Wiploc

I'd like to hear more about these tiny infinities.
crc

Bob K

cfgauss:Are you being a little ad hominem herein?

Try answering these questions:

What is time?

Do you agree that a time-interval is a concept for a unit of measurement that can be used for the measurement of time?

What is a time-interval?

Can time-intervals be classified as variable or invariable?

If time-intervals can be classified as variable or invariable, what does this classification mean to physics? Particularly, to the concept/principle of time?

What happens in physics when time is measured by the use of units of time measurement which are variable time-intervals?

What happens in physics when time is measured by the use of units of time measurement which are invariable time-intervals?

Instead of condemning me, try answering these questions for yourself, without blindly using someone else’s definitions, and see what results from your own efforts.

cfgauss:From your profile/website you are a physics student.

You might benefit from checking out my website ...

www.bobkwebsite.com

... and The Code of Science ...

http://www.bobkwebsite.com/thecodeofscience.html

... to determine if or not my conception of a code for science is totally outrageous and if, therefore, I am truly a crank.

One of the requirements for a code for science is the use of operational definitions for important and key terms to be used for any science.

Check out ...

http://www.bobkwebsite.com/opdefs.html

... to learn what are operational definitions [opdefs] and how they can be used to make concrete abstract terms and thereby help to clarify thinking in any field of interest.

In general, definitions are important, otherwise people misunderstand communications and chaos and confusions can result.

Without operational definitions, theoretical premises can become accepted as verified when in fact they are inappropriate, to say the least.

I AM a crank for the use of operational definitions for terms to be used in philosophy, psychology, physics, and politics.

There is no need for confusions resulting from someone’s laziness or otherwise his inability to create operational definitions for the terms he wants to use.

Time in physics has not been satisfactorily defined by the use of an operational definition. A 2002 special edition of Scientific American addressed the concept of time and the mysteries surrounding it. In this issue, philosophers were cited as making contributions to the understanding of time, indicating that since no physicist has a particular handle on time that the ideas of nonphysicists might be just as valid as the ideas of physicists for developing an understanding of time.

When we understand time, then we can better understand space, and physics [physics = matter/energy].

Hence my presentation of my view of time, and its relation to space and physics [matter/energy].

Time is a concept that exists only when organisms or machines need to measure the occurrences of events in sequences of events. Time is thus an abstract until an organism or a machine makes it a reality and therefore concrete.

Time, nevertheless, is a reality, the temporal reality, and is infinite in duration, there being no beginning to time, nor an ending to time; and time is completely independent of space when invariable time-intervals are used.

You have apparently failed to understand that although clocks that are set up with variable time-intervals, VTIs, are affected by changes of velocity/gravity time itself is not disturbed by changes of velocity/gravity.

Why? Because invariable time-intervals, ITIs, can at least be imagined, if not in fact set up through the use of motion-sensing and self-adjusting clocks or otherwise synchronizing clocks by radio signals from a master clock, and ITIs establish a uniform measurement of time that is not affected by velocity/gravity, thus, even if moving, an invariable time-interval clock, an ITIC, would not change its rate of functioning, its rate of operation, and therefore it would not change the uniformity of is measurement of time, its counting invariable time-intervals, its counting ITIs.

I realize that you are dealing with the theoretical concepts/principles you are studying as part of your course of studies, but if ever you suspect that someone’s premises are unverifiable/unfalsifiable/unverified, or, otherwise, falsified, then you have grounds for challenging his conclusions.

Einstein used variable time-intervals, VTIs, for his conception of time, and, therefore, he did not use invariable time-intervals, ITIs, for his conception of time, and his resulting conclusions therefore can be challenged.

What happens to SR/GR when invariable time-intervals (ITIs) are used instead of variable time-intervals (VTIs)?

Time is everywhere the same, so how does that fact affect the conclusions of SR/GR?

Goliath

I know of no case where infinity is encountered in real life.

However, remember that to the Mathematician, real life is a special case.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Nobles

Case of infinity in nature:
What about when you hold two mirrors in front of each other?

Bob K

eh:

Bob K:eh:Is the energy, the matter/energy, of the universe infinite now?

How has that question been finalized by the current physics mythmakers?

