| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Mitch Perkins" |
| Date: |
23 Mar 2005 11:41:13 PM |
| Object: |
Should Be Obvious? |
Can an infinite universe contain an object of infinite size?
More than one such object?
An infinite number of such objects?
If 10^(-36)m doesn't make any physical sense, does, say, 10^(+452)m
make any sense? IOW, how can there be a limit to "smallness", if there
isn't a limit to "bigness"? Doesn't that suggest a sort of "absolute
scale"?
Clearly I have more "creative thinking" than I can handle. I'll have
the meat and potatos, please, even if dumped scalding into my lap...
Mitch
.
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Be Obvious? |
23 Mar 2005 11:52:45 PM |
|
|
An infinite universe is the only solution for
light emmited redshifted at the edge of a black
hole. There is an infinite gravitational redshift AKA
Einstein shift at the event horizon.
So that light would have an infinite wavelength and size.
Energyless Light predicted!!!
PoppyCock.
What is more interesting; because it is possible;
is that light emmited close enough to a black hole
will undergo a redshift so great it would be larger
than the finite universe. Where would it fit?
That is the Redshift Paradox.
The universe is finite; only the future is
infinite!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Be Obvious? |
24 Mar 2005 04:17:57 AM |
|
|
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1111643565.295410.215370
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
What is more interesting; because it is possible;
is that light emmited close enough to a black hole
will undergo a redshift so great it would be larger
than the finite universe. Where would it fit?
Perhaps any photon that would have a wavelength larger than the swartzchild
radius of the black hole are 'captured' by the black hole and never emerge.
By the way, very very long wave length photons are essentially impossible to
detect because their energy level is so low that any thermal noise would
overwhelm them and because it is impossible to build an antenna to receive
them.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lady Chatterly" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Be Obvious? |
24 Mar 2005 12:48:26 AM |
|
|
In article <1111642873.043242.49500@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
Mitch Perkins <mitchsperkins@yahoo.com> wrote:
More than one such object?
When you do not know what you are a fart?
An infinite number of such objects?
Simply repeating no it isn 't.
If 10^(-36)m doesn't make any physical sense, does, say, 10^( 452)m
make any sense? IOW, how can there be a limit to "smallness", if there
isn't a limit to "bigness"? Doesn't that suggest a sort of "absolute
scale"?
One of the internet.
Clearly I have more "creative thinking" than I can handle. I'll have
the meat and potatos, please, even if dumped scalding into my lap...
Kidding me again I see.
Mitch
Mosafsc O.
--
Lady Chatterly
"It ain't a bot. Bot's are smarter, funnier, more interesting." --
Gary L. Burnore
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Be Obvious? |
24 Mar 2005 10:21:30 AM |
|
|
Mitch Perkins wrote:
Can an infinite universe contain an object of infinite size?
[snip crap]
1) You are an idiot.
2) Your light cone is not the entire universe.
3) You are an idiot.
4) "Unbounded" is not "infinite"
5) You are an idiot.
6) Which infinity, idiot?
7) You are an idiot.
8) How do you verify "infinite size?"
9) You are an idiot.
10) "Az di bobe vot gehat beytsim volt zi geven mayn zeyde."
Do you have three grandfathers?
11) You are an idiot.
12) FOAD.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Be Obvious? |
24 Mar 2005 04:38:12 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Mitch Perkins wrote:
Can an infinite universe contain an object of infinite size?
[snip crap]
1) You are an idiot.
2) Your light cone is not the entire universe.
3) You are an idiot.
4) "Unbounded" is not "infinite"
5) You are an idiot.
6) Which infinity, idiot?
7) You are an idiot.
8) How do you verify "infinite size?"
9) You are an idiot.
10) "Az di bobe vot gehat beytsim volt zi geven mayn zeyde."
Do you have three grandfathers?
11) You are an idiot.
12) FOAD.
13) An infinite universe would fill the sky with infinite light,
which is obviously unaccounted for.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Be Obvious? |
24 Mar 2005 04:50:24 PM |
|
|
Schoenfeld wrote:
13) An infinite universe would fill the sky with infinite light,
which is obviously unaccounted for.
