Is the Universe Infinite?

john/nyc wrote:

Brandon,

Here is my problem:....Science, on the other hand, has built itself on the idea of testing and observation. Make a statement about how you think the things work; demonstrate how you reached that conclusion; ask the world to agree or disagree and to demonstrate why.

Along comes String Theory and, to tell you the truth, I don't think these questions I asked are in anybody's level of expertise. If it can't be proved by test or observation, then its no better than religion or, at best, philosophy.

Although I am not working in quantum electrodynamics, having obtained a couple of Physics degrees, and having known people working in quantum electrodynamics, I have been exposed to it enough to strongly suspect, that:

(a) it is derived mathematically from results believed to have been verified plus explicitly acknowledged postulates.
(b) it can, in fact be compared to known experimental elementary particle and other results.

I can promise you that no one in the field is doing anything comparable to religion. May I ask if you can cite specific papers or features of string theory and attest to the fact that the results are not compared to known behavior of elementary particles, the universe, etc. for purposes of verification? Do you base your conclusion on experience with QED?

0 Replies

john/nyc wrote:

I intuit that nipok is advocating some sort of intelligent design model of the universe. (I could be wrong about that; I was wrong once before. I think it was back in 1953.) I do not believe in super-beings but I cannot disprove their existence. The thinking required for belief in religion is so muddled that I have a hard time with it.

I feel that "Organized" religions including Deism and it's off-shoots are for the most part created by man in an attempt to control the fear of the unknown and provide a set of morals. I consider myself to be a Deist and my theories as a whole, which are my set of beliefs, could very well be seen as my religion. I think that a higher form of evolution (a much much higher form) may have interacted with our past or the age old holy texts could all be (more than likely) just fiction. No way to tell but I do not believe that the Ultimate highest form of evolution which could be the sum of the limit of all energy in the entire Universe (not just our little universe) has ever consciously interacted with our planet. And since I see an infinite chain of progression of universes inside atoms inside universes of which ours is just one of an ever increasing and ever decreasing chain, then there could not have been a first second where it all popped into existence or was "created". It's just always been here and always will. I think we can have a higher intelligence without having it be a creator. But this is very much speculative of course very hard to stomach. But instead of driving me crazy, once I put all the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle together that I call my house of cards I find harmony, not chaos. I find peace, not my brain turning to pudding which is what happens at first. These theories need to grow on you for a while (like a fungus) before you can appreciate their simplicity.

0 Replies

....

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Tell us one specific prediction that your hypothesis makes which can be tested and which distinguishes your hypothesis from others, show us how it arises from your work, and describe how it might be tested.

I suppose that the renormalization required in many Feynman diagrams to account for "virtual particles" and the need to use perturbation theory to further explain the lost and then found again energy related to "virtual particles" or vacuum fluctuations seems like viable laws of physics or methods or properties to the equations I suppose. And that the general consensus being that "virtual particles" can exceed the speed of light for very brief periods of time seems to be incongruent with what would be expected. As does the Casimir Effect and a bunch of other observable inconsistencies with particle-antiparticle annihilation. It's basically understood that nobody has every seen them but we theorize they exist because we observe their impact in the world we can see. Renormalization and Perturbation were required because unknowns are acting on the visible layer that we observe.

So I postulate or hypothesize that the unknowns are subatomic particles in a variety of sizes smaller than leptons that as of yet are undetectable. So now I need to come up with a way to test it. Well, they can't be measured yet because we don't have the scientific precision to see them. If they can't be measured then we would need to adjust quantum mechanics and special relativity to account for their existence by creating exceptions to the rules because of observations of these unknown particles interacting with other known particles. So I submit that since we have a handful of methods that have cropped up over time to add band-aids to the current paradigm it provides the theoretical foundation to assume that it is logical that there may be particles of matter that we have yet to detect. And if that is the case then it opens up the gate to question whether or not those subparticles could have a smallest subcomponent at all.

