Would you dare asking this question to your science professors?

[The Wizard of pi]

Hi! My name is Miguel De Zayas and I'm just a layman not a physicist or anything. For years I've been concerned about the true nature of our physical Reality... I came up with a theory of my own, well more like a personal interpretation of the way God conceived the universe and I came up with a simple question: Why are we (humans) so afraid of the concept of INFINITE? My articles are published in various sites and I thought that perhaps the title of this posting could spark some curiosity about the subject in yourselves too. In case you have problems by opening my site, I urge you to look me up in Facebook under redacted. The question I promised is in every single article I have already made public in the internet. Good luck with the question.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xtzuM96VWg-QwVpxpK2Bbq_VjjyW3nWhIuoh02Tsd8Q/edit?usp=sharing

also  I welcome you at:

redacted

Open your minds and relax... The dilemma about the ignorant misuse of the irrational mathematical constant pi is not going anywhere. Don't be angry with yourselves if you didn't see it before...

 

 

 

Edited June 26, 2018 by hypervalent_iodine
Don't use this forum to advertise

[DrP]

Just now, The Wizard of pi said:

: Why are we (humans) so afraid of the concept of INFINITE?

Who says we are?

 

1 minute ago, The Wizard of pi said:

more like a personal interpretation of the way God conceived the universe

Do you have any scientific support for your idea that a god conceived the universe? Let alone any for the existence of such an advanced being?

 

[The Wizard of pi]

when you read my articles you'll understand. There are much more deeper interests in ignoring the mathematical infinite in science today than you are capable of imagining... if you're interested in knowing what I'm trying to convey, just try reading first and then comment. thanks

[Silvestru]

3 minutes ago, DrP said:

Do you have any scientific support for your idea that a god conceived the universe? Let alone any for the existence of such an advanced being?

This perfectly sums up why indeed I wouldn't dare ask that question. Shame prevents me.

 

[Silvestru]

3 minutes ago, The Wizard of pi said:

when you read my articles you'll understand.

If you show the body of evidence that led you to the conclusion you have then maybe. Science isn't based on trust.

4 minutes ago, The Wizard of pi said:

There are much more deeper interests in ignoring the mathematical infinite in science today than you are capable of imagining... if you're interested in knowing what I'm trying to convey, just try reading first and then comment. thanks

I'm really curious to hear what is the reason that "the man" keeps (in your opinion) this away from the public as you inaccurately think. What are these "deeper interests"?

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

OP, you are expected to present your argument and discussion here without advertising or needlessly driving people off-site. Links and videos should only act as support for your case.

 

[Endy0816]

Infinity doesn't really come up all that often on a practical level.

 

Note things become granular when studied sufficiently close up in reality.

[Phi for All]

54 minutes ago, hypervalent_iodine said:

!

Moderator Note

OP, you are expected to present your argument and discussion here without advertising or needlessly driving people off-site. Links and videos should only act as support for your case.

 

!

Moderator Note

Also OP, decide if you want to include your god in this argument or not. If you go with the supernatural, this can't stay in mainstream Physics. Let me know and I'll move it to Religion.

 

[swansont]

I wouldn't say we're afraid of the concept of infinite, as such, but scientists have realized that there are cases where it doesn't lend itself to physically meaningful solutions to mathematical models. Infinities in the denominator or negative exponents are fine. In the numerator or positive exponents, not so much. Typically the solution needs to be finite, so these infinities are unphysical.

As for God, I'll paraphrase Laplace and say that in physics there is no need of that hypothesis.

 

[Strange]

7 hours ago, The Wizard of pi said:

For years I've been concerned about the true nature of our physical Reality...

That is nothing to do with science.

7 hours ago, The Wizard of pi said:

Why are we (humans) so afraid of the concept of INFINITE?

Are we? What do you base that on?

A lot of interesting work (mainly mathematical, but some physics) has been done on the concept of infinity. So what makes you think anyone is afraid of it?

7 hours ago, The Wizard of pi said:

My articles are published in various sites and I thought that perhaps the title of this posting could spark some curiosity about the subject in yourselves too.

What is the "question" referred to in the title?