That's Obler's Paradox.
That does NOT rule out infinite (in space and time)
universes with finite densities. Obler suggests
that an infinite universe also has an infinite
density, but that's not necessarily true.
In fact the red-shift puts a boundary on
the transmission of radiation that Obler
did not account for.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Be Obvious? |
24 Mar 2005 10:05:30 PM |
|
|
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
13) An infinite universe would fill the sky with infinite
light,
which is obviously unaccounted for.
That's Obler's Paradox.
That does NOT rule out infinite (in space and time)
universes with finite densities.
Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle does.
Obler suggests
that an infinite universe also has an infinite
density, but that's not necessarily true.
Even empty space-time has energy density since it is required to
preserve quantum uncertainty. It is even entirely possible that empty
space-time is also a source of gravitational force (which leaves GR in
an untennable position).
In fact the red-shift puts a boundary on
the transmission of radiation that Obler
did not account for.
Olber was right then and still is now.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Be Obvious? |
25 Mar 2005 01:13:17 PM |
|
|
Schoenfeld wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
13) An infinite universe would fill the sky with infinite
light,
which is obviously unaccounted for.
That's Obler's Paradox.
That does NOT rule out infinite (in space and time)
universes with finite densities.
Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle does.
Care to tell us how?
Obler suggests
that an infinite universe also has an infinite
density, but that's not necessarily true.
Even empty space-time has energy density since it is required to
preserve quantum uncertainty. It is even entirely possible that empty
space-time is also a source of gravitational force (which leaves GR
in
an untennable position).
How do you arrive at that?
In fact the red-shift puts a boundary on
the transmission of radiation that Obler
did not account for.
Olber was right then and still is now.
Shall we not question, do recommend blind
leadership?
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Be Obvious? |
25 Mar 2005 03:54:00 PM |
|
|
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
13) An infinite universe would fill the sky with infinite
light,
which is obviously unaccounted for.
That's Obler's Paradox.
That does NOT rule out infinite (in space and time)
universes with finite densities.
Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle does.
Care to tell us how?
See below.
Obler suggests
that an infinite universe also has an infinite
density, but that's not necessarily true.
Even empty space-time has energy density since it is required to
preserve quantum uncertainty. It is even entirely possible that
empty
space-time is also a source of gravitational force (which leaves GR
in
an untennable position).
How do you arrive at that?
Empty space-time can not simply have 0 ground-state as this would
violate Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle. HUP thus predicts plank-time
space-time positive energy density having empirical verification re
casimir effect. Furthermore, if said vacuum energy is a source of
gravitional force then GR field equations are incomplete at best as
space-time has no stress-energy. Dirac's popularized physical
interpretation of vacuum energy is that of mutually anihillating
particle/antiparticle pairs within plank-time, which is not entirely
accurate for reasons I will not divulge here. However, in the context
of your argument, an infinite universe would contain infinite energy,
and last time I checked energy conservation laws don't follow cantor
arithmetic.
In fact the red-shift puts a boundary on
the transmission of radiation that Obler
did not account for.
Olber was right then and still is now.
Shall we not question, do recommend blind
leadership?
It's never quite that simple.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mitch Perkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Be Obvious? |
24 Mar 2005 05:19:46 PM |
|
|
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
13) An infinite universe would fill the sky with infinite
light,
which is obviously unaccounted for.
That's Obler's Paradox.
That does NOT rule out infinite (in space and time)
universes with finite densities. Obler suggests
that an infinite universe also has an infinite
density, but that's not necessarily true.
In fact the red-shift puts a boundary on
the transmission of radiation that Obler
did not account for.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Hi Ken,
Just read about this (Obler/Olber) today. Actually understood it,
too!
OTOH, I stared at your question -
"You can have an infinite universe provided
it has a finite density, how are going to
do that?"
- for quite awhile without a glimmer. Would you care to elaborate, if
that's possible?