So explain to my how my theory to explain observations is any different from the current theory to explain observations. Neither has proof. What makes it more valid to use virtual particles that pop out of nowhere then annihilate each other so quickly that they are undetectable? I seek insight how a virtual pair of particles has a better chance of standing ground then just admitting that there is a likelihood of subleptonic particles being behind some of our observations thus giving us these uncertainty principles.

We already admit that we can waive the conservation of energy for brief periods since the energy comes back and the equations balance out so whose to say that particles of matter that we are as of yet unable to detect do not account for these discrepancies and in fact do exist. As far as proving my postulate I don't have the resources, I can only speculate and make deductions based on observations. I will guess that at the rate they we are progressing the existence of subleptonic particles will be found in the next 20 years and hopefully at some point we will stop wasting our time and money searching for something that does not exist (a smallest particle of matter).

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

john/nyc wrote:
Brandon,

Here is my problem:....Science, on the other hand, has built itself on the idea of testing and observation. Make a statement about how you think the things work; demonstrate how you reached that conclusion; ask the world to agree or disagree and to demonstrate why.

Along comes String Theory and, to tell you the truth, I don't think these questions I asked are in anybody's level of expertise. If it can't be proved by test or observation, then its no better than religion or, at best, philosophy.

Although I am not working in quantum electrodynamics, having obtained a couple of Physics degrees, and having known people working in quantum electrodynamics, I have been exposed to it enough to strongly suspect, that:

(a) it is derived mathematically from results believed to have been verified plus explicitly acknowledged postulates.
(b) it can, in fact be compared to known experimental elementary particle and other results.

I can promise you that no one in the field is doing anything comparable to religion. May I ask if you can cite specific papers or features of string theory and attest to the fact that the results are not compared to known behavior of elementary particles, the universe, etc. for purposes of verification? Do you base your conclusion on experience with QED?

This is a quote from a leading string theorist:

String theory is often criticized as having had no experimental input or output, so the analogy to a religion has been noted by a number of people. In a sense that's right; it is kind of a church to which I belong. We have our own popes and House of Cardinals. But ultimately science is also an act of faith -- faith that we will be capable of understanding the way the universe is put together.

The well-known physicist and Nobel laureate Sheldon Glashow once supposedly described string theory as the theory of everything that predicts nothing. At the end of the day, if string theory does not provide us with a testable prediction -- whether it be in the context of elementary particle physics or cosmology and black hole physics -- then nobody should believe it.

The power of science is an acceptance and openness to the notion that we are fallible and must therefore be corrected by nature herself. Many other human belief systems start off with the assumption that the answer is already known. In science, it's precisely the opposite; we start out admitting to not knowing the answer. So as we struggle with our marriages of space and time, our addition of extra dimensions, our paradigm shifts from little billiard balls to little pieces of spaghetti, these exercises are all subjected to a single question: Is it there in the laboratory? Can you find its evidence? Until that happens, I am of the opinion that you should be skeptical about string theory.

On the other hand, there is a kind of elegance to string theory, and given the history of how theoretical physics has evolved thus far, it is totally conceivable that some if not all of these ideas will turn out to be correct.
All of this activity in which we engage will be for naught unless at some point there is experimental verification of these ideas.

Sylvester James Gates, Jr. has a number of "firsts" to his name. His doctoral dissertation at M.I.T. was the first ever at that university on supersymmetry. In 1994, he became the first recipient of the American Physical Society's Edward A. Bouchet Award, given to a minority physicist who has made significant contributions to his field. And when in 1998 he was named the first John S. Toll Professor of Physics at the University of Maryland, he became the first African-American to hold an endowed chair in physics at a major U.S. research university.

0 Replies

I still suspect that string theory is arrived at by mathematical derivation from generally accepted facts and clearly stated postulates, and that it is evaluated for correspondence to what is observed in nature. I think that although a reference to religion is made in your citation, which perhaps indicates a paucity of testing, it is still on a very different level of thinking from actual religion.