7 hours ago, The Wizard of pi said:

The dilemma about the ignorant misuse of the irrational mathematical constant pi is not going anywhere.

How is pi misused?

[Phi for All]

8 hours ago, The Wizard of pi said:

The question I promised is in every single article I have already made public in the internet. Good luck with the question.

Which really makes it seem like you're only here to promote your site. If you posted it everywhere but here, good luck with the discussion.

[John Cuthber]

The only Q the OP has asked seems to be "Would you dare asking this question to your science professors? And I would ask that.

It would be pointless.

His answer would be that his proff is long dead.

 

[The Wizard of pi]

what proof is long dead, my dear forum mate? I consider myself with a standard IQ but I don't seem to understand your colorful response. Let me try one more time and see if I am luckier this time: I'll make it easier for you and for those (I'm sure will be reading this comment too) by asking questions that I'll answer myself, shall we?

Q. What is showing this picture? 

A. it's showing an equation that calculates the volume of spheres in three dimensional space.

Q. What's the point to show this equation?

A. Energy and matter in the universe adopt this configuration because it's the MOST EFFICIENT and LOWER ENERGY LEVEL any quantum or packet of energy could chose.

Q. Can you be more specific?

A. photons and the rest of the Bosons, leptons and the rest of the Fermions. matter as planets and the rest of celestial bodies. 

Q. Are you saying that electrons are spheres?

A. yes! according to latest experiments, yes they are perfect spheres Photons would also be perfect spheres if the property of space -I theorized in this forum- were to be conceived.

Q. What property is that?

A. Take a closer look at the sphere equation... There is an irrational constant called pi that holds an infinite number of decimals in its tail. 

Q. ...and how is that so important here?

A. It is so because if I told you to calculate the volume of the sphere that represents the electron you'll find what I called it "an incompatibility between quantized energy and a fractionally infinite fabric of space" (not space-time; just plain space).

Q. What do you meant to say by incompatibility there?

A. We all know about the very first proof of the particle nature of the energy: the Planck's black body experiment. Even photons (the messengers of the EM force ate pockets of energy). However here comes the paradoxical situation that I found in my analyses. If according to that equation, the volume increases toward a fractional infinite and energy will obviously tend to occupy the sphere and the space within... then what will happen as the energy spreads into that infinitesimally small fabric of space? Obviously we know that in reality the energy of the subatomic particles is not vanished into thin air, so at some point there will be a limit, which I see it as the resistance of an elemental pocket of energy (indivisible by accepted conclusions  of multiple  experimentation) to divide itself. The exact point within the volume of the sphere and the corresponding decimal place in pi where that "RECOIL" takes place has never been determined nor even searched for. It's that recoil what makes EM waves propagating at c in the vacuum. It's that recoil what's responsible for a phenomenon without proper theoretical explanation up until now, called "spin of particles". If you connect a coil to a battery, the current (electric charges) will be stored in that fractional space I theorized in my articles. It's not stored in the wires of the coil but in the air around it... in a microscopic region of space, spread across it. when the magnetic storage returns back into the circuit, the polarization will be the opposite with respect to the original; just like you can observe in an LC resonant circuit. In fact within the subatomic particles (Fermions) there is a FTL oscillation that can be explained as a resonant process  within themselves. This is the true nature of a magnetic field; energy stored within a fractionally inward infinite of the fabric of space. 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xtzuM96VWg-QwVpxpK2Bbq_VjjyW3nWhIuoh02Tsd8Q/edit?usp=sharing

Give it a second try and see my point before judging me in a run.

I'll use a rather primitive but effective example of the different nature of the fabric of space and the nature of energy -quantized energy as it has been proven by QM- in a moment:

SPACE is "ANALOGIC" while ENERGY (Quanta or subatomic particles [fermions and bpsons] are DIGITAL! I think you get the idea!

If you attempt to insert many many digital sine waves one beside the other, you'll never fill out all the space within the carrier analogical wave. This illustrates my point much easier I hope. The analogical character of the fabric of space is originated in the irrationality of the pi constant. (a constant found in all the most important equations of physics). The digital nature of the quanta is given by the quantifiable nature of the energy 1-0 0-1 there you have the two spins. The higher the energy, the higher the frequency of the digital wave, the more compacted the fabric of space but there will always be unfulfilled space within the "volume" of the sphere that contains both in mutual oscillation. 