The reason an infinite amount of matter/energy in the universe should not remain constant throughout time is the fact that the matter/energy present in the universe is not infinite, open, but, instead, is closed.

Space is open; physics, as matter/energy, is closed.

In thermodynamics a closed system is defined as a system in which there is no additional input from a source outside, beyond, the system, nor output of energy to a system outside/beyond the system; no energy can be added within the system, no energy can be taken away within the system.

In thermodynamics, in a closed system, the sum total of matter/energy is a constant, a finite number.

In my view of the universe, the spatial reality, space, is not energy, is not comprised of matter/energy, but, instead, is a pure vacuum, and, not being comprised of matter/energy, the spatial reality has no structure, and is therefore open.

The physical reality, matter/energy, existing in space, but giving no structure to space, instead, comprising its own structure, is closed, is therefore a closed system. There are no energy sources outside/beyond the energy present in the physical reality, therefore the physcail reality is a closed system, and the sum total of matter/energy in the physical reality is a constant, a finite number, whatever that number may be.

You have claimed, in previous Replies, that space is energy.

Space is not energy. Space is space, the spatial reality, as I have defined it, and, having no matter/energy, not being comprised of matter/energy, space has no structure and therefore is open. An infinite area/arena/location/place/theatre/etc., space, cannot be closed. There is simply no limit to the measurement which attempts to define/specify the length/width/height/dept/etc. of the spatial reality, of space. Therefore, space is open.

The physical reality, comprised of matter/energy, being its own structure to which no additional energy can be added, because there are not additional sources of energy outside/beyond itself, is therefore a closed system, and a closed system has a finite quantity of matter/energy, as per the findings of physicists who have studied thermodynamics.

Matter/energy has an infinity and a finity.

The infinity of matter/energy is its duration due to its indestructibility.

Its finity is its quantity, which is a constant, which has a sum total, and a sum total has to have a concrete number assigned to it or otherwise it is an infinite number which has not concreteness, and, thus, no concrete number can be assigned to it.

Matter/energy: (A) Infinity = Duration in Time/Indestructibility; (B) Finity = Limit to the Total Quantity, to the Sum Total of Matter/energy.

The First Law of Thermodynamics says that matter/energy is indestructible and that the sum total of matter/energy is a constant.

What don’t YOU understand about the fact that physicists studying heat have determined that when no more heat/energy is deliberately or accidently added to or taken away from a system the sum total of heat/energy of a system remains a constant?

A constant is a finite number!!!

Infinity is not a constant number!!!

Bob K:eh:Can you add energy to the ‘total energy of the universe’ (your phrase)?

Can you take energy away from the ‘total energy of the universe’?

If you cannot add/subtract energy from ‘the total energy of the universe,’ then the ‘total energy of the universe’ is a constant--it does not change, therefore it is a finite number, whatever it is!!!

If you do not agree that a constant does not change, then you are saying that a constant changes, and, in effect, that the only constant is change.

There exist some things/events which do not change.

The true nature of space which is its dimensionless/unbounded spatiality and its pure vacuum, being devoid of matter/energy, and its lack of structure, and its infinite duration in time, is a constant. It never changes.

The true nature of time as the use by machines or organisms of time-intervals to measure the occurrences of events in sequences of events never changes: that’s what time is, what is the essence of time, what is the true nature of time.

The true nature, the essence of, physics, of matter/energy, is (A) the indestructibility of matter/energy, the convertibility of matter into energy and energy into matter, but without the destruction of matter or energy, and the infinity of the duration of matter/energy, but with (B) the limit of the quantity of matter/energy due to the fact that no more matter/energy can be added to, and no matter/energy can be taken away from, the sum total of matter/energy, whatever it is.

These are all realities which comprise the universe, realities which do not change, which are therefore constant, and comprise the universe because of their natures and their constancies, and give us not only us [our physical reality--our matter/energy] but our home [space, the spatial reality] and our history [time, the observation of, and measurement of, people/things/events as occurrences in sequences of occurrrences].

Bob K:eh:Do likewise.