0 Replies

nipok wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Tell us one specific prediction that your hypothesis makes which can be tested and which distinguishes your hypothesis from others, show us how it arises from your work, and describe how it might be tested.

...So I postulate or hypothesize that the unknowns are subatomic particles in a variety of sizes smaller than leptons that as of yet are undetectable. So now I need to come up with a way to test it....So explain to my how my theory to explain observations is any different from the current theory to explain observations.

So you cannot make any testable prediction at all.

One difference between your hypothesis and those of real scientists is that they start from a small number of postulates and step by step deduce consequences, usually with math. That is how they arrive at their theories. You just say, "Well maybe there are pigs with wings flying around on Jupiter."

You have said that you have taught yourself Physics, and you are apparently using it to revise the field. In that case, perhaps you could answer for me a question that any person who had successfully completed a high school Physics class could work out in about 5 minutes:

A phonograph (not a CD player) is used to play a 33 rpm record. A marble with a mass of 10 grams is glued to the record at a distance of 10 centimeters from the center. What is the minimun force which the glue, and any other sources which contribute such as friction, must supply to keep the marble from sliding or rolling off the record? Show your work.

0 Replies

OK, you're on.

Brandon9000 wrote:

nipok wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:

Tell us one specific prediction that your hypothesis makes which can be tested and which distinguishes your hypothesis from others, show us how it arises from your work, and describe how it might be tested.

...So I postulate or hypothesize that the unknowns are subatomic particles in a variety of sizes smaller than leptons that as of yet are undetectable. So now I need to come up with a way to test it....So explain to my how my theory to explain observations is any different from the current theory to explain observations.

So you cannot make any testable prediction at all.

One difference between your hypothesis and those of real scientists is that they start from a small number of postulates and step by step deduce consequences, usually with math. That is how they arrive at their theories. You just say, "Well maybe there are pigs with wings flying around on Jupiter."

You have said that you have taught yourself Physics, and you are apparently using it to revise the field. In that case, perhaps you could answer for me a question that any person who had successfully completed a high school Physics class could work out in about 5 minutes:

A phonograph (not a CD player) is used to play a 33 rpm record. A marble with a mass of 10 grams is glued to the record at a distance of 10 centimeters from the center. What is the minimun force which the glue, and any other sources which contribute such as friction, must supply to keep the marble from sliding or rolling off the record? Show your work.

OK, I'll play along. I'll answer your question. It won't make a difference in your opinion as to the validity or non-validity of my theories. It is quite evident that you have made up your mind that it is impossible for someone who does not study nuclear physics day in and day out to propose an alternative answer to observations readily available to anyone who cares to research them. You skirt around my questions every chance you get and have yet to provide any useful or significant counter argument to prove that one GUESS is better than another GUESS. That's all the modern accepted paradigm is right now as a whole. Sure parts of it are proven beyond any doubt but you'll find few of those items countered in my theories. A lot of it however is speculation and when you add up all the speculation it become evident even to high school student that there is ample room to question the body of evidence to see if there are not alternative ways to interpret the observations that as a whole seem to meld better.

So I'll have an answer for you over the weekend when I get time and while I am at it why don't you answer one little question for me. Do some research, give me some facts, prove me wrong and explain to me how you can be so sure that there are not particles smaller than leptons and that in fact the reason we have claimed leptons as a point particle has nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific precision of the instruments we use. Give me hard facts from an electron spectroscope,. an Argon calorimeter, or data from a Cerenkov detector that clearly proves the indestructibility of a lepton or a forumula, algorithm, or equation that proves it is not possible.