 

 

[Strange]

18 minutes ago, The Wizard of pi said:

by asking questions that I'll answer myself, shall we?

Which of these questions are you daring us to ask a professor?

[The Wizard of pi]

Thank you for the link but I already bought popcorn in the store.

The question is pretty clear in my link to the article posted the very first day:

HOW MANY DECIMALS OF PI IS ENOUGH FOR YOU MR/RS PROFESSOR, TO SAY "-THESE ARE ENOUGH"

Why don't you answer it yourself, genius? what constant you take? 3.1 3.14, or let's see... 3.14159265359... or why not a million? no wait! let's take a trillion?

My point is that the volume of the sphere will keep increasing as you input more and more decimals into the equation. which one? this one!

listen, if you can't give me a final and definitive answer to my concrete question, then look for another topic, will you?

Don't give me the obvious response that ignorant people always give: "-well, there most be a flaw in the way we calculate pi, maybe... uhmmmm pi is not irrational at all. give me a break!

[swansont]

33 minutes ago, The Wizard of pi said:

what proof is long dead, my dear forum mate? I consider myself with a standard IQ but I don't seem to understand your colorful response. Let me try one more time and see if I am luckier this time: I'll make it easier for you and for those (I'm sure will be reading this comment too) by asking questions that I'll answer myself, shall we?

Q. What is showing this picture? 

A. it's showing an equation that calculates the volume of spheres in three dimensional space.

Q. What's the point to show this equation?

A. Energy and matter in the universe adopt this configuration because it's the MOST EFFICIENT and LOWER ENERGY LEVEL any quantum or packet of energy could chose.

Q. Can you be more specific?

A. photons and the rest of the Bosons, leptons and the rest of the Fermions. matter as planets and the rest of celestial bodies. 

Q. Are you saying that electrons are spheres?

A. yes! according to latest experiments, yes they are perfect spheres Photons would also be perfect spheres if the property of space -I theorized in this forum- were to be conceived.

Q. What property is that?

A. Take a closer look at the sphere equation... There is an irrational constant called pi that holds an infinite number of decimals in its tail. 

Q. ...and how is that so important here?

A. It is so because if I told you to calculate the volume of the sphere that represents the electron you'll find what I called it "an incompatibility between quantized energy and a fractionally infinite fabric of space" (not space-time; just plain space).

Q. What do you meant to say by incompatibility there?

A. We all know about the very first proof of the particle nature of the energy: the Planck's black body experiment. Even photons (the messengers of the EM force ate pockets of energy). However here comes the paradoxical situation that I found in my analyses. If according to that equation, the volume increases toward a fractional infinite and energy will obviously tend to occupy the sphere and the space within... then what will happen as the energy spreads into that infinitesimally small fabric of space? Obviously we know that in reality the energy of the subatomic particles is not vanished into thin air, so at some point there will be a limit, which I see it as the resistance of an elemental pocket of energy (indivisible by accepted conclusions  of multiple  experimentation) to divide itself. The exact point within the volume of the sphere and the corresponding decimal place in pi where that "RECOIL" takes place has never been determined nor even searched for. It's that recoil what makes EM waves propagating at c in the vacuum. It's that recoil what's responsible for a phenomenon without proper theoretical explanation up until now, called "spin of particles". If you connect a coil to a battery, the current (electric charges) will be stored in that fractional space I theorized in my articles. It's not stored in the wires of the coil but in the air around it... in a microscopic region of space, spread across it. when the magnetic storage returns back into the circuit, the polarization will be the opposite with respect to the original; just like you can observe in an LC resonant circuit. In fact within the subatomic particles (Fermions) there is a FTL oscillation that can be explained as a resonant process  within themselves. This is the true nature of a magnetic field; energy stored within a fractionally inward infinite of the fabric of space. 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xtzuM96VWg-QwVpxpK2Bbq_VjjyW3nWhIuoh02Tsd8Q/edit?usp=sharing

Give it a second try and see my point before judging me in a run.