Bob K:eh:The Oxford Dictionary of Physics, Alan Isaacs, ed., Fourth Edition, 2000:

Uncertainty Principle (Heisenberg uncertainty principle; principle of indeterminism): The principle that it is not possible to know with unlimited accuracy both the position and momentum of a particle. This principle, discovered in 1927, by Werner Heisenberg, is usually stated in the form .... An explanation of the uncertainty is that in order to locate a particle exactly an observer must be able to bounce off it a photon of radiation; this act of location itself alters the position of the particle in an unpredictable way. To locate the position accurately, photons of short wavelength would have to be used. The high momenta of such photons would cause a large effect on the position. One the other hand, using photons of lower momenta would have less effect on the particle’s position, but would be less accurate because of the longer wavelength.

Is Heisenberg not saying that a particle has BOTH position and momentum, meaning position and energy? I dno not agree with you that Heisenberg is saying that a particle does not have BOTH position AND energy at the same time.

Is not Heisenberg saying that we cannot observe and not disturb small stuff? As I have described?

Bob K:eh:The Theory of Perfect Observers connects to the uncertainty principle exactly as I have described it, and shows that determinism for individual small stuffs is alive and well althgough unobservable for humans at this time.

The uncertainty principle says that because we cannot observe and not disturb small stuff we cannot gather data from observations of small stuff that we can use to create hypotheses that produce and support the predictions of what INDIVIDUAL small stuff will do and we will not be thus able to predict what INDIVIDUAL small stuffs will do; thus, the uncertainty principle appears to contravene the principle of determinism.

QM says that we can observe the averages of crowds of small stuffs and predict what will be the behavior of the average number of small stuffs in a given crowd of small stuffs.

If you refuse to accept the premises, the ‘givens,’ of a thought experiment, then you will fail to understand how the premises lead to, support, the conclusion, the findings.

If you refuse to accept the premises of the Theory of the Perfect Observer, then you will fail to understand how determinism for individual small stuffs is alive and well although unobservable to real-world humans at present.

Bob K:eh:I have presented the definition/specification of the uncertainty principles, which has been replicated, in paraphrase, in every physics book I have ever read which mentions Heisenberg and his version of the uncertainty principle.

You have denied the content of my words; I have shown you proof of that fact. My explanation, my paraphrase, of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle has been and remains highly accurate.

Inside of most problems are solutions; you have to look for them.

Inside of the uncertainty principle is the problem of not being able to observe and not disturb small stuffs which suggests the solution of The Theory of the Perfect Observer who can observe and not disturb small stuffs, and the conclusion of TTPO is that determinism for individual small stuffs is still happening though unobservable for humans at this time.

Bob K:eh:The question herein, for me, at least, is whether or not the quantity of matter/energy present in the universe is a constant, a finite number, and, therefore, not an infinite number.

To review what has been presented above, so to be constant in answering your individual questions insofar as they relate to the matter at hand, which is the constancy of the quantity of matter/energy, ...

1. Physicists have defined a closed matter/energy system to be a matter/energy system into which additional matter/energy would have to be supplied by matter/energy sources outside/beyond the system and from which matter/energy can only be sent to matter/energy targets outside/beyond the system.

2. Physicists have found that matter/energy cannot be destroyed but only changed in form, matter into energy and energy into matter, as described by E = mc2 and m = E/c2.

3. Physicists have found that the sum total of matter/energy in a closed system is a constant, a finite number.

Because I have observed/intuited that space is not energy, is not matter/energy, as you claim, and, therefore, that space has no structure, I claim that space, which is an unbounded/dimensionless emptiness/vastness/etc., is open insofar as its infinite dimensions, and because I have observed/intuited that matter/energy, the physics reality, physics, creates/imposes a structure upon itself, and outside/beyond which there are no additional sources of matter/energy or targets for the matter/energy of the physical reality, then the physical reality, matter/energy, of the universe is a closed system, and, therefore, the quantity of matter/energy present in the closed system which is the physical reality is a constant, a finite number.

Beyond the matter/energy of the physical reality you ain’t got no more matter/energy, therefore the matter/energy of the physical reality, the physical reality, itself, is a closed system, and the quanity of matter/energy present within it, which gives it its structure, is a constant, and, therefore, is a finite number, meaning the quanity of matter/energy present in the universe is limited, finite, is not infinite, is describable by a finite number, and is not describable by an infinite number.

