Zero is a number, and the big bang proves it.

[Adelbert_Einstein]

When did the world begin? With the big bang, wasnt it?

Just before the big bang, there was the big shrink (the previous universe condensing into a nano particle, like a micro-atom). All that is pure science. 

Well, what happened between point A (the big shrink finishing shrinking) and point B (the big bang about to happen)

Which equates to absolute zero?

So if Zero is a virtual number, then the universe is an illusion. 

But if zero is real, then so is infinity. Infinity is the polar opposite of zero. 

The polar opposite of real is also real. 

Edited February 18, 2022 by Adelbert_Einstein

[exchemist]

3 minutes ago, Adelbert_Einstein said:

When did the world begin? With the big bang, wasnt it?

Just before the big bang, there was the big shrink (the previous universe condensing into a nano particle, like a micro-atom). So much is pure science. 

Well, what happened between point A (the big shrink finishing shrinking) and point B (the big bang about to happen)

that much is...absolute zero?

So if Zero is a virtual number, then the universe is an illusion. 

But if zero is real, then so is infinity. Infinity is the polar opposite of zero. 

The polar opposite of real is also real. 

A few observations:

 We do  not know what happened before the Big Bang. It is conjecture. Extrapolation points to a singularity, which would in some models have represented the start of time, in which case there could not have been anything "before".  But we don't know if such extrapolation is valid. So what you have written is not "pure science".

Absolute zero relates to temperature, the temperature at which no more heat can be extracted from matter. That has nothing to do with the dimensions of the cosmos.

So far as I am ware, the term "virtual number" relates to telephone numbers. 

Zero is a point on the the real number line. But this is the case irrespective of any cosmological model.  

[Intoscience]

45 minutes ago, Adelbert_Einstein said:

When did the world begin? With the big bang, wasnt it?

It is postulated though not proven that the universe (our observable) began from the "big bang" this is because the observational data suggests that the observable universe is expanding in all directions and if we run time backwards then it would all end up back to a single point, however quantum mechanics may have something to say about that! A "singularity" as a physical reality seems impossible. 

Just before the big bang, there was the big shrink (the previous universe condensing into a nano particle, like a micro-atom). All that is pure science.

Although this "idea" is popular among many scientists there is no evidence at all that this was the case, so "pure science" it is not!

Well, what happened between point A (the big shrink finishing shrinking) and point B (the big bang about to happen)

Nothing, no physical events can take place if there is no space or time.

Which equates to absolute zero?

exchemist answered this

So if Zero is a virtual number, then the universe is an illusion. 

If the universe is an illusion then so are you, me and this post, so non of it really matters then.

But if zero is real, then so is infinity. Infinity is the polar opposite of zero.

They are both real mathematical concepts, however physically may not be possible.

The polar opposite of real is also real. 

Ermm... that makes no sense the opposite of real is unreal

My answers in bold, others may correct or elaborate on them.

Edited February 18, 2022 by Intoscience
spelling

[joigus]

I don't know of any cosmological model being considered that started with a "big shrink."

I don't know what "absolute zero" in mathematics means. As opposed to "relative zero"?

If anything, quantum mechanics suggests that the energy of no physical system can be exactly zero.

I don't know what a "virtual number" is.

I don't know what the "polar opposite" of a number is. The inverse of a number is what it suggests to me.

The inverse of zero is not infinity. Infinity is not a number. Zero has no inverse.

I don't know what the "polar opposite" of the real character of a number could mean.

[Intoscience]

9 minutes ago, joigus said:

I don't know of any cosmological model being considered that started with a "big shrink."

Yeah, I can only think of a cyclic universe, but these tend to assume a pre-existence with no beginning or end. Where it expands then shrinks then expands continuously for all time. 

Was it Sir Roger Penrose who suggests an "aeon" where the universe expands beyond any measurable size, thus by which size becomes moot and therefore the cycle starts over? I don't know the exact details.

I only read popular physics books, so only have a layman's understanding of cosmology.   

