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, 06:15 AM   #241
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl_of_Rochester View Post
Atoms are part of the fabric of reality, the universe itself. Therefore they are directly related to the OP - "is the universe infinite?" Atoms are the very building blocks of the universe. Do you require any further explanation for how atoms are related to the universe in a discussion about an infinite universe?




Smells are the chemical behaviour of atoms but the smell itself is detected by the senses. If you want to discuss the fundamental behaviour of atoms then you may join me in discussing QM.




Red Hot Chilis are composed of atoms but they behave as Newtonian objects. As I've attempted to explain in my previous post, Newtonian objects do not have the same properties as Quantum particles. Perhaps you don't understand the difference between Newtonian objects and Quantum particles?

I kindly suggest you study the subject further before making such sweeping statements which have nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
What "further explanation"?
You have yet to advance any single one.

Again, the fallacious red herrings tend to infinite here.

What exactly does being building blocks have to do with determining the limits of anything?
Not to mention Newtonian or non-Newtonian objects.
Absolutely nothing.

You are made of atoms too, and you behave as a Newtonian object too.
What does that obviousness tell us about your personal finiteness?
Exactly; absolutely nothing.
sylla1 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 28th, 2012, 06:23 AM   #242
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

[quote=Earl_of_Rochester;1271073]
Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post


If that's the case then why are subatomic particles shown to appear in two places at the same time? Not different particles, but the same one being in two different places at once.

Why does Prof Brian Cox also state that they take an infinite amount of paths?
For the same aforementioned reasons why Mathematicians and scientists use this expression for myriad (tending to infinite) mathematical operations, as already explained in this thread more than once.


And please read Cox and Feynman with more care; particles don't appear in two places at the same time.

Just remember that the full name of the Heisenberg Principle is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle; trust me, there's a reason for that.

Quote:
In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously.
The more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa
(Paraphrased from Heisenberg's original paper of 1927) Uncertainty principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But of course, this nice explanation is infinitely useless here, because all this stuff is entirely irrelevant for the OP.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 28th, 2012, 06:37 AM   #243

Earl_of_Rochester's Avatar
Scoundrel
Member of the Year
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Perambulating in St James' Park
Posts: 10,691

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
What "further explanation"?
You have yet to advance any single one.

Again, the fallacious red herrings tend to infinite here.

What exactly does being building blocks have to do with determining the limits of anything?
Not to mention Newtonian or non-Newtonian objects.
Absolutely nothing.

You are made of atoms too, and you behave as a Newtonian object too.
What does that obviousness tell us about your personal finiteness?
Exactly; absolutely nothing.
I'm still trying to figure out why you brought Newtonian objects into this discussion. Perhaps it's an obvious purple stickleback that explains nothing about your bizarre position and just the same fallacious false attribution from the same fallacious bare assertions, not to mention a blatant fallacious straw man with a cherry on top?

Unfortunately I have to drive to London now and move the rest of my kit from my flat, tho I shall continue this discussion when I've more time.
Earl_of_Rochester is offline  
Old November 28th, 2012, 06:42 AM   #244
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl_of_Rochester View Post
I'm still trying to figure out why you brought Newtonian objects into this discussion. Perhaps it's an obvious purple stickleback that explains nothing about your bizarre position and just the same fallacious false attribution from the same fallacious bare assertions, not to mention a blatant fallacious straw man with a cherry on top?

Unfortunately I have to drive to London now and move the rest of my kit from my flat, tho I shall continue this discussion when I've more time.
Please don't try to figure it any more and use wisely your time; rest assured it is not infinite.
I didn't bring Newtonian objects into this discussion; you did (more exactly in your post 225)

And yup, of course it couldn't be any greater and more obvious fallacious red herring

Even if they admittedly tend to infinite, you should probably keep track of your own arguments here, fallacious or not.

Last edited by sylla1; November 28th, 2012 at 06:49 AM.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 28th, 2012, 06:45 AM   #245
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl_of_Rochester View Post
Perhaps because you can't?
As you can easily verify from my last posts, I would quite likely be able to explain it better than you by the moment, but as it is certainly not relevant at all here, it is clearly better to leave such explanations for Mr Feynman and Mr Cox.

Last edited by sylla1; November 28th, 2012 at 06:50 AM.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 28th, 2012, 06:54 AM   #246

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 9,180
Blog Entries: 13

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Again, this apparent paradox has alredy been explained above; apples and oranges.