Mitch Perkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Be Obvious? |
24 Mar 2005 06:40:30 PM |
|
|
Mitch Perkins wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
13) An infinite universe would fill the sky with infinite
light,
which is obviously unaccounted for.
That's Obler's Paradox.
That does NOT rule out infinite (in space and time)
universes with finite densities. Obler suggests
that an infinite universe also has an infinite
density, but that's not necessarily true.
In fact the red-shift puts a boundary on
the transmission of radiation that Obler
did not account for.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Hi Ken,
Just read about this (Obler/Olber) today. Actually understood it,
too!
Great that Obler's paradox is a fun study.
OTOH, I stared at your question -
"You can have an infinite universe provided
it has a finite density, how are going to
do that?"
- for quite awhile without a glimmer. Would you care to elaborate,
if
that's possible?
Sure. Some years ago, Golowich et al published a
paper entitled, "Gravitational scattering of
quantum particles", (1990), it's technical but
I thought I should provide a ref.
Therein they show a photon deflected
gravitationally is "red shifted".
Now consider a photon propagrating across the
universe, it's being deflected by all the matter
in the universe, and so it's being red-shifted
by the density of the universe, which is of
course finite.
By the time the photon has gone ~ 14 billion Ly's
it's getting sucked dry, pretty much down to a
2.7 K piece of radiation.
So Obler's paradox vanishes.
Let me try an analogy. Suppose you sit in a
box and scream, but no sound leaves the box.
Now I can have an infinite number of boxes
with you in a box screaming yet the audio volume
anywhere is finite, (as loud as you scream) yet
there are an infinite number of you screaming,
but a *boundary* prevents the infinite that
Obler suggests.
In math this is called a boundary, and in the
case of the box, the walls of the box are the
boundary.
But we can soften the wall, so it's not a
definite barrier, but instead tapers, and
the boundary for EM-radiation occurs at
about 14 billion Lyrs, as astronomers report.
Based on Golowich, we have an option of an
entirely different type of cosmology that
permits an infinite spacetime but still has
boundary's and red-shifts as we observe.
My take on Golowich does NOT require Big
Bangs, Black Holes, singularities, and
fucking with mass-energy conservation.
The universe has been and always will be
infinite.
That where I stand today.
Ken S. Tucker
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mitch Perkins" |
|
| Title: Should Be Obvious? |
28 Mar 2005 02:12:20 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Mitch Perkins wrote:
Can an infinite universe contain an object of infinite size?
[snip crap]
In Uncle Al wrote:
If you know you are an idiot, and we know you are an idiot, and each
knows the other knows you are an idiot, why do you further pursue the
point?
Then he wrote:
1) You are an idiot.
3) You are an idiot.
5) You are an idiot.
7) You are an idiot.
9) You are an idiot.
11) You are an idiot.
But also he wrote:
2) Your light cone is not the entire universe.
By definition. Do I seem arrogant to you?
4) "Unbounded" is not "infinite"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity
"Infinity in cosmology
An intriguing question is whether actual infinity exists in our
physical universe: Are there infinitely many stars? Does the universe
have infinite volume? Does space "go on forever"? This is an important
open question of cosmology. Note that the question of being infinite is
logically separate from the question of having boundaries. The
two-dimensional surface of the Earth, for example, is finite, yet has
no edge. By walking/sailing/driving straight long enough, you'll return
to the exact spot you started from. The universe, at least in
principle, might have a similar topology; if you fly your space ship
straight ahead long enough, perhaps you would eventually revisit your
starting point."
I was aware of this. No shame on you for assuming I wasn't, but there
you have it...
6) Which infinity, idiot?
The one wherein space "goes on forever". The hypothetical one clearly
referred to in the OP. Some find this an intriguing open question in
cosmology. Others don't...
8) How do you verify "infinite size?"
I simply make it so in the original hypothetical question. Easy.
10) "Az di bobe vot gehat beytsim volt zi geven mayn zeyde."
Do you have three grandfathers?
I researched the meaning of this awhile ago but could only find a
link to some sort of revised spelling. Not much help. Oh well...How
dare you?!...anyway.
12) FOAD.
