The newspaper article I read quoted Stephen Hawking as saying the particle accelerator needed to get the Higgs up to the energy where it could potentially destroy space and time would be about the size of the Earth.
We can breath a sigh of relief for now.
Tubes are also particle accelerators - but not in the same league.
Because mathematics is THE language of physics.
Agree, but this doesn't mean that a physical theory, correctly written with correct mathematics should be necessarily true.
I completely agree. The 'answer' in my post has a logical flavour almost like: 'Napoleon is French, therefore anyone who is not called Napoleon cannot be French', which is not true of course!
I suppose I was trying to imply that if we eventually discover the 'true' laws of fundamental physics (i.e. which are consistent with each other and with all known experiments) then these will be based on pure maths. (Only my opinion of course.)
For interest,
Here is one for the mathematicians .. and everyone else..
Be prepared to have your brain twisted like never before.
BBC iPlayer - Horizon - 2009-2010: 12. To Infinity and Beyond
I thought the link into the universe from the maths was interesting..
Regards
M. Gregg
Here is one for the mathematicians .. and everyone else..
Be prepared to have your brain twisted like never before.
BBC iPlayer - Horizon - 2009-2010: 12. To Infinity and Beyond
I thought the link into the universe from the maths was interesting..
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
nice program.... only I can't watch it, since I am outside the UK...
EDIT: found an alternative...
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1kab09_bbc-horizon-2010-to-infinity-and-beyond-pdtv-xvid_tech
Last edited:
Another link..
BBC.Horizon.2010.To.Infinity.and.Beyond.PDTV.XviD. - Video Dailymotion
Regards
M. Gregg
BBC.Horizon.2010.To.Infinity.and.Beyond.PDTV.XviD. - Video Dailymotion
Regards
M. Gregg
Another point of view,
Science's Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory | DiscoverMagazine.com
The part of the last link (post 1128) that stopped me in my tracks was..different infinities can be different sizes,,
And infinity minus infinity is not necessarily zero.
Then the obvious one that was not so obvious..you can only rearrange a pattern so many times and it repeats..ie if the universe is infinite there are an infinite number of "me" (I don't matter)....the wife says nothing new then.. 
Would that mean infinite wife types as well..LMAO.. I guess for some its infinite nagging then (I jest of course)
I thought the infinite booked hotel with infinite rooms was interesting..
I guess if the universe as we see it was to repeat then its a fractal...of infinite universes..
<<<a multiverse of repetition (I thought that was supposed to be hell to live over and over again).. I need to ascend and escape<<all in jest.
Regards
M. Gregg
Science's Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory | DiscoverMagazine.com
The part of the last link (post 1128) that stopped me in my tracks was..different infinities can be different sizes,,
And infinity minus infinity is not necessarily zero.
Then the obvious one that was not so obvious..you can only rearrange a pattern so many times and it repeats..ie if the universe is infinite there are an infinite number of "me" (I don't matter)..
..the wife says nothing new then.. Would that mean infinite wife types as well..LMAO.. I guess for some its infinite nagging then
(I jest of course)I thought the infinite booked hotel with infinite rooms was interesting..
I guess if the universe as we see it was to repeat then its a fractal...of infinite universes..
<<<a multiverse of repetition (I thought that was supposed to be hell to live over and over again).. I need to ascend and escape<<all in jest. Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
yep... I watched the program
actually infinity to me got a bit of "god flavour": a contradiction within itself. Therefore I have a big problem with it. So infinity + 1 can not equal infinity.
I settle for the google plex of the Graham's number.
yep... I watched the program
actually infinity to me got a bit of "god flavour": a contradiction within itself. Therefore I have a big problem with it. So infinity + 1 can not equal infinity.
I settle for the google plex of the Graham's number.
I thought it interesting the guy that also was not comfortable with infinity and said he thought there was a maximum number which when you add one became zero..because either infinity exists or it doesn't..ie the universe is infinite or finite.
