Current is not quantiziced. Charge is because quarks has charges 1/3, 2/3 etc)
Matter isnt quaticized but discrete.
-
Features
-
Friends of IIDBFriends Recovering from Religion United Coalition of Reason Infidel Guy
Forums Council of Ex-Muslims Rational Skepticism
Social Networks Internet Infidels Facebook Page IIDB Facebook Group
The Archives IIDB Archive Secular Café Archive
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Can the definition of infinity disprove an infinite past?
- Thread starter Rhea
- Start date
Matter isnt quaticized but discrete.
untermensche
Contributor
Current is not quantiziced. Charge is because quarks has charges 1/3, 2/3 etc)I think unternensche got something right.
From QM energy transfer is quantized. It is said that as the number of aggregate particles of an object increases from the particle scale to our macro Newtonian scale the density of states is so high that things appear continuous.
The motion of a planet to us appears continuous, we quantify a planet's motion as a real number infinitely divisible as a practical matter.
IAW QM a planet can only change velocity in discrete steps. It takes energy to change velocity and energy is quantized.
We do the same with electric current. Current is Coulombs/second. Current is quantized, but in most cases we treat it as a continuous variable with real numbers infinitely divisible knowing it is not. The quantization effects are normally far below instrument's detection ability
Natter is quantized. If matter was continuous where would you cut it?
What he gets wrong is that quantum reality does not preclude an infinite number of objects or an finite unbounded universe.
Matter isnt quaticized but discrete.
Matter has specific structure that if broken changes it into something else.
It can only be divided so many times.
The flow of current is the movement of electrons.
Nothing infinite about that.
Current is not quantiziced. Charge is because quarks has charges 1/3, 2/3 etc)I think unternensche got something right.
From QM energy transfer is quantized. It is said that as the number of aggregate particles of an object increases from the particle scale to our macro Newtonian scale the density of states is so high that things appear continuous.
The motion of a planet to us appears continuous, we quantify a planet's motion as a real number infinitely divisible as a practical matter.
IAW QM a planet can only change velocity in discrete steps. It takes energy to change velocity and energy is quantized.
We do the same with electric current. Current is Coulombs/second. Current is quantized, but in most cases we treat it as a continuous variable with real numbers infinitely divisible knowing it is not. The quantization effects are normally far below instrument's detection ability
Natter is quantized. If matter was continuous where would you cut it?
What he gets wrong is that quantum reality does not preclude an infinite number of objects or an finite unbounded universe.
Matter isnt quaticized but discrete.
Matter has specific structure that if broken changes it into something else.
It can only be divided so many times.
The flow of current is the movement of electrons.
Nothing infinite about that.
Current coloumb charge per second. So you just need to have a infinitely slow charged object, or measure the current infinitely close to an orthogonal of the current (since current has direction) Which istotally possible.
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Current is not quantiziced. Charge is because quarks has charges 1/3, 2/3 etc)I think unternensche got something right.
From QM energy transfer is quantized. It is said that as the number of aggregate particles of an object increases from the particle scale to our macro Newtonian scale the density of states is so high that things appear continuous.
The motion of a planet to us appears continuous, we quantify a planet's motion as a real number infinitely divisible as a practical matter.
IAW QM a planet can only change velocity in discrete steps. It takes energy to change velocity and energy is quantized.
We do the same with electric current. Current is Coulombs/second. Current is quantized, but in most cases we treat it as a continuous variable with real numbers infinitely divisible knowing it is not. The quantization effects are normally far below instrument's detection ability
Natter is quantized. If matter was continuous where would you cut it?
What he gets wrong is that quantum reality does not preclude an infinite number of objects or an finite unbounded universe.
Matter isnt quaticized but discrete.
Discrete and quantized are synonmouse. The discrete or quantized unit of current is the electron.
1 Coulomb = 242 x 10^18 discrete electrons. Charge is number of electrons.
1 Amper of current = 1 Coulomb/Secomd.
Equations always trump semantics.
Current is quantized or discrete whichever term you use. For me discrete is the oposite of continuous. even though all things from QM are discrete. We treat current normally as a continuos real value, normally quantum efects are too small to be seen. In solid stae physics like trasotors that is not always true.
Current is not quantiziced. Charge is because quarks has charges 1/3, 2/3 etc)I think unternensche got something right.
From QM energy transfer is quantized. It is said that as the number of aggregate particles of an object increases from the particle scale to our macro Newtonian scale the density of states is so high that things appear continuous.
The motion of a planet to us appears continuous, we quantify a planet's motion as a real number infinitely divisible as a practical matter.
