Is very finite number of ways that matter can be arranged?

[quantum_wave]

I am not aware of one, though obviously matter eventually dissociates into quark plasma or something and it gets rather exotic and rare.

But all I was pointing out is that the UV catastrophe, which you mentioned, ...

It was appropriate in response to Origin's statement.

I believe that there is an infinite number of wavelengths that a photon of light could have.

...
does not concern any upper limit on achievable temperature, ...

you mentioned temperature, and speculated that there was no limit to the possible temperature.

Not quite. Don't forget the UV catastrophe was a failure of the Rayleigh-Jeans formula for predicting the black body spectrum of an object with a given temperature. It predicted a monotonically increasing contribution from shorter and shorter wavelengths. The correct formula overcame that, by showing correctly the way that emission intensity falls off at higher frequency. But by choosing an object with an arbitrarily high temperature you can in theory get a spectrum extending to any frequency you like. There is no maximum frequency limit.

... it is to do with unsuccessful attempts to account for the spectrum emitted by a black body - which can in principle be at any temperature you like.

And the Rayleigh-Jeans formula was wrong, and it gave an infinite frequency as a possibility, which turned out to be falsified.

 

[quantum_wave]

Try invoking a real scientific fact and then see what answer you come up with.

Give me a fact that limits the rotation of an object on its axis to a finite number of positions, assuming the axis can have any orientation relative to an initial position; meaning that the axis itself can take on an infinite number of positions as the object rotates around it.

 

[brucep]

Give me a fact that limits the rotation of an object on its axis to a finite number of positions, assuming the axis can have any orientation relative to an initial position; meaning that the axis itself can take on an infinite number of positions as the object rotates around it.

You show us that it can. You're the one claiming an infinite set of possible positions associated with an object rotating on its axis.

 

[quantum_wave]

You show us that it can. You're the one claiming an infinite set of possible positions associated with an object rotating on its axis.

Let's take a rotating spherical object, and consider the first 1 degree of rotation. Select a point at the surface on the equator. How many points does that point pass through during that 1 degree of rotation? I say it passes through an infinite number of points. What do you say?

 

[humbleteleskop]

Let's take a rotating spherical object, and consider the first 1 degree of rotation. Select a point at the surface on the equator. How many points does that point pass through during that 1 degree of rotation? I say it passes through an infinite number of points. What do you say?

Even if the space was indeed infinitely divisible (Zeno's paradox), which it doesn't seem to be the case, even then it would only mean you can rotate a painting through infinite number of degrees, but the painting itself would stay the same, and there is non-infinite number of unique paintings that can possibly exist on that particular canvas size.

 

[Tailspin]

Even if the space was indeed infinitely divisible (Zeno's paradox), which it doesn't seem to be the case, even then it would only mean you can rotate a painting through infinite number of degrees, but the painting itself would stay the same, and there is non-infinite number of unique paintings that can possibly exist on that particular canvas size.

So the theory is true then?

 

[humbleteleskop]

So the theory is true then?

There is more than one way to ask the question, and answers are different for one is about "static" combinations, and the other is about "dynamic" sequences of combinations through time. So my question is: what theory exactly are you talking about?

 

[Tailspin]

Can you give me both?

 

[exchemist]

It was appropriate in response to Origin's statement.
you mentioned temperature, and speculated that there was no limit to the possible temperature.
And the Rayleigh-Jeans formula was wrong, and it gave an infinite frequency as a possibility, which turned out to be falsified.

Quite so. So, we can both agree, I hope that the UV catastrophe does not imply an upper limit to the frequency of photons.

 

[Tailspin]

I should have mentioned I don't know anything about UV or photons either.

 

[Tailspin]

Listen everybody, this is a very serious issue for me.
If this theory is true that means, barring some sort of end to all sentient life, originality will come to an end. Arts will come to an end. And in the meantime everything I ever believed in love with our creativity will be a lie.
And I don't know how I'm going to live with this awful truth. I've been thinking about it all day today and the last two days. And I know people keep telling me that it'll never happen within my lifetime but that doesn't matter to me.

 

[humbleteleskop]

Can you give me both?

Number of static combinations, like possible paintings on a particular canvas size, is not infinite. It is infinite if you suppose infinite number of possible canvas size.

Number of dynamic sequence combinations, like possible songs, is infinite if they can have variable size, not sure what's the answer if we compare only songs of the same size like we compared only paintings of the same size. In any case, maybe even as much as half of these possible songs, although unique in some way, would be too similar to some other song to really deserve to be called "different", same for the paintings. And if you look at them, you may find they are really not that much different, overall.

Not that even if the number is not infinite, there is still so many combinations that human race would need to live through billions and billions and billions of years to ever even begin to come anywhere near to exhausting all the possibilities.

 

[Tailspin]

Number of static combinations, like possible paintings on a particular canvas size, is not infinite. It is infinite if you suppose infinite number of possible canvas size.

So the only way to stretch them into infinity is to make them progressively bigger? That is not a practical solution.
Let's say I create a cartoon character, would he or she be one of a finite number of predetermined possibilities? If I didn't create it would that mean eventually someone else would?
So that's it then? My worst fears are confirmed and creativity, for me at least, is ruined forever. It will never be anything more to me than a gutted shell of what it once was and I will go through life utterly miserable.

Not that even if the number is not infinite, there is still so many combinations that human race would need to live through billions and billions and billions of years to ever even begin to come anywhere near to exhausting all the possibilities.

