Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Natural Environment
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Natural Environment How Human History has been impacted by the environment, science, nature, geography, weather, and natural phenomena


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 28th, 2012, 03:14 AM   #221
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlpinLuke View Post
I would suggest to carry the thread back to cosmology [leaving for a while our interesting, but a bit pedant, philosophical digression about infinite].

In cosmology we could infer [according to astronomical observations which add information time by time, so it's a work in progress] the geometry of the space time which can tell us if the universe tends to infinite [in cosmology this means that the universe is infinite, since we won't have enough time to observe such an infinite existence of the universe cosmology projects the tendency. If a math function generates a curve, stated the function, we've got the certainty of its future aspect. It's math].

So ... regarding the geometry of the universe, making it simple, we can have 3 cases, one indicating that it's finite, two indicating that it's infinite.

Click the image to open in full size.
Maths is not "certainty" by itself; it is just exactly as certain as its input.

Making it simple, the input of the 3 cases above is largely hypothetical, a "work in progress".

The abstract mathematical expression "tends to infinite" is not synonymous of any concrete (non-abstract) "infinity"

This expression has alredy been explained in a previous post.

In this particular case, as you have actually already explained, it just implies your own time limitations for observing the universe; period.

Among other reasons, because an infinite time period couldn't be contained in your inevitably finite graphics above

Needless to say, the same applies to absolutely all equations and mathematical operations which results may "tend to infinite"; please note that the number of such operations actually "tends to infinite"

Last edited by sylla1; November 28th, 2012 at 03:21 AM.
sylla1 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 28th, 2012, 03:34 AM   #222
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlpinLuke View Post
Well, the geometry of the space [as for we know today] is influenced and determined by gravity, that is to say mass.

Mass is not an innate characteristic of particles. As at LHC they are studying, it's the interaction with the field of Higgs to give a mass to a particle. This field is carried by a "virtual particle" called "Boson of Higgs".

This is for the mass - gravity of what we see, but this is not enough [at least from astronomical observations] to explain what seems to be a totally open [so in projection infinite] universe.

Other kinds of matter [mass], the dark matter, the "exotic matter", or even other kinds of energy [negative energy] could exist. To explain the existence of similar factors and how they influence the geometry of the space [so the nature and the destiny of the universe] classic mechanics and relativity are not enough. Quantum Mechanics is required.

To say all, relativity says nothing, directly, about the boundaries of the universe. Einstein for example was persuaded that the universe is finite, but without limits [1917, the relativistic model of the universe; then identified in cosmology with the spherical geometry].
Any explicit quotation of Mr Einstein?
Maybe the right context may help explain the apparent contradiction here of your explanation of his words.

Quantum mechanics are extremely useful and required for myriad things (its applications "tend to infinite"); from such obviousness alone you can't imply that anything of what has been stated here on QM by you, EoR or anyone else may even remotely be related with determining the limits of the universe.

When I look to they night sky it also "seems to be a totally open [so in projection infinite] universe" to me; but the OP is about facts, not impressions.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 28th, 2012, 03:48 AM   #223

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 9,458
Blog Entries: 13

Indeed, this site quotes Einstein thought and then presents a brief introduction to his cosmology.

Albert Einstein Cosmology, Physics: Uniting Finite-Infinite. WSM Explains Albert Einstein's Cosmology
AlpinLuke is offline  
Old November 28th, 2012, 03:59 AM   #224

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 9,458
Blog Entries: 13

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Any explicit quotation of Mr Einstein?
Maybe the right context may help explain the apparent contradiction here of your explanation of his words.

Quantum mechanics are extremely useful and required for myriad things (its applications "tend to infinite"); from such obviousness alone you can't imply that anything of what has been stated here on QM by you, EoR or anyone else may even remotely be related with determining the limits of the universe.

When I look to they night sky it also "seems to be a totally open [so in projection infinite] universe" to me; but the OP is about facts, not impressions.
About this, that's the result which we can infer from what we can observe now.

In reality [factual reality] if you discover that a process is described by a math function you can predict it.

If Y = 2 + x

when x = 1 Y will be 3
when x = 5 Y will be 7

... and so on ...

What is difficult [and this is why the discussion is open] is to find out the curve of the function in the long term.

"A circle with infinite ray is a straight line"


this incredible principle of geometry is simple to see looking at the horizon: it's a circle, but in our eyes it appear flat, straight. Because it's enormous.

So what can seem to be a certain function in a stated temporal frame can seem different enlarging that temporal frame.
AlpinLuke is offline  
Old November 28th, 2012, 03:59 AM   #225

Earl_of_Rochester's Avatar
Scoundrel
Member of the Year
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Perambulating in St James' Park
Posts: 11,080

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
So your position is just that the universe is not sensical for you?
What exactly does that pretend to prove?

You are misunderstanding Heisenberg's principle; particles are not in several points at the same time, you simply can't know simultaneously their position and their momentum. And of course this principle is irrelevant for the OP too.
I'm afraid they are, you clearly do not understand the principles of Quantum Mechanics. Prof Brian Cox clearly states that the Quantum particle takes an infinite amount of different paths. Atomic particles can be in several places at the same time. If you disagree with this then feel free to contact the Cavendish lab at Cambridge University and tell them that you don't agree with the fundamental principles of nature.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Actually old boy, if you have claimed that the Universe is infinite, you have claimed that it has no boundary and went on forever; period.
Playing with words is not helping your case either.
There may be different instances at which this infinity occurs, it may not work for Newtonian objects the size of the universe, planets or you or I because Newtonian objects tend to stay in the same place. But QM allows for a different kind of physics and it may well be possible for the infinite to exist at the Quantum level.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
You insist in your fallacious false attribution; smells are also "associated with the universe", So?
What exactly does being "associated with the universe" have to do with determining the limits of the Universe?
Answer: nothing.

