its probability would be 1 divided by infinity, which is zero
Paul Dirac once stated that the most important challenge in physics was "to get rid of infinity."
Of course the argument of 1/inf = 0 depends on if you consider infinity to be a number in the first place.
Because either one has to give: either you stop requiring that real numbers have other real numbers in between them, which would mean that there's a finite number of fractions between 1 and 0, or you admit that 1/inf is not a number and therefore the argument they propose is flawed.
But this dichotomy depends on the definition of a number. Since the occurrence of life comes in integer amounts - it either occurs or it doesn't - the same concept of a number doesn't apply and the same concept of infinity doesn't apply, and therefore it is not given that 1/inf = 0 even if we consider inf to be a number.
1 divided by infinity is in fact zero. That isn't really hard math.
The McDonalds McRib thing is funny but not valid because only finitely possible things will happen an infinite number of times. And a planet mass of McRib sandwiches, configured into a planet formation, will compress into... a planet. Potentially a very nice smelling planet with weird BBQ slicks on it's surface. But not a ball of McRibs going all the way down. :)
I seem to think that infinities have no place in the universe, how one proves it is another matter.
If Space and time are quantized in some fashion then the concept of the very small becomes just a mathematical quirk with no basis in reality.
The idea that 1/inf = 0 is stupid. If it is zero, than infiniti is zero. Meaning that if you had 1 unit of infinifi, and it has a 0 value, then all the units of infiniti also equal zero and infiniti itself equals zero. And if you divide 1 and infinite number of times, it could never be zero, unless the value of 1 is in fact zero.
The point here is that the existence of life in the infinite universe IS quantized.
Which means that fractional probabilities of life are non-sensical regardless of the size of the universe. If there's two separate cases of life, then the probability is 2, and so on.
[qThe probability of life in the universe is always a positive integer,
If there's two separate cases of life, then the probability is 2, and so on.
Next they'll deny that the Inquisition ever happened.
Example, pi is an irrational number, and the computation of that number carries out infinite places, it never ends. Even so, no matter how far you looked, you would never find the numeral 1 repeated a trillion times, never.
The reason 0 is undefined, is because any fractional part of something must be, by definition, more than zero. You can not divide something into 0 parts, it can be the whole or some part of the whole. Dividing by 0 the same as dividing infinity by infinity. It's why we do everything we can to eliminate infinity from practical science. It is in the realm of philosophy not science.
But, if you ascribe to the Big Bang theory; then you believe in the something from nothing concept. Before the Big Bang, they would have us believe there was nothing; then after, everything.
Currently the two basic theories in physics, general relativity and quantum theory, both predict infinities. In relativity, it's gravity singularities in black holes and the big bang. In quantum theory, it's vacuum energy and certain parts of quantum field theory. Perhaps both theories are simple approximations of a third more general theory without infinities. ….
The interesting aspect of this is that in some parallel universe the same scientists have come to the exact opposite conclusion.
And they are made from Candyfloss.
Dang... VD strikes gold again...The white rabbit must die.VD is trying to do the fun at any price. This is just a semantic twaddling, which cannot be opposed and falsified - so it has no place in discussion bellow scientific article. We have number of Internet discussions full of bored twaddlers already - why to expand it here?
Dang... VD strikes gold again...The white rabbit must die.VD is trying to do the fun at any price. This is just a semantic twaddling, which cannot be opposed and falsified - so it has no place in discussion bellow scientific article. We have number of Internet discussions full of bored twaddlers already - why to expand it here?
... pi is an irrational number, and the computation of that number carries out infinite places, it never ends. Even so, no matter how far you looked, you would never find the numeral 1 repeated a trillion times, never.
without a little humour and the subsequent appreciation of itThe things will get wrong, if the attempts for humor become dominant. The approach of twaddlers here is equivalent to the approach of contemporary scientists. They don't want to solve and answer the problems at the first line - they just want to keep their fun, as Robert Wilson already recognized and named before years. Not surprisingly, most of them refuses the cold fusion from the same reason.
Construct your infinite models. Your time is limited.
Paul Dirac once stated that the most important challenge in physics was "to get rid of infinity."
Because infinity in a physical theory means "you need to work on this part."
I think they are mixing up two ideas here. the first one being infinite universe, the second is infinite multiverse. The universe we live in is finite. I am not a scientist, but i am pretty sure that the position of science is that the universe is finite.
The infinite multiverse is another issue. It seems this separation is blurred here.
but a Conservation of Energy principle we call "entropy" will prevent us from ever viewing through or crossing that barrier.
It has never been very clear to me why the concept of a singular origin of the universe is maintained if the existing laws of physics must immediately be violated to expand that singularity to some finite size.Because the general relativity points to the expansion of Universe and this expansion may run from very small object only. Lamaitre called it "primeval atom" and it's of ideological, not physical origin. Whole the expansion stuff is therefore a fringe science, not just Big Bang event.