IAW QM a planet can only change velocity in discrete steps. It takes energy to change velocity and energy is quantized.
We do the same with electric current. Current is Coulombs/second. Current is quantized, but in most cases we treat it as a continuous variable with real numbers infinitely divisible knowing it is not. The quantization effects are normally far below instrument's detection ability
Natter is quantized. If matter was continuous where would you cut it?
What he gets wrong is that quantum reality does not preclude an infinite number of objects or an finite unbounded universe.
Matter isnt quaticized but discrete.
Matter has specific structure that if broken changes it into something else.
It can only be divided so many times.
The flow of current is the movement of electrons.
Nothing infinite about that.
Current coloumb charge per second. So you just need to have a infinitely slow charged object, or measure the current infinitely close to an orthogonal of the current (since current has direction) Which is totally possible.
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Current is not quantiziced. Charge is because quarks has charges 1/3, 2/3 etc)I think unternensche got something right.
From QM energy transfer is quantized. It is said that as the number of aggregate particles of an object increases from the particle scale to our macro Newtonian scale the density of states is so high that things appear continuous.
The motion of a planet to us appears continuous, we quantify a planet's motion as a real number infinitely divisible as a practical matter.
IAW QM a planet can only change velocity in discrete steps. It takes energy to change velocity and energy is quantized.
We do the same with electric current. Current is Coulombs/second. Current is quantized, but in most cases we treat it as a continuous variable with real numbers infinitely divisible knowing it is not. The quantization effects are normally far below instrument's detection ability
Natter is quantized. If matter was continuous where would you cut it?
What he gets wrong is that quantum reality does not preclude an infinite number of objects or an finite unbounded universe.
Matter isnt quaticized but discrete.
Matter has specific structure that if broken changes it into something else.
It can only be divided so many times.
The flow of current is the movement of electrons.
Nothing infinite about that.
That is twice in ione day I agree with you.
Jokodo
Veteran Member
The paradoxes are not a bunch of nonsense.
They show how infinity becomes unworkable in the real world.
If we say an object makes infinite movements when moving from A to B then it will have to take infinite time.
Because a movement has to be something positive and it must take some positive amount of time to make.
The only way the object can get there is to make a finite amount of smallest possible movements. Quantized movements.
...or an infinite number of infinitisimal movements. Claiming that it is making a finite number of steps implies that C as the universe's speed limit only holds at large scales. Do you have any evidence for superluminal velocities at microscopic levels?
How much time does it take to make one "infinitesimal movement"?
If it takes any time at all, in other words, if it is real, it will take infinite time to make infinite movements. No matter how much time it takes to make one infinitesimal movement.
If you claim an infinitesimal movement takes no time then it is not a movement. It is something imaginary.
Your failure to grasp fairly basic concepts is no evidence that they're wrong. If you claim that object skip instantly from being posited at one space quant to being posited at another, the two being a finite distance apart, without being at intermediate locations at intermediate points in time, you're implying not only that infinite speeds are possible, but that you and I move (intermittently) at infinite speeds as we drag ourselves to the kitchen in the morning.
We have, at this point in the history of science, no way of knowing whether space and time are infinite. But we have a good number of solid reasons to believe that all speeds are finite. If your attempt to disprove infinite space and/or time requires you to postulate infinite velocities, you know something's fishy.
The observation that the speed of light as the fastest possible speed of transfer of anything (energy, matter, information...) in the universe appears to hold at all scales is fairly solid evidence that space is not quantized -- if it were, this would imply that the speed of light restriction breaks down in smaller scales. This is possible in principle, but it is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.
And, no, you won't get out by saying that time is also quantized, and the speed of light is what you get when an entity moves one space quant per time quant. Quite the opposite: This would seem to imply that the only possible velocities are integer fractions of the speed of light!
untermensche
Contributor
Imagining the world is infinite because the models make use of infinity is not some great intuition.
It is absolute nonsense.
Easily shown to be nonsense.
Which is why you dodged my questions.
It is absolute nonsense.
Easily shown to be nonsense.
Which is why you dodged my questions.
Jokodo
Veteran Member
Imagining the world is infinite because the models make use of infinity is not some great intuition.
It is absolute nonsense.
Easily shown to be nonsense.
Which is why you dodged my questions.
Your question doesn't even make sense.
You, however, have failed to provide evidence for infinite velocities, which your "model" requires.
To repeat from my last point (edited in, so you may not have seen it when you pretended to reply):
"We have, at this point in the history of science, no way of knowing whether space and time are infinite. But we have a good number of solid reasons to believe that all speeds are finite. If your attempt to disprove infinite space and/or time requires you to postulate infinite velocities, you know something's fishy."
untermensche
Contributor
You are dodging.
