Infinties

[Graybeard]

Willie .. I meant to say that the diameter of the electron is less than 10 to the minus 18 centimeters

Michael ... Firstly thank you for most welcome reply.

I see things a little different than you friend, the way I see it, is that if it finds lodgement within your psyche, and seems right, accept it!

From the time Man started to gather and collect his knowledge base, from the stone axe, fire, simple composite tools, he had a complete understanding of such things .. they found lodgement within his psyche. They were, in effect, subject to his understanding or consciousness.

But in order to make available ever more scarce resources he had to continue to add to this knowledge base, to solve ever more complex problems. Mathematics became the tool of choice. This also was subject to his understanding or consciousness.

But man's tools of choice revealed a new world, even within the physical composition of the stone axe, until a point was reached where this knowledge was larger than his understanding. Man has now been forced to take an objective approach.

To admit, in effect, that his understanding may be forever limited. But this does not mean that we should stop trying to understand our world with the tools of mathematics simply because the world as revealed by the tools is unsettling and bizarre.

...if it finds lodgement within your psyche, and seems right, accept it! If it does not, then reject it!

Michael, from your quote it is plain that you insist that the Universe be subject to your Will. This same inability to deal with 'what is' as opposed to 'what we will have it be' outlawed Democritus, condemned Copernicus, damned Galileo .. This fear of the unknown can bring only a temporary peace of mind to a troubled world, while halting mankinds progress. In my opinion it heralds another 'Dark Age'.

Be brave old friend and look to a more objective reality.

Remember in the long haul, the dogs may bark, but the Caravan moves on.

Take heart ... greg

[mkirkpatrick]

Willie .. I meant to say that the diameter of the electron is less than 10 to the minus 18 centimeters

Michael ... Firstly thank you for most welcome reply.



From the time Man started to gather and collect his knowledge base, from the stone axe, fire, simple composite tools, he had a complete understanding of such things .. they found lodgement within his psyche. They were, in effect, subject to his understanding or consciousness.

But in order to make available ever more scarce resources he had to continue to add to this knowledge base, to solve ever more complex problems. Mathematics became the tool of choice. This also was subject to his understanding or consciousness.

But man's tools of choice revealed a new world, even within the physical composition of the stone axe, until a point was reached where this knowledge was larger than his understanding. Man has now been forced to take an objective approach.

To admit, in effect, that his understanding may be forever limited. But this does not mean that we should stop trying to understand our world with the tools of mathematics simply because the world as revealed by the tools is unsettling and bizarre.



Michael, from your quote it is plain that you insist that the Universe be subject to your Will. This same inability to deal with 'what is' as opposed to 'what we will have it be' outlawed Democritus, condemned Copernicus, damned Galileo .. This fear of the unknown can bring only a temporary peace of mind to a troubled world, while halting mankinds progress. In my opinion it heralds another 'Dark Age'.

Be brave old friend and look to a more objective reality.

Remember in the long haul, the dogs may bark, but the Caravan moves on.

Take heart ... greg

I will take heart mate,The universe is NOt subject to my will Greg,it is subject to the
Absolute life,that willed it into objectification,of which we are all caught up in,and we have
the illusional idea that we are seperate objective beings!You seem to be labouring my
friend from some form of gross misunderstanding,It is science and physics who have been labouring in the "dark ages",however there is hope,for many in the field are now
seeing what I have been saying these past 30 odd years,that the universe is a product
of THOUGHT,something that they knew 10.000 years ago Mate,in the east! If you know
Greg,that life and REALITY are ABSOLUTE,as I do,and millions of others as well,then I
am hardly going to "Backstep" in an "INVOLUTIONARY ARc,when I and millions of others
are SEEING the reality of an EVOLUTIONARY arc,I we,have been "Involved" in the Involutionary cycle,that was billions of years ago mate,I have no intention of going back
there,as I prefer evolving to devolving,if you catch my drift!

I understand caravans Greg,and I am well aquainted with "junk yard dogs",my earlier
friend were Romanies,Gypsies,as they are often called in the UK,I know all about moving
on mate,I am forever restless,and seek that which is just beyond my grasp.

I think That is enough for now.

regards michael.

[Bogie]

I am an absolute zero when it involves higher mathematics, or for that matter, even intermediate or beginning mathematics. Nevertheless I do have a question that I feel is legitimate.


Einstein had a problem with quantum mechanics. While he acknowledged its proven capability of making accurate predictions, he felt, that in some way it was incomplete. This arose from quantum's prediction of what he called "spooky action at a distance," Quantum entanglement. Perhaps this problem could also extend to his own theories. Now, the question....


In the basic formulation of the structure of quantum mechanics, is the actual existence of an infinitely small point or an infinitely short measure of length recognized to actually exist? If the answer is yes, the existence of an infinitely large volume or an infinitely long line must also exist. I can't mentally buy either of these conclusions though, of course, one can always approach infinity, large or small, but one will never reach either.


I would appreciate any comments but, please, Keep it simple.

Graybeard mentioned this interesting discussion in a comment elsewhere and I so I read the thread. It is interesting.

WillieB, I think you have already answered your own first question about an infinitely small point or an infinitely short measure. There is a kind of casual use of the terms, infinitely small or short, but what they are doing is making the point and line smaller and smaller in increments that themselves get smaller and smaller approaching infinitely small but never getting there as you suggested. But the casual impression is that they are referring to the limit and not the tiny measure that is left just before the limit.

I don't get the impression that QM seeks or proposes infinitely small points exist, they are the theoretical limit of the process of getting smaller and smaller.

But all of you have missed or ignored the gist of my question. I am trying to mentally identify a reason that old Alfred may have been correct when he tried to claim that quantum mechanics was an incomplete theory, that because it could only predict probabilities and not realities it was lacking some critical facet.

Let's say you are right and that Einstein was being critical of QM. So far he has proved correct if you look at the status of finding the unifying particle in real life. But I think that there will be a reconciliation between QM and GR that will show that both can be right.

Don't get the idea that I am an idealistic mediator between the two. I think GR is right in an expanding universe where speaking of curved space does have some meaning because nothing seems to travel in straight lines toward us, i.e. gravitational lensing. And QM is dealing in the infinitesimal and distances are measured on the Planck scale. Something traveling at the speed of light may respond to curved space but it doesn't make a bit of difference if space is curved to a particle traveling at the speed of light over the Planck length. In fact I think that the Planck scale deals with the time it takes a photon to cross a proton or something on that order (somebody may want to give us the real definitions of Planck length and time that I am not clearly recalling).

The unifying particle may fill both bills. To work in GR, a unifying particle will only need to follow curved space or cause space to be curved, depending on if you are working with matter or working with the energy density of space assuming both consist only of these unifying particles. I think matter follows curved space and curved space is an energy density difference caused by mass; thinking that mass is naturally surrounded by low energy density relative to the density of out lying space.