I'll use a rather primitive but effective example of the different nature of the fabric of space and the nature of energy -quantized energy as it has been proven by QM- in a moment:

SPACE is "ANALOGIC" while ENERGY (Quanta or subatomic particles [fermions and bpsons] are DIGITAL! I think you get the idea!

If you attempt to insert many many digital sine waves one beside the other, you'll never fill out all the space within the carrier analogical wave. This illustrates my point much easier I hope. The analogical character of the fabric of space is originated in the irrationality of the pi constant. (a constant found in all the most important equations of physics). The digital nature of the quanta is given by the quantifiable nature of the energy 1-0 0-1 there you have the two spins. The higher the energy, the higher the frequency of the digital wave, the more compacted the fabric of space but there will always be unfulfilled space within the "volume" of the sphere that contains both in mutual oscillation. 

 

 

!

Moderator Note

You posted the bulk of this elsewhere. One thread per topic, please.

 

[The Wizard of pi]

Thank you for the link but I already bought popcorn in the store.

The question is pretty clear in my link to the article posted the very first day:

HOW MANY DECIMALS OF PI IS ENOUGH FOR YOU MR/RS PROFESSOR, TO SAY "-THESE ARE ENOUGH"

Why don't you answer it yourself, genius? what constant you take? 3.1 3.14, or let's see... 3.14159265359... or why not a million? no wait! let's take a trillion?

My point is that the volume of the sphere will keep increasing as you input more and more decimals into the equation. which one? this one!

listen, if you can't give me a final and definitive answer to my concrete question, then look for another topic, will you?

Don't give me the obvious response that ignorant people always give: "-well, there most be a flaw in the way we calculate pi, maybe... uhmmmm pi is not irrational at all. give me a break!

[swansont]

4 minutes ago, The Wizard of pi said:

Thank you for the link but I already bought popcorn in the store.

The question is pretty clear in my link to the article posted the very first day:

HOW MANY DECIMALS OF PI IS ENOUGH FOR YOU MR/RS PROFESSOR, TO SAY "-THESE ARE ENOUGH"

Why don't you answer it yourself, genius? what constant you take? 3.1 3.14, or let's see... 3.14159265359... or why not a million? no wait! let's take a trillion?

This is  straightforward matter of significant digits, which is usually taught fairly early on in physics class. It's enough when you won't materially change the answer by including more, i.e. your calculational precision exceeds your measurement precision.

4 minutes ago, The Wizard of pi said:

My point is that the volume of the sphere will keep increasing as you input more and more decimals into the equation. which one? this one!

No, this is not true.

If I take pi to be 3.1416 I will get one answer, but if I add another digit and use 3.14159, it will be slightly smaller. (You should look up rounding protocols while reading up on significant digits)

4 minutes ago, The Wizard of pi said:

listen, if you can't give me a final and definitive answer to my concrete question, then look for another topic, will you?

Don't give me the obvious response that ignorant people always give: "-well, there most be a flaw in the way we calculate pi, maybe... uhmmmm pi is not irrational at all. give me a break!

No, nothing like that. 

[The Wizard of pi]

I posted a comment just recently where I compared space and quanta to an analogical wave holding a digital one inside. The example wasn't complete although it was very effective. you know that a sine wave can be closed into a sphere too. So try to close the loops of both waves and you'll see that the empty not filled region of space will be bat the edges of the circle. this is the fractional nature of space. It can't be filled because energy comes in quanta and space is infinite and fractional into the most infinitesimal point in the vacuum.

With all due respect... "nothing like that?" It's a fact that the more digits you input into pi (decimals) the larger into the inward direction (the fractional space) it gets. Have you ever heard that there are more fractional numbers than if you start counting 1-2-3-4-5-6- etc? If you always step half of the distance you'll never get to the end line. What's wrong with your analysis, Sr?

I'd suggest that you think again what you just posted. The more decimals you input in the equation to calculate the volume of one sphere, the bigger the space grows. it grows in the fractional direction but it will keep changing! That's the difference between having pi as irrational in this universe. had been pi rational we were not having this chatting here.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, The Wizard of pi said:

Thank you for the link but I already bought popcorn in the store.

What link? The only links in this thread are your (spammy) ones.