Bob K:eh:I have consulted the cite you cited:The problem herein is that I am challenging Einstein’s conclusion in SR/GR by challenging any premises that include ideas that space is energy or otherwise has a structure comprised of matter/energy, etc., and I therefore do not accept any definition of space to be a gravitational field.

Space is not comprised of matter/energy, matter/energy includes gravity, which produces the gravitational fields as a form of energy, electromagnetism, which produces the eletromagnetic fields as a form of energy. the chemical and nuclear energies, etc., and, therefore, space is not a gravitational field, nor an electromagnetic field, etc.

If you subscribe to Odenwald’s website as your source of definitions and information concerning theoretical physics, you might want to revise your thinking.

Here is one of SO’s anwers to questions theoretically submitted to him:Odenwald is completely missing an essential bit of information: When the marbles were selected, their colors were set; whatever was the color of one was not the color of the other, and, therefore, when the individuals saw the color of their marble they knew instantly what was the color of the other’s marble. There was absolutely NO transmission of information, and certainly there has been no case in which “some kind of information has traveled faster than the speed of light to FORCE [the other marble] to be the opposite color.”

My conclusion should be immediately and obviously determined to be the correct interpretation and logical explanation.

Others, not necessarily all, of SO’s ‘answers’ can be found to be equally empty in logical thought.

I therefore have to conclude that SO is not a good source of information and definitions concerning theoretical physics.

Bob K:eh:The problem herein is the Einsteinian spacetime and curved space.

When invariable time-intervals are used, time is independent of velocity/gravity and therefore is independent of space, and when time is independent of space, space is independent of time, and when time and space are independent of each other, spacetime becomes a myth.

Space is a pure vacuum. Within it can exist matter/energy. Matter/energy includes gravity and gravitational fields, a form of energy, and, therefore, matter/energy can cause matter/energy to be curved, gravitational fields can cause matter/energy to curve, but because space has not matter/energy and therefore no structure, because it is a pure vacuum, space, itself, cannot be curved.

Bob K:eh:I say space is an infinite vacuum, has no structure, and therefore is open, etc., because space IS an infinite vacuum AND has NO structure AND therefore is open, etc.

Bob K:eh:Newton proposed absolute space and absolute time. I have not read his Principia, and I do not know what is his definition/specification of time, but from what others have stated, Newton defined absolute time to be the uniform flow of time, with time the same everywhere in space, and space and time to be independent of each other.

I suspect that if Newton did address the concept of the time-interval (TI) to be the unit of time-measurement he may not have addressed the possibility of there being two time-intervals (ITs), (A) The variable time-interval (VTI) and (B) the invariable time-interval (ITI), for the unit of time measurement.

It is clear, to me, anyways, that Einstein did not address the possibility of two types of time-intervals when he chose the variable time-interval, the VTI.

Where VTIs can be used to produce one set of theoretical conclusions, surely the ITIs can be used to produce another set of theoretical conclusions, such as the independence of time and space, and the abolition of spacetime, etc.

I have never heard of anyone else observing the fact that there are two types of time-intervals, (A) VTIs and (B) ITIs.

Heather D reported that she did an internet search for ITIs and found them only on my website.

It is entirely possible that someone else has the theory of two time-intervals which are functionally VTIs and ITIs but is using a different terminology, which would explain why Heather D found ITIs only on my website.

To date, with all the denials/evasions/obfuscations/attacks which include various yellings/screamings/foul language/obscene gestures/etc. coming my way, I must be, at present, the only champion of TIs = (A) VTIs and (B) ITIs, and, therefore, The Theory of Invariable Time-Intervals.

Bob K:eh:If you confuse yourself with definitions that claim space is comprised of matter/energy and therefore has a structure and therefore is closed, etc., then you have to conclude that space is finite, not infinite, but, intuitively, we can imagine the extensions of parallel and perpendicular rigid rods, which are not ever curved and which are not ever changed in length, creating a 3D latticework for imaginary structure to space with an unlimited, infinite number of rigid rod measurements, etc., and when you unconfuse yourself with definitions that show that space is not comprised of matter/energy, is a vacuum, has no structure, and is infinite in rigid rod dimensional measurements and is therefore open, then you can begin to understand the mysticism of modern cosmology and you can begin to look for other explanations of cosmological phenomena.