If you claim something makes infinite movements when it moves from A to B there are only 2 choices.
1. A move is something positive. Then infinite moves would take infinite time. Because a positive movement must take some amount of time.
2. A move takes zero time somehow. Then infinite movements would take zero time. Then any movement would take zero time.
Which is it?
If you claim something makes infinite movements when it moves from A to B there are only 2 choices.
1. A move is something positive. Then infinite moves would take infinite time. Because a positive movement must take some amount of time.
2. A move takes zero time somehow. Then infinite movements would take zero time. Then any movement would take zero time.
Which is it?
Jokodo
Veteran Member
You are dodging.
If you claim something makes infinite movements when it moves from A to B there are only 2 choices.
1. A move is something positive. Then infinite moves would take infinite time. Because a positive movement must take some amount of time.
2. A move takes zero time somehow. Then infinite movements would take zero time. Then any movement would take zero time.
Which is it?
Neither. N x (1/N) = 1 for any N. However small the slices of space, the time taken to pass through them will be accordingly smaller, but their sum will always be 1. And the same if you replace N by 2N.
Now would you care to explain how, if space consists of discrete points and any thing can always only be at one or the other of those, you want to avoid infinite velocities between those points?
untermensche
Contributor
You are dodging.
If you claim something makes infinite movements when it moves from A to B there are only 2 choices.
1. A move is something positive. Then infinite moves would take infinite time. Because a positive movement must take some amount of time.
2. A move takes zero time somehow. Then infinite movements would take zero time. Then any movement would take zero time.
Which is it?
Neither. N x (1/N) = 1 for any N. However small the slices of space, the time taken to pass through them will be accordingly smaller, but their sum will always be 1. And the same if you replace N by 2N.
Now would you care to explain how, if space consists of discrete points and any thing can always only be at one or the other of those, you want to avoid infinite velocities between those points?
That formula only holds true if there is a value for N.
You are merely pretending the infinity completes in the formula.
You are pretending every value of N can be expressed.
But in the real world they cannot.
In the real world if every N has to be expressed the formula will never reach an end point.
In the real world you will never get to the end if you can always make a smaller and smaller move.
You confuse the underlying assumptions that mathematicians use, like an infinity can complete, with the real world.
In mathematics you have things like points. Something that exists yet takes up no space.
That is how you have infinities complete in mathematics. By using imaginary entities.
Points do not exist in the real world.
Neither do infinities.
Jokodo
Veteran Member
You are dodging.
If you claim something makes infinite movements when it moves from A to B there are only 2 choices.
1. A move is something positive. Then infinite moves would take infinite time. Because a positive movement must take some amount of time.
2. A move takes zero time somehow. Then infinite movements would take zero time. Then any movement would take zero time.
Which is it?
Neither. N x (1/N) = 1 for any N. However small the slices of space, the time taken to pass through them will be accordingly smaller, but their sum will always be 1. And the same if you replace N by 2N.
Now would you care to explain how, if space consists of discrete points and any thing can always only be at one or the other of those, you want to avoid infinite velocities between those points?
That formula only holds true if there is a value for N.
You are merely pretending the infinity completes in the formula.
You are pretending every value of N can be expressed.
But in the real world they cannot.
If you're so certain about that, it should be trivially easy for you to tell us all the largest value of N for which this formula holds!
In the real world if every N has to be expressed the formula will never reach an end point.
What does "every N has to be expressed" even mean?
In the real world you will never get to the end if you can always make a smaller and smaller move.
And you have yet to provide a single argument why this should be so.
You confuse the underlying assumptions that mathematicians use, like an infinity can complete, with the real world.
You mean the real world in which velocities are limited by the speed of light? I note you still haven't elaborated on how you intend to avoid violating it if space is quantized...
In mathematics you have things like points. Something that exists yet takes up no space.
That is how you have infinities complete in mathematics. By using imaginary entities.
Points do not exist in the real world.
Claiming that space is discrete effectively amounts to saying that they do.
Neither do infinities.
We're still waiting for one coherent argument why we should take your word on this. Your failure to grasp calculus is not an argument for or against anything other than the capabilities of your math teachers.
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Imagining the world is infinite because the models make use of infinity is not some great intuition.
It is absolute nonsense.
Easily shown to be nonsense.
Which is why you dodged my questions.
Who said the world is infinite? Saying something is so without derail is not easily showing. We do not mathematically use infinitives, we use limits and asymptotes that approach infinity. You said you had calculus?
infinity/infinity is undefined. 1/0 is undefined. There is no algorithm that can perform the operations.
