Indeed. Those sets of numbers are both countable. That is each case one can put the numbers in order so each number can be uniquely associated with an ordinal. There is a first, a second, etc. But, if one adds in the irrational numbers (like pi) that isn't possible. So, they are of a higher order of infinity.
I have never heard a cosmologist suggest that the universe is or may be infinite. Estimates of the size of the universe can be questioned but there is no evidence of infinity existing anywhere in nature. Infinity is a religious concept, not a scientific one.
Mathematics is a human construct - a tool. It isn't a proof that infinity exists in nature. It only proves that mathematics are imperfect.
Infinity has conceptualized by humans for sure in math: any number you can imagine you will always be able to add 1, to make + 1. Reality is different. The universe has got a diameter, but some parts of the universe are escaping to quickly to be visible, so that we cannot now the exact diameter of the universe. But the universe is not infinite.
I can't know for certain..... but I believe that the original Creator has worked and worked and worked and designed and engineered from infinite time in the past on this universe......... / Multiverse...... and I suspect that the Creator..... whose will for us is seldom done hardly at all..... wants to implement The Kingdom of God on earth in all time periods....... but we humans have the power of choice over when and how that will occur...... Would you want to invest fifty years in a project that you loved.... .and then utterly abandon it??????? My apologies if I am answering a somewhat different question than you perhaps may have intended?? www.CarbonBias.blogspot.ca/
What is the creater, how did the creater come to exist and where did the creater exist before creating the universe?
I am a mathematical Platonist. Mathematics is discovered, not invented. That no infinity exists in nature is hardly a demonstration of imperfect mathematics.
Theoretical physics is full of mathmatical models of the universe or parts of it. That's what they do. If any of those models don't accurately represent the universe it isn't because of any flaw in mathmatics - it's due to flaws in the model created by theoretical physicists. You can't suggest that failed models of the universe can be blamed on mathmatics.
Depends on your definition of the ‘the Universe’, and what to theories of reality you ascribe. Each has different precepts and levels of confidence. Sean Carrol’s new book, Something Deeply Hidden, does an interesting job of explaining the evolution of both Quantum and Cosmological theory, including providing a well thought out resurrection of Everett’s work and his concept of the many world’s and reconciles that with various ideas including the Copenhagen school of thought, as well as, Schrodenger, Broms, and Einstein, and the role of quantum entanglement and far more. It’s an interesting book that provides a rough shift in a framework for understanding, even by those not invested deeply in physics, why developing a unified theory has proven so elusive. Worth reading. I found lots to contemplate and can even understand how some thinking led to the emergence of String and the M Theory variation. Carrol doesn’t provide a new theory, but does provide rational for extending thinking by first understanding why the incompatibility exist between the classical physics models of Newton/Einstein and those of quantum mechanics and why the better approach is to be found in the Everett’s Many World’s Theory and Schrodenger’s Wave function. At worst, Carrol’s book is thought provoking and provides a new, promising avenue for exploration of the nature of reality. It may change the way you look at concepts like the Universe, infinity, and even the traditional way atoms/electrons are depicted. If anything you walk away with an understanding why your experiential intuition of reality cannot be used to understand it.
I haven't read his books, but I would sure recommend his podcast episodes where he discusses these issues. Besides clrifying his own work, he has aired discussions with physicists withwhom he disagrees, and I find those quite illuminating. His interview style is one of seeing the point to be that of allowing the guest full latitude in their argument with Carol doing no more than helping to clarify and identifying points of divergence. So, one really gets a view of the "other side" and some idea of the where and why of the divergence. Unfortunately (imho!) his interests are broad and so I would estimate that the majority of his podcasts aren't even about physics! But, he is interesting regardless of topic, so there is that.
An excellent example of this is the "ultraviolet catastrophe" in which thelight emitted by heating up a substance was predicted to be in the far ultraviolet by classical physics. Max Planck solved the problem by assuming light was emitted in discrete quanta rather than a continuous spectrum. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to show how this example can be used to bolster @fmw argument.
