Science & Mathematics Infinity

[TheStinger]

Interesting. Explain the space between the two universes before they collided?



Membrane universe theory has an infinite amount of universes.

I believe these guys may be able to help...

 

[BomberGal]

But the orange exists in the world, the solar system, etc.

I get what you're trying to say though

Through the big bang the universe was created, and as it expands it creates space. What I don't get though, is what it expands into. It'll just go on forever if this is the case though..

A profound thought for today:

The universe is not an orange.

While that may sound fairly obvious, the laws of physics act differently when you go on the tiny tiny tiny scale or the really really huge scale.

Richard Feynman once said, "if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics". I think the same applies to the concepts of infinity and the expansion of the universe.

 

[mdc]

A profound thought for today:

The universe is not an orange.

While that may sound fairly obvious, the laws of physics act differently when you go on the tiny tiny tiny scale or the really really huge scale.

Richard Feynman once said, "if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics". I think the same applies to the concepts of infinity and the expansion of the universe.

I'm not sure that's correct. On the quantum mechanical level, matter really does behave completely differently. It's difficult because this behaviour is often contradictory to Newtonian physics, and in most cases much more taxing maths-wise than Newtonian physics.

OTOH, the difficulty with infinity for most people is a conceptual one.

Even ssfc's example of the orange is not all that terrible. The problem is his point of reference. If you want a universe-like orange, you have to put yourself inside the orange.

 

[ssfc0203]

The Universe is incomparable though. I was just using the orange as a representation of an object being housed within something else.

 

[BomberGal]

I'm not sure that's correct. On the quantum mechanical level, matter really does behave completely differently. It's difficult because this behaviour is often contradictory to Newtonian physics, and in most cases much more taxing maths-wise than Newtonian physics.

OTOH, the difficulty with infinity for most people is a conceptual one.

I didn't mean to imply that the universe behaves similarly to things on the quantum mechanical level. Just that in both cases, the physics is not as simple as being Newtonian.

I'm not down with physics as much as I'd like but had a friend who would teach me about this stuff. I'd love to go ask him about this but unfortunately he's no longer with us.

The conceptual problem with infinity is true, but my point there is that it's not really something you are able to understand because, evolutionary, your brain is not equipped to deal with scales as small as the quantum scale, or as large as the universe. Even though quantum mechanics makes no sense whichever way you look it and it's not just a size thing - the thing is that it is, in its way, also conceptual, and not a concept humans deal with. On the quantum level, matter doesn't act anything like our entire evolutionary history has dealt with, so it can't make sense.

Even ssfc's example of the orange is not all that terrible. The problem is his point of reference. If you want a universe-like orange, you have to put yourself inside the orange.

Well, that's why the universe is not like an orange. The universe is self-contained, but the orange is not, in that sense. Even if you put yourself inside the orange, there's still stuff outside the orange.

 

[mdc]

Well, that's why the universe is not like an orange. The universe is self-contained, but the orange is not, in that sense. Even if you put yourself inside the orange, there's still stuff outside the orange.

This is something you could not know if you were inside the orange.

 

[Wally Carter]

The parallel/membrane universe theory takes quantum mechanics in to account.

Particles are moving between universes.

Black holes suck up matter, and spit out matter in to another universe.

I like this theory.

 

[treefingers]

Will we ever be able to prove any of these theories? I doubt it. It is interesting stuff though, very hard to get your head around.

 

[Malifice]

With respect to the universe - it never ends. Difficult concept to imagine isn't it.

Hang on...

I thought the Universe was now regarded as finite?

But String theory/ Many worlds thoery/ Quantum theory posits that there are an infinite number of universes. (To defeat entropy/ the conundrum raised by third law of thermodynamics and all that).

Have I missed something?

 

[Malifice]

Doesn't really make any sense. That's like saying an orange is contained within an orange.

Imagine an infinite (or other arbitrarily high) number of oranges each one linked to the other.

Its not a perfect analogy but itll do.

Membrane universe theory has an infinite amount of universes.

