Universe is (In)Finite?

[beecee]

1 hour ago, infamouse said:

 You have not provided any significant counterargument on this point.

The onus is actually on you to show that your hypothesis, does more and predicts better than the incumbent model. I don't beleieve you have got close to achieving that.

2 hours ago, infamouse said:

First: I think I have demonstrated that although scientists claim you can only believe what is observed,

That is false.

[infamouse]

47 minutes ago, beecee said:

The onus is actually on you to show that your hypothesis, does more and predicts better than the incumbent model. I don't beleieve you have got close to achieving that.

That is false.

First: Regarding the specifically referenced point, I believe I made myself quite clear and demonstrated my point conclusively, so I guess we can agree to disagree.

Second: My point is, even though General Relativity tells us exactly what is at the heart of a Black Hole and what comes before the Big Bang, scientists seem to ignore it because it can't be observed and the idea itself is difficult to work with.

I forgot an important point in my last reply to you, which is that when Schwarzchild used GR to describe a black hole in 1916, Einstein immediately recognized the mathematical significance of his finding, but did not believe that black holes would occur in nature. Einstein himself would argue the fact that just because wormholes are mathematically possible within the constraints of general relativity does not mean they would be bound to occur, or that we could readily observe them.

Wave-particle duality and quantum entanglement are both perfectly congruent with Relativity, Einstein simply didn't recognize that at the heart of his model was the Singularity itself, connecting all things at all times persistently without violating the cosmic speed limit. The Singularity is the source of all gravity and indeed, reality itself.

 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

So why haven't you ?

I didn't compare you to anything.

I told you a true story about encouragement, when it was apparent to me to did not and still do not understand the Science (Maths) of the term infinity.

The true story was about how a better man the me helped me with something I did not at the time understand.

Furthermore I offered you a polite and reasonable discussion to extend you knowledge of infinity to cover your original question, hopefully in a way that would not be to mathematical.

Sadly all I have received in return is insult and either no response or peremptory ones.

If I told someone the Pele once told me how best to kick a football, why would that rub them up the wrong way ?

I felt like you were belittling my perspective intentionally, although I can see now I took it personally unnecessarily. I should have just addressed your actual point if I was going to bother to respond to you, so that's my bad. I am continuing to clarify my points here, as relevant to any conversations at hand.

[beecee]

3 minutes ago, infamouse said:

Second: My point is, even though General Relativity tells us exactly what is at the heart of a Black Hole and what comes before the Big Bang, scientists seem to ignore it because it can't be observed and the idea itself is difficult to work with.

But GR fails us at both those regions. It tells us nothing prior to 10-35th second, or at the core of BH's where the singularity resides...a singularity defined by the failure of GR, not as defined by infinite qualities, which as I said, scientists now reject.

7 minutes ago, infamouse said:

Einstein simply didn't recognize that at the heart of his model was the Singularity itself, connecting all things at all times persistently without violating the cosmic speed limit.

Much  has progressed and been learnt about GR, since the time Einstein formulated it...gravitational waves being one. 

10 minutes ago, infamouse said:

 The Singularity is the source of all gravity and indeed, reality itself.

Gravity has at its source, the geometry of spacetime.

[studiot]

14 hours ago, infamouse said:

I felt like you were belittling my perspective intentionally, although I can see now I took it personally unnecessarily. I should have just addressed your actual point if I was going to bother to respond to you, so that's my bad. I am continuing to clarify my points here, as relevant to any conversations at hand.

Apology accepted.

The point is that we often have youngsters from say 10 to 16 posting questions here about something they have just come across.
Often they are very enthusiastic about their query, but need a pointer to the bigger picture.
I try not to dampen their enthusiasm by presenting highbrow maths arguments, rather I try to offer a more suitable rationale.

Since I wasn't sure if you are actually such a youngster I gave the benefit of the doubt as they say, with what I hoped was a gentler and more respectful approach.

So I am sorry if this was taken the wrong way.

 

Back to infinity.

I have an older trigonometry textbook with a section entitled

'Passing through infinity'.

The point is very simply that there are many different 'inifnities'.

There is even a whole theory of the arithmetic of infinities, but this is quite different from the arithmetic of ordinary numbers.

When you come to add all the light form all sources in an infinite universe you get and infinite quantity.

But you also have an infinite universe so when this light is spread over another infinity you can get a finite light density.

Mathematically the ratio of one infinity to another is often indeterminate as it could take on any finite value.
Further information /theory is needed for those cases that can be determined.

So the question becomes

Is there sufficient theory to determine this value for the light density we can see and measure and how accurate do we think that theory is ?

 

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

The point is very simply that there are many different 'inifnities'.

Isn't the point, they're all unknown?

[studiot]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Isn't the point, they're all unknown?

