| Physical & Life Sciences A forum for physics, biology, chemistry and other physical sciences. |
 | | 
4th March 2012, 02:09 PM
| | Inclined to Christianity
   
| | Join Date: 14th July 2009 Location: Canada
Posts: 1,150
Blessings: 1,059,299
Reps: 21,247,366,282,463,484 (power: 21,247,366,282,468) | | | Does infinity exist?
From my understanding of the current Big Bang theory, the universe was necessarily produced from a singularity with an infinite density of matter (as in, all the mass of the universe was placed in a zero volume).
However, like limits in calculus, aren't singularities just mathematical constructs that don't actually have a physical existence?
Limits seem reasonable because they are a mathematical construct that is being used to determine something about something physical (aka using limits to determine the acceleration of a body based on a given function of its velocity).
However, doesn't it seem silly to suggest that a mathematical construct actually exists? How can a singularity exist? Is the Big Bang theory only valid because the math aligns despite the impossibility of the whole idea?
How can an infinity of something actually exist?
__________________
-Happiness is not the reward for perfection.---I strongly support the faith that Jesus describes in the Gospels and strive to live the Christian life.----I am a skeptic of both faith and science. Neither is adequate to describe reality or truth.----"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." --Gandhi |
4th March 2012, 03:09 PM
|  | so rad
28  
 | | Join Date: 30th January 2008
Posts: 3,685
Blessings: 16,193,700
Reps: 180,866,403,271,601,248 (power: 180,866,403,271,610) | | | One issue with matters like this is that we don't actually know beforehand what is and isn't possible. If the current state of nature is consistent with an infinitely small, infinitely dense region, then it's likely that it existed in such a way. There are many things in nature which are counter-intuitive, though that says much more about the limited nature of human intuition than it does about nature.
There's also not a sharp distinction between mathematical constructs and physical objects. Yes, infinity is a mathematical idea, but it might also be a physical one. Just as something like exponential decay is a mathematical idea that is also a physical reality.
__________________
If much in the world were mystery the limits of that world were not, for it was without measure or bound and there were contained within it creatures more horrible yet and men of other colors and beings which no man has looked upon and yet not alien none of it more than were their own hearts alien in them, whatever wilderness contained there and whatever beasts. |
4th March 2012, 03:36 PM
|  | SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
59    
| | Join Date: 18th June 2006 Location: United States
Posts: 2,658,519
Blessings: 76,140 My Mood 
Reps: 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (power: 9,223,372,036,857,442) | | Originally Posted by leftrightleftrightleft  (as in, all the mass of the universe was placed in a zero volume)
Was this primeval atom, as it's called, a TARDIS booth?
__________________ THE BIBLE SAYS IT ... THAT SETTLES IT |
4th March 2012, 04:12 PM
|  | Contributor
   
| | Join Date: 21st March 2005 Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 19,047
Blessings: 50,363,039 My Mood 
Reps: 381,969,691,137,393,984 (power: 381,969,691,137,422) | | Originally Posted by leftrightleftrightleft From my understanding of the current Big Bang theory, the universe was necessarily produced from a singularity with an infinite density of matter (as in, all the mass of the universe was placed in a zero volume).
The universe was once a tiny speck of space, phenomenally energy-dense, and has been expanding for 13.5 billion years into its current form - this ongoing expansion is called the Big Bang.
We don't know what that speck was really like (there's a limit to how far back we can go, as eventually quantum mechanics and general relativity contradict one another), nor if it was the first thing in existence, but we do know that the Big Bang didn't cause it to come into existence - or rather, if it did, the current theory needs a major overhaul. Originally Posted by leftrightleftrightleft However, like limits in calculus, aren't singularities just mathematical constructs that don't actually have a physical existence?
Limits seem reasonable because they are a mathematical construct that is being used to determine something about something physical (aka using limits to determine the acceleration of a body based on a given function of its velocity).
However, doesn't it seem silly to suggest that a mathematical construct actually exists? How can a singularity exist? Is the Big Bang theory only valid because the math aligns despite the impossibility of the whole idea?
How can an infinity of something actually exist?
'Infinity' is a category of numbers, and a conceptually-simple infinity is what happens to 1/x as x tends to zero. What happens at zero? On the one hand, the question makes no sense (you can't divide by zero), and on the other, it 'equals' infinity and minus infinity.
On the one hand, infinity itself doesn't exist, simply because no purely mathematical concept has a pure, Platonic, physical manifestation - there's no 'Cube', no 'One', no 'Infinity'. Nonetheless, there can be one of something, so why can't there be an infinity of something?
Take, for instance, a quantum thermodynamic system - a set of charged particles in a magnetic field, who can be 'up' or 'down', according to whether or not they have energy (heat). Add enough heat, and the temperature rises and rises, hits 'infinite', then goes back round to 'minus infinite' and down the negative axis. Peculiar, but very real.
So, infinity can exist inasmuch as any number can exist. Singularities can either be described as a mathematical approximation - there's no true cube, but there are cube-like structures with cube-like properties - or as "whatever happens when something goes indefinitely to infinity".
Take a black hole. Is that a singularity? On the one hand no, not in the mathematical sense. On the other hand, why not? Density is tending inexorably to infinity, and if quantum mechanics is right, then it hits truly infinite density. It's infinitely dense.
So can singularities exist? Depends  . It's largely a matter of semantics, however, and I know Chalnoth disagrees with me on whether or not a singularity can actually exist - I'm inclined to believe they can, inasmuch as a black hole is a singularly, while he does not - but it doesn't disprove the notion of the Big Bang or black holes.
__________________ I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right.
A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone.