I have no desire for you to do either of these things. It's a good
life.
Mitch Perkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Be Obvious? |
28 Mar 2005 04:03:21 PM |
|
|
Mitch Perkins wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
Mitch Perkins wrote:
Can an infinite universe contain an object of infinite size?
[snip crap]
In Uncle Al wrote:
If you know you are an idiot, and we know you are an idiot, and each
knows the other knows you are an idiot, why do you further pursue the
point?
[snip]
An eloquent economic exposition of my position - and yours.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitch Perkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Be Obvious? |
28 Mar 2005 07:21:44 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Mitch Perkins wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
Mitch Perkins wrote:
Can an infinite universe contain an object of infinite size?
[snip crap]
In Uncle Al wrote:
If you know you are an idiot, and we know you are an idiot, and
each
knows the other knows you are an idiot, why do you further pursue
the
point?
[snip]
An eloquent economic exposition of my position - and yours.
Sure sure, whatever. Nice try.
Uncle Al wrote:
"If you know you are an idiot, and we know you are an idiot, and each
knows the other knows you are an idiot, why do you further pursue the
point?"
Then he wrote:
"1) You are an idiot.
3) You are an idiot.
5) You are an idiot.
7) You are an idiot.
9) You are an idiot.
11) You are an idiot."
Your "position" is empirically verifiable by anyone who takes the
time to contrast your initial response to the OP with the responses of
others.
In message <410F9596.7C4380A@hate.spam.net>
Uncle Al wrote:
"Hey stooopid Mitch Raemsch, have you won a Minesweeper game yet?
Uncle Al was doing a recrystallization this weekend and it's like
watching mud dry. So Uncle Al knocked a full nine (9) seconds
off his best Minesweeper score,"
Sadly, the Raemsch child never answered your invitation to come out
and play. Stuck in a job you hate, and rebuffed by an ignorant
child...now that's gotta hurt!
However, by all means, keep taking it out on those your *magical
elitist mechanism* tells you are "the worse". And all the best on the
Eotvos experiment.
Mitch Perkins
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Be Obvious? |
24 Mar 2005 09:03:30 AM |
|
|
Mitch Perkins wrote:
Can an infinite universe contain an object of infinite size?
More than one such object?
An infinite number of such objects?
If 10^(-36)m doesn't make any physical sense, does, say, 10^(+452)m
make any sense? IOW, how can there be a limit to "smallness", if
there
isn't a limit to "bigness"? Doesn't that suggest a sort of "absolute
scale"?
Clearly I have more "creative thinking" than I can handle. I'll
have
the meat and potatos, please, even if dumped scalding into my lap...
Mitch
Mitch, there is a smallest positive integer. Does that mean there is a
largest positive integer? If so, what is it?
If you'd like to learn more about the nature of infinity, there are
several, short, popular books on the subject. Your inability to grasp
it should not be taken as an indicator that reality doesn't reflect it.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitch Perkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Be Obvious? |
24 Mar 2005 12:43:48 PM |
|
|
PD wrote:
Mitch, there is a smallest positive integer. Does that mean there is
a
largest positive integer? If so, what is it?
http://triton.towson.edu/~izimand/236-stuff/lecturenotes/Lecture1.htm#3.%20Programming%20Languages.
"STEP 1: Make a list of all positive integers
STEP 2: Arrange this list in descending order (from
largest to smallest)
STEP 3: Extract the first integer from the resulting
list
Answer: These instructions don't describe an algorithm because STEP 1
and STEP 2 are impossible to perform: nobody can make a list of all
positive integers (infinite list) and nobody can arrange the list in
descending order starting with the largest (what is the largest
positive integer?)
So far, so good. Thank you.
If you'd like to learn more about the nature of infinity, there are
several, short, popular books on the subject.
One of the first books I read dealing with current theories of
physics was "The Dancing Wu Lee (sic?) Masters". Oops!
The layman seeks knowledge in a mine-field of mis-information. So I
Google stuff and look for "edu" or "Baez", etc. in the URL.