There are a couple of others that IMO, do well in conveying Physics concepts in a digestible way like Brian Greene (Light Falls) and Neil Tyson. It’s an admirable quality, because one thing often missing in science is making theoretical work understandable in a relatable way to those not deeply embedded in the research. All three also demonstrate the ability to logically articulate their thinking on other topics, like the possibility of a God, extraterrestrials, and even politics. And as you point out can handle both criticism and opposing ideas gracefully and without being dismissive. If you like the study physics, elven if you feel it a difficult topic, Carrol’s book is a good read.
Plank didn’t assume anything, he found that he was able to describe light’s properties by quantizing it, rendering it assessable to building various math based models, including those for describing wave functions. It’s something some have been attempting to do with gravity.
Not that we know of. There is however a certain distance away from us beyond which we cannot, nor will ever be able to see, because it is believed that space (over very large distances) is expanding away faster than light.
Because it is imperfect, mathematicians continue to use it. They should ban it from mathermatics. It is a chicken and egg thing perhaps.
As I remember, he hated that - considering it to be a kludge. I love cases where individuals allow evidence to win even over their own beliefs. Of course, the case in question is a little more complex.
More opinionated balderdash? The Laws of Physics would still exist whether or not we formulated them. The Science of Math predicts the existence of infinity just as it predicted the existence of the Higgs Boson half a century BEFORE we ultimately discovered it. There is NEITHER a beginning NOW an end to Space-Time therefore it is INFINITE in scope. Time will not end if the heat death of the universe occurs. Any momentum contained in the matter at that point with continue to expand the universe into space even when there is no entity that can observe this occurring. The alternative Cyclical model of the Universe predicts that the matter in the Universe will contract into another Singularity after the heat energy that is expanding the universe has been exhausted. The pressure inside this next Singularity will increase as matter is accumulated to the point where it generates sufficient heat to cause another Big Bang. This will INFINITELY recycle all of the matter-energy in the Universe.
You have repeated that over and over. But you still haven't provided an example of infinity in nature. The hypothesis you offer is certainly not proof nor does it indicate that it would happen infinitely. Fail.
I suppose that depends on whether the universe actually exists, or whether its just a name we gave to the idea of 'everything that exists.' Though, personally, I still like Hawking's 'donut' theory (I say theory floabt, its not really been tested because theres no good way to test it yet). But essentially, it means that while the universe is finite, its not possible to determine where is an end and where is a beginning. Supposing one could travel far enough in a perfectly straight line, no matter which direction they started in, they would eventually end up back where they started and still going in that same direction. The donut, of course is not its actual shape, since there is no 'inside' or 'outside' or 'surface' and thus there is no 'shape', but rather it is a conceptual tool to describe the realistic effects of existence 'within' (again, floabt because without a 'without', how can there be a 'within'? But what else does one call it?).
Are you UNAWARE that NATURE is just a small part of Space-Time? That EXPLAINS why you post such absurd nonsense. The MATTER/ENERGY that comprises NATURE has always existed and will always exist per the Laws of Physics. This is ELEMENTARY Science education.
That brought a chuckle. You will believe what you want regardless of what I post. The majority of cosmologists accept the big bang theory which places the universie with a beginning about 14 billion years ago. It is a theory, of course, not a law of physics. But it is a very popular theory. Neither elementary science education or seasons physicists have all the answers. And there is not doubt the same can be said about you or me.
Science/math can show the 'potential' for infinity. Seems to me it's impossible to prove infinity since there is no possible way to ever experience/document the end point of an infinity. Therefore, no one can "provide an example of infinity in nature" but science/math can predict infinity...
So now you have established that you are UNAWARE that Space-Time and matter-energy EXISTED prior to the Big Bang. Sad!
Agreed! The definition of infinity precludes an endpoint therefore to prove that there is "no infinity in nature" one would have to provide an endpoint that would support that absurd allegation.
Unlike you, I understand that these issues are mysteries. We don't know the answers. But for sure they don't prove the existence of infinity.