What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.. |
4th March 2012, 05:42 PM
|  | Regular Member
53  
| | Join Date: 2nd March 2012
Posts: 447
Blessings: 13,022,960 My Mood 
Reps: 2,431,786,491,330,345 (power: 2,431,786,491,332) | | Originally Posted by leftrightleftrightleft From my understanding of the current Big Bang theory, the universe was necessarily produced from a singularity with an infinite density of matter (as in, all the mass of the universe was placed in a zero volume).
However, like limits in calculus, aren't singularities just mathematical constructs that don't actually have a physical existence?
Limits seem reasonable because they are a mathematical construct that is being used to determine something about something physical (aka using limits to determine the acceleration of a body based on a given function of its velocity).
However, doesn't it seem silly to suggest that a mathematical construct actually exists? How can a singularity exist? Is the Big Bang theory only valid because the math aligns despite the impossibility of the whole idea?
How can an infinity of something actually exist?
The bang is a mathematical model. Singularity, Mathematical theory.
__________________
Miracles are ok with the evolutionist as long as its not God.
What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles. "The origin of life" Scientific American August 1954 p.48 |
4th March 2012, 05:44 PM
| | Regular Member
53
| | Join Date: 2nd March 2012
Posts: 447
Blessings: 13,022,960 My Mood
Reps: 2,431,786,491,330,345 (power: 2,431,786,491,332) | | Originally Posted by AV1611VET Was this primeval atom, as it's called, a TARDIS booth?
how can an atom exist in a place where there are no phyical laws? No space for the adam to exist in?\
What is it that space, matter and energy expanded into?
__________________
Miracles are ok with the evolutionist as long as its not God.
What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles. "The origin of life" Scientific American August 1954 p.48 |
4th March 2012, 05:47 PM
| | Regular Member
53
| | Join Date: 2nd March 2012
Posts: 447
Blessings: 13,022,960 My Mood
Reps: 2,431,786,491,330,345 (power: 2,431,786,491,332) | | Originally Posted by Wiccan_Child The universe was once a tiny speck of space, phenomenally energy-dense, and has been expanding for 13.5 billion years into its current form - this ongoing expansion is called the Big Bang.
We don't know what that speck was really like (there's a limit to how far back we can go, as eventually quantum mechanics and general relativity contradict one another), nor if it was the first thing in existence, but we do know that the Big Bang didn't cause it to come into existence - or rather, if it did, the current theory needs a major overhaul.
You say this like it is a fact. You are right about one thing. The BB is an effect not a cause.
__________________
Miracles are ok with the evolutionist as long as its not God.
What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles. "The origin of life" Scientific American August 1954 p.48 |
4th March 2012, 08:06 PM
| | SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
59
| | Join Date: 18th June 2006 Location: United States
Posts: 2,658,519
Blessings: 76,140 My Mood
Reps: 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (power: 9,223,372,036,857,442) | | Originally Posted by idscience What is it that space, matter and energy expanded into? Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Notice the continuum here? - beginning = time
- heaven = space
- earth = matter
The BB model has the universe expanding, whereas the Bible says that God stretched it.
There's a big difference: something expands when it is pushed outward; but when it's stretched, it is pulled outward from outside its boundaries.
And for the record, a 'big bang' occurs at the end of time, not at the beginning: 2 Peter 3:10a But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise,
As usual, scientists are mixed up.
__________________ THE BIBLE SAYS IT ... THAT SETTLES IT |
5th March 2012, 03:13 AM
| | Contributor
| | Join Date: 21st March 2005 Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 19,047
Blessings: 50,363,039 My Mood
Reps: 381,969,691,137,393,984 (power: 381,969,691,137,422) | | Originally Posted by idscience You say this like it is a fact.
Indeed, inasmuch as anything in science is a fact. Originally Posted by idscience how can an atom exist in a place where there are no phyical laws?
Whoever said there were no physical laws? The Big Bang theory relates to the expansion of spacetime; the physical laws were in place. The 'primaeval atom' is a poetic term for what the universe was 13.5 billion years ago, not an atom as understood in modern physics. Originally Posted by idscience No space for the adam to exist in?
The 'atom' is the space. Originally Posted by idscience What is it that space, matter and energy expanded into?
It's not. If you draw dots on a balloon, then blow it up, the dots move away from each other. The 2D surface of the balloon doesn't move into anything, it just expands. The dots aren't moving into some third-party, outside-the-universe, balloon surface, the existing surface is itself expanding, which is what creates the extra space, which is why the universe is getting bigger - space is expanding. It doesn't expand into anything; the question makes no more sense than asking what's North of the North Pole, or before the start of time.
__________________ I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right.
A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone.
What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts..
Last edited by Wiccan_Child; 5th March 2012 at 03:20 AM.
|
5th March 2012, 03:15 AM
| | Contributor
| | Join Date: 21st March 2005 Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 19,047
Blessings: 50,363,039 My Mood
Reps: 381,969,691,137,393,984 (power: 381,969,691,137,422) | | Originally Posted by AV1611VET Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Notice the continuum here? - beginning = time
- heaven = space
- earth = matter
The BB model has the universe expanding, whereas the Bible says that God stretched it.
There's a big difference: something expands when it is pushed outward; but when it's stretched, it is pulled outward from outside its boundaries.
And for the record, a 'big bang' occurs at the end of time, not at the beginning: 2 Peter 3:10a But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise,
As usual, scientists are mixed up.
Scientists are the ones mixed up because you have a different meaning of the term 'Big Bang' than them? A term with two, equally valid definitions, and they are wrong because they don't use your preferred definition?
Yea, they're mixed up.
__________________ I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right.
A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone.
What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.. | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