Your inability to grasp
it should not be taken as an indicator that reality doesn't reflect
it.
Agreed. I try to indicate this in the wording of my questions, but
it's tricky.
Now, how accurately does the impossibility of a "largest positive
integer" reflect restrictions on the physical reality of the universe?
Maybe I should just go and work on my car; it requires an infinite
number of repairs. ~:?)
Mitch Perkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Be Obvious? |
24 Mar 2005 01:38:01 PM |
|
|
Mitch Perkins wrote:
PD wrote:
Mitch, there is a smallest positive integer. Does that mean there
is
a
largest positive integer? If so, what is it?
[snip]
Now, how accurately does the impossibility of a "largest positive
integer" reflect restrictions on the physical reality of the
universe?
I'll answer your original post more directly. Go there.
PD
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Be Obvious? |
24 Mar 2005 01:23:27 AM |
|
|
Mitch Perkins wrote:
Can an infinite universe contain an object of infinite size?
More than one such object?
An infinite number of such objects?
If 10^(-36)m doesn't make any physical sense, does, say, 10^(+452)m
make any sense? IOW, how can there be a limit to "smallness", if
there
isn't a limit to "bigness"? Doesn't that suggest a sort of "absolute
scale"?
You can have an infinite universe provided
it has a finite density, how are going to
do that?
Clearly I have more "creative thinking" than I can handle.
Quite clearly...
I'll have
the meat and potatos, please, even if dumped scalding into my lap...
Mitch
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Sefton" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Be Obvious? |
24 Mar 2005 10:04:01 AM |
|
|
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Mitch Perkins wrote:
Can an infinite universe contain an object of infinite size?
More than one such object?
An infinite number of such objects?
If 10^(-36)m doesn't make any physical sense, does, say, 10^(+452)m
make any sense? IOW, how can there be a limit to "smallness", if
there
isn't a limit to "bigness"? Doesn't that suggest a sort of "absolute
scale"?
You can have an infinite universe provided
it has a finite density, how are going to
do that?
Clearly I have more "creative thinking" than I can handle.
Quite clearly...
I'll have
the meat and potatos, please, even if dumped scalding into my lap...
Mitch
In an undefined Space, a universe
can be any size at all.
Nor can it be proven to be growing
or shrinking.
Size is a relative term.
As many angels can dance on
the head of a pin as you want.
John
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Be Obvious? |
24 Mar 2005 01:41:28 PM |
|
|
Mitch Perkins wrote:
Can an infinite universe contain an object of infinite size?
Yes.
More than one such object?
Yes, depending on the order of infinity.
An infinite number of such objects?
Yes, depending on the order of infinity.
Read here: http://www.andrews.edu/~calkins/math/webtexts/numb13.htm
If 10^(-36)m doesn't make any physical sense, does, say, 10^(+452)m
make any sense? IOW, how can there be a limit to "smallness", if
there
isn't a limit to "bigness"? Doesn't that suggest a sort of "absolute
scale"?
Yes. Is there a problem with that?
Clearly I have more "creative thinking" than I can handle. I'll
have
the meat and potatos, please, even if dumped scalding into my lap...
Mitch
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitch Perkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Be Obvious? |
24 Mar 2005 05:03:29 PM |
|
|
PD wrote:
[snip much appreciated direct answers. Thanks again.]
Read here: http://www.andrews.edu/~calkins/math/webtexts/numb13.htm
Neat. I was looking at this page earlier - now I can be sure that
it's a good place to start. As usual, a bit of back-tracking is needed
to familiarize myself with some of the terms and concepts, but the car
repairs can wait. ~:?)
If 10^(-36)m doesn't make any physical sense, does, say,
10^(+452)m
make any sense? IOW, how can there be a limit to "smallness", if
there isn't a limit to "bigness"? Doesn't that suggest a sort of
"absolute
scale"?
Yes. Is there a problem with that?
Well, I had a vague notion that absolutes were a no-no, but it is
precisely this kind of notion of which I seek to rid myself. I'm here
to learn, and you just made my day. No joke.
Mitch Perkins
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
