Infinity.

[kimbalee]

lol... i give up

 

[Naraoia]

I believe the "Zoro Paradox" is stated as;

If I were to flick my rapier across your shirt to make a giant "Z" to mark that I have been here and bested you, I would first have to make half of the "Z", but in order to make half of the "Z" I would have to make half of the half of the "Z", but in order to do that I would have to make half of the half of the half of the "Z" and so forth, thereby keeping me posed in front of you laughing haughtily with my rakish grin until infinity which would give Governor Rafael Montero sufficient time to come and capture me thereby rendering me incapable of further escapades culminating in me besting people and trying to rip the letter "Z" in their shirts with my rapier as I laugh rakishly!

If I recall my philosophy class correctly.

Don't do this to me!!!

 

[Holy Roller]

Show me a non-mathematical infinity.

In nuclear fission roughly 0.1% of the mass of fissioned atoms is converted to heat energy and radiation. In other words, there is an energy-mass conversion taking place in fission. This necessarily means an infinity of some sort has been reached.
But what sort? And how can something like infinity (except G-d) be reached?
Some of the mass of the uranium atoms went to infinite mass, then instantaniously converted itself to energy, that's how. The equations:

Notice that, in nuclear fission, the velocity v is accelerated to c, which is light speed. This can be shown by taking v in the denominator of the second equation and setting it = to c, the speed of light.When that happens, we have

the square root of 1-c/c to the second power.

Simplifying yields,

1/0, which is a quantity of infinity.

When this finfinite quantity of dividing by zero takes place, we then have mass tending to infinity, and an e=mc squared condition.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

In nuclear fission roughly 0.1% of the mass of fissioned atoms is converted to heat energy and radiation. In other words, there is an energy-mass conversion taking place in fission. This necessarily means an infinity of some sort has been reached.
But what sort? And how can something like infinity (except G-d) be reached?
Some of the mass of the uranium atoms went to infinite mass, then instantaniously converted itself to energy, that's how. The equations:

Notice that, in nuclear fission, the velocity v is accelerated to c, which is light speed. This can be shown by taking v in the denominator of the second equation and setting it = to c, the speed of light.When that happens, we have Simplifying yields,When this finfinite quantity of dividing by zero takes place, we then have mass tending to infinity, and an e=mc squared condition.

That looks like mathemathics and a mathematical formalism to me.

I asked for a non-mathematical infintiy.

 

[Holy Roller]

That looks like mathemathics and a mathematical formalism to me.

I asked for a non-mathematical infintiy.

The physical conversion of mass to energy during the process of nuclear fission from nukes being detonated in New Mexico looks like a purely mathematical formalism to you?

 

[Cabal]

Some of the mass of the uranium atoms went to infinite mass, then instantaniously converted itself to energy, that's how. The equations:

Notice that, in nuclear fission, the velocity v is accelerated to c, which is light speed. This can be shown by taking v in the denominator of the second equation and setting it = to c, the speed of light.When that happens, we have Simplifying yields,When this finfinite quantity of dividing by zero takes place, we then have mass tending to infinity, and an e=mc squared condition.

The reactants don't need to be accelerated to c. Rest mass + some kinetic energy is usually what gets involved. Apart from anything else, getting a particle of finite rest mass to c is impossible. Theoretically you could have it with nearly infinite energy, but it would never reach it, leaving you with something of finite (albeit large) energy only.

So at best, this is purely a mathematical infinity, as it wouldn't happen in practice.

 

[Holy Roller]

"I asked for evidence of energy transfer and you bring up the guy in the bar shooting a game of pool with the billiard balls transferring energy to one another. Billiard balls in a honky-tonk bar is a mathematical formalism. I wanted something you know, more real and concrete than billiard balls and drunk rednecks playing pool..."

 

[Holy Roller]

The reactants don't need to be accelerated to c. Rest mass + some kinetic energy is usually what gets involved. Apart from anything else, getting a particle of finite rest mass to c is impossible. Theoretically you could have it nearly with infinite energy, but it would never reach it.

So at best, this is purely a mathematical infinity, as it wouldn't happen in practice.

E=MC squared is a mathematical infinity that doesn't really happen in real life? That's news to me...

 

[Cabal]

E=MC squared is a mathematical infinity that doesn't really happen in real life? That's news to me...

No, just the specifics of the example you gave. Nuclear fission does not involve matter travelling at c (with infinite energy). It's simply impossible. My post wasn't about the fact it was E=MC^2, it was about the fact that you don't get infinities of mass/energy through nuclear fusion. Trinity was a 20kT yield. Not an infinite yield. (which is implied if you send your Lorentz factor to infinity, but you can't do that anyway.)