You have systematically failed to explain why the number of potential positions of subatomic particles (which again is actually not even literally "infinite") should be related at all with the limits of the universe.

You case still makes no sense, and being unable to find any sense in the rest of the universe doesn't make it any better.

Smells are a sense, QM are particles and part of our physical reality. There's rather a large difference between the two. If something's part of the physical reality of space, like an atom, then it is also part of the universe.

I think you'll find that Quantum Mechanics does not make sense, this might come as news to you.
Earl_of_Rochester is offline  
Old November 28th, 2012, 04:30 AM   #226

ib-issi's Avatar
>>Its Just Passing Time<<
 
Joined: Mar 2011
From: just sitting here
Posts: 3,005

Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl_of_Rochester View Post

I think you'll find that Quantum Mechanics does not make sense, this might come as news to you.
Thanks for that Earl ...i can say i understand Quantum Mechanics, because to me they have never made sense.

There are too many posts here that i do not grasp .. so i am going to content myself with the thought that at least i am intelligent enough to realise i am not intelligent enough to grasp it ......and shall be reading everyones posts with the hope that a penny may drop somewhere along the line.
ib-issi is offline  
Old November 28th, 2012, 04:40 AM   #227

Earl_of_Rochester's Avatar
Scoundrel
Member of the Year
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Perambulating in St James' Park
Posts: 11,080

Quote:
Originally Posted by ib-issi View Post
Thanks for that Earl ...i can say i understand Quantum Mechanics, because to me they have never made sense.

There are too many posts here that i do not grasp .. so i am going to content myself with the thought that at least i am intelligent enough to realise i am not intelligent enough to grasp it ......and shall be reading everyones posts with the hope that a penny may drop somewhere along the line.

My previous video with Prof Richard Feynman explains the concept quite well.

When the professor explains it to the degree students after three years of studying physics they don't understand it.

That's because the professor doesn't understand it, no-one does.

QM does not follow the rules of normal physics. A particle can be in two places at the same time and apparently in an infinite amount of different places within its cloud of probability (the cloud of probability being where we think the particle is when we're not observing it). It can also pass through physical barriers (quantum tunneling)* and a few other weird things.

What's most disturbing is that the world is made up of these fundamental particles, but somewhere along the line things stop behaving strangely and start to adopt the usual attributes associated with the normal world.


Quantum_tunnelling Quantum_tunnelling
Earl_of_Rochester is offline  
Old November 28th, 2012, 04:52 AM   #228
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlpinLuke View Post
About this, that's the result which we can infer from what we can observe now.

In reality [factual reality] if you discover that a process is described by a math function you can predict it.

If Y = 2 + x

when x = 1 Y will be 3
when x = 5 Y will be 7

... and so on ...

What is difficult [and this is why the discussion is open] is to find out the curve of the function in the long term.

"A circle with infinite ray is a straight line"


this incredible principle of geometry is simple to see looking at the horizon: it's a circle, but in our eyes it appear flat, straight. Because it's enormous.

So what can seem to be a certain function in a stated temporal frame can seem different enlarging that temporal frame.
Needless to say, such nice basic geometry principle couldn't be any more abstract; in practice and in this real universe, there is no "infinite ray" (radius?) to begin with
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 28th, 2012, 05:04 AM   #229
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl_of_Rochester View Post
I'm afraid they are, you clearly do not understand the principles of Quantum Mechanics. Prof Brian Cox clearly states that the Quantum particle takes an infinite amount of different paths. Atomic particles can be in several places at the same time. If you disagree with this then feel free to contact the Cavendish lab at Cambridge University and tell them that you don't agree with the fundamental principles of nature.



There may be different instances at which this infinity occurs, it may not work for Newtonian objects the size of the universe, planets or you or I because Newtonian objects tend to stay in the same place. But QM allows for a different kind of physics and it may well be possible for the infinite to exist at the Quantum level.




Smells are a sense, QM are particles and part of our physical reality. There's rather a large difference between the two. If something's part of the physical reality of space, like an atom, then it is also part of the universe.

I think you'll find that Quantum Mechanics does not make sense, this might come as news to you.
First, and with all due respect, from what you have shared with us here I'm afraid you doesn't seem to be particularly suited at all to teach us anything about QM

That said, your bizarre point is, has been and will continue being infinitely irrelevant for the OP until you may explain any such even remotely potential relevance for the OP.


Again, you are simply attempting a bizarre fallacious false attribution from mere fallacious bare assertion.

In plain English, just explain here why should the (BTW evidently finite) number of positions of any subatomic particle be related at all with the determination of the limits of the Universe.

Just easy as that;
no more, no less.

Because so far, you have been absolutely unable to explain that: in fact, you have been actively evading any such explanation "tending to infinite" times.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 28th, 2012, 05:05 AM   #230

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 9,458
Blog Entries: 13

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Needless to say, such nice basic geometry principle couldn't be any more abstract; in practice and in this real universe, there is no "infinite ray" (radius?) to begin with
This is quite evident ...

radius not ray [my "Italian English" pops up here and there]
AlpinLuke is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Natural Environment

Tags
finite, infinite, universe


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Where did the Universe come from irishcrusader95 Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 70 December 24th, 2012 10:44 AM
The Universe: Finite, closed, open or shut or what? Gile na Gile Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 46 July 27th, 2012 04:06 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.