0 Replies

Who is to say that nothingness cant be counted as substance? Maybe substance is what nothingness is also supposed to look and be like. Therefore all things are possible. :wink:

0 Replies

Re: OK, you're on.

nipok wrote:

So I'll have an answer for you over the weekend when I get time and while I am at it why don't you answer one little question for me. Do some research, give me some facts, prove me wrong and explain to me how you can be so sure that there are not particles smaller than leptons and that in fact the reason we have claimed leptons as a point particle has nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific precision of the instruments we use. Give me hard facts from an electron spectroscope,. an Argon calorimeter, or data from a Cerenkov detector that clearly proves the indestructibility of a lepton or a forumula, algorithm, or equation that proves it is not possible.

I would have a hard time proving that some sort of pigs with wings aren't flying around on Jupiter. That's not the point. The point is that the proponent of a theory is supposed to derive it by something resembling deduction, and then show how it can be tested. You cannot just make stuff up with no basis and then demand that everyone disprove it.

The Physics problem I posted took me about a minute to make up, another three to solve with my calculator, and I think that anyone who had done decently in high school Physics could crank out the answer within 5 minutes. On the AP Physics exam, this problem would certainly be regarded as a gift. If you can't do a high school Physics problem, you aren't qualified to revise the basic underpinnings of modern Physics.

0 Replies

Re: OK, you're on.

Brandon9000 wrote:

I would have a hard time proving that some sort of pigs with wings aren't flying around on Jupiter. That's not the point. The point is that the proponent of a theory is supposed to derive it by something resembling deduction, and then show how it can be tested. You cannot just make stuff up with no basis and then demand that everyone disprove it.

The Physics problem I posted took me about a minute to make up, another three to solve with my calculator, and I think that anyone who had done decently in high school Physics could crank out the answer within 5 minutes. On the AP Physics exam, this problem would certainly be regarded as a gift. If you can't do a high school Physics problem, you aren't qualified to revise the basic underpinnings of modern Physics.

You claim to have a degree in physics so I would hope you would be able to use Newtonian physics with your eyes closed. Its been almost 20 years since I have had to use a Physics equation or formula in my daily life so yes I may be rusty. And yes that may make me far less qualified then a whole bunch of smarter people but that does not mean that deductions on top of deductions based on observations and evidence is not valid path to enlightenment. You do not need to provide a provable formula to try to offer an explanation for why something happens or how something happens. Subleptonic particles are no less valid in theory than vacuum fluctuations and if many people who took the time to study vacuum fluctuations would concede that subleptonic particles could in fact be the culprits then they would not have to keep trying to invent reality. I know my house of cards is hard to swallow. It makes some pretty far-fetched assumptions but you know what you are not alone in your thinking that I am a crackpot. I'd say for every 1 person who agrees with me that there can be no other logical answer there are probably a thousand or more that laugh this off.

Happens that weekdays after my work day is done and the kids are in bed I work from home to try to stay on top of the mountain of work and there are lots of times where I have jobs running on 2 remote machines and I have to wait. When through out the wee hours I have time to post and re-post I do but I don't sit here all night and weekends (with the exception of Sundays) are my 1 chance to catch up on some Z's so I'll get your challenge when I have time since like I stated, right or wrong it won't make a difference with how you perceive the world to be.

As far as being unable to prove that there are no flying pigs circling Jupiter. Since you brought it up. I guess I should not have asked you to provide your interpretation of findings from particle accelerators when the complexity of a telescope sounds like it may be outside your grasp. Ah, there I did it. I lowered myself and the debate I was attempting to provide. I've been trying very hard to avoid that, but to be totally fair, you did ask the question.

0 Replies

Re: OK, you're on.

nipok wrote:

....And yes that may make me far less qualified then a whole bunch of smarter people but that does not mean that deductions on top of deductions based on observations and evidence is not valid path to enlightenment......I lowered myself and the debate I was attempting to provide. I've been trying very hard to avoid that, but to be totally fair, you did ask the question.

What a lot of melodrama. My point is that people who know nothing of Physics or Math, e.g. stumped by the simplest high school Physics questions, are not likely to revise modern Physics, and are pretty misguided to think they could. If you want to do stuff like that, then study basic Physics and Math first. Then you might have some chance.