Dang... VD strikes gold again...The white rabbit must die.VD is trying to do the fun at any price. This is just a semantic twaddling, which cannot be opposed and falsified - so it has no place in discussion bellow scientific article. We have number of Internet discussions full of bored twaddlers already - why to expand it here?
Oh look, a fairy-tale promoted by a physics publication! Totally novel, given it is totally opposite from the daydreaming doctrine that was official until this morning. Ask Sean Carroll.
beep-beep Earth calling: "How Wineland & Haroche Stole My Discovery (and got 2012 PHYSICS NOBEL PRIZE for it...)" http://sites.goog...ci#Nobel
While Soler Gil and Alfonseca can't disprove the proposals of infinite repetition, they emphasize that the point of their critique is to show that the idea remains in the realm of philosophy, mythology, and sci-fi tales, not modern cosmology.I think this sentence was the most important one in this PhysOrg article. Since so much in quantum mechanics requires you to leave your common-sense brain at home, it inevitably follows that many proposals get carried away. Unfortunately.
They call the speculation "ironic science," a term used by science journalist John Horgan to describe options that do not converge on truth but are at best "interesting."The sheer number of the competing theories on quantum mechanics and cosmology shows this.
I wish more time would be used to finding unrepairable holes in existing theories, instead of everybody building their own.
It has never been very clear to me why the concept of a singular origin of the universe is maintained ...
we need a quantum theory of gravity which as yet doesn't existThis is just a parotting of common employment scheme of mainstream physicists - but what the quantum gravity theory is supposed to describe actually? It must describe just the observable reality BETWEEN quantum mechanics and general relativity scales, i.e. the scale of human observer with trees, rivers and ducks on it. There are no trees, ducks and rivers at the most distant/oldest areas of Universe and such a theory would be useless there.
Why do you think 1/inf = 0 is stupid? Consider 1/x. It's clear that as x approaches infinity then 1/x -> 0. If you define 1/inf = lim x-> infinity of 1/x then that limit is 0. Similary you could also define 1/0 as lim x->0 of 1/x in which case it grows unbounded and so you could make an argument that 1/0 = inf or in fact z/0 = inf for any z.
Only approaching from the right. If you approach from the left, the limit approaches -inf. That is why 1/0 is undefined.
we need a quantum theory of gravity which as yet doesn't existThis is just a parotting of common employment scheme of mainstream physicists - but what the quantum gravity theory is supposed to describe actually? It must describe just the observable reality BETWEEN quantum mechanics and general relativity scales, i.e. the scale of human observer with trees, rivers and ducks on it. There are no trees, ducks and rivers at the most distant/oldest areas of Universe and such a theory would be useless there.
Fundamentally, there is only ONE universe, but there are multiple "paths" thru' it. We call our "path" TIME, and it is dictated by the "laws" of physics which guide our movement from one state of the universe to another for each quantum of TIME. See "The Situation of Gravity" for the argument.
Why do we need "gravity" at all, it was just "invented" to explain observed phenomena?
Why do we need "gravity" at all, it was just "invented" to explain observed phenomena?
The whole of science exists to provide mathematical tools by which we can model observed behaviour.
Why do we need "gravity" at all, it was just "invented" to explain observed phenomena?
The whole of science exists to provide mathematical tools by which we can model observed behaviour.
I think you have made my point beautifully, gravity is just a "mathematical tool" invented to explain reality - but it doesn't, it stops working in extreme situations.
I know of no proof of its existence, do you?
Someone once said "The objective of science is to remove infinity from all equations/theories". Gravity should be removed as well.
Why do we need "gravity" at all, it was just "invented" to explain observed phenomena?
The whole of science exists to provide mathematical tools by which we can model observed behaviour.
I think you have made my point beautifully, gravity is just a "mathematical tool" invented to explain reality - but it doesn't, it stops working in extreme situations.
I know of no proof of its existence, do you?
The proof of the existence of GR is that you can find it in many textbooks.
The proof of the existence of gravity is that you don't hurtle off into space even though our planet is rotating.
I expect that a few centuries ago you could find that the Earth was flat "in many text books", ..
and that the atom was indivisible.
there are several explanations as to why we don't "hurtle off into space",
try reading "The Situation of Gravity" for one.
I didn't say you could find "the earth was flat" in ALL text books, just in MANY text books, ..
just like "gravity" is not in ALL text books. YOU advanced the presence of gravity in text books as a "proof" that gravity exists - sloppy logic, fleetfoot.
If you know of one proof of the existence of gravity, kindly tell me about it.
You cannot find it in ANY textbooks? As you are so fond of quoting WIKI, here's a WIKI quote:- "Like the Midrash and the Talmud, the Targum does not think of a globe of the spherical earth, around which the sun revolves in 24 hours, but of a flat disk of the earth,
And as for flying off the planet, you are once again quoting an "effect" not a proof, which can be explained in several ways without inventing "Gravity".
Please, have a final rant if you must ..
Maggnus
Jan 25, 2013