1 hour ago, The Wizard of pi said:

The question is pretty clear in my link to the article posted the very first day:

HOW MANY DECIMALS OF PI IS ENOUGH FOR YOU MR/RS PROFESSOR, TO SAY "-THESE ARE ENOUGH"

The question was not in your opening post.

The answer is, obviously: it depends. It depends on how accurately you need to calculate something. (You seem to confusing calculating the size of a sphere with its actual size. Or something.)

I can't believe anyone has given you a different answer.

1 hour ago, The Wizard of pi said:

I posted a comment just recently where I compared space and quanta to an analogical wave holding a digital one inside.

What does that mean?

1 hour ago, The Wizard of pi said:

you know that a sine wave can be closed into a sphere too.

Huh? That makes no sense. But feel free to show, in suitable mathematical detail, how a sine wave can be closed into a sphere (whatever that means).

1 hour ago, The Wizard of pi said:

It's a fact that the more digits you input into pi (decimals) the larger into the inward direction (the fractional space) it gets.

What is the "inward direction"? The along the radius towards the centre of the sphere? What does that have to do with the precision to which you calculate anything?

This is not a fact, it is .... I don't know. Just bizarre.

1 hour ago, The Wizard of pi said:

Have you ever heard that there are more fractional numbers than if you start counting 1-2-3-4-5-6- etc?

Are you talking about the cardinality of the integers versus the real number (ie the continuum)? What connection does this have with the precision of pi one uses?

1 hour ago, The Wizard of pi said:

My point is that the volume of the sphere will keep increasing as you input more and more decimals into the equation.

If you ignore rounding (which no one does). But it doesn’t increase without limit. It is trivial to get an upper bound by rounding up (at any number of decimal places). And the unrounded and upper bound will converge so you can easily see how many digits are “enough”. 

 

Edited June 27, 2018 by Strange

[The Wizard of pi]

I'd suggest that you think again what you just posted. The more decimals you input in the equation to calculate the volume of one sphere, the bigger the space grows. it grows in the fractional direction but it will keep changing! That's the difference between having pi as irrational in this universe. had been pi rational we were not having this chatting here.

what do you mean by "rounding"? In case you missed out my example, let me give you the argument once again:

You know what a lepton is, right? commonly known a one electron. The energy of the electron is quantized. You can't simply divided in little pieces because it doesn't work that way. It can be stretched or spread within the contours of the sphere where it's contained. I showed you a mathematically formulated equation of volume in three dimensional space. It's not a rounded formula that we can play with the factors...it's the basics of science...math! The equation shows you an irrational constant. An infinite magnitude and one that makes your life miserable because you or nobody I know, can calculate anything with precision when using infinite in math. That's the reason Dirac was so angry of the mathematics in QED 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gqRUFU3SIjUsJybp6XpbJ8XbUeezvLSf-8DwT5NO_qE/edit?usp=sharing

 

Both mathematicians and physicists hate, avoid and ignore the presence of infinite whenever it appears in calculations. That doesn't help, in my humble opinion, because infinite is here to stay until the end of times. Whether you agree with me or not that there's a hidden realm of fractional space within the volume occupied by either energy or matter is entirely irrelevant... it's there and the equation teaches you that fact. ignoring it for the sake of human convenience won't help us in the seeking of  the theory of everything. (Great Unified Theory). There's no "rounding" in the physical reality my friend. The universe or as Einsteins once said (God) doesn't play dice with the fundamental laws that govern the universe.

 

Edited June 27, 2018 by The Wizard of pi

[MigL]

The basic premise upon which you base your whole argument is flawed.
Elementary particles cannot be spheres. That implies they have a volume, and so, cannot be elementary or fundamental, because they can then be subdivided.

What exactly is half an electron ?
Or a quarter photon ?
And what does that imply for charge/energy quantization ?

The foundation of your argument is wrong; that makes the rest of it gibberish.
( especially the part about accuracy and significant digits )

[Strange]

1 hour ago, The Wizard of pi said:

The more decimals you input in the equation to calculate the volume of one sphere, the bigger the space grows.

But it doesn't grow without limit. It is easy to find an upper limit that it will never exceed.