0 Replies

Re: OK, you're on.

Brandon9000 wrote:

nipok wrote:
....And yes that may make me far less qualified then a whole bunch of smarter people but that does not mean that deductions on top of deductions based on observations and evidence is not valid path to enlightenment......I lowered myself and the debate I was attempting to provide. I've been trying very hard to avoid that, but to be totally fair, you did ask the question.

What a lot of melodrama. My point is that people who know nothing of Physics or Math, e.g. stumped by the simplest high school Physics questions, are not likely to revise modern Physics, and are pretty misguided to think they could. If you want to do stuff like that, then study basic Physics and Math first. Then you might have some chance.

Like I said, it won't change your mind but here the net force per your request.

netforce = mass * ( ( 4 * pi ^2 * radius) / time ^ 2 )

Mass = .1kg
Radius = .1 m
Time = 1.81818 seconds per revolution

.1 * ( 1.25664 / 3.305785 )

.1 * 0.380133

.038N

0 Replies

Re: OK, you're on.

Brandon9000 wrote:

nipok wrote:
....And yes that may make me far less qualified then a whole bunch of smarter people but that does not mean that deductions on top of deductions based on observations and evidence is not valid path to enlightenment......I lowered myself and the debate I was attempting to provide. I've been trying very hard to avoid that, but to be totally fair, you did ask the question.

What a lot of melodrama. My point is that people who know nothing of Physics or Math, e.g. stumped by the simplest high school Physics questions, are not likely to revise modern Physics, and are pretty misguided to think they could. If you want to do stuff like that, then study basic Physics and Math first. Then you might have some chance.

Your turn.

A roller coaster weighing 300 pounds has two occupants. Each 175 lbs. The roller coaster starts from a dead stop at the peak of 500 feet and comes rushing down traversing a distance of 75 feet actual ground distance to a point where the coaster is launched in the air because at 75 feet away from the peak the track ends. It ends 20 feet in the air launching the coaster and its two occupants high into the air. At the highest point the coaster in flight reaches person 1 grabs person 2 and throws them out of the cart. How hard will person 2 hit the ground and what is the likelihood that after such a fall they might stop sounding like a broken record or a parrot ?

You continue to say I know nothing of Physics or Math since I took it upon myself to learn quantum physics, a field that I have found is full of speculative theories. I had 3 years of physics, calculus, trig and the works in college and happen to have a tested IQ in the top 1 percent of the population. But you can continue to argue me without making any valid points, as the longer it goes on the more you begin to sound like the idiot and the less I do.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

A phonograph (not a CD player) is used to play a 33 rpm record. A marble with a mass of 10 grams is glued to the record at a distance of 10 centimeters from the center. What is the minimun force which the glue, and any other sources which contribute such as friction, must supply to keep the marble from sliding or rolling off the record? Show your work.

The force required to keep an object in circular motion is known as centripetal force and is directed towards the center of the circle.

Centripetal force = mv^2/r.

First determine the speed of a point 10 centimeters from the center of a 33 rpm record.

Circumference = pi * Diameter = 3.142 * .2 meter = .6284 meter

Such a point makes a complete revolution 33 times per second, thus its speed is:

Circumference * 33 / 60 seconds = .6284 meter * 33 / 60 seconds = .34562 meters/sec

Now plugging back into the forumula for centripetal force:

F = .01 kg (.34562 meters/sec) ^ 2 / .1 meter = .01 kg (.11945 meters^2/sec^2)/.1 meter
= .011945 kg - meter/sec^2 = .011945 Newton
-----------------------------------------------------
Let me do this a different way to make it look more like yours:

F = m * (Circumference/Period) ^ 2/r = m * (2 * pi * r/Period)^2/r
= m * (4 pi^2 r^2/Period^2)/r = m * 4 * pi ^2 * r / Period^2