I though about this for a while and it had an effect..the more you think about it, the more difficult it is to comprehend. Its not just infinity..its more..like the question an infinity of what?...
..an infinity of sheep is not an infinity of cows. An infinity of this universe is not an infinity of another universe..so what could a multiverse be? (an infinity of different infinities)
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
If the universe was to be infinite... could it expand to be bigger than infinite? Sure, the universe is big, very big. Bigger than I can imagine (I do not do drugs, so the "chamber above" remains limited
)... And if the "big bang theory" were true, wouldn't that "prove" the universe to be finite? A limited speed over a limited time cannot give an infinite universe... But on the other hand, a universe still expanding and existing for longer than our observation-horizon yields us to measure, could that be indefinite? I don't think so... So in my opinion the universe can not be infinite. That we can not detect any boundaries, and therefore are unable to determine the size or shape, is another matter.
(I do not do drugs, so the "chamber above" remains limited
But on the other hand, a universe still expanding and existing for longer than our observation-horizon yields us to measure, could that be indefinite? I don't think so... So in my opinion the universe can not be infinite. That we can not detect any boundaries, and therefore are unable to determine the size or shape, is another matter.
I agree,
If we were to travel inside a universe that was expanding faster than the speed we were traveling, we would never reach or see the outer edge (it would always be out of sight). This would give an impression of an infinite universe, however as you say it would be finite in size and expanding.
If it is finite in size it has to "Be somewhere" ...
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
That same effect would occur if time/space would bend enough at the edges of the universe...
Greets,
Edwin
Its strange..because something has to be infinite to be the outside or final something, a bit like the layers of an onion beyond the final layer of the onion is the "Place" it exists in.
Or we are inside something that does not exist..(Its infinite)It sounds more and more surreal "like a computer program"..I don't believe this is the case...however its a bit like the computer bears no resemblance to the programs running within it.
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
I guess its that it comes down to...Its strange..because something has to be infinite to be the outside or final something, a bit like the layers of an onion beyond the final layer of the onion is the "Place" it exists in.
It sounds more and more surreal "like a computer program"..I don't believe this is the case...however its a bit like the computer bears no resemblance to the programs running within it.
Regards
M. Gregg
..I'm not comfortable with this idea,However I can't see what else there could be, the more I think about it the more surreal it seems.
As you say infinity is a real problem, whatever can be will be. There are no limits to the possibilities. This is not taking into account what can exist..is there a limit to what can exist in this situation?
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
The part of the last link (post 1128) that stopped me in my tracks was..different infinities can be different sizes,,
Think of it this way. If you can count the numbers in a set in some kind of systematic way, it's the lowest kind of infinity (aleph 0).
The set of integers is an example of this type.
If you can't count the numbers of a set in a way that would be certain to cover all of them, it's a higher kind of infinity (aleph 1).
The natural numbers are an example of this type.
Last edited:
A way of looking at things is, that the conventional viewpoint is that the physical spawned consciousness, or awareness; what if it works in reverse - consciousness spawns the physical? If the latter is the case, then everything is on the table; if a "mind" can conceive of something, then the latter can "be" ...
They Saved Lisa's Brain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Your theory of a donut-shaped universe is intriguing... I may have to steal it."
Snowglobe like a donut.
Bang everywhere at once. Maybe ramming another donut?
Snow and dust precipitate, settling down into donut horizons.
Perhaps someday this snowdonutglobe will be shaken again.
Size of the universe is our misperception of empty spaces.
It never got any bigger, you and everything else you have
been looking at got smaller: equally as valid an observation.
"Your theory of a donut-shaped universe is intriguing... I may have to steal it."
Snowglobe like a donut.
Bang everywhere at once. Maybe ramming another donut?
Snow and dust precipitate, settling down into donut horizons.
Perhaps someday this snowdonutglobe will be shaken again.
Size of the universe is our misperception of empty spaces.
It never got any bigger, you and everything else you have
been looking at got smaller: equally as valid an observation.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.