Are they ?

That is the first I have heard of it.

How can we then sometimes determine the ratio of two of them ?

[infamouse]

19 hours ago, beecee said:

But GR fails us at both those regions. It tells us nothing prior to 10-35th second, or at the core of BH's where the singularity resides...a singularity defined by the failure of GR, not as defined by infinite qualities, which as I said, scientists now reject.

Much  has progressed and been learnt about GR, since the time Einstein formulated it...gravitational waves being one. 

Gravity has at its source, the geometry of spacetime.

First: I don't agree with the perspective that GR fails us, I think our perspective fails us. Rather than think of a Singularity as an "infinitely dense point" we should be thinking about the progression of physics *between us and infinity*. If you chart the energy density of a black hole from the Event Horizon to as close as you can get to the Singularity on a line graph, you will see a line that steadily increases towards a vertical angle until it appears to be almost perfectly vertical. However, if you change the units you are using to describe smaller scales, you can chart a graph that shows the energy distribution relative to smaller and smaller scales. For example, imagine a primordial black hole with a radius of about a meter. Create a line graph charting its energy density distribution to the nearest centimeter from the event horizon to the Singularity. Now, create a graph charting it to the nearest nanometer. Now, to the nearest 1 trillionth of a nanometer... there is no limit to the number of line graphs you can chart, each more precise than the last. For the sake of argument, imagine you could shrink down to the size of 10^-1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 nanometers and make observations from within the black hole. What appears to be infinitely dense from beyond, is infinitely vast from within. What I believe is the overlooked central message of relativity, is that physics exist relative to the scale on which it is observed, in terms of the Singularity.

Second: Agreed. However, a Gravitational Wave is not the same as Gravitational Warping. A Gravitational Wave travels at a finite speed, but every object warps spacetime in perpetuity. If a star goes supernova, all that mass and energy continues to warp spacetime, but the distribution changes. In other words, E=MC^2, matter and energy can't be created or destroyed, all matter and energy warps spacetime persistently, altering the trajectory of all other matter and energy concurrently. Only its relative distribution changes at any given moment.

Third: I agree, I simply take this understanding to its logical conclusion, that on scales of infinity the Geometry of Spacetime is the Geometry of the Singularity itself.

4 hours ago, studiot said:

Apology accepted.

The point is that we often have youngsters from say 10 to 16 posting questions here about something they have just come across.
Often they are very enthusiastic about their query, but need a pointer to the bigger picture.
I try not to dampen their enthusiasm by presenting highbrow maths arguments, rather I try to offer a more suitable rationale.

Since I wasn't sure if you are actually such a youngster I gave the benefit of the doubt as they say, with what I hoped was a gentler and more respectful approach.

So I am sorry if this was taken the wrong way.

 

Back to infinity.

I have an older trigonometry textbook with a section entitled

'Passing through infinity'.

The point is very simply that there are many different 'inifnities'.

There is even a whole theory of the arithmetic of infinities, but this is quite different from the arithmetic of ordinary numbers.

When you come to add all the light form all sources in an infinite universe you get and infinite quantity.

But you also have an infinite universe so when this light is spread over another infinity you can get a finite light density.

Mathematically the ratio of one infinity to another is often indeterminate as it could take on any finite value.
Further information /theory is needed for those cases that can be determined.

So the question becomes

Is there sufficient theory to determine this value for the light density we can see and measure and how accurate do we think that theory is ?

 

As I come to a point of re-prioritizing education in my life, I plan to revisit mathematics and chemistry first, then progress to physics. At the moment I have been reading some books about physics but I am hoping my library will have access to some textbooks so I can educate myself on the specifics. Thanks for the info!

Edited October 30, 2021 by infamouse

[swansont]

4 minutes ago, infamouse said:

First: I don't agree with the perspective that GR fails us, I think our perspective fails us. Rather than think of a Singularity as an "infinitely dense point" we should be thinking about the progression of physics *between us and infinity*.

!

Moderator Note

If you’re going to suggest mainstream physics is found wanting, you need to have a testable model to present. Do you have one?

 

[infamouse]

On 10/30/2021 at 12:59 PM, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

If you’re going to suggest mainstream physics is found wanting, you need to have a testable model to present. Do you have one?

 

Celsius, Fahrenheit, Kelvin. Use whatever unit you want, you can never accurately measure temperature of any point in space at any given moment in time. The units themselves are arbitrary, constructed within the relative confines of an arbitrarily constructed infinitely imperfect human language and numerical system. I can invent a new unit called a Swansonot, described as 1/18th of 3/8trillionths of 11.713456432456789 Kelvin, and use this new unit to describe the temperature of any object I like. Much more precise than the nearest Degree Fahrenheit, wouldn't you say? Yet infinitely short of absolute precision. A new unit called a Jumbalaya measures 1/7th of 1 Swansonot, more precise you see; but only relatively speaking. We can no more measure the universe with perfect accuracy in English than a caveman could with a well articulated elaborate series of gestures and grunts. Such is the nature of the Singularity: EVERYTHING is relative in comparison.

