Infinties

[WillieB]

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


Einstein had a problem with quantum mechanics. While he acknowleged 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.

[mkirkpatrick]

Thanks Willie for the post,I will endevour as you asked to keep this little piece simple,
so simple in fact that your grandchildren should understand it!

Infinities imply a never ending journey in any direct period.We are looking at these questions from a relative point of view,if we knew and understood that we as is all life
is eternal,then we would no longer ask the question.Logic tells us that this must be so
(Infinity is neverending)but our intellect finds great difficulty in accepting this fact,so
we try and find explanations for that which is eternal,with a relative answer! It cannot
be done,you cannot compress the pacific ocean in a lemonade bottle!

We live within the relative universe which is basically an illusion,the reality is the
eternal NOW,where no-thing ever happens-or ever has! Realisation of your true status
ie,an immortal eternal being,where you are Present before Alpha and long after Omega
this realisation will cause the question of infinties to become irrelevent.


regards michael.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Infinity is technically that which can never be reached.

Increasing size is thought to be boundless unless conditions cause it to collapse into a black hole.

Decreasing size may be limited by the planck distance.

[Graybeard]

It cannot be done,you cannot compress the pacific ocean into a lemonade bottle!

Michael ... If Sub-Atomic particles are point-like, that is having mass and charge but no dimension .... then you can fit the Pacific Ocean into a lemonade bottle. There are things in our Universe more dense than this.

Me for one ....


cool bananas ... Greg

[mkirkpatrick]

At least you are honest with yourself mate,that is most refreshing indeed!

That which has absolute density,is an idea propelled by the will of absolute intent.


regards michael.

[WillieB]

Michael............... you are offering platitudes without substance.

Austin..................I like your thought that the miniumum dimension may be limited by the Planck length. The limit may be even smaller but the important thingin my mind is that when we are dealing with matter in any of its forms we cannot thinkin terms of the infinitely small.

Greg...................I am pleased that you are looking at this thread. Please stay with it.


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.

My question is. does the very foundation of quantum theory in any way rely on the actual existence of an infinitely small bit of matter, or, as Greg puts it, matter or mass without dimension?

[mkirkpatrick]

WillieB,Itis not my intention to offer platitudes,that have no substance,nor is it my attitude
either,I aploligise if thats what you thought.

However,the only real substance is energy,which in deeper form is consciousness,there are no tiny bits of it,it is infinite and absolute,and all embracing,matter,mass,energy,are
fundamentally all the same thing,when that is accepted,then many of the so-called
mysteries will vanish quickly,like the scent from a cheap after-shave.



regards michael.

[Graybeard]

Michael .. You are the nicest and kindest of people. Your quote that 'At least you are honest with yourself mate, that is most refreshing indeed! ' gives me no offence at all old friend, as you well know. However I do have a criticism. If there is one thing I have found on this forum it is how little I really know, rather than how much I thought I knew. You could also take a little time to appreciate this. You make claims, (at times they could only be classed as sweeping generalities) with no substance ... at least this is how it appears to the reader ... and when questioned on these claims you do not defend.

I would have thought that when you address a public forum it is incumbent upon yourself to be willing to provide some substance ... at the minimum a 'related' reply ... to genuine questions. There is no point in positing something that you are either unwilling or unable to explain. Take a little time old friend.

Michael .. this is the gentlest of criticisms, from which none of us can claim immunity.

greg

[Graybeard]

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.

My question is. does the very foundation of quantum theory in any way rely on the actual existence of an infinitely small bit of matter, or, as Greg puts it, matter or mass without dimension?

Willie ... When you say that you know 'Zero' about Mathematics you show all the behaviour of Tom Sawyer when he was asked to whitewash the fence. On your own admission you may not be a Maxwell, but you are certainly a Faraday. I am starting to think that Einstein passed the baton to you when he popped off his perch.

I don't know much maths myself ... for me, every new equation is a struggle.

The last part of your post (#1) refers to an infinitely small point or volume, and if this can be, surely you can have an infinitely long one or an infinitely large one. This is not the same as saying a particle has zero radius. When I referred to zero dimension I meant zero radius which in this case means Nil.

I don't understand how something can be infinitely small. No matter how small it is, it will always be larger than zero, and therefore measureable and not infinite ? I fear that, like the Greeks, your having trouble with long division and have created your very own Zeno's Paradox.


To begin to answer the first part of your question: I am not sure that Quantum Mechanics requires a foundation, nor does it pause one moment in its course to be bothered with explanations. To me it shows all the magic of the Genie in the Lamp ... You rub the lamp .. the Genie appears and agrees to grant you any wish you like... You tell the Genie that you have a very short penis and you would much prefer it if it reached the floor. So the Genie cuts off your legs.

Just like Quantum Mechanics, the Genie has behaved logically and is mathematically correct ... You cannot now claim that the Genie can't really grant wishes on the grounds that your missing your foundations.

For a more down-to-earth explanation (excuse the pun) I don't believe that Quantum Mechanics takes a stand ... We ask questions .. It provides probabilities .. these are tested, and in every case where it is possible to experiment these probabilities are verified to the poofteenth degree. I know of no exemptions.

To question the integrity of QM on the fact that it is counter-intuitive to our concepts is to unwittingly place a limit on our abilities. If it does not fit within our picture frame, we have built our frame too small.

I find it very difficult (read impossible) to picture a particle's properties. Lets say the Electron

1. it has mass
2. it has spin
3. it has charge
4. it has no radius

I agree that point 4 is difficult to swallow.

A guy called Roger Boscovich, 1711, after reading Newton's Theories came to the conclusion that Newton, in his description of Mass (mass ?) was really proposing an atomic Universe. Otherwise how to calculate the force of Gravity except by allowing for an infinite number of infinitesimals within the structure of a body.

In order for Boscovich to get his maths right he decided to use mathematical point like structures. So far as I know no one has ever come up with a better explanation to suit our concepts. Please note that these are mathematical points.

Testing on the electron itself has revealed that it has all the properties of zero radius but has fallen short of proving it is actually zero. The closest that experiment has got to determining the radius of the electron is to say confidently that it is smaller than 10 to the minus 18. This is a close zero in Physics. I might be wrong on the figures here, but if so, I err on the larger side.

If you don't think this is close to zero, 10 to the positive 18 is the amount of seconds that have passed since the Big bang.


greg

[mkirkpatrick]

Michael .. You are the nicest and kindest of people. Your quote that 'At least you are honest with yourself mate, that is most refreshing indeed! ' gives me no offence at all old friend, as you well know. However I do have a criticism. If there is one thing I have found on this forum it is how little I really know, rather than how much I thought I knew. You could also take a little time to appreciate this. You make claims, (at times they could only be classed as sweeping generalities) with no substance ... at least this is how it appears to the reader ... and when questioned on these claims you do not defend.

I would have thought that when you address a public forum it is incumbent upon yourself to be willing to provide some substance ... at the minimum a 'related' reply ... to genuine questions. There is no point in positing something that you are either unwilling or unable to explain. Take a little time old friend.

Michael .. this is the gentlest of criticisms, from which none of us can claim immunity.

greg

I thank you mate,your criticism is valid,I am not immune from it,I am acutely aware of
my depth of ignorance,and within the universal consciousness,I in effect know nothing!

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!If itdoes not,then reject it! I have no wish
or desire to keep padding out a simple clear fundamental idea,such as,consciousness
is matter and energy,and if anyone looks deep enough they will see the same,as some
in the scientific field are already doing.

It is NOT that I am unwilling Greg,its that I prefer simple shorter replies when they
suffice,and to me most times,though not all,they do.

regards michael.