More explicilty [sic] The "Spherical Universe" corresponds to the "observable Universe" explained earlier.
("apples")

Einstein's "Infinite Space" corresponds to the "whole Universe" (i.e. all what exists) as defined in a previous post.
("oranges")
This is an interpretation that unfortunately Einstein will not be able to discuss ...
AlpinLuke is offline  
Old November 28th, 2012, 06:55 AM   #247
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlpinLuke View Post
This is an interpretation that unfortunately Einstein will not be able to discuss ...
He was able indeed; it couldn't be any clearer from his exposition, clearly addressed to laymen.

Not to mention that your last post would be an obvious attempt of a fallacious appeal to authority.

Last edited by sylla1; November 28th, 2012 at 07:03 AM.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 28th, 2012, 07:28 AM   #248

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 9,180
Blog Entries: 13

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
He was able indeed; it couldn't be any clearer from his exposition, clearly addressed to laymen.

Not to mention that your last post would be an obvious attempt of a fallacious appeal to authority.
No, it was a comment "en passant".

Now, my two cents about "Quantum Cosmology"

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
That would actually not be required, at least until someone may explain here why should anything stated here about QM should be relevant at all for the OP
Because QM introduces something which changes the perspective about the intimate structure of universe: it challenges the principal of locality and a non local universe is well different from what we can ponder.

David Bohm expressed this in a clear way assuming that the universe exists on two layers, actually two different "realities", the foreground [where universe is local] and the background where universe is non local.

Sure we all know what "locality" means in cosmology, anyway to make the quantum cosmology more clear I remind [for myself] its meaning.

Locality means that everything is transmitted at local level first. If I blow towards a leaf before that the quantity of motion I transmit to the air will touch the leaf it will touch the air in front of my mouth, then the air a bit more far ... until it will reach the leaf [locality is evident noting that in the vacuum sounds cannot be transmitter ...].

Quantum mechanics says that there is a non local background [a level of reality where locality is not the law], it's where quantum entanglement happens.

So, what can QM suggest about the structure of the universe starting from the introduction of non locality?

The consequence of the non local background is that the quantum totality exists without time in a no time system [tremendous difference for the geometry of the space time, since QM takes the time off of the system of reference].

So, at the end QM says that the intimate nature of the universe is non local and total.

What could this suggest about its geometry and its destiny?

Well, Stephen Hawking in his Quantum Cosmology has introduced the concept that there is a wave function of the universe which describes all the possible universes [infinite universes] and that our factual universe exists thanks to the collapse of that wave function. The universe is not only all what exists, but all what can exist.

Furthermore Hawking in 1970 introduced [near to Einstein's thought] the conception of the finite universe but without temporal boundaries [this is the particularity in Hawking's approach].

So, again, we reach the point of a finite universe, but limitless.

The conception of limitless can be figured thinking to the surface of a sphere: where are the boundaries? The limits of that surface?
AlpinLuke is offline  
Old November 28th, 2012, 08:15 AM   #249
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Duplicated post

Last edited by sylla1; November 28th, 2012 at 08:39 AM.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 28th, 2012, 08:33 AM   #250
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Hawking on a finite universe.
Quote:
...the universe has not existed for ever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began, would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, spacetime is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge.
Having no boundary (as a sphere) is not the same as having no limits (as the same sphere).

Hawking's model is finite; it proposed limits.

That said, the critical point here is that Dr Hawking was talking here about one or several finite "universes" like our observable one
Observable_universe Observable_universe
.

By definition, all those "universes" would be contained within the whole Universe as regularly defined, i.e.
Quote:
The whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated
(Merriam-Webster)

Or like the equivalent definition of Wikipedia
Quote:
The universe is commonly defined as the totality of existence
from a composite of at least four major encyclopedias & dictionaries
Universe Universe


AFAIK (I may be wrong, and I would love to be corrected here ) Hawking's model states nothing about the finiteness (or lack of it) of any such whole Universe as regularly defined above, i.e. the OP.




Just for the sake of clarity, IMHO there is currently simply no major scholar disagreement on the finite nature of the observable universe, as described by the Big Bang theory and supported by a plethora of empirical data.

If the OP is about the Universe as a whole, the whole existence under this later regular definition, my position must still remain the same; it is currently impossible to know if the Universe is infinite or finite.

This is the OP:
Quote:
Originally Posted by funakison View Post
I know next to nothing about the universe apart from that it is expanding, but expanding into what. If the universe is finite where does it stop and whats on the other side. But can it really be infinite.

Simple answers would be appreciated
After 250 posts? As simple as possible;

The observable universe is clearly finite.

The whole Universe, who knows ?



(Yup, people and even scholars are using the same word for different concepts)

Last edited by sylla1; November 28th, 2012 at 09:16 AM.
sylla1 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.