though like Einstein I am not sure about the Universe. These are the only real infinities and even they are finite, space-time is finite even if from our perspective it is eternal and unbound, one thing that is of comfort at least there are fortunately only a finite amount of idiots.

[Aos Si]

I'm not sure I like the term infinity. Isn't discontinuity a better term? When things tend towards 'the infinite' they are actually moving towards a discontinous point on the graph. The difficulty in working out the point at which a curve is going to break means there is a element of ambiguity and this might explain why infinity as a term gathered some of its mystical taint?

I think my favourite term is non linear at the asymptote.

Like this:



Which incidentally is quite an apt model of temperature, where complex quantum formulations of particle probabilities are in the imaginary plane i = x,y,z,t and x,y,z are real values of temperature if you imagine a 4D graph

The asymptotes are 0 and infinity both of which are approached but never reached.

I can get him to agree to that but not to real world experiment agreeing with that graph. Which is another problem. He claims he can measure infinity in an experiment because the maths produces infinities at negative kelvin temperatures. This may sound semantic but that is not measuring an infinity, it is misappropriating maths axioms to pretend you have, if the temperature is numerable then by definition it cannot be infinite nor can the energy or the heat actually be measured as such nor can any renormalise statistical ensemble contain infinite kinetic energy or infinite degrees of freedom for that matter. I have explained renormalisation as well but when I claimed we square the wave function to produce positive energy densities someone argued that you cannot square the wave function and about the semantics of what that commonly used term means like a gimp.

He is now claiming that the average temperature and or number or arangement of particles and related phonons, or the statistical ensemble of a material has no bearing on temperature which is just flat out crackpottery. Hence infinite temperature is achievable. I think the guys so far into the maths that he can't see the wood for the trees but its not my problem, it's the cohort of croniest idiots he's misleading that have to suffer with bad science.

Of course the average temperature of a material has something to do with heat, ffs? Are you a moron? What else would relate to a measurement at any point x,t in the material? Numb nut?

[Tero]

It's much easier to teach things we know rather than things we speculate. I prefer to deal with things on this planet. For instance, matter almost never turns into energy. Most of it has been around for billions of years in the same elements.

[Atheist-Lite]

It's much easier to teach things we know rather than things we speculate. I prefer to deal with things on this planet. For instance, matter almost never turns into energy. Most of it has been around for billions of years in the same elements.

If this is a simulation things may be different and there is no evidence otherwise. In that the standard theory is full of pinholes of 'infinity' and really doesn't make much sense [-why is the universe expanding faster? dark energy? and then there's the horizon problem? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_problem ] It is best to go with the simplest approach and say 'computers can model reality and a large enough computer can model this one' inconsistancy/discontinuity is part and parcel of extremes in any simulation.

[Aos Si]

It's much easier to teach things we know rather than things we speculate. I prefer to deal with things on this planet. For instance, matter almost never turns into energy. Most of it has been around for billions of years in the same elements.

Yeah very true but this guy has got so up himself that things he doesn't know becomes real, and if he talks enough shit it becomes so because he is followed round by so many sycophantic idiots that he can't be wrong ( and because of all his ass licks, you must be wrong for challenging his magnificence!). He just admitted he can be wrong, but not found wrong by the likes of me because I am not worthy of his majesty, the guys just a colossal cunt. I have him on permanent ignore now. And he will remain so forever. It's hard enough to study my subject as it is without idiots claiming impossible things. The guy tried to get me banned so he wouldn't have to admit his error, some elephants are just dicks.

What can you do when they have all the mods in their pockets, and a band of followers so in love with them that they actually believe that he cannot be wrong? It's a dictatorship, it's run by idiots for idiots. Seems like it needs to get some perspective. Science is about thinking for yourself not having some chump do all your thinking for you so you don't have to.

[JimC]

Aos Si wrote:
It's a dictatorship, it's run by idiots for idiots.

At Ratz, part of that statement is true...

But we can't know which part until the cat dies...

[Aos Si]

Aos Si wrote:
It's a dictatorship, it's run by idiots for idiots.

At Ratz, part of that statement is true...

But we can't know which part until the cat dies...

I can tell you where this idiot lives, so you can make up your mind just how much of a crackpot he is, but I don't even think its worth bothering; he apparently is well educated and I suspect works as some sort of scientist. This he believes gives him the right to an opinion and not me, because I am not at the post doctorate stage and am still just studying this?

The thread was actually about negative pressure which is no all that contentious, it was only when he started having a go at me when I said 0k and 0 of absolute space do not exist physically, that he suddenly bust a gasket and accused me of trying to say 0 pressure and 0 gravity do not exist when I was talking about energy concerns. This then lead him to opine that infinities physically exist as in heat, at which point I started calling the condescending asshole a complete liar about the subject and no such equation relates to an actual infinity of kinetic energy of average in temperature both of which, despite him contending otherwise are underlying concepts and foundations of temperature AKA heat.

[mistermack]

I haven't read the whole thread here, but just a comment on infinities.
We fundamentally use infinity in physics. If you say that energy cannot be created or destroyed, then it must be infinitely old. So the fundamental laws of physics rely on infinity being real.
If you go down the rather silly route (imo) of claiming that the Universe was created from nothing in the big bang, then you deny the laws of thermodynamics, and you are dabbling in all sorts of infinities. As SOMETHING is infinitely more than NOTHING.
As soon as you claim that something arose from nothing, you are making a claim about real infinities existing and happening.

There is no way you can possibly describe existence, without real infinities.