Bob K:eh:And what is the physical evidence that supports a claim that space = energy and is finite in dimensions?

When you are capable of intuiting thought experiments, you are not limited to someone else’s ideas and can explore on your own.

I have shown that one conception of space is, indeed, a 3D/rigid rod latticework:The infinite 3D/rigid rod latticework conception of space is the correct one, simply because there is no end to the number of rigid rods which could be added to the perpendicular and parallel rigid rods extending from an arbitrarily chosen starting point.

When space is viewed, correctly, as having no structure, because it is a pure vacuum, because it is not comprised of matter/energy, etc., then space becomes the spatial reality, the unbounded ‘space’ I have described, independent of time, which is the temporal reality and independent of matter/energy, which is the physical reality.

Bob K:eh:You challenge a theory by challenging its premises.

Einstein’s time premise was that, as I have shown, the use of VITs is acceptable for the definition of time.

My time premise is that ITIs exist and have to be accounted for in theories of physics.

When SR/GR are constructed using VTIs, and do not account for ITIs, then the resulting SR/GR claims can be refuted when ITIs are required to be used.

Bob K:eh:Wrong.

I have specifically, and consistently, defined space to have no limit to its dimensions, to be, therefore, dimensionless. I have used a number of terms that refer to an area/arena/location/place/stage/theatre/volume/etc. but have always stated that these areas/etc., are unbounded/unlimited/limitless/infinite in dimensions/etc., to ensure, as best as is possible with the English language, to convey the idea that the spatial reality, space, is infinite in expanse/vastness/etc., is not comprised of matter/energy, has no structure, is open, etc.

I.e., I have consistently said that space has no dimensions.

Quibbling over terms operationally defined is quibbling over terms.

Where I have provided operationally defined terms, I intend to stick with those definitions regardless of denials/evasions/obfuscations/attacks, and for the purpose of maintaining consistent and creating effective communication.

Operational Physics in a conherent and cohesive theory because of the operational definitions of the terms used therein, hence the name, Operational Physics.

Bob K:eh:And that, folks, is another denial/evasion/obfuscation/attack from eh, which is similar to the denials/evasions/obfuscations/attacks Xns/fundies use to refute atheists/agnostics/infidels/etc.

eh

Bob K,

It's obviously quite pointless to carry this on post by post. Your posts are long because you you're just repeating yourself over and over again, and not much actual discussion is going on. To make things clear, I've outlined the arguments that have come up in this thread. Reading up on these topics will help avoid this in the future.

Actually Bob, I finished reading a book a while ago that might interest you. It's called the book of nothing, and traces the history of vacuums, all the way up to the present. It will at the very least, clear up so misunderstandings.

So, the points we've covered in this thread:

Modern definition of space

You insist that space is an empty void in which matter and energy sit. But that is not the point, because the issue is what modern cosmologists are refering to when they talk about space. Your arguments against space curving or thus irrelevant, since that is not the defintion of space being used by cosmologists.

In GR, the overall geometry and the gravitational field are equivalent. You might think this geometry is a vacuum, but there are gravitational waves running about throughout the universe. Quantum theory says that fields cannot be zero, see below.

The presence of vacuums in the universe

You insist that there must be vacuums in the universe, but quantum mechanics says otherwise. The uncertainty principle applies to fields as well as particles, and the fact there is energy in the vacuum has been confirmed by experiment. You would have to give support that vacuums are allowed to exist in QM, or show how QM is wrong.

The uncertainty principle

From your quote:

No. While it is true that you cannot measure a system without changing it, this does not mean a particle has a precise energy level and position. From the book of nothing I mentioned:

"...It is not that the state has a definite position and momentum which we are prevented from ascertaining because we change it's situation when we measure it. Rather, it is that classical concepts like position and velocity cannot coexist when one enters the quantum regime"*

*The Book of Nothing: Vacuums, Voids, and the Latest Ideas About the Origins of the Universe by John D. Barrow

You can verify this with any physics book, or perhaps even a search on Google will do. I'm sorry I don't have any links right now.

Is the universe infinite?