And this is the current accepted model in the GUT unless I missed something?

I'm not sure that's correct. On the quantum mechanical level, matter really does behave completely differently. It's difficult because this behaviour is often contradictory to Newtonian physics, and in most cases much more taxing maths-wise than Newtonian physics.

Exactly.

And science is currently coming to grips with resolving differences between the two.

The big problem lies with the fact that Quantum mechanics threatens to falisfy Newtonian/ Einsteinian theories.

The conceptual problem with infinity is true, but my point there is that it's not really something you are able to understand because, evolutionary, your brain is not equipped to deal with scales as small as the quantum scale, or as large as the universe.

I have problems with this statement... it seems a little like rationalisation of an inherent flaw with current scientific reasoning re the big bang.

We appear to be leaping from scientific reasoning to pure... well... faith.

A key element of scientific theory is falsifiability. If we cant even conceptualise something, then how can we possibly falsify it?

If we cant conceptualise it, or falsify it, we cant rationally accept it using logic or science. All we have left is accept it on is 'Faith'. And then we might as well hand the reigns back to the Church and be done with it all.

Surely one could argue the same statement re the existence of God?

Also reminds me a little of the 'fudging' that went on pre Copernicus (in the greek model of the solar system).

 

[mdc]

Malifice, I haven't read the physicsforums for about a year and a half, but unless something's changed drastically we're a fair way away from a consensus. Unless you have info to the contrary?

Fwiw, I favour the many-universe theory from a philosophical POV if nothing else.

 

[Malifice]

Malifice, I haven't read the physics forums for about a year and a half, but unless something's changed drastically we're a fair way away from a consensus. Unless you have info to the contrary?

Ive been out of the loop as well.

But Hawkings is down with the many worlds/ string version of the GUT (after recanting his former 'big crunch' theory) and the Europeans have certainly spent a lot of money on a large Hadron collider to falsify/ prove the theory.

If its good enough for them, its good enough for me.

No results as yet with the Hadron collider yet of course (un-surprising really - it'll either turn out to be just a bigger version of the quantum light wave function/ particle phenomenon and suffer from the same Schrödinger's cat style observational failings ... or it'll end the universe. Take your guess... im personally with the later.)

Fwiw, I favour the many-universe theory from a philosophical POV if nothing else.

Same here. Its really the only theory we have that fits.

I just cant get past the entropy conundrum.

Order cannot arise in a closed system. All things must eventually turn to chaos.

Yet we live in a relatively ordered society, in an ordered universe that conforms to laws, experimentation and observation.

Hence an ordered universe (this universe) must be infinite right? But how to reconcile that position with the Big bang theory where the universe is 'only' 37 billion years old? We limit time, we limit space. Relativity (both temporal and spatial) then dictates that the universe must then be finite.

Its a paradox.

We either just falsified relativity and thus it's wrong (and it's not) and Einstein and Newton have a lot of explaining to do... or we falsified the big bang theory and it's wrong (and its not)... or there is another explanation.

Enter quantum mechanics and the 'many worlds' theory. In a nutshell: While this universe (with its 4 dimensions) is finite... but there are are an infinite number ... of finite universes.

Its the only way both relativity (and the big bang) can live happily side by side.

It also stands up to experimentation (and falsification)... unless the Hadron collider falsifies it all of course.

Or ends this universe... or creates a new one. Either way it wont be good.

 

[Wally Carter]

No results as yet with the Hadron collider yet of course (un-surprising really - it'll either turn out to be just a bigger version of the quantum light wave function/ particle phenomenon and suffer from the same Schrödinger's cat style observational failings ... or it'll end the universe. Take your guess... im personally with the later.)

You can't be serious.

 

[Malifice]

You can't be serious.

Current estimates have it at a 1 in 50 million chance of the LHC either creating a black hole or generating 'strangelets' and thus destroying the Earth (at a minimum) the Solar system (probably) and possibly the Universe.

If these odds are correct you have a better chance of all life on earth being exterminated than you do of winning Ozlotto.