[infamouse]

No, I don't have a paper ready to publish succeeding General Relativity. It isn't necessary. Once you account for the Singularity, it becomes clear that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are compatible. Wave-Particle duality and Black Holes are each manifestations of the Singularity in the context of relative observation. Modern physics isn't deficient, just the physicists. Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and Entanglement are all manifestations of the Singularity as well. I can say with 100% certainty that all measurements and descriptions leave infinite room for improvement in all circumstances, and that nothing else can ever be stated with 100% certainty regardless of the circumstances.

[swansont]

4 hours ago, infamouse said:

Celsius, Fahrenheit, Kelvin. Use whatever unit you want, you can never accurately measure temperature of any point in space at any given moment in time. The units themselves are arbitrary, constructed within the relative confines of an arbitrarily constructed infinitely imperfect human language and numerical system. I can invent a new unit called a Swansonot, described as 1/18th of 3/8trillionths of 11.713456432456789 Kelvin, and use this new unit to describe the temperature of any object I like. Much more precise than the nearest Degree Fahrenheit, wouldn't you say? Yet infinitely short of absolute precision. A new unit called a Jumbalaya measures 1/7th of 1 Swansonot, more precise you see; but only relatively speaking. We can no more measure the universe with perfect accuracy in English than a caveman could with a well articulated elaborate series of gestures and grunts. Such is the nature of the Singularity: EVERYTHING is relative in comparison.

!

Moderator Note

The issue wasn't units (and your argument here is flawed), the issue was your observation that "we should be thinking about the progression of physics *between us and infinity*" and that you have shed no light on that progression (whatever "progression" means in this context)

 

Quote

Once you account for the Singularity, it becomes clear that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are compatible. Wave-Particle duality and Black Holes are each manifestations of the Singularity in the context of relative observation. Modern physics isn't deficient, just the physicists. Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and Entanglement are all manifestations of the Singularity as well. I can say with 100% certainty that all measurements and descriptions leave infinite room for improvement in all circumstances, and that nothing else can ever be stated with 100% certainty regardless of the circumstances.

!

Moderator Note

Repeating the phrase "manifestations of the Singularity" is not a substitute for a testable model, not does it explain anything about this progression you mentioned.

If all you have is hand-waving, I will close the thread. Do you have anything of scientific substance to offer?

 

 

[Markus Hanke]

On 10/30/2021 at 11:51 PM, infamouse said:

Rather than think of a Singularity as an "infinitely dense point"

This is not how a gravitational singularity is defined - the actual definition is that it is a region of spacetime that is geodesically incomplete. 
I should also mention that singularities are not all point-like, and that they technically are not part of the manifold.

On 10/30/2021 at 11:51 PM, infamouse said:

If you chart the energy density of a black hole from the Event Horizon to as close as you can get to the Singularity on a line graph, you will see a line that steadily increases towards a vertical angle until it appears to be almost perfectly vertical.

No. The type of black hole you appear to be discussing (there are many different types with very different properties!) exists in vacuum, so the energy density is everywhere zero.

On 10/30/2021 at 11:51 PM, infamouse said:

What I believe is the overlooked central message of relativity, is that physics exist relative to the scale on which it is observed, in terms of the Singularity.

Also no. Geodesic incompleteness is an invariant property on which all observers agree. And the central message of relativity is actually the exact opposite - that the world is described in terms of covariant and invariant properties subject to certain symmetry groups.

On 10/30/2021 at 11:51 PM, infamouse said:

However, a Gravitational Wave is not the same as Gravitational Warping.

Yes it is. Gravitational waves are described by the same mathematical objects as any other gravitational field. They are essentially a time-dependent gravitational field that oscillates in a specific way.

On 10/30/2021 at 11:51 PM, infamouse said:

A Gravitational Wave travels at a finite speed, but every object warps spacetime in perpetuity.

Every gravitational radiation field has a source by which it is generated, so this distinction does not exist.

[studiot]

57 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

This is not how a gravitational singularity is defined - the actual definition is that it is a region of spacetime that is geodesically incomplete. 
I should also mention that singularities are not all point-like, and that they technically are not part of the manifold.

Just to add an illustration for Markus (and return the favour)

Here is a sketch illustration of the tangent function and its singularity at 90^o.

 

 

The ctangent function is said to 'pass through infinity' at and angle of 90^o, where it incurs a change of sign.

This illustrates Markus statement that

1 hour ago, Markus Hanke said:

and that they technically are not part of the manifold.