Refer to the URL I gave you to Dr. Odenwalds site. The universe can be infinite (and have an infinite amount of energy) but you say physics would not allow. Apparently, the physicists say otherwise. An infinite amount of energy would still be constant, and conserved. This is in spite of your 400 lines of text proclaiming otherwise.

Thermodynamics and an infinite universe

From your quote:

You keep screaming that infinity is not a constant number, but some would even argue that infinity is not even a logically defined concept at all. But that misses the point. If the universe had an infinite amount of energy, the conservation law would not be violated in any way, as you could not add or take anything away.

A finite universe must sit in infinite space

You have insisted that if the universe is indeed finite, it must float in infinite empty space. After all, if the universe is closed, what is beyond it? But I've already answered this. There would be absolutely no "beyond" or "outside" at all, and you have still not provided a single logical reason why any space must be infinite. Space need not be infinite any more than matter, despite your theistic like claims that space is non physical.

I also must wonder what you think a dimension is, because of this quote.

If something were dimensionless, it would have no size. The vacuum you describe is 3 dimensional, where each dimension is infinite in size. This does not mean dimensionless.

Your thought experiments about space are absolutely useless because they are irrelevant. Your definition of space has nothing to do with the space of modern physics.

Friar Bellows

Bloody hell the posts in this thread are long!

Wyz_sub10

I've PMed the individuals involved about that. There is no limit to the length of posts, so everyone should feel free to take the time and space they need to make their points.

But the longer one's argument, the harder it will be to draw new observers or participants to the issue. It is often in one's best interests to be as clear and concise as possible, without sacrificing content.

Hawkingfan

There are quantities in physics that have infinite value. Please consider the following by Dr. Michio Kaku, Henry Semat Professor of Theoretical Physics at the City University of New York:


Imagine a child blowing up a balloon. Imagine that there are dots painted on the balloon. Notice that all the dots are moving away from each other. The farther any two dots are, the faster they are moving apart.

Now imagine there is an ant living on the balloon. To the ant, the balloon is infinite in two dimensions. The ant, walking on the balloon, could go an infinite distance around the balloon and never reach "the end of the balloon." To an ant, the "universe" would be a two-dimensional, expanding surface, such that the farther the dots are, the faster they move.

If you were to ask the ant, "What is the universe expanding into?," the ant would reply that the question has no meaning. The ant can only move on the surface of the balloon, yet the expansion of the balloon lies in the third dimension, in hyperspace, which is beyond the understanding of the ant. All that the ant understands is that the space between dots is expanding. But it cannot understand "into what is it expanding," since that requires knowledge of the third dimension, or hyperspace, which is beyond the ant's comprehension.

Also, if you ask the ant, "From where did the balloon expand?," the question would have no meaning. The expansion point lies at the center of the balloon, which is off the "universe" of the ant. Thus, the balloon's Big Bang also lies in hyperspace, beyond the understanding of the ant.

To us, however, all these answers are trivial. We live in hyperspace (the third dimension) so we can see that the balloon is finite and is expanding in the third dimension, and that the balloon's Big Bang lies in the center, also in the third dimension.

Likewise, there may be other balloons floating in hyperspace. The ant, which has difficulty understanding its own balloon, would have an even greater problem understanding the fact that there might be other balloons, with other ants on them.

Similarly, we are like the ant, except that our universe appears to be infinite in three dimensions. We can go an infinite distance in any direction, and never reach the "end of the universe."

Likewise, the space between our galaxies is expanding, such that the farther a galaxy is, the faster it is going (this is Hubble's Law). (However, there are also random motions, so galaxies can sometimes collide. For example, our own galaxy may one day be gobbled up by the Andromeda Galaxy.)

But the question, "Into what is the universe expanding?" makes no sense to our three-dimensional brains. The location of the Big Bang is in hyperspace.

(If we try to retrace the early history of the universe, we still cannot locate the Big Bang. If we go back 15 billion or so years, the universe might have been as big as, say, a bowling ball. The entire universe, with all its space and matter, was only that big. But nowhere on the bowling ball was the Big Bang.)

Today, cosmologists are grappling with the question, "What happened before the Big Bang?" Einstein's equations break down at that point, so we need a theory which combines the quantum theory and general relativity (the unified field theory). So far, the only candidate for such a fabled theory is the 10-dimensional superstring theory.