[JimC]

I haven't read the whole thread here, but just a comment on infinities.
We fundamentally use infinity in physics. If you say that energy cannot be created or destroyed, then it must be infinitely old. So the fundamental laws of physics rely on infinity being real.
If you go down the rather silly route (imo) of claiming that the Universe was created from nothing in the big bang, then you deny the laws of thermodynamics, and you are dabbling in all sorts of infinities. As SOMETHING is infinitely more than NOTHING.
As soon as you claim that something arose from nothing, you are making a claim about real infinities existing and happening.

There is no way you can possibly describe existence, without real infinities.

At the level of the Universe as a whole, I agree.

At the level Aos Si was fuming about, infinite energy within a finite collection of particles, no...

It is also interesting that quantum dynamics runs into mathematical difficulties when probing either very small regions of space or very high energy levels or both, difficulties which involve a plethora of un-calculatable infinities. Feynman sorted it with a quick fix called re-normalisation, but always regarded that as a quick and dirty cheat, rather than an elegant solution...

[Atheist-Lite]

I've heard David Deautch, however you spell it, talks about infinity in his new book. I haven't bought it since it got panned, maybe he was long winded or something like before, only worse?

http://living.scotsman.com/books/Book-r ... 6737336.jp

[Aos Si]

I haven't read the whole thread here, but just a comment on infinities.
We fundamentally use infinity in physics. If you say that energy cannot be created or destroyed, then it must be infinitely old. So the fundamental laws of physics rely on infinity being real.
If you go down the rather silly route (imo) of claiming that the Universe was created from nothing in the big bang, then you deny the laws of thermodynamics, and you are dabbling in all sorts of infinities. As SOMETHING is infinitely more than NOTHING.
As soon as you claim that something arose from nothing, you are making a claim about real infinities existing and happening.

There is no way you can possibly describe existence, without real infinities.

"There are only two infinities the universe and human stupidity, and I am not to sure about the first one."

Albert Einstein.

No one would disagree that from our perspective the universe is indeed everything unbounded, an infinity. These are not the droids we are looking for though.

[surreptitious57]

Regarding the Big Bang : there is no such thing as nothing. Regarding infinity : Infinity only exists as an abstraction and not as a reality since this would be impossible. The Universe may be 13.72 billion years old and 150 billion in diameter, but that is still finite, You will only find infinity in mathematics or theoretical physics. So for example, the number of decimal places that exist between 1 and 2 are infinte. A super computer itself operating for infinity wouldn't be able to calculate the total number. So infinity only exists as a concept, It is not physical.

[Aos Si]

Regarding the Big Bang : there is no such thing as nothing. Regarding infinity : Infinity only exists as an abstraction and not as a reality since this would be impossible. The Universe may be 13.72 billion years old and 150 billion in diameter, but that is still finite, You will only find infinity in mathematics or theoretical physics. So for example, the number of decimal places that exist between 1 and 2 are infinte. A super computer itself operating for infinity wouldn't be able to calculate the total number. So infinity only exists as a concept, It is not physical.

Exactly but some people believe sets of numbers like the decimals which are indeed themselves infinite and made up of infinite divisors and integral limits depict real thermal values or sub atomic excitations instead of being renormalisation limits or mathematical axioms respectively.

I'm not going to post on that forum any more, have decided, there's no reasoning with people who's ego matters more than scientific integrity. You can't win against his wall o' sycophants either. All they do is attack semantically and don't adress your points, it's not worth wasting my time on brown nosers and intellectual snobs. I may post a last post just to say why I am not going to post any more but that'll be it.

[Atheist-Lite]

Regarding the Big Bang : there is no such thing as nothing. Regarding infinity : Infinity only exists as an abstraction and not as a reality since this would be impossible. The Universe may be 13.72 billion years old and 150 billion in diameter, but that is still finite, You will only find infinity in mathematics or theoretical physics. So for example, the number of decimal places that exist between 1 and 2 are infinte. A super computer itself operating for infinity wouldn't be able to calculate the total number. So infinity only exists as a concept, It is not physical.

Mathematics and theoretical physics exist within the universe, even if they deal in abstractions, so the universe contains a hint of infinity even if not the entire thing?

[Aos Si]

Regarding the Big Bang : there is no such thing as nothing. Regarding infinity : Infinity only exists as an abstraction and not as a reality since this would be impossible. The Universe may be 13.72 billion years old and 150 billion in diameter, but that is still finite, You will only find infinity in mathematics or theoretical physics. So for example, the number of decimal places that exist between 1 and 2 are infinte. A super computer itself operating for infinity wouldn't be able to calculate the total number. So infinity only exists as a concept, It is not physical.

Mathematics and theoretical physics exist within the universe, even if they deal in abstractions, so the universe contains a hint of infinity even if not the entire thing?

The universe is an infinity, the hint is all around us, anything that is smaller than its total of mass and energy is by definition not infinite because it is bounded by the universe, which as far as we can know is unbounded.

The law of thermodynamics states that matter cannot be created or destroyed, hence another infinity cannot exist inside infinity in real science terms because the laws of nature forbid it. It's not even hard to comprehend philosophically, a child could do it, which is what I find truly amazing about this guy. A professional who will not be told there is a difference between infinite temperature or heat and an actual physically concrete measurement of an infinite. This is however what happens when terms are given labels that are parodoxical like -K or nominative descriptors like infinite heat. Same problems happen with the term teleportation to apply to entangled particles. People start imagining all sorts of bs.