Edited February 18, 2022 by Intoscience

[joigus]

Yeah, there were cyclic-universe models that AFAIK are not very much favoured by cosmologists today. It seems that cosmologies based on inflation (a period previous to the big-bang when extraordinary rates of expansion took place) are the preferred mechanism. That's because they have a considerable explanatory power of the present state of the universe (seeding for galaxy formation, large-scale homogeneity.) This mechanism can be easily accomodated into the dynamics of the vacuum in quantum field theory. You have to have the vacuum "sit" in some kind of scalar background (the inflaton field.) The unfortunate aspect of it is that you must make all kinds of arbitrary assumptions about this scalar (pure-number valued, not changing under rotations) field.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

My answers in bold, others may correct or elaborate on them.

!

Moderator Note

Perhaps you could post your answers outside of the quoted material, to avoid confusion.

Yes, the system is finicky at times, but it's worth the effort that just about everyone else makes.

 

[studiot]

3 hours ago, Adelbert_Einstein said:

When did the world begin? With the big bang, wasnt it?

Just before the big bang, there was the big shrink (the previous universe condensing into a nano particle, like a micro-atom). All that is pure science. 

Well, what happened between point A (the big shrink finishing shrinking) and point B (the big bang about to happen)

Which equates to absolute zero?

So if Zero is a virtual number, then the universe is an illusion. 

But if zero is real, then so is infinity. Infinity is the polar opposite of zero. 

The polar opposite of real is also real. 

 

You have placed your thread in the Mathematics section, which is totally independent of Physical Science, as are the respective disciplines definition and use of the concept of zero.

Please clarify what answers/discussion you are seeking.

You are correct in stating (in the title) that in Mathematics Zero (by itself) is a number.

I note that your 'absolute zero', 'virtual zero', polar opposite, etc hint at mathematical set theory which leads to a mathematical notion of zero, but using unusual terminology.

Edited February 18, 2022 by studiot

[Intoscience]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Perhaps you could post your answers outside of the quoted material, to avoid confusion.

Yes, the system is finicky at times, but it's worth the effort that just about everyone else makes.

 

Point noted.

Apologies, I didn't realise it was confusing or an issue. 

Edited February 18, 2022 by Intoscience
spelling

[beecee]

10 hours ago, Adelbert_Einstein said:

When did the world begin? With the big bang, wasnt it?

Just before the big bang, there was the big shrink (the previous universe condensing into a nano particle, like a micro-atom). All that is pure science. 

Well, what happened between point A (the big shrink finishing shrinking) and point B (the big bang about to happen)

Which equates to absolute zero?

So if Zero is a virtual number, then the universe is an illusion. 

But if zero is real, then so is infinity. Infinity is the polar opposite of zero. 

The polar opposite of real is also real. 

Some rather confusing claims to that post. Are you equating zero to the "nothing" that the BB arose from? This nothing really needs to be redefined. The space between planets, stars, galaxies etc, that was at one time defined as nothing, we now know is really not nothing. Virtual particles are popping in and out of existence all the time. 

The BB itself was simply an evolution/expansion of this space, in conjunction with time, from t+ 10-45 seconds or thereabouts. Around that era, the consensus is that the four known forces were all combined into one that is known as the "Superforce".  As the universe/space/time expanded temperatures and pressures started to drop, and this superforce started to decouple into the four known forces, gravity being first.  During this decoupling, phase transitions and false vacuums  lead to excesses of energy, which went into creating our very first fundamental particles like quarks. At 3 minutes post BB, our first atomic nuclei were created as temperatures and pressures dropped and allowed for proton and neutron formations. Temperatures and Pressures continued to drop for another 380,000 years until electrons were able to couple with the atomic nuclei and our first element Hydrogen was formed. 

From that point it was plain sailing to the formation of the stars and planets we see today via gravitational collapse. That I believe is the generally accepted picture of how the universe we see today evolved, adding the proviso, that the closer in times we get to the BB, the less we are certain of the exact process.

If we decide to ask where the BB came from, we can only really speculate, but based on current knowledge, the best scientific speculation tells us that the BB was a fluctuation in the quantum foam, and that this quantum foam can be more properly be defined as the real nothing, that was and is simply there. Far far closer to what we probably conventially and historically see as nothing, being zilch, nada. 

No big shrinks needed, no point A's or B's needed, no magic deities needed, a reasonable logical, if partly speculative scenario, that certainly makes sense to me.

[Vashta Nerada]

On 2/18/2022 at 6:17 AM, Adelbert_Einstein said:

So if Zero is a virtual number, then the universe is an illusion. 

But if zero is real, then so is infinity. Infinity is the polar opposite of zero. 