Yes I am fully aware of that, everyone I asked each telling me that and I keep telling everybody that doesn't matter to me! The fact that it is billions of years in the future doesn't change the fact that it can happen and that art, here and now, is still simply the fulfilment of finite and predetermined possibilities, it is still a lie.

 

[Trippy]

And the Rayleigh-Jeans formula was wrong, and it gave an infinite frequency as a possibility, which turned out to be falsified.

No, it was not wrong because it predicted an infinite frequency. It was wrong because it predicted an infinite intensity at some finite frequency which contradicted observation.

For example, when we examine the spectrum of a blackbody with a temperature of 5000k as predicted by the Raleigh-Jeans law compared to reality, we get something that looks like this:

That is the ultraviolet catastrophy, the prediction, in effect, that the sun should be producing an infinite amount of radiation in the UV part of the spectrum. Clearly, such a prediction is wrong.

 

[quantum_wave]

Quite so. So, we can both agree, I hope that the UV catastrophe does not imply an upper limit to the frequency of photons.

No, it was not wrong because it predicted an infinite frequency. It was wrong because it predicted an infinite intensity at some finite frequency which contradicted observation.

For example, when we examine the spectrum of a blackbody with a temperature of 5000k as predicted by the Raleigh-Jeans law compared to reality, we get something that looks like this:

That is the ultraviolet catastrophy, the prediction, in effect, that the sun should be producing an infinite amount of radiation in the UV part of the spectrum. Clearly, such a prediction is wrong.

Falsified was not the best word, but it was wrong in its predictions.

 

[exchemist]

Falsified was not the best word, but it was wrong in its predictions.

Ah now I begin to see what you may have been driving at. This drawing makes it look as if the curve of the Rayleigh-Jeans law reaches some asymptotic minimum wavelength, below which one cannot go.

But actually the formula has intensity varying with the inverse 4th power of wavelength. So there is an asymptote alright, but it is at wavelength = 0, i.e. at the y axis of the graph. So it does not predict a minimum wavelength. (And of course it is wrong anyway).

 

[quantum_wave]

Ah now I begin to see what you may have been driving at. This drawing makes it look as if the curve of the Rayleigh-Jeans law reaches some asymptotic minimum wavelength, below which one cannot go.

But actually the formula has intensity varying with the inverse 4th power of wavelength. So there is an asymptote alright, but it is at wavelength = 0, i.e. at the y axis of the graph. So it does not predict a minimum wavelength. (And of course it is wrong anyway).

When I read Origin's statement, I remembered a chapter from an old book, "The Invisible Universe", that I read years ago. What stuck with me was the concept of photons of higher and higher frequency being "buckets" of energy and the next higher frequency took more energy in the bucket than the last. Ultimately, for any black body, there was a peak frequency and a characteristic curve of frequencies/wave lengths, and yes that was based on the temperature. The chapter discussed the Ultraviolet Catastrophe, as it was called at the time, and how the "bigger and bigger" buckets concept proved to be a better description of increasing frequency than the old concept. I pasted the link to the Wiki that included the drawing, but all I said to Origin was "Really", and mentioned the Ultraviolet Catastrophe. The rest was just off topic banter that resulted from it.

 

[Tailspin]

Okay everyone listen closely.

I just got back from my therapist, we were talking about this very subject and I got extremely emotional. My despair and frustration at this point is overwhelming.

My therapist says that some people in this thread have already disproved the theory. But, looking back over the posts I can't see it. From what I've read, the only way around this theory is to make everything bigger/longer. I however don't think that's a feasible idea because eventually we would have sculptures and paintings size of galaxies. Books and films would be so long it would be impossible to get through them in a single lifetime.

I hereby refine my question: is it possible to arrange matter in an infinite number of ways in any finite space?
And if it's not possible that means everything, literally everything is finite. The events that can happen, people that can exist, maybe even the thoughts you can have are all part of finite possibilities.

When writing your answers, please remember that I don't know anything at all about UV, waves, photons or even what quantum means.

I am not aware of one, though obviously matter eventually dissociates into quark plasma or something and it gets rather exotic and rare.

But all I was pointing out is that the UV catastrophe, which you mentioned, does not concern any upper limit on achievable temperature, it is to do with unsuccessful attempts to account for the spectrum emitted by a black body - which can in principle be at any temperature you like.

I showed this to my therapist and he said this was the one that proved the theory wrong. But I haven't the slightest idea what it's talking about. Could someone explain it to me in layman's terms?

 

[quantum_wave]

Okay everyone listen closely.

I just got back from my therapist, we were talking about this very subject and I got extremely emotional. My despair and frustration at this point is overwhelming.

My therapist says that some people in this thread have already disproved the theory. But, looking back over the posts I can't see it. From what I've read, the only way around this theory is to make everything bigger/longer. I however don't think that's a feasible idea because eventually we would have sculptures and paintings size of galaxies. Books and films would be so long it would be impossible to get through them in a single lifetime.

I hereby refine my question: is it possible to arrange matter in an infinite number of ways in any finite space?
And if it's not possible that means everything, literally everything is finite. The events that can happen, people that can exist, maybe even the thoughts you can have are all part of finite possibilities.

When writing your answers, please remember that I don't know anything at all about UV, waves, photons or even what quantum means.




I showed this to my therapist and he said this was the one that proved the theory wrong. But I haven't the slightest idea what it's talking about. Could someone explain it to me in layman's terms?

I can't add much, except to say that this is not going to have a clear cut answer that everyone will agree on. You will have to decide for yourself. Have confidence in your own decision, and let us know what you finally decide.

 

[Tailspin]

Well I'd like to decide but I need information in a form I can understand.

Well actually I don't want to decide I want to know for certain.