= .01 kg * 4 * (3.1416)^2 * .1 m / (60 sec /33)^2

= .01 kg * 4 * 9.86965056 * .1m / (1.81818 sec)^2

= .03948 kg-m / (1.81818 sec)^2

= .03948 kg-m / 3.30578 sec^2

= 0.011943 kg-m/s^2 = 0.011943 Newton

-----------------------------------------------------
Now analyzing your solution:

nipok wrote:

netforce = mass * ( ( 4 * pi ^2 * radius) / time ^ 2 )

Formula is correct, although curiously without explanation of where anything comes from.

nipok wrote:

Mass = .1kg

No, .01 kg, which I regard as a trivial oversight.

nipok wrote:

Radius = .1 m
Time = 1.81818 seconds per revolution

Correct.

nipok wrote:

.1 * ( 1.25664 / 3.305785 )

.1 * 0.380133

Aside from the factor of 10 in the mass, you have taken 4 * pi, not 4 * pi^2. Also, you should show the units all the way through and not just at the end to show how you get Newtons.

nipok wrote:

.038N

Well, basically the errors are failure to square pi and the factor of 10 in the mass. The original formula you gave is correct, although sort of an odd starting point. Typically arithmetic errors are not regarded as very important. What is extremely curious, though is your failure to give the original formula mv^2/r or discuss the principles involved in setting up the problem in any way, shape, or form. I did log on earlier and know that were you now have multiplication symbols, you originally put plus signs which would have involved adding quantities with unlike units, which is always wrong. You have now corrected that, as evidenced by the notation that you have edited the post. I have my suspicions about this, but I am forced to judge it as an essentially correct answer despite the arithmetic problems.

0 Replies

This physics 'lecture' is seemingly 'endless';

thus proving the original thesis!

to contain something infinite, the universe must also be infinite!

[begs the question of multiple infinities!]

0 Replies

BoGoWo wrote:

This physics 'lecture' is seemingly 'endless';

thus proving the original thesis!

to contain something infinite, the universe must also be infinite!

[begs the question of multiple infinities!]

I'll second that motion. Lets get back to the thread at hand, the dead horse has been beaten. I'll go so far as to send another motion to the floor to move the other discussion and those like it to another thread titled Do you need math to build a card house?

If we were to get back to an earlier discussion in this thread "actually related to this thread" a point that was discussed but not closed would be what could be outside our known universe. I submit I think that far far away are other universes like ours. Others feel there is nothing, nothing at all, a nothing that is not something. So that is two options. What other logical possibilities could there be for something that is not nothing?

0 Replies

i suppose, something completely different (as John Cleese would attest)!

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Well, basically the errors are ...

I'll entertain one last response unrelated to the thread at hand and then we should move on. If you are unable to accept the ability to propose a set of theories based on observations and not math then so be it.

I did this in a rush and yes I did for a brief time have the equation solved using addition instead of multiplication. My college physics books if I still have them are buried somewhere in a box in the garage so I did have to use the internet to locate the formula and the formulas looked like plus signs. It was not until I went to cross-reference my answer by looking up the formula for acceleration that I noticed the original oversight.

I was not responding to the world nor was I responding to a physics exam. I was responding to you and did not see the need to overstate the obvious. You question my starting point when in fact your starting point is not the base of the equation. F=M x A is where both you and I derived our formulas. You expanded out acceleration where I took it a step further and then expanded out velocity. And yes I missed a decimal point and on one of the last iterations I failed to square pi to calculate velocity. Either way like I said it has nothing to do with my theories and even less to do with this thread so like BoGo said, its time to move on.

0 Replies

The nice thing about these discussions, is that the participants, regardless of their seeming, or actual degree of tenacity to the current 'wisdom' of physics, and scientific theory, in general, bring to the discussion interesting, and worthwhile thoughts for contemplation, which add to our supply of concepts for consideration and speculation.

[we can only learn from each other]

0 Replies

Is the Universe Infinite?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know