Try something that doesn't involve particles with finite rest mass perhaps?

Edit: actually nevermind that last suggestion, the old m=0 thing would be quite a problem.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

The physical conversion of mass to energy during the process of nuclear fission from nukes being detonated in New Mexico looks like a purely mathematical formalism to you?

A nuclear explosion looks like a pretty finite physical event to me.

After all there are much larger similar events going on in places like the Sun (which also seems to be a finite process).

Or are going to start confusing "really big" with "infinite"?

 

[ArnautDaniel]

E=MC squared is a mathematical infinity that doesn't really happen in real life? That's news to me...

How exactly is an equation involving three finite numbers a "mathematical infinity"?

 

[Radagast]

Okay, show me a non-mathematical infinity.

There aren't any.

In fact, in a physical model, any tendency to infinity should really be construed as one going outside the regime for which the model is approximately valid.

Are you saying a universe of (one-ended) infinite time duration is impossible?

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Are you saying a universe of (one-ended) infinite time duration is impossible?

Time can only be sensibly measured between two well-defined events. Once you've got your two events you are going to have a finite time period between them. You will never have two events that are infinitely far apart in time.

 

[Radagast]

Time can only be sensibly measured between two well-defined events. Once you've got your two events you are going to have a finite time period between them. You will never have two events that are infinitely far apart in time.

Difference can only be sensibly measured between two well-defined numbers. Once you've got your two numbers you are going to have a finite difference between them. You will never have two numbers that are infinitely far apart. -- true enough, but the set of natural numbers 0,1,2,... is still infinite.

 

[Holy Roller]

A nuclear explosion looks like a pretty finite physical event to me.

After all there are much larger similar events going on in places like the Sun (which also seems to be a finite process).

Or are going to start confusing "really big" with "infinite"?

This sounds about as substantial as Dick Cheny flying over Iraq and quipping, "The liberal media is lying to us again telling us there's suicide bombers down there blowing themselves up and whatnot. What hogwash! I don't see 'em from up here!"

 

[Holy Roller]

How exactly is an equation involving three finite numbers a "mathematical infinity"?

It's understood that mass turns infinite before it turns into energy. The equation I showed was meant to illustrate this fact.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Difference can only be sensibly measured between two well-defined numbers. Once you've got your two numbers you are going to have a finite difference between them. You will never have two numbers that are infinitely far apart. -- true enough, but the set of natural numbers 0,1,2,... is still infinite.

Well we are talking physics here and not mathematics.

Your notion for the naturals rests on some notion of a limit.

The equivalent in my analogy would be that given a particular well-defined event (sometime around "now" say) you could give a series of other events and consider the time interval between them and demonstrate that the time interval increases every time and so will never stop growing.

So since you've demonstrated a sequence of time intervals that never stop growing (and presumably aren't bounded either) you've demonstrated that time is "infinite".

Even then you have exhibited that time is "infinite" you've only exhibited a certain property of a certain sequences of time intervals between certain events for which every interval is finite.

Of course we are in the realm of physics and not of mathematics.

So you'd have to:

1. Tell me how on earth you are empirically ever going to define such a sequence of events

and

2. Assuming you could actually define the time interval clearly, how you are ever going to demonstrate that the sequence grows without bounds

It is just nonsense from a physical point of view.

You just don't get those nice sequences and limits in physics.

...

Then, of course, you have to deal with how squishy and unintuitive time becomes in relativity. So you can't even just define the time interval, you have to define the path along which the time interval is measured and so forth....

 

[Holy Roller]

Trinity was a 20kT yield. Not an infinite yield.

Trinity was a 10K yield precisely because one element (uranium 235) was split into two elements (forgot which ones); their combined mass being less than that of the U235.
The missing mass is what turned into the energy that created that 10K yield. Thus, by looking at Trin's 10K yield and all its energy release, you are effectively looking at an infinite yield of that 0.1% uranium mass that was converted directly into energy. The remaining 99% remaining, finite mass ended up being those two new elements.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

This sounds about as substantial as Dick Cheny flying over Iraq and quipping, "The liberal media is lying to us again telling us there's suicide bombers down there blowing themselves up and whatnot. What hogwash! I don't see 'em from up here!"

Well given that we've had larger nuclear explosions since Trinity, I'd have to say that the explosion at Trinity was "finite" so that it is sensible to say we've had larger ones.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

It's understood that mass turns infinite before it turns into energy. The equation I showed was meant to illustrate this fact.

Well.

1. You've understood wrong.

2. The equation doesn't illustrate that.