Regarding Strangelets:

Strangelets are small fragments of strange matter—a hypothetical form of quark matter—that contain roughly equal numbers of up, down, and strange quarks and that are more stable than ordinary nuclei (strangelets would range in size from a few femtometers to a few meters across).[5] If strangelets can actually exist, and if they were produced at the LHC, they could conceivably initiate a runaway fusion process in which all the nuclei in the planet would be converted to strange matter, similar to a strange star.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_of_particle_collisions_at_the_Large_Hadron_Collider


Its not like when they split the atom... scientists at least had solid theories regarding the energy release.

We're just kinda simulating the creation of the universe... and flying blind as we're doing so.

Slight odds, catastrophic consequences.

I am more than a little concerned.

 

[BomberGal]

I just cant get past the entropy conundrum.

Order cannot arise in a closed system. All things must eventually turn to chaos.

Yet we live in a relatively ordered society, in an ordered universe that conforms to laws, experimentation and observation.

Let me guess, you don't believe in evolution, either.

 

[Malifice]

Let me guess, you don't believe in evolution, either.

Of course I do.

Although 'believe' isnt technically correct. I agree with the current theory of evolution and natural selection.

What makes you think that I dont?

Perhaps you misinterpret my position.

My statement that 'Order cannot arise in a closed system' is a reiteration of the law of entropy, not a support for malarkey such as intelligent design.

In a closed system (such as a finite universe), Order always either remains at a constant value or turns to Chaos. Never the other way around. Its an absolute rule.

Yet it appears in our universe that Chaos has structured itself into Order. Entropy has in fact decreased. This can only be possible in an open (or infinite) system.

Thus the universe must be infinite. But the laws of relativity tell us that the universe is finite. So which one is right and which one is wrong? How do we resolve this paradox?

Simple. This universe is finite (and thus bounded by the laws of relativity and newtonian physics). However there are an infinite number of parallel universes (that likely have thier own set of laws and 'physics').

Thus while the universe is finite, the system the universe is 'contained' in is not.

The entropy paradox is solved and relativity survives unscathed, as does quantum theory.

For a reasonably easy to understand but still more 'scientific' discussion on Entropy:

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(arrow_of_time)

 

[BomberGal]

Of course I do.

Although 'believe' isnt technically correct. I agree with the current theory of evolution and natural selection.

What makes you think that I dont?

Perhaps you misinterpret my position.

My statement that 'Order cannot arise in a closed system' is a reiteration of the law of entropy, not a support for malarkey such as intelligent design.

In a closed system (such as a finite universe), Order always turns to Chaos. Never the other way around. Its an absolute rule.

Yet it appears in our universe that Chaos has structured itself into Order. This can only be possible in an open (or infinite) system.

Thus the universe must be infinite. But the laws of relativity tell us that the universe is finite. So which one is right and which one is wrong? How do we resolve this paradox?

Simple. This universe is finite (and thus bounded by the laws of relativity and newtonian physics). However there are an infinite number of parallel universes (that likely have thier own set of laws and 'physics').

Thus while the universe is finite, the system the universe is 'contained' in is not.

The entropy paradox is solved and relativity survives unscathed, as does quantum theory.

Never mind, it's just one of those statements the creationist crowd makes, that's all.

You may say that we have increased order in the universe, but do we? My understanding of entropy is largely derived from being a biologist, so they're the examples I have to use, but for example, in an organism, the 'ordered' structure of a protein actually does increase the entropy of the system. In some cases, a protein forms a native structure so as to decrease the ordering of water molecules around it, thus increasing entropy. It all depends on your definition of order.

Secondly, entropy of the entire system must increase. It doesn't mean you can't have localised regions of decreasing entropy, such as what you consider apparent order on earth.

 

[Wally Carter]

Current estimates have it at a 1 in 50 million chance of the LHC either creating a black hole or generating 'strangelets' and thus destroying the Earth (at a minimum) the Solar system (probably) and possibly the Universe.

