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

[arfa brane]

Calculus doesn't claim anything exists.

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?

You'll never open a calculus text and have it claim that the real world is one way or another way or any way at all. Calculus is about the real numbers, a mathematical abstraction.

Yes, but real numbers are attached to physical units, so what's calculus about when we do that?

Math makes no metaphysical claims. It provides toolsets.

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.

Those disciplines ALSO do not make metaphysical claims.

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?

 

[NotEinstein]

I guess it tried to but failed during the "inflationary epoch".......

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".

p.s. I like to call that infinite "space" by the term; infinite "permittive condition", allowing for space to form.

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

 

[NotEinstein]

The additional problem is that you cannot have spacetime without matter or energy.

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

Its not just a matter being good questions, they just won't hold.

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

Maybe you would like re-read my post and tell me what you don't understand?

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.

I have given examples of why it is finite,

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

and I wont repeat myself in this post.

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

I made this post to say, do you not realize your statement is a contradiction... space and time are one object, you bend you twist the other.

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

You stretch space, time becomes stretched with it

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

- this is why it impossible to have space expanding without a notion of time.

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

You're question says you can have infinite space and finite time...

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

that not's how it works and a scientist would call it an oxymoron

How would you know what a scientist would call it, Reiku?

 

[Write4U]

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.

I believe the inflationary epoch was a result of the BB, no?

In physical cosmology the inflationary epoch was the period in the evolution of the early universe when, according to inflation theory, the universe underwent an extremely rapid exponential expansion. This rapid expansion increased the linear dimensions of the early universe by a factor of at least 1026 (and possibly a much larger factor), and so increased its volume by a factor of at least 1078. Expansion by a factor of 1026 is equivalent to expanding an object 1 nanometer (10−9m, about half the width of a molecule of DNA) in length to one approximately 10.6 light years (about 62 trillion miles) long.

The expansion is thought to have been triggered by the phase transition that marked the end of the preceding grand unification epoch at approximately 10−36 seconds after the Big Bang. One of the theoretical products of this phase transition was a scalar field called the inflaton field. As this field settled into its lowest energy state throughout the universe, it generated a repulsive force that led to a rapid expansion of space. This expansion explains various properties of the current universe that are difficult to account for without such an inflationary epoch.

It is not known exactly when the inflationary epoch ended, but it is thought to have been between 10−33 and 10−32 seconds after the Big Bang. The rapid expansion of space meant that elementary particles remaining from the grand unification epoch were now distributed very thinly across the universe. However, the huge potential energy of the inflaton field was released at the end of the inflationary epoch, repopulating the universe with a dense, hot mixture of quarks, anti-quarks and gluons as it entered the electroweak 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".

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....

 

[NotEinstein]

I believe the inflationary epoch was a result of the BB, no?

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".

Right, the BB was a finite event

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

and even as it expanded

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

at FTL for a brief instant, there never was sufficient resource to continue into infinity. But for that briefest moment it tried, but was mathematically not permitted.

I see nothing wrong with that conversational comment....

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?

 

[Write4U]

Write4U said:
I believe the inflationary epoch was a result of the BB, no?

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"

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".

 

[curvature]

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.

 

[NotEinstein]

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".

Yes, and I was talking about that "instant the BB happened", not the epoch that directly followed.

 

[NotEinstein]

No I am pretty good at my science.

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 ok for you to sit back and say you do not agree, but I'd wager I am more likely read on this stuff.

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.

A general rule now for these days, I dont't like to pay around with trolls, I end up ignoring them fast.

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.

 

[curvature]

Oh, this is the kind of troll who will be quickly ignored.

 

[NotEinstein]

Oh, this is the kind of troll who will be quickly ignored.

Well, OK, how about we get back on-topic then? Please respond to my post #643.

 

[Write4U]

Yes, and I was talking about that "instant the BB happened", not the epoch that directly followed.

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.

 

[someguy1]

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?

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

Yes, but real numbers are attached to physical units, so what's calculus about when we do that?

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

 

[arfa brane]

Real numbers are NOT attached to physical units in math. Only in physics.

You seem to have an odd way of eventually agreeing with people.

What is calculus about? The mathematical real numbers. Does it apply exactly to reality? Nobody has the foggiest idea, though many have opinions.

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?

What is an "actual point?" I have no idea what you mean by that.

An actual point is something you can find at the end of a finite actual distance.

 

[someguy1]

You seem to have an odd way of eventually agreeing with people.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

An actual point is something you can find at the end of a finite actual distance.

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.

 

[arfa brane]

I'm afraid I have no idea what a "finite actual distance" is. And neither does quantum mechanics.

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.

 

[Write4U]

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.

Hence the concept of wave function collapse....."bing".......

 

[someguy1]

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.

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

 

[NotEinstein]

And what happened the instant of the BB? The beginning of the inflationary epoch, no?

Please stop re-asking questions that have already been addressed:

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".

Yes, and I was talking about that "instant the BB happened", not the epoch that directly followed.

And answer me: what does what happened afterwards have to do whether space was created infinite in size?

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.

(Irrelevant.)

 

[arfa brane]

I no longer have any idea what you're trying to say to me.

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?