Infinity does not exist mathematicaly, it desribes a projected enf point or condition. Is that not clear?
Applying the number line or infinite series to reality as a proof an infinite universe can't exists is I believe non sequitur, conclusion does not follow from the argument, the structure of the argument itself is invalid. You are not able to show why aspects of math preclude an infinite universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy
untermensche
Contributor
That formula only holds true if there is a value for N.
You are merely pretending the infinity completes in the formula.
You are pretending every value of N can be expressed.
But in the real world they cannot.
If you're so certain about that, it should be trivially easy for you to tell us all the largest value of N for which this formula holds!
This does not logically follow in any way.
It is your problem that N has no final point, not mine.
You are claiming that all of something similar to your formula can be expressed in reality.
You are saying that all of 1/N can be expressed.
So something can move 1/10 of an inch and 1/100 and 1/1000 and so forth. And it can move a smaller distance forever.
But if there is no final N then it can never actually happen in reality.
You cannot finish the sequence in reality. There is no end to it.
So it is a big problem with your proposal that N has no largest value.
In the real world if every N has to be expressed the formula will never reach an end point.
What does "every N has to be expressed" even mean?
Expressed is the difference between just imagining an infinity completes somehow and one actually completing.
In the real world every N would have to be "expressed" for an infinity to occur.
In the real world imagining an infinity completes isn't good enough.
And if you have infinite elements, like the positive integers, they can never be expressed.
It is impossible to actually express an infinity. There is no amount of time in which it is possible. Not even in infinite time.
You mean the real world in which velocities are limited by the speed of light?
Non sequitur.
And it supports my position that there are hard limits to reality.
You cannot move infinitely fast
That makes no sense in this universe.
Jokodo
Veteran Member
You cannot move infinitely fast
That makes no sense in this universe.
If you cannot move infinitely fast, space cannot consist of discrete points separated by a finite amount of space.
If it did, moving from one to the other instantly (and there's no other way if there's no points between) would imply moving at an infinite velocity.
Congratulations to disproving yourself.
untermensche
Contributor
You cannot move infinitely fast
That makes no sense in this universe.
If you cannot move infinitely fast, space cannot consist of discrete points separated by a finite amount of space.
Does not follow.
If it did, moving from one to the other instantly (and there's no other way if there's no points between) would imply moving at an infinite velocity.
You do not move from one discrete point of space to another.
You move through them. You move through one to the next. And it takes an amount of time to move through it.
There is a minimum velocity to achieve movement.
And a maximum velocity of movement.
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
If you can move instantaneously then cause and effect would occur simultaneously. Infinite speed doesn't seem to have any meaning.
untermensche Argument is like 'a cow can not jump over the moon therefore an infinite universe is impossible'. The first statement is true but is unconnected to the conclusion, non sequitur.
Mathematical infinities like real numbers bare no relation the question of cosmology.
untermensche Argument is like 'a cow can not jump over the moon therefore an infinite universe is impossible'. The first statement is true but is unconnected to the conclusion, non sequitur.
Mathematical infinities like real numbers bare no relation the question of cosmology.
untermensche
Contributor
Mathematical infinities like real numbers bare no relation the question of cosmology.
That is my point.
There are no real infinities.
There could not be any.
It is impossible.
If you can move a smaller and smaller distance without end then your movement will take infinite time to make.
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Mathematical infinities like real numbers bare no relation the question of cosmology.
That is my point.
There are no real infinities.
There could not be any.
It is impossible.
If you can move a smaller and smaller distance without end then your movement will take infinite time to make.
What you described is Zeno's Paradox on infinite stepping has been around for thousands of years. The question is hardly new. There was a lengthy thread on it. The link in my OP on infinity covers the history of thought on infinity.
Infinity exists in the sense that math exists. It is a tool. Real numbers are infinite. If I set out to write down all real numbers between 1 and 2 the process would never end, limited by the amount of paper.
In bounded physical systems infinte conditions can not exist here on earth. As a system equation denominator containing 1/x where x gets small the system will asyntotically try to go to infinity limited by energy and failure. A physically demonstrated fact.
When it comes to the universe we can never know. Your argument against an infinite universe are non sequiter, there is no link between the truth or falsity of your premise to your conclusion.
You just repeat infinity is impossible as fiat with no real logical supporting argument.
Present your argument as a syllogism. Premise 1, premise 2...conclusion. Leave out the ad homs and other stuff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism
As I posted in QM there is a theoretical shortests distance. The question of finite or infinite universe is open and wull likely remain philisophical.