How did they calculate those odds on matter that only "hypothetically" exists in the first place?

If these odds are correct you have a better chance of all life on earth being exterminated than you do of winning Ozlotto.

Actually, that's incorrect. The odds of a single ticket winning Ozlotto are 1 in 45,379,620.

Of course, you have left out the fact that hundreds of thousands of people participate in Ozlotto, so the odds of the jackpot being won increase significantly, whereas only 1 Large Hadron Collider disaster can ever occur (according to your odds).

A statistician would label the odds of 1 in 50 million as impossible to occur.

We're just kinda simulating the creation of the universe... and flying blind as we're doing so.

What solid research can you provide that supports the notion that black holes are triggered by smacking together particles that contain properties of which we don't even really know?

Slight odds, catastrophic consequences.

I am more than a little concerned.

Are you aware that the energy generated by the collision, 7 tera-electronvolts, is roughly the equivalent of a head on collision between two fruit flies?

 

[Moonwatcher]

Never mind, it's just one of those statements the creationist crowd makes, that's all.

You may say that we have increased order in the universe, but do we? My understanding of entropy is largely derived from being a biologist, so they're the examples I have to use, but for example, in an organism, the 'ordered' structure of a protein actually does increase the entropy of the system. In some cases, a protein forms a native structure so as to decrease the ordering of water molecules around it, thus increasing entropy. It all depends on your definition of order.

Secondly, entropy of the entire system must increase. It doesn't mean you can't have localised regions of decreasing entropy, such as what you consider apparent order on earth.

Great example, and goes to show that order and entropy are not related. Order not even having a specific meaning in physics.

 

[Malifice]

How did they calculate those odds on matter that only "hypothetically" exists in the first place?

Ask the statisticians.

I cant see how its impossible. Hypothetically (and as an extreme example) say you came upon a sealed box on the road on the side of the road.

I'm fairly sure you could calculate probabilities as to what it contained based on size, weight (and other factors).

Of course they'd be long odds. It could contain virtually anything.

But that doesn't logically correlate to an impossiblity to generate those odds.

Actually, that's incorrect. The odds of a single ticket winning Ozlotto are 1 in 45,379,620.

My bad. So you have a slightly higher chance of winning Ozlotto than you do of ending the world by triggering the LHC.

Considering the consequences of each potential outcome (millionare vs the extinction of all life as we know it) its a risky proposition.

Of course, you have left out the fact that hundreds of thousands of people participate in Ozlotto, so the odds of the jackpot being won increase significantly, whereas only 1 Large Hadron Collider disaster can ever occur (according to your odds).

No. The odds of someone winning increase. Your odds stay the same.

A statistician would label the odds of 1 in 50 million as impossible to occur.

No they wouldn't. Highly improbable yes. Impossible no.

Its like rolling a 50 million sided die. Theres a chance (a small chance) that your number will come up.

What solid research can you provide that supports the notion that black holes are triggered by smacking together particles that contain properties of which we don't even really know?

Its not the black holes that worry me, its manipulating the the Quantum effects that worry me.

Our only saving grace is the universe should stop the machine from ending it by sabotaging efforts to locate the higgs bosun from the future (much like a quantum suicide device doesn't allow one to kill oneself by allowing a wavefunction collapse, and light re-orders itself from waves to particles depending on if we are oberving it or not).

For a discussion see (amongst others):

http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives..._subjective_probability_and_conspiracies.html

FWIW this appears to already be the case. The following article is based on some very solid science regarding quantum safeguards against the universe allowing itself to be destroyed:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/science/space/13lhc.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all

That said, Humans are a smart little species, and I worry that we might be able to find a way 'around' the quantum observability conundrum and time travelling higgs bosuns.

Then we would be royally ****ed. We would have outsmarted the universe into extinction.

Are you aware that the energy generated by the collision, 7 tera-electronvolts, is roughly the equivalent of a head on collision between two fruit flies?

Its not the energy (or speed, or heat or mass or size) Im worried about (or anything else connected to Newtonian physics for that matter).