1 hour ago, The Wizard of pi said:

That's the difference between having pi as irrational in this universe. had been pi rational we were not having this chatting here.

I'm not convinced that the fact that pi is irrational is relevant. 

1 hour ago, The Wizard of pi said:

what do you mean by "rounding"?

This is a basic bit of mathematics that is normally taught at school. But swansont gave a specific example.

1 hour ago, The Wizard of pi said:

You know what a lepton is, right? commonly known a one electron. The energy of the electron is quantized. You can't simply divided in little pieces because it doesn't work that way. It can be stretched or spread within the contours of the sphere where it's contained.

What do you mean by the energy of an electron? Is kinetic energy quantised? (Hint: no it isn't.)

And how are you containing an electron within a sphere? That will presumably change the energy of the photon. After all, the smaller there sphere, the greater the uncertainty in its momentum. How does that relate to your idea?

I haven't seen any physics behind this idea yet. The only mathematics is the basic equation of a sphere. It is not clear how this relates to electrons (which are not spherical). Perhaps you could use the Schrodinger equation to describe the behaviour of this "electron contained in a sphere"? 

1 hour ago, The Wizard of pi said:

The equation shows you an irrational constant. An infinite magnitude and one that makes your life miserable because you or nobody I know, can calculate anything with precision when using infinite in math.

Where is the infinite magnitude in the equation of a sphere? 

1 hour ago, The Wizard of pi said:

Both mathematicians and physicists hate, avoid and ignore the presence of infinite whenever it appears in calculations.

This just isn't true. There is a whole area of mathematics that deals with infinite (and transfinite) cardinals. 

For most of physics it isn't relevant. But it is generally accepted that the universe may be infinite in extent (and maybe infinite in age). So no one avoids the issue as you suggest.

p.s. just repeating what you have said before, with no further explanation and no attempt to answer questions, is not really productive. You seem to have convinced yourself that you are correct. But that is very easy to do. Providing enough evidence to convince others is more of a challenge, and not one you seem to be up to.

Edited June 27, 2018 by Strange

[The Wizard of pi]

25 minutes ago, MigL said:

The basic premise upon which you base your whole argument is flawed.
Elementary particles cannot be spheres. That implies they have a volume, and so, cannot be elementary or fundamental, because they can then be subdivided.

What exactly is half an electron ?
Or a quarter photon ?
And what does that imply for charge/energy quantization ?

The foundation of your argument is wrong; that makes the rest of it gibberish.
( especially the part about accuracy and significant digits )

EXCUSE ME...! https://www.wired.com/2011/05/electrons-are-near-perfect-spheres

well, maybe not perfect since if the electron were of the size of our galaxy the difference from a perfect sphere would be the thin of a human hair...maybe you were right

Your assumption is correct: "that implies that they have volume" They do have volume and you just gave me the reason. On the other hand who said that subatomic particles can be divided? For Goodness sake...It wasn't me! I swear! My entire article is based on the indivisibility of a quantum of energy! It's the fact that they can't be divided what keeps them oscillating within the volume they occupy in space. Listen, I don't want and much less need to argue with you, but I think that you should read my words carefully before saying that my theoretical interpretation of the true fabric of space is ... "gibberish". Is it me the only one here who sees the mistakes of this member in regard to the words he just put in my mouth or other too see it?

All I'm saying and illustrated not long ago with a simple example was that you can see SPACE as an analogical realm, where its innate fractional nature (seeing in the equation of volume) is given by the irrationality of pi in the equation. I didn't invented nor discovered the mathematics of the volume calculation, neither I did such thing with regards to the mathematical constant pi. Those were there before I was even born. I saw quantized energy more like a digital wave, indivisible where it can only be 1 (as exists) or 0 as (nothing). Space on the other hand can extends in a fractional manner toward infinite in both directions: outwardly and inwardly. as to the proof of the spherical nature of subatomic particles just click on the top link please.

[Strange]

13 minutes ago, The Wizard of pi said:

EXCUSE ME...! https://www.wired.com/2011/05/electrons-are-near-perfect-spheres

You have already been told that you are misrepresenting / misunderstanding this. The electron is not a sphere; it is point-like. And they do not have volume.