The polar opposite of real is also real. 

First of all, zero is not a "virtual number" or whatever it means, zero is so real as any other positive or negative number.
Also, zero is an even number too, making it an integer. It follows all the "even number rules": Its between two odd numbers (-1 and 1), it can be divided by two...

And about infinity, different from zero, it's not a number, infinity is an idea. You cannot consider it as a number because it can literally have many sizes.
For instance, think in the quantity of all positive integers, it's infinity, right? Now think in the quantity of all integers (both positive and negative), it's also infinity, but somehow it's twice as big as the previous infinity that we thought. Now think in all the real numbers, somehow it's something like infinitely times the others infinities before. But anyway, we treat it all as just infinity... So it is definitively not a number.

And about infinity being the "polar opposite" of zero I hope that you're not talking about the inverse, because the inverse of zero is not infinity. What we can say is that the limit of [1/x] as x approaches zero from the right side is equal to infinity, and if we imagine this same limit as x approaches zero from the left side it leads us to negative infinity, this duality prevents us from saying that 1/0 is infinity.
Now if you're talking about the diametrically opposite point of a circle then I imagine that you're taking the number line and bending it in a circular shape, connecting the two infinity extremes, but it makes no sense to me, and I don't see a correlation with the Big Bang.

Edited February 21, 2022 by Vashta Nerada

[studiot]

8 minutes ago, Vashta Nerada said:

First of all, zero is not a "virtual number" or whatever it means

If you don't know 'whatever it means', how can you declare that zero is not a virtual number ?

Zero is, in fact, a valid and necessary member of the set of imaginary numbers, which may be what the OP means.

I have already asked for clarification

On 2/18/2022 at 12:29 PM, studiot said:

I note that your 'absolute zero', 'virtual zero', polar opposite, etc hint at mathematical set theory which leads to a mathematical notion of zero, but using unusual terminology.

 

I also note there are some other inconsistencies in the rest of your post that need addressing.

[Vashta Nerada]

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

If you don't know 'whatever it means', how can you declare that zero is not a virtual number ?

Okay, so, can you clarify to us what is a Virtual Number, please?

 

6 minutes ago, studiot said:

Zero is, in fact, a valid and necessary member of the set of imaginary numbers, which may be what the OP means.

Yeah, but actually he didn't mention the imaginary numbers. Imaginary is different from Virtual.

[studiot]

57 minutes ago, Vashta Nerada said:

Okay, so, can you clarify to us what is a Virtual Number, please?

 

Yeah, but actually he didn't mention the imaginary numbers. Imaginary is different from Virtual.

How do you expect me to clarify it  and why do you think I said ?

 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

I have already asked for clarification

 

I also copied a short quote to explain why I wondered if the OP meant imaginary when he said virtual.

I will repeat that quote in case you did not read it.

Look for the phrase 'unusual terminology'.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

On 2/18/2022 at 12:29 PM, studiot said:

I note that your 'absolute zero', 'virtual zero', polar opposite, etc hint at mathematical set theory which leads to a mathematical notion of zero, but using unusual terminology.

 

 

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

If you don't know 'whatever it means', how can you declare that zero is not a virtual number ?

Zero is, in fact, a valid and necessary member of the set of imaginary numbers, which may be what the OP means.

I have already asked for clarification

 

I also note there are some other inconsistencies in the rest of your post that need addressing.

Zero is also part of the set of real numbers, isn't it? 

[studiot]

8 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Zero is also part of the set of real numbers, isn't it? 

Quite so.

In fact it is a member of many sets, for example the integers, the rationals, the set of all even numbers, the set of all squares of numbers..................

It is also the 'additive inverse' in set theory axioms for instance in peano's axioms of arithmetic.

But I was giving the OP the benefit of the doubt as they say, as to what he was really trying to say, rather than just telling him he was wrong.

Especially not to offer incorrect information.

 

[SuperSlim]

{0} with addition and multiplication forms the trivial ring.

I remember an assignment where we were supposed to prove, using ring axioms, that 0 + 0 = 0 - 0 = 0.

It suggests to me that the additive inverse of +0 is -0. But it doesn't have a multiplicative inverse; oh dear, that makes the above a bit harder to prove, but I've seen it done (no, I couldn't figure out the answer myself, but it's kind of gob-smackingly simple once you know).