Its the quantum repurcussions.

 

[Malifice]

Never mind, it's just one of those statements the creationist crowd makes, that's all.

No worries. For the record I am not (and never have been) a creationist.

The only dudes that shit me more are the intelligent design wallies.

It all depends on your definition of order.

Great example, and goes to show that order and entropy are not related. Order not even having a specific meaning in physics.

Conceded. I use 'Order' in the classical sense, more as the counterpoint to disorder (or entropy).

Secondly, entropy of the entire system must increase. It doesn't mean you can't have localised regions of decreasing entropy, such as what you consider apparent order on earth.

In other words, as entropy decreases somewhere (say on earth), it increases elsewhere.... thus remaining an overall constant.

There was a problem with that argument (something to do with wave functions collapsing IIRC). Hence they needed to add other dimensions to the equation so that the entropy could go 'somewhere'.

 

[Wally Carter]

Ask the statisticians.

You have worries about a sum you don't understand?

My bad. So you have a slightly higher chance of winning Ozlotto than you do of ending the world by triggering the LHC.....

.....No. The odds of someone winning increase. Your odds stay the same.

There is nothing slight about it. You are missing the point.

There is only one hadron collision experiment, there are hundred of thousands of ozlotto players.

The odds of say 300,000 in ~ 45,000,000 are nowhere near the extreme odds of 1 in 50,000,000. The fact that ozlotto is won every 2 or 3 weeks is testament to that.

There will only be 1 chance that the hadron collision will result in a black hole. 1 chance in 50,000,000.

No they wouldn't. Highly improbable yes. Impossible no.

Its like rolling a 50 million sided die. Theres a chance (a small chance) that your number will come up.

The odds are big enough for me to consider "impossible".

Its not the black holes that worry me, its manipulating the the Quantum effects that worry me.

Our only saving grace is the universe should stop the machine from ending it by sabotaging efforts to locate the higgs bosun from the future (much like a quantum suicide device doesn't allow one to kill oneself by allowing a wavefunction collapse, and light re-orders itself from waves to particles depending on if we are oberving it or not).

For a discussion see (amongst others):

http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives..._subjective_probability_and_conspiracies.html

FWIW this appears to already be the case. The following article is based on some very solid science regarding quantum safeguards against the universe allowing itself to be destroyed:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/science/space/13lhc.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all

That said, Humans are a smart little species, and I worry that we might be able to find a way 'around' the quantum observability conundrum and time travelling higgs bosuns.

Then we would be royally ****ed. We would have outsmarted the universe into extinction.

Wha???!!!???

You are basing you notions on HIGHLY theoretical papers.

Its not the energy (or speed, or heat or mass or size) Im worried about (or anything else connected to Newtonian physics for that matter).

Its the quantum repurcussions.

Why should there be a "quantum repercussion"? How is this experiment going to detrimentally effect the quantum field?

 

[dr nick]

Current estimates have it at a 1 in 50 million chance of the LHC either creating a black hole or generating 'strangelets' and thus destroying the Earth (at a minimum) the Solar system (probably) and possibly the Universe.

wow. to think us little biddy humans occupying our tiny little speck of the milky way are capable of destroying the entire universe.

i'd be interested to see these 'current estimates', if you have them.

 

[dr nick]

There is also a 1/50 chance the LHC will contribute to global warming.

 

[HollyLovesWCE]

This discussion always has and always will make me very confused and angry!
Just to bring this back down to stupid-person level (ie me) - Woah!!! This thread really hurts my brain! If I could know one thing before I die, it would be whether or not the universe if finite or infinite.

I think that it is a concept which will never be solved, as neither answer is logical or makes any sense (not to me anyway!); The universe either goes on forever - impossible, or it ends somewhere - impossible.

If anyone on here reads my post and finds that it is extremely stupid an ill-informed, feel free to explain your concept/s to me (in a dumbed-down way!). Or you could get angry and reply with some sort of moderately abusive post, in which case I will not return after that


Anyway, sorry about that, continue on