Can "Infinity" ever be more than a mathematical abstraction?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Seattle, Jun 24, 2018.

  1. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,751
    Yes it does, when that calculus is over physical units. "Existence" has a different meaning in mathematics than in physics, but you know that, right?
    Yes, but real numbers are attached to physical units, so what's calculus about when we do that?
    Mathematical physics makes physical claims though, about what physics is. It claims there are things called Kilograms and Coulombs, for instance, something mathematics by itself doesn't.
    I don't see that I made any such claim. I said they make it hard to accept the existence of actual points, except as the boundaries of an interval (of measurement). Can you point to the metaphysical argument in there, please?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,583
    The inflationary epoch came after the moment of the creation of spacetime; you can't equate the two. So no, the big bang moment didn't "try but failed" during the inflationary epoch.

    And, as already has been pointed out, universal expansion cannot create an infinite space from a finite space, so I don't even get how it "tried to".

    (Yes, we know you have your own language; that's off-topic here.)
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,583
    I'm not sure that's true (in fact, I'm quite certain it's false), but it's irrelevant anyway.

    I don't care whether the questions hold or not; can you give the answers to demonstrate that the questions hold or not?

    I've already pointed out the jumps in logic I need you to explain. So it's you that need to re-read my posts, and explain yourself.

    And I've pointed out the gaps in your logic that still need to be filled.

    I'm not asking you to repeat yourself, I'm asking you to explain yourself.

    I'm fully well aware of that. But I don't see how that's relevant?

    This is false. Take the FRW-metric. Space expands, but time remains the same. You are obviously wrong.

    That's trivially true; I don't get your point?

    I haven't made any claim about time being finite; that was you.

    How would you know what a scientist would call it, Reiku?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,221
    I believe the inflationary epoch was a result of the BB, no?
    Right, the BB was a finite event and even as it expanded at FTL for a brief instant, there never was sufficient resource to continue into infinity. But for that briefest moment it tried, but was not mathematically permitted.
    I see nothing wrong with that conversational comment....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2018
  8. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,583
    Yes, but as I've already pointed out to you, that's irrelevant: I wasn't talking about the time after the big bang, but "the moment the big bang happened".

    I'm not sure what you mean by "finite event"?

    How can a big bang expand? Are you talking about space?

    I reject your wording "tried", but otherwise, I have agreed with that in this thread before you brought it up, so I don't know why you did that in the first place?
     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,221
    Huh, the instant the BB happened the Inflationary Epoch of space began and ended 10^-33 seconds after the BB, at which time it could no longer expand at FTL, but became restricted to "c".
     
  10. curvature Registered Member

    Messages:
    41
    No I am pretty good at my science. It's ok for you to sit back and say you do not agree, but I'd wager I am more likely read on this stuff.

    A general rule now for these days, I dont't like to play around with trolls, I end up ignoring them fast.
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2018
  11. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,583
    Yes, and I was talking about that "instant the BB happened", not the epoch that directly followed.
     
  12. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,583
    Our history together suggests not. Remember that one time it took you more than 5 times being explicitly pointed to a simple math mistake you made, before you understood how minus signs work?

    Oh, sorry, you said "your science". Yes, you are very good at "your science", just not science.

    It's quite possibly you read a lot more about this stuff. I'm however also certain you've understood pretty much zero of it.

    But you're OK with breaking forum rules repeatedly? I don't care if you've learned to ignore the trolls fast (oh, have you figured out that people correcting simple math mistakes in your work isn't them trolling yet?), you're going to end up banned fast.
     
  13. curvature Registered Member

    Messages:
    41
    Oh, this is the kind of troll who will be quickly ignored.
     
  14. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,583
    Well, OK, how about we get back on-topic then? Please respond to my post #643.
     
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,221
    And what happened the instant of the BB? The beginning of the inflationary epoch, no?

    IMO, the BB was a treshold event. The instant of the BB was a singular mega quantum event where everything happened at the same time in the same space, resulting in a rapid expansion of spacetime.
     
  16. someguy1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    686
    It would be very helpful if you'd be clear about which meaning you intend when you use the word then.


    Real numbers are NOT attached to physical units in math. Only in physics. So there you are again, equivocating meanings between their math and physics usage. What is calculus about? The mathematical real numbers. Does it apply exactly to reality? Nobody has the foggiest idea, though many have opinions.


    Right. So what is your point? This conversation seems to be about less and less the longer it goes on.

    What is an "actual point?" I have no idea what you mean by that. Nor (warning, joke ahead) do I think you've made one.
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2018
  17. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,751
    You seem to have an odd way of eventually agreeing with people.
    Right. Except when we can define a derivative in physics, it's an exact thing. Calculus says because of the derivative, you must actually be at a point. Physical measurements can't "be" at a point, they have to be intervals.

    Is that paradoxical? Who can say? Is it "troubling" that our best theories are based on something that doesn't seem to exist, except mathematically?
    An actual point is something you can find at the end of a finite actual distance.
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2018
  18. someguy1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    686
    I've certainly found it to be the case in this thread that people have strenuously argued with me about things I'm in perfect agreement with. It's been that kind of a thread.


    I just don't get why you're telling me this. If I knew your thesis I could tell whether we're in agreement or whether there's something I could be more clear about or what. I just don't know why you bothered to expend energy to type those words to me. "The unreasonable effectiveness of math in the physical sciences." That's all you're talking about. Math is abstract and weird and physics is supposed to be about the real world yet physics is expressed using abstract infinitary math. So what? Why are you telling me this?

    Ok. Why are you telling me this? I've been endeavoring to explain since I first got to this thread that QM is a mathematical model based on Hilbert space, a highly abstract mathematical gadget that has the assumption of continuity baked into it from the getgo. The question of the actual nature of reality, even if such a notion is meaningful at all, is unknown. It's a question of metaphysics. I must have written this or its equivalent a dozen times in this thread.

    I'm afraid I have no idea what a "finite actual distance" is. And neither does quantum mechanics. Like I say, go tell it to Bohr and all those guys. Go tell Schrödinger he has an actual finite cat in the box. He would tell you that he does NOT, until he looks in the box. That's how it is these days in physics.
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2018
  19. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,751
    Well, that might or might not be a problem. Zeno and a few other Greeks thought they had a good idea what it is.

    And if say, you fire a beam of electrons at a double slit, there's usually one of these "finite" actual distances (an entirely classical thing it seems) between the slits and a detector of some kind. Actually there has to be such a thing, or information would be undetectable, it would be like not having a screen or detector and just allowing the wavefunction to evolve without limit.
     
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,221
    Hence the concept of wave function collapse....."bing".......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. someguy1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    686
    I no longer have any idea what you're trying to say to me. I hope you don't mind if I don't respond any more. The philosophical seminar on interpretations of QM is down the hall to your right. Or then again ... maybe it's not

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2018
  22. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,583
    Please stop re-asking questions that have already been addressed:
    And answer me: what does what happened afterwards have to do whether space was created infinite in size?

    (Irrelevant.)
     
  23. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,751
    You said you have no idea what a finite actual distance is. In QM, there is no way to design these out of any experiment. That is what I'm saying. If you can show me how wrong this idea is, please do.

    Experiments might be based on some philosophy or other (who cares?). But all experiments humans can do are classical, distances are, so are intervals of time in any experiment. What's the problem?
     

Share This Page