Since there is nowhere on the manifold (which is the plane of the paper) where the tan of 90 exists.

It also illustrates his point that there are different types of singularity just as I previously said there are differnt types of infinity.

[beecee]

On 10/31/2021 at 3:51 AM, infamouse said:

Third: I agree, I simply take this understanding to its logical conclusion, that on scales of infinity the Geometry of Spacetime is the Geometry of the Singularity itself.

Yet GR, despite your misgivings fails us at the quantum/Planck level. And as others have inferred, a singularity of infinite density and spacetime curvature is now generally dismissed, and rather a singularity as defined by the failure of our laws of physics and GR prevails at this time, which makes far more sense.

 

[infamouse]

On 11/9/2021 at 3:27 PM, beecee said:

Yet GR, despite your misgivings fails us at the quantum/Planck level. And as others have inferred, a singularity of infinite density and spacetime curvature is now generally dismissed, and rather a singularity as defined by the failure of our laws of physics and GR prevails at this time, which makes far more sense.

 

EVERYTHING is relative.  The ONLY reason GR "fails us" is that taking it at face value refutes so-called common sense. Yet actual common sense renders everything clear and every thing muddled by uncertainty. What is an apple? Why doesn't a pear qualify for such a prestigious club? What is an inch? Why do all the metric cool kids cast it aside? Why is my totally valid BeeCee unit (1/100000^9876543^6543298^4^671132 of 14/11 of 3.14159 astronomical units) *generally* considered to be *relatively* irrelevant? 🤷‍♂️

On 11/9/2021 at 7:44 AM, studiot said:

Just to add an illustration for Markus (and return the favour)

Here is a sketch illustration of the tangent function and its singularity at 90^o.

 

 

The ctangent function is said to 'pass through infinity' at and angle of 90^o, where it incurs a change of sign.

This illustrates Markus statement that

Since there is nowhere on the manifold (which is the plane of the paper) where the tan of 90 exists.

It also illustrates his point that there are different types of singularity just as I previously said there are differnt types of infinity.

Indisputably, for example, as it turns out all black holes possess unique mass (see infinite precision principle). As with all other words (and/or caveman grunts) the term "singularity" is subjective. When I say all manifestations of *the* Singularity in physics represent a unified (dare I say "Singular") phenomenon, I think I make my meaning relatively clear.

On 11/9/2021 at 6:40 AM, Markus Hanke said:

This is not how a gravitational singularity is defined - the actual definition is that it is a region of spacetime that is geodesically incomplete. 
I should also mention that singularities are not all point-like, and that they technically are not part of the manifold.

No. The type of black hole you appear to be discussing (there are many different types with very different properties!) exists in vacuum, so the energy density is everywhere zero.

Also no. Geodesic incompleteness is an invariant property on which all observers agree. And the central message of relativity is actually the exact opposite - that the world is described in terms of covariant and invariant properties subject to certain symmetry groups.

Yes it is. Gravitational waves are described by the same mathematical objects as any other gravitational field. They are essentially a time-dependent gravitational field that oscillates in a specific way.

Every gravitational radiation field has a source by which it is generated, so this distinction does not exist.

The Singularity indicates infinite cause relative to infinite effect in all circumstances. When a tsunami forms, it alters the molecular distribution of the entire ocean long before it reaches shore. Turns out the central insight of General Relativity is that every thing is generally relative. 

[swansont]

8 hours ago, infamouse said:

EVERYTHING is relative. 

There are invariant quantities, so this is obviously false

8 hours ago, infamouse said:

The ONLY reason GR "fails us" is that taking it at face value refutes so-called common sense. Yet actual common sense renders everything clear and every thing muddled by uncertainty. What is an apple? Why doesn't a pear qualify for such a prestigious club? What is an inch? Why do all the metric cool kids cast it aside? Why is my totally valid BeeCee unit (1/100000^9876543^6543298^4^671132 of 14/11 of 3.14159 astronomical units) *generally* considered to be *relatively* irrelevant? 🤷‍♂️

What relevance does this have to anything?

8 hours ago, infamouse said:

Indisputably, for example, as it turns out all black holes possess unique mass (see infinite precision principle). As with all other words (and/or caveman grunts) the term "singularity" is subjective. When I say all manifestations of *the* Singularity in physics represent a unified (dare I say "Singular") phenomenon, I think I make my meaning relatively clear.

The Singularity indicates infinite cause relative to infinite effect in all circumstances. When a tsunami forms, it alters the molecular distribution of the entire ocean long before it reaches shore. Turns out the central insight of General Relativity is that every thing is generally relative. 

!

Moderator Note

This sheds no light on your claims or on outstanding questions. Just more hand-waving.

Closed. Don’t